Stock EQ V2

[lalalandsynth]

There are incorrect values on band 2-3-4 at least compared to band 1.
It says -2 when set to the center.

I like the slide , what would be very cool is to be able to compress or expand the whole eq range.
So that you could increase or decrease the boost or cut of all bands with the slider somehow.
Say you like your eq but would like it a bit softer etc....

Maybe Shift-Slider to compress , expand.

Hope I am making sense.

offset.gif (395.9 KiB) Viewed 17411 times

I also expected to be able to grab the circle to set the Q wherever I want to not just on the bottom part.
Not sure about the moving dot, looks cool but you kind of expect it having a purpose.

Also, still has the lag which is "unacceptable" in a released plugin.

It might also be better to have them all "grayed" out when nothing is selected ? Not sure though.

Minot thing...no need for the + and - on the scale and the 6.75 11.25 is weird , whole numbers would make more sense.

Is there any stereo expansion happening in this eq ?

[wlangfor@uoguelph.ca]

There are incorrect values on band 2-3-4 at least compared to band 1.
It says -2 when set to the center.

I like the slide , what would be very cool is to be able to compress or expand the whole eq range.
So that you could increase or decrease the boost or cut of all bands with the slider somehow.
Say you like your eq but would like it a bit softer etc....

Maybe Shift-Slider to compress , expand.

Hope I am making sense.

offset.gif

I also expected to be able to grab the circle to set the Q wherever I want to not just on the bottom part.
Not sure about the moving dot, looks cool but you kind of expect it having a purpose.

Also, still has the lag which is "unacceptable" in a released plugin.

It might also be better to have them all "grayed" out when nothing is selected ? Not sure though.

Minot thing...no need for the + and - on the scale and the 6.75 11.25 is weird , whole numbers would make more sense.

Is there any stereo expansion happening in this eq ?

Hmm, thanks. I was able to get presets going and also added the math so that those other values are similar, furthermore; Load time is now almost non-existent.
And You're right, slides seem exciting.. I don't know, I just gave a theory a try .

I'm really just playing it by ear; I don't know the first thing about trigger blocking and I have noticed that nix does this. That seems exciting; Maybe I'll try His method. I suppose it's just that there were so many trigger blockers leading to each co-efficient that I was hesitant to try it.

All in all; If I'm able to get a trigger block method working, I'll be in business. And You're right about the spinning things, perhaps I'll remove them. And also, You're right about the stereo width; I made some alpha formula to add it in sequence. I've removed it for the time being because I wish it to be an option.

I field tested this new version and it is very dependable. I used it 18 times within a track and it did not cause a crash. At least in the way of stability it is operational. I'd actually had an error with trying to prompt a redraw with "afterload". Perhaps I might use afterload and edopen to merely fuel an integer value. It'd be useful for the code to know which state it's in.

Here's the latest version that works well, but as lalalandsynth said, lags a bit:


I'll add the whole numbers too, that works.

[wlangfor@uoguelph.ca]

Updated:

[martinvicanek]

Hm, I am getting strange results here. The filter response is by no means what the curve suggests. When I crank up any of the bands by 15 dB, there is only a subtle change in the actual response. Variation of Q has almost no effect at all. BTW a narrow peak has a high Q and vice versa - in your display it is the other way round.

[wlangfor@uoguelph.ca]

Hm, I am getting strange results here. The filter response is by no means what the curve suggests. When I crank up any of the bands by 15 dB, there is only a subtle change in the actual response. Variation of Q has almost no effect at all. BTW a narrow peak has a high Q and vice versa - in your display it is the other way round.

New version Download Below

You're right about that; It's very subtle. I was thinking about it; the style of using these ZDF's is like a colour-less mastering EQ, where as the more standard co-efficients are like an eq that You would use day to day. It seems like a great option. But in regards to the Q value I will make sure that it displays like it should; Thank You. But again, somewhat original and I like breaking from the pack so as to stretch My legs.

I'm going to add a version that also has the option of standard co-efficients; Infact, I might even Have a dropdown selector so that the mode can be identified.

A mastering EQ is in fact very handy; But as You said subtle. From the get-go I did not think the ZDF would be the best choice, however I like to be as unique and as single minded as I can be. I'm a student of audio engineering and I will only copy someone elses method if I cannot get mine to work.

Like for instance I used Nix's method (like used in "Freq") of aggregating all the float values so as to make them ticks, Supplied first to the first two array combine points and later to a respective redraw event. I liked My older method though. So, with that; I will find some nice co-efficients to use. Perhaps I can use the DSP Coded ones that came with the stock version.

Thanks for the input, and here is the latest version. I was able to master a track that uses 9 synths including Kairatune, Vacuum Pro, Synthmaster, Ogun (*3) and Freehand by AMVst along with Sytrus. I used this EQ to make a great track.

