Looks like it could be cheaper for me to just make sure to always use 44.1 Khz, because I'm used to Firefox and that seems to rely on it. I have attached the APO config.txt in question.Įdit: I found a discussion about similar problems. If I can leave anything out, because using it cannot be perceived, then I will do that. Also I'm only at page 24 in the Floyd Toole book, and having no DSP background. Would this be the more correct way for getting the same result with 96 Khz, or do shelving filters near Nyquist change their slopes just the same? One that shelves the harshness out (headphone is too harsh), and the second would make it go up again. If I had a shelving filter and wanted my preset to have "air" at 19 Khz, to fight the roll off, then I would need two filters instead of one filter. So with 48 Khz the slope is steeper, right? And my problem might be a bit complicated, sorry: I placed a negative-gain peaking Biquad before Nyquist, because I wanted to save computations. What I know is that slopes near Nyquist will sound different from 48 Khz to 96 Khz for example, because the filter - in layman's terms - "needs to go to zero amplitude response" at Nyquist, and it has less samples to do so when there's only 48 Khz instead of the 96 Khz. Do I need math, or can I go around math? The exp/log stuff is hard for me, everything in math is. The biquad slopes should sound kind of the same with 48 and 96 Khz, but I'm not sure if they do with low Q values.
APO with the biquads uses the sample rate that has been requested from the device, by the application, and that has been Firefox, requesting 44.1 Khz. ***Īnother thing is, now that I have chosen RBJ biquads, I'm bound to the sample rate, I believe. And post-ringing-only in my mind would sound wet, because it's post, like a response, resembling a reverb-system, a bit.
Apo equalizer config for pop music plus#
My (?) idea was (back then) that pre-ringing plus post-ringing sounds dry, because it's symmetric. But I'm not sure what I heard (FIR just sounded a bit dryer), and it's been long ago, and now I have this 560s headphone and am getting used to it. Do you hear such things? I heard it when I tried IIR vs FIR. does anyone mix them or am I overthinking it already?Īnother thing is the ringing types. Biquads for low frequencies, FIR / fftwf_execute for high frequencies? There the filter kernel can be smaller, right? So. But maybe I could mix filter types, each corner of the spectrum gets the adequate filters? Like. I thought, RBJ Biquad would give not as much latency when making music and using APO.
But I actually just wanted to see round things in the graph in APO and thought that it also had less computations than the graphical straight-line-tool-EQ (it uses fftwf_execute, so FFT in general, correct?). I remembered I could use biquad filters, because. I used RBJ biquad filters to get better sound out of my headphones. I didn't go the standard route in APO I guess. What kinds of artefacts can be heard, which cannot?
0 kommentar(er)
