On Wed, 4 May 2016 19:06:05 +0200, Jörn Nettingsmeier wrote: You and I never ever would use it. If you would, you should get rid of being Tonmeister VDT. Reminds me of another thread on another mailing list, were I mentioned that there really, really seems to be the need to write a Wiki about the Q parameter. Use a search engine. Perhaps this picture explains enough: http://www.tonelux.com/images/tilt%20eq%20sm.jpg Around a centre frequency you reduce/gain the left/right side of the frequency spectrum. There's absolutely no need to know this for professional audio engineering, this is for another target group. Regards, Ralf

On Wed, 4 May 2016 18:05:51 +0000, Fons Adriaensen wrote: ;D I always praises you parametric EQ :). Last time I did it, was today at the Ubuntu Studio devel mailing list :). I guess we should consider to write a wiki about parametric and graphic EQs. There seems to be a lack of understanding how EQs work and what they are able to do. One very important point seems to be the Q parameter of parametric EQs. When I switched from analog mixing consoles to digital DAWs for my home studio the most annoying pain was (and still is) EQs. Nowadays counterproductive usage of compressors and EQs seems to be common.

Hi Ralf, list On 04/05/2016 19:22, Ralf Mardorf wrote: Yes, a tilt EQ can be implemented in different ways, and perhaps the most simple way is the cascade of low + high shelving EQ with the gain control that moves in opposite way with respect to eachother. In fact, at the moment I use this exact configuration. Since I'm very lazy, I'm searchin for a plugin that does this with one "tilt" knob instead of using two gains :) I've to equalize some recordings that suffer of uneaven low/high spectrum balance, and the "unbalancing" is different from recording to another, so, one knob should speed up the eq processing. Another way can be to automatically analyze each track, estimate the "unbalancing" factor ad correct it using, for example, MATLAB/OCTAVE. But the audio content of each track is not sufficiently representative and very different from track to track, so a correction by ear is needed. The first that comes to my mind is tilt EQ. Regards, -- a.

On Wed, 4 May 2016 22:14:31 +0200, Ralf Mardorf wrote: The impression of loudness is another issue, but depends to the audio source. E.g. frequencies are gained that are available and at the same time frequencies are reduced that aren't available vs frequencies are gained that are available and at the same time frequencies are reduced that are available, let alone auditory sensation. You anyway need to adjust the changed frequency gain in relation to the overall loudness impression. The combination of EQing and compression is very tricky. If you should be less familiar with the interaction of EQs and compression, I recommend to mix a song with EQing only and at the end to add or nor add compression.

On Wed, 4 May 2016 22:47:01 +0200, Ralf Mardorf wrote: Please explain it. You have to equal shelving filters, IOW based on the same frequency and the same quality, bandwidth. What is the difference between increasing one filter 1dB (aka +1dB) and decreasing the other one 1dB (aka -1dB) or just using one filter increasing or decreasing 2dB and adjusting the overall volume?

On 04/05/2016 23:03, Ralf Mardorf wrote: Yes... it's a possible way of implementing a tilt... and? I don't care about loudness (at the moment). Undoubtedly true, but what's the point? You have to give -1 dB before using the +2 dB shelving (again, two knobs). I know the math... I was just asking if there exist a tilt eq! If not, no problem :) I go with shelving. The only difference using a cascade of 2 shelving in place of a gain stage + 1 shelving is in the phase response of the system. So in the 90% of the use case there will be no difference between this two approaches but, again, that's not my original question. Thank you all for the replies! Cheers, -- a.

On Thu, 5 May 2016 00:32:05 +0200, Ralf Mardorf wrote: ^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Not good worded. You don't need to move the graph, the graphs are equal, just the "start" frequency is different to the "centre" frequency, but the result is the same. You could name it an x-axis or y-axis move, resp. just a move of the selected frequency. De facto you are using a shelving filter, even if you chose a tilt filter. The level of the audio signal changes what ever approach you chose. It's not what you were asking for, but it should be mentioned for the record.

