FastBikerBoy
OMG!! Are you serious? Of course it matters. Being right on the internet always matters....

Bub

FastBikerBoy
OMG!! Are you serious? Of course it matters. Being right on the internet always matters....

Yeah, you've certainly proven that.

mike_mccue


 In physics and engineering Q factor means a very specific thing: Q is the bandwidth of a resonant circuit and it is measured at 3dB from Peak.

In other words the Q parameter is not a number value that can mean many things... In engineering it means one thing, a specific bandwidth measured at a specific place.

Why does ProChannel offer three different actual bandwidths for the very same Q parameter value?

The way ProChannel EQ uses the Q parameter value seems like a perpetuation of a labeling mistake made when someone was building some old analog gear.


Wouldn't it be more accurate to have the actual numeric Q parameter value switch in the text box to an accurate representation of the the actual Q value that we hear when we switch between Pro, Vintage, Modern, Hybrid?

I don't understand why we are encountering a labeling mistake in 2012 when the actual underlying *digital* math is so accurate that a mistake like this has to be forced upon the transfer function in the form of some correction factor that forces Q to not mean what Q actually means.

Surely, if the Q we are hearing is wider, or less wide, than the Q factor value shown in the ProChannel Gui then there must be some mathematics under the hood that represents what the actual Q we are hearing really is.

Why can't we see the actual Q we are hearing, rather than have to view some arbitrarily assigned value?

I suspect that if one really understands the idea that the Q in ProChannel is just some reference number, a number that is only accurate representation of Q for some of the EQ modes, that one will conclude that switching between the EQ types is a quick way to switch Q values.

The next thought that may occur is that any of us ought to be able to adjust the Q by ear so that any EQ can sound Pure, Vintage, Or Modern. If you are seeking a good understanding of EQ it can be helpful to know what the actual real life Q value you are listening to is.

Is there a real benefit to hiding the actual Q factor by leaving it at a fixed value as you actually switch through various widths?

One benefit is that you can present a regular old EQ transfer function and pretend like it's actually 3 different EQs... which I guess makes it seem like more EQ.

One downside is that the end user will have inconsistent experiences when listening and trying to relate what they hear to a Q factor, The lack of consistency, and inaccurate display of the parameter value as you switch through the various mis labeled Q factors will make it difficult to keep track of which Q actually is and which Q isn't really.

So, it seems to that it would be great if the real Q factor was displayed as the parameter value. For example; If you switch modes and the Q gets wider or thinner then the Q number could reflect the change rather than the way the current display perpetuates, and even celebrates an inability of old analog circuits to be as accurate as digital circuits.

In other words if the Q is 1.0 and I switch modes and now the Q is actually 1.5... I think the parameter value should switch out and read 1.5 rather than suggest that Q = 1.0 can mean different things.

It's 2012 and control panel labeling mistakes and analog circuit compromises can be easily understood, accurately described, and easily represented using digital processes.

It is 2012, and the easiest way to demystify some of this stuff would be too provide accurate labeling rather than indulge in the anachronistic practice of emulating mistakes made in the past.


Simple?



best regards,
mike

However, for anyone who wants to see what is actually happening, the graph shows that.