Mythbusters: Subtractive vs.

Additive
EQ
By Matthew Weiss on 10/29/2013 EQ / Mixing

Like 196 Tw eet 30 19

If youve been out and about on the internet then youve probably read that
subtractive EQ is generally better than additive EQ. In other words, its better
to attenuate than to boost.

And you have probably read all sorts of reasons for this: less phase shift,
sounds smoother, more accurate, doesnt require active gain, etc.

Well, Im here to tell you that a great deal of that is false.

Lets start by dispelling a few myths.

Myth #1: Subtractive EQ incurs less phase shift, or less noticeable phase
shift

This is untrue. The degree of phase shift is 100% controlled by the amount of
cut or boost. In fact phase shift is almost synonymous with equalization.
They are inherently part of the same process.

Now, are the artifacts of said phase shift less noticeable? In objective
technical reasoning, no, they are not.

And heres why: If you exclusively use boosting to create an EQ curve on a

source and then recreate the exact same curve using only attenuation, and
then level match those two outputs exactly, you will get identical signals.

A simple way to test this is by taking any sound source and a shelf filter. Mult
the sound source. On one, use a hi-shelf to boost up some high end. On the
other, use a low shelf, set to the same corner frequency with the same slope
and attenuated by the same amount. Then boost the output volume of the
low-shelfed signal up to match the hi-shelfed signal and flip the phase. They
will completely null.

Whats important, is to use an EQ where the parameters match up equally.

For example, this will work with the Waves Q EQ, but will not work with the
Waves Ren EQ.

What this demonstrates is that the phase shift and artifacts produced by
that shift are based on the curve and degree of equalization, not whether
the equalization is positive or negative.

Myth #2: Subtractive EQ Sounds Smoother

Ultimately the truth to this is based more on application than reality. It

tends to be easier to mix additively boosting up things you want more of.

The problem with this is that it leads to a lot of compensational boosting. By

that I mean boosting up lots of frequency ranges when really we just wanted
to hear less of one frequency range. Or we will boost up a frequency
because we arent hearing enough of it, when in reality theres something
from another instrument thats getting in the way.

These issues arent inherent to additive or subtractive EQ, rather, they stem
from using additive EQ when subtractive EQ would be a better approach.

Myth #3: Additive EQ is Less Accurate

This is something I hear a lot, and quite honestly Im not even sure what it
really means.

I believe this myth stems from the idea that its better to cut narrow and
boost wide. In reality you should boost or cut as narrow or wide as needed.

I think its easier to over extend the width of an EQ boost because that
means more stuff is getting louder. And louder has that instant gratification
effect of sounding better. Again, this is a result of application and not
inherent to how an EQ works.

Myth #4: Subtractive EQ Doesnt Require Active Gain

This one is based on the idea that because you are taking something away
you dont need to add power to do it. This is really only true in the simplest
filter setups.

While its true that a simple resistor-capacitor circuit doesnt need any
power, most more complex circuits do. Thats not to say there arent
 complex subtractive circuits that work completely passively there are a
lot. But many EQs, no matter what you are doing, are drawing on active
power. It completely depends on the EQ itself.

Lastly, digital EQs dont use power. Theres no such thing as an active
digital EQ, outside of plugins that emulate hardware.

Latest Popular Featured

Myth #5: Subtractive EQ Frees Up Headroom

ARTICLES This is half true. Subtractive EQ can and often does reduce overall
amplitude, but the process is actually not amplitude based. Youre not
exactly adjust the level of frequencies you are adjusting the phase, and
VIDEOS
then getting a change in level at the band you are adjusting. But thats not
the same as adjusting the signal amplitude. In fact, on occasion you will use
subtractive EQ and the result will be a boost to the signal amplitude! I kid
PRODUCTS
you not.

So whats the difference?

Search ...

The major difference in subtractive vs. additive EQ is the thought process.

When you are using subtractive EQ, you are thinking what can I take away to
make this better. Taking something away lends itself toward degrading a
sound so any time you take something away and it improves the sound
you pretty much know you are making a good EQ move.

Additive EQ, conversely, is enhancing a signal, which naturally tends to

sound better no matter what (particularly if you are doing it in solo mode).
The real key to using subtractive or additive EQ is to have a good idea of
what youre trying to accomplish. The solo button can be very useful here.

Lets say you want to hear more upper mids in your guitar lead. Solo the
guitar does it sound like it has enough upper mids? If not, then use some
additive EQ and boost those mids. If it does sound like it has enough upper
midrange in solo, maybe theres something else in the mix that has too
much upper mids like a piano or acoustic guitar. Or maybe you really just
want to hear the guitar louder, but when you turn it up the lower mids
become overpowering. In these cases, subtractive EQ is going to be more
effective.

I hope that clears up the reality of EQ. I have another article that dives deep
into equalization here.

You might also like:

1. Equalization: Hear Me Out
2. Quiztones Frequency Ear Training for Mac
3. 3 EQ Techniques That Can Get You In Trouble
4. Tips for Mixing Low End
5. The Complete Guide to Mixing Vocals: EQ
6. Mixing Rap Vocals Part 3: Compression
 MATTHEW WEISS

Matthew Weiss engineers from his private facility in Philadelphia, PA. Credits
include Snoop Dogg, Gorilla Zoe, Arrested Development, Dizzee Rascal, Gift of
Gab, J-Son and many others. Get in touch at Weiss-Sound.com.

