Pro Audio Files

Phase: Timing Difference or Polarity?

What Do We Mean?

One of the most confusing topics in audio is Phase. I think part of what makes it confusing is that people use it in reference to more than one issue.

What always seems to make things clear for me: figure out precisely which aspect is the concern then focus on the part that matters. It is such an issue that I avoid using the word Phase to prevent confusion.

There are really two things people mean when they say Phase: Polarity or Timing Difference.

Hopefully differentiating these can help you decide if you should push that Invert button or move a microphone when things sound weird.


You’ll see a button on some mic preamps and other audio gear labeled Phase, Phase Reverse, Phase Invert, etc. This is really Polarity.

Engineers will talk about XLR connections being pin 2 hot versus pin 3 hot. This is also Polarity.

If you have two mic elements as close together as possible and combining them drops the overall level significantly, someone may describe that as having one mic out of Phase with the other, but really this is Polarity.

Sound is vibrating air. Molecules are pushed then pulled, then pushed, then pulled and so on. Those air vibrations are the force that moves a microphone element. When the air pushes against the element, there should be a rise above zero in the waveform. When air pulls the element there should be a drop below zero.

This pushing or pulling is Polarity. If you reverse the Polarity, a push against the mic element will cause a drop below zero instead of a rise above. It will also cause a rise above zero for a pull of the mic element instead of a drop below. Now some argue that you can hear a difference on a single channel between Push = Rise vs. Push = Drop. I’m not going to argue that one way or the other. The point is: nothing moved earlier or later in time. We simply inverted the push/pull relationship between air pressure and its electrical/sampled representation.


Inverted Polarity


Let’s examine an ideal case of polarity as the issue: combine two identical signals (in volume, spectrum and time) and the volume will double. If you reverse the Polarity of only one of those signals (as shown above) and combine them, they will perfectly cancel.

Timing Difference

People will warn when you use more than one mic on a source, be careful not to create Phase problems. When the sound of the snare arrives sooner in the snare spot mic than the overheads, this can more accurately be described a Timing Difference.

Digital signal processing can cause latency, which is sometimes described as sounding “phasey”. You know: Latency, as in late, as in Timing Difference.


Timing Difference


A Timing Difference may cause Comb Filtering. It may not. So even if you’ve figured out that you’re dealing with the issue of Timing Difference, not Polarity, then you need to investigate Comb Filtering. Most experienced sound professionals know the sound of obvious Comb Filtering when they hear it. Other times it may be subtle, making your audio sound less than desirable but not necessarily “phasey”.

Conditions that Create Comb Filtering

When it comes to recording music with microphones, Comb Filtering occurs under some pretty specific circumstances. If we want to reduce the possibility of Comb Filtering, we need to know what causes it and what doesn’t so that we can accurately focus on prevention.

In my experience, most musical instruments are broadband. By contrast, when you use a tone generator to create a 1k Hz sine wave, that is a single frequency, not a broadband musical signal. Phase is the issue for a specific frequency, like a 1k Hz tone. But Comb Filters occur for broadband signals.

Anything that is more complicated than a sine wave signal will be less an issue of phase and more an issue of Comb Filtering, especially instruments that are highly atonal (like a snare drum), or that vary in pitch over time (like the way a plucked string changes pitch).

Comb Filtering is more noticeable when the broadband signal has significant duration. White or pink noise are extreme examples of broadband duration (they continue infinitely, or “steady state”) and will be the most likely to have audible Comb Filtering.

The more percussive (shorter) something is the less likely you will notice Comb Filtering. In extreme cases a transient may be so short that it has decayed beyond audibility by the time the delayed version ever begins.

Volume Difference
If snare drum is in microphone A and also in microphone B, and there are a few milliseconds of delay between them, they will tend to Comb Filter if you combine them. But if the volume of the snare is different in the mics by 9dB or more, the Comb Filtering will not tend to be audible.

There may be other sounds common in mic A and B, but what limits the audibility of Comb Filtering for the snare is the volume difference of the snare in those mics. If you can achieve snare separation of 9dB or more, you can effectively eliminate Comb Filtering for the snare.

Another limit is the amount of delay. Most Comb Filtering occurs when the delay is under about 30 milliseconds (ms), depending on the 3 previous factors. Once you get beyond 30 ms, the delays begin to be heard as discrete echoes.

