![]() Giving users the option whether to specify the width or the Q factor might be best. Having a width control instead would be more intuitive. A logarithmic slider would be better (the actual effect of doubling Q is similar whether you're going from 1 to 2 or 100 to 200). Notch filter logarithmic slider: Setting the notch filter's Q factor with a linear slider doesn't really make sense.Yes, in absolute "Hz" the notch may look quite wide, but in terms of octaves a Q of 20 really is pretty narrow. As you have discovered you can set the Q as high as you like (by keyboard entry). You can actually enter whatever Q you want to run the filter with (and the slider will be "stuck" at the right) but it won't remember your setting, resetting to 20 instead. using a Q factor less than several hundred would have been unnecessarily eating away at the signal. For instance, I had a recording with a 6200 Hz hum and the peak was only 8Hz wide. if you're filtering out a constant high-frequency sound that's going to affect way too broad a frequency range. Notch Filter q: For the notch filter, q=20 is a ridiculously low upper limit.Steve: I do see some problems with the suggestion, namely that psychoacoustic weightings assume a specific "loudness" but that depends on how high you have your amp/speakers turned up.psychoacoustic weighting: It'd be nifty if the Plot Spectrum tool had an option for psychoacoustically weighting the frequencies (ITU-R 468, inverse ISO 226, even just A-weighting) so as to make it easy to find which frequencies are perceived as loudest or as similarly loud.I can see the usefulness of what you suggest - perhaps an option (check box on the mixer board interface) to select between pre / post envelope level? ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |