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
When do you use a Linear Phase EQ over a Minimum Phase EQ? Multi-Ef­fects Plugins
Old 20th November 2009
  #1
Lives for gear
 
aleatoric's Avatar
When do you use a Linear Phase EQ over a Minimum Phase EQ?

I thought this would be an interesting topic and a good way for some to gain insight and ideas into how others utilize linear phase equalization.

What I would like to know is in what instances do you prefer to use a high quality linear phase eq (algorithmix, weiss, plpar, sonoris, psp neon) over a more traditional minimum phase eq.

Note - - - Sorry if this is a repeat for those who frequent the PSW forum (I posted the same topic there) but I know lots of you just hang here so I thought it was worth posting - - -
Old 20th November 2009
  #2
Good question,
I tend to use it mainly for narrow cuts, low cuts in particular.
To me, LP sounds tighter in such applications, as if transients are kept more in tact.

When boosting or for wider cuts (shaping rather than surgical) MP seems more ..er.. analog or friendlier if you like.

my 2 cents
Old 20th November 2009
  #3
Audio Alchemist
 
Lagerfeldt's Avatar
If I'm working on something that's already been heavily processed I may use LP to avoid changing the phase relations too much.

Sometimes I use a LP HPF when the phase shift of minimum phase EQ will cause the peak level to jump a lot, i.e. to save headroom.

I also use LP when shaping a parallel signal, this is to avoid phasing the parallel signal with the original one once they're added together.
Old 20th November 2009
  #4
Lives for gear
 

I basically go by the psychoacoustic facts. Above 3 kHz the ear can not evaluate phase in binaural hearing.
But below 1 kHz phase is essential for binaural hearing. Between 1-3kHz the two parameters cross.
So for lower and mid frequency manipulation of stereo and surround mixes LP is my first choice, to keep phase relations intact and to not smear transients.
Basically LP is the choice for pure spectrum manipulation with transparency for other parameters (e.g. phase) one wishes to remain untouched. Only sonic downside to LP is the (mostly undetectable) preringing.
Operational disadvantages are the bigger processing delay and DSP appetite.
Old 20th November 2009
  #5
Lives for gear
 
macc's Avatar
 

Verified Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lagerfeldt View Post
Sometimes I use a LP HPF when the phase shift of minimum phase EQ will cause the peak level to jump a lot, i.e. to save headroom.
Aye, same here. 8/10 times I use an LinPh HPF, but on occasion that phase shift can do nice things to the bottom.

It's quite hard to put into words, but in general eqing I only use LP if something bothers me about MP. If serious shaping is needed I steer clear of LP as pre-echo bugs me something chronic.
Old 20th November 2009
  #6
Lives for gear
 
Edward_Vinatea's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by aleatoric View Post
I thought this would be an interesting topic and a good way for some to gain insight and ideas into how others utilize linear phase equalization.

What I would like to know is in what instances do you prefer to use a high quality linear phase eq (algorithmix, weiss, plpar, sonoris, psp neon) over a more traditional minimum phase eq.
Highly dependent on the material for me. If too clean or sounding too brittle, metallic a bit sterile, etc, I use a minimum phase eq. If very "warm" lots of "color and vibe", noisy etc, I use linear phase equalization.

Regards,
Old 20th November 2009
  #7
Lives for gear
 
philip's Avatar
 

I never use LP, but on the other hand I never HPF either.

HPF is in my opinion THE reason why 80-90% of all music doesn't sound as good as it could. Filters don't belong in mastering.

Last edited by philip; 20th November 2009 at 04:06 PM.. Reason: typo
Old 20th November 2009
  #8
Lives for gear
 
macc's Avatar
 

Verified Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by philip View Post
Filters don't belong i mastering.
I agree it can be a negative thing and shouldn't be a standard procedure in all cases (possibly unless going to vinyl)... but don't you think that's a bit over the top?
Old 20th November 2009
  #9
Lives for gear
 
Edward_Vinatea's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by philip View Post
Filters don't belong i mastering.
Philip, remember BK used one to fix the bass note on his video. You use them if you need them.
Old 20th November 2009
  #10
Lives for gear
 
philip's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by macc View Post
I agree it can be a negative thing and shouldn't be a standard procedure in all cases (possibly unless going to vinyl)... but don't you think that's a bit over the top?
Yes maybe a bit over the top. :-)
Old 20th November 2009
  #11
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lagerfeldt View Post
If I'm working on something that's already been heavily processed I may use LP to avoid changing the phase relations too much.

Sometimes I use a LP HPF when the phase shift of minimum phase EQ will cause the peak level to jump a lot, i.e. to save headroom.

