-
Welcome to ASR. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!
Neumann MT 48
- Thread starter Matias
- Start date
dasein_geist
Member
- Joined
- Jan 12, 2021
- Messages
- 10
- Likes
- 8
Well, that's frustrating.
I'll reply to the service email and suggest that they double check the formula.
We'll see if/how they respond.
EDIT: I have sent a reply to Customer Support (including pictorial evidence) demonstrating the discrepancy in the formula provided.
I'll report back if/when they reply
Last edited:
Did you verify yourself? Do you agree with me?
I do need someone else to check, in case i made an error
dasein_geist
Member
- Joined
- Jan 12, 2021
- Messages
- 10
- Likes
- 8
Music 1969,Did you verify yourself? Do you agree with me?
I do need someone else to check, in case i made an error
Yes, I verified (using an Oratoy 1990 graph and comparing it to a graph created using the conversion formula provided by Neumann customer support)
This test did indicate significant discrepancies between resultant graphs.
As indicated above, I sent my results to the customer service agent, asking for an engineer to review the formula.
We'll see if/how they respond.
Again, I apologize if I have inadvertently spread incorrect information.
No problem, thanks for checking. It seems Neumann is spreading incorrection information also
Also worrying they haven't even checked
dasein_geist
Member
- Joined
- Jan 12, 2021
- Messages
- 10
- Likes
- 8
After a follow up inquiry, I did receive an update from Neumann's customer service.
However, it was simply a vague promise that the ability to import REW data is "on their roadmap," and they requested more information about my specific use case scenarios.
I pointed them to Oratory1990's database, as well as providing them with my own room-correction REW data.
So, while it was disappointing that they were unable to provide a more correct conversion formula, or immediately address the issue, I am cautiously optimistic that they will continue to look into this issue.
Perhaps, if more people would request this feature (the ability to import REW eq exports) or even a corrected EQ conversion formula, that may bump this issue up on their priority list
However, since it has already been mentioned in this thread that others have tried reaching out to Neumann about this issue, and didn’t receive a reply, I am a bit skeptical we will have a solution anytime soon, and that is frustrating
I will, however, continue to follow up with my email exchanges with customer service and post any relevant progress to the thread
However, it was simply a vague promise that the ability to import REW data is "on their roadmap," and they requested more information about my specific use case scenarios.
I pointed them to Oratory1990's database, as well as providing them with my own room-correction REW data.
So, while it was disappointing that they were unable to provide a more correct conversion formula, or immediately address the issue, I am cautiously optimistic that they will continue to look into this issue.
Perhaps, if more people would request this feature (the ability to import REW eq exports) or even a corrected EQ conversion formula, that may bump this issue up on their priority list
However, since it has already been mentioned in this thread that others have tried reaching out to Neumann about this issue, and didn’t receive a reply, I am a bit skeptical we will have a solution anytime soon, and that is frustrating
I will, however, continue to follow up with my email exchanges with customer service and post any relevant progress to the thread
From the support team back to 2023:
"Our teams had discussion on this topic and started analysis, the current Q factor of the MT 48 EQ has been inherited from the Merging EQX that you can find in our renown Pyramix DAW."
I suppose they just don't want to share any tech data inside their Pyramix, otherwise you will know what "flavour" they added into their EQX.
Anyway, I just started a new hackathon on this damn EQX, what I got now is they are just as same as other PEQ(biquad filter), with Q change from not only old style Gain related(which req has,but not default use) but also Freq related.
"Our teams had discussion on this topic and started analysis, the current Q factor of the MT 48 EQ has been inherited from the Merging EQX that you can find in our renown Pyramix DAW."
I suppose they just don't want to share any tech data inside their Pyramix, otherwise you will know what "flavour" they added into their EQX.
Anyway, I just started a new hackathon on this damn EQX, what I got now is they are just as same as other PEQ(biquad filter), with Q change from not only old style Gain related(which req has,but not default use) but also Freq related.
dasein_geist
Member
- Joined
- Jan 12, 2021
- Messages
- 10
- Likes
- 8
I look forward to any progress you can make
I have been requesting an update to the formula once a week since Mar 13th, but keep getting the reply, "I’ll be happy to pass your information along to the product management team and will keep an eye out for their response. As soon as I hear back, I’ll reach out to you right away," but, thus far, this is as far as it has gone.
I have explained precisely what I am trying to do (in my case, match a headphone EQ with one provided by Oratory1990).
I have sent them vary detailed reports of the issue, including the raw data and comparative graphs which show the discrepancies I am seeing when using the formula they provided.
We have also discussed the potential for for being able to directly import REW EQ data.
All of these conversations a have resulted in the same "I'll forward your info..." response
At this post, I have very little faith in Neumann's ability/desire to solve this issue.
