Why can't EQ be dB and Hz? (beating a dead horse)

[brue58ski]

So is it me? I know there was something mentioned about something's tied into something and it would require too much deep programming to change it. I bought that at first but can't you just substitute one number for another. So if 50% is 1 KHz, why can't you just make the screen show that? don't show me 50%, show me 1KHz. or even just 1000 if letters are too hard. Could someone please tell me why changing from showing me 50 to showing me 1000 when it's at 50 is so hard?

[Metalchef]

Obviously because they would have to pay someone to do it and that someone would have to do it.

[NucleusX]

lol.

[Dutchguitarist]

I cannot be sure as I don't have access to the source code but being a former software developer I guess the following issue prevents them for making this change: The field type they use for editing/displaying the percentage is a numeric one, this prohibits the use of alphanumeric characters such 1Khz (for example). Secondly, the percentage field is likely of the type Signed Char(8-bit). This means the value range is -127 to +127. so using 1000 instead of 1Khz would not fit into the fieldtype.

 

To solve this they have to make serious changes to the software of the POD itself and also to the HD edit programs.

 

Again, I cannot be sure this is the issue but maybe LIne 6 can comment on this and explain the issue themselves (would be nice to know)

[Mynameismatt]

Use your ears.  Kaboom!

[Guitarmaniac64]

Use your ears.  Kaboom!

Agree why not use your ears 

[toneman2121]

I cannot be sure as I don't have access to the source code but being a former software developer I guess the following issue prevents them for making this change: The field type they use for editing/displaying the percentage is a numeric one, this prohibits the use of alphanumeric characters such 1Khz (for example). Secondly, the percentage field is likely of the type Signed Char(8-bit). This means the value range is -127 to +127. so using 1000 instead of 1Khz would not fit into the fieldtype.

 

To solve this they have to make serious changes to the software of the POD itself and also to the HD edit programs.

 

Again, I cannot be sure this is the issue but maybe LIne 6 can comment on this and explain the issue themselves (would be nice to know)

your explanation is easy for me to understand and makes sense, even for me with no background in your field. although it doesn't matter to me one way or the other, i use my ears, there are some fx that are expressed in Hz. 

[gunpointmetal]

Use your ears.  Kaboom!

Because some of us are used to using EQs the normal way. My ears tell where I need to look in a frequency spectrum, and its WAAAAY easier when its using the universal EQ language of dB & Hz. I shouldn't have to sweep around to find the right frequency. Also, sometimes, especially when recording, there are EXACT frequencies that you want to cut and boost, which is easier enough to do in a DAW, but if you wanted to save some processor power on your computer, you'ld think you could it with any of the EQs in the POD. 

 

"Use your ears" isn't really a workaround, its just what you have to do because L6 screwed up programming the EQs.

[radatats]

It deals with how the DSP and MCU communicate, and although nothing's impossible, the amount of architecture rewriting (and subsequent testing) would preclude a lot of other cool stuff.

 

*************************************

 

This is from Line 6 staff on another thread.  It has also been stated that we will not see EQ in percent on any new gear in the future... Lets hope...

 

http://line6.com/support/topic/8896-important-features-rarely-discussed/?p=61921

[Charlie_Watt]

Come on.  It's not that hard to convert these things for any decent programmer.  I agree that the way they did it makes no sense at all.  EQ should be in units that make sense.

[duncann]

Come on.  It's not that hard to convert these things for any decent programmer.  I agree that the way they did it makes no sense at all.  EQ should be in units that make sense.

 

Indeed. And the thing that is slightly infuriating about the explanation of how-the-dsp-and-mcu-communicate is that the graphic and studio EQs are in dB and Hz. :huh:

 

Why is that? Why only those? Perhaps it's my non-understanding of how-the-dsp-and-mcu-communicate.

[Charlie_Watt]

That communicate comment was not made by anyone from Line6 so IMO it's worth zero.

[silverhead]

Digital_Igloo is a Line 6 staff member.

[brue58ski]

"Use your ears. Kaboom!"

 

Gee golly wilikers, what an amazing commentary. Oh how you've opened my eyes and changed my thoughts about what I was asking. Thank you Soooooooo much for your compelling insight and ability to think outside the box.....Use my ears....Hmmmmmmmm....I thought I was when I was LISTENING to my patch while EQing it. I guess not.

I'm sure your wit is a hit at all the best keggers. :wacko:

Bakoom!!!!!! :rolleyes: :P

[brue58ski]

"Agree, why not use your ears."

 

Well, then why put any numbers anywhere? Why bother wasting all that screen space, cluttering it up with numbers? Why bother with L & R for the pan parameter? Why bother with any kind of indication telling you where your relative level/position is?  Why even label the amps and effects? You should just use your ears.