Since sound travels at roughly 1 ms per foot, Comb Filters will not tend to be an issue with mics that are 30 feet or more apart. Beyond 30 feet you might get some really wacky echoes instead though.

Directional microphones can help manage a volume difference of 9 dB or more. For example, a cardioid microphone is theoretically 6dB lower at 90 degrees off axis. But not all mikes live up to the theory. The off axis response of a microphone is worth your attention when you want to prevent Comb Filtering.

If you had two mics relatively close to each other and you simply mixed one 9dB or lower than the other, that could also eliminate audible Comb Filtering. Of course the opposite is possible… that you didn’t hear Comb Filters during tracking but once you mixed things and got spaced mics within 9dB of each other, then it became audible. Add dynamic volume changes (compression, volume automation) and you can get Comb Filtering some times but not others. It can be a tricky thing to manage.

Now if your microphone channels never combine, then you won’t ever get Comb Filtering from those two different signals. Someone may hard pan mic A left and mic B right thinking: they don’t combine (different channels), so they won’t Comb Filter. But because there are so many different ways that stereo can collapse to mono, it is a good idea to consider what your stereo sounds like in mono, especially if timing differences could Comb Filter and make your mix sound awful.

This is why a spaced pair of drum overheads should be checked in mono — to make sure the timing differences don’t cause audible Comb Filtering when combined. If they do, I believe the most appropriate solution is to reposition the mikes (distance and/or angle) for greater separation… 9dB or more. Or change the mikes (different kind and/or different pattern) to increase separation. Or position the mikes coincident to remove all timing difference.

Further Reading

See also About Comb Filtering, Phase Shift and Polarity Reversal from Moulton Laboratories.

Most of what I know about Comb Filters I learned from F. Alton Everest’s The Master Handbook of Acoustics (Amazon). For the reader who wants to dig further in Comb Filtering, both in theory and practice, Everest’s writing is the best I’ve found.

For more, check out this video tutorial from Eric Tarr.

Missing our best stuff?

Sign up to be the first to learn about new tutorials, sales, giveaways and more.

We will never spam you. Unsubscribe at any time. Powered by ConvertKit
Randy Coppinger

Randy Coppinger

Randy Coppinger lives and works in Southern California. He likes to record with microphones. He likes to drink coffee. On a good day, he gets to do both.

Free Video on Mixing Low End

Download a FREE 40-minute tutorial from Matthew Weiss on mixing low end.

Powered by ConvertKit
  • I don’t know how I missed this article, but it’s really well done. I love the suggestion to avoid the confused semantics of ‘phase’ – often referred to as if it were some sort of creeping ooze that attacks in the night. This is what audio education should look like – clear, concise, and referencing Everest. Thanks!

  • There is some good stuff here but overall I think this article contributes to the semantics problem. The word “phase” is not a dirty word and does not necessarily imply problems. Phase relationship is a quality of two given audio signals, measured in degrees. You’re right about the theory of addition and cancellation in regards to phase coherency, but I wish you would spoken more to the science of comb filtering and its relationship to phase coherency at given frequencies instead of offering a blanket “9dB” rule without technical explanation. I also wish the article stayed away from the word “volume.”

    Again, I applaud the effort of anyone who attempts to distinguish the language of pro audio from consumer-speak but do try and use the terms in the correct way to prevent further Internet confusion.

    • Thomas, I’m not implying phase is inherently the cause of audio problems. I’m simply suggesting that if we think of problems that are typically described as phase in terms of timing or polarity it can help us demystify the theory and practice.

      Everest does such an elegant job explaining comb filters. I can’t hold a candle to his writing. I defer to his Master Handbook of Acoustics because it’s the best.

      Honestly, I can’t remember if the 9dB difference was from Everest or Alex U. Case. I should look that up. But essentially when the difference gets to be 9dB more between the two delayed signals the comb filtering still exists but tends to be masked by the louder signal. That’s why I say the difference “effectively” eliminates the comb filtering.

      And if I’ve written something that is incorrect here, please advise how it can be made correct. I encourage criticism because I want to get it right. I also like criticism because I was on the debate team and find a well argued position a thing of beauty. 🙂

      I’m curious about your objection to the word “volume.” Please explain.

