The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
 Search This Thread  Search This Forum  Search Reviews  Search Gear Database  Search Gear for sale  Search Gearslutz Go Advanced
DMG Equilibrium Settings in FIR and Free Phase Mode ?
Old 4th November 2015
  #1
Gear Head
 

DMG Equilibrium Settings in FIR and Free Phase Mode ?

Hi!
I got the Equilibrium for some time ago and are trying to get into the settings and have a few questions.

I loaded the Mastering presets from the Modes presets and have put the DSP in FIR mode and Free Phase. Just now and first I want to do some more or less surgical cuts in the low mids mastering a jazz album.

It seems that I should be able to set the bands in different phase modes while being in the Free phase settings and thought it might be a good idea to use Full Minimum or Analog mode when cutting (maybe some boosting) in the low mids and also for the the LPF (now Bessel) and changing to Linear Phase for the upper mids and higher.

Do you think this might be a good approach and which actually is my problem, how can I switch to different phase modes between different bands? I have no clue (trying to find it in the manual, but I might have missed something here).

Sitting here scratching my head and would be grateful for some thoughts about this.

/C
Old 4th November 2015
  #2
Lives for gear
 
Benj's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Compa View Post
Hi!
I got the Equilibrium for some time ago and are trying to get into the settings and have a few questions.

I loaded the Mastering presets from the Modes presets and have put the DSP in FIR mode and Free Phase. Just now and first I want to do some more or less surgical cuts in the low mids mastering a jazz album.

It seems that I should be able to set the bands in different phase modes while being in the Free phase settings and thought it might be a good idea to use Full Minimum or Analog mode when cutting (maybe some boosting) in the low mids and also for the the LPF (now Bessel) and changing to Linear Phase for the upper mids and higher.

Do you think this might be a good approach and which actually is my problem, how can I switch to different phase modes between different bands? I have no clue (trying to find it in the manual, but I might have missed something here).

Sitting here scratching my head and would be grateful for some thoughts about this.

/C
You can't change individual bands to have different DSP Modes. You can only choose one overall DSP Mode. Free Phase is more similar to Linear Phase in that it could have more pre-ringing depending on how you change the phase of each individual band. To change a bands phase response in that mode, grab the individual nodes right below the DSP Mode setting and move the band while noting the change in phase response on the graph.

Personally I wouldn't use Free-Phase or Linear Phase unless the phase response was absolutely critical, as I find pre-ringing to be an undesirable sound. Some people prefer the IIR with a higher digital compensation and digital + phase on... but I find my self preferring the FIR mode in Full Minimum or Analog with fairly high window size when using Equilibrium for mastering.

Every project is different and everyone has different preferences though... try them all out and see what you prefer!
Old 5th November 2015
  #3
Lives for gear
 
thermos's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Benj View Post
You can't change individual bands to have different DSP Modes. You can only choose one overall DSP Mode. Free Phase is more similar to Linear Phase in that it could have more pre-ringing depending on how you change the phase of each individual band. To change a bands phase response in that mode, grab the individual nodes right below the DSP Mode setting and move the band while noting the change in phase response on the graph.

Personally I wouldn't use Free-Phase or Linear Phase unless the phase response was absolutely critical, as I find pre-ringing to be an undesirable sound. Some people prefer the IIR with a higher digital compensation and digital + phase on... but I find my self preferring the FIR mode in Full Minimum or Analog with fairly high window size when using Equilibrium for mastering.

Every project is different and everyone has different preferences though... try them all out and see what you prefer!
Same, I almost always use FIR Analog with a super high window. Maintains the image depth much more than IIR mode I think.
Old 5th November 2015
  #4
Lives for gear
 
Benj's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by thermos View Post
Same, I almost always use FIR Analog with a super high window. Maintains the image depth much more than IIR mode I think.
Lately I've been getting more into the Full Minimum and No Latency with Analog Phase for HP filters... obviously starting to split the tiniest of hairs at a high window value, but perhaps there is the slightest pre-ring on the analog mode that makes it sound ever so slightly set back (along with the nice depth that it has)? While the Minimum and No Latency modes might have a slightly more forward/dry presentation?

I'm probably just crazy, but this is what my mind has been thinking lately. Maybe I shouldn't have said that out loud?

Always curious to hear what others think... have been using Equilibrium as a HP on most projects, but recently replaced it with Acustica's Magenta 2 and liked what I was hearing. Thinking about maybe getting into Nebula to find some other, more flexible HP filters of "Mastering" quality ITB.
Old 5th November 2015
  #5
Lives for gear
 
thermos's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Benj View Post
Lately I've been getting more into the Full Minimum and No Latency with Analog Phase for HP filters... obviously starting to split the tiniest of hairs at a high window value, but perhaps there is the slightest pre-ring on the analog mode that makes it sound ever so slightly set back (along with the nice depth that it has)? While the Minimum and No Latency modes might have a slightly more forward/dry presentation?

