Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="John Roberts" data-source="post: 57985" data-attributes="member: 126">Re: help with hz to octave conversion for dspAgreement should be 100% for Q/octaves in crossover HP and LP filter sections. Only Q in corrective EQ is undefined or lacking a single clear definition. Center frequency and amount of boost/cut should also be well defined.&nbsp; If they can&#039;t get the corner frequency right they have no excuse from me. I am not aware of any disputed definition there. Cascaded mutli-pole sections will not be trivial to confirm empirically, especially if overlaid with all pass sections and EQ. I repeat my call for a simple comprehensive target frequency response plot saved in some digital media or computer file that could be easily compared to. Back in the very old days things like RIAA phono or IEC tape Equalization curves were often defined as simple poles and zeros time constants and by tables of amplitude values vs frequency. No questions there about what the response should be. If current DSP are inaccurate in even more ways than I predict, that is even more reason to compare actual transfer function to some digital reference response target file. &nbsp; JR</blockquote>

[QUOTE="John Roberts, post: 57985, member: 126"] Re: help with hz to octave conversion for dsp Agreement should be 100% for Q/octaves in crossover HP and LP filter sections. Only Q in corrective EQ is undefined or lacking a single clear definition. Center frequency and amount of boost/cut should also be well defined. If they can't get the corner frequency right they have no excuse from me. I am not aware of any disputed definition there. Cascaded mutli-pole sections will not be trivial to confirm empirically, especially if overlaid with all pass sections and EQ. I repeat my call for a simple comprehensive target frequency response plot saved in some digital media or computer file that could be easily compared to. Back in the very old days things like RIAA phono or IEC tape Equalization curves were often defined as simple poles and zeros time constants and by tables of amplitude values vs frequency. No questions there about what the response should be. If current DSP are inaccurate in even more ways than I predict, that is even more reason to compare actual transfer function to some digital reference response target file. JR [/QUOTE]

Verification