[ChrisCoaster]

On Aug 12, 8:37*am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"ChrisCoaster" wrote in message







On Jul 22, 6:17 pm, Ron Capik wrote:
ChrisCoasterwrote:
On Jul 22, 1:49 pm, Ron Capik
wrote:

However, "we" can surly measure the 10-band EQ, can
"we" not?

Later...
Ron Capik
--- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -
________________
Expand on that thought please, Ron?

-CC

I'm guessing there must be dozens of programs
out there that can be used to measure the Q of
an equalizer.

One way would be run some pink noise through
the Media Player then set the EQ to some
value and run the same noise through the
Media Player. Take FFTs of both and subtract
the two FFTs.

In a quick experiment using your
settings I got something like:

31 +11.2
62 +7.5
125 +3.3
250 [set as 0.0 reference]
500 -1.9
1L -2.0
2k -2.0
4k -3.6
8k +2.0
16k ~-1.0

Later...
Ron Capik
--

OK, that gives you settings actually quite close to mine
- and to what the curve suggests. *But where are the
Q-measurments, oh intelligent master?

The Q of a peaking-type equalizer can approximated by the difference between
the 2 -3 dB points on either side of the peak, divided by the center
frequency.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -
_____________________

So If I boosted the 100Hz slider on my EQ to +10dB, I'm measuring the
effect it has on 90 and 110Hz, correct?

Guess this homebody would need a spectrometer and tone generator in
addition to the decibel meter to find out how high the frequencies
were raised at those two points.

-ChrisCoaster

[Scott Dorsey]

ChrisCoaster wrote:
So If I boosted the 100Hz slider on my EQ to +10dB, I'm measuring the
effect it has on 90 and 110Hz, correct?

He's talking mostly about a regular parametric-style equalizer, not really
a graphic EQ.

The graphic EQ has a bunch of filters on fixed centers, each with the same
Q. So when you adjust the 100 Hz slider, you're creating a big peak or dip
of some width (which differs with different model of graphics).

Guess this homebody would need a spectrometer and tone generator in
addition to the decibel meter to find out how high the frequencies
were raised at those two points.

Nahh, all you need is a meter and a signal generator. When you crank the
100 Hz fader up +10 dB, you should see a 100 Hz tone increase by 10dB...
and a 75 Hz and 125 Hz signals sound increase by a slightly lesser amount.

The manual for a graphic EQ will have a response plot that will show you
the response of each the filters and how wide they really are.

SOME graphics have filters of different widths in the midrange than on the
top end bottom also. This is even more evil than the usual range of graphic
EQ.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Scott Dorsey]

ChrisCoaster wrote:
Thanks for the information - clears up a lot. Sadly, the manual that
came with my EQ is more concerned with plugging it in safely and not
poking around inside the case. No frequency plots here - the lower
80% of audio consumers wouldn't know how to read one anywho!

That may be true... but if they can't, they probably have no business
touching an equalizer anyway....

Too many people don't realize what a graphic does and how it results in
multiple peaks in the response when you try and make sweeping changes,
and this results in bad sound.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[ChrisCoaster]

On Aug 12, 11:22*am, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
ChrisCoaster wrote:
Thanks for the information - clears up a lot. * Sadly, the manual that
came with my EQ is more concerned with plugging it in safely and not
poking around inside the case. *No frequency plots here - the lower
80% of audio consumers wouldn't know how to read one anywho!

That may be true... but if they can't, they probably have no business
touching an equalizer anyway....

Too many people don't realize what a graphic does and how it results in
multiple peaks in the response when you try and make sweeping changes,
and this results in bad sound.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
____________
Also, is it true in the pro world 3 out of 4 uses of an EQ are of the
parametric type? I know what they do but for some reason am more
comfortable with a graphic representation of dozens of sliders.

-CC

[Scott Dorsey]

ChrisCoaster wrote:
Also, is it true in the pro world 3 out of 4 uses of an EQ are of the
parametric type? I know what they do but for some reason am more
comfortable with a graphic representation of dozens of sliders.

Every once in a while you will see a graphic EQ in a studio, but I can
probably count on one hand the number I have seen in the past 20 years.

PA guys like them since they can quickly pull down the corresponding fader
when they hear feedback.

Not all studio equalizers are fully parametric but they are almost always
tunable. They may not have adjustable Q, though.

Back in the seventies, you saw graphic EQs in studios all the time, even
in the monitor chain, and they did far more damage than good.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Frank Stearns]

ChrisCoaster writes:

-snips-

Well understood - even the last occupant of the White House could
grasp that concept. I was just making sort of a "disclaimer" that

But the current occupant would have trouble -- unless he could read the info
from a teleprompter.

Frank
--

[Richard Webb[_3_]]

Scott Dorsey writes:

Every once in a while you will see a graphic EQ in a studio, but I
can probably count on one hand the number I have seen in the past
20 years.

DItto here.

PA guys like them since they can quickly pull down the corresponding
fader when they hear feedback.

Indeed, and that's all some pa guys have ever used, they
don't understand a parametric in some cases.

Not all studio equalizers are fully parametric but they are almost
always tunable. They may not have adjustable Q, though.

YEp, I remember that was the big selling point back in the
late '70's for Studiomaster was their "quasi parametric"
iirc they called it, eq on the channel strips.


Back in the seventies, you saw graphic EQs in studios all the time,
even in the monitor chain, and they did far more damage than good.

Yeah I know. Remember working with one room where we ended
up fighting to get the control room acoustics tuned so we
could lose the graphic in the monitor path.

Regards,
Richard
.... Remote audio in the southland: See www.gatasound.com
--
| Remove .my.foot for email
| via Waldo's Place USA Fidonet-Internet Gateway Site
| Standard disclaimer: The views of this user are strictly his own.

[Yuri Degg]

Ron Capik wrote:

Probably not the article you're thinking
of but an interesting read:

Michael Gerzon's
"Why do equalisers sound different?"
http://www.audiosignal.co.uk/Resources/Why_do_equalisers_sound_different_A4.pdf


I have an objection to that article:

| The coloured filter had a flat phase response and the amplitude response
| consisted of 512 ripples of +/-0.1dB uniformly spaced across the whole
| audio band (ie at about every 50Hz).

That's far from "uniformly spaced", then. We have a ripple that's bigger
than an octave in the 20-40Hz range, and various ripples much smaller
than a semitone in the 10000-20000Hz range.

No wonder that the filter sounded audibly coloured, and -possibly- no
need for further speculation about the cause.


--
As long as there's, you know, sex and drugs,
I can do without the rock and roll.

-- Mick Shrimpton, "This Is Spinal Tap"