ProChannel EQ Plot Values

Is there an option within X1 than anyone can find where you can toggle the EQ Frequency Values (actual numbers) on the ProChannel EQ Plot?
 
I sort of like being able to see what lines represent what on the plot.  The manual tells us that all 4 bands go from 20-to-20, and where the default center of each band is, but there's nothing on the chart that shows exactly where you are as you sweep.  Same with the LPF and HPF.
 
Or is there?
 
The only thing I'm finding is that if I hover over the knob, it shows the value....and that's a drag.
 
Thanks.

I think all you get is the mouse hover.

Not only is that annoying but it also suggests to me that new users will not be able to learn by listening to recognize parameter values because the parameter values will seem mysterious and hard to view.

On non crippled DSP EQ you can instantly see every parameter while listening to the settings. It's very easy to learn to recognize the results of adjustments when you have 24/7 parameter settings on display.

Good luck with the Pro Channel.

best regards,
mike

EQ Parameters are sooooo 2010.

Somebody...just put the damned gloss button on the Sonitus EQ and call it a day.

No....I don't want the high shelf.

I just want the button.

I don't want the button to DO anything.  I'm sure that could be arranged, no?

I actually hope the next release will have buttons that RUN AWAY from your mouse cursor.

THEN, let's see these fools try to tell us that "the program works fine for me".

It probably didn't hurt that they were able to use those frequency bands that are plainly labeled behind those little knobs there....

Thanks for helping me make my point.

i remember reading the manual of my rack effects for at least a week before even trying to incorperate them into my projects.i think back then you had to learn a little bit more as to know there are more user friendly presests.i remember buying a compressor and not even knowing how to use it.this was back in 1992 when alesis launched the 3630(what a horid unit)but it took me weeeks to figure out what every little control did and trying to figure out why it was pumping and breathing.

mike_mccue

BEATZM1D10T

mike_mccue


I think all you get is the mouse hover.

Not only is that annoying but it also suggests to me that new users will not be able to learn by listening to recognize parameter values because the parameter values will seem mysterious and hard to view.

On non crippled DSP EQ you can instantly see every parameter while listening to the settings. It's very easy to learn to recognize the results of adjustments when you have 24/7 parameter settings on display.

Good luck with the Pro Channel.

best regards,
mike

Oh man, how did people ever learn to get incredible sounding mixes in the middle of the 20th century without digital EQ plots, Freq read outs, and presets?

I'm completely stumped.

Well, back when I used full racks of analog of gear every day... it took a few years to actually learn what you were doing. And, you know what... a lot of folks that think they learned what they were doing... actually didn't.

Now that we live in the future and DSP does offer a full parameter readout option it is simply anachronistic to deny the availability for fashion or convenience.

I practice anachronistics with my purchases of vintage styled analog gear... but the fact is if you work with analog you have no real choice. Parameter values drift on analog gear so detailed labeling is silly. In DSP, the parameters all exist discreetly as exact numbers whether you can view them or not. They are part of the equation and they are known by the processor even if you are not aware that an exact number is being used. The availability of parameter readout has revolutionized both the opportunity to learn and the opportunity to truly understand how your adjustments effect what you are hearing.

I was brought in to help mix a benefit concert last night where the good seats were $3k a pop... so I don't think anyone will be able to accurately suggest that my interest in being able to see information on audio tool(s) is because I don't know how to use my ears. I'd like to discourage that type of comment early on because that is a lame criticism that is always brought up by some wise guy when I suggest that having the option to switch on full parameter readout availability is something we should all expect in 2011.

best regards,
mike

Some of us still use racks of analog gear ever day. I'd also argue that the quality of mixes has dropped significantly in the last 20 years with the introduction of WYSIWYG plugins. The argument that DSP tools with exact parameters for mix engineers to see will produce a better product, is a bit of a stretch.

"The availability of parameter readout has revolutionized both the opportunity to learn and the opportunity to truly understand how your adjustments effect what you are hearing."

You're relying on your eyes to translate what you think you are hearing. Not what you are actually hearing. Digital is just an approximation so you really aren't going to understand what is really happening when you look at a plugin. It may show a flat plot, but in reality it isn't flat, and you won't know that unless you trust your ears. Numbers are a crutch. If you took a deaf guy and made him mix by purely presets and theory the mix is going to sound like garbage.

"I was brought in to help mix a benefit concert last night where the good seats were $3k a pop... so I don't think anyone will be able to accurately suggest that my interest in being able to see information on audio tool(s) is because I don't know how to use my ears."

I've met a whole bunch of live sound engineers that don't know what they are really doing at some very expensive affairs. A whole bunch of live sound engineers are deaf too. Not saying you are one of those, but using that example is a bit simple and is akin to "I have a really expensive guitar, so I know how to play, listen to my opinion."

