EQing- making things sound too 2d??

[macc]

anyway, that's clearly the time domain, so eqing, which is frequency-domain related, shouldn't have much to do with it.
but on the other hand, macc here for example said that abusing eq will also abuse your time domain.

The two are intimately and inexorably linked - that's the point. It's essentially how and why it fucking works

Linear phase eqs don't mess with the phase relationships, as they (generally) apply a frequency-and-gain-dependent time delay. In this way, all the timing differences are compensated for and everything arrives at the output with the same phase (clumsy term, sorry) it started out with. The downsides are that

1) it means that the entire signal is delayed by a large amount to 'wait for the stragglers', and more importantly that

2) the way this is implemented usually means that you get 'pre-ring' or 'pre-echo'. This is basically a reversed version of a sound directly preceding the sound itself. All filters ring, but a normal eq does its ringing after the initial sound so you don't normally notice it. With a linear phase eq the ringing is usually * spread out before and after the actual sound. This is very noticeable on low frequency transients when using sharp filters and relatively large gain changes - but it IS noticeable.

The main point here is that one would think linear phase eq is perfect but it isn't. There is no such thing as a free lunch, you have to choose your poison carefully.


* I'm saying 'usually' as there are other linear-phase designs but they are less common, and way too hard for me to understand

[macc]

hmm, now that i think about it, you're right. thanks for the lesson. (doesn't help me, tho really ineresting nonetheless) but i think the dude was worried about having elements of his mix out of phase with each other, as is often mentioned as a no-no in mixing articles (because of mono mixdowns). that's what i thought I was responding to.

Nice try man, but that isn't what you responded to and you know it. Your post has no relation to that at all. Anyway, irrespective of the surrounding discussion, it's a completely incorrect statement.

obviously i understand nothing and shouldn't talk.

Well, at least you understand that, that's a start

[narcissus]

what?

Nice try man, but that isn't what you responded to and you know it.

i was being honest. but i have a feeling that if i continue talking to you, there's gonna be a lot of drama.

[macc]

You're probably right there, so yes - let's not continue that way

[narcissus]

as much as i'd like to, i'm not going to say all the things on my mind, because i have this really strange feeling that we could be friends...

[macc]

PM if it's easier. I ain't looking for a ruck!

[Echoi]

and here was me settling down to watch an e-fight

[macc]

We've kissed and made up and we're going on a date tomorrow.

Unless I completely misread that PM

[Echoi]

[-dubson-]

Cheers guys, definatly helped me understand where i'm going wrong. (Not that i understand much of that phase wargon )

Taking off too many lows is a big part of my problem i'm sure.. I never try and EQ that much because as has been repeated; it generally mucks stuff up more that it helps. But a bit here and there too gel synths into the overall mix more is usually what i'm trying to do. (Could be the wrong way of going about things again.)

[Basic A]

Its that feeling I get when the grown ups would talk about cars again... I always get that on this forum, keeps me comin back...

Bookmarkin this topic. Macc. Big up.

[narcissus]

We've kissed and made up and we're going on a date tomorrow.

Unless I completely misread that PM

is 8 pm okay?

[Assassin]

no, "phase" describes an aspect of sound waves that you're not dealing with when it comes to EQ.

In the nicest possible way, you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.

hmm, now that i think about it, you're right. thanks for the lesson. (doesn't help me, tho really ineresting nonetheless) but i think the dude was worried about having elements of his mix out of phase with each other, as is often mentioned as a no-no in mixing articles (because of mono mixdowns). that's what i thought I was responding to. obviously i understand nothing and shouldn't talk.

never ever question macc, it's like arguing with Stephen fry. You'll not only get destroyed in argument but you'll look a tit.

[-dubson-]

never ever question macc, it's like arguing with Stephen fry. You'll not only get destroyed in argument but you'll look a tit.

Think you need to sig that Macc.

Unless you dont want to or something, just do what you want man. Dont want to impose my opinion on you or anything...

[tavravlavish]

i probably eq everything to hell, most my eqs looks like bridges, im trying to go for a more minimal approach to producing now, less compression and limits, just make sure my sound is what i want it to sound like and its at the right volume.

[macc]

Don't be silly, I get things wrong on a regular basis But it's how you get better innit.

