DYohn
Emo VIPs 
Posts: 18,493
|
Post by DYohn on May 3, 2010 20:51:54 GMT -5
wow markus once you start beating a drum you beat it till it's dead don't you?
A graphic EQ can be just as effective as a parametric EQ. You may not LIKE them as much, but that's a different issue. Also, since the UMC-1 does not employ a PEQ, and is unlikely to add one through software, it is not the device for you. The other options you've mentioned will suit your requirements far better.
But please, stop spreading the FUD that a graphic EQ is inferior. It's not, it's just a different solution.
|
|
|
|
Post by markus on May 3, 2010 20:54:07 GMT -5
People should know what is good for them, don't you agree? There's enough false information floating around.
|
|
DYohn
Emo VIPs
Posts: 18,493
|
Post by DYohn on May 3, 2010 20:56:07 GMT -5
People should know what is good for them, don't you agree? There's enough false information floating around. Yes, my point exactly. |
|
|
|
Post by markus on May 3, 2010 21:00:37 GMT -5
People should know what is good for them, don't you agree? There's enough false information floating around. Yes, my point exactly. So you disagree that the optimization approach of the Anti-Mode or the REW/BFD combo is superior to one that is using a graphic EQ? If so, could you explain why? |
|
DYohn
Emo VIPs
Posts: 18,493
|
Post by DYohn on May 3, 2010 21:08:50 GMT -5
So you disagree that the optimization approach of the Anti-Mode or the REW/BFD combo is superior to one that is using a graphic EQ? If so, could you explain why? It's not better nor worse, it just employs a different type of EQ. |
|
|
|
Post by markus on May 3, 2010 21:21:30 GMT -5
So you disagree that the optimization approach of the Anti-Mode or the REW/BFD combo is superior to one that is using a graphic EQ? If so, could you explain why? It's not better nor worse, it just employs a different type of EQ. No. The difference is that graphic EQs have a fixed bandwidth (Q) and center frequency whereas a parametric EQ is variable in Q and frequency. Graphic EQs are a subgroup of parametric EQs. It's impossible to correct a high Q low frequency room mode with a EQ that has the wrong Q and frequency. So it's indispensable to use a parametric EQ for correcting modal problems at lower frequencies. Graphic EQs just don't work. As to room correction at higher frequencies please see en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_room_correctionBest, Markus |
|
Lonnie
Emo Staff 
admin
Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain
Posts: 6,999
|
Post by Lonnie on May 3, 2010 21:34:57 GMT -5
I would like to jump in here. PEQs and Graphics both have thier advantages and dis-advantages. Over the years I have used both extensively and find that you can achieve the same results with either. Generally speaking, the graphic is easier for those not in the industry to setup and understand. To properly setup a PEQ it is a lot more difficult and generally requires some specialized gear. So in my opinion, they are both great options to get a job done, but like all EQs. The less you need them, the better off you are. Just my .02  |
|
|
|
Post by markus on May 3, 2010 21:48:22 GMT -5
Over the years I have used both extensively and find that you can achieve the same results with either. I have to disagree. No graphic EQ in this world is able to correct a high Q low frequency mode when it has not the correct Q, frequency and level. Only PEQs can do that. Toole shows examples in his book ("Sound reproduction"). To properly setup a PEQ it is a lot more difficult and generally requires some specialized gear. Special gear like in "UMC-1"? Is the platform capable of providing PEQs (one after the LF summing stage would be enough)? Automated optimization (Anti-Mode, REW/BFD)? Best, Markus |
|
Lonnie
Emo Staff
admin
Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain
Posts: 6,999
|
Post by Lonnie on May 3, 2010 22:01:14 GMT -5
Over the years I have used both extensively and find that you can achieve the same results with either. I have to disagree. No graphic EQ in this world is able to correct a high Q low frequency mode when it has not the correct Q, frequency and level. Only PEQs can do that. Toole shows examples in his book ("Sound reproduction"). To properly setup a PEQ it is a lot more difficult and generally requires some specialized gear. Special gear like in "UMC-1"? Is the platform capable of providing PEQs (one after the LF summing stage would be enough)? Automated optimization (Anti-Mode, REW/BFD)? Best, Markus Well, we will just agree to dis-agree. With a narrow band .75Q 1/3 octave, you can get the same eq curve and results as any PEQ. Actually the special gear I was referring too was a calibrated RTA. Where as with a graphic it can be done with a basic SPL meter. The upside is that there is more than one option and everyone can chose which is best for their needs. |
|
|
|
Post by markus on May 3, 2010 22:29:44 GMT -5
Well, we will just agree to dis-agree. Well, I'll agree to anything that is based on facts. With a narrow band .75Q 1/3 octave, you can get the same eq curve and results as any PEQ. Is this something the UMC provides? The upside is that there is more than one option and everyone can chose which is best for their needs. Our needs are all the same: optimize the low frequency response in our listening room. There are two different scenarios: optimize for one seat or optimize for multiple seats. The most basic one is to optimize a single seat using subwoofer placement and a PEQ. The most convenient way to achieve this would be a fully automated optimization like the one DSpeaker's Anti-Mode provides. The biggest drawback of the Anti-Mode is that it can't optimize the crossover region to the mains. This is something only an AVR like the UMC could provide. Best, Markus |
|
|
|
Post by bfisher on May 4, 2010 10:48:48 GMT -5
I have a BFD and a UMC-1. While I agree the level of detail and flexibility the BFD provides is greater, the UMC-1 did an admirable job and produced a pretty damn good graph. I was able to smooth out the the peaks to a level that I was pleased with. I guess I should do a "head to head" comparison to see the difference in the output - but the bottom line is it sounds great and is 1 less component in my chain. Right now my BFD is sitting on the shelf while I figure out if I need it or not |
|
|
|
Post by markus on May 4, 2010 11:07:57 GMT -5
Would you mind posting some graps?