Since one of the main reasons I purchased the MT 48 in the first place was for its extensive EQ functionality, to say I am disappointed is an understatement.
I will continue to followup, but, I no longer remain optimistic for a resolution
(perhaps, if more customers were to request this feature, it would be a higher priority for them? To their credit, they did initially seem open to input, but the lack of results speaks volumes)
A little bit update: I suppose they just won't give out a formula because they indeed have some "flavour" in the EQX, in extreme params(big Q, big gain, very high freq or low freq) the result in one EQ in EQX can only achieved/simulated by multiple biquad EQ.
There is no one formula that can convert a normal biquad EQ to EQX EQ, at current I can only get near it but not equal it.
There is no one formula that can convert a normal biquad EQ to EQX EQ, at current I can only get near it but not equal it.
Well they have been giving a formula. It was clear they never even checked it properly themselves because it is wrong
What I mean is their tech engineer just don't want to share details because you can build their EQX with that info, and EQX is a critical part of their Pyramix.
That wrong formula obviously isn't given by their tech engineer, because at least they should have freq as param.
They just give out a wrong formula to make you think they are trying to share, but encounter some "tech issues".
I always thought EQ-X was a limited feature VS3 version of FLUX EPure or whatever it was called before. Merging’s own EQ in Pyramix must be inheritance from its predecessor, WaveFrame workstation.
No, I don’t have any proof, besides similarities in GUI and functionality.
Might be worth checking with PluginDoctor to those interested.
No, I don’t have any proof, besides similarities in GUI and functionality.
Might be worth checking with PluginDoctor to those interested.
You are correct, they are indeed the same things, just see blow pic, the red line(EQX) and bule line(FLUX) are matched every test.
Now the question become: how did this plugin's EQ was constructed.
Well, since that EQ plugin is not free I think they also won't share the tech details or formula for etc.
dasein_geist
Member
- Joined
- Jan 12, 2021
- Messages
- 10
- Likes
- 8
PureLIN,
In the online manual for EPure EQ, they state that the Q-Value is a factor of the gain applied and the octave affected.
Frustratingly, however, there is a note stating that this value is not necessarily reflected in the displayed values
see: https://doc.flux.audio/epure/
I continue to pressure customer service for a solution, however, all my responses have met with a, "I'll continue to pass on your request" dead end.
While originally optimistic, I am increasingly getting the impression that Neumann either can't or won't address this
(Again, perhaps, if enough users request this feature, they will reconsider)
dasein_geist
In the online manual for EPure EQ, they state that the Q-Value is a factor of the gain applied and the octave affected.
Frustratingly, however, there is a note stating that this value is not necessarily reflected in the displayed values
see: https://doc.flux.audio/epure/
I continue to pressure customer service for a solution, however, all my responses have met with a, "I'll continue to pass on your request" dead end.
While originally optimistic, I am increasingly getting the impression that Neumann either can't or won't address this
(Again, perhaps, if enough users request this feature, they will reconsider)
dasein_geist
lkanies
Member
- Joined
- Apr 12, 2022
- Messages
- 63
- Likes
- 40
I expect this is two years too late, but you should be able to wire the subwoofer inline between your audio interface and the speakers. That’s what I do with an Arendel sub (although I have the larger one, which also supports balanced inputs/outputs).
1961 Subwoofer 1S
Our smallest sub, but one that redefines standards at this price point.arendalsound.com
lkanies
Member
- Joined
- Apr 12, 2022
- Messages
- 63
- Likes
- 40
Question for people with the MT 48:
How hard is it to turn phantom power on and off for a mic? And how hard is it to switch between active mics (e.g., turn power off for one, and on for the other, or to turn monitoring on and off for a mic)?
I am currently using a Motu M2, but it is regularly flaking out — I am having to reboot it pretty regularly to get it to work. I use it with two microphones that I switch between — a shotgun mic, and a normal, up close condenser mic. In most cases (i.e., when not using a mic) I have phantom power to both mics turned off (which is recommended for mic longevity). But I will regularly turn a mic on, turn monitoring on and off for a given mic, and switch mics.
I just tried the Babyface Pro FS, and I’m having to send it back because of this. When using it with a computer, the *only* way to enable/disable phantom power is in the software, which is too fidgety for my use case. I can force the Babyface into non-host mode (i.e., it won’t think it’s connected to a computer) but then I lose a bunch of power I’d want at least sometimes from the software.
The MT 48 is way overkill for my use case. But if I can get the perfect device and never have to think about it, it might be worth it. And I’m *hoping* it can drive my Dan Clark Audio Noire headphones without a separate headphone amp, although that’s not a requirement.
How hard is it to turn phantom power on and off for a mic? And how hard is it to switch between active mics (e.g., turn power off for one, and on for the other, or to turn monitoring on and off for a mic)?
