Linear Phase EQ Good/Bad for Low End?
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 7 ก.พ. 2025
- Streamline Your Emails, Deliver Your Best Work, and Build Strong Client Relationships
www.panoramamastering.com/studio-flow
---------------------------------------------------------
The BEST newsletter for working audio professionals!
www.panoramamastering.com/newsletter
Perfect case of realistic practical audio. There are tons of processes in audio that can alter the sound, but not in an audible fashion. I've said it before that to make preringing actually audible in a mix, you have to really abuse the eq and in nearly all cases create an eq move that you would never do in the first case. Worrals case was proof of what he had to do to show it as a clear audible example.
End lesson always boils down to this..
worry less about the tool, and more about how you use it. Any tool can result in "destruction" if abused and misused.
Once you learn that you are the master, and not just a hand guiding the tool, that's when you learn how to "break" the rules
💟
Can you please make the same test and show us the results with linear phase HPF vs minimum phase EQ HPF? Thank you so much
To be honest linear phase HPF reacted the same way, I think I should have showed them in hindsight because everyone is asking.
But basically not agressive negligible difference, super aggressive noticeable difference.
@@panorama_mastering would it be possible that you make a quick similar video showing linear phase HPF vs minimum phase HPF with different slopes like 12, 18 dB per octave?
Also what do you mean in your last sentence?
Thank you so much for you time
Great vid mate, the question I have is always what is best to use for high passing, some people say linear phase and others say that's a horrible idea... very confusing
After creating a perfect phase relationship between elements in drums (for example) I always use Linear Phase HPF (for example when I want to HPF kick at 30Hz and snr at 70Hz for example).Keeping the phase relationship I created is way way more important for me than any potential pre-ringing (even with HPF 12db per octave). Then when I HPF bass and I already have a great phase relationship between bass and drums, same again Linear Phase HPF. For any other EQ moves in the low end, minimum phase.But having said that, the quality of Linear Phase EQ when used for HPF in the low end is crucial. I find Melda Linear Phase EQ to be the best, the most transparent and clear for any linear phase moves in the low end.
I use it to High pass low stuff that doesnt need that transient hit. I use it on every track after a clipper to remove the mud and extra low end the clipper adds back in. Using a min phase eq will add peaks back in so its really the only way to clear that. On high end frequencies i do notice sometimes the percussion can sound less transient-y
@@samkitt I am after doing an experiment with Melda Linear Phase EQ (which in my opinion has the best linear phase algorithm out there). I put HPF at 25.88Hz on the entire drum bus and then A/B it`s linear phase mode and normal one. Keep in mind that before applying an EQ I already had all elements of drums perfectly in phase.So... Linear HPF preserved the low end a lot a lot better while still preserving a good amount of transient (which can be brought back in later on in processing via envelope shaper for example), while regular minimum phase HPF made the low end hollow with only slightly better transient (but 'brighter transient if that makes sense). What do you think?
The Tokyo Dawn Studio’s ”Slick EQ GE” has a button that rotates the phase past a certain frequency. I think that it makes an audible diffrence, especially with 808s. The ”click” and the ”woof” feels more natural I think. You should test it for yourself, there is a demo.
Tokyo Dawn are geniuses with DSP. Their filter collection also has amazing phase response & fixes!
Linear phase on Pro-MB refers to the crossovers between bands being linear phase. I don't know how the pre-ringing of linear phase EQ compares with how the pre-ringing shows up on linear phase multi-band processing, but i'd say they're not entirely comparable.
Dan Worrall has a great video on setting up linear phase crossoves with natural phase pass filters!!!
My general rule of thumb is to use linear phase whenever the relationship between two or more tracks is important, drum mic multitracks for example. Then use minimum phase whenever thats not an issue unless preserving the actual specific shape of the waveform is important, like with maybe bass guitar, for example. Also, it can be good to experiment with linear vs minimum phase when going in to distortion, since the waveforms will be different, the distortion will react differently.
i find that either can work but the important thing is that the same settings wont work interchangeably, a boost that sounds good in minimum phase may need a different boost or even centre frequency in linear phase to sound good
The way I look at it is (and I`ve been using my theory for years in everyday audio work). In a mastering context unless I`m mastering super detailed orchestral acoustic music, the linear phase EQ doesn't sound good, or doesn't sound the way we used to listen to everyday music. So in mastering I nearly always use regular minimum phase EQ (even for HPF if needed). But in mixing it`s different. After creating a perfect phase relationship between elements in drums I always use Linear Phase HPF (for example when I want to HPF kick at 30Hz and snr at 70Hz for example).Keeping the phase relationship I created is way way more important for me than any potential pre-ringing (even with HPF 12db per octave). Then when I HPF bass and I already have a great phase relationship between bass and drums, same again Linear Phase HPF. For any other EQ moves in the low end, minimum phase.But having said that, the quality of Linear Phase EQ when used for HPF in the low end is crucial. I find Melda Linear Phase EQ to be the best, the most transparent and clear for any linear phase moves in the low end.
