People who have Synapse GQ-7

Need some fresh sounds? Want to show off your sound design skills? Here's the place!
User avatar
Heigen5
Posts: 1505
Joined: 25 Sep 2018
Location: Finland / Suomi

21 Oct 2018

selig wrote:
21 Oct 2018
Heigen5 wrote:
21 Oct 2018


I mean how many bands there is in a full frequency range that are next to eachothers? As example, if I boost something and the Q is 2.0 - how many bands I raise / EQ-curve?
First you have to define "bands" (the term has many meanings in audio production), as it's like asking "how many frequencies are there".

To your specific question, it would totally depend on the design of the EQ/filter used, and how much you boosted and what definition of "Q" you're using (it's not a clear industry standard measurement, unfortunately).
Sorry, I meant density. Or thickness.

User avatar
selig
RE Developer
Posts: 11685
Joined: 15 Jan 2015
Location: The NorthWoods, CT, USA

21 Oct 2018

Heigen5 wrote:
21 Oct 2018
selig wrote:
21 Oct 2018


First you have to define "bands" (the term has many meanings in audio production), as it's like asking "how many frequencies are there".

To your specific question, it would totally depend on the design of the EQ/filter used, and how much you boosted and what definition of "Q" you're using (it's not a clear industry standard measurement, unfortunately).
Sorry, I meant density. Or thickness.
Do you mean "Bandwidth"? If so, bandwidth is determined primarily by "Q", but can be based on many factors depending on how you use filters to build EQs. And in the case of proportional Q parametric EQ designs it can change with gain. The difference between the E and G EQ types in the SSL is primarily a difference of proportional Q control on the G vs no proportion Q control on the older E design.
Selig Audio, LLC

User avatar
Heigen5
Posts: 1505
Joined: 25 Sep 2018
Location: Finland / Suomi

21 Oct 2018

selig wrote:
21 Oct 2018
Heigen5 wrote:
21 Oct 2018


Sorry, I meant density. Or thickness.
Do you mean "Bandwidth"? If so, bandwidth is determined primarily by "Q", but can be based on many factors depending on how you use filters to build EQs. And in the case of proportional Q parametric EQ designs it can change with gain. The difference between the E and G EQ types in the SSL is primarily a difference of proportional Q control on the G vs no proportion Q control on the older E design.
I could split the frequency into 2000 splits, while some other developer splitted it to 1000, no? So theoretically my EQ sounds smoother, no?

User avatar
selig
RE Developer
Posts: 11685
Joined: 15 Jan 2015
Location: The NorthWoods, CT, USA

21 Oct 2018

Heigen5 wrote:
21 Oct 2018
selig wrote:
21 Oct 2018


Do you mean "Bandwidth"? If so, bandwidth is determined primarily by "Q", but can be based on many factors depending on how you use filters to build EQs. And in the case of proportional Q parametric EQ designs it can change with gain. The difference between the E and G EQ types in the SSL is primarily a difference of proportional Q control on the G vs no proportion Q control on the older E design.
I could split the frequency into 2000 splits, while some other developer splitted it to 1000, no? So theoretically my EQ sounds smoother, no?
I'm sorry, but I'm not 100% sure I'm following you here.

Taking an educated guess, let's assume what you're asking about is the values for the frequency control, which have as much resolution as you could want - if there's not enough you use the SHIFT key to increase resolution. And if still not enough, use automation to hit the "in between" values. The steps are able to be "quantized" in the case of a "semitone" control for pitch, or left as a floating point value in the case of a "fine tune" control.

But here's the thing, if you MOVE the knob, then there is smoothing applied (essentially a low pass filter) so that you don't get a "zippering" effect, and so the knob theoretically passes through every value at 32 bit floating point resolution (which is VERY high).

For example, the Subtractor filter control has 127 steps, which SHOULD sound incredibly bad when you sweep it (it's essentially tuned to semitones). But it doesn't sound bad at all, because of the smoothing which fills in between each step.

Same for the case of my ColoringEQ, which uses semitone tuning covering 20-20kHz in 120 steps. But wait, there's more. If you use the back panel CV jack, there are no steps at all. Plus, you can also use the Fine Tune control on the front panel to access ±50 cents giving you a tuning resolution of 12,000 steps across the frequency spectrum for static frequencies (and between 7-8 decimal points of resolution when sweeping).

This is because internal values in Reason are 32 bit floating point, which can have 8 decimal points of resolution (depending on the exact format used). In other words, you will NEVER hear the "steps" with this level of precision.
Selig Audio, LLC

User avatar
Heigen5
Posts: 1505
Joined: 25 Sep 2018
Location: Finland / Suomi

22 Oct 2018

Alright, thanks for your input. I'm sure you know what you're talking about.
I understood most of it I think. Anyway, if I'd ever become a developer myself, I'd propably try out lots of stuff, that would make my EQ great for mastering purpose, as example.
But I think I'll pass giving it a shot in this life. :D

Post Reply
  • Information
  • Who is online

    Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 14 guests