EQing - The Ol' Boost and Sweep

[avasopht]

My understanding is that schools and courses teach to be subtractive first not because it's "better," but because there can be an urge to just BOOST BOOST BOOST until you're not really doing EQ work anymore (but just increasing gain).

I think there's definitely a lot in that, which also resonates with what I was saying before about how a boost or cut strategy will determine where your focus lies. I quickly noticed the tendency from myself when starting out to boost when really all I was doing was raising the overall volume.

I read about the cut strategy and employed it almost religiously until I discovered through discussion with others that my earlier assumptions were not correct.

[Ostermilk]

Didn't really think I would have to do this but here it goes. The key word in the sentence is 'artifacts'. We are talking about audio. So by cutting the frequency you don't hear the phase shift because it's 'turned down' (not like I have bionic ears and can hear phase shift unless done on purpose to be heard as an effect. I never said phase shift does not occur. I wrote cutting introduces less phase shift 'artifacts'.

Read it as you wish. Take the word 'artifacts' out and you guys are right and I am wrong. But it is 'logical' that cutting reduces the introduction (to our ears) the 'artifacts' of the phase shift (which I did not state does not occur from cutting).

Not my problem people troll and stick to a few words and not the context.

LOL, actually I don't care who is 'right' or 'wrong', this kind of debate ceased getting any emotional investment out of me many moons ago. The initial assertion was wrong and it got corrected, simples. Generally it simplifies my life and makes it much more fun to aim for 'happy' rather than always being 'right'...

It matters much less to me to think that I'm being represented on a forum as being some kind of authority than it does to be able to understand what is actually going on.

To quote Ubik in the shop...

So it is hardly surprising that EQ is a highly controversial topic in the audio world! For some, the most important factor is the sheer number of frequency bands, for others it is the ease of use. Equalizer characteristics are often described in highly subjective terms such as ‘transparency’ and ‘warmth’. Heated debates are commonplace – to quote a literary friend, “the altercation is so bitter because so little is at stake!”

[Goriila Texas]

I kinda stopped using a lot of eqing and switched to multi-band compressors because I've heard about EQs causing phase issues but didn't really understand till I read this dude page and seen his videos.
https://theproaudiofiles.com/linear-pha ... -phase-eq/

https://youtu.be/sLQaNmaiUx8?t=10s
[img]

[/img]

[selig]

I kinda stopped using a lot of eqing and switched to multi-band compressors because I've heard about EQs causing phase issues but didn't really understand till I read this dude page and seen his videos.
https://theproaudiofiles.com/linear-pha ... -phase-eq/

https://youtu.be/sLQaNmaiUx8?t=10s
[img]

[/img]

I'd skip that first link right to the last video, which discusses the pros AND cons of both techniques. It's the pre-ringing of linear phase EQ that turns most folks off to it, plus the rather large latency required to accomplish it's tricks (not to mention the typically higher CPU load I've heard). It's also more accurate as I understand it to say a linear phase EQ has equal phase shift - the first link says "zero phase shift" which would be impossible. However, it would be correct to say a linear phase EQ has zero phase shift between the bands.

In the end, everything I've read and experienced says there is no "free lunch", meaning there is no perfect EQ - and in fact, the common minimal phase EQ we all know and love is is more than ideal for most all of the EQ work needed. Nice to have options though, and if you prefer the linear phase sound on certain instruments then there's no reason (other then the CPU and latency and pre-ringing) not to use it!

Still not sure why there's no linear phase EQ option for Reason, other than the overall lack of appeal for it's use in mixing (it tends to be more of a mastering tool when used)

[Stranger.]

ΣΣΣ

[cosignsessions]

Didn't really think I would have to do this but here it goes. The key word in the sentence is 'artifacts'. We are talking about audio. So by cutting the frequency you don't hear the phase shift because it's 'turned down' (not like I have bionic ears and can hear phase shift unless done on purpose to be heard as an effect. I never said phase shift does not occur. I wrote cutting introduces less phase shift 'artifacts'.

