EQ+ issue

[_leras]

They have replied further and says it is a conscious choice, prioritising live use (so that EQ+ can be inserted into a live playing track without a 'click' issue).

Who the heck inserts eqs while performing live?

Not for people performing live, just so if you are looping and add EQ+ that it inserts smoothly.

Surely they can do that when adding, but set pdc correctly form the next time the project stop starts...?

[stamp]

Not for people performing live, just so if you are looping and add EQ+ that it inserts smoothly.

Surely they can do that when adding, but set pdc correctly form the next time the project stop starts...?

Ok. You have a point. And also a good suggestion for the devs.

[] Peter:H []

Hi, firstly sorry if this has already been discussed already.

I'm posting this more as a warning really, incase anybody else runs in to the same problem i did.

So EQ+ is decent for sure - but it adds latency, without reporting the latency nor being properly compensated! This is super dangerous imo, although the devs do not see this as an issue because the latency is 'so small' In real world terms, it means that if you have duplicate tracks, some with the EQ+ and some without, it causes big phasing issue.

I was working on a mix with a tonne of stems and noticed something was off and couldn't figure it out initially, then isolated the issue down to this EQ+ problem.

So yeah, be careful.

Bollocks! I never knew that EACH EQ has phasing issues... watch youtube. If you don't like phasing, then please never use any plugin that manipulates frequency content. Or you use linear frequency EQs which the suffer pre/post ringing.

And on top of that I like this "issue" post where there is no evidence of a real world issue attached. I would like to see a demonstrator ...

So the ultimate proof of a phasing issue is canceling out a signal completely.

I ask you: Please create a bitwig demonstrator project which show cases how a signal can be canceled out completely, show the maths behind it and report whether what you did is a very specific laboratory setup and what everyday users can expect when they use "none-linear phase" (by theorie of EQs, not by bitwig) EQs.

Some Regards
Peter

[askewd]

It's not something to overthink really, it's just about the sound at the end of the day. Using a standard EQ like FabQ or CraveEQ in a project in parallel is usually fine. The phasing, is not usually noticeable enough to be an audio destroyer. With EQ+ , because of the LATENCY is causing issues. I'm not stating anything controversial here, just a fact. My original post was simply saying 'be careful, because it can totally mess up the sound' Especially for those usually doing parallel stuff with other eq plugins where it behaves nicer.

So a real world example, would be something like this:
https://u.pcloud.link/publink/show?code ... W7pJlA7Gr7

That loop is going through a "Scheps trick" type parallel situation. (see youtube)

The first half of my Wav is using CraveEQ the second half is with EQ+. .... check out what it does to the audio (most noticble in the snare).

Cheers

[] Peter:H []

It's not something to overthink really, it's just about the sound at the end of the day. Using a standard EQ like FabQ or CraveEQ in a project in parallel is usually fine. The phasing, is not usually noticeable enough to be an audio destroyer. With EQ+ , because of the LATENCY is causing issues. I'm not stating anything controversial here, just a fact. My original post was simply saying 'be careful, because it can totally mess up the sound' Especially for those usually doing parallel stuff with other eq plugins where it behaves nicer.

So a real world example, would be something like this:
https://u.pcloud.link/publink/show?code ... W7pJlA7Gr7

That loop is going through a "Scheps trick" type parallel situation. (see youtube)

The first half of my Wav is using CraveEQ the second half is with EQ+. .... check out what it does to the audio (most noticble in the snare).

Cheers

Can you please publish the bitwig project. I want to do the same with Melda EQ for a test.

---
Updated

Okay, I have thrown together someting on my own. See attachmend. Sorry Bitwig 4.0.4.

First: You are right by directly simulating the Scheps things (), a "vocal mixing trick" on your snare use case, I get issues.

So your right, I was wrong. I'm sorry.

Going through the video of scheps trick "a vocal mixing trick" I though ... what is he actually doing and why is he doing it ... probably because old consoles do not have multiband stuff???
I don't know, therefore I did three versions in my project

1. pure snare - no parallel
2. snare + simulated scheps - artefacts!
3. snare + multiband - only compressed above 1000 khz, leave everything else unchanged (assumption: first removing the low end, compressing only above 1Khz then later adding lowend is the same as leave low end untouched... could be wrong)

So, you are right. EQ+ is not the candidate for parallel processing. But as I don't own an old analog console I would do parallel compression in a digital world different anyways (Multiband Compressor).

] Peter:H [

[_leras]

Not for people performing live, just so if you are looping and add EQ+ that it inserts smoothly.

Surely they can do that when adding, but set pdc correctly form the next time the project stop starts...?

Ok. You have a point. And also a good suggestion for the devs.

I just emailed the to make the suggestion. If they fix it I'm taking the credit!

[antic604]

I just emailed the to make the suggestion. If they fix it I'm taking the credit!

Didn't OP already sent that suggestion (and you only explained what they meant)?

Obviously it only helps if more people send their bug report & suggestion.

[_leras]

I just emailed the to make the suggestion. If they fix it I'm taking the credit!

Didn't OP already sent that suggestion (and you only explained what they meant)?

Obviously it only helps if more people send their bug report & suggestion.

Please reread - and don't take obvious jokey statements so seriously!

[billcarroll]

I'm just not seeing any uncompensated latency introduced by inserting an instance of EQ+ on a track.

I just tested and the bounces are exactly the same with or without EQ+. I'm at 48kHz sample rate using beta 4.

Anyone else getting different results?

[coolblinger]

I'm just not seeing any uncompensated latency introduced by inserting an instance of EQ+ on a track.

I just tested and the bounces are exactly the same with or without EQ+. I'm at 48kHz sample rate using beta 4.

Anyone else getting different results?

It's still definitely still introducing latency in 4.0 beta 4. You can verify this by using an FX Layer device with the EQ+ in one layer and nothing in the other layer. You should hear a tiny bit of comb filtering at first. When you start duplicating the EQ+ devices in the EQ+ layer, the flanging effect should get worse and worse until you can audibly hear a small delay between the two chains.

[billcarroll]

I'm just not seeing any uncompensated latency introduced by inserting an instance of EQ+ on a track.

I just tested and the bounces are exactly the same with or without EQ+. I'm at 48kHz sample rate using beta 4.

Anyone else getting different results?

It's still definitely still introducing latency in 4.0 beta 4. You can verify this by using an FX Layer device with the EQ+ in one layer and nothing in the other layer. You should hear a tiny bit of comb filtering at first. When you start duplicating the EQ+ devices in the EQ+ layer, the flanging effect should get worse and worse until you can audibly hear a small delay between the two chains.

I bounced a track with and without an EQ+ and the bounces are the same.

How may instances are you inserting?

[coolblinger]

I'm just not seeing any uncompensated latency introduced by inserting an instance of EQ+ on a track.

I just tested and the bounces are exactly the same with or without EQ+. I'm at 48kHz sample rate using beta 4.

Anyone else getting different results?

It's still definitely still introducing latency in 4.0 beta 4. You can verify this by using an FX Layer device with the EQ+ in one layer and nothing in the other layer. You should hear a tiny bit of comb filtering at first. When you start duplicating the EQ+ devices in the EQ+ layer, the flanging effect should get worse and worse until you can audibly hear a small delay between the two chains.

I bounced a track with and without an EQ+ and the bounces are the same.

How may instances are you inserting?

You can already hear the comb filtering with one instance. Try layering your bounce with and without the EQ+ filter, and then phase invert one of the two instances. With, say, 128 instances in series you no longer hear comb filter but you hear an actual delay between the two signals. The first half of this file has 128 instances of EQ+ with an empty FX Layer chain in parallel, and the second half is just the clean sample.

[billcarroll]

I'm just not seeing any uncompensated latency introduced by inserting an instance of EQ+ on a track.

I just tested and the bounces are exactly the same with or without EQ+. I'm at 48kHz sample rate using beta 4.

Anyone else getting different results?

It's still definitely still introducing latency in 4.0 beta 4. You can verify this by using an FX Layer device with the EQ+ in one layer and nothing in the other layer. You should hear a tiny bit of comb filtering at first. When you start duplicating the EQ+ devices in the EQ+ layer, the flanging effect should get worse and worse until you can audibly hear a small delay between the two chains.

I bounced a track with and without an EQ+ and the bounces are the same.

How may instances are you inserting?

You can already hear the comb filtering with one instance. Try layering your bounce with and without the EQ+ filter, and then phase invert one of the two instances. With, say, 128 instances in series you no longer hear comb filter but you hear an actual delay between the two signals. The first half of this file has 128 instances of EQ+ with an empty FX Layer chain in parallel, and the second half is just the clean sample.

128 instances of EQ+ is extreme, but if there is delay then there is delay. I've just emailed Bitwig to find out if there is uncompensated delay, and if so how much.

[valankar]

Doing an FX Layer with one layer having EQ+ with no bands enabled, and another with a Tool device polarity reversed and a Time Shift shows about 4 samples before it is close to null. It is not totally null, so maybe 3-5 samples.

eq delay.jpg

[billcarroll]

From Bitwig support. Confirms what @valankar found in the post above
----------------------------------------

Hi Bill,
​
depending on the settings it causes around 4 samples delay and those are not being compensated in order to prevent dropouts when inserting the device.

Best regards,
Bitwig Technical Support Team