Can the sonitus EQ cause phase issues?

I ask because on some of my earlier stuff I notice the phase meter hops around a bit more and shows more activity out of normal range (I have noticed this on some commercial Cd's too though).  As I am finishing tracking the last 4 songs for this record my band is due to put out next month I have a better understanding of what sound I am going for and how to capture that sound at the source, thus the tracks require much less and more melow Eq curves to get the sound I want now.  I just finished the tracking for one song and noticed that when played start to finish it never goes off the center area of an anti phase meter. I can only assume that this is because of the source sounds being better and far less EQ and compression used to get to sonic finish line I was shooting for all along than work I did 6 months ago.  Does this make sense to anyone?

I just read this and really enjoyed it:

http://www.ethanwiner.com/EQPhase.html

Ok, I get that. :-)

How about this one idea.

I'm sure you are familiar with stage feedback... the scream/whine/howl you get at a live gig.

That's an example of positive feedback. The sound is building upon itself at some frequency where it is slightly positive... then the resonance causes it to snowball.

If you use some method to purposefully send negative feedback through a "circuit" then you can purposefully cut volume levels.

If you can purposefuly inject feedback and cause some amount of positive or negative shift at some specific range of frequency (bandwidth) you may alter the volume levels of that range.




The link described the difference in analog and digital methods to accomplish the same thing, use "feedback" with a shift in phase to alter the tone.

Then it says, that you probably can't hear the shift in phase.



all the best,
mike 

Expense has nothing to do with digital EQ performance. The performance of EQs is due to mathematical limitations that govern phase response of EQs in both the analog world and digital world. You can either use what is known as a "minimum phase" filter or a "linear phase" filter (which doesn't really exist in the analog world). Most non-linear phase digital EQ's are based on the same filter types implemented in the analog world, with similar phase response. Many of the differences between EQs has more to do with which filter types and EQ curves were chosen and how those curves change and interact when mapped to the user interface.


In both minimum and linear phase filters, the signal is delayed as it passes through the EQ filter. But in a linear phase filter the phase shift/delay is constant for all frequencies, whereas with minimum phase the amount of phase shift varies with frequency. For this reason some people regard linear phase EQs as "better". There are a few problems with linear phase filters, though:

1. They tend to use much more processing power, though this is not as big of a deal today as a few years ago. The fact that they use so much more CPU may lead people to incorrectly conclude that they must be "better" for that reason alone, rather than just that the math happens to be more demanding on the CPU.

2. The signal is delayed significantly. And there's no way around this, because the delay is caused by the nature of the filter design, and generally not on CPU limitations or anything like that.

3. As Mike alluded to, filter ringing can be a problem. But the problem isn't that linear phase has more ringing; it's that it has what's known as pre-ringing. In a minimum phase filter, all filter ringing occurs after the input signal. But in linear phase, some of the ringing occurs before your signal, which can be much more audible, particularly on transients (because your signal isn't present to mask the pre-ring).



As far as different EQs go, if someone doesn't like the sound of a given digital EQ, it's not necessarily the EQ's fault for doing something wrong. More likely it's because the frequency response change to the input signal just wasn't subjectively pleasing. The analog devices that became popular had filter and user interface designs that make getting subjectively pleasing results easier, as well as potentially pleasing analog coloration.

Can the sonitus EQ cause phase issues?

Short answer: 
1. phase shifts occur in all minimum-phase equalizers, including the Sonitus
2. the shifts should not be any worse in one EQ than another
3. you cannot hear the phase shifts under normal circumstances


There are measurable qualitative differences between equalizers, usually involving nonlinearities at the extreme high end of the spectrum at slower sample rates. It's unlikely you'll actually hear those differences, though.

If you hear something you'd describe as "phasey" after boosting high frequencies, it's probably because you're boosting an effect or artifact that's already present in the audio but wasn't obvious prior to the boost. A little comb filtering is always present any time you use a microphone in a room, and injudicious EQing can emphasize it.

batsbrew

Expense has nothing to do with digital EQ performance.  

well, in my experience, the cheap/free EQ's, seem to sound like ass.


the expense, covers the R&D required to actually generate a worthy product.


that old adage, you get what you pay for, is quite evident in a lot of software, these days.


there are a few gems that are give aways.
search hard for those, they're worth it.

