SynthMakersonicgimp ·
Anything examples of this?
I need some help developing a basic API style eq.
Proportional EQ Q
From the original SynthMaker forum (2004–2014), with its members’ names and dates.
infuzion ·
Welcome to SM softie, SM's Parametric EQ is not good enough?
sonicgimp ·
Well, yes, the basic Parametric EQ would work, but I would like to take a stab at creating one with an Proportional EQ Q similar to an API 550a. I have access to a 550a to A/B.
I created basic Parametric EQs and compressors in the past with Synthmaker, and this is the first time I've ever been stumped on creating a VST.
sonicgimp ·
Never mind. I figured out a way to do it!
infuzion ·
I have no idea what you mean by "proportional"; that unit has a "clicky" sweepable freq range.
ChrisHooker ·
For more info, check out: http://www.rane.com/note122.html
@Sonicgimp: Sounds interesting. Would you be willing to share?
infuzion ·
ChrisHooker wrote: For more info, check out: http://www.rane.com/note122.html
Thanks for the link, but:
infuzion wrote: SM's Parametric EQ is not good enough?
Cyforce ·
ChrisHooker wrote:
For more info, check out: http://www.rane.com/note122.html
@Sonicgimp: Sounds interesting. Would you be willing to share?
Just from viewing the picture - link the gain value with the q value - than the q would follow the gain proportional... pretty simple i think, it just need a clear adjustment for the linked value/scaling...
Dell ·
infuzion wrote: SM's Parametric EQ is not good enough?
It is more than enough. Unfortunately, many new users prefer building things from ground up without familiarising themselves with the stock plug-ins. That is the biggest mistake on their part since they do not get a good understanding of synthmaker. The end result is making simplistic mistakes in their designs which could have been avoided.
ChrisHooker ·
This may make me sound like a d!ck, but why would you assume that just one EQ is good enough for someone else?
Can you read his mind? Maybe you can hear what he was trying to EQ, and not liking the results, causing the necessity for another approach? Or have you done a comparison between his API and the stock SM EQ module?
Or from a different direction: Do YOU use the same EQ unit on everything in YOUR mixes? Or do you like different varieties / colors / textures on different instruments? I, for one, DON'T like to use the same EQ unit on everything, as they often have a unique character that, even though good ones are very subtle, can compound and become more audible when used many times in a mix.
Different strokes for different folks.
Insulting the guy before he can answer the question is kind of a d!ck move too. (BTW, he did join the forum about 1.5 yrs ago, so I think he might have tried the stock EQ by now.)
Flame if you want to, but I hope this causes a little more thought and sensitivity.
Dell ·
ChrisHooker wrote: This may make me sound like a d!ck, but why would you assume that just one EQ is good enough for someone else?
I don’t recall saying just one EQ is good enough for others.
Can you read his mind? Maybe you can hear what he was trying to EQ, and not liking the results, causing the necessity for another approach?
Are you familiar with the stock Parametric Equaliser in addition to its Frequencies, Q, and gain parameters?
What exactly can you not accomplish using the stock equaliser as a means of reference in order to design something as simplistic as an API Equaliser?
Or have you done a comparison between his API and the stock SM EQ module?
Or from a different direction: Do YOU use the same EQ unit on everything in YOUR mixes? Or do you like different varieties / colors / textures on different instruments? I, for one, DON'T like to use the same EQ unit on everything, as they often have a unique character that, even though good ones are very subtle, can compound and become more audible when used many times in a mix.
Actually the question is how familiar are you with frequencies, Q, and gain settings of Synthmaker’s stock equaliser?
Just to let you know, I make lots of equalisers so, I a more than certain Synthmaker’s stock equaliser can guide sonicgimp into creating an API copy.
The reason the stock plug-ins is in Synthmaker and highly recommended to be used as reference is due to working properly. That is far better than jumping into a project and having no idea what you are doing.
