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

[Tassy]

Any way to change the idiotic default % scaling to Hz in the EQ section?
In MB2, MB3 MB4 MB5 it is normal, eq shows the frequency as expected.

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

I am feeling the "clever, professional" answer coming: "use your ears"
Please save me from this foolishness! I use my ears!

Also suggest to make a worldwide standard to change all the speed meters in cars from miles/hour to %. Great!
No need to undersign, you know me

[wango]

Any way to change the idiotic default % scaling to Hz in the EQ section?
In MB2, MB3 MB4 MB5 it is normal, eq shows the frequency as expected.

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

I am feeling the "clever, professional" answer coming: "use your ears"
Please save me from this foolishness! I use my ears!

Also suggest to make a worldwide standard to change all the speed meters in cars from miles/hour to %. Great!
No need to undersign, you know me

+1

[PGW]

+1
I get the idea to listen instead of looking at frequencies, but it should be according to user preference.

[doncolga]

Hahaha! That is great! Yes, I agree that would be cool to have.

[knutzn]

We had this discussion here very often in many different threads....

read here:

http://mixbus.harrisonconsoles.com/forum...7#pid24817

I think it is not so easy with the circuit emulation, but I hope they will address it some day.

[Tassy]

Yeah, lot threads in vain , no result ever since.

[jonetsu]

It was replied a few times that this is something that's very difficult to do. That's the result. What do you expect more ? If it's very difficult or even impossible to do then that's it.

This is why I suggested to simply put the values as they are printed in the GUI instead. Show them in the track title bar like other values even though we know they are approximate and cannot be precise. Why ? Because someone decided to print those values around each pot of the 32C EQ and that decision was certainly made with some consideration.

The idea behind it all is to have a better visual feedback than the faintly printed numbers around each EQ pot.

For the rest yes, the ears are used. Or, if you wish, any post-EQ plugin that provides a frequency sprectrum graph if one wants to work with a visual feedback. I use to this effect from time to time the Voxengo SPAN (Plus) since it's not tied to the use of any specific EQ.

I can grab one EQ curve with the SPAN Plus then move that SPAN to another track and compare both EQ curves.

[Tassy]

It is not hard to do at all, but it needs a lot sample analyses they have no time or man or feeling for. That's it.
It was not impossible for all the millions of plugins around the earth.
Is it impossible too to write there at least in letters that can be seen? Now 80% gray characters on 90 %gray base?
Same as the sidebars on the option windows.... a lot "fancy" unpractical items.
Also have been asked for on a lot threads. I just fought for the leds to be seen at all for years.... it was also "very difficult" to change. A dot!
Sure analogue consoles have also just some guides written, no display. but see % on an EQ??? was quite a surprise

I had tested the knobs before by white noise and voxengo just to get a slight idea whether there is any connection between the manual, the writing on the strip and reality, how they behave... , I found the match 63.7%

[jonetsu]

Tassy, you're right. The behaviour of the EQ is certainly not random. And since it is not random it can be characterized.

[madmaxmiller]

It is not hard to do at all, but it needs a lot sample analyses they have no time or man or feeling for. That's it.

Not sure if it's worth wasting energy (developing and CPU) on calculating the exact cut off frequency of a pot in a simulated analogue RC network with all the tolerance stuff and current dragging which in the end makes up Harrison's sound (and Bruce's famous channel 17). Fact is that you would set, for example, one frequency in upper mid, then change something else in lower mid or even just only the attenuation of any EQ knob and suddenly you would read a different frequency on this upper mid pot. Imagine the uproar here
I'm also not sure if it really says "%" at all, will check later today - that would be weird.
What it does is giving everyone who was screaming for it a "number" to reproduce exact settings - though now we have a bunch of options to save and recall, even share mixer settings so we wouldn't need a "number" at all.
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.

It's now on you if you want
a) use capacities to get an accurate display
b) leave it as it is and explain
c) just cheat and distribute frequency values evenly over the knob range

Start a poll?

I don't care about how it is now, and the frequency ranges have been published already for those who need numbers for mixing.

Cheers,
MMM