Read it as you wish. Take the word 'artifacts' out and you guys are right and I am wrong. But it is 'logical' that cutting reduces the introduction (to our ears) the 'artifacts' of the phase shift (which I did not state does not occur from cutting).

Not my problem people troll and stick to a few words and not the context.

Hang on now, I wasn't trolling and didn't take your comments out of context in any way - I was completely respectful and civil in every way. You see, I don't know what you KNOW, I only know what you SAY here and I can only reply to what you say. Don't you agree it's a good thing to have these conversations, or would you rather we all just agree with each other? FWIW, I DID agree with most of what you said, something that may have been lost because there was one point where we didn't agree.

To be clear, my ONLY point of disagreement is the general idea that the phase shift used to actually create an EQ curve is an artifact, and the specific idea that there is more phase shift with boosts than cuts!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonic_artifact
IMO using the word "artifacts" implies there is something undesirable being added such as distortion, crackle, wow/flutter, aliasing, etc. Maybe better to say that when you reduce energy (turn something down), it's less audible, something I've already mentioned early in this thread. It's commonly accepted that narrow cuts are less audible than narrow boosts, which is why many suggest wider boosts than cuts. If my pointing out that phase shift has nothing to do with this phenomenon is seen as "trolling" and "taking words out of context", then what hope is there for an energetic exchange of ideas here?

As far as why some say to cut EQ, another reason is because in the analog world you cut to avoid clipping. If you boost a lot you will eventually run out of headroom in the EQ/channel, in which case you WILL introduce artifacts!

Personally I LOVE these sorts of discussions, talking audio concepts and techniques, comparing notes, and all trying to learn something (even at my age). I sincerely hope you won't shy away from this sort of discussion based on how you feel about my comments!

I wrote 'cutting introduces less phase shift artifacts' and it spawned a newsletters worth of responses, the use of ALL CAPS, rhetorical questions, IMOs and emojis. Similar to a post I made using a question mark. Or the one where i mentioned using EQs that have a 'sound'. Maybe 'troll' is out of context as well. If I helped the OP with an idea or 2 on dealing with the piano it was worth it.

[selig]

Didn't really think I would have to do this but here it goes. The key word in the sentence is 'artifacts'. We are talking about audio. So by cutting the frequency you don't hear the phase shift because it's 'turned down' (not like I have bionic ears and can hear phase shift unless done on purpose to be heard as an effect. I never said phase shift does not occur. I wrote cutting introduces less phase shift 'artifacts'.

Read it as you wish. Take the word 'artifacts' out and you guys are right and I am wrong. But it is 'logical' that cutting reduces the introduction (to our ears) the 'artifacts' of the phase shift (which I did not state does not occur from cutting).

Not my problem people troll and stick to a few words and not the context.

Hang on now, I wasn't trolling and didn't take your comments out of context in any way - I was completely respectful and civil in every way. You see, I don't know what you KNOW, I only know what you SAY here and I can only reply to what you say. Don't you agree it's a good thing to have these conversations, or would you rather we all just agree with each other? FWIW, I DID agree with most of what you said, something that may have been lost because there was one point where we didn't agree.

To be clear, my ONLY point of disagreement is the general idea that the phase shift used to actually create an EQ curve is an artifact, and the specific idea that there is more phase shift with boosts than cuts!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonic_artifact
IMO using the word "artifacts" implies there is something undesirable being added such as distortion, crackle, wow/flutter, aliasing, etc. Maybe better to say that when you reduce energy (turn something down), it's less audible, something I've already mentioned early in this thread. It's commonly accepted that narrow cuts are less audible than narrow boosts, which is why many suggest wider boosts than cuts. If my pointing out that phase shift has nothing to do with this phenomenon is seen as "trolling" and "taking words out of context", then what hope is there for an energetic exchange of ideas here?

As far as why some say to cut EQ, another reason is because in the analog world you cut to avoid clipping. If you boost a lot you will eventually run out of headroom in the EQ/channel, in which case you WILL introduce artifacts!

Personally I LOVE these sorts of discussions, talking audio concepts and techniques, comparing notes, and all trying to learn something (even at my age). I sincerely hope you won't shy away from this sort of discussion based on how you feel about my comments!