There are some older developers that bear the burden of new developers offering a Synthmaker plug-in to the public that malfunctions and cannot rectify the problem. Many of us done are best to eliminate the bad reputation of Synthmaker plug-ins being buggy throughout the years to convince users Synthmaker plug-ins are just as reliable as someone building a VST using C++
This is why I always say to new developers to familiarise themselves with Synthmaker’s stock plug-ins.
Insulting the guy before he can answer the question is kind of a d!ck move too. (BTW, he did join the forum about 1.5 yrs ago, so I think he might have tried the stock EQ by now.)
It appears you are having difficulty understanding the difference between insulting and constructive criticism. For the only person I see throwing words is you.
ChrisHooker ·
Dell wrote: I don’t recall saying just one EQ is good enough for others.
infuzion wrote: SM's Parametric EQ is not good enough?
Dell wrote: It is more than enough.
Dell wrote: Are you familiar with the stock Parametric Equaliser in addition to its Frequencies, Q, and gain parameters?
I've used it and know how it works, even incorporated it into my own schematics. But that STILL doesn't mean that they're perfect for everyone else. Maybe the OP wants a lower Q at lower gains, and an equivalent or higher Q at higher gains than what the stock provides, but doesn't want to adjust the Q control manually. Maybe there's something else.
Dell wrote: What exactly can you not accomplish using the stock equaliser as a means of reference in order to design something as simplistic as an API Equaliser?
First, we don't know that sonicgimp isn't using the stock EQ as a starting point, and merely adding additional functionality. No one's actually asked him yet. Secondly, (if we had found out that he wasn't) THIS is what you should have asked sonicgimp in the first place, rather than proclaiming that the stock EQ is more than enough.
Constructive criticism should involve a little more understanding of the subject before providing your opinions on it. Just wait for him to respond to your questions.
MegaHurtz ·
Maybe the OP wants a lower Q at lower gains, and an equivalent or higher Q at higher gains than what the stock provides
Then id suggest higher mathematics classes, systems designs uni or something. Rather than expect some people here that payed through the nose to get there to be willing to spoonfeed them "or explain it in a way a child would be able to get it" As for my reply would again be to use a butterworth. I mean skirt settings.. come on.
And for this post I do not know this hardware, but for vintage hardware the most common scenario would be a convolution. Maybe if you are able to get your hands on phase response data you would be able to get pretty close to the actual workings. But still i consider this topic "solved"?
Dell ·
ChrisHooker wrote: Dell wrote: I don’t recall saying just one EQ is good enough for others.
infuzion wrote: SM's Parametric EQ is not good enough?
Dell wrote: It is more than enough.
For the Q Parameters, Frequency Parameters & Gain structure Synthmaker's stock equaliser is more than enough as means of reference in terms of building something as simplistic as an API equaliser.
ChrisHooker wrote: Dell wrote: Are you familiar with the stock Parametric Equaliser in addition to its Frequencies, Q, and gain parameters?
I've used it and know how it works, even incorporated it into my own schematics. But that STILL doesn't mean that they're perfect for everyone else. Maybe the OP wants a lower Q at lower gains, and an equivalent or higher Q at higher gains than what the stock provides, but doesn't want to adjust the Q control manually. Maybe there's something else.
This tells me you are not familiar with the parameters of the stock EQ for what you said in terms of “maybe” can be accomplished in the stock EQ.
ChrisHooker wrote: Dell wrote: What exactly can you not accomplish using the stock equaliser as a means of reference in order to design something as simplistic as an API Equaliser?
First, we don't know that sonicgimp isn't using the stock EQ as a starting point, and merely adding additional functionality.
Possibly sonicgimp did use the stock equaliser as reference to figure out the Q for in his last reply he stated:
sonicgimp wrote: Never mind. I figured out a way to do it!
Nevertheless, my response was to wards Infuzion not sonicgimp since I replied after sonicgimp stated
sonicgimp wrote: Never mind. I figured out a way to do it!
I am certain that Synthmaker’s stock equaliser is more than enough to be used as a means of reference in order to build an API copy from a Frequency, Q in addition to Gain standpoint.
