32C %%%%%%% ????

[Dingo]

However, following the "every other DAW has that" argument, Harrison could just create some theoretical numbers over the range of the pot and I bet no-one would even check if this is totally accurate.

But there is the rub Max... I would bet you London to a Brick that every troll-nerd in existence would measure it and if Harrison did print a frequency and it was 'off', they would be hung drawn and quartered.
As to every other DAW, I really don't care... what brings me to this table is the "sound" and "experience" of a mixing console... ALL the others are just Digital Editing systems.
Perhaps an option to 'Display EQ value' would help.

[madmaxmiller]

Perhaps an option to 'Display EQ value' would help.

Nobody will admit it, but don't we all have a chart laying around somewhere, saying "boost frequency A on instrument x and attenuate frequency B on instrument y"?
I'm not using it (anymore), but I did when I started and it sits in many heads.


MMM

[wango]

Perhaps an option to 'Display EQ value' would help.

I think that's Tassy's point. I, personally, don't care what numbers are
written around the knobs. Even on high-end hardware it is approximative.
The fact, when you turn a frequency knob in the eq, it displays a number followed by % is at least disturbing. Even better would be no read out at all.
Also the fact that the regular MB version shows the frequency values in Hz
makes it hard to believe that it would be "very hard" to correct this misbehave in MB32c.
My 2 Eurocents

Ab

[madmaxmiller]

Who the evil can tell in 32C the 52% in midrange what Hz it is? Heee?

Haha just checked: Yes it shows % lol. That are % of the respective range. They could maybe show degrees or radiant
But at this occasion I discovered that the frequencies from-to are now actually written into the tiny scale.
Like MID .2 / .45 / 1.4 / 2 / 3.1 - and these are kHz. Enough hints methinks, and to reproduce the exact position of the knob it's completely irrelevant if someone calls it %, miles or coffee mugs.

Night night, almost bed time here.

MMM

[Tassy]

when I use SSL channel I never see what it writes, but when I am interested it shows exactly what I want to know.

I just think funny the following conversation:
"How did you get this great kick sound on the console?"
"Very easy, just boost 5dB at 34% then cut 8dB at 52% and boost 2.5 dB at 77%"
"What??? And you are calling you a pro?"

Mainly not the % disturbs me, but the reaction:
"hard to correct", - and HPF was not hard to do? it shows Hz.
"it is written there", - and why 80% gray numbers in 90% gray background? Why not white or 20% gray writing to be seen?

[madmaxmiller]

"it is written there", - and why 80% gray numbers in 90% gray background? Why not white or 20% gray writing to be seen?

It's a grey zone
MMM

[jonetsu]

So at 22% you got the low EQ knob between .04 and .09.

So the person who put the .04 and .09 could very well report those numbers to the track's status bar. Cosmetically something has to be printed around knobs but no-one should reallyt notice ? There's something wrong with that approach, something wavy.

---

"it is written there", - and why 80% gray numbers in 90% gray background? Why not white or 20% gray writing to be seen?

They're grey on a rather dark blue background here.

[madmaxmiller]

So at 22% you got the low EQ knob between .04 and .09.

So the person who put the .04 and .09 could very well report those numbers to the track's status bar. Cosmetically something has to be printed around knobs but no-one should reallyt notice ? There's something wrong with that approach, something wavy.

The numbers around the knobs are as accurate as they are on the real hardware: you have an RC or LC filter which has arithmetically these frequencies and stays there within a certain tolerance but not exactly. On an analogue console you would tell someone to set lower mid onto 1:50 hr position or between .9 and 1.3 or whatevs.
Mixbus32C is an exact simulation of the real thing, down to the single components and I wouldn't be too surprised if Harrison have even built in random deviations like in real electronic parts: resistors and capacitors come with 1% or 5% tolerance, so the emulation varies by these tolerances, too, and does it randomly for each.
And, as mentioned many times, every filter changes its values slightly, interfering with surrounding electronics. The impedances change all the time when you turn a knob.

As soon as you print digital numbers everyone expects them to be absolutely accurate and wants to set the high EQ exactly onto 10.53 kHz. Every troll and his dog would try to measure the exact frequency and scream loudly if it's .02 Hz off. What Dingo said.
Do you remember the hardcore people who even after a successful null test claimed that Mixbus 2 is "warmer" than Mixbus 3? All the differences could be lead back to wrong measuring/method, but still...

As I mentioned before, it is certainly possible to implement a "frequency calculation layer" which for every situation recalculates the exact cutoff freqs. Mind you, to be really accurate you would even have to factor in the actual material which is running through the channel. Is it worth it? In my eyes not. Just drop the silly "%" sign and make it a dimensionless scale from 1-100 and put an explanation into the "?" popup.

MMM

P.S. maybe we ask for "bean" as a unit - so someone could count them

[jonetsu]

The numbers around the knobs are as accurate as they are on the real hardware: you have an RC or LC filter which has arithmetically these frequencies and stays there within a certain tolerance but not exactly.

That's what I'm saying since a year or so. Show those printed numbers in the track's status bar. If we put the irony aside, someone has printed those numbers around the knobs so they mean something.

You move the EQ knob, you see the value in the track's status bar as with any other value. And not a percentage or whatever. You see the value scaled as they are printed around the knobs. Simple enough. And it seems that doing so will realistically emulate hardware too.

No need for Mr. Bean.

---

As to every other DAW, I really don't care... what brings me to this table is the "sound" and "experience" of a mixing console... ALL the others are just Digital Editing systems. Perhaps an option to 'Display EQ value' would help.

I would wager that sales also plays a role and in that sense, user experience.

Like in seeing those values clearly and not as medium grey on a dark grey background.

As I've been saying for about a year, someone has printed values around the EQ knobs.

They are seemingly not a joke. Wasn't done on April 1st.

Why not simply show those values in the track's status display like any other value ?

OTOH it might be a totally ridicule suggestion since it was never even acknowledged or refused if I recall correctly. It seemed to be beyond that.

[Tassy]

You have won
Tassy