#155871 - 17/04/2003 11:39
Equaliser in 2.00
|
journeyman
Registered: 19/06/2002
Posts: 72
Loc: West Berkshire
|
Has the bottom end of the EQ frequency range been changed for 2.00 ? I can't seem set a frequency below 50Hz now.
Does this mean I'm the only person who wants standard octaves either side of 1kHz ?? Using the ten bands, that used to give me a nice range of 31Hz - 16kHz. I'm now going to end up with bands @ 50Hz & 63Hz which are a bit too close together to be useful :-(
Is there a "fix" to get my bottom end back (so to speak) ?
Otherwise, the granularity of the adjustment is much improved over b13.
Cheers,
Steve.
_________________________
Mk2a 10+40Gb Darkstorm Neon Red
Nakamichi CD45z, Genesis Five Channel, Genesis A16s, JL 8W6 x3
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#155872 - 17/04/2003 12:21
Re: Equaliser in 2.00
[Re: sundayjumper]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 20/12/1999
Posts: 31583
Loc: Seattle, WA
|
He changed it because there were bugs that allowed you to plug in extreme values that caused the DSP to glitch at certain volume levels. I don't know exactly what the new limits are.
I'm pretty sure it was in response to bug number 1852:
Start with a flat EQ, any volume setting (mine was at -13db), any music file, 'home/DC' mode with L+R locked on the EQ.
Take the first band and set its frequency to 18hz (not khz) and set its Q to 20.0.
Decrease the gain on this band (with a fixed Q) and you will hear:
-6db= SEVERE Distortion in the RIGHT CHANNEL ONLY, while the left channel is fine.
-7db= Right channel gone, left channel fine.
-27db= Both channels fine again.
I hope this is somehow related to the odd distortion I'm hearing in the right channel on some pieces of music with my heavily-tweaked EQ.
Otherwise, the granularity of the adjustment is much improved over b13. I think that the granularity hasn't changed, I think what happened is that they fixed it so that there are no longer any "hidden digits" as you're adjusting things. This was bug fix number 1840:
When changing one of the detailed parameters in the equalizer, for instance, if changing the Q or the frequency, sometimes you will press the vol+/- buttons on the remote and the digits on the screen will not appear to change.
This makes it seem like the remote is locked up and you get irritated.
In actuality, the value is changing, it's just changing a decimal place that's not displayed. If you press the vol+ button ten times slowly, it will eventually change one of the digits you can see.
This only happens when certain numbers of decimal places are shown. Not all the time.
I ran into this bug several times when trying to adjust the Q and the frequency for my RTA passes on my car system. Sometimes I have to change the Q to pretty large values, or to change the frequency of a given band by a significant amount.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#155873 - 17/04/2003 16:09
Re: Equaliser in 2.00
[Re: tfabris]
|
journeyman
Registered: 17/10/2002
Posts: 57
Loc: Republic of Texas
|
I certainly hope this isn't considered to be a permanent fix! No eq below 50 Hz is a MAJOR disaster for any system with subwoofers. Luckily my existing eq settings seem to have survived the upgrade - since I need -14dB at 32 Hz to overcome the primary cab resonance in my truck.
It seems like we've thrown the baby out with the bath water!
_________________________
-Milton
100GB Mk2a / (DEAD)Tuner / Stalk
Ford Ranger
Republic of Texas
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#155874 - 17/04/2003 16:15
Re: Equaliser in 2.00
[Re: Miltoid]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 20/12/1999
Posts: 31583
Loc: Seattle, WA
|
Perhaps one of the Equalizer gnomes can drop in here and give us details about what's going on...
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#155875 - 17/04/2003 16:56
Re: Equaliser in 2.00
[Re: tfabris]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 21/05/1999
Posts: 5335
Loc: Cambridge UK
|
I believe JG pointed out some time ago that if people continued to moan about DSP glitches - for which there appears to be no errata or characterisation - then he would put in a "forceful" fix. There you have it.
