Rockbox General > Rockbox General Discussion
"Tagged" EQ PreSets - Possible?
KindOfBlues71:
--- Quote from: Llorean ---It's closed minded to realize "adding every single idea can make the software worse, not just better, so everything needs to be carefully challenged and weighed"?
It seems closed minded to me to dismiss the project as closed minded just because you don't agree with certain choices it has made.
--- End quote ---
It also seems you didn't read what I wrote. I specifically said "Rockbox seems closed-minded at times," not Rockbox is always closed-minded about everything. And I was referring to Febs' comment about the canned response regarding the intent of the EQ in Rockbox.
--- Quote from: Llorean ---Every idea should be challenged. Period. Socrates once said "The unexamined life is not worth living." Simply accepting an idea, or simply dismissing it, would be closed minded. But to challenge it, seek its weaknesses and strengths, and once fully examined, to make a decision, is quite opposite. But to call it closed minded just because you think the decision is wrong is still foolishness.
--- End quote ---
Telling people to use a DSP on their music tracks because the Rockbox EQ isn't intended for that purpose doesn't seem like one of those fully examined decisions you just talked about. But I'm foolish, so what the heck do I know?
TexasRockbox:
Not all music is recorded flat, mastered from flat tapes, or even mastered from tape at all. Some older music was recorded and mastered with EQ applied so as to reduce problems with cartridge tracking and also to allow for more music (timewise) in the grooves. Some older late 60's and 70's master tapes were encoded with Haeco-CSG and CDs have been mastered using those tapes. There are many reasons to apply EQ -- even if just for one's own "taste".
An EQ tag would be nice, but I do try to correct obvious (in my view) problems before encoding.
Chronon:
--- Quote from: soap on June 02, 2008, 11:33:38 PM ---
--- Quote from: Chronon on June 02, 2008, 02:56:57 PM ---I would agree with Llorean that as it currently exists (with only persistent, absolute settings) the EQ is more suited to compensating for variations in hardware performance.
--- End quote ---
I would strongly argue a five-band parametric equalizer with "only persistent, absolute settings" (will disagree with your word choice later) is no better or worse suited to compensating for variations in hardware performance. I would argue, in fact, that (not to be too pedantic on word choice (but words not only express, but shape, thoughts)) that the method of setting the features of a tool is not what determines its functionality ("suited"), but rather what determines its convenience.
I have seen no compelling argument yet that the Rockbox EQ is "suited" or "more suited", much less "intended", to solely compensate for inadequacies in hardware. This appears (to me) to be a step-back defense of the previous proposition that the EQ's purpose was to compensate for hardware. Febs did a solid job attacking the "purpose" argument, but now the same argument appears to me to have been resurrected simply by casting either the s/purpose/suitability/ or s/purpose/intention/ spell.
EDIT: Rewrote last sentence.
EDIT 2: hmm, how to describe? trim of overly pedantic disagreement.
--- End quote ---
I made no assertion about the impossibility of using the EQ (as it currently exists) for any purpose whatsoever. I was expressing the idea that the current EQ has settings that persist (once I set them they remain at that setting until changed) and are specified by an absolute (not relative) value, and as such it seems much less suited to accounting for eccentricities of individual files. This addresses how we choose to specify the parameters for the software EQ (and their persistence), not some kind of assumed purpose on the part of the user or the firmware itself.
I should have said that the EQ as it currently stands is better suited to applying persistent, steady state alterations to the sound. I sloppily conflated hardware performance with persistent, steady state behavior.
Hopefully, my rephrasing will allow you to understand what I meant. It sounds like much of your post points to the same ideas that I mentioned. For example, you mentioned that the settings might auto-revert, but this is just alternate wording for temporary settings.
soap:
Chronon, I'm going to be busy as can be the next 36 hours, so please don't take my lack of reply as an ignore.
That being said - perhaps I need to reread your latest reply - but I think there is still a difference of opinion here outside straight semantics - and I think you missed my point, but perhaps I am the one missing your point - will get back to you.
;)
Chronon:
Okay. I will be a bit busy here too. I'll see if I can try to make the comparison a bit clearer for now.
I had in mind a settings file that can be stored alongside a file that would apply relative changes (i.e. the EQ band gains would be delta values from their current settings) whose effect would revert at the end of playback of that file or directory (temporary). These properties sound consistent with what I read in your post about your proposed .eq files.
My suggestion that the EQ is currently more suited to steady state modifications only reflects on the current way that its parameters are stored and handled, not on how a user is permitted to use the EQ. The kernel of my thinking on this led me to consider two types of settings with different notions of scope, persistence, etc.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version