Jump to content


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


3ll3d00d last won the day on October 28

3ll3d00d had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

96 Excellent

About 3ll3d00d

Recent Profile Visitors

645 profile views
  1. FWIW there was an error in the convert to dB function which put a lower limit of ~ -92dB on the resulting value, the actual response is https://imgur.com/a/EiDaMN0
  2. No I am not, and have not been, missing your point. I agree that a per channel solution's should be better and is better in theory. I question whether it is practically that much better in practice on certain tracks (and whether the effort involved in creating the pre channel beq is worth it). I agree it would take a per channel comparison to get a more informed view. I commented in the first place because of an idle observation (possibly in the avs thread) that the resulting mono tracks don't look that different (presumably because it is dominated by the louder channels). I haven't done any detailed comparison myself though hence why continued discussion in general is a bit pointless I will dig out the relevant graph to illustrate later and see if it matches my initial idle observation.
  3. that is strange, I haven't noticed that on any other tracks. It looks like the analysis of the source signal has basically dropped down into the abyss. I'll have to look into that one. https://imgur.com/a/UoNlJuS re the rest of the discussion, it seems a bit pointless to discuss further in abstract terms as it hinges on one's definition of subtle vs marked and whether an effect at -x dB is one or the other.
  4. perhaps this is clearer before https://imgur.com/a/lyOBXiQ after https://imgur.com/a/n8g8KHe this is the channel levels on the track so in reality LFE would be another 10dB higher this is average but the delta between the channels is similar on the peak chart (just much harder to read) The post beq surround channel looks odd to me (i.e. it is just the filter shape) and it's at a *much* lower level than the LFE and C. Even if there are distinct effects in the surrounds that aren't in any other channel, IMV it's going to be at most a subtle difference.
  5. The surround specific bass boost requires an extremely large boost in order to bring it up to a pretty low level relative to the lfe hence, in this case, even if you have channel specific beq, I suspect you will struggle to notice it.
  6. I just found it a bit dull compared to TFA or Rogue One, storyline seemed particularly derivative of earlier films as well so that it felt like a remake at times rather than a new film. in principle I agree, in practice I'm not so sure for a track like this where the surrounds are so much lower in level and even LR is another few dB down on the C. I haven't compared but I would not be surprised if there was a pretty small audible difference between the two approaches in this case.
  7. I found TLJ quite underwhelming even with the volume turned up and with BEQ on though perhaps my impression is coloured by my impression of the film (which I also found pretty underwhelming). FWIW I posted the per channel pva for that on avs - https://www.avsforum.com/forum/113-subwoofers-bass-transducers/2995212-bass-eq-filtered-movies.html#post57055584 - as I was curious about the relative merits of the two BEQ approaches (pre and post). It seems to be a really heavily filtered track, almost looks like they baked bass management into the track itself.
  8. 3ll3d00d

    The Bass EQ for Movies Thread

    bit quiet round here recently but in case anyone is watching... latest beta builds have a bunch of features around seeing the impact of filters on the waveform and being able to zoom into the spectrum for slices of the track while also seeing the overall track. The avs thread has some pics and details - https://www.avsforum.com/forum/113-subwoofers-bass-transducers/2995212-bass-eq-filtered-movies.html#post57032634
  9. 3ll3d00d

    The Bass EQ for Movies Thread

    latest builds have a split screen before/after beq spectrogram view as well as a way to check the headroom in the waveform pre/post BEQ which you may find useful (and colourful!)
  10. 3ll3d00d

    The Bass EQ for Movies Thread

    there is a release of that feature available at https://github.com/3ll3d00d/beqdesigner/releases/tag/0.4.1 & described in https://www.avsforum.com/forum/113-subwoofers-bass-transducers/2995212-bass-eq-filtered-movies.html#post56940944
  11. 3ll3d00d

    The Bass EQ for Movies Thread

    ok problem solved, adding an aformat step (to convert to dbl and then back to s32) around the biquads fixes the issue.
  12. 3ll3d00d

    The Bass EQ for Movies Thread

    Looking at it some more (and checking the code at https://www.ffmpeg.org/doxygen/2.8/af__biquads_8c_source.html) suggests it really should be possible to avoid this problem unless something else in the chain clips it. Will dig a bit further.
  13. 3ll3d00d

    The Bass EQ for Movies Thread

    I like the quick test https://imgur.com/a/8HopqIx which shows there is zero headroom available. I suppose this is not that surprising as ffmpeg filters are treated as completely independent blocks. not ideal though perhaps not a blocker as it would be simple enough to attenuate before filtering, good enough for analysis purposes perhaps (though not for the "create remuxed file" case) sample command for reference - https://gist.github.com/3ll3d00d/40be3ec6e1a5c0466ae324350be65cb0#file-gistfile1-txt
  14. 3ll3d00d

    The Bass EQ for Movies Thread

    I think I've worked out the incantation required to get ffmpeg to apply filters to individual channels so was thinking about how to test whether it does this correctly (re the concerns mentioned earlier about clipping). Any suggestions on what a simple, easily repeatable, test would be for this? i.e. generate a specific signal, apply some filter, output should be x.