Is there such an animal that takes wav files?

Abbedd

Abbedd,

Is there such an animal that takes wav files?

Any decent audio editor program will let you load Wave files and apply EQ
and other effects. Such programs range in price from freeware to $500 and
more.

--Ethan

Abbedd,

Is there such an animal that takes wav files?

Any decent audio editor program will let you load Wave files and apply EQ
and other effects. Such programs range in price from freeware to $500 and
more.

--Ethan

On Sat, 1 May 2004 09:43:24 -0400, "Ethan Winer" ethanw at ethanwiner
dot com wrote:

Abbedd,

Is there such an animal that takes wav files?

Any decent audio editor program will let you load Wave files and apply EQ
and other effects. Such programs range in price from freeware to $500 and
more.

--Ethan


Yes but what I have are just Octave eqs. I need 1/3 octave


Abbedd

On Sat, 1 May 2004 09:43:24 -0400, "Ethan Winer" ethanw at ethanwiner
dot com wrote:

Abbedd,

Is there such an animal that takes wav files?

Any decent audio editor program will let you load Wave files and apply EQ
and other effects. Such programs range in price from freeware to $500 and
more.

--Ethan


Yes but what I have are just Octave eqs. I need 1/3 octave


Abbedd

On Sat, 1 May 2004 09:43:24 -0400, "Ethan Winer" ethanw at ethanwiner
dot com wrote:

Is there such an animal that takes wav files?

Any decent audio editor program will let you load Wave files and apply EQ
and other effects. Such programs range in price from freeware to $500 and
more.

Yes. But he asked for a 1/3 octave eq. There are plenty of
multiband eq plugins with sweepable mid-points, but I haven't seen a
1/3 octave one.

This suggests that maybe an adjustable multiband eq has been found
sufficient? It's certainly capable of a tight notch-out, limited to
1/3 octave or even much less. You can do a lot of shaping with (say)
10 bands. If you want more, it should be possible to run two (or
more) instances of a plug-in in series.

Maybe the op should look to the effect required rather than to the
hardware traditionally used to archive it?

On Sat, 1 May 2004 09:43:24 -0400, "Ethan Winer" ethanw at ethanwiner
dot com wrote:

Is there such an animal that takes wav files?

Any decent audio editor program will let you load Wave files and apply EQ
and other effects. Such programs range in price from freeware to $500 and
more.

Yes. But he asked for a 1/3 octave eq. There are plenty of
multiband eq plugins with sweepable mid-points, but I haven't seen a
1/3 octave one.

This suggests that maybe an adjustable multiband eq has been found
sufficient? It's certainly capable of a tight notch-out, limited to
1/3 octave or even much less. You can do a lot of shaping with (say)
10 bands. If you want more, it should be possible to run two (or
more) instances of a plug-in in series.

Maybe the op should look to the effect required rather than to the
hardware traditionally used to archive it?

Laurence Payne wrote:
On Sat, 1 May 2004 09:43:24 -0400, "Ethan Winer" ethanw at ethanwiner
dot com wrote:

Is there such an animal that takes wav files?

Any decent audio editor program will let you load Wave files and
apply EQ and other effects. Such programs range in price from
freeware to $500 and more.

Yes. But he asked for a 1/3 octave eq. There are plenty of
multiband eq plugins with sweepable mid-points, but I haven't seen a
1/3 octave one.

Audition has 1, 1/2, and 1/3 octave graphic eqs, as well as a wide range of
other kinds of eq.

Laurence Payne wrote:
On Sat, 1 May 2004 09:43:24 -0400, "Ethan Winer" ethanw at ethanwiner
dot com wrote:

Is there such an animal that takes wav files?

Any decent audio editor program will let you load Wave files and
apply EQ and other effects. Such programs range in price from
freeware to $500 and more.

Yes. But he asked for a 1/3 octave eq. There are plenty of
multiband eq plugins with sweepable mid-points, but I haven't seen a
1/3 octave one.

Audition has 1, 1/2, and 1/3 octave graphic eqs, as well as a wide range of
other kinds of eq.

