My name...
I'm ok with everything I wrote.
I think it's fascinating how fixated you are on my sex life. Your second post talking about my sex life. Hmmm...
I'm ok with everything I wrote.
I think it's fascinating how fixated you are on my sex life. Your second post talking about my sex life. Hmmm...
I'm not fascinated with it, its just you keep demonstrating behavior of high testosterone, almost a sort of toxic masculinity, that reeks of dysfunctional love life....as I said you are just here for trouble, and you won't go away, but I'd like you to =)
Last time you had a go you completely derailed the discussion, and now you are tip toeing up that same avenue that got admins involved last time.
Looking at your thread post history reveals that you are fixated on my thread....if you want to be here so bad, why not try and get along.
Last time you had a go you completely derailed the discussion, and now you are tip toeing up that same avenue that got admins involved last time.
Looking at your thread post history reveals that you are fixated on my thread....if you want to be here so bad, why not try and get along.
Last edited:
Is that needed? Normal bass tone controls, for the last 50 years, are Peter Baxandall types; analogue or digital. They have been defined for decades. In analogue they were defined by the simple use of negative feedback to derive the curves. The curves created selective increase and decrease in bass and treble, without changes in Q. You need a Q=.4 for that. I don't recall any discussion about 'clipping' considering their use. Do you?
Too bad Mr Baxandall never made a nickel off his invention. Virtually everyone used it and abused him. Camplo - This is your Q for some colorful convo now.
You modify the system which is what matters, that is why Earl is not concerned about those other parameters
Active Filters
It is the same mechanism that allows the removal of time domain ringing by equalization, a big resonant peak that rings can be removed with a corresponding EQ cut with matched Q.
Attachments
Even though this is your thread it might be prudent to take the high road instead of taking the bait.
I get that but I think too many topics have been mixed up together and the context of the replies is being lost. What matters is what you end up with not how you got there.
Fluid maybe if I say it like this I can back myself in a corner.
Are you suggesting that by merely copying the roll off characteristics of a said Qtc.....I will indeed attain said decay characteristics match the target Q? IE I don't need to really achieve a qtc of 0.5....just eq the roll off to be like that of a qtc 0.5 and its the saaaame thing....
Maybe I can see it....its tied to excursion so copying a Q roll off is the same thing is copying an excursion pattern
Are you suggesting that by merely copying the roll off characteristics of a said Qtc.....I will indeed attain said decay characteristics match the target Q? IE I don't need to really achieve a qtc of 0.5....just eq the roll off to be like that of a qtc 0.5 and its the saaaame thing....
Maybe I can see it....its tied to excursion so copying a Q roll off is the same thing is copying an excursion pattern
Last edited:
Paul, ok a Baxendall eq is standard for you.
Well i've met other kind of low/hi shelf in hifi gear, and i won't talk about pro gear where each eq i met were different from the others ( even within the same range within the same brand sometimes eg: SSL E/G).
Clipping with eq use? Yes i know how to make eq clip for sure!
To be honest i don't use eq on my hifi gear* and the Baxandall i have in my rack haven't seen much use. Not my thing but it is a preference thing.
* well it's not true as i use extensively Linkwitz Transform/eq in my dsp but i don't have controls to change sound on tracks played real time ( in my digital chain/ supposedly better quality chain over my analog one). Even on my vinyl decks/ dj mixers i don't use eq to change sound of tracks for reproduction.
Camplo, yes it is the same, or the differences are so tiny ( or happening at points where other issues will be more of concerns) than they became non existent for me.
Well i've met other kind of low/hi shelf in hifi gear, and i won't talk about pro gear where each eq i met were different from the others ( even within the same range within the same brand sometimes eg: SSL E/G).
Clipping with eq use? Yes i know how to make eq clip for sure!
To be honest i don't use eq on my hifi gear* and the Baxandall i have in my rack haven't seen much use. Not my thing but it is a preference thing.