What I've found is that when you're using linear phase the peaks are smaller so you gain some headroom compared to using a standard eq (especially in a very high/maximum mode in Pro-Q3). But the added latency is a huge drawback so it's convenient only in mastering or at the end of a mix on a master bus (or just for export)
Good point!
i went and tried it with and 808 because i remember hearing a difference when using linear phase. i used a spinz 808 doing a basic pattern and did the same eq cut you did with pro q . they sound noticeably different and i used a blind test plugin just to be sure. its less punchy
I think the fact that tdr infrasonic doesnt have a pure linear phase mode is worth noting. Not saying that plugin companies are immune to blindly following dogma, but i do know tdr tends to focus on the best options based on testing, and are more than capable of providing a linear phase option if they saw benifit to it.
I would've liked you showing Multiband Compression with Linear Phase, vs natural, and the effects of the crossover filters on different frequencies
Maybe one could still argue that the post-ringing of natural phase is less destructive for punch specifically, when/if you need to do something drastic down there?
Yeah that could be right in some cases. I think if you're really having to do that kind of heavy lifting though, you might wanna try both just to see, as it would be pretty program dependant how it sounds I would imagine.
Spot on that is the argument, but HOW much preringing has to happen for it to have a practical affect on the presentation on the material?
This is why whenever I'm cutting out a ringing freqency or something similar, I'll only ever pull it down to the point it sits nicely in line with the things around it. I've seen too many vids of people (and I even used to do it) cutting like 60-90db with a notch filter to remove ringing tones that were unwanted. But you'll find in doing that other things around it will start to ring once you've removed that freqency. This is partly because you've now removed something that was harmonizing with it, and it now sounds just like a new ringing freqency, but also the more you make a bunch of these sharp cuts next to each other, to more pre and/or post ringing you are creating, adding to these anoying ringing freqencies you're now batteling with.
ringing is far less of a problem than preringing, despite any comparison of overall smear length, because the latter is unnatural sounding as sounds in nature tend to decay not ramp up and as a result of often being more exposed in the mix, as it often happens directly before the downbeat, preringing is much more critical. that's also why tapes are archived tails out and this is considered correct and heads out is considered a noob mistake. Why use EQ that is equivalent to a noob mistake?
Cause linear-phase mode is based on FFT/iFFT, the accuracy in the low end is always worse. For example, if each bin size is 4.4Hz, it is not a big amount on the high end but might become a big amount on the low end. However, FFT/iFFT is only able to adjust frequency magnitude response per bin. As a result, the magnitude response of a linear phase peak filter at 30Hz will be different from analog prototype in the low end.
I am after doing an experiment with Melda Linear Phase EQ (which in my opinion has the best linear phase algorithm out there). I put HPF at 25.88Hz on the entire drum bus and then A/B it`s linear phase mode and normal one. Keep in mind that before applying an EQ I already had all elements of drums perfectly in phase.So... Linear HPF preserved the low end a lot a lot better while still preserving a good amount of transient (which can be brought back in later on in processing via envelope shaper for example), while regular minimum phase HPF made the low end hollow with only slightly better transient (but 'brighter transient if that makes sense). What do you think?
When I say `accuracy`, it is how accurately the frequency magnitude response of the filter matches the frequency magnitude response of analog prototype (i.e., the one you see on the spectrum). However, in some cases maybe the inaccurate response is exactly what you want.
And I would guess in your case the phase shift matters much more than the pre-ringing (expecially you have lots of highly-correlated tracks). I don't know what is the order of the HPF, but high-order minimum phase HPF will cause much significant phase shift.
Anyway, trust your ears. There is no perfect filter in the world.
@@zsliu98 Yes, once I get the 'perfect' phase relationship between all drum elements and bass, keeping that phase relationship is way more important (and it sounds better as well at least to my ears) than any potential pre-ringing or losing bit of transient. I can always bring some transient back later on if for example snare or kick lacks it (either by compression or envelope shaper)
@@zsliu98 " I don't know what is the order of the HPF, but high-order minimum phase HPF will cause much significant phase shift." what do you mean?
