If you have a problem or need to report a bug please email : support@dsprobotics.com
There are 3 sections to this support area:
DOWNLOADS: access to product manuals, support files and drivers
HELP & INFORMATION: tutorials and example files for learning or finding premade modules for your projects
USER FORUMS: meet with other users and exchange ideas, you can also get help and assistance here
EQ matching
7 posts
• Page 1 of 1
EQ matching
Here's the basic idea... As you probably know, you can emulate an EQ by capturing its impulse response and use it in a FIR filter. You can capture the IR in various ways, most common being passing known testing signal (usually a sine sweep or white noise) through the filter and then calculate the IR using deconvolution.
Problem is, FIR filters tend to be ridiculously CPU expensive and have poor precision in the lowend, because their frequency resolution is linear (instead of logarithmic like human ear).
Lately I've been working on different method. From the known dry and wet testing signal it is possible to estimate coefficients for a IIR filter. They can be much more CPU friendly and do not have the frequency resolution problem. In future I can even add nonlinearities estimation, which would allow to emulate wide variety of devices (including guitar amps, analogue EQ's etc.). Kind of like Acustica Nebula or Kemper profiling amp.
Now, my current schematic is rather sparse. It contains a makeshift filter (coded in code component). The schematic passes a testing signal through it (impulse) and then estimates the coefficients from the captured wet and dry signals. You can compare (just numerically, not visually, sorry for my laziness) the original vs estimated coefficients, as well as original vs. estimated impulse response.
I've been kind of burned out lately with this project and flowstone in general, so I'm hoping to catch a fresh wind from your opinions and ideas guys...
Problem is, FIR filters tend to be ridiculously CPU expensive and have poor precision in the lowend, because their frequency resolution is linear (instead of logarithmic like human ear).
Lately I've been working on different method. From the known dry and wet testing signal it is possible to estimate coefficients for a IIR filter. They can be much more CPU friendly and do not have the frequency resolution problem. In future I can even add nonlinearities estimation, which would allow to emulate wide variety of devices (including guitar amps, analogue EQ's etc.). Kind of like Acustica Nebula or Kemper profiling amp.
Now, my current schematic is rather sparse. It contains a makeshift filter (coded in code component). The schematic passes a testing signal through it (impulse) and then estimates the coefficients from the captured wet and dry signals. You can compare (just numerically, not visually, sorry for my laziness) the original vs estimated coefficients, as well as original vs. estimated impulse response.
I've been kind of burned out lately with this project and flowstone in general, so I'm hoping to catch a fresh wind from your opinions and ideas guys...
 Attachments

 EQmatch.fsm
 (9.24 KiB) Downloaded 641 times
 KG_is_back
 Posts: 1216
 Joined: Tue Oct 22, 2013 5:43 pm
 Location: Slovakia
Re: EQ matching
Hi KG.
OK ... definitely got my attention
Just loaded up schematic, and looking around, looking to grasp what you've created here.
1st mystery setting. Into the 'least squares method fitting' module, you have a BOOLEAN [set to FALSE]. Inside this is connected to a 'pp' value. What is this ?
.... more questions and interest to follow
OK ... definitely got my attention
Just loaded up schematic, and looking around, looking to grasp what you've created here.
1st mystery setting. Into the 'least squares method fitting' module, you have a BOOLEAN [set to FALSE]. Inside this is connected to a 'pp' value. What is this ?
.... more questions and interest to follow
 RJHollins
 Posts: 1400
 Joined: Thu Mar 08, 2012 7:58 pm
Re: EQ matching
RJHollins wrote:1st mystery setting. Into the 'least squares method fitting' module, you have a BOOLEAN [set to FALSE]. Inside this is connected to a 'pp' value. What is this ?
The entire process is based on least squares method. The equation of the filter is:
y[0] = k00*x[0] + k01*x[1] + ... +k11*y[1] + k12*y[2] +...
x is the dry signal and y is the wet signal (y[1] is the wet signal delayed by 1 sample for example) and both are known. It is a linear equation and coefficients K may be estimated via least squares method. The estimated coefficients is what is being displayed in the schematic.
Problem is, that LSM (least squares method) needs to solve a matrix of linear equations, which turns out to be singular in most cases (namely, when the selected order is higher than the order of original filter). If that turns out to be the case, I set the least significant coefficient to 0 and try to solve the smaller matrix.
You can see this in the resulted coefficients (the last few are zero). The "mystery setting" merely changes which coefficients should be prioritized. Unfortunately, the result was kind of opposite to what I've expected...
Another important fact is, that the dry and wet signal need to be latency compensated within +ORDER samples (preferably perfectly matched). I will try to automate this process in the future.
I'm also considering moving some calculations into blue. In the future, the testing signal might be several seconds long, which will result in some matrices being several thousand elements wide. Ruby might not handle this well (you can see this  just set "analysis length" to several thousand and FS will most likely freeze). This might be solved by putting in some sort of progress bar (I've done something similar in the past using threads).
 KG_is_back
 Posts: 1216
 Joined: Tue Oct 22, 2013 5:43 pm
 Location: Slovakia
Re: EQ matching
I'm gonna try and learn something from your efforts and postings.
Thanks KG !
Thanks KG !
 RJHollins
 Posts: 1400
 Joined: Thu Mar 08, 2012 7:58 pm
Re: EQ matching
It appears to be working nicely! I have been down this rabbit hole before too. I have tries several methods of curve fitting IIR filters with mixed success.
Least squares:
+ Tends to have lower average error
+ Can yield a smoother response than other methods
 Rounding error can go * really * haywire when the filter order gets high, even with double precision
 You can sometimes get really strange looking curves with overshoots in places they shouldn't be
Solving a matrix by evaluating transfer function at predefined points
+ When using Chebyshev (or similar) points, it tends to have lower maximum error
+ Less expensive computationally
+ You can explicitly define the response at userdefined frequencies. This is really cool for designing allpass filters. It works perfectly! Well, aside from the fact than many solutions have unstable poles. Regardless, it can still be useful for interpolating the response to generating stable FIR coefficients.

I came to the conclusion that curve fitting IIRs is probably something you would want to evaluate beforehand. Results are often erratic, unpredictable and many solutions are unstable. I've had better results just correcting error with a short FIR. It's predictable, stable and more straightforward to solve.
Least squares:
+ Tends to have lower average error
+ Can yield a smoother response than other methods
 Rounding error can go * really * haywire when the filter order gets high, even with double precision
 You can sometimes get really strange looking curves with overshoots in places they shouldn't be
Solving a matrix by evaluating transfer function at predefined points
+ When using Chebyshev (or similar) points, it tends to have lower maximum error
+ Less expensive computationally
+ You can explicitly define the response at userdefined frequencies. This is really cool for designing allpass filters. It works perfectly! Well, aside from the fact than many solutions have unstable poles. Regardless, it can still be useful for interpolating the response to generating stable FIR coefficients.

I came to the conclusion that curve fitting IIRs is probably something you would want to evaluate beforehand. Results are often erratic, unpredictable and many solutions are unstable. I've had better results just correcting error with a short FIR. It's predictable, stable and more straightforward to solve.
 cbbuntz
 Posts: 10
 Joined: Sat May 07, 2011 5:50 pm
Re: EQ matching
Might you have a FS soluion .... that you'd share
I honestly wish that I had studied these concepts in college ... except ... these ideas were not around [punch cards and later, Z80 chip ... one step up from a EchaSketch and an abacus].
I honestly wish that I had studied these concepts in college ... except ... these ideas were not around [punch cards and later, Z80 chip ... one step up from a EchaSketch and an abacus].
 RJHollins
 Posts: 1400
 Joined: Thu Mar 08, 2012 7:58 pm
7 posts
• Page 1 of 1