Rockbox General > Rockbox General Discussion
"Tagged" EQ PreSets - Possible?
KindOfBlues71:
I'm not sure about the directory structure for other players, but where would Rockbox store the per-track EQ file when using, for example, the iPod's default directory structure? Would it make more sense to have all the EQ files in a central folder within the Rockbox directory, with each EQ file containing directory paths to the tracks/albums the specific settings should be applied to? Alternatively, one could have the option to choose where to save the EQ file to, similar to how Playlists and Bookmarking is handled.
-KindOfBlues71
Llorean:
This offers less flexibility (files are harder to move, for one thing, you can't rearrange your collection) than simply putting them beside the original file.
There's no reason to add limitations to the system just because iTunes has a silly structure. We can't, or shouldn't, spend forever working around it, and sometimes it's better just to say "they'll have to figure out which files are their songs for this one." If there was a graphical UI for creating these individual EQ addition files, it could put them in the right place anyway.
I would take Chronon's idea one step further, personally, and apply all EQ modifiers in the path.
If you had /music/rock/ACDC/Back in Black/song.mp3 and there was a rock.eq in the rock folder, and a Back in Black EQ in the album folder, they should both be "added" to the static EQ, because the Rock one is there for your preferences for the genre, and the album one is there to correct for oddities in mastering the Album. The offsets should be cumulative.
Old Schooler:
Hello All,
I am glad to see all of the response to my original post about this subject, though I didn't mean to stir everything up.
However, I do agree essentially that EQs and their settings are "supposed" to be used for hardware deficiencies, but that is sort of what caused some, well allot, of my variances in some of my music as far as the way I transferred it to MP3 format.
Coming off of Cd's, or digital sources were no problem. But coming from LPs and tape, I tried to "rejuvenate" some of them and through using a set of headphones that didn't really have good enough response for that purpose, some of my recordings are notably weighted in certain areas.
The topic was mentioned about redoing them, which would be allot of work, but it could be done. So, in regard to that, this question is somewhat off-topic for this thread but it does have a place:
If I "re-encode" an existing MP3 of maybe 160kb with a program such as Magix Audio Cleaning Lab with better EQ settings for example, is the MP3 file re-compressed and thereby possibly losing quite a bit of quality, or is the "response curve"(?) simply changed within the MP3 so it plays back with the new EQ effects?
Thanks again for RockBox. After using it on both my old JBR (boy I miss that thing) and now my H10, I don't think I would have kept either without it.
Dave
MarcGuay:
--- Quote from: Old Schooler on June 04, 2008, 07:46:51 AM ---If I "re-encode" an existing MP3 of maybe 160kb with a program such as Magix Audio Cleaning Lab with better EQ settings for example, is the MP3 file re-compressed and thereby possibly losing quite a bit of quality, or is the "response curve"(?) simply changed within the MP3 so it plays back with the new EQ effects?
--- End quote ---
From what I understand, it's impossible to modify and save an MP3 file without re-encoding it, which necessarily means a loss of quality. The best thing to do is to work with the originally recorded WAV files, which I assume you kept around for a time like this...? If not, in the future, you might want to consider using a lossless compressor like FLAC so you don't run into these kinds of problems. Salut...
Chronon:
--- Quote from: Old Schooler on June 04, 2008, 07:46:51 AM ---Hello All,
I am glad to see all of the response to my original post about this subject, though I didn't mean to stir everything up.
However, I do agree essentially that EQs and their settings are "supposed" to be used for hardware deficiencies, but that is sort of what caused some, well allot, of my variances in some of my music as far as the way I transferred it to MP3 format.
Coming off of Cd's, or digital sources were no problem. But coming from LPs and tape, I tried to "rejuvenate" some of them and through using a set of headphones that didn't really have good enough response for that purpose, some of my recordings are notably weighted in certain areas.
The topic was mentioned about redoing them, which would be allot of work, but it could be done. So, in regard to that, this question is somewhat off-topic for this thread but it does have a place:
If I "re-encode" an existing MP3 of maybe 160kb with a program such as Magix Audio Cleaning Lab with better EQ settings for example, is the MP3 file re-compressed and thereby possibly losing quite a bit of quality, or is the "response curve"(?) simply changed within the MP3 so it plays back with the new EQ effects?
Thanks again for RockBox. After using it on both my old JBR (boy I miss that thing) and now my H10, I don't think I would have kept either without it.
Dave
--- End quote ---
Sometimes it's good to stir things up a bit. ;)
If you re-encode then you'll definitely lose quality. As MarcGuay suggested you would be better off doing a fresh rip or transcoding from lossless again with better settings.
As for correcting such shortcomings on the fly, we'll see if this topic gels into a well defined feature request. So far it appears that there might be some support for the idea of implementing a new kind of relative (and cumulative) EQ setting which should allow you to apply EQ settings to a particular set of files. I like Llorean's recent suggestion of summing up all of the cumulative EQ modifiers found in the path to a given file.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version