Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Question regarding Q width statement found in an article

Expand Messages
  • Robert
    This is correct(what Ted says). Some confusion can arise because some people call the bandwidth of a filter what is really one-half the bandwidth! This is
    Message 1 of 5 , Mar 22, 2013
    • 0 Attachment
      This is correct(what Ted says). Some confusion can arise because
      some people call the "bandwidth" of a filter
      what is really one-half the bandwidth!
      This is wrong but people sometimes do it
      What Ted is giving you is the right thing.

      Gerzon was not averse to making completely
      unsubstantiated statements. I do not
      think he had any real idea at all based on
      solid evidence of
      what kind of Q versus what kind of amplitude
      error needed correcting. This is a complicated
      thing --wide band errors(low Q) have lower
      thresholds than narrow band errors(high Q),especially
      on music material, and peaks
      have lower thresholds than dips. What you need to make
      things sound neutral is a complex issue.

      Gerzon is pretending to information he did
      not have here(mathematicians are prone to this--
      they are so sure they are right! and they
      usually are --about mathematics/ But psychoacoustics
      is a hugely complex subject and knowing mathematics
      does not make one know psychoacoustics. Improvisation is
      the word for what is going on here. Gerzon,
      for all the interest of his writings, is
      full of this kind of stuff--made up and
      he loves to claim authority. I did not know
      him personally but he comes across as opinionated
      and doctraire about complex issues, even though his stuff
      makes interesting reading.) If you want to know
      something closer to real answers about these questions
      you could try Toole and associates--they too are opinionated
      about what speakers ought to do(and in a rather
      inane way) but their threshold work is ok I think.


      REG

      --- In regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com, "Ted Rook" <rooknrol@...> wrote:
      >
      > A simple answer is "pretty sharp" ie, narrow bandwidth.
      >
      > Q is the center frequency (number of Hertz) divided by the width of the curve (number of
      > Hertz) at the -3dB points either side of the center frequency.
      >
      > eg With curve bandwidth 1000Hz (at the -3dB points) and filter center frequency 1000Hz,
      > Q=1.
      >
      > This is for resonant circuits having symmetrical frequency response curves.
      >
      > Ted
      >
      > On 22 Mar 2013 at 11:40, Alan Jordan wrote:
      >
      > > Hello,
      > >
      > > The following quote is from one of the articles by Michael Gerzon
      > > that
      > > Robert Jorgensen linked to the other day:
      > >
      > > "even the frequency response errors can only be corrected to a
      > > limited
      > > degree due to the one-third octave resolution of typical graphic
      > > equalisers, which is coarser than the critical-bandwidth resolution
      > > of
      > > the human ear. Empirical experience of equalising PA systems with
      > > parametric equalisers suggests that equalisers with a Q of about
      > > 10
      > > are required to tame simple frequency response effects well
      > > subjectively."
      > >
      > > My question is, what is a "Q of 10" in terms of octave width? Is
      > > it
      > > 1/10th of an octave?
      > >
      > > Thanks,
      > > Alan
      > >
      > >
      > > ------------------------------------
      > >
      > > Yahoo! Groups Links
      > >
      > >
      > >
      >
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.