On Sat, 1 May 2004 13:56:31 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

Audition has 1, 1/2, and 1/3 octave graphic eqs, as well as a wide range of
other kinds of eq.

So it does. I always seem to forget about CoolEdit/Audition. For
some reason it seems to be better established among sound engineers
than among musicians.

Is it a good eq? My gut reaction is to get worried when I see more
than a handful of eq bands - nasty phase things start happening. But
maybe it's different with software?

On Sat, 1 May 2004 13:56:31 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

Audition has 1, 1/2, and 1/3 octave graphic eqs, as well as a wide range of
other kinds of eq.

So it does. I always seem to forget about CoolEdit/Audition. For
some reason it seems to be better established among sound engineers
than among musicians.

Is it a good eq? My gut reaction is to get worried when I see more
than a handful of eq bands - nasty phase things start happening. But
maybe it's different with software?

"Laurence Payne" wrote in message
...
Yes. But he asked for a 1/3 octave eq. There are plenty of
multiband eq plugins with sweepable mid-points, but I haven't seen a
1/3 octave one.

Many software graphic EQ's allow you to have even less than 1/3 octave
spacing by placing control points wherever you want. Software is not tied to
traditional bands or spacing, but can be if you prefer it.

TonyP.

"Laurence Payne" wrote in message
...
Yes. But he asked for a 1/3 octave eq. There are plenty of
multiband eq plugins with sweepable mid-points, but I haven't seen a
1/3 octave one.

Many software graphic EQ's allow you to have even less than 1/3 octave
spacing by placing control points wherever you want. Software is not tied to
traditional bands or spacing, but can be if you prefer it.

TonyP.

Laurence Payne wrote:

On Sat, 1 May 2004 13:56:31 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

Audition has 1, 1/2, and 1/3 octave graphic eqs, as well as a wide
range of other kinds of eq.

So it does. I always seem to forget about CoolEdit/Audition. For
some reason it seems to be better established among sound engineers
than among musicians.

I don't know how the market research goes.

Is it a good eq?

In general CE is an outstanding eq, though I have to admit that I never use
its graphics. Not due to any problems, just because I'm attracted elsewhere.

I use the FFT eq the most, followed by the parametric eq and the scientific
filters.

My gut reaction is to get worried when I see more
than a handful of eq bands - nasty phase things start happening.

The thing about Audition is the breadth of choice. BTW, the FFT eq has no
phase shift.

But maybe it's different with software?

More like, its different when eq can be implemented digitally, and in a
context that has practically unlimited dynamic range.

Laurence Payne wrote:

On Sat, 1 May 2004 13:56:31 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

Audition has 1, 1/2, and 1/3 octave graphic eqs, as well as a wide
range of other kinds of eq.

So it does. I always seem to forget about CoolEdit/Audition. For
some reason it seems to be better established among sound engineers
than among musicians.

I don't know how the market research goes.

Is it a good eq?

In general CE is an outstanding eq, though I have to admit that I never use
its graphics. Not due to any problems, just because I'm attracted elsewhere.

I use the FFT eq the most, followed by the parametric eq and the scientific
filters.

My gut reaction is to get worried when I see more
than a handful of eq bands - nasty phase things start happening.

The thing about Audition is the breadth of choice. BTW, the FFT eq has no
phase shift.

But maybe it's different with software?

More like, its different when eq can be implemented digitally, and in a
context that has practically unlimited dynamic range.

Abbedd,

I need 1/3 octave

What exactly are you trying to accomplish?

1/3 octave EQ is kind of old school, and for EQ'ing music and speech a
parametric EQ is generally better and more flexible.

--Ethan

Abbedd,

I need 1/3 octave

What exactly are you trying to accomplish?

1/3 octave EQ is kind of old school, and for EQ'ing music and speech a
parametric EQ is generally better and more flexible.

--Ethan

Rich.Andrews wrote:

Free 1/3 octave or parametric equalizers for Windows is a tough
choice. What is a good, free software EQ program for Windows?


IME, Goldwave.

Rich.Andrews wrote:

Free 1/3 octave or parametric equalizers for Windows is a tough
choice. What is a good, free software EQ program for Windows?


IME, Goldwave.

"Rich.Andrews" wrote in message
...
Free 1/3 octave or parametric equalizers for Windows is a tough choice.
What is a good, free software EQ program for Windows?

Probably Audacity, but I haven't tried it myself.
http://audacity.sourceforge.net/

TonyP.

"Rich.Andrews" wrote in message
...
Free 1/3 octave or parametric equalizers for Windows is a tough choice.
What is a good, free software EQ program for Windows?

Probably Audacity, but I haven't tried it myself.
http://audacity.sourceforge.net/

TonyP.

"TonyP" wrote in message
u...

"Rich.Andrews" wrote in message
...
Free 1/3 octave or parametric equalizers for Windows is a tough choice.
What is a good, free software EQ program for Windows?

Probably Audacity, but I haven't tried it myself.
http://audacity.sourceforge.net/

Then again maybe not. I just checked the manual. Even the FFT EQ seems to
still be a work in progress.

"This effect is fully functional but the dialog box is unfortunately still
under construction. You can still use it, but there are no axes to tell you
which frequencies are which, or how much gain you're applying."

TonyP.

"TonyP" wrote in message
u...

"Rich.Andrews" wrote in message
...
Free 1/3 octave or parametric equalizers for Windows is a tough choice.
What is a good, free software EQ program for Windows?

Probably Audacity, but I haven't tried it myself.
http://audacity.sourceforge.net/

Then again maybe not. I just checked the manual. Even the FFT EQ seems to
still be a work in progress.

"This effect is fully functional but the dialog box is unfortunately still
under construction. You can still use it, but there are no axes to tell you
which frequencies are which, or how much gain you're applying."

TonyP.

"Laurence Payne" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 1 May 2004 13:56:31 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

Audition has 1, 1/2, and 1/3 octave graphic eqs, as well as a wide range
of
other kinds of eq.

So it does. I always seem to forget about CoolEdit/Audition. For
some reason it seems to be better established among sound engineers
than among musicians.

Is it a good eq? My gut reaction is to get worried when I see more
than a handful of eq bands - nasty phase things start happening. But
maybe it's different with software?

**You're thinking in analogue terms. ALL analogue eqs are a complete waste
of time. Always have been. Digital eq is fine. Digital eqs do not exhibit
phase shift problems.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

"Laurence Payne" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 1 May 2004 13:56:31 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

Audition has 1, 1/2, and 1/3 octave graphic eqs, as well as a wide range
of
other kinds of eq.

So it does. I always seem to forget about CoolEdit/Audition. For
some reason it seems to be better established among sound engineers
than among musicians.

Is it a good eq? My gut reaction is to get worried when I see more
than a handful of eq bands - nasty phase things start happening. But
maybe it's different with software?

**You're thinking in analogue terms. ALL analogue eqs are a complete waste
of time. Always have been. Digital eq is fine. Digital eqs do not exhibit
phase shift problems.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

**You're thinking in analogue terms. ALL analogue eqs are a complete waste
of time. Always have been. Digital eq is fine. Digital eqs do not exhibit
phase shift problems.

er...yes. That counts out a lot of rather good-sounding mixers from
the past 40 years. But if you say so... :-)

**You're thinking in analogue terms. ALL analogue eqs are a complete waste
of time. Always have been. Digital eq is fine. Digital eqs do not exhibit
phase shift problems.

er...yes. That counts out a lot of rather good-sounding mixers from
the past 40 years. But if you say so... :-)

"Laurence Payne" wrote in message
...
**You're thinking in analogue terms. ALL analogue eqs are a complete
waste
of time. Always have been. Digital eq is fine. Digital eqs do not exhibit
phase shift problems.

er...yes. That counts out a lot of rather good-sounding mixers from
the past 40 years. But if you say so... :-)

**"Good sounding mixers" is an oxymoron.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

"Laurence Payne" wrote in message
...
**You're thinking in analogue terms. ALL analogue eqs are a complete
waste
of time. Always have been. Digital eq is fine. Digital eqs do not exhibit
phase shift problems.

er...yes. That counts out a lot of rather good-sounding mixers from
the past 40 years. But if you say so... :-)

**"Good sounding mixers" is an oxymoron.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
...
**"Good sounding mixers" is an oxymoron.

So just where did you get the records from to play on your HiFi, that had
never been through a mixer?

TonyP.

"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
...
**"Good sounding mixers" is an oxymoron.

So just where did you get the records from to play on your HiFi, that had
never been through a mixer?

TonyP.

Trevor Wilson wrote:
"Laurence Payne" wrote in
message ...

On Sat, 1 May 2004 13:56:31 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

Audition has 1, 1/2, and 1/3 octave graphic eqs, as well as a wide
range of other kinds of eq.

So it does. I always seem to forget about CoolEdit/Audition. For
some reason it seems to be better established among sound engineers
than among musicians.

Is it a good eq?

First off, Audition/CE is composed of about a half dozen very different
eqs. So, it's erroneous to refer to its eqs using the singular.

My gut reaction is to get worried when I see more
than a handful of eq bands - nasty phase things start happening.

Not necessarily. For example, Audition/CE has an eq called the "FFT eq" that
has literally thousands of eq bands. This eq also happens to have
essentially no phase shift at all.

But maybe it's different with software?

Software can be and often is an analog for hardware. Many, but not all of
Audition/CEs many eqs perform very much like hardware eq.

**You're thinking in analogue terms.

In fact, many digital circuits are designed to have the identical same phase
shift and amplitude response as the analog circuits that went before them.

ALL analogue eqs are a complete waste of time.

Unhelpful comments like this are a waste of time. There's nothing at all
wrong with a good analog eq - better not be, because there are a vast number
of recordings and audio systems that are based on analog eq.

Always have been.

Triply ignorant comment. Ignorant because phase shift isn't necessarily a
problem. Ignorant, because many digital eqs have phase shift. Ignorant
because it is possible to make analog eq that lacks phase shift.

Digital eq is fine.

Only if done right, and that applies to analog eq as well. Done right
doesn't necessarily mean absent phase shift.

Digital eqs do not exhibit phase shift problems.

Unless of course the digital filter is designed to have phase shift. Many
are. Not that phase shift is necessarily a problem. No need to be paranoid
about phase shift.

Trevor Wilson wrote:
"Laurence Payne" wrote in
message ...

On Sat, 1 May 2004 13:56:31 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

Audition has 1, 1/2, and 1/3 octave graphic eqs, as well as a wide
range of other kinds of eq.

So it does. I always seem to forget about CoolEdit/Audition. For
some reason it seems to be better established among sound engineers
than among musicians.

Is it a good eq?

First off, Audition/CE is composed of about a half dozen very different
eqs. So, it's erroneous to refer to its eqs using the singular.

My gut reaction is to get worried when I see more
than a handful of eq bands - nasty phase things start happening.

Not necessarily. For example, Audition/CE has an eq called the "FFT eq" that
has literally thousands of eq bands. This eq also happens to have
essentially no phase shift at all.

But maybe it's different with software?

Software can be and often is an analog for hardware. Many, but not all of
Audition/CEs many eqs perform very much like hardware eq.

**You're thinking in analogue terms.

In fact, many digital circuits are designed to have the identical same phase
shift and amplitude response as the analog circuits that went before them.

ALL analogue eqs are a complete waste of time.

Unhelpful comments like this are a waste of time. There's nothing at all
wrong with a good analog eq - better not be, because there are a vast number
of recordings and audio systems that are based on analog eq.

Always have been.

Triply ignorant comment. Ignorant because phase shift isn't necessarily a
problem. Ignorant, because many digital eqs have phase shift. Ignorant
because it is possible to make analog eq that lacks phase shift.

Digital eq is fine.

Only if done right, and that applies to analog eq as well. Done right
doesn't necessarily mean absent phase shift.

Digital eqs do not exhibit phase shift problems.

Unless of course the digital filter is designed to have phase shift. Many
are. Not that phase shift is necessarily a problem. No need to be paranoid
about phase shift.

"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message ...
"Laurence Payne" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 1 May 2004 13:56:31 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

Audition has 1, 1/2, and 1/3 octave graphic eqs, as well as a wide range
of
other kinds of eq.

So it does. I always seem to forget about CoolEdit/Audition. For
some reason it seems to be better established among sound engineers
than among musicians.

Is it a good eq? My gut reaction is to get worried when I see more
than a handful of eq bands - nasty phase things start happening. But
maybe it's different with software?

**You're thinking in analogue terms. ALL analogue eqs are a complete waste
of time. Always have been. Digital eq is fine. Digital eqs do not exhibit
phase shift problems.

B*llsh*t. This is completely wrong. That one can implement an EQ in the
digital domain that decouples phase and amplitude response is possible,
but do extend that to the generalization that digital EQ's "have no phase
shift problem." is simply wrong and unsupportable in any sense.

Further, if you're equalizing a minimum-phase frequency response error
with ANY minimum-phase equalizer, digital or analog, and most simple
filter-based analog EQ's are minimum phase, that EQ will have the
complimentary phase shift "problem" as the original error and the
net result is that the sum will have both flat phase AND amplitude
\response when you're done.

"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message ...
"Laurence Payne" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 1 May 2004 13:56:31 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

Audition has 1, 1/2, and 1/3 octave graphic eqs, as well as a wide range
of
other kinds of eq.

So it does. I always seem to forget about CoolEdit/Audition. For
some reason it seems to be better established among sound engineers
than among musicians.

Is it a good eq? My gut reaction is to get worried when I see more
than a handful of eq bands - nasty phase things start happening. But
maybe it's different with software?

**You're thinking in analogue terms. ALL analogue eqs are a complete waste
of time. Always have been. Digital eq is fine. Digital eqs do not exhibit
phase shift problems.

B*llsh*t. This is completely wrong. That one can implement an EQ in the
digital domain that decouples phase and amplitude response is possible,
but do extend that to the generalization that digital EQ's "have no phase
shift problem." is simply wrong and unsupportable in any sense.

Further, if you're equalizing a minimum-phase frequency response error
with ANY minimum-phase equalizer, digital or analog, and most simple
filter-based analog EQ's are minimum phase, that EQ will have the
complimentary phase shift "problem" as the original error and the
net result is that the sum will have both flat phase AND amplitude
\response when you're done.

TonyP wrote:
"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
...
**"Good sounding mixers" is an oxymoron.

So just where did you get the records from to play on your HiFi, that
had never been through a mixer?

Same place he gets his weird ideas about equalization and phase shift. The
place where the sun shines not.

TonyP wrote:
"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
...
**"Good sounding mixers" is an oxymoron.

So just where did you get the records from to play on your HiFi, that
had never been through a mixer?

Same place he gets his weird ideas about equalization and phase shift. The
place where the sun shines not.

Laurence,

when I see more than a handful of eq bands - nasty phase things start
happening. But maybe it's different with software?

1) Most software EQ more or less models analog EQ, and phase shift is
inherent in the process and totally benign.

2) There is nothing "nasty" about phase shift. The resultant change in
*frequency response* can be an issue, unless of course you're using an EQ in
which case you want the response change.

See this great article I recently rescued from obscurity:

www.ethanwiner.com/phase.html

--Ethan

Laurence,

when I see more than a handful of eq bands - nasty phase things start
happening. But maybe it's different with software?

1) Most software EQ more or less models analog EQ, and phase shift is
inherent in the process and totally benign.

2) There is nothing "nasty" about phase shift. The resultant change in
*frequency response* can be an issue, unless of course you're using an EQ in
which case you want the response change.

See this great article I recently rescued from obscurity:

www.ethanwiner.com/phase.html

--Ethan

"TonyP" wrote in message
u...

"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
...
**"Good sounding mixers" is an oxymoron.

So just where did you get the records from to play on your HiFi, that had
never been through a mixer?

**That would be a non-sequiteur.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au