Phase two different mics

[grinder]

This subject may have been done to death however I would appreciate someone just filling it in for me.
In my case I record my acoustic guitar via two separate mics. One on close to the guitar the other well out in the room. The microphones are both different.
Do I have to follow phase rules to get a good sound when I blend the mono track signals or treat them as stereo.
Also what is your best case scenario?

Many thanks

Grinder

[Judders]

There will be phase issues, that is a given. The important thing is if you can hear them, and if you don't like them. Flip the polarity of one channel in REAPER and see if it sounds better or worse to you. Or, if you can monitor while someone moves the mic, even better.

Think about that distant mic. Even on it's own, it is receiving waves emanating from the source from several different directions, bouncing off different surfaces at different times.

[grinder]

I see so it is always the source.

Thanks Judders

Grinder

[DVDdoug]

When there's a time delay/difference the phase can only be correct at one frequency and the harmonics (multiples) of that frequency. Flipping the polarity will change the in-phase and out-of-phase frequencies.

If you time-align the tracks, they will come back in-phase at all frequencies (assuming both mics have the same polarity). Except for the reflected sounds, which will have longer, random, time delays.

Because of the random-reflected delays, it's probably best to do what Judders suggests and flip the polarity to see what sounds best.

The phase effects are worst when the signal levels are equal. If one signal is lower (maybe -9 or -12db or more) you shouldn't hear any "phasing" (comb filtering).

[Tod]

If you've got one mic up close and the other at a reasonable distance, there shouldn't be any big phase issues.

But yeah, if you do have phase issues, you will definitely hear it when you switch the phase on one of the tracks. If you don't hear much difference, then you shouldn't have any problems.

Also check the phase when the tracks are centered or with the Master mono button on.

[Judders]

Originally Posted by grinder

I see so it is always the source.

Thanks Judders

Grinder

You definitely can produce phase problems by how you position microphones, but the further away from the source you get, the more diffuse the waves are because you are getting reflections from the walls and any other surfaces.

It's when you have multiple mic's close to a source that you can run into big problems. Especially if flipping the polarity on one channel just gives you a different flavour of phase problems. This is where being able to monitor while someone else moves the mic's becomes more important.

I think the best thing you can do is experiment with placement. Just make sure you write down, and preferably photograph, where you are placing the mic's.

[karbomusic]

Originally Posted by DVDdoug

If you time-align the tracks, they will come back in-phase at all frequencies (assuming both mics have the same polarity). Except for the reflected sounds, which will have longer, random, time delays.

Originally Posted by Judders

You definitely can produce phase problems by how you position microphones, but the further away from the source you get, the more diffuse the waves are because you are getting reflections from the walls and any other surfaces.

While all true, the same components we're calling issues, are also the components making it sound like a room mic and/or good. It really comes down to good mic and placement choices and of course actually doing it enough to be more deliberate and predictive. I'd surely flip the polarity switch and pick the winner but I wouldn't try time aligning it (generally) because I'd want that late occurrence and phase interactions of the room mic sound. If it were two mics that were very close, then I'd probably consider time aligning, if for some reason things weren't working out.

I'd also usually not have the room mic at the same volume as the close mic anyway.

[clepsydrae]

If I had the room mic at a lower level, and wanted the psychoacoustic effect of the distance-induced delay to emphasize the 'room sound' nature of it (akin to a 'slap back' or similar), i'd leave it where it was and try flipping polarity to confirm my preference.

If I wanted to use the distant mic at a level close to or equal with the close mic, i would time-align them and confirm polarity, in order to avoid phase cancellation in the lows and low-mids.

E.g. (if i'm doing my math right) low E fundamental on guitar is 82.406Hz, = period of 12.1ms, over 2 means ~6ms to be 180 degrees out of phase; at 68F, 6ms delay is about 6.75 feet.

Point is: combining mics at the closer end of "room mic" distances (~4-10 feet) can cause the first comb filter node in noticeable low to low-mid frequencies. Just flipping polarity might sound ok, but it moves the comb filter cuts to nearby places, which may also sound bad. Time-aligning can solve this issue. Though, as someone noted above, you'll have wall reflections and such, so depending on the strength of those reflections it may not be a panacea. (E.g. if by 'room mic' you mean an omni 40 feet from the source in a stone cathedral, then all bets are off.)

