Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Parametric EQ settings from AutoEQ gives different results #4

Open
svenkerst opened this issue May 29, 2020 · 13 comments
Open

Parametric EQ settings from AutoEQ gives different results #4

svenkerst opened this issue May 29, 2020 · 13 comments

Comments

@svenkerst
Copy link

When importing a ParametricEQ.txt, the plotted graph is quite different from that of AutoEQ itself.

image

image

@timschneeb
Copy link
Owner

Seems right to me, the thin green line and the plot in DDCToolbox look almost identical.

Could you point out which frequency range looks out of place?

@svenkerst
Copy link
Author

I have the impression that the line is sort of tilted downwards from around 500 Hz onwards. For example, the peaks at 1826 and 7073 have positive amplitudes in the AutoEQ graph, but not when imported into the DDCToolbox. Maybe it makes sense, but I just don't understand why that is.

@timschneeb
Copy link
Owner

Yes, you're right. There is some discrepancy between both graphs. I'll have a closer look at how AutoEQ calculates their graphs

@svenkerst
Copy link
Author

Great, thank you! One more thing: shouldn't changing the filter type also change the graph accordingly?

@timschneeb
Copy link
Owner

It does, but you need to click in another table cell to commit your change (the GUI library I'm using handles widgets inside table cells a bit strangely)

Example:
screencap

@timschneeb
Copy link
Owner

timschneeb commented May 29, 2020

You're using the latest stable build right? I just checked and your issue seems to be fixed on the latest version directly compiled from sources.
I was rewriting large chunks of the code which handles/stores filters a while ago so that might have fixed it.

Use the latest nightly release instead:
https://nightly.timschneeberger.me/ddctoolbox-win/ddctoolbox-win64_1.3.85.zip

Screenshot

By the way, this version can download profiles directly from AutoEQ (File > Download from AutoEQ)

@svenkerst
Copy link
Author

Thank you for your help. I was indeed using the latest stable build. The latest nightly build gives more similar results, but still they're a bit different (negative instead of positive 7073 Hz peak for example). Do you know what's the reason behind this?

Another problem I now have with the latest nightly build is that it crashes when I import a VDC file.

@svenkerst
Copy link
Author

Converting the VDC file to a project file fixed it for me.

@timschneeb
Copy link
Owner

Could you upload the VDC file that crashes the app? Also, you can only import 'classic'-VDCs (VDCs that only contain Peaking filters)
I'll also look into the other issue

@svenkerst
Copy link
Author

Thank you very much! Here's the VDC file that's causing the toolbox to crash
Example VDC.zip

@timschneeb
Copy link
Owner

timschneeb commented May 30, 2020

I couldn't reproduce the crash you described (on version 1.3.85). However, I noticed some VDCs are falsely recognized as not compatible. That issue should be fixed with the latest nightly build: https://nightly.timschneeberger.me/ddctoolbox-win/ddctoolbox-win64_1.3.90.zip

@rlw6534
Copy link

rlw6534 commented Mar 4, 2022

There still seems to be a problem with autoeq downloads and imports. As you can see the gain levels are significantly different. The VDC files also sound very different than the convolver files (especially the SE846), so something is wrong:

image

Screen Shot 2022-03-04 at 11 03 52 AM

Note all gains are negative.

and

image

Screen Shot 2022-03-04 at 11 07 44 AM

Note the treble gains are much higher.

@nift4
Copy link

nift4 commented Oct 10, 2022

Manually adding Low/High Shelf helped for me:
Before (top) vs after (bottom)
Screenshot_20221010_204142

After vs AutoEQ graph
Screenshot_20221010_204211

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

4 participants