The biquad slopes should sound kind of the same with 48 and 96 Khz, but I'm not sure if they do with low Q values. APO with the biquads uses the sample rate that has been requested from the device, by the application, and that has been Firefox, requesting 44.1 Khz. ***Īnother thing is, now that I have chosen RBJ biquads, I'm bound to the sample rate, I believe. And post-ringing-only in my mind would sound wet, because it's post, like a response, resembling a reverb-system, a bit.
APO EQUALIZER NOISE FILTER PLUS
My (?) idea was (back then) that pre-ringing plus post-ringing sounds dry, because it's symmetric.
But I'm not sure what I heard (FIR just sounded a bit dryer), and it's been long ago, and now I have this 560s headphone and am getting used to it. Do you hear such things? I heard it when I tried IIR vs FIR. does anyone mix them or am I overthinking it already?Īnother thing is the ringing types. Biquads for low frequencies, FIR / fftwf_execute for high frequencies? There the filter kernel can be smaller, right? So. But maybe I could mix filter types, each corner of the spectrum gets the adequate filters? Like. I thought, RBJ Biquad would give not as much latency when making music and using APO. But I actually just wanted to see round things in the graph in APO and thought that it also had less computations than the graphical straight-line-tool-EQ (it uses fftwf_execute, so FFT in general, correct?). I remembered I could use biquad filters, because. I used RBJ biquad filters to get better sound out of my headphones. I didn't go the standard route in APO I guess. What kinds of artefacts can be heard, which cannot?
0 kommentar(er)
