KVR Audio

metamorphosis · Post by **metamorphosis** » Mon Jul 02, 2007 1:05 am

Excellent EQ - quick question - how does this differ from a standard RJB-algo style EQ? Overall I prefer the sound of a 64-bit RJB eq someone put together for me (DH_RJB_EQ? Who -was- that???) but this is close - very close. And the CPU usage is much the same - and the GUI is -waaay- more usable

Nice work man.
M@

Tp3 · Post by **Tp3** » Mon Jul 02, 2007 6:21 am

This EQ might suffer from de-normalizations. I get HUGE spikes on my E6600 2.4 C2D (65%

)

mkdr · Post by **mkdr** » Mon Jul 02, 2007 10:57 am

krank wrote: I don't mean to slam anyone or anything, but isn't a lot of this EQ talk a load of psyche?

Thats exactly what i think too. There's not much difference in many EQ's. That's exactly what made me do an EQ. I wanted something that would live up to the promise of "coloring" the sound and having it's own character. But this NonameEQ is still great. It's got a good sound to it with minimal cpu usage. Beats any standard host-eq hands down in sound and usability(and cpu usage too).

metamorphosis · Post by **metamorphosis** » Mon Oct 15, 2007 1:42 pm

Hi Christain- small question,
how does the octave setting differ from a standard 'q' setting, if at all?
For example, is a .5 octave setting equivalent to q=.5 on your run of the mill eq?
Thanks-
M@

bobsled · Post by **bobsled** » Mon Oct 15, 2007 1:57 pm

While waiting for Christian's reply, maybe you'd enjoy reading this link as much as I did.

metamorphosis · Post by **metamorphosis** » Mon Oct 15, 2007 8:33 pm

Thanks for the informative, though slightly mysterious reply - hey, don't worry, it's KVR- I expect that

Hell, I'd be disappointed if there wasn't someone talking down to me every 5 minutes-
but seriously though, good read. I understand now, though it makes my using noname that much less likely.
Which's a pity, but only for me-

bduffy · Post by **bduffy** » Mon Oct 15, 2007 8:36 pm

I don't get it: why was that slightly arrogant?

bobsled · Post by **bobsled** » Mon Oct 15, 2007 8:57 pm

It was meant well.

4 metamorphosis

Christian Budde · Post by **Christian Budde** » Mon Oct 15, 2007 11:53 pm

Did I miss the party?

What's going on here? In regards of the Q/Bandwidth, I decided to build in a dependency to the gain. So for a minimum of gain/attenuation the Bandwith is wide, while for a maximum gain/attenuation it is narrower. If you look into the literature about the bandwidth you'll find several different definitions for the bandwidth. For example the -3dB rule doesn't hold if you only have a gain increase/decrease of less then 3dB. Also it alters with higher frequencies. At least it gets asymetric (which really isn't a bad thing). However the noname-EQ was designed to keep at least the lower octave tight (so it doesn't meat the higher octave criteria).

Party on,

Christian

---
Quando eu vi
que o Largo dos Aflitos
não era bastante largo
pra caber minha aflição,
eu fui morar na Estação da Luz,
porque estava tudo escuro
dentro do meu coração.

bobsled · Post by **bobsled** » Tue Oct 16, 2007 12:48 am

---
When I saw
That the Largo of the Afflicted
It was not very long
Pra fit my distress,
I live in the Station of Light,
Because everything was dark
Within my heart.

Andywanders · Post by **Andywanders** » Tue Oct 16, 2007 1:22 am

Whoa...

How did I miss this one..

A Free, low-CPU track EQ from one of the EQ masters

Cheers Christian. This could be very useful.

RunBeerRun · Post by **RunBeerRun** » Tue Oct 16, 2007 11:07 pm

Top notch utility, it's easy to find sweet spots. Thanks.

metamorphosis · Post by **metamorphosis** » Sun Oct 21, 2007 11:56 am

bobsled wrote:It was meant well.

4 metamorphosis

Awww... shucks

*squeels happily*
m@t

Ja.x · Post by **Ja.x** » Sun Oct 21, 2007 12:49 pm

Christian Budde wrote:...
Quando eu vi
que o Largo dos Aflitos
não era bastante largo
pra caber minha aflição,
eu fui morar na Estação da Luz,
porque estava tudo escuro
dentro do meu coração.

bobsled wrote:...
When I saw
That the Largo of the Afflicted
It was not very long
Pra fit my distress,
I live in the Station of Light,
Because everything was dark
Within my heart.

More like:

When I saw
That the Afflicted People Square
Wasn't wide enough
To hold my distress
I moved into the Station of Light,
Because everything was dark
Inside my heart.

It's brazilian portuguese... Where is it from?

metamorphosis · Post by **metamorphosis** » Mon Oct 22, 2007 5:27 am

Christian Budde wrote: What's going on here? In regards of the Q/Bandwidth, I decided to build in a dependency to the gain. So for a minimum of gain/attenuation the Bandwith is wide, while for a maximum gain/attenuation it is narrower. If you look into the literature about the bandwidth you'll find several different definitions for the bandwidth. For example the -3dB rule doesn't hold if you only have a gain increase/decrease of less then 3dB. Also it alters with higher frequencies. At least it gets asymetric (which really isn't a bad thing). However the noname-EQ was designed to keep at least the lower octave tight (so it doesn't meat the higher octave criteria).

Hey Christain,
can you elaborate on the design philosophy? I'm not sure why thinning the bandwidth at higher gain levels is more desirable in this case, ditto re asymetrical curves on said bandwidth. Could you explain? I'm used to working with run of the mill, straight-as-your-uncle's-back Q's, with no variation-
Cheers,
M@

New track EQ available