And You know, though it's been a controversial topic regarding division and multiplication; All I had to do to make Nix's method work better for mine was to remove the Trigger Divider lol . But also, I was thinking that perhaps because multiplication rounds so many trailing decimals that perhaps there is less collision and in fact the result merged sound is somewhat sliced together? I say that because unlike co-efficients working together; This thing is deriving each band and outputting merely a segment.

I thought, by the way I could also add a "High Quality" feature to make that a thing of the past; What high quality means as You probably know is to first process the bass and every other channel in one co-efficient; And then have the result provided to the other bells/bands. It seems to Me that this is solely one of the more natural means of oversampling.

Where as, in stark contrast; Multiplication would seem to cut away much of the trailing zeroes that ultimately mingle with one another (often causing pleasing distortion). I think in many tenses Martin, that this lack of perception that you and I are having is less effects of division constantly trying to resolve the integration of two unique sounds and their trailing ones and zeroes. As you well know division does not stop until it is done; And with an equalizer, It's most certainly never done .

Anyways, here is the latest version which is very stable and I will tend to your suggestions.


By the way, I made a standalone version which had an error. I had not linked the gain stage to the right to the redraw. Works within the DAW, but not in the standalone. I'll repair that. Enjoy the latest incarnation of the Stock EQ 2. It's very educational! .

[martinvicanek]

The displayed curve and the actual filter response are still very different:

[wlangfor@uoguelph.ca]

Ah yes, I had assumed as much. And this is the result of this just being "roughed". I still had yet to offset the initial high pass and low pass for each signal.

Like so:

Code: Select all

HighPass         LowPass
   |  __________  |
   | /     *    \ |
   |/      *     \|
   |       *      |
           |
       Frequency


In this illustration, the frequency is in the center like it should be. And prudently, the high and low pass are the result of the bell width. I merely need to add these calculations in. Rather than pixels or 0-1 value, I'll sort it by percentile so I can re-use the math if I ever want to use it for a vector GUI element.

Right now it looks like this:

Code: Select all

            Highpass  LowPass
   *  _____|_____   |
   * /xxxxx|::::::\ |
   */ xxxxx|:::::::\|
   * xxxxxx|::::::::|
   |
Frequency 
                  :: -  Affected Sound
                  XX - Not affected Sound


I had put that off because I'd realized that it would take time to do. Thanks Martin. here's a new version that is a little bit faster. I took out the fancy curves of the links and cleaned up a lot of code. I believe though, that I could get this code to maybe 50kb. That would be ideal.



Here is the latest version:

[martinvicanek]

I am not sure how your explanations relate to my observation above. Fact is that the modification dind't fix anything.

[Halon]

Wow awesome stuff! It reminds me of the stock eq in fl studio where you can also see the frequencies. Great stuff

EDIT: Didn't see you actually went for the fruity look until i posted.

[wlangfor@uoguelph.ca]

Hm, I am getting strange results here. The filter response is by no means what the curve suggests. When I crank up any of the bands by 15 dB, there is only a subtle change in the actual response. Variation of Q has almost no effect at all. BTW a narrow peak has a high Q and vice versa - in your display it is the other way round.

I am not sure how your explanations relate to my observation above. Fact is that the modification dind't fix anything.

Yeah, it's because only half the bell is actually affecting the sound. There is very little affect by this equalizer as yet. But I am meaning to do it; It's just an annoying pre-requisite that was straight-forward in nature. I'd realized I would have to do it eventually. For the time being I'm focusing on application, accuracy of the gauges and visual aids as well as the oversampling technique.

Wow awesome stuff! It reminds me of the stock eq in fl studio where you can also see the frequencies. Great stuff

EDIT: Didn't see you actually went for the fruity look until i posted.

Thanks, and I added some cool stuff with Ruby. I'm adding three other skins so there is four in all and I provided the option to use Ruby as the EQ graph. That's right! You read correctly, now You can use Ruby as the interpreter for the gain and phase plot. Thanks to MyCo for the graph example. I was able to adapt it to equalizers.

C++ Mode (Standard)


Ruby Mode (new Option)


It's a game changer for everyone on the forum. Without that technology it has been very challenging to make a working animated equalizer. It's easy to see by the start and stop existing stock model that it is a challenging notion. I've figured out how to solve it in the traditional way; With trigger blockers and limiting triggers to 25Hz, and using limited triggers at the head of the float array so that the hex data of the input is firing.

However, as cool as this alpha version is; I ran out of time. Just so that I could provide You all with a preview I rushed this version. (version 31.30) It has the following bugs:

- Had trouble integrating oversampling (solved the reason why [more on that further down]) so removed oversampling.
- Any large changes in volume cause an overload (I narrowed the problem down to extra math being added to gain. I'll need to solve it in an original way)

Stock EQ - Version 31.30 (Alpha):


Changes to be added:
- Colour (found a way of decisively adding audio colour. British and Digital mode will be available. Digital sounds like Rescue MK II by bootsy)
- Right click menu
- Touchscreen, typed value input
- Oversampling
- Standard Co-Efficient option
- Choice of multiplication or division as multiplier

And then I will be done.