I'm probably just crazy, but this is what my mind has been thinking lately. Maybe I shouldn't have said that out loud?

Always curious to hear what others think... have been using Equilibrium as a HP on most projects, but recently replaced it with Acustica's Magenta 2 and liked what I was hearing. Thinking about maybe getting into Nebula to find some other, more flexible HP filters of "Mastering" quality ITB.
Minimum is good too, sometimes that works better for cuts I think as well. I use it as my HP too (butterworth) but am hoping to get Hp added to my Barry Porter which was made without one.
Old 5th November 2015
  #6
Lives for gear
 
Tarekith's Avatar
 

Verified Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by thermos View Post
Same, I almost always use FIR Analog with a super high window.
Ditto, usually at the 16k window setting. IIR is nice when I want it completely clean, but for some reason whenever I blind A/B the two settings I always end up preferring FIR. Always found that odd, because in other EQs I tend to favor minimum phase versus linear phase.
Old 5th November 2015
  #7
Lives for gear
 
Friedemann's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Benj View Post
Personally I wouldn't use Free-Phase or Linear Phase unless the phase response was absolutely critical, as I find pre-ringing to be an undesirable sound. Some people prefer the IIR with a higher digital compensation and digital + phase on... but I find my self preferring the FIR mode in Full Minimum or Analog with fairly high window size when using Equilibrium for mastering.
Hi Benj!

Just be careful, as FIR Analogue actually has a certain amount of pre-ringing. Full minimum though seems not. Picture 1 shows all FIR phase modes and their Impulse responses. Picture 2 shows the FIR Analogue VS. IIR. All pictures taken with the same 18 dB/Oct DMG highpass at 566,5 Hz 0,71Q

Friedemann
Attached Thumbnails
DMG Equilibrium Settings in FIR and Free Phase Mode ?-pic2_dmg_fir_iir_comparison.jpg   DMG Equilibrium Settings in FIR and Free Phase Mode ?-pic1_dmg_fir_comparison.jpg  
Old 5th November 2015
  #8
Lives for gear
 
Benj's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Friedemann View Post
Hi Benj!

Just be careful, as FIR Analogue actually has a certain amount of pre-ringing. Full minimum though seems not. Picture 1 shows all FIR phase modes and their Impulse responses. Picture 2 shows the FIR Analogue VS. IIR. All pictures taken with the same 18 dB/Oct DMG highpass at 566,5 Hz 0,71Q

Friedemann
Thanks for taking the time to post this!

Did you see my second post in this thread? As I suspected, there is some slight pre-ring on Analog that has a subtle effect on the sound... which is why I've been using Full Minimum and No-Latency Analog more lately.
Old 5th November 2015
  #9
Lives for gear
 
Friedemann's Avatar
 

No, sorry did not see the second post. So let's just reinterpret my pictures as a visual support of your findings!
Old 5th November 2015
  #10
Lives for gear
 
Benj's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tarekith View Post
Ditto, usually at the 16k window setting. IIR is nice when I want it completely clean, but for some reason whenever I blind A/B the two settings I always end up preferring FIR. Always found that odd, because in other EQs I tend to favor minimum phase versus linear phase.
I'm sure you already know this, but Full Minimum, No-Latency Analog and Analog aren't linear phase even though they are FIR. The Analog mode apparently does have some slight pre-ringing though, but not nearly as much as would be in the linear phase mode...

Am I right to believe that FIR in Full Minimum or No-Latency Analog could sound "better" than IIR because the window size can be increased to the point where there is less post-ringing?

I'm not familiar enough with analog EQ design to know how much ringing there is in the "average" mastering EQ, but I always assumed the ringing amount would be more similar to the IIR mode and that high window FIR settings would start to go beyond how little ringing any analog EQ could have (for better or worse).

I could totally be wrong though... I'm sure Dave Gamble knows.
Old 5th November 2015
  #11
Lives for gear
"better" is up to your ears. i personally have preferred IIR over FIR every time i've a/b'd them.
Old 5th November 2015
  #12
Lives for gear
 
Benj's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by scraggs View Post
"better" is up to your ears. i personally have preferred IIR over FIR every time i've a/b'd them.
Yes, of course! Hence the " "
Old 6th November 2015
  #13
Gear Head
 

You guys are the best and I'm starting to get into it now!
Many thanks!
/C
Old 6th November 2015
  #14
Gear Addict
 

FIR Analog can work better for me on acoustic music and if I need to apply a little more oomph in the lows and push down the low-mid a little. IIR seems to be best for EDM and big radio pop productions.
Old 7th November 2015
  #15
it depends if i have an other analg eq in the chain, if i have to cut frequency must be the IIR,
but may be some of you use the equilibrium and not external hardware.
Old 6th May 2019
  #16
Lives for gear
Equilibrium noob here, please excuse the ignorance. I don't master, just track and mix. Per the Manual, IIR is fine for most mixing tasks but i'm unclear as to the specific differences between global minimum, analogue, zero-latency analogue, linear phase and free. AFAIK there are no detailed descriptions in the manual and haven't been able to find them anywhere. I understand linear phase excels for precision cuts and maybe some HF boosting, and minimum phase is a bit more 'analog' like. Bottom line is I'd like to know which setting to use when I'm rendering the plug-in during a mix for highest quality. Thank you for your time.
Old 6th May 2019
  #17
Lives for gear
 
Benj's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by raal View Post
Equilibrium noob here, please excuse the ignorance. I don't master, just track and mix. Per the Manual, IIR is fine for most mixing tasks but i'm unclear as to the specific differences between global minimum, analogue, zero-latency analogue, linear phase and free. AFAIK there are no detailed descriptions in the manual and haven't been able to find them anywhere. I understand linear phase excels for precision cuts and maybe some HF boosting, and minimum phase is a bit more 'analog' like. Bottom line is I'd like to know which setting to use when I'm rendering the plug-in during a mix for highest quality. Thank you for your time.
I’m not Dave (the designer) or an expert on digital processing, but here are some of my thoughts after using this plugin for many years:

Full Minimum is similar to IIR (the sound of typical digital EQ), except you have more control over what is happening with post ringing - try increasing the impulse length and see how the sound changes - higher settings start sounding more vivid/brighter/clearer - transients can almost sound enhanced. This is one of Equilibrium’s unique qualities - in each mode - and sometimes this works well.

The zero latency analog is very similar to minimum phase but has a slightly different phase response that might mimic things in the analog world a bit more - I find it tends to sound slightly softer than full minimum. You can also hear something similar happening with the IIR + phase option selected. I’ve seen screen shots showing a minuscule amount of pre-ringing on zero latency analog mode so there could possibly be a tiny effect on transients here, but I couldn’t say the softness comes from that or the slightly different phase shift.

The analog mode changes the phase response even more to mimic an analog EQ but starts to introduce more pre-ringing to make that happen. Low end and transients will likely smear a little more in this mode but it’s not always obvious. Since analog has no pre-ringing I can’t say that I often find this mode more analog sounding than any of the minimum phase modes.

Linear phase keeps the phase response the same but the cost is full pre-ringing, and it can be anywhere subtly smeared sounding (which can sound pleasant on higher frequencies) to sounding like a quick reverse fx/reverb on transient material/percussion/drums and especially low end sounds. I have never found linear phase good for precision cuts as you mentioned - it can ring where your cutting, which can sometimes defeat the purpose of cutting all together. I really like Sonnox Dynamic EQ, and TDR Nova GE for this task... Soothe or Gullfoss if there are many small resonances to clean up.

Free mode allows you to dail in how much phase change you want so anything in between could happen or one could also use it to change phase relationship between two different sources.

In my experience, I generally find the IIR at the highest compensation mode, with no + Phase to be very neutral when doing clean EQ tasks... this is after years of being in different modes as a default. The main exception is sometimes full minimum with medium to higher window size... which I believe can give less post ringing, but regardless, it has a sound that is slightly different than IIR that I will occasionally prefer. There are times where I purposely smear things for a smoothing effect in the high end (low impulse length can aid), but rarely these days with the all the great tools made for addressing such things. Occasionally linear phase can keep well mic’d drums phase coherence better when say doing things like a subtle boost of high end on a snare drum... but this can also smear so choose wisely. I’ve also found analog mode to work well on things at the back of the mix or sometimes reverbs... perhaps the transient smearing can make it sound a little less present and a little less solid?

It’s a great tool and full of almost endless exploration. These are just my thoughts... i’m sure others may have some differing opinions or other tricks or insight that may be helpful or fun to explore. Good luck!
Old 7th May 2019
  #18
Gear Head
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by raal View Post
Equilibrium noob here, please excuse the ignorance. I don't master, just track and mix. Per the Manual, IIR is fine for most mixing tasks but i'm unclear as to the specific differences between global minimum, analogue, zero-latency analogue, linear phase and free. AFAIK there are no detailed descriptions in the manual and haven't been able to find them anywhere. I understand linear phase excels for precision cuts and maybe some HF boosting, and minimum phase is a bit more 'analog' like. Bottom line is I'd like to know which setting to use when I'm rendering the plug-in during a mix for highest quality. Thank you for your time.
In mixing context, IIR + digital compensation is the best. and to my understanding, +phase option is for LPF.