  • Barak Shpiez

    Very good article. I would be more specific in the paragraph that begins with “Sound is vibrating air.” You go on to describe molecules being pushed and pulled, but it would be more accurate to describe compressions and rarefactions of the pressure level in the transmission medium (usually air). You make mention of this in the last sentence of that paragraph, but it may help readers better understand how sound permeates acoustically.

    I would also argue that for the problem of comb filtering while the term “timing difference” is absolutely accurate, describing the same effect as “phase problems” isn’t incorrect either. When two different broadband signals are combined with a particular time difference, the frequencies in signal A will be at a different part of their respective cycles than the frequencies in signal B. There will appear to be a phase shift in certain frequencies from signal A to signal B. The complexity arises when you consider that different frequencies will have different apparent phase shifts, corresponding to the one particular time shift, between the two summed signals. So while comb filtering is indeed caused by a time delay, this can also be thought of as frequency-dependent phase shifts.

    • Good points Barak. I’m not especially interested in sound as it travels through water, or anything other than air for this article. I agree that compression and rarefaction are important. I chose not to linger on propagation but your distinction is worth noting.

      I am not taking a position that the word “Phase” is incorrect. I am suggesting that people often interpret that word as something it isn’t, or as something mystical, or as an advanced topic. And people confuse Phase with Polarity. Delay is a pretty basic idea. People are not afraid of it nor intimidated by it. I prefer to describe comb filtering in terms of timing because I think it simplifies and clarifies.

      To get more technical (which I tried to avoid), a phase relationship rotates — meaning it gets further and further out of phase then comes back in phase when the delay value reaches a complete waveform. But you can’t delay back into phase with white noise. If we think of recorded signals on a continuum between a pure sine wave and completely random white noise, most things we record tend toward the random; most musical signals have significant variation every time the waveform crosses zero. That means further rotating a complex signal perfectly back into phase is highly unlikely. And from a pragmatic perspective pretty foolish. So while phase definitely plays a role, the complexity of most signals makes the angular rotation an impractical measure.

      Just to play Devil’s Advocate against myself, let’s go ahead focus on Phase. How many frequencies should we measure in the audible spectrum between signal A and B to calculate the phase angles? Given some quantity of known phase angles, what will that information allow you to accomplish toward solving the comb filter? It seems like a lot of work to describe the relationships as phase angles with no practical application. What you need to know is the delay value, right?

      I hear you saying, “Randy don’t be stupid. You can’t have comb filtering without frequency AND time.” Again, I’m not saying Phase is unscientific or irrational or in any way not integral to comb filtering. I’m just saying that recording engineers better address comb filtering when they focus on delay, not angular rotation at a specific frequency.

      Pragmatically, timing differences ALWAY matter. Delay can cause an audible comb filter (or not). It can cause echo too. Bottom line: a focus on timing works, which is why I like it.


  • konradical

    sound travels roughly 1 foot/ms, not 1ms/foot.

    we can’t time travel, yet… 🙂

  • Joe B

    (sorry I deleted this a couple of times because I’m a dumbo and didn’t check my spelling)

    I know that this article is quite old, but I just wanted to say this.
    Sound as a wave in air is compression and rarefaction. The way it’s
    written could be confusing and it could easily be assumed you are
    referring to it as polarity (assuming you are not). Polarity simply
    refers to the direction electrons are flowing in the case of electrical
    signals. Also, when you reverse polarity you aren’t reversing the
    direction the capsule is moving in. You are simply reversing which side
    of a the microphone/transformer/XLR is physically connected to each side
    of an amplifier (side normally referring to the inputs of a
    differential amp which is eventually converted to single ended).
    Finally, the example with two microphone capsules is incorrect. For it
    to be polarity the signal HAS to be inverted exactly unrelated to time.
    Two mics will never be polarity within a space where the signal reaching
    them exists within a space.

    An interesting point is that there
    are many wave-forms of varying shape and harmonic content in some cases.
    A phase shift of 180, A time shift of X, and polarity reversal will
    produce the same wave-form in terms of how the cycle looks (which is an
    inversion of the original, also combinations of 180, polarity but not
    time and 180, time but not polarity) It completely depends on what the
    wave-form is.

    I however, completely agree with you on timing
    difference. Too many people think that an absolute shift in time is a
    shift in the phase of a cycle. It is not. Provably so.

/> /> /> /> /> /> /> /> /> />