[Judders]

Originally Posted by karbomusic

While all true, the same components we're calling issues, are also the components making it sound like a room mic and/or good. It really comes down to good mic and placement choices and of course actually doing it enough to be more deliberate and predictive. I'd surely flip the polarity switch and pick the winner but I wouldn't try time aligning it (generally) because I'd want that late occurrence and phase interactions of the room mic sound. If it were two mics that were very close, then I'd probably consider time aligning, if for some reason things weren't working out.

I'd also usually not have the room mic at the same volume as the close mic anyway.

Oh, hey, I wasn't meaning to say that it is necessarily an issue! I was trying to get across that phase problems are unavoidable, it's a game of degrees and flavour.

[avocadomix]

Originally Posted by clepsydrae

If I had the room mic at a lower level, and wanted the psychoacoustic effect of the distance-induced delay to emphasize the 'room sound' nature of it (akin to a 'slap back' or similar), i'd leave it where it was and try flipping polarity to confirm my preference.

If I wanted to use the distant mic at a level close to or equal with the close mic, i would time-align them and confirm polarity, in order to avoid phase cancellation in the lows and low-mids.

E.g. (if i'm doing my math right) low E fundamental on guitar is 82.406Hz, = period of 12.1ms, over 2 means ~6ms to be 180 degrees out of phase; at 68F, 6ms delay is about 6.75 feet.

Point is: combining mics at the closer end of "room mic" distances (~4-10 feet) can cause the first comb filter node in noticeable low to low-mid frequencies. Just flipping polarity might sound ok, but it moves the comb filter cuts to nearby places, which may also sound bad. Time-aligning can solve this issue. Though, as someone noted above, you'll have wall reflections and such, so depending on the strength of those reflections it may not be a panacea. (E.g. if by 'room mic' you mean an omni 40 feet from the source in a stone cathedral, then all bets are off.)

^ very well-put.

From my experiments with time-aligning, it can improve the sound quite dramatically but doesn't work every time. Clepsydrae's comment explains one case when it doesn't work (having a lot of walls nearby the significantly more distant mic).

Another case where time-aligning becomes a problem is when there are multiple sources. For example, you have a guitar mic and a vocal mic, both recording at the same time. If you time-align the guitar mic, you will get a better-focused vocal but a worse-sounding guitar, and vice versa. Sometimes you can find a compromise somewhere in the middle though, which is better than no time-aligning at all. But ultimately for these cases, the only proper way to get a good representation of both sources is to monitor and adjust mics placement in realtime.

[karbomusic]

Originally Posted by Judders

Oh, hey, I wasn't meaning to say that it is necessarily an issue! I was trying to get across that phase problems are unavoidable, it's a game of degrees and flavour.

Oh I know you weren't, it was just food for thought.

On the aligning above, I'm not totally against, but we lose the delay(s) and I wouldn't have a mic that far back if I didn't want the delay. It also moves the delay times of the reflections earlier as well. If it sounds good it is good but unless they are close enough to not really be considered room mics, I don't like aligning those as that defeats my purpose (the sound arriving late is why I chose distance); given the choice, I'd just move the mic a little and solve the problem up front. Besides, much of the the time the room/close mics will be far apart volume wise anyway making this even more of a non-issue.

[Judders]

Originally Posted by karbomusic

On the aligning above, I'm not totally against, but we lose the delay(s) and I wouldn't have a mic that far back if I didn't want the delay. It also moves the delay times of the reflections earlier as well. If it sounds good it is good but unless they are close enough to not really be considered room mics, I don't like aligning those as that defeats my purpose (the sound arriving late is why I chose distance); given the choice, I'd just move the mic a little and solve the problem up front. Besides, much of the the time the room/close mics will be far apart volume wise anyway making this even more of a non-issue.

Yup. Totally agree that time-aligning the room mic defeats the purpose. Might as well add reverb later and not worry about phase at all.

[ramses]

Also, check phase after applying eventual individual EQs as well. Many EQ moves change the phase enough to where the "best" relationships are inverted once again. One way to get pst this is to always "sum" the tracks to one channel (or bus) and perform EQ on that channel instead.

[serr]

One of the beauties of DAW recording is that you no longer have to settle for a phase compromise between two mics. (It's always an intentional compromise with mics at multiple different distances.) In a DAW, you can simply position the tracks to each other as you please by nudging them around. Line them up precisely to the sample for zero phase if you want.

