[shpadoinkle]

Did a fair bit of trial and error on this one, sounds pretty good to me now. Been trying to convert it to parametric form (so I can use it on my qudelix), but having some difficulty, especially with slopes, or trying to replicate that flat top between 1 and 2k.

I thought I maybe might get some success trying to do something with AutoEQ, but I can't even get it running as I can't get a binary install of Python 3.8. (I have a newer, incompatible version installed).

I thought maybe starting with some shelves, high and low, and then tweaking at some points, but getting nowhere fast.

Any suggestions, most welcome.

 

[shpadoinkle]

This is now redundant, figured out how to get AutoEQ going.

So, the process is basically -> invert the graphic eq in Equalizer APO -> take a screengrab of the curve in the analysis panel -> grab the data points using WebPlotDigitizer (https://apps.automeris.io/wpd/) -> eq against flat (zero) in AutoEQ.

The resultant EQ is below, and is probably close enough.

Preamp: -5.9 dB
Filter: ON PK Fc 20 Hz Gain -4.7 dB Q 0.4
Filter 2: ON PK Fc 101 Hz Gain -5.5 dB Q 0.32
Filter 3: ON PK Fc 764 Hz Gain -2.7 dB Q 1.87
Filter 4: ON PK Fc 1075 Hz Gain 4.1 dB Q 1.44
Filter 5: ON PK Fc 1909 Hz Gain 3.6 dB Q 2.09
Filter 6: ON PK Fc 2759 Hz Gain -10.6 dB Q 2.59
Filter 7: ON PK Fc 3475 Hz Gain 6.8 dB Q 3.98
Filter 8: ON PK Fc 5464 Hz Gain 3.4 dB Q 2.09
Filter 9: ON PK Fc 8306 Hz Gain 4.2 dB Q 0.93

 

[gordonli]

This is now redundant, figured out how to get AutoEQ going.

So, the process is basically -> invert the graphic eq in Equalizer APO -> take a screengrab of the curve in the analysis panel -> grab the data points using WebPlotDigitizer (https://apps.automeris.io/wpd/) -> eq against flat (zero) in AutoEQ.

Many thanks for sharing your solution! I may have a similar issue in future going from EAPO's powerful GEQ to something more portable (though probably less precise), and this looks good.

In the last step, as an alternative to AutoEQ, REW's (Room EQ Wizard) 'match response' function may also have worked, though that algo really dislikes boosting, so one has to attenuate their desired target response until the 'auto EQ' algo responds.

 

[Twenty-One Twelve]

The resultant EQ is below, and is probably close enough.

Want to see the visual of your numbers? If you say, where's the beef^H^H^Hass, right. So after a visual of your numbers I'll show a visual of what I do to the headphones I always use.

The blue line is the response of the active filter in the list (in this first pic, the last one at #9). The yellow line is the sum of the filters, including the file gain (-6 dB) which I presume is there to keep any boost below unity gain. <--- this is almost always unnecessary except for low bass, and the awfully cut-down bass (didn't I cover that?) of your filters won't cause a problem. (Frankly)ugly response curve there. Is that a real word?

This first pair is your filter response:

11-22000Hz

1-1432Hz

and this pair from mine:

11-22000Hz

1-1432Hz

If you think, whoah! too much bass -- then behold the sub-bass: +30 dB of boost to SW and +24 dB of boost to SW2.

https://40th.com/jb/gfx/02_double_wide_art_tone_controls.png

You can poke around that link to see the root of the SW/SW2 stuff (pic #8).