 

If you can't figure out why the question was asked all by yourself. Then no explanation will help.

[TheRealZap]

for the same reason we cry about issues that have already been asked and answered....

because it makes us feel all warm and fuzzy...

 

 

 

Well, then why put any numbers anywhere? Why bother wasting all that screen space, cluttering it up with numbers? 

[joel_brown]

As a former programmer, yes anything can be done, they should have done it from the start, and I'll bet it was discussed heavily.  But this is not like programming for the Mac, Unix or Windows.  It's a specialized processor which can be a pain in the arse.  Line6 made a design decision based on time and money.  Hey, it's a business...

 

I personally would still like a nice normal Global EQ but we'll see what other cool stuff they come out with.  Being somewhat old school, I learned that EQ is one of the most important things with tone.

 

I do appreciate Digital_Igloo posting a response to this question a while back.

[toneman2121]

as i look through the equalizers available on edit, i see most parameters are in fact in percentage or decibels

[Mynameismatt]

I like to use my ears to EQ things, not just guitar.  It doesn't matter what the frequency is.  Find and cut it.

[brue58ski]

I am not a programmer but it just seemed to me if you can tell a screen to show "this1" when it senses "this2", you could relatively easily change "this"1 to something else. It sounds like that's not the case. I think I kind of understand. Dutch guitarist, your post helped a lot. Thank you. But I still can't help but feel there's gotta be a way. Oh well. Just curious.

 

By the way Zap, I wasn't crying, I was enquiring. There's a difference ya know. And I made it clear I knew I was pretty much beating a dead horse in this thread in the title. That's why I put that. So if you were tired of the subject, you could avoid this thread. But I did have a question that I didn't feel had been ASKED or ANSWERED.  Given your snide little response, I don't know why you even looked at this thread unless it was only to chastise. I will continue to ask questions that I don't think have been answered no matter what any "Expert" ;like you thinks. It must make you feel warm and fuzzy and superior to knock people with questions that you THINK have been answered. I still don't think my specific question has been definitively answered. I know the "will we have 'Freq & Hz' " question has been answered (no) but that's not what I was asking.

[edstar1960]

OK we have been told we can't have the existing EQ models changed from percentage to Hz and db, but other than time and money is there any reason why we can't have a new EQ model that will deliver what users have requested?  

 

For example, would it be possible to deliver a 12 band EQ model?  This could have 12 fixed Hz bands that can be raised or lowered around zero (flat) by a max of 12db.  This could be displayed on the HD500 using the dual AMP screen display where all AMP controls are shown and the values could be adjusted using the amp control knobs - I know the labels would be wrong on the physical knobs - but there are 6 of them, and in the AMP control display you get 6 for AMP 1 and 6 for amp 2, giving the 12 controls needed for the 12 band EQ.  An alternative would be to have the 4 control knobs under the display control the 12 band EQ, and simply have 3 pages worth which you scroll through with the navigation button, similar to how we page through the amp/cab DEP settings.  The new 12 band EQ model could be a paid for option.  It would be able to be chosen and would take up one of the 8 FX blocks.  It may be DSP hungry but then it would be up to each user to decide when they needed it and what they would have to sacrifice to use it.  But it would provide a very useful up to date EQ tool that would make a lot of people happy.

 

I know it's off topic but it is related in that it is just another way of looking at and addressing the same problem.  

[TheRealZap]

my response was not intended to be snide etc....

in fact it was only equal in the sarcasm to the section in which i quoted...

you knew the types of responses you would get with this thread... you're not exactly new to the forums...

no reason to try and make it personal, just because i chose to play along.

 

I am not a programmer but it just seemed to me if you can tell a screen to show "this1" when it senses "this2", you could relatively easily change "this"1 to something else. It sounds like that's not the case. I think I kind of understand. Dutch guitarist, your post helped a lot. Thank you. But I still can't help but feel there's gotta be a way. Oh well. Just curious.

 

By the way Zap, I wasn't crying, I was enquiring. There's a difference ya know. And I made it clear I knew I was pretty much beating a dead horse in this thread in the title. That's why I put that. So if you were tired of the subject, you could avoid this thread. But I did have a question that I didn't feel had been ASKED or ANSWERED.  Given your snide little response, I don't know why you even looked at this thread unless it was only to chastise. I will continue to ask questions that I don't think have been answered no matter what any "Expert" ;like you thinks. It must make you feel warm and fuzzy and superior to knock people with questions that you THINK have been answered. I still don't think my specific question has been definitively answered. I know the "will we have 'Freq & Hz' " question has been answered (no) but that's not what I was asking.