ChrisHooker wrote: [Constructive criticism should involve a little more understanding of the subject before providing your opinions on it. Just wait for him to respond to your questions.
I am well aware of the subject since I mentioned in my previous post I’ve designed lots of equalisers. I might add the reason I chose Synthmaker over Synthedit years ago is due to the unlimited amount of manipulation in terms of frequencies, Q factor and, Gain parameters that can be acquired in Synthmaker.
This came about from familiarising my self with Synthmaker’s stock EQ. So there is no second guessing on my part. Synthmaker’s stock EQ can guide anyone to build a simplistic design such as an API Equaliser. It is far better using Synthamker's stock EQ as a means of reference than venturing in a project blindsided in hopes your design will work.
ChrisHooker ·
ChrisHooker wrote: Maybe the OP wants a lower Q at lower gains, and an equivalent or higher Q at higher gains than what the stock provides, but doesn't want to adjust the Q control manually.
Dell wrote: This tells me you are not familiar with the parameters of the stock EQ for what you said in terms of “maybe” can be accomplished in the stock EQ.
????? Using it as a STARTING POINT, then adding additional functionality, yes. (Linking the gain and Q, with scaling, like cyforce said.) I'm in NO way saying that it CAN'T. But the defaults apparently weren't satisfactory for sonicgimp, and he wanted to either modify the stock or create something different sounding (we still don't know because he hasn't said, and I don't like to make assumptions).
Dell wrote: Nevertheless, my response was to wards Infuzion not sonicgimp since I replied after sonicgimp stated
sonicgimp wrote: Never mind. I figured out a way to do it!
You may have been responding to infuzion, but you sure sounded as if were making assumptions ABOUT sonicgimp. A refresher of the rest of that post:
Dell wrote: Unfortunately, many new users prefer building things from ground up without familiarising themselves with the stock plug-ins. That is the biggest mistake on their part since they do not get a good understanding of synthmaker.
And in my last post, by "the subject", I meant soncgimp's EQ - not EQ's in general. (As in - the subject of an experiment.) I didn't mean to imply you don't know enough about EQs or SM. (Sorry if it came out that way.)
If we agree that the stock EQ is a great starting point... great. From your original wording, it just sounded like you meant the stock EQ should be the end all, be all, and if he wasn't using that then he's just some dumb noob.
Dell ·
ChrisHooker wrote: ChrisHooker wrote: Maybe the OP wants a lower Q at lower gains, and an equivalent or higher Q at higher gains than what the stock provides, but doesn't want to adjust the Q control manually.
Dell wrote: This tells me you are not familiar with the parameters of the stock EQ for what you said in terms of “maybe” can be accomplished in the stock EQ.
????? Using it as a STARTING POINT, then adding additional functionality, yes. (Linking the gain and Q, with scaling, like cyforce said.) I'm in NO way saying that it CAN'T. But the defaults apparently weren't satisfactory for sonicgimp, and he wanted to either modify the stock or create something different sounding (we still don't know because he hasn't said, and I don't like to make assumptions).
What defaults?
The Stock Equaliser offers the option of a wide or narrow Q.
The Stock Equaliser offers the option to select any frequency you want due to being a Parametric Equaliser
The Stock Equaliser offers the option +/- Gain based on the user’s discretion.
This is why it is a good means of reference.
As I mentioned Sonicgimp has sorted out his dilemma and responded before I replied.
sonicgimp wrote: Never mind. I figured out a way to do it!
If I was talking to sonicgimp, I would have quoted sonicgimp. However, I noticed sonicgimp solved his dilemma within the third reply. So there was no need to answer a question that sonicgimp solved him self.
I quoted Infuzion.
Please re-read my quotation again.
infusion wrote: SM's Parametric EQ is not good enough?
Dell wrote: It is more than enough. Unfortunately, many new users prefer building things from ground up without familiarising themselves with the stock plug-ins. That is the biggest mistake on their part since they do not get a good understanding of synthmaker.
I’ve also explain my reasons why.