[karbomusic]

Seems like we are sometimes missing the idea that phase interactions are everywhere all the time, without that, much of the micing we do would be meaningless. As I hinted before, phase interaction isn't something we don't want, phase 'problems' are something we don't want and of course we need the time delays which are everything to do with localization and creating space and stereo image etc. For example, if I have a room mic 8 feet away then time align it, I also just moved it's delay (and every boundary reflection it sees) which is going to muck with the image I'm trying to create. If we blindly time align all of that, we are throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Not that anyone is saying that but it's important to not assign 'problem' to every usage of 'phase'.

In other words, when a room mic sounds good, part, but not all of that is phase related; we only want to change that when it sounds bad.

[serr]

Originally Posted by karbomusic

phase interaction isn't something we don't want, phase 'problems' are something we don't want

Good way of putting that.

And sometimes we even want the result of ugly comb filtering between two mics because it happened to sound just right.

I don't mean to suggest with the above comment that anyone should be sliding around every recorded track chasing some phase relationship either. But the ability sure does give you a powerful tool when wanted.

[avocadomix]

Originally Posted by karbomusic

Seems like we are sometimes missing the idea that phase interactions are everywhere all the time, without that, much of the micing we do would be meaningless. As I hinted before, phase interaction isn't something we don't want, phase 'problems' are something we don't want and of course we need the time delays which are everything to do with localization and creating space and stereo image etc.

There is more to that than "phase interactions are everywhere all the time". While that certainly is true, our ears are not everywhere all the time. They are localized both in time and space, so we never naturally hear the same direct source twice (technically we do in fact because we have 2 ears, but let's distinguish between stereo hearing and everything else). This is the main point of interest for audio engineering because human perception is biased towards what humans naturally perceive in the wild.

We do see phase interactions naturally, but not so much in ways that are similar to a multi-mic setup. Phase interactions that we do see naturally are mainly reflections interacting with direct sound and with themselves. Not the same direct sound interacting with itself. This is why the more mics we set up for a recording, the more difficult it gets to achieve a good-sounding result.

In other words, when a room mic sounds good, part, but not all of that is phase related; we only want to change that when it sounds bad.

As you can guess by now, by default I try to time-align. If that doesn't work, I will go back and try a different approach. This works for me, YMMV. Perception is relative, so in many cases we don't know that we are missing something until we compare.

[clepsydrae]

Agreed on all except re: the idea that the point of the room mic is for the delay: i usually am not using a room mic for the delay in relation to the close mic, but just for the reverberant field. Meaning: in an appropriate room i might combine a close and distant mics and time align them: in that case a delay still registers with wall reflections and such, the close mic provides warmth and low-mids, the distant mic adds a sense of space and openness, and the time-alignment keeps the lows and low-mids intact (since there is some direct sound in that signal, too). Again, it depends on the room: if the distant mic is mostly hearing the dry signal, just time-delayed, then time-aligning defeats the purpose, but if the distant mic is also hearing a fair amount of reverb decaying and bounces and such, you're not losing much or any sense of space by time-aligning, IME.

You might do better to just use one mic and position it an appropriate distance away to find a good balance between direct and room sounds. But using two mics and time-aligning can be a good time-saver (and sounds different, and sometimes better).

Originally Posted by ramses

Also, check phase after applying eventual individual EQs as well. Many EQ moves change the phase enough to where the "best" relationships are inverted once again.

+1 -- it's usually subtle, but it can be a thing, especially if you're eq'ing in mid-side. AFAIK this issue is mainly with sharper high-pass and low-pass filters though, as bell-shaped DSP usually doesn't induce much phase shift.

[serr]

Exactly, clepsydrae.

This gives you the ability to put up a room mic (from your example) and avoid the direct sound component from both mics being heard twice. This lets you magically add the additional sound components from the 2nd mic without introducing artifacts from the time disparity between the two mics.

[ashcat_lt]

Originally Posted by clepsydrae

Again, it depends on the room: if the distant mic is mostly hearing the dry signal, just time-delayed, then time-aligning defeats the purpose, but if the distant mic is also hearing a fair amount of reverb decaying and bounces and such, you're not losing much or any sense of space by time-aligning, IME.

If the room mic is picking up much more ambience than direct sound so that you can get your reverb/sense of space without turning that mic up loud enough that the direct sound is within 9db of the what's hitting the mix from the closer mic, then phase issues aren't going to be noticeable anyway. You can pretty much nudge that room mic around the way you'd use pre-delay on a reverb plug.