* well it's not true as i use extensively Linkwitz Transform/eq in my dsp but i don't have controls to change sound on tracks played real time ( in my digital chain/ supposedly better quality chain over my analog one). Even on my vinyl decks/ dj mixers i don't use eq to change sound of tracks for reproduction.
Camplo, yes it is the same, or the differences are so tiny ( or happening at points where other issues will be more of concerns) than they became non existent for me.
Last edited:
Yes. The time and frequency domains are linked if you change the frequency response the time response follows and vice versa.
Make it a homework project with rephase. Generate the high Q box as a filter, import to REW and look at the step.
Make the corresponding filter to match the desired Q, convolve and look at the step.
So another way for me to see this is that the only way to achieve 0.5 for example.....design towards a Qtc 0.5 but I can't use any low pass filters because it will change the Q?
If I change the "Fc" with a filter I bring the negative of traits of F because the filter is going to cause ringing....so you can't truly "high pass" Fc out of the equation!!!
Its just a bunch of high pass filter knees....you get rid of a lower filter knee just to add another one higher up the band.....
That would of been useful thinking for this thread too ->The importance of Kms(X) and BL(x) for mid-ranges
End goal....shape LF roll off in that of the 0.5Q slope......Raise Fc until excursion is miniscule....Walla midrange
Not sure where that leaves me with Qes though....it would seem that since we are forcing the driver to do what Qes would have done, its a non issue but....it just seems too simple? At least Qes still is a independent and critical factor factor right??? Somehow the goal involves creating the response as efficiently as possible I can be assured....A higher Qes raises midrange sensitivity so I guess a low Qes is still desirable
If I change the "Fc" with a filter I bring the negative of traits of F because the filter is going to cause ringing....so you can't truly "high pass" Fc out of the equation!!!
Its just a bunch of high pass filter knees....you get rid of a lower filter knee just to add another one higher up the band.....
That would of been useful thinking for this thread too ->The importance of Kms(X) and BL(x) for mid-ranges
End goal....shape LF roll off in that of the 0.5Q slope......Raise Fc until excursion is miniscule....Walla midrange
Not sure where that leaves me with Qes though....it would seem that since we are forcing the driver to do what Qes would have done, its a non issue but....it just seems too simple? At least Qes still is a independent and critical factor factor right??? Somehow the goal involves creating the response as efficiently as possible I can be assured....A higher Qes raises midrange sensitivity so I guess a low Qes is still desirable
Last edited:
Another Good Book
Buy and Read this book -
"Mixing With Your Mind" by Michael Paul Stavrou. Forward by Sir George Martin. It's the best book on mixing music you will ever find. It's one of the best books in my technical and professional audio library. I bought it years ago. Had to order it from Australia. Expensive.
Buy it. Read it. Absorb it. You have all winter. It's the best advice you will ever get... Don't try to redefine it.
Buy and Read this book -
"Mixing With Your Mind" by Michael Paul Stavrou. Forward by Sir George Martin. It's the best book on mixing music you will ever find. It's one of the best books in my technical and professional audio library. I bought it years ago. Had to order it from Australia. Expensive.
Buy it. Read it. Absorb it. You have all winter. It's the best advice you will ever get... Don't try to redefine it.
I'm am fixed on building a 7 channel, biamp'd, 2-way speaker system, as full range as possible. That's why I came here. It wasn't for your good looks. I currently have all the parts. Boxes are built. Crossovers are in design. 15" AETD15S woofers. Radian 951PB CD's. 18 Sound XT1464 horns; AH425's look like a future upgrade alternative; the rest too expensive. M-T crossover at about 650Hz, LR8-BW5; Alternately BS6-LR2 at 800Hz. I like both so far. Woof to Dual Mono Sub crossover at 50Hz. 50Hz is Fc for the AETD15S in my closed/high resistance boxes; There is some leakage at very low frequencies. 50Hz will give me flat phase with minimum GD. I haven't yet figured out a cradle or box design for the XT1464's.