I wrote 'cutting introduces less phase shift artifacts' and it spawned a newsletters worth of responses, the use of ALL CAPS, rhetorical questions, IMOs and emojis. Similar to a post I made using a question mark. Or the one where i mentioned using EQs that have a 'sound'. Maybe 'troll' is out of context as well. If I helped the OP with an idea or 2 on dealing with the piano it was worth it.

Welcome to the internet…

[cosignsessions]

[/quote]Welcome to the internet…
[/quote]

Yeah. I think I'll stay over there in the Reason Music section and only answer questions like 'how did you make that sound weird'...

[selig]

Yeah. I think I'll stay over there in the Reason Music section and only answer questions like 'how did you make that sound weird'...

That would be a shame because I really liked most of what you said in the post in question, and said so in my initial response. But again, this is the way the internet works - if you make a statement you must be prepared to hear comments about that statement - it's a conversation, not a monologue after all.

Could be worse, I could have attacked you personally (happens to me around here from time to time, and I'm still around)…

[Ahornberg]

Cutting with narrow Q and boosting the same frequency with wide Q can sound intereresting.

[avasopht]

Read it as you wish. Take the word 'artifacts' out and you guys are right and I am wrong. But it is 'logical' that cutting reduces the introduction (to our ears) the 'artifacts' of the phase shift (which I did not state does not occur from cutting).

If producing the exact same curve, providing is true that the same curve yields the same phase shift, wouldn't that still mean that the audible shift is either going to be heard the same, albeit with the overall volume of the sound being quieter when cut, BUT if the sound were quieter you'd boost overall to adjust anyway?

[cosignsessions]

Read it as you wish. Take the word 'artifacts' out and you guys are right and I am wrong. But it is 'logical' that cutting reduces the introduction (to our ears) the 'artifacts' of the phase shift (which I did not state does not occur from cutting).

If producing the exact same curve, providing is true that the same curve yields the same phase shift, wouldn't that still mean that the audible shift is either going to be heard the same, albeit with the overall volume of the sound being quieter when cut, BUT if the sound were quieter you'd boost overall to adjust anyway?

'Cutting introduces less phase shifts artifacts' is a flawed and incorrect statement.

[Ahornberg]

Read it as you wish. Take the word 'artifacts' out and you guys are right and I am wrong. But it is 'logical' that cutting reduces the introduction (to our ears) the 'artifacts' of the phase shift (which I did not state does not occur from cutting).

If producing the exact same curve, providing is true that the same curve yields the same phase shift, wouldn't that still mean that the audible shift is either going to be heard the same, albeit with the overall volume of the sound being quieter when cut, BUT if the sound were quieter you'd boost overall to adjust anyway?

'Cutting introduces less phase shifts artifacts' is a flawed and incorrect statement.

Some analog modelled EQs do add some harmonic distortion only on boosting.

[cosignsessions]

[/quote]Some analog modelled EQs do add some harmonic distortion only on boosting.[/quote]

If there was an eq comparable to the H-EQ in Reason......dream come true. It's underrated and undervalued out in VST land.

[orthodox]

Here are 4-pole filters with zero phase shift on the entire frequency range.

Cut:

Boost:

[selig]

Read it as you wish. Take the word 'artifacts' out and you guys are right and I am wrong. But it is 'logical' that cutting reduces the introduction (to our ears) the 'artifacts' of the phase shift (which I did not state does not occur from cutting).

If producing the exact same curve, providing is true that the same curve yields the same phase shift, wouldn't that still mean that the audible shift is either going to be heard the same, albeit with the overall volume of the sound being quieter when cut, BUT if the sound were quieter you'd boost overall to adjust anyway?

'Cutting introduces less phase shifts artifacts' is a flawed and incorrect statement.

Some analog modelled EQs do add some harmonic distortion only on boosting.

interesting - which ones? Sounds like something I'd be very interested in!

[Ahornberg]

Read it as you wish. Take the word 'artifacts' out and you guys are right and I am wrong. But it is 'logical' that cutting reduces the introduction (to our ears) the 'artifacts' of the phase shift (which I did not state does not occur from cutting).