[toneman2121]

as i look through the equalizers available on edit, i see most parameters are in fact in percentage or decibels

again...isn't anyone commenting on this

[phil_m]

OK we have been told we can't have the existing EQ models changed from percentage to Hz and db, but other than time and money is there any reason why we can't have a new EQ model that will deliver what users have requested?  

 

For example, would it be possible to deliver a 12 band EQ model?  This could have 12 fixed Hz bands that can be raised or lowered around zero (flat) by a max of 12db.  This could be displayed on the HD500 using the dual AMP screen display where all AMP controls are shown and the values could be adjusted using the amp control knobs - I know the labels would be wrong on the physical knobs - but there are 6 of them, and in the AMP control display you get 6 for AMP 1 and 6 for amp 2, giving the 12 controls needed for the 12 band EQ.  An alternative would be to have the 4 control knobs under the display control the 12 band EQ, and simply have 3 pages worth which you scroll through with the navigation button, similar to how we page through the amp/cab DEP settings.  The new 12 band EQ model could be a paid for option.  It would be able to be chosen and would take up one of the 8 FX blocks.  It may be DSP hungry but then it would be up to each user to decide when they needed it and what they would have to sacrifice to use it.  But it would provide a very useful up to date EQ tool that would make a lot of people happy.

 

I know it's off topic but it is related in that it is just another way of looking at and addressing the same problem.  

 

Well, anything is possible in the sense that with enough programming it could be done, but that doesn't mean that it's realistic with the current architecture. The one thing is that there's a limit to the number of parameters that can be controlled in an effect block. Offhand, I think it's six. So having that many bands probably isn't doable.

 

One thing regarding the EQ not being labeled in Hz, it's not really all that uncommon to see a mixer in which the EQ knobs aren't all labeled, especially if there's a mid-sweep knob. Really, it does come down to listening. I understand the argument for labeling, and I think Line 6 has heard people's opinion loud and clear now. But I don't think it necessarily was the huge design failure that some people make it out to be.

[Digital_Igloo]

The one thing is that there's a limit to the number of parameters that can be controlled in an effect block. Offhand, I think it's six.

Thanks, Phil.

 

It's five, but an exception can be made early on if more than five are required (say, for amps and cabs). Adding more parameters after the fact (or changing parameter value indicators) is, given POD HD's architecture, much more difficult.

 

Again, nothing's impossible, but like every tech-based company, we're constantly attempting to balance difficulty, necessity, cost of doing business, schedule, critical bug fixes, public perception, etc. IdeaScale goes a long way in helping us prioritize features for both existing and future products.

[gunpointmetal]

EQs in common language should have been a necessity. (is there a bigger period) . 

[mdmayfield]

It seems to me that the issue is in the HD itself, where there are "select from these <20 choices" parameters, and then there are "smooth variation between 0-100%" parameters.

 

All the EQs that name frequencies in Hz are the "few choices" ones.

 

It makes sense to me that they wouldn't be able to change it on the HD screen itself, BUT it shouldn't be nearly as difficult on the desktop HD500 Edit, where you have plenty of memory and CPU to do the conversion live to the display...

[gunpointmetal]

Thats a really good point I didn't consider! The HDEdit program should be able to show those nonsense settings the right way!

[brue58ski]

my response was not intended to be snide etc....

in fact it was only equal in the sarcasm to the section in which i quoted...

you knew the types of responses you would get with this thread... you're not exactly new to the forums...

no reason to try and make it personal, just because i chose to play along.

 

Hmmmmmmmm...OK. Whatever. So the "cry" comment wasn't at all directed at me? You weren't lumping me in with that? Fine. And you need to look up the word sarcasm. Your post appeared to be a direct comment on the subject and not sarcasm. I don't see any sarcasm in it. Unless you meant people really don't "cry about things...". If that's the case then that would be sarcasm and I apologize. And don't tell me what I knew or didn't know. I knew it was a subject that had been belabored for awhile hence the "beating a dead horse" in the title. To avoid the responses you say I should have known I would get. I had hoped that would have been enough to keep people like you away from this thread since I don't want to irritate or offend anyone. You weren't "playing", you were insulting with a direct comment. You're not exactly new to the forums either and if you're aware of me (I have actually defended you on occasion) you should know that when a response like yours is made quoting me, I will respond accordingly. So your supposed to be able to post your little quips and people are just supposed to shut up and listen? Go ahead and respond to things the way you want. But don't expect me to just sit back and go :"DUH OK Mr. expert. I guess I've been told". If I'm misreading your intent and you were really laughing along with me then I apologize. I don't think you were.

[TheRealZap]

Well I was generalizing and didn't intend any personal offense to anyone. Much like the quotation is exaggerated to prove a point so was my response. I consider such exaggeration a to be sarcastic in nature. In any case no offense intended.