I just don't think you'll convince me that looking at a screen is a good replacement for learning how to trust your ears. I call shenanigans on this 'Pro Channel is worthless' garbage. A bad carpenter doesn't blame his tools.

I just don't think you'll convince me that looking at a screen is a good replacement for learning how to trust your ears.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man_argument

BEATZM1D10T

The argument that DSP tools with exact parameters for mix engineers to see will produce a better product, is a bit of a stretch. 
[..]
You're relying on your eyes to translate what you think you are hearing. Not what you are actually hearing. Digital is just an approximation so you really aren't going to understand what is really happening when you look at a plugin. 
[..]
I just don't think you'll convince me that looking at a screen is a good replacement for learning how to trust your ears. I call shenanigans on this 'Pro Channel is worthless' garbage. A bad carpenter doesn't blame his tools.

Beatz, I think you are replying to some other post. Mike did not make these arguments that you are refuting.

"I've met a whole bunch of live sound engineers that don't know what they are really doing at some very expensive affairs. A whole bunch of live sound engineers are deaf too. Not saying you are one of those, but using that example is a bit simple and is akin to "I have a really expensive guitar, so I know how to play, listen to my opinion." "


I'm sure you have... that's why I was brought in. ;-)

The guitar analogy doesn't apply... I don't own the system, I was selected to provide a service by a producer who could hire any one they wish.

I'm just sharing my opinion after having made a living as a free lance sound technician for the past 30 years.

You can discount it and ignore the insight that having fully featured tools is useful and you can continue to suggest that somehow I arrived at this opinion because I am missing some ability to use my ears.

It makes me think you have yet to learn that it is possible to listen and look at the same time.

It just seems like a silly sophomoric philosophy to suggest that having accurate information is some sort of distraction... but that is why I have carefully stated that parameter readouts should be an "option" so that guys that get confused by it can turn it off.



" If you took a deaf guy and made him mix by purely presets and theory the mix is going to sound like garbage."

The deaf mixer analogy is a complete non sequitar. Waste of time. Where do you guys get this stuff? Does it make you feel smart to come up with a line like that? That's no way to have a discussion. It's like hitting a home run in T-ball league while pretending that you faced an actual pitcher and a fast ball. Non sequitar. Red herring. Make believe.



"You're relying on your eyes to translate what you think you are hearing. Not what you are actually hearing."

That's kind of a big leap... are you seriously telling me how I work? You are making a wild assumption there... and in doing so I suggest that you are invalidating everything you say in response to a statement that you your self just made up out of thin air. :-)



"Digital is just an approximation so you really aren't going to understand what is really happening when you look at a plugin."

Where do you get that sort of superstition from? 110Hz is actually 110Hz and 0.4ms is actually 0.4ms.

You are just making stuff up and acting like it's a fact.



"It may show a flat plot, but in reality it isn't flat, and you won't know that unless you trust your ears."

What are you talking about? Where is any of that coming from? You introduce some crazy statement about a "flat plot" and then argue against it? I have no interest in abstract drawings made on 2D graphs... why are you acting as if I do?

Some of us are in total agreement with you on this. Looking at an abstracted line drawing is meaning less. That is why we prefer to have actual parameter values available for instant display. The abstract ignores the time component of impedance and you probably know that is doesn't matter if you are working with analog or digital tools... the frequency plot doesn't mean a whole bunch.

So once again you are suggesting that I am advocating for something I never mentioned and then arguing against it. Waste of time... and I don't appreciate your technique of disagreeing with me by making stuff up out of thin air for you to make demonstrations against. You can do better than that if you really want to.



"Some of us still use racks of analog gear ever day"

That's a lot like saying "I have a really expensive guitar, so I know how to play..." 

;-)

Is that your RND 5033 EQ? It would sure go nicely with my 4 channels of RND 5012 Portico pre amps.



"I'd also argue that the quality of mixes has dropped significantly in the last 20 years"

I usually hear this from people that make very little effort to seek out and purchase the great examples of wonderfully mixed music that have been produced in the past twenty years.

Also, the people that say that current mixes are lacking quality rarely acknowledge that the number of people producing and mixing music has increased by, oh let's just say, 1000% since a guy like me started working. That means a lot of the mixes you don't like are made by folks that either:

 1) like the mix even though you don't

or

2) haven't learned how to mix to your satisfaction yet.

I don't spend a lot of time scrutinizing other mixes... I like to enjoy the music. But goodness me, I happen to be of the opinion that there have been some wonderful sounding records made in the past 20 years.




"I just don't think you'll convince me that looking at a screen is a good replacement for learning how to trust your ears."

It is my goal to inspire any one who does want to become skilled at audio production to make use of all the tools available. If you have decided to abstain from using the latest opportunities that is certainly your choice.


best regards,
mike