I am currently using a Motu M2, but it is regularly flaking out — I am having to reboot it pretty regularly to get it to work. I use it with two microphones that I switch between — a shotgun mic, and a normal, up close condenser mic. In most cases (i.e., when not using a mic) I have phantom power to both mics turned off (which is recommended for mic longevity). But I will regularly turn a mic on, turn monitoring on and off for a given mic, and switch mics.
I just tried the Babyface Pro FS, and I’m having to send it back because of this. When using it with a computer, the *only* way to enable/disable phantom power is in the software, which is too fidgety for my use case. I can force the Babyface into non-host mode (i.e., it won’t think it’s connected to a computer) but then I lose a bunch of power I’d want at least sometimes from the software.
The MT 48 is way overkill for my use case. But if I can get the perfect device and never have to think about it, it might be worth it. And I’m *hoping* it can drive my Dan Clark Audio Noire headphones without a separate headphone amp, although that’s not a requirement.
Michel Forbes
Member
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2018
- Messages
- 60
- Likes
- 38
Phantom power switch is enable in the Microphone input menu, see the attachement.
Attachments
lkanies
Member
- Joined
- Apr 12, 2022
- Messages
- 63
- Likes
- 40
Thanks!
dasein_geist
Member
- Joined
- Jan 12, 2021
- Messages
- 10
- Likes
- 8
At long last (after months of back and forth communications), I have an update to the Q-Factor conversion formula.
As my previous posts have mentioned, I have been in an extended conversation with, first, Neumann, and then Merging technicians trying to get an updated Q-Factor formula that allows a conversion from REW filter tables to the Neumann/Merging built in PEQ.
After extensive communication, here is the latest conversion formula developed by Merging mathematicians:
Q_Mer = Q_REW * 10^(1.2 - abs(Gain_dB)/40)
Q_REW = Q_Mer * 10^(abs(Gain_dB)/40 - 1.2)
I have tested this formula on a number of headphones, and, while still not perfect (and with caveats, see below), gets much closer results than the previous formula I was given
However, there is a caveat, this formula only works when Shelf Filters you are trying to convert have a Q-value of .71 (any other value will result in an inaccurate filter curve). Additionally, the Neumann/Merging PEQ interface still does not allow for precise value input, nor does it allow for changing the default Q-factors on Shelf filters. So, there are still some significant limitations.
While Neumann/Merging are aware of these limitations, it is yet to be seen whether or not this will result in any implementation changes in the future.
Throughout our conversations, I have reiterated the desire for a way to directly import REW filter tables (much like Merging users are able to import SoundID files), but whether or not Neumann/Merging integrates such a solution in the future is anyone's guess.
Since it was made clear that further solutions would require substantial changes to their existing code base, it is unlikely that there would be any substantial revisions to the formula I have provided above.
So, in the end, I hope this is helpful for existing MT48/Anubis users, and strongly encourage those interested in further development of a direct filter-table import function to email customer support and express your interest in adding such a feature
As my previous posts have mentioned, I have been in an extended conversation with, first, Neumann, and then Merging technicians trying to get an updated Q-Factor formula that allows a conversion from REW filter tables to the Neumann/Merging built in PEQ.
After extensive communication, here is the latest conversion formula developed by Merging mathematicians:
Q_Mer = Q_REW * 10^(1.2 - abs(Gain_dB)/40)
Q_REW = Q_Mer * 10^(abs(Gain_dB)/40 - 1.2)
I have tested this formula on a number of headphones, and, while still not perfect (and with caveats, see below), gets much closer results than the previous formula I was given
However, there is a caveat, this formula only works when Shelf Filters you are trying to convert have a Q-value of .71 (any other value will result in an inaccurate filter curve). Additionally, the Neumann/Merging PEQ interface still does not allow for precise value input, nor does it allow for changing the default Q-factors on Shelf filters. So, there are still some significant limitations.
While Neumann/Merging are aware of these limitations, it is yet to be seen whether or not this will result in any implementation changes in the future.
Throughout our conversations, I have reiterated the desire for a way to directly import REW filter tables (much like Merging users are able to import SoundID files), but whether or not Neumann/Merging integrates such a solution in the future is anyone's guess.
Since it was made clear that further solutions would require substantial changes to their existing code base, it is unlikely that there would be any substantial revisions to the formula I have provided above.
So, in the end, I hope this is helpful for existing MT48/Anubis users, and strongly encourage those interested in further development of a direct filter-table import function to email customer support and express your interest in adding such a feature
Obvious wrong since no freq as input parameter, they just want you to stop bothering them.
I already ran a automated loop test and create a script to validate if a formula is correct (but PEQ only).
Here is your formula result, diff means the the (Q_REW_EST - Q_REW_MANUAL_CHECK) / Q_REW_MANUAL_CHECK
Here is the result I can get:
Notice the difference in Z axis scale.
Similar threads
- Locked