Yes but don't point that finger at me, the "excessive" finger....To me "excessive" means very intricate bending of a curve....gain is not a sophisticated process in comparison to 7 filters trying to straighten out excessive peaks and nulls with gains and Q of a broad range ....the anechoic response is smooth with only 2-3 filters used, ignoring the fact of using 17db of gain...
If using something to detriment, we can usually point to specific things, using scientific thermology in the process...in this case THD and loss of headroom, is the penalty for using so much gain....Non of those penalties are an issue so, no harm no foul.
Food for thought
wide/shallow/low order filters vs narrow/steep/high order filters affects on SQ....unity gain is the EQ's widest/shallowest/lowest order filter.
Last edited:
Why is that? If one sets the gains in a system wrong and there is clipping along the way, then both of the above become very serious issues.
THD is not an issue because its a subwoofer and uses a highpass filter. Apparently most of the noise of electronics resides in the HF
Headroom is not an issue because after using gain in said way, I still have enough headroom within the gain structure, to reach desired max volume and then some. In other words, there is no clipping.
Proper crossings can be made using the eq in a completely different way, as Fluid Has shown. I personally prefer fluids results because it appears that I could raise the frequency of the knee, allowing more coupling......
I thought you had switched to something like the EQ I showed as a less brute force and ignorance way to get where you want?
Do you all wear black clothing and salute each other while saying "For the greater good"....
Its pretty strange to try and shame a persons use of EQ when you could of never figured it out from measurements because there is no penalty to discover lol
As I'm not a Harry Potter aficionado, I wasn't sure what you meant. Defending odd decisions with outrage is getting old. I take it you have gone back to the odd EQ as more fitting for your style.
I haven't done anything, I was just talking about how there was no sacrifice to sound quality with the eq configuration I showed...
As I said in the post, I liked the way you EQ'd better, but it nothing to do with a lack of gain boost....actually your EQ programming led to only about 6db less gain to the low end back level with the mid.....
I could argue that with EQ there are no rules, and only results.
As I said in the post, I liked the way you EQ'd better, but it nothing to do with a lack of gain boost....actually your EQ programming led to only about 6db less gain to the low end back level with the mid.....
I could argue that with EQ there are no rules, and only results.
In case the "ignorance" touched a nerve, the phrase is one from the British building site meaning to hammer something into shape and maybe has not made it's way across the Atlantic. So it refers to the method and not the user.
And I would agree with you, the best sounding EQ in my own system ignores all rules of good EQ'ing but sounds better than all of my best attempts to do it "right".
I feel like you are debating the method, no worries...but from my perspective my programming is more gentle then yours...
Looking at Anechoic because thats where we should look
You have much more filters used.....and Filters containing much higher Q's than my programming
My programming has fewer filters and lower order filters used....thats more gentle, in my opinion.
This is outside of the idea that I liked your results better....because I am only interested in the end results. I liked your results better, yet I don't feel like programming it all in at the moment lol
Looking at Anechoic because thats where we should look
You have much more filters used.....and Filters containing much higher Q's than my programming
My programming has fewer filters and lower order filters used....thats more gentle, in my opinion.
This is outside of the idea that I liked your results better....because I am only interested in the end results. I liked your results better, yet I don't feel like programming it all in at the moment lol
lol, it is, good thing I am able to see both sides of the fence...
I don't think they know how they want to ship it to me....they suggested in separate pieces, but I rather receive it whole....I think I might have to spring for a crate...anyone have advice on shipping large things from Germany?
I don't think they know how they want to ship it to me....they suggested in separate pieces, but I rather receive it whole....I think I might have to spring for a crate...anyone have advice on shipping large things from Germany?
Where are the trumpets located? Maybe I can help with shipping? It looks as they are located on the other side of Stuttgart airport, 10 miles from me?
Except there is no fence here just arbitrary positions people tend to take.
EQ is a tool to achieve an aim. If you want to use less of it the acoustic design has to allow that.
To me, this is the point. Get as close as possible acoustically to minimize the EQ - less is more.
On that same note, we can make changes using low order filters, with little penalty... so if your designs acoustical response requires eq correction, its best if only very broad filters are needed...which is sort of like saying...smooth transition from frequency range to frequency range, is more important than a perfectly flat frequency response, which is something we do all agree on.
Last edited:
I don't find that there is a penalty from using most types of minimum phase EQ. What matters is that it needs to be based on good measurements and the effect on the whole polar response needs to be considered. Not doing that is probably partly why the myth of using EQ sparingly and gently has arisen. Some defects in speakers are not very audible and pointless to fix. Others are based on acoustic interference and become very difficult if not impossible to fix. Learning to read and interpret measurements properly takes time, experience and guidance.