I would like to re-word Ted's comment and say: "Not all analog EQ
exhibits the same phase characteristics"
This is the basis for the timeless argument of why some prefer the sound
of one brand of analog preamp (phono or otherwise) over another.
Those that have suggested that digital EQ is much better at modeling the
phase characteristics of analog preamps are correct. However, the
software engineer has to first pick which analog phase characteristics
that he or she wants to use for the algorithm.
So, the argument of which sounds the best continues!
Corey Bailey Audio Engineering
On 1/23/2018 3:28 AM, Ted Kendall wrote:
> Not all digital EQ exhibits the same phase characteristics as the
> equivalent analogue network, and this is important when applyng RIAA
> playback EQ, for example.
> On 23/01/2018 11:09, Lou Judson wrote:
>> I donít know in the ARSC community, but in generalaudio engineering,
>> digital EQ can be more accurate and efficient than analog, and can be
>> done in faster than real time. Why would you want to do that, Iím
>> Mastering engineers do some work in analog domain, but not just
>> simple EQ.
>> Lou Judson
>> Intuitive Audio
>> On Jan 22, 2018, at 9:07 PM, Steve Smolian <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>> Using 96/24 throughout, what is present thinking about converting
>>> from a digital file to analog, equalizing, and reconverting, using 2
>>> computers and 2 converters?
>>> Steven Smolian
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.