Re: ToneShiftEQ v0.3.0 — Fi rst public release

On Fri, Jul 03, 2026 at 01:51:21PM +0200, Hermann Meyer wrote:
=20
> Regarding the phase response: the plugin uses minimum-phase impulse
> responses processed through a partitioned convolution engine.

That is clear.

> The Ardour spectrum analyzer confirms linear-phase behavior
> in the output, which is consistent with the design.

Either Ardour's output is wrong or you fail to interpret it
correctly.

> The term "linear-phase" in the description
> refers to the measured output response, not the IR symmetry =E2=80=94 I=
 agree that
> this could be stated more precisely in the documentation and will clari=
fy
> it.

If an EQ is said to have a linear phase response that means that
its phase response corresponds to just a delay, so phase is a=20
linear funcion of frequency, whatever the amplitude response.=20

That is the only accepted meaning of the term 'linear phase response',
and it requires that the IR is symmetric. Using the phrase with any
other meaning is just misleading.=20

Can be that Ardour shows you a straigth line. Either that is wrong
or you fail to interpret it correctly.


> Regarding the latency: Master Mode operates at 128 samples latency, Liv=
e
> Mode at 0 samples. If your measurements show different values, I would =
be
> interested to know how you measured them, as my own measurements
> consistently show these values.

I used both zita-scope and JackSignal [1], they give exactly the same
result:

Master mode ('Live' shown in the GUI): 128 samples
Live mode ('Master' shown in the GUI): 256 samples

Plus after Bypass on then off in one the two modes (I forget ATM
which one) will result in 24 ms latency until the mode is changed.

[1] As usual, when a test does not produce the expected result,=20
I will first mistrust my own tools or procedures, and use a second
method to check things.

Ciao,

--=20
FA