Log in
Register
Home
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
Featured content
New posts
New profile posts
Latest activity
News
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Features
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Install the app
Install
Reply to thread
Home
Forums
Pro Audio
Varsity
Looking for the chart that converts XILICA or others to others
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="John Roberts" data-source="post: 84803" data-attributes="member: 126"><p>Re: Looking for the chart that converts XILICA or others to others</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p> I approached the AES standards body several years ago about this. They agreed there was a discrepancy or lack of a concise single definition for bandwidth/Q for boost/cut type EQ, but took little action toward resolving it. I suspect that the industry needs to do the work to resolve this by championing one or more standards then maybe the AES will help select between one winner or a small group of options. There can't be that many different ways to define bandwidth for that one type of EQ, but apparently there is more than one. ( RANE named their specific BW approach for GEQ years ago). </p><p></p><p>There are also a handful of other errors associated with DSP platforms (one visible in the difference between the 1kHz and 15kHz cut filter upper skirt). Bennet discusses these and more in his articles. </p><p></p><p>I suspect many of the errors in practice are probably due to sloppy control interface code, that they could get away with because there is no formal standard to be measured against, so the marketplace does not punish this sloppiness. Center frequency and amount of boost/cut seems pretty clearly understood. This is embarrassing but not new. Analog 1/3 octave GEQ products are equally dissimilar for actual boost/cut bandwidths. Looking at the data Rich provided the CF and depth of cuts looks more accurate now than I recall from even several years ago. </p><p></p><p>Before I gave up pursuing this I found there are a number of industry people aware of the issue and interested in resolving it. I am not active in this product area so have no leverage or vehicle to promote a standard with. Bennet's presentation does a good job of describing the issues. </p><p></p><p>Questions as I see it are </p><p></p><p>A) how many different types of boost/cut EQ are there, and how many are we willing to support? </p><p>B) What are the other important characteristic DSP platform behaviors that we need to account for in standard curve specifications? </p><p></p><p>The ultimate goal is to come up with a concise definition of a transfer function that is repeatable. Back in the very old days, they just used a series of pole and zero time-constants (like NAB or RIAA equalization curves), but this only accommodates simple low order curves. </p><p></p><p>Good luck guys. </p><p></p><p>JR</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="John Roberts, post: 84803, member: 126"] Re: Looking for the chart that converts XILICA or others to others I approached the AES standards body several years ago about this. They agreed there was a discrepancy or lack of a concise single definition for bandwidth/Q for boost/cut type EQ, but took little action toward resolving it. I suspect that the industry needs to do the work to resolve this by championing one or more standards then maybe the AES will help select between one winner or a small group of options. There can't be that many different ways to define bandwidth for that one type of EQ, but apparently there is more than one. ( RANE named their specific BW approach for GEQ years ago). There are also a handful of other errors associated with DSP platforms (one visible in the difference between the 1kHz and 15kHz cut filter upper skirt). Bennet discusses these and more in his articles. I suspect many of the errors in practice are probably due to sloppy control interface code, that they could get away with because there is no formal standard to be measured against, so the marketplace does not punish this sloppiness. Center frequency and amount of boost/cut seems pretty clearly understood. This is embarrassing but not new. Analog 1/3 octave GEQ products are equally dissimilar for actual boost/cut bandwidths. Looking at the data Rich provided the CF and depth of cuts looks more accurate now than I recall from even several years ago. Before I gave up pursuing this I found there are a number of industry people aware of the issue and interested in resolving it. I am not active in this product area so have no leverage or vehicle to promote a standard with. Bennet's presentation does a good job of describing the issues. Questions as I see it are A) how many different types of boost/cut EQ are there, and how many are we willing to support? B) What are the other important characteristic DSP platform behaviors that we need to account for in standard curve specifications? The ultimate goal is to come up with a concise definition of a transfer function that is repeatable. Back in the very old days, they just used a series of pole and zero time-constants (like NAB or RIAA equalization curves), but this only accommodates simple low order curves. Good luck guys. JR [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Home
Forums
Pro Audio
Varsity
Looking for the chart that converts XILICA or others to others
Top
Bottom
Sign-up
or
log in
to join the discussion today!
