Really? Sometimes CPU performance is weird, because I now use a slight modification of the original filter structures (for better time-varying behavior), but in theory the operation count is pretty much the same. I guess it pipelines better or something.DuX wrote:On my "Phenomenal" PC it now uses about 50% less when it's static, and about the same as before when I tweak the controls. I think that's more than acceptable!
Well, obviously cracking is very annoying yeah. Some filter structures are more obviously prone to that kind of stuff though. Fortunately the types that work tend to well are pretty accurate as well, so it's a win-win to use a good structure: you get the response you really wanted (instead of something approximately similar) and fairly simple interpolation can work really well.No matter how good an EQ is, if it crackles when you tweak it, it can be sooo annoying, isn't it? You try to pinpoint the frequency, listen to the changes in sound, and you hear the crackling also. Not a really great "feature" of any EQ.
That interpolation work actually came from this other project of mine, but I figured I could put it to Dust Equalizer as well, since they share the same basic EQ code..
Some day that will become my answer to "what about all the things that Dust EQ doesn't do."