IMHO, there is no reason choosing FIR full-minimum than IIR because FIR needs high impulse length for precise curve at low frequency though that impulse length leads longer latency(and cpu cost).

The only downside of IIR(of digital EQ) is phase response at nyquist frequency and it sometimes leads distortion of the ideal curve at high frequency though, I think EQuilibrium's compensation solve this problem.

So, I believe EQuilibrium's IIR(+512) is the best for mixing.
Old 7th May 2019
  #19
Lives for gear
Thank you all for taking the time to explain.
Old 8th May 2019
  #20
Quote:
Originally Posted by Benj View Post
I’m not Dave (the designer) or an expert on digital processing, but here are some of my thoughts after using this plugin for many years:

Full Minimum is similar to IIR (the sound of typical digital EQ), except you have more control over what is happening with post ringing - try increasing the impulse length and see how the sound changes - higher settings start sounding more vivid/brighter/clearer - transients can almost sound enhanced. This is one of Equilibrium’s unique qualities - in each mode - and sometimes this works well.

The zero latency analog is very similar to minimum phase but has a slightly different phase response that might mimic things in the analog world a bit more - I find it tends to sound slightly softer than full minimum. You can also hear something similar happening with the IIR + phase option selected. I’ve seen screen shots showing a minuscule amount of pre-ringing on zero latency analog mode so there could possibly be a tiny effect on transients here, but I couldn’t say the softness comes from that or the slightly different phase shift.

The analog mode changes the phase response even more to mimic an analog EQ but starts to introduce more pre-ringing to make that happen. Low end and transients will likely smear a little more in this mode but it’s not always obvious. Since analog has no pre-ringing I can’t say that I often find this mode more analog sounding than any of the minimum phase modes.

Linear phase keeps the phase response the same but the cost is full pre-ringing, and it can be anywhere subtly smeared sounding (which can sound pleasant on higher frequencies) to sounding like a quick reverse fx/reverb on transient material/percussion/drums and especially low end sounds. I have never found linear phase good for precision cuts as you mentioned - it can ring where your cutting, which can sometimes defeat the purpose of cutting all together. I really like Sonnox Dynamic EQ, and TDR Nova GE for this task... Soothe or Gullfoss if there are many small resonances to clean up.

Free mode allows you to dail in how much phase change you want so anything in between could happen or one could also use it to change phase relationship between two different sources.

In my experience, I generally find the IIR at the highest compensation mode, with no + Phase to be very neutral when doing clean EQ tasks... this is after years of being in different modes as a default. The main exception is sometimes full minimum with medium to higher window size... which I believe can give less post ringing, but regardless, it has a sound that is slightly different than IIR that I will occasionally prefer. There are times where I purposely smear things for a smoothing effect in the high end (low impulse length can aid), but rarely these days with the all the great tools made for addressing such things. Occasionally linear phase can keep well mic’d drums phase coherence better when say doing things like a subtle boost of high end on a snare drum... but this can also smear so choose wisely. I’ve also found analog mode to work well on things at the back of the mix or sometimes reverbs... perhaps the transient smearing can make it sound a little less present and a little less solid?

It’s a great tool and full of almost endless exploration. These are just my thoughts... i’m sure others may have some differing opinions or other tricks or insight that may be helpful or fun to explore. Good luck!
I've been experimenting from your advice for a couple of days and it's really interesting.
i'm really sensible to transient response and use to work only IIR 512 compensation+ (my previsou system couldn't handle FIR cpu usage) the difference brings a pretty cool new option, especially when working with peak in parallel.
Topic:
Post Reply

Welcome to the Gearslutz Pro Audio Community!

Registration benefits include:
  • The ability to reply to and create new discussions
  • Access to members-only giveaways & competitions
  • Interact with VIP industry experts in our guest Q&As
  • Access to members-only sub forum discussions
  • Access to members-only Chat Room
  • Get INSTANT ACCESS to the world's best private pro audio Classifieds for only USD $20/year
  • Promote your eBay auctions and Reverb.com listings for free
  • Remove this message!
You need an account to post a reply. Create a username and password below and an account will be created and your post entered.


 
 
Slide to join now Processing…
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Forum Jump
Forum Jump