Oops. I guess the Subs below 50Hz make it sort of, kind of, a 3 way.
Since we are being open and honest here - Stop trying to redefine audio. Stop arguing with people who know a lot more than you do. Many have spent more time in their professions than you have been alive. I'm one of them.
BTW. My testosterone is my wife's business. Not yours. ;-)
Cheers
Paul, ok a Baxendall eq is standard for you.
Well i've met other kind of low/hi shelf in hifi gear, and i won't talk about pro gear where each eq i met were different from the others ( even within the same range within the same brand sometimes eg: SSL E/G).
Clipping with eq use? Yes i know how to make eq clip for sure!
To be honest i don't use eq on my hifi gear* and the Baxandall i have in my rack haven't seen much use. Not my thing but it is a preference thing.
* well it's not true as i use extensively Linkwitz Transform/eq in my dsp but i don't have controls to change sound on tracks played real time ( in my digital chain/ supposedly better quality chain over my analog one). Even on my vinyl decks/ dj mixers i don't use eq to change sound of tracks for reproduction.
Camplo, yes it is the same, or the differences are so tiny ( or happening at points where other issues will be more of concerns) than they became non existent for me.
Well. I thought the discussion was about so called 'clipping' when a woofer system went from crittical/optimal damping to being under damped. A change from a Q=.5 to Q=.4, with band width's of 2.56-3 octaves. These Q's are essentially tone controls more than PEQ, though the center frequency can be varied in a PEQ. Maybe I lost track in all the elements of discussion.
Baxandall was a standard for home HiFi.
I use as little EQ as possible at home, or professionally (retired). All other options first. I liked to use some EQ for minimal voice and instrument shaping; just enough to create the right amount of separation.
I mixed on an SSL board one time. Some time on Euphonics. Most of the time on Neve.
Hi fluid,
Is that true? According to the model, a driver in a 100 l box has F3 = 61 Hz, which is comparable to the driver in a 150 l box, with F3 = 63 Hz. The former box has Qtc = 0.656, the latter has Qtc = 0.576.
Yet, with the same 25 W input power, the latter box - with the lower Qtc - has about 2 dB higher output below about 100 Hz where it starts to roll-off, cf. the attached figures.
Could you please comment?
Kindest regards,
M
Is that true? According to the model, a driver in a 100 l box has F3 = 61 Hz, which is comparable to the driver in a 150 l box, with F3 = 63 Hz. The former box has Qtc = 0.656, the latter has Qtc = 0.576.
Yet, with the same 25 W input power, the latter box - with the lower Qtc - has about 2 dB higher output below about 100 Hz where it starts to roll-off, cf. the attached figures.
Could you please comment?
Kindest regards,
M
Attachments
Greets!
Beats me, thought I inserted enough different words to 'line up' with whatever ya'll choose to describe transient response, but if it decays too quickly relative to the input signal, then of course yes.
'Ringing' is an under-damped response [AKA 'overshoot', 'hangover', 'boom'], i.e. it 'rings' past the point where the signal stops while over-damped isn't 'ringing' enough, i.e. stops short of what the signal demands, so decays away more abruptly too, ergo 'clipped', with of course critically damped 'ringing' is just the right amount from the beginning [AKA 'leading edge'] of the transient and the right amount of its 'ringing' decay rate down to zero in theory if just a single transient.
If they are good at what they do, and put marketing aside, then they should gravitate to: That it doesn't much matter.
I want to say here that nothing nonlinear can be seen in an impulse response. To find even 2nd order nonlinearity you need a second impulse at some known spacing. From this you can get the second order nonlinearity. Third order requires three impulse in sequence, etc.. So what you are seeing is nothing like what we normally think of as clipping - a highly nonlinear phenomena. It is simply a change in frequency response as an FFT would show you.
Last edited: