More > JRiver Media Center 27 for Windows
Feature Request: Equalizer Improvements
dtc:
Conceptually, I think you both are correct. The per track DSP should correct for problems in the original file. The per zone DSP should correct for problems in the room or with playback equipment. The results of applying the per track DSP should be what you want if you have a perfect room and perfect equipment. The per zone DSP then corrects for problems in the room or equipment. The per track DSPs are applied first in order to get the "perfect" track, followed by the per zone DSPs to correct for the room/equipment.
So, for example, a beq filter should be applied to the track. A low pass filter that cuts off high frequency noise for a DSD to PCM conversion should be applied to the track. For the example of Journey's CDs, the correction would be at the track level.
The zone level DSPs should be based on anomalies in the room, like standing wave problems, or in the equipment, like inadequate bass. They should be applied after the per track DSPs.
Unfortunately, zones (and zoneswitch) have been used for both physical zones and to apply other DSPs and other characteristics. For the above to work, zones should be limited to physical zones and the other changes would need to be applied at the track level.
As to UI, it seems pretty simple. You select either a zone or group of zones or a file or group of files then you select the DSP to apply and it is applied to the selected items. Some DSPs may be limited to either zones or tracks.
Also, conceptually it is possible that you would want to change the per track DSPs based on the zone. That is sometimes discussed with beq filters for example. For example, why do certain DSPs if you will never hear the difference in the output zone. I could see a structure where there are multiple sets of per track DSPs, which each set related to a particular zone. Actually, that would probably not be that hard to implement, but I would probably leave it out for now.
The concepts seems pretty straightforward, but the implementation is another thing.
mattkhan:
Yes that is the setup I would prefer/seems most appropriate for the problem (zones are physical locations, per track DSP can be applied on top, rule based selection of a per track DSP for a zone).
MGD_King:
An alternative EQ is the free VST plugin from Voxengo. From their website:
"Marvel GEQ is a linear-phase 16-band graphic equalizer AAX, AudioUnit and VST plugin with multi-channel operation support (supporting up to 8 input/output channels, audio host application-dependent) for professional streaming, sound and music production applications. Marvel GEQ offers extensive internal channel routing capabilities, and supports mid/side channel processing."
I just installed it and added it to MC27 and so far, I'm impressed! I can fine tune the sound and the interface isn't bad. Tinkering with multichannel set up now.
And did I mention it was FREE?
wer:
--- Quote from: MGD_King on December 19, 2020, 09:08:43 am ---An alternative EQ is the free VST plugin from Voxengo.
--- End quote ---
Yeah, I have some experience with this one.
I will give credit to them for having pretty good centers to their bands, a sufficient number of bands, better LF coverage, and an appropriate Q. Moving one slider doesn't affect 3 or 4 adjacent bands. It has a good interface that makes it easier to test EQ patterns. All of which are improvements on MC's GEQ.
However, as a plugin, it can be no help at all with the per track EQ question.
Furthermore, Marvel is a linear phase EQ. It exhibits pre-ringing and is going to sound different from the MC EQ, which is minimum phase. I'll leave it to the listener to decide which sound they prefer.
I would much prefer MC to have a proper built-in solution.
Foggyroad:
--- Quote from: wer on December 19, 2020, 12:34:38 pm ---
I would much prefer MC to have a proper built-in solution.
--- End quote ---
Yes, me too.
I've only posted here a few times as I've been a happy MC user for more than 10 years and never really had a reason to post. But it is time for the DSP PEQ to be updated and made more user-friendly with a graphical interface. I have no problem with inputting the parameters as is the case now, but it is important to be able to see visually what has been input.
My particular use case is for two sets of active speakers - 3-ways and 4-ways. Both are dipoles, so as well as the x-overs they require shelving and peaking filters to linearise the drivers. Room correction is not my primary use for the PEQ.
I currently have separate 8-channel DACs and 7/8 channel amps for each speaker pair. These are setup as zones which works well and I'm quite happy with this. The input method also works well enough for me, but I'm beginning to find the lack of a display a real handicap.
Prior to using JRiver for speaker x-over/eq I have used several MiniDSP products and have always found their graphical interface really useful. JRiver's PEQ looks quite dated in comparison. However using JRiver for x-over/eq has enabled me to do away with extra boxes and cables.
Due to my frustration with JRiver's lack of PEQ graphics I trialled Roon for 90 days earlier this year, primarily to see if its DSP was worth the extra that Roon costs. Roon's graphical PEQ representation is quite simple and displays individual and overall EQ nicely. However, I was less happy with other aspects of the data input procedures in Roon and decided to stick with JRiver.
I wouldn't think that implementing a graphical representation would be too onerous of a task.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version