|
|
|
|
Post by petew on May 4, 2010 11:26:44 GMT -5
I have a BFD and a UMC-1. Are you redirecting bass to the sub or running all your speakers as "large"? |
|
|
|
Post by Nemesis.ie on May 4, 2010 12:20:48 GMT -5
Given that BF has Emotiva 6.3s which start dropping off at 80Hz I imagine he is redirecting the bass. I am (same speakers) and wouldn't like to not use a sub with them.
|
|
|
|
Post by bfisher on May 4, 2010 15:01:40 GMT -5
correct - my speakers are small, with crossover around 80 - with bass sent to an Elemental A5-350 Sub.
I will try to get some graphs posted this weekend - I didn't save any of them so will have to rework it.
|
|
|
|
Post by loopinfool on May 4, 2010 21:25:55 GMT -5
This is a little disappointing.
Emo-Q is billed as room correction. The low-frequency EQ was touted as having lots of resolution.
It seems to me that room correction should EQ the sound that enters the room via the speaker. It could be thought of as speaker correction and would be applied as the last step on the output channels.
- LoopinFool
|
|
|
|
Post by loopinfool on May 4, 2010 21:33:47 GMT -5
If the sub EQ is done prior to adding the main speaker crossover signal (which it sound like it is given Lonnies responses), then is the main speaker EQ applied prior to the crossover as well? If so there could be a problem. EmoQ boosts the heck out of low frequencies if you have small mains because they can't produce those low frequencies, then that highly boosted low frequency portion is crossed over to the sub which CAN produce them. The result would be boomy, muddy bass. There are a lot of assumptions in this theory, but it could explain some of the results people have reported. That sounds plausible. If the auto-eq measurement is done per-speaker (the output side), but then the corrections are applied to the input side (pre-crossover) instead, it seems flawed. - LoopinFool |
|
|
|
Post by markus on May 4, 2010 22:31:20 GMT -5
I said it before and I'll say it again: forget EmoQ (the way it's currently implemented). It doesn't provide the controls you need.
There are no EQs available for the subwoofer out. There are only fixed frequency/bandwidth EQs for the LFE in (22, 28, 35, 44, 56, 72, 89, 114, 141, 180, 224Hz) and very coarse fixed frequency/bandwidth EQs for the other channels (31.5, 63, 125, 190, 250, 500, 1000, 2200, 4500, 9000, 18000 Hz) that are applied BEFORE their signals get crossed over and redirected to the subwoofer summing stage.
The correct way to optimize the low frequency response it is to EQ the acoustic sum (all speakers playing at the same time) of all low frequency sources, i.e. subwoofer and satellite speakers.
|
|
|
|
Post by Nemesis.ie on May 5, 2010 9:37:41 GMT -5
If the sub EQ is done prior to adding the main speaker crossover signal (which it sound like it is given Lonnies responses), then is the main speaker EQ applied prior to the crossover as well? If so there could be a problem. EmoQ boosts the heck out of low frequencies if you have small mains because they can't produce those low frequencies, then that highly boosted low frequency portion is crossed over to the sub which CAN produce them. The result would be boomy, muddy bass. There are a lot of assumptions in this theory, but it could explain some of the results people have reported. That sounds plausible. If the auto-eq measurement is done per-speaker (the output side), but then the corrections are applied to the input side (pre-crossover) instead, it seems flawed. - LoopinFool Agreed - and indeed the test tones should be output with the EQ applied too, so they can be accurately used for level setting. |
|
|
|
Post by mysterymachine on May 5, 2010 22:35:18 GMT -5
Has anyone been able to tell if the +10db to LFE from Markus' diagram is also on the 7.1 analog in? When I run test tones over the analog I am 10db too low on LFE for analog. I know this has been a big point of contention on the Oppo BDP-83 thread on AVSForum.
What do you think is the best way for me to deal with that? Boosting +10 to LFE in the player is a bit much but its my only option right? I can't make a special EQ since EQ is not applied to analog. There is an LFE boost setting per type in the UMC. What I did for now is set all the types except the analog to -5 (since its only a trim not a boost on that screen) and in the player set the LFE to +5. But now when I think about it that would make the bass crossed over from the mains 5db hotter than the LFE .... hmmmmmmm
|
|
