The usual low pass filter is of course well-known, since it can be modulated by velocity in an attempt to reproduce the way that hard strikes increase the amplitude of upper partials and transients. But I haven't experimented with high pass filters in the upper bass and tenor enough to know their exact effect, and they are rarely discussed. My impression is that the high pass filter allows control of freqs that could be heard as mud.

Obviously there's no perfect eq the general idea here is just to remove some excess energy in 400hz area. This is also more or less a 'rule' that if somethings sounds unclear you can try to cut a couple of dB's from 120-600hz.. People also tend to like excess bass and treble sadly, almost all non hifi/audiophile people have somekind of master 'hammock' EQ or some presets that says 'Rock' or similar..

I only have pt Play so I guess I can't enjoy all the changes, but after just looking at the EQ I imagine it should be quite dull souding I'll have to test it tomorrow tho..

Another interesting bit about PT's eq is that it's volume compansating(I mentioned it earlier too) I first didn't like it cause it confused me somewhat but now I realise it's really great since you wont be volume biased. Specially untrained ears will easier hear what the eq actually do and not what's louder

Now, regarding my 'Best C3...', I listened again to the 'so called' volume balancing through my headphones. Funny how your ears can ply tricks on you isn't it!!! It sounded very UNbalanced to fresh ears. Much better when I reset to a straight line!!! I then reset all hammer hardness settings and that sounded better to my ears. I then DISabled the volume compensation and that sounded better!!!

The only things I haven't reset are the EQ and resonance (although I may do that too when I listen again tomorrow!!!)

So I eat plenty of humble pie and thinks to myself, maybe I will start all over again tomorrow???

Warm regards to all,

Chris

Regards,

Chris

go to FXP corner and search results by authors name.   'Graham'

These alterations are an attempt to bring more 'zing' into the zone from C3 to G4.

I've not tried yet, but am pretty confident that the frozen EQ and VOL parameters could be used with other models.

regards,

Chris

and for those who just wish to copy and paste:

Equalizer = [245, 254, 751; +0.3, -8.5, +0.3]

Volume = [-2, -2, -2, -2, -2, -2, -2, -2, -2, -2, -2, -2, -2, -2, -2, -2, -2, -2, -2, -2, -2, -2, -2, -2, -2, -2, -2, -2, -2, -2, -2, -2, -2, -2, -2, -2, -2, -2, -2, -2, -2, -2, -2, -2, -2, -2, -2, -2, -2, -1, 0, 0, -2, -2, -2, -2, -2, -2, -2, -2, -2, -2, -2, -2, -2, -2, -2, -2, -2, -2, -2, -2, -2, -2, -2, -2, -2, -2, -2, -2, -2, -2, -2, -2, -2, -2, -2, -2, -2, -2, -2, -2, -2, -2, -2, -2, -2, -2, -2, -2, -2, -2, -2, -2, -2]

http://www.forum-pianoteq.com/uploads.php?id=1237

At one time, there was a feature request for the ability to save EQ settings and click on them from a drop-down list. Still seems like a good idea.

Also the same for the Spectrum Profile.

and a bypass switch, maybe??

I like this idea of a bypass switch. In fact there might be a bypass switch for all of the parameters. Turning it on would set the parameter to the default value?

Good for comparing the effect of an edit to the sound before the edit. Now we, can compare edits by using the A\B buttons, but that alternates between the last two changes or instruments. Just a tiny led to the right of each slider, with the led being both the button and the indicator?

Great equalizer curve! I'm listening to it right now. How did you go about creating it?

Regards

Chris

it really wasn't that hard

I've also noticed something else with the eq, it seems to have somekind of volume compansating feature in it.. I gues this is both good and bad.. mostly good I now realize

Edit: I meant to say: The YC5 Close mic preset sounds interesting with these EQ settings, too.