[clepsydrae]

Originally Posted by ashcat_lt

If the room mic is picking up much more ambience than direct sound so that you can get your reverb/sense of space without turning that mic up loud enough that the direct sound is within 9db of the what's hitting the mix from the closer mic, then phase issues aren't going to be noticeable anyway. You can pretty much nudge that room mic around the way you'd use pre-delay on a reverb plug.

Yeah, agreed -- often the balance will work out that way. But if the first cancellation node is in the heart of the instrument's low-mids (as it can be at 4-10 feet away) then even losing just a dB or two might be a big deal to the overall tone.

The scenario i'm describing isn't the classic "add a distant mic to simulate a pre-delay and give a little sense of the room", so much as "add a close mic to fill out the low-mids". Meaning, in some circumstances it's not a 'room mic' but actually the main mic, or an equal partner. If the distant mic is like 50/50 direct/reverb balance, and you want to bring up a close mic, it's nice to be able to do so without depleting the low-mids, and the time-alignment isn't going to harm the sense of space.

[karbomusic]

There is more to that than "phase interactions are everywhere all the time". While that certainly is true, our ears are not everywhere all the time.

You hit on a good point, our ears can't be at the snare drum close mic and the room mic at the same time.

The thing I'm hitting on is that there is no truly phase coherent audio condition for our purposes even with a single mic (much of the 'color' comes from phase) and that any distance disparity between mics beyond a few feet are likely better served by moving the mic (given we have the choice) so that the source and reflections retain their real-world relationships. Moving the mic does this, aligning the far sound with the near sound doesn't.
Would I time align if it sounded best? Of course but I would check closely for other anomalies as well as this seemed like a nice time to post a friendly reminder that it's not necessarily the #1 prescriptive fix; I'd much prefer to not time align when we are dealing with deliberate distances and boundaries but I wouldn't tell someone not to if they felt it worked.

Edit: Slightly related side note... A couple years ago I mic'd up my guitar cab using M/S, except I moved the side mic back four feet. I remember time-aligning those for obvious reasons, sounded pretty interesting. May have to dig that up for future use. The main reason was that M/S and close micing don't always go that well together so I moved the side mic back to address the issue.

[JamesPeters]

Here's a plugin which might come in handy. I haven't used it yet but I sure downloaded it as soon as I found it.

http://forum.cockos.com/showthread.php?p=156297

[bazsound]

from my understand that phase issues generaly dont present themsellfs obvioiusly from 2 very different sources.

In natural, sounds dont come from multiple sources at different points at the same time. so no phase issues.

in reinsforced sound, the fact that we have 2 speakers emitting the same source itself will cause comb filtering.

if you have the same source, but coming out both speakers differently ( with 2 very different sounding mics, eqed the same) you shouldnt get phase issues.

the same should be for say a close mic and a room mic, the 2 signals are very different, and shouldnt cause phase issues.

you can veryify this by playing pink noise through 2 speakers, and move the speakers around.

sounds a mess. tons of phase interactions and cancelations as you m ove the speakers around.

play 2 different types of pink noise that are eqed tos ound same. mvoe speakers around, hmmm no interactions.

phase problems happen between sounds that are similar enough to interact. if they are different enough they generally dont.

[grinder]

I had recorded with one mic on the soundhole of my guitar to one mic and away by about two metres a room mic.
The result was when I played back the two tracks of audio I got a cleaner much more vibrant tone which was louder when I aligned the leading attacks of both tracks.
The different mics and mic positions meant the two wave files were physically different to look at and would not ever be able to be truly in phase ever in my opinion however matching the attack position certainly gave me a more intense rhythmic sound.

Grinder

[Tod]

Originally Posted by grinder

I had recorded with one mic on the soundhole of my guitar to one mic and away by about two metres a room mic.
The result was when I played back the two tracks of audio I got a cleaner much more vibrant tone which was louder when I aligned the leading attacks of both tracks.
The different mics and mic positions meant the two wave files were physically different to look at and would not ever be able to be truly in phase ever in my opinion however matching the attack position certainly gave me a more intense rhythmic sound.

Grinder

You probably didn't have to move it much did you? At a little over 6 feet, the attacks should be fairly close together.

Also at 6 feet you should have very few phasing problems.

[clepsydrae]

Originally Posted by Tod

You probably didn't have to move it much did you? At a little over 6 feet, the attacks should be fairly close together.

Yeah, ~5.3ms.

Also at 6 feet you should have very few phasing problems.

See post #8 -- if i'm not messing up the math, 6 feet makes the first cancellation frequency at ~94Hz (and the next at 281.5Hz, i think). If a reasonable amount of both mic signals is used in the combination, i'm not surprised that time-aligning them would help.

[grinder]

Not a lot Tod
I am quite pleased with the sound the best I have got so far in my studio, I am experimenting. funny when it comes down to it shifting the rear end around from session to session and during a recording means a phase alignment plugin
can not cope with several files on one track unless embedded into the file itself! I have Melda Productions alignment tool which works well but as you would expect do not use for consecutive individually recorded files.
I am posting a new version with the Acoustic guitar (backing) of my tune "Kickin About" soon, maybe today. I had to revamp it due to health issues my hearing was not too good over the last few years so having to repaint numbers. I will keep you posted on that you may wish to bend an ear Tod.

Grinder

[Kenny Gioia]

Originally Posted by karbomusic

While all true, the same components we're calling issues, are also the components making it sound like a room mic and/or good. It really comes down to good mic and placement choices and of course actually doing it enough to be more deliberate and predictive. I'd surely flip the polarity switch and pick the winner but I wouldn't try time aligning it (generally) because I'd want that late occurrence and phase interactions of the room mic sound. If it were two mics that were very close, then I'd probably consider time aligning, if for some reason things weren't working out.

I'd also usually not have the room mic at the same volume as the close mic anyway.

Yes. Yes and Yes.

I can't believe that some people time align their close drum mics with the overheads.

Do you not know what overheads are supposed to do?

As said, use your ears. If you're using this for ambience it should be fine as you will use a lot less of this mic compared to the close one.

Phase is more of an issue when the two mics are closer to each other and similar (but not equal) to the source.

Good luck.

[Tod]

Originally Posted by grinder

I am posting a new version with the Acoustic guitar (backing) of my tune "Kickin About" soon, maybe today. I had to revamp it due to health issues my hearing was not too good over the last few years so having to repaint numbers. I will keep you posted on that you may wish to bend an ear Tod.

Sure grinder, let us know.

Originally Posted by Kenny Gioia

I can't believe that some people time align their close drum mics with the overheads.

I can't either, heh heh, it sort of defeats to whole purpose of OH and Room mics.

[clepsydrae]

In case anyone wants an example of what we pro-alignment-in-some-cases people have been on about, I have prepared one. Two mics, 5.75 feet (1.7526m) distance from each other, one close to an acoustic guitar, one far.

To me this is a "bad" sounding room, so you'd probably not want as much of this room mic in this mix, but the effect is the same in a nice room, of course, where you might.

You can use this ABX software to switch back and forth between them as you listen, while looping on small sections, etc.

"both" is both tracks combined, with no time correction.
"both-aligned" is the same, but the mics are time corrected (5.10657ms). Files have not otherwise been processed (track levels were all at unity, etc).

http://lacinato.com/pub/reaper/phasetest/both.wav

http://lacinato.com/pub/reaper/phasetest/both-aligned.wav

To my ears the time-aligned version is clearly better. Note especially the bass end, but also less phasey weirdness throughout. Again, this particular mix might suck in whatever way, but i think it makes the point. Original files (no time correction applied):

http://lacinato.com/pub/reaper/phasetest/closemic.wav

http://lacinato.com/pub/reaper/phasetest/farmic.wav

[karbomusic]

I think the aligned one has more bass but the unaligned doesn't have what I would call a phase issue that most of us usually complain about YMMV. I also think the unaligned one has slightly more of a sense of space though I hate to use such terms.

If I were to look at it strictly technically, yes the second one has more low end but when I look at it musically, the first one would be my choice since 98% of the time that much bass is going to get cut in a room mic. Even if this were a kick drum, bass isn't something I'm trying to retain in a far mic; that isn't its job typically. I'd still move the mic around a bit to arrive at a result that works best regardless of what frequencies I think cancelled (or not) but that's my taste, experience and upbringing.

[Judders]

Originally Posted by avocadomix

There is more to that than "phase interactions are everywhere all the time". While that certainly is true, our ears are not everywhere all the time. They are localized both in time and space, so we never naturally hear the same direct source twice (technically we do in fact because we have 2 ears, but let's distinguish between stereo hearing and everything else). This is the main point of interest for audio engineering because human perception is biased towards what humans naturally perceive in the wild.