A digital EQ filter is a mathematical calculation. Different filter types have different curves/slopes, and phase shift or other filter artifacts vary as well, but it's all determined by well established math. And for a given filter type, all EQs have to use variations on the same basic math. 

For a "simple" digital EQ, they tend to just implement basic filter shapes that change the frequency response (and phase) in a very straightforward manner with the minimal possible level of artifacts and/or coloration. If it sounds bad, it's because your source and ear doesn't like having certain frequencies cut or boosted with a given curve, not the EQ - because the EQ isn't changing anything else. And unless it's a linear phase EQ, the phase shift issues are essentially the same for any EQ of the same type.

It may be that some EQs sound sound subjectively better to you, or you find they are easier to get where you want to go. But it isn't because anything is "wrong" with a basic digital EQ, which is generally very clean with a minimum of artifacts. 

It's because you might subjectively like one curve shape more than another. Or like the sound of more artifacts around the cutoff frequency. Or find the way the sound changes when you twist a knob easier to work with.

yes, the worth of the plug, is in the math.

i can add 1+1, and so on, but the real math geniuses don't work for free.

there is a big difference between most all software EQ's...
ever wonder why?


the way things "SOUND", is almost always subjective.
as it should be.

you know, i actually like the sonitus plug

it works.

but when i a/b it directly against other plugins i use (waves LPEQ, renaissance EQ, Q10 EQ, and then a couple my buddy has-- PuigTec EQP-1A, API 550A)....
they are clearly superior to my ears.


so i know the 'math' guys are doing some very creative stuff, and wanna get paid.
LOL

If you have some sort of phase related issue that seems problematic... it's not going to go away just because the bit depth or sample rate is lowered for a delivery format.

It's more likely to become clunkier and chunkier and more flippy flappy.

The primary issue, as I see it, is to determine if any phase related issue results in unanticipated play back results.

When people speak about problems with mono collapse or stereo from a surround stream not acting right... they are real, discernible, tangible problems. That's why I suggested that one will know when it's time to be concerned about that stuff. It ought to be pretty obvious.

best regards,
mike

that's exactly what i was trying to say.

meaning, once you've gone down to mp3, whatever issue you had with phase linearity will only be worse.

and then to some lesser-grade mp3... 
at that point .......

so, that's why i say it's worth the more expensive EQ plugs to me....
by my ears, they are superior to the freebie/cheapies, in that the way they design their algorithms, seems to stand up all the way down the line.

Some folk derive a lot of pleasure and comfort from spending money.

I'd like to in a position where I could be one of those.

Bat,  Are you familiar with the Fabfilter products? And if so, do you have anything to say about "Pro-Q"?  

SORRY, not familiar with that product....but it's on the radar now!




http://www.fabfilter.com/quotes.php

Hacker's  theorum: 

Part 1: Plug it in and try it. If it sounds good keep it. If it sux, try another one. 

Part 2: If nothing sounds good, it probably sux at a deeper level and needs to be recorded again.

Rain

bitflipper

Can the sonitus EQ cause phase issues?

Short answer: 
1. phase shifts occur in all minimum-phase equalizers, including the Sonitus
2. the shifts should not be any worse in one EQ than another
3. you cannot hear the phase shifts under normal circumstances


There are measurable qualitative differences between equalizers, usually involving nonlinearities at the extreme high end of the spectrum at slower sample rates. It's unlikely you'll actually hear those differences, though.

If you hear something you'd describe as "phasey" after boosting high frequencies, it's probably because you're boosting an effect or artifact that's already present in the audio but wasn't obvious prior to the boost. A little comb filtering is always present any time you use a microphone in a room, and injudicious EQing can emphasize it.

Could these subtle inaudible differences be cumulative and make a difference when you have eq's and other plug-ins on every track? That type of reasoning seems to be used in favor of things like the Slate channel strip.

The general response to queries about "stacking" characteristics of effects or strips etc. is that the average level of each track and it's effects is inversely proportional to the number of tracks and effects that are stacked.

The result is that any effect of "stacking" effects is nullified by the fact that each track and it's effects have been turned down so that the mix could fit through the *eye of the needle*# also known as the master bus.


best regards,
mike


#not to be confused with flippy flappy

Guitarhacker


Hacker's  theorum: 

Part 1: Plug it in and try it. If it sounds good keep it. If it sux, try another one. 

Part 2: If nothing sounds good, it probably sux at a deeper level and needs to be recorded again.

Good plan.