More > JRiver Media Center 27 for Windows

Feature Request: Equalizer Improvements

(1/9) > >>

wer:
It would really be helpful if there could be a couple of improvements to the EQ functionality in MC.

1. Increase the number of bands on the graphic EQ. Having only 4 bands below 1kHz is very limiting. (I know, I know, just use the PEQ. See point 2.)  Also, the combination of band centers and Q's needs to be revised, as the current combination is inappropriate. For example, there is too much overlap in the HF bands (12/14/16k). A 5dB boost at 14k yields a 4dB boost on a 12kHz sine wave. Likewise, a 5dB boost @ 16 yields a 3.5dB boost on the 12kHz sine wave. The 12/14/16k bands are too close together for their Q values and are essentially redundant.

2. The Parametric EQ badly needs some UI usability enhancements.  When making frequency adjustments it would be fantastically useful if it provided a visualization for the curve for each band, as well as for the overall resultant curve. Perhaps even, dare I say it, the ability to change freq, boost/cut, and Q by manipulating graphical elements?  There are external tools to model PEQ curves, but having to do the work twice to key it into MC is a drag.

3. The Q instead of S GUI error for shelf filters should be fixed. Not only is it confusing to require S when requesting Q, but the validation (max 5) severely limits the slope you can use. In this regard, the configuration of the shelf filter is poorly implemented, and needs correction.

UPDATE:
4. Allow an additional instance of the graphic equalizer, and another additional instance of the PEQ. Why? To facilitate per-track EQ adjustments (auto-eq). These additional instances should be loadable by a per-track feature. See further explanation in my later post below.


I know there are VST plugins available that do these sorts of things.  But frankly I am much more trusting in the quality of JRiver's audio manipulations than that of assorted other tools. It would be better if MC were better.

There haven't really been major audio related improvements to MC in quite a while, so it would be nice to do something like this.

EnglishTiger:
Another DSP one that would be Nice - The ability to set the Equaliser and Effects on a Track by Track basis instead of the current "One Size Fits All" approach. Oh and can we have please more "Presets" for both of them as both lists are far to restrictive.

wer:
That could be done with the old Auto-EQ plugin, which is broken now.

And it can be done with DSP presets, except the implementation is flawed making it overly cumbersome. But that has been discussed before.

Let's not get off track.  Functional per-track EQ would be wonderful, but it is a totally different thing from improving the equalizer itself.

mattkhan:
V old thread on same subject - https://yabb.jriver.com/interact/index.php?topic=99096.0 - mostly still valid.

Agree completely with the view that usability of the peq window is really poor. It is a powerful tool but is just so painful to use, I tend not to bother.

Lack of easy import/export for interop with filter design programs is a real pain (https://yabb.jriver.com/interact/index.php?topic=124236.0 relates to this)

Variable Q high/low pass filters also have a similar problem with unconventional Q values btw

.

Foggyroad:
Great to see that the DSP PEQ issue has been raised again...as it has for more than 5 years now and it never seems to gain any traction.

To add a visual representation would be wonderful and as has been mentioned before - it is really a sanity check on what has been input. As the PEQ stands now with just text input it is so easy to make a mistake. The only way to check that the required transfer function (I have 4-way actives) has been implemented correctly is to do a loopback measurement using REW or similar.

Fixing the Q=S issue would also be welcome.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page