[brue58ski]

Then I apologize for misreading your comment. And I'm pretty sure I now understand why we won't get the Hz & Freg. It appears it would require another piece of hardware and therefore there isn't a software/code solution.

[edstar1960]

Well, anything is possible in the sense that with enough programming it could be done, but that doesn't mean that it's realistic with the current architecture. The one thing is that there's a limit to the number of parameters that can be controlled in an effect block. Offhand, I think it's six. So having that many bands probably isn't doable.

 

One thing regarding the EQ not being labeled in Hz, it's not really all that uncommon to see a mixer in which the EQ knobs aren't all labeled, especially if there's a mid-sweep knob. Really, it does come down to listening. I understand the argument for labeling, and I think Line 6 has heard people's opinion loud and clear now. But I don't think it necessarily was the huge design failure that some people make it out to be.

Thanks Phil.  I don't know about the details of the architecture or what it's capable of.  I was trying, albeit rather clumsily, to suggest an alternative way of resolving the problem but within the confines of the current architecture.  We now know that the current models cannot be updated to display values in hz and db, so I was suggesting perhaps we look at the possibility of providing a new EQ model that gets closer to delivering what people are requesting.  We already have the GRAPHIC EQ, which labels the bands in Hz but it would be great to have another one with either more bands or one in which you could select the bands being manipulated.  Maybe there could be several GRAPHIC EQ models (cloned from the existing one) each one dedicated to a different range - such as LOW GRAPHIC EQ, MID GRAPHIC EQ, and HIGH GRAPHIC EQ - which would be able to provide narrower and more focused EQ bands labelled in HZ.  User could then choose the one that suits them best - or all 3 if they really need them and have the spare FX blocks in their patch.   I fully understand it's also about business and cost of delivering balanced against benefits/profits they get back and dealing with a limited amount of staff resource - but this could be a cost option rather than a freebie or it could be that it's just really not worth considering.   I just thought I would throw the idea out there - in the IT world there is always multiple ways of solving a problem - and maybe there is a neat alternative solution that could be delivered as an add on - and maybe there isn't. 

[NucleusX]

Terrible design flaw and oversight if you ask me, this is something that should've been

considered from the get go, don't think I've EVER had an EQ expressed in a percentage.

Yes I can use my ears, but parameters need proper defining so one can record exact parameters

down, or restore things the way they where, say after a firmware update/reset, or whatever

reason. There's many more logical reasons to have it than not, so I'm not convinced.

I agree with brue58ski, whats the point of ANY kind of parameter if that's the attitude.

[joel_brown]

Although I agree the labeling on the EQ is worthless.  May as well just have Parm1, Parm2, etc.  At least that's the only thing where the labeling is worthless.  It does seem unusual that a DSP chip would have difficulty working with frequencies.  Rather than beat up Line 6, maybe it was the people who built the chips.

[phil_m]

Although I agree the labeling on the EQ is worthless.  May as well just have Parm1, Parm2, etc.  At least that's the only thing where the labeling is worthless.  It does seem unusual that a DSP chip would have difficulty working with frequencies.  Rather than beat up Line 6, maybe it was the people who built the chips.

 

I don't think it's that the DSP can't handle working with frequencies. From the way DI explained it, I think it's the way the original frequency parameters for the EQ effects were designed. There are really two basic ways the POD handles parameters. You can have a range of discreet values - like with delay times for examples, you can have a range of times ranges from 20ms up to 2000ms, and those can be set with a precision of 1ms. So you have 1,920 steps in that range (or you can have it set to discreet note values). The other way a range of values is handled is to have the max and min and then divide them into 127 steps (the 127 relates to the MIDI control protocol). So the range of the knob is mapped so that wherever you turn the knob it, lines up with one of these 127 spots. With the EQ parameter, those 127 steps are mapped to percentages. So in order to label Hz, they would have to change that effect parameter to stepped discreet values instead of a range. So that's why, at least the way I think, that it's not just a matter of relabeling the parameter. It means they have to re-code the effect parameter itself.

 

Again, I don't know the inner workings. I'm just guessing based on what's been said. So don't take anything I say as anything other my opinion.

[Akeron]

Maybe these links could be interesting

 

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

http://electronics.stackexchange.com/questions/3067/what-is-the-difference-between-a-dsp-and-a-standard-microcontroller

http://www.differencebetween.info/difference-between-dsp-processor-and-microcontroller

http://www.appliancemagazine.com/editorial.php?article=106

[joel_brown]

These are some good links for explaining what a pain the arse it can be to program this stuff.  As I said earlier, this isn't Windows, MacOS, or Unix.