Re: BiQuad frequency response for visualisation
- From: robert bristow-johnson <rbj@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2008 16:28:08 -0700 (PDT)
On Jun 30, 3:16 pm, Vladimir Vassilevsky <antispam_bo...@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Greg Berchin wrote:
On Jun 30, 1:59 pm, robert bristow-johnson <r...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
now, if you retain the same EE definition of Q for the peaking EQ (and
the old analog EQs do that, e.g. pultec), then you find that if you
leave Q constant, a cut of N dB is not the inverse filter of a boost
of N dB. the cut is a lot skinnier looking than the boost.
In the last audio EQ that I designed, the customers demanded boost/cut
symmetry in EQ filters, so I (re)defined Q accordingly.
Exactly. The similar adjustment has to be applied for the shelving
filters for tone control.
i guess i don't know what you mean, Vlad. do you mean to adjust the
value of Q (when the shelf gain changes) so as to keep the steepest
possible monotonic slope of the shelf?
otherwise, what Q adjustment are you guys referring to?
r b-j
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: BiQuad frequency response for visualisation
- From: Vladimir Vassilevsky
- Re: BiQuad frequency response for visualisation
- Prev by Date: Re: BiQuad frequency response for visualisation
- Next by Date: Re: fixed point to integer conversion
- Previous by thread: Re: BiQuad frequency response for visualisation
- Next by thread: Re: BiQuad frequency response for visualisation
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading