)
Try to find out what the Q is for those filters, then if it's close to Q0.5 for the High Shelf Filter in GLM then you could try what I suggested, as long as the two High Shelf Filters for each speaker are also able to input Q0.5, then you can combine the GLM High Shelf with the two High Shelf's for each speaker. (as long as your GLM is feeding all your speakers, I don't know much about GLM)I would like to try a even downward slope too, using GLM. The GLM Sound Character Profiler has one low shelf and one high shelf filter (unknown Q?), and there are 2 low and 2 high shelf filters (plus 16 notch filters) for each speaker separately. I tried this (I don't really know what I am doing
View attachment 250813
Yes, which is why I said to try to find out what the Q factor is for those filters in GLM. And of course plus-sign = positive gain, I didn't realise we were doing Math class?
Yes you’re right. Time to email Genelec about that.Yes, which is why I said to try to find out what the Q factor is for those filters in GLM. And of course plus-sign = positive gain, I didn't realise we were doing Math class?
Ha, ok, GLM sounds pretty limiting on that customisation basis then! No, but still you can add the 3 High Shelf Filters I talked about into software parametric equalisation at your playback source if all else fails - so EqualiserAPO on PC or in any music player that allows parametric EQ. (Which of course you can apply on top of your GLM or any other EQ that you do using any other device/system).
Yes equalizer apo is the way to go for Windows source.
Limitations are not what prevent tinkering. It’s your ears and what’s between them that does that.I kind of like some limitations with GLM and the genelec eco system. That way I've found that I listen to more music/films rather than tinkering. I love both though but the latter too much for my own good.
Fair do's yes. For folks out there, if you want to model all your EQ filters together to see what effect they're having then you'd want to use some kind of graphical EQ program like REW. It's very flexible, a bit daunting at first, but once you understand how everything fits together then you can model EQ effects from multiple sources so that you're not just wondering how those extra filters will effect your measured frequency response. It's totally flexible ("your imagination is the limit once you know the basics"), but beyond the scope of explaining how it works in this thread - just consider learning how to use it if you want to maximise your EQ & understanding thereof - for all the people reading out there (not specifically you @srrxr71)
The plus-sign is by the filter name and was added in an update by Genelec to indicate that that filter can have a positive gain. Only a few filters, if any, can have positive gain.Yes, which is why I said to try to find out what the Q factor is for those filters in GLM. And of course plus-sign = positive gain, I didn't realise we were doing Math class?
(Yes, it was already explained more than adequately by @srrxr71 )
Can you use a Schiit Loki to "overlay the target curve"? That is twiddle the knobs to get the best possible tasting music for you? It seems more scientific to, say, overlay a Harman curve, but does that get every individual to the best possible taste? Surely individual tastes are all different, just as there is a vast range for preferences for "curry heat" or "saltiness", etc., in food. So don't you have to end up twiddling knobs anyway, to get to your unique preferred taste? So why not just start and end by twiddling knobs and get a Schiit Loki rather than spending all this time, money, and brain power on advanced digital solutions? (OK, professional recording engineers need to do this, they need to know exactly when the curve is objectively flat or not. But I'm thinking of the average listener... why should they care if the curve's flat? Why would they want to know what the curve looks like, they just want the music to sound good...)
It might end up making best sense to apply those 3 High Shelf Filters at your source anyway, either in playback software or EqualiserAPO (depending on what your source is) - as it is an overall change to the tonal balance that you'd want to apply to all speakers at once anyway, so it's more "economical" to apply it right at your source rather than having to waste filters in each of your speakers or in GLM or whatever.
I don’t remember any calibration that used more than a few filters. There should be enough left even on the 8260.