Rob
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#155876 - 17/04/2003 18:07
Re: Equaliser in 2.00
[Re: rob]
|
journeyman
Registered: 17/10/2002
Posts: 57
Loc: Republic of Texas
|
Ouch! I guess reloading 2.0B13 in order to make EQ changes is a work-around. That wouldn't cause any other problems, would it?
_________________________
-Milton
100GB Mk2a / (DEAD)Tuner / Stalk
Ford Ranger
Republic of Texas
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#155878 - 18/04/2003 16:57
Re: Equaliser in 2.00
[Re: tfabris]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 21/05/1999
Posts: 5335
Loc: Cambridge UK
|
The DSP bugs below 50Hz could potentially create some output you would not necessarily want your speakers to experience.
Since we also have a fully parametric EQ audio filter (in v3) we're considering adding in a software band to cover the low stuff. It would be transparent to the user except it wouldn't work for tuner or aux input.
Rob
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#155880 - 20/04/2003 16:48
Re: Equaliser in 2.00
[Re: tfabris]
|
enthusiast
Registered: 26/01/2002
Posts: 278
Loc: Massachusetts,USA
|
Am I understanding this correctly? There are no Eq adjustments below 50hz?
_________________________
MIKE 80Gb RIO
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#155881 - 20/04/2003 17:26
Re: Equaliser in 2.00
[Re: newguy1]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 20/12/1999
Posts: 31583
Loc: Seattle, WA
|
There are no Eq adjustments below 50hz? Not exactly. It means that you can't create a band center lower than 50hz. You can still affect low frequencies by adjusting the Q on a frequency with a 50hz band center.
Personally, I'd rather they just threw up their hands and said "the DSP has bugs that low, so use those frequencies at your own risk" rather than capping it. Or at least giving us an option to uncap it.
When I was reporting the bugs, I thought it was because incorrect values were being sent to the DSP rather than problems in the DSP itself. All I knew is that I could make adjustments that would cause strange sounds to emanate from the player if I did certain things with the lowest bands. I wasn't trying to whine, I was just trying to get an accurate bug report in.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#155882 - 20/04/2003 18:10
Re: Equaliser in 2.00
[Re: tfabris]
|
enthusiast
Registered: 26/01/2002
Posts: 278
Loc: Massachusetts,USA
|
Ok, I guess ill stick with b13 for now.I think thats the Problem/bug I experienced here
http://empeg.comms.net/php/showthreaded.php?Cat=&Board=empeg_general&Number=132929
[edited by tfabris to shorten the URL... Hey everybody, when posting BBS URLs, you can cut off everything after the "number" parameter and it will work fine]. 
Edited by tfabris (20/04/2003 19:53)
_________________________
MIKE 80Gb RIO
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#155884 - 21/04/2003 06:42
Re: Equaliser in 2.00
[Re: tfabris]
|
old hand
Registered: 28/04/2002
Posts: 770
Loc: Los Angeles, CA
|
i have a question..... if we use the hijack bass adjust, is it going around the 50hz limitation, and therefore reintroducing the DSP bugs?
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#155885 - 21/04/2003 10:52
Re: Equaliser in 2.00
[Re: image]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 20/12/1999
Posts: 31583
Loc: Seattle, WA
|
i have a question..... if we use the hijack bass adjust, is it going around the 50hz limitation, and therefore reintroducing the DSP bugs? I don't believe so, no. I think his band center is higher than 50.
Even if his band center was below 50, he's currently only doing plus or minus 6db, which I don't think induced the bug even at very low frequencies. I seem to recall you had to get pretty far off 0db and/or pretty far below 50hz before things started going wonky.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#155886 - 21/04/2003 20:00
Re: Equaliser in 2.00
[Re: tfabris]
|
enthusiast
Registered: 26/01/2002
Posts: 278
Loc: Massachusetts,USA
|
Hi,the reason that I will stay with beta 13 for now is that I havent had any other problems with it(none that bother me anyways).Now that i'm aware of the DSP bug i'll be careful when making any further adjustments in that range.I dont know that much about the "Q" setting but I find it hard to believe that having the ctr. frequency at 50hz would be able to accurately affect a 30hz signal without causing everything in that range to change.
_________________________
MIKE 80Gb RIO
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
|
Previous Topic
Index