8 Comments The Pro Audio Files Login

Sort by Newest Share Favorite

Join the discussion

Ramilas Mamedov 8 months ago

the benefit of subtractive EQ relies in psychoacoustics. By cutting you are not biased that
much by perceived loudness.
Reply Share

Glen Himmaugh 8 months ago

As an Old school audio guy, 40 yrs plus, I noticed that the quality of the device being used
was never mentioned, here we are in 2013 and the market, clubs, bands and even sound
companies still have Music store quality devices in the audio chain, when faced with older
Yamaha type products where noticeable noise is added with almost every move of the
knobs whether it be an SPX90 or a 1/3 octave EQ we are almost better off without the
signal processor at all,but when forced to correct the relationship between the room, the
mic, and the speakers cut is usually the choice of most of us, the Use of an old school
analog EQ (regardless of the brand) as a tonal control for an entire system at least in the
old days would be frowned upon and thought of as dead wrong, instead of say a
frequency correction IE tightening up the low section above the subs or the mids, pulling
the harshness out of the compression drivers ......That was The rule in Recording studios
as well, Flatten out the monitors by pulling & not adding (If you can help it) This made for
as well, Flatten out the monitors by pulling & not adding (If you can help it) This made for
a much quieter environment from the start...Even medium grade comp/limiters/gates and
such had limited band with so as to make the device cost effective to musicians, so
compression your Kick drum would add hissy noise and destroy the overall bandwith of
the instrument so it was tight, but no crisp attack to go with the tight bottom end ......I
know we live in a digital world know, but trying to work with the items that are still in the
FOH racks today Less is Always More.........But I'm old ...Nice article .....Glen
Himmaugh.... Island America Music/ Sound Of Key West
Reply Share

ChrisPorro 9 months ago

that's a very good one.

years ago i took a pro

tools certification class and the instructor told us he would never use
cheap eq plugins to boost a signal only to cut one. the thinking being
subtractive eq is less damaging so you don't need a sony oxford for it.

i believed him. why not? he had been doing it a long time.

then
a few years ago i read a book... "mixing audio" i believe. lots of good
technical stuff in there. the author made the argument you made. it was
somewhat technical and when i read it i just knew he was right.

fletcher-munson is worth mentioning since an eq boost will make the signal louder. those
guys knew "louder is better!!!" i try and match levels and do a bypass to see if i like it
better.
Reply Share

randyhoexter 9 months ago

Nice article. Indeed, EQ phase shifts are symmetrical; boosting or cutting produces the
same amount.

However, high-frequency boosting makes these phase issues much more audible. This
is because our ears are much more sensitive to phase information in this area. Most of
our localization and image information is above 5 kHz.

The phase shift used when reducing frequencies is subjectively less noticeable. Listening
tests show humans are much more aware of volume increases than decreases; in other
words, we are better at detecting presence than absence...

In addition, EQ is often employed to make the signal brighter, and grabbing the high-boost
control first guarantees a spitting, harsh signal. This is why cutting other frequencies
makes sense in this case, because subtracting mids will have less of a subjective effect.
The phase shifts are lower in the spectrum.

This means additive EQ is quite effective for lows and midrange. But watch those upper
mids and highs...
1 Reply Share

Matthew Weiss randyhoexter 9 months ago

Right on. A capture with a really nice top end you can generally get away with
quite a bit of treble boost. Anything that's already got some spittiness is just going
to get worse. Either way I find smoother results often come from opening up the
midrange first and then doing gentler boosts in the upper mids/treble where
needed.

It's hard to say if this is the reaction to the EQ's artifacts though. It may be
compounded with improper use of the EQ. For example, a vocal may need a bit
more presence - so a wide boost in the upper mids might be good. But there may
also be a narrower peaky-harshness in that range that needs to get tamed down,
and failing to address that will give you harsh results.
Reply Share

randyhoexter Matthew Weiss 9 months ago

Those are good points, too... the narrower the bandwidth, the worse the
side-effects. And vocals are certainly often handled poorly. Broadband
filters are much better, I agree.
However, we did a lot of tests with HF boosts using FIR linear-phase eq
versus standard types with the exact same settings, and the result was
much harsher in everyone's perception. Of course, this is just a subjective
test, but my feeling is that HF phase issues are the cause of this
harshness, not inherent harshness in the signal.

In general, I find that if you want to do a lot of boosting, linear-phase EQ is

the way to go... like on cymbals.

Conversely, if you are doing narrow-band work, the traditional eq works

better because all the ringing is after the transient, whereas linear-phase
introduces pre-ringing, or signals before the transient...which is very
strange-sounding!

Enjoyed your writing!

all the best,
Randy
1 Reply Share

Matthew Weiss randyhoexter 9 months ago

These things get sticky. Your results may have something to do
with the individual EQ designs. The ripple, ring, and resonances
will still be present in an FIR design (vs an IIR). The differences are
that the ring appears before the output of the signal - as you
mentioned - which is definitely odd, and there's no group-time
delay. The "linear" part of the EQ refers to the phase-time
response of the entire signal.

For example, the Waves Linear EQ has a "low ripple" setting that
mathematically adjusts the band width and shape in order to evenly
distributed the fluctuation in frequency output. It sounds very
smooth, and can't really be replicated easily with a minimum phase
EQ. In many cases I actually prefer this for things where
transparency is a must. The drawback is that the group-time offset
transparency is a must. The drawback is that the group-time offset
is how phase naturally works, and when compensated for by a
broad time offset the result is a lot more two dimensional (although
that is subject, but to my ear and according to the laws of physics).

I find the best spot for linear phase is between phase-coherent

material. Cymbals as you pointed out - in a drum kit, because each
band will stay in phase with the rest of the kit.