I also use LP when shaping a parallel signal, this is to avoid phasing the parallel signal with the original one once they're added together.


Similar experience here (seems my self-tutoring started to bring its benefits :D )

A question though, I'm still practicing ITB but would an analog eq (passive I guess) bring benefit to lessen the need of LP eq?
Old 20th November 2009
  #12
Lives for gear
 
philip's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Edward_Vinatea View Post
Philip, remember BK used one to fix the bass note on his video. You use them if you need them.
Edward, I usually don't agree with BK, our philosophy is very different

But you are right, when you need them, use them. I haven't had a use for HPF in years. (since I got my new monitoring setup - five years ago )

Cheers!
Old 20th November 2009
  #13
Lives for gear
 
philip's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by cooker View Post


A question though, I'm still practicing ITB but would an analog eq (passive I guess) bring benefit to lessen the need of LP eq?
hey Cooker, Take a look at this: http://www.manleylabs.com/PDF/PRO_Ma...20MSMPXxxx.pdf

page 13.
Old 20th November 2009
  #14
Gear Addict
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by audio ergo sum View Post
I basically go by the psychoacoustic facts. Above 3 kHz the ear can not evaluate phase in binaural hearing.
But below 1 kHz phase is essential for binaural hearing. Between 1-3kHz the two parameters cross.
So for lower and mid frequency manipulation of stereo and surround mixes LP is my first choice, to keep phase relations intact and to not smear transients.
Basically LP is the choice for pure spectrum manipulation with transparency for other parameters (e.g. phase) one wishes to remain untouched. Only downside to LP is the bigger processing delay and DSP appetite.
Not challenging this. But it does run counter to many of the claims I've heard about LP. Do you know of any reference/discussion on the psychoacoustic limitations?
Old 20th November 2009
  #15
Linear phase is great for corrective EQ and narrower cuts, but then again, there's no reason why you wouldn't use it for broader strokes too (its lack of flavour or imprint is its virtue after all). Not to cop out of a debate, but go for whichever sounds best for the application, but a good LP and MP EQ will complement each other nicely.

Can't really understand the anti-HP stance either. If it works, use it. If not, pass.
Old 20th November 2009
  #16
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by danika View Post
Not challenging this. But it does run counter to many of the claims I've heard about LP. Do you know of any reference/discussion on the psychoacoustic limitations?
Which claims have you heard?

Try EQ of a Bass Drum with both...

Reference would be mostly fundamental research by Blauert and Zwicker et al.

Spatial hearing: the psychophysics ... - Google Bücher

Psychoacoustics: facts and models - Google Bücher
Old 20th November 2009
  #17
Lives for gear
 

Linear eqs are great for a little narrow cut here and there where you don't want to sound like anything really happened. You have to be careful though, there is a small window of cut before it also becomes quite odd sounding.
Old 20th November 2009
  #18
Lives for gear
Thanks philip, looks very good
Old 16th July 2012
  #19
Gear Head
 
isaac663's Avatar
I know Bob Katz suggest that using LP eq for high freq boost can be really useful. This is because they don't pull the instruments too 'close' to the listener, more like raising the level of the cymbals for example. I've just started experimenting with LP eq's. I like em, for this reason as well as the others mentions on the thread. Having said that i've never felt debilitated before i started using them, so they're certainly not essential (imo), but I do like their unobtrusive nature.
Old 17th July 2012
  #20
Gear Maniac
 
hearttimes's Avatar
 

what would be the easiest and most helpful sound or tracks with which the difference between the lin non/lin can be compared for a beginner?

(still checking if this question is grammatically correct, so apologies in advance.)
Old 17th July 2012
  #21
Lives for gear
 
Ben B's Avatar
 

I tend to use linear phase filters more or less as crossover points when doing split band processing in parallel with a full bandwidth original track. It doesn't screw up the relative phase when blending with the original track like minimum phase filters do.
Old 17th July 2012
  #22
Lives for gear
 
scorpix74's Avatar
You're talking about LP and MP which are which?
Sorry I'm just a beginner and I use what I found, actually is the pro EQ from StudioOne and he's really easy to use, certainly an linear phase one, no?
I never used a dedicated EQ in hardware so maybe this is why I'm thinkin "an EQ is an EQ".
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
Similar Threads
Thread
Thread Starter / Forum
Replies
Chevron / Music Computers
26
Sigma / So much gear, so little time
15
jseveriniii / So much gear, so little time
4
oldswirlo / So much gear, so little time
8
Cojo / Mastering forum
6

Forum Jump
Forum Jump