Dell wrote: The reason the stock plug-ins is in Synthmaker and highly recommended to be used as reference is due to working properly. That is far better than jumping into a project and having no idea what you are doing.
There are some older developers that bear the burden of new developers offering a Synthmaker plug-in to the public that malfunctions and cannot rectify the problem. Many of us done are best to eliminate the bad reputation of Synthmaker plug-ins being buggy throughout the years to convince users Synthmaker plug-ins are just as reliable as someone building a VST using C++
I said many new users & new developers. At no point did it state a particular member.
ChrisHooker wrote: And in my last post, by "the subject", I meant soncgimp's EQ - not EQ's in general. (As in - the subject of an experiment.) I didn't mean to imply you don't know enough about EQs or SM. (Sorry if it came out that way.)
If we agree that the stock EQ is a great starting point... great. From your original wording, it just sounded like you meant the stock EQ should be the end all, be all, and if he wasn't using that then he's just some dumb noob.
As I said in my previous post…
Dell wrote: Synthmaker’s stock EQ can guide anyone to build a simplistic design such as an API Equaliser. It is far better using Synthamker's stock EQ as a means of reference than venturing in a project blindsided in hopes your design will work.
And to expand on the term reference, in the event a new member is designing an Equaliser that is not working properly, the person can use the stock equaliser as a means of reference to sort out the problem.
ChrisHooker ·
Dell wrote: What defaults?
My mistake in phrasing - I meant the default operation / controls, not default settings. As in: the reason why sonicgimp said:
sonicgimp wrote: the basic Parametric EQ would work, but I would like to take a stab at creating one with an Proportional EQ Q similar to an API 550a.
Dell wrote: ...This is why [the stock EQ] is a good means of reference.
Didn't we already agree on this?
Dell wrote: I said many new users & new developers. At no point did it state a particular member.
Can you not see how this SOUNDS like you're addressing THIS situation? That's why I took a stand in sonic's defense.
Dell wrote: As I said in my previous post…
Dell wrote: Synthmaker’s stock EQ can guide anyone to build a simplistic design such as an API Equaliser. It is far better using Synthamker's stock EQ as a means of reference than venturing in a project blindsided in hopes your design will work.
And to expand on the term reference, in the event a new member is designing an Equaliser that is not working properly, the person can use the stock equaliser as a means of reference to sort out the problem.
Yup, got it. All cool. We're in agreement. ...Can we leave it at that now?
Dell ·
ChrisHooker wrote:
Dell wrote: I said many new users & new developers. At no point did it state a particular member.
Can you not see how this SOUNDS like you're addressing THIS situation? That's why I took a stand in sonic's defense.
I don’t know how you are interpreting what you’ve quoted. I do notice it says many new users & developers which is synonymous to various new users & developers.
Now, if it said all or even every.
However, it says many.
What exactly are you seeing that says otherwise?
ChrisHooker wrote: Yup, got it. All cool. We're in agreement. ...Can we leave it at that now?
Providing the miscommunication has been sorted out, fine by me.
infuzion ·
Dell wrote: infuzion wrote: SM's Parametric EQ is not good enough?
It is more than enough. Unfortunately, many new users prefer building things from ground up without familiarizing themselves with the stock plug-ins.
ChrisHooker wrote: This may make me sound like a ___, but why would you assume that just one EQ is good enough for someone else?...(BTW, he did join the forum about 1.5 yrs ago, so I think he might have tried the stock EQ by now.)
Perhaps I should have asked it this way: Have you tried to use the SM Parm EQ first? I think you can you rework it to what you are looking for, but we need details.
& since he was not asking for a filter that had linear phase, colored a certain way... & wanted only a different kind of Q, which the SM module can be used as a base like Cyforce said; "just need a clear adjustment for the linked value/scaling"
BTW, I have more posts than anyone here, & I'm still learning new things about SM & it's editor. VERY possible he missed the little Q handles on SM's Para EQ.
That's all! /hugs
ChrisHooker ·
right on. 😀
Wrote something here? To have a post removed or your name hidden, write to [email protected].