I've been there, with 5 eq units looking like the Himalayas and wondering why it sounds better when I turn them all off

The extra physics stuff might not be useful to everybody, but if it helps get the point across that 'eq has other effects beyond what the GUI is telling you, so be careful', then happy days.

[ÆIUM]

Discounting linear phase eqs (which have their own rules/problems);

Phase shift is not inherently bad. Eq works by changing phase at/around the selected frequency. The lovely pretty GUIs on your plugin eq shows you what you're doing to the frequency response, it doesn't show you what is happening behind the scenes with the phase response. The two are tied together intimately and there's no getting around it. Phase essentially = time. Imagine a sine wave on your display being shifted left and right - that's phase shift. It's in effect moving things in time. Moving things in that way results in either an increase or decrease of gain, centred around the specified frequency, depending which way you move them and by how much.

Doing a very sharp boost or cut concentrates the same degree of phase shift in a narrower range - so the amount that a frequency is shifted relative to its neighbour is greater than it is for a wider filter. See the diagram below;

(from here)

These are for the same gain, greater gain change = larger phase change.

Look how the wider filter imposes the phase shift over a wider range, but the difference in shift between a given point and an adjacent point is less than in the narrower filter, particularly in the area around the centre frequency. So, to put it another way, things that were together in time are now a long way apart in time. With the wider filter, they all move, but by similar amounts.

The practical implication/result of this is that wider filters sound more natural/musical, and tighter filters ring more. Now start doing 6 bands of very tight eq and see what happens to the coherency of your sound. It will start to sound 'hollow', or two-dimensional. There's about a billion words you can use, but you know what I mean... it's why this thread started

This isn't to say that tight filters are evil - you just need to use them correctly. Sometimes they are just what you need, but remember that they have an effect quite some way from where you need them to. So better not to just wang things down 18dB - you can imagine the effect that will have on time coherency, which is a major contributor to depth.

First off, thanks for sharing your knowledge Macc. I am trying to wrap my head around this.

So, when I EQ out a portion of the sound, the equalizer works by changing the phase. So, this means that I am just moving the sound to a different part of the frequency spectrum?

And then it might antagonize the noises already in that frequency range and sound less vibrant overall?

Is this at all right?

[Basic A]

4d is where its at get yo self a surround sound system

WTF???

Get yourself some montors

Most stereo surround systems that you see in homes are for final listenin... Proper monitors n placement...

But thats not even what is being discussed!!! Flatness of sound after eq is... and relation of phase and time to EQ...

N you guys laughed at the kid who confused phase for phaser... which, I guess, if you notched an eq and set it to 50/50 wet dry, you would offset the phase huh? Or would this be a rudimentary flanger, and I just have the two confused?

[macc]

@ ÆIUM - You're not moving the sound to another area of the spectrum (ie, changing the pitch), you're in effect moving it in time. This means that it adds up with the rest of the signal differently, resulting in either a gain boost or a cut centered around the target frequency. This is a very simplified way of looking at it but it might help.

The gain display on your GUI is always telling (pretty much) the truth, but there's more to it than that.

N you guys laughed at the kid who confused phase for phaser... which, I guess, if you notched an eq and set it to 50/50 wet dry, you would offset the phase huh? Or would this be a rudimentary flanger, and I just have the two confused?

No, you're absolutely right, great point. There's no better demonstration of the fact that phase and time are the same thing, and that eq is the other part of the triangle.

Get white noise, use an eq and make loads (10+) of very narrow, deep cuts.

Now get the same initial signal (no eq), and copy/mix it over itself with a short time delay, say 5-10ms. Look at the results of both in a good spectrum analyser, listen to it.

Sounds and looks similar, right?

[ÆIUM]

@ ÆIUM - You're not moving the sound to another area of the spectrum (ie, changing the pitch), you're in effect moving it in time. This means that it adds up with the rest of the signal differently, resulting in either a gain boost or a cut centered around the target frequency. This is a very simplified way of looking at it but it might help.

Ok, I get it know. Phase =/= pitch.

The eq takes part of the frequency range and pushes the starting point back a tad so that for that section so the peaks somewhat match up with the troughs and part of the signal negates itself.

so then... um... the sound quality..

The sound quality would suffer from too much EQ use because.... our ears are sensitive to subtle phase relationships for the perception of space, and messing around with it too much takes away that element from the sound?

I think I got it now.