@@lumicstudio3525 In some plugins you can choose the order (slope) of the HPF. For example, 48 dB/oct HPF will cause much more phase shift (even above the cut-off frequency) than 12 dB/oct HPF.
what's about using high cuts in linear phase. Same effect for the amplitude of the pre-ringing?
Because the higher freqency means closer peak to peak seperation aka a faster changing of wave polarity (or in air faster changing of pressure), any pre ringing up top is also faster in time, so is less audiable the higher up you go. There are some other reasons too to do with our perception at diferent freqencies but it's mostly that low freqencies are slower waves, so it's much more noticable when you have the same amount of wave cycles effected by something (if that makes sence)?
thx
Thanks Nicholas for everything! Quick Question: What style of EQ is best for steep high and low pass filters, and even those not so steep?
Not sure if there is a "best" solution, but a case for trying multiple settings and A/Bing what sounds best to your ears
Just wanted to point out that at 3:37 when you are highlighting the waveform for detecting RMS in the waveform statistics, that you measurement will be/is incorrect. That has been corrected in the latest update for RX11 (I spoke to Alexy at iZotope about this because I assumed that this would be how the waveform stat would function as well).
OH REALLY! Damn! Iteresting because I have both rx10 and 11
Would really love to hear your opinion as well as see the visual test between Linear phase HPF vs minumum phase HPF. I am after doing an experiment with Melda Linear Phase EQ (which in my opinion has the best linear phase algorithm out there). I put HPF at 25.88Hz on the entire drum bus and then A/B it`s linear phase mode and normal one. Keep in mind that before applying an EQ I already had all elements of drums perfectly in phase.So... Linear HPF preserved the low end a lot a lot better while still preserving a good amount of transient (which can be brought back in later on in processing via envelope shaper for example), while regular minimum phase HPF made the low end hollow with only slightly better transient (but 'brighter transient if that makes sense). What do you think?
mm.. I have an idea!
Nice one thanks! Does a low cut need linear phase or is it all the same?
I already know you are a king, but I just saw you are using leapwing plugin, so as long as I don't see a video about those magical plugins, you won't be. (please? :3)
So, you would use linear phase EQ for the lowend in mastering (I assume since it doesn't change the phase of the signal, thus preserves the preprocessed (clipped etc) waveform for loudness) ?
A great use-case dependant on what the change of peak level is!
I appreciate your work. can you give linear high pass example? instead of that notch filter because nobody is gonna apply that?
I second this and I also appreciate your work! I definitely still have questions though. If you have a low cut at 10hz throughout the entire track (for rolling off inaudible low-end, which I also wonder about being good technique or not), and are also automating it higher during a build section (talking about EDM of course), it's hard to know whether to go with linear, natural, or zero-latency for retaining punch and minimize change to the mix in negative ways.
I've been going with zero-latency, because of pre-ringing, but I honestly can't tell much of a difference between linear and zero-latency. The phase shift with a 12db/oct low-cut at 10hz stops affecting phase pretty low in the spectrum if you look at it in PluginDoctor, but I'd like to hear your thoughts on what the best option is for a scenario like that.
the thing that I wanna see is realistic-use examples, like how much build up over maybe 4-5 channels where your using sharper low end cuts in a mix to help dial a misdown.. like the pre-ringing build up over amplitude from stacked channels.. what would that look like in a mix? cause thats what bothers me when i see people doing drastic cuts in the low end, we all know of ringing, and phase issues, but are these problems really taking away end result decibal levels or "LUFS" from a mastering stage or causing "issues" or masking, or etc... Example might be.. linear vs. normal pro-q cuts on kicks snares (maybe 36 or so db at roughly 30-90hz, and then more at like 110-200 or so.. will the build up from these ranges stack up over a whole project.. cause this seems like more realistic problems that even the best mastering engineering would have no real idea about if provided a premaster with all these in the mixdown stage potential stacked for the engineer to solve.
for a shorter summary i guess i should say, these large decibal nubmers -30-50db obviously are too big of a distance for being problematic, but when you stack half a dozen of them up in those ranges.. do then they become more prevalent to otherwise cause more issues ina mix for a later stage of engineering..
If you search How to: Mastering Audio by Bob Katz on youtube, Bob uses a linear phase eq on low end with a high q. I always wondered why he did it. And he is the legendary “Bob Katz”.