If producing the exact same curve, providing is true that the same curve yields the same phase shift, wouldn't that still mean that the audible shift is either going to be heard the same, albeit with the overall volume of the sound being quieter when cut, BUT if the sound were quieter you'd boost overall to adjust anyway?

'Cutting introduces less phase shifts artifacts' is a flawed and incorrect statement.

Some analog modelled EQs do add some harmonic distortion only on boosting.

interesting - which ones? Sounds like something I'd be very interested in!

I would say most of the REs listet here https://shop.propellerheads.se/browse/? ... &view=list do more than only apply a filter

[selig]

Read it as you wish. Take the word 'artifacts' out and you guys are right and I am wrong. But it is 'logical' that cutting reduces the introduction (to our ears) the 'artifacts' of the phase shift (which I did not state does not occur from cutting).

If producing the exact same curve, providing is true that the same curve yields the same phase shift, wouldn't that still mean that the audible shift is either going to be heard the same, albeit with the overall volume of the sound being quieter when cut, BUT if the sound were quieter you'd boost overall to adjust anyway?

'Cutting introduces less phase shifts artifacts' is a flawed and incorrect statement.

Some analog modelled EQs do add some harmonic distortion only on boosting.

interesting - which ones? Sounds like something I'd be very interested in!

I would say most of the REs listet here https://shop.propellerheads.se/browse/? ... &view=list do more than only apply a filter

Sorry, I thought you were talking about EQs, not filters - the "only on boosting" part wouldn't apply to filters, right?
EQs such as Trident, Black Knight, and EVE-MP5 (maybe the E670?) have a saturation section but it's strapped across either the input or output, so it saturates regardless of boosting or not. I think we're talking about different things here…

[Ahornberg]

Hm ... I think we are far away from the topic at all ... the question in the first post was:
How do you feel about the boost and sweep technique when you're mixing a track?

[selig]

Hm ... I think we are far away from the topic at all ... the question in the first post was:
How do you feel about the boost and sweep technique when you're mixing a track?

If you really feel that you can't post it here, can you please PM me the EQs you were talking about?
Thanks!

[I'll add that when using the boost and sweep technique, being aware of an EQ that adds saturation only when boosting is DEFINITELY on topic, since the saturation won't be present when cutting!]

[Stranger.]

ΣΣΣ

[selig]

Sorry, I thought you were talking about EQs, not filters -

Selig sorry man-but this type of reply really leaves me thinking you don't know wtf your on about sometimes.. i mean- what is a filter?
Btw,you still never replied from previous questions-they are there,and i thought fairly valid questions.
Please,explain in detail if you would..Your confoozing me-big time.

To clarify, I was responding to this statement:
"Some analog modelled EQs do add some harmonic distortion only on boosting."

I wanted to know which EQs do this because it's something I feel I'd be interested in.

Which part of this are you struggling to follow, I'm happy to clarify any or all of this!

[Stranger.]

ΣΣΣ

[selig]

Which part of this are you struggling to follow, I'm happy to clarify any or all of this!:)

Lol.Yanks.ya gotta luv em.
Can you clarify all of it please? The 'filter' bit.

LOL, WHICH filter bit?

I was asking about an EQ, not a filter - Ahornberg was the one that said "Filter" for some reason, not me.

FWIW, I've not been able to find any EQs that respond as he originally suggested, so I'm still hoping to hear back from him on this.

[normen]

'Cutting introduces less phase shifts artifacts' is a flawed and incorrect statement.

"Cutting indtroduces phase shift at a lower level" is correct though which is basicslly what he meant. When I studied I was also taught that cutting is better because you introduce phase shift to the frequencies you make more silent anyway. But I go with what Giles said and use a cut or boost depending on what works better, I don't find the phase shift to be an in any way noteworthy "artifact".

About the OT, sweeping is very handy when you're looking for offending frequencies but again going with what Giles said, if I don't hear any offending frequency in the first place I don't do it. And by the way any frequency range sounds "wrong" if you boost it too much, so it can be very deceiving.