Maybe I misunderstood your point, but I don't think we are biased to what we perceive in "the wild".

If that were the case, wouldn't binaural recordings of a live band performance be the most popular recording method?

Records sound exciting, and nothing like real life. I think that's a large part of their appeal.

[Judders]

Originally Posted by clepsydrae

In case anyone wants an example of what we pro-alignment-in-some-cases people have been on about, I have prepared one. Two mics, 5.75 feet (1.7526m) distance from each other, one close to an acoustic guitar, one far.

To me this is a "bad" sounding room, so you'd probably not want as much of this room mic in this mix, but the effect is the same in a nice room, of course, where you might.

You can use this ABX software to switch back and forth between them as you listen, while looping on small sections, etc.

"both" is both tracks combined, with no time correction.
"both-aligned" is the same, but the mics are time corrected (5.10657ms). Files have not otherwise been processed (track levels were all at unity, etc).

http://lacinato.com/pub/reaper/phasetest/both.wav

http://lacinato.com/pub/reaper/phasetest/both-aligned.wav

To my ears the time-aligned version is clearly better. Note especially the bass end, but also less phasey weirdness throughout. Again, this particular mix might suck in whatever way, but i think it makes the point. Original files (no time correction applied):

http://lacinato.com/pub/reaper/phasetest/closemic.wav

http://lacinato.com/pub/reaper/phasetest/farmic.wav

I have to say that I much prefer the non-aligned version. It breathed and had a sense of space. The time-aligned version sounded weird and congested to me, but then I generally dislike close-mic'ing anyway, so the way the non-aligned version took some of that proximity effect away was pleasing to me.

[jerome_oneil]

Originally Posted by grinder

This subject may have been done to death however I would appreciate someone just filling it in for me.
In my case I record my acoustic guitar via two separate mics. One on close to the guitar the other well out in the room. The microphones are both different.
Do I have to follow phase rules to get a good sound when I blend the mono track signals or treat them as stereo.
Also what is your best case scenario?

Many thanks

Grinder

Phase is a function of distance. E on your guitar is about 80hz, which means you've got a wavelength of about 13 feet. If the room mic is 6.5 feet away from the close mic, you're going to be around 180 degrees out of phase.

The good news is that the intent of the room mic is to pick up the room, so you're going to get reflections (and their associated phase effects) on that mic, so it probably won't be as big a problem as my first paragraph suggests. If you were stereo micing the guitar, then you should be concerned.

[clepsydrae]

Wow, very surprised to see two votes in favor of the non-aligned version. To my ears it's brittle, eq sounds tweaked... it sounds comb filtered, basically. But, as karbo said, YMMV!

[jerome_oneil]

I agree with that. The aligned version has a much cleaner low end.

This comment is relevant, though

To me this is a "bad" sounding room,

If you find this to be the case, a room mic is probably a bad choice. You can get phase problems simply from reflections.

This is a mono signal of an untreated room (my mixing desk). You can see the comb gnarlieness starting right around 5kHz. That's all just from reflections.

[clepsydrae]

Originally Posted by jerome_oneil

If you find this to be the case, a room mic is probably a bad choice. You can get phase problems simply from reflections.

Yeah, totally, with reflections it certainly complicates things; IME the reflections are usually of secondary concern compared to the direct signal in a room like this; meaning, i'm usually going to hear the comb filtering from the direct-signal overlap and prefer it to be aligned, but agreed that it depends on the room.

[Tod]

Originally Posted by clepsydrae

Yeah, totally, with reflections it certainly complicates things; IME the reflections are usually of secondary concern compared to the direct signal in a room like this; meaning, i'm usually going to hear the comb filtering from the direct-signal overlap and prefer it to be aligned, but agreed that it depends on the room.

The two are pretty close other than about a 3.5dB difference at 108hz along with a few other differences. The aligned is green.

[Judders]

Originally Posted by clepsydrae

Wow, very surprised to see two votes in favor of the non-aligned version. To my ears it's brittle, eq sounds tweaked... it sounds comb filtered, basically. But, as karbo said, YMMV!

I don't hear any unpleasant effects from phase interactions. The first sounds stodgy to me, and I'd be cutting that low end anyway. The second has a nicer frequency balance for my ears, as well as a bit of breathing space.