Jump to content


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 09/25/2018 in all areas

  1. 1 point
    ok problem solved, adding an aformat step (to convert to dbl and then back to s32) around the biquads fixes the issue.
  2. 1 point
    If it were me, I would probably study the source code more carefully to try to figure out what it will do, but a quick test would be to try a pair of filters that cancel each other, for example: Low Shelf gain=+X; Low Shelf gain=-X at a common frequency, where the X is some relatively big number that will cause clipping depending on how much internal headroom the processor has. After running a track through the pair of filters, the input and output should be very nearly identical unless clipping or severe precision loss occurred. If the internal processing is floating point, then internal headroom and precision should be very high.
  3. 1 point
    There seems to be some confusion about what the app actually is at this point in time so let me clarify. It's an interactive *per channel* minimum phase filter designer with the tools required to quickly and easily work with either mono bass managed tracks or multichannel tracks, i.e. designing pre or post BM BEQ filters. Interactive means it must be quick hence the filter view is based on the transfer functions. Obviously this wouldn't work if we were trying to combine channels but we're not (except when extracting the source track which is pre filter) so this is fine. A post filter clipping check is something I am aware of and had logged it at https://github.com/3ll3d00d/beqdesigner/issues/19 a while ago. This isn't hard to implement (both sox and ffmpeg can apply biquads) so it's just a question of time and desire to implement the feature. One could also implement this in python using scipy or there are other python libs (with an underlying C impl, e.g. http://ajaxsoundstudio.com/pyodoc/) that could also be used if scipy is too slow. Having said that I would have thought that would be something that happens relatively infrequently as a final check so working with existing cli tools seems fine to me and would be quick and easy to implement. @Kvalsvoll the bit I don't get is why you want to remux that back into the original track. If you're playing an mkv then you're already on a computer that can do the filtering in real time so why would you want to alter the source itself?
  4. 1 point
    if you uncheck the "mix to mono" checkbox and click extract then once it finishes, the button should change to "Create Signals" and the field at the bottom will be enabled. Put something in here and click "create signals". https://imgur.com/a/uoOh3Hr It should then automatically close the dialog and add each channel as a separate signal using the channel names (taken from https://trac.ffmpeg.org/wiki/AudioChannelManipulation#Layouts) https://imgur.com/a/y7GGUU2 If this doesn't happen then feel free to log something with appropriate steps to reproduce/pics/supporting files over at https://github.com/3ll3d00d/beqdesigner/issues similarly if you think of any interesting features then do also feel free to suggest them, I'll probably work on this for a little while longer at least.
  5. 1 point
    So I see that BEQ has suddenly taken off on AVSForum, which appears to have partly inspired @3ll3d00d's designer software. These are very positive developments. However, I'm a bit disappointed to see that the BEQs posted to AVSForum are intended to be applied to all channels, and there appears to be little if any post-BEQ QC performed. Instead, most of these seem to involve EQing the PvA to flat and calling it enough. I even see people arguing that the quality of a BEQ should be judged "objectively" by how smooth or flat the resulting PvA is. Ugh! I fear many of these BEQs may be doing more harm than good to the track. As we know very well here, a PvA is not a reliable predictor of perceived tonal balance on a track. It's certainly informative, but is nowhere near definitive. There's really no way to know how something sounds without listening to it on a good "reference" system and making a subjective judgment. Undoubtedly, this is complicated by the facts that personal preferences vary and that it is not yet known how to calibrate different bass systems to sound exactly the same, but I don't know of a better way to deal with the problem. It's probably perfectly OK if there are multiple BEQs out there. Different people will have different insight and of course will hear different things. FWIW, I have a pretty aggressive house curve on my system which arises from my novel calibration approach based on the concept of apparent power. Curiously however, my approach leads me to a curve that tops out around 20 Hz and is somewhat diminished (by a few dB) below there. Furthermore, I've noticed that soundtracks I like also frequently have a bit less ULF than 20-40 Hz bass. They don't have a steep shelf or HPF but often they don't push levels below 20-40 Hz that much. I think @maxmercy gets this right by looking at each channel and trying to ascertain what filter/filters were used rather than just making the PvA look pretty and listening to the final result. I believe it makes all the difference. All the same, it might not matter much for most people, especially those using Crowsons. I doubt very many bass systems out there are particularly balanced, including those with very high output capability. If one's sound already leans heavily in certain directions (such as ULF over mid-bass or vibration over acoustic) then the nuances of better quality BEQ quality may be mostly missed. The ability to send a lot more content to the Crowsons may be "good enough" for most people. P.S. I expect to evaluate @maxmercy's "Ready Player One" BEQ hopefully this weekend. It looks like one I will enjoy. :)