Tracktion Software

rpc9943 · Post by **rpc9943** » Tue May 10, 2005 1:23 pm

So will this happen?

RonC

haydxn · Post by **haydxn** » Tue May 10, 2005 1:45 pm

and w, exactly, tf are you talking about?

IIRs · Post by **IIRs** » Tue May 10, 2005 1:53 pm

About two days ago, Beno and myself agreed with Ron that the Tracktion EQ should have a logarithmic frequency scale.. so he thinks it should be done already!

haydxn · Post by **haydxn** » Tue May 10, 2005 1:54 pm

lol... it needs a logarithmic freq scale does it ron? do you even know what a logarithmic freq scale is? and have you looked at the eQ?

djsubject · Post by **djsubject** » Tue May 10, 2005 2:37 pm

rpc9943 · Post by **rpc9943** » Tue May 10, 2005 4:17 pm

yes i know what log eq is its nonlinear, aka you can have the option to have ultra preciseness - looking at t2 eq looks like it might be like that now but still not sure it doesnt look too pretty

ROnC

haydxn · Post by **haydxn** » Tue May 10, 2005 4:52 pm

well, the gap between 100Hz and 1000Hz is pretty much the same size as the gap between 5000Hz and 10000Hz... it's not hard to spot, really now. it's purely a display thing. it's already a logarithmic scale, and if you need precision you can look to your right and see that it says the current frequency.

this whole thread has no purpose.

bk · Post by bk » Tue May 10, 2005 5:06 pm

I think Ron's point, and I agree, is that half the display of the EQ is taken up by 5k-20k. This is typically not a range that needs that much resolution.
If it *was* a log display, there would be the same amount of space allocated for 100-1k as there would be for 1k-10k. That's clearly not the case.

It's bugged me as well, and when I questioned it about a year ago, I got pretty much the same response as Ron, so I typically ignore that EQ and use something else instead.

aldi · Post by **aldi** » Tue May 10, 2005 5:33 pm

the standard way is, that doubeling the frequecy takes the same space. let's say 100-200 same space than 1000-2000. and yes i also want this

and please stop making jokes on ron, it's soo childish and boring.

valley · Post by **valley** » Tue May 10, 2005 5:49 pm

i dont use the T eq much, but I agree that the scale should be log in nature. I get eye-strain working at frequencies around 4-6k.

haydxn · Post by **haydxn** » Tue May 10, 2005 6:48 pm

hey, sorry guys my bad. sorry ron!
the fact that it's clearly not linear led me to believe that it's logarithmic. and it sort of is... except that you're right it's not strictly logarithmic. what kind of weird spacing has jules put in there? 'almost log'. perhaps to some crazy base...

yes, i too would like it to be 'properly' logarithmic. i formally apologise to everyone, especially ron, for my inability to check in detail.

AD80 · Post by **AD80** » Tue May 10, 2005 7:47 pm

I also want 1 version to have a built in spectral viewer.

IIRs · Post by **IIRs** » Tue May 10, 2005 8:04 pm

i want one with no graphics fripperies at all.. just freq, gain and Q controls please!

rpc9943 · Post by **rpc9943** » Tue May 10, 2005 8:06 pm

look im not making jokes im serious we need the stuff. Also i dont understand the HZ numbers its saying as i sweep. somethin weird. I just wish it could work you know? like all other EQ's, it seems we have a lot less precisity in the low mid-lows

RONC

AD80 · Post by **AD80** » Tue May 10, 2005 8:14 pm

rpc9943 wrote:look im not making jokes im serious

So I'm I. I requested that along time ago and Jules sayd he would think about it. So maybe in T4.

Tracktion Software

KVR Audio

Log t2 eq, any news?