On Thu, 5 May 2016 01:18:17 +0200, Alessio Degani wrote: JFTR, so that people reading the archive, don't get a wrong impression about EQs. There might be fields were using a tilt EQ might be wanted (I just don't know such a filed), but it's not a special kind of EQ doing some magic. That's true, it could be wanted that the result is more or less loud, then it was before.

Hi Lorenzo, On 05/05/2016 12:09, Lorenzo Sutton wrote: Of course :) The first answer was: "use VST" :) so, to me it was clear hehehe I'm agree with you. My "concern" was not about the off-topic drift (that sometimes can be usefull for the community), but was about the 4 or 5 post with the same content. Maybe, Ralf was a little too worried about his written english, but he needs to not worry about this: it was clear :) -- a.

Hi Jörn, list On 05/05/2016 13:32, Jörn Nettingsmeier wrote: more ore less yes I do not need loudness/gain/energy correction My use of tilt EQ does not match the "DJ case" nor the post production case. Let me explain. I've used tilt EQ once, or twice in studio (with Mac OSX) only beacuse an EQ plugin that I've used (I can't remember the name of the plugin right now) has a "tilt" option among the other classic parametric choices. I've used the "tilt" only just for try it :) That's why I know the existence of this EQ "type". At the moment, my use case is different from he DJ case or post-production (in the "music" sense) case. I'm using some custom made contact microphone that shows different spectral response characteristics depending on different factors like mounting surface, mounting method (i.e. adhesive foil, clamps, ...). The contact microphone are used for measuring purposes, and not, for example, for recording an acoustic instruments. For what I've seen, a tilt EQ is sufficient for a "good" correction without loosing to much time. The correct way to proceed in my case, should be a calibration with a matched EQ curve (i.e. whitening the response). The problem is that this matched curve can be very different from one measure to another. A simple way to control the balance between low and high frequency, such as shelving or tilt is the way to go (for now... maybe in the future I will find a simple way to do this automatically :) ). The loudness is no my concern, because I apply a feature normalization. Cheers -- a.

On Thu, May 05, 2016 at 01:32:01PM +0200, Jörn Nettingsmeier wrote: The advantage of using two shelf filters would be that you can have some control over the slope of the transition region. By combining even more shelf filters you can get as close as you want to the limiting case, which is what I would call a 'tilt EQ': a filter that has a constant (+ or -) slope (in dB/oct) over the entire audio range. This can be done _exactly_ only if the slope is an integer multiple of 6dB/oct. Ciao, -- FA A world of exhaustive, reliable metadata would be an utopia. It's also a pipe-dream, founded on self-delusion, nerd hubris and hysterically inflated market opportunities. (Cory Doctorow)

I have definitely used tilt EQs in the production process. Not as my EQ shape of choice but I've added little bits in as a broad "well, I wish this sound was a bit more trebly/bassy". -w On Wed, 4 May 2016, at 19:22, Ralf Mardorf wrote:

Hi, On 05/05/2016 15:23, Ralf Mardorf wrote: Yes, an EQ chain should do the trick also for my needs (I've already done some test with a graphic EQ). In that case, the term "tilt" is somewhat misleading. From the point of view of what a tilt EQ do (intuitively) is clear. On the contrary, there no exists a tilt EQ topology (in electrical sense). I mean, the filter topolgy are HP, LP, HS, LS, Peak, ... and the tilt can be a combination of one or more of this. Just the way the "tone" control of some consumer device works. It is what tone control do, but any maker design the tone control using a combination of basic filter types. The exciter is a psycho-acoustic EQ. That means that is not an EQ in the classic sense. It adds high harmonics to the signal using non linear processing. Can sound good sometimes, but I'm not excited by using exciter ;) It seems to be a good resource. Unfortunately I don't speak German so I can access only to a subset of it. Cheers -- a.