dcollins wrote on Wed, 04 November 2009 17:29 |
cerberus wrote on Wed, 04 November 2009 13:38 | i never think to boost or cut anything with a static filter, unless somebody tells me to.
| What does that mean?
|
i notice that music is dynamic, so static filters, which are insensitive to dynamics
do not immediately seem as useful to me as they do to most everyone else.
imo, this is a great article; full of interesting conjectures. how many of us are measuring
phase response or examining the i.r. of filters? how many understand that the uncertainty
priniciple attached to this math means a tradeoff or compromise inevitably comes with the tool?
one of my favorite statements here : "All filters smear..."
and the article concludes:
"there are limitations to how far an equaliser can
actually ‘equalise’ an already-coloured signal. "
+1 on that. what i meant by: "too many cooks...".
Quote: |
such as: the widespread use of never adequate sample rates (so as to achieve the highest track and plug-in counts).
Quote: | Is that to say that 48k is inadequate?
|
|
imo, that is arguable... for example: a nyquist filter at 24k may be inaudible
to some with some program material. but the aliasing that might otherwise
occur may still be audible, or may impart audible effects to processes.
jeff dinces