please fix the eq+ latencey issue

[D.K Envelope]

i will write them too
that its not acceptable

[flechtwerk]

Yes the latency is the problem. Everyone seems to see it other than the Devs. Today they replied to me again that "it is a conscious design decision" wow.

This is so sad. I understand that they stand to their design decisions, but this is not a design decision, this is unexpected and unwanted behavior. The EQ is doing something it is not meant to do. Any commercial EQ on the market that doesn't compensate for its latency would be laughed off the market, and for a reason.

[D.K Envelope]

the latency is 4 samples (44samples= 1ms)
its not a big deal , but i would prefer an option to deactivate this

[flechtwerk]

the latency is 4 samples (44samples= 1ms)
its not a big deal , but i would prefer an option to deactivate this

1 ms IS a big deal as it’s enough to create a comb filter effect when mixed to the original (undelayed) signal. Also, as others have remarked and as my own tests have shown, the latency is changing depending on the numbers of bands etc. (I guess that's why they're not giving us that easy option to compensate for it.)

EDIT: Sorry, I misread your post, the latency of EQ+ is of course much shorter than 1 ms. Still it's coloring the sound, and this effects can easily add up in more complex parallel racks...

[Tj Shredder]

As you use an eq to color the sound anyway, 4 samples latency isn‘t that much of an issue. Use your ears to get where you want to go. What you gain is the ability to change bands on the fly… That is much more important…! There are things which are worse than a slight color in the high register (ca. 10 kHz) which only happens if you mix it with the unfiltered signal.
Its more of a non-issue…

[u-u-u]

Here, I fixed it for you guys.

It's a Chain device preset which includes EQ+ together with a Time Shift device set to -4 samples.
The Chain's Mix parameter can be adjusted freely without much problems.
This preset should be useful when used in parallel processing.

In-phase EQ+.png

In-phase EQ+.zip

Tip: I added a phase invert button. If you activate it and set the Mix to 50% you can hear that the input signal is almost canceled out completely. In this state it is also interesting to setup the EQ bands out of silence. This way e.g. a peak eq band acts as a bandpass filter which can be very steep if you set it to a very high gain and resonance.
I'm currently on 4.3 Beta 2 so you might not be able to open it (yet)

[flechtwerk]

Here, I fixed it for you guys.

Thanks! But, as others have remarked before, unfortunately the uncorrected latency introduced by EQ+ is not consistent, it seems to change with the number of bands etc. Also I think it adds a lot of hazzle having the standard EQ inside an FX chain - one of the main features of a stock EQ should be that its quick and convenient and its settings easy to see.

Just to demonstrate how serious the latency issue is - this is the frequency respone of a 6dB boost at 666Hz with EQ-5 in parallel (at 50% wet):



And these are the exactly same settings "upgraded" to EQ+:



As you can see, there is a horrible notch between 3000 and 5000 Hz, and some more weird stuff going on above. This is not a minor issue. And I can only repeat: it absolutely has to be expected from a standard EQ to be able to be used in parallel, especially in a DAW like Bitwig. Dan Worrall explains very well why parallel EQing (with literally any EQ except EQ+) does NOT need linear phase when avoiding LPFs/HPFs:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RL4KDVFlkUg

[pdxindy]

As you can see, there is a horrible notch between 3000 and 5000 Hz, and some more weird stuff going on above. This is not a minor issue. And I can only repeat: it absolutely has to be expected from a standard EQ to be able to be used in parallel, especially in a DAW like Bitwig.

Bitwig has explained why they did what they did. Obviously EQ+ as is, is not the tool to use for parallel processing.

It is a minor issue... unless you insist on using EQ+ for parallel processing and want to keep banging your head on that wall.

[billcarroll]

I'm a massive Bitwig fan. There are so many things right about this creative DAW, but EQ+ is not one of those things.

Sounds like Bitwig acknowledges Tool needs to be fixed. EQ+ needs to be fixed as well.

I didn't think this was controversial, but EQ is arguably the most important mixing tool, along with the volume fader (Tool being one of these volume faders). The flagship EQ in any DAW really should be pristine and excellent.

I hope Bitwig fixes EQ+. In the meantime, I just use Fabfilter Pro-Q3.

[Lesha]

Reason enough to avoid using it.

[liquidsound]

Or just rename it EQ-

[askewd]

It is a minor issue... unless you insist on using EQ+ for parallel processing and want to keep banging your head on that wall.

Or they could just fix it by compensating the small latency, like they do with every other device?

it's not like we're asking for much is it?. their reasoning for not compensating it makes no sense.

Parallel processing is often a big part of modern mixing & production. Even simple "sends" are parallel in nature. And even basic layering can be problematic - for example, layering up kicks or bass with an additional samples depends on phase alignment being spot on for it to sit right. adding an eq+ to one of these layers (maybe unknowingly via a buried preset chain) could completely ruin it. And yes you can add a time device after to move things around by ear, but again, much easier for them to simply PDC it.

[flechtwerk]

Or they could just fix it by compensating the small latency, like they do with every other device?

it's not like we're asking for much is it?. their reasoning for not compensating it makes no sense.

It seems that the latency is not constant but changes with the number of bands etc. I also made the experience when trying to compensate it with Time Shift. I'm sorry to say but EQ+ just doesn't seem to be based very well designed.

Parallel processing is often a big part of modern mixing & production. Even simple "sends" are parallel in nature. And even basic layering can be problematic - for example, layering up kicks or bass with an additional samples depends on phase alignment being spot on for it to sit right. adding an eq+ to one of these layers (maybe unknowingly via a buried preset chain) could completely ruin it. And yes you can add a time device after to move things around by ear, but again, much easier for them to simply PDC it.

Absolutely. There's parallel processing in every FX layer, for example. Being able to use an EQ in parallel should be an absolute standard.

[Bjørnson]

It could be just an option in the inspector for the latency compensation to have a reliable way to use it in parallel… I don‘t understand why it has to be just one or the other way?

[flechtwerk]

It could be just an option in the inspector for the latency compensation to have reliable ways to use it in parallel… I don‘t understand why it had to be just one or the other way?

Absolutely, that would be a decent option (if it is even possible with the unstable latency of EQ+). And then people who want the latency compensation could just save it as default preset. Though I still think it's grossly negligent in the first place to have a stock EQ with comb filtering when used in parallel, without informing the users (except when being asked directly).