Which formula did you use?
-
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
Not a forumla but a bunch of mapping results I got from measures, I create a program to auto do loopback test and find the most matched Qrew to a Qmt48 with a given freq and gain.
Which also means: I have a way to auto set the eq config, otherwise it's impossible to do that much measures. Unfortunately that code it's not a user friendly so I don't want to publish it.
I have an idea to create a tool to make all eq set just as same as Qrew and auto convert to Qmt48 when send command to device, but I just don't have enough effort for doing this.
I wonder if Groke or ChatGPT can convert the measurements to formula?
For a normal max range for frequency Hz and dB
Up to, I guess 20kHz and 10dB perhaps?
dasein_geist
Member
- Joined
- Jan 12, 2021
- Messages
- 10
- Likes
- 8
@PureLIN
I thought my post made clear that the formula I was given was: a) NOT perfect, b) had a pretty significant caveat, and perhaps most significantly, was limited by the fact that users cannot enter exact PEQ values.
Without the ability to enter exact values, I don't see a way that any formula would be able to "pass" a loopback test (as any minor deviation in values would cause a mismatch on output)
While I am not defending Neumann's (or Merging's) decision to use a non-standard EQ framework (in fact, this is my biggest criticism of the MT48), I would not say that Neumann/Merging is merely trying to get me to "stop bothering them"
I was in weekly (sometimes daily) conversation with their engineers for nearly TWO MONTHS trying to get this issue worked out. This sort of dedication does not come from a company that "just doesn't want to deal with it," or they simply would have stopped answering my emails
Rather, my experience has been that they are aware of the issue, however, fixing the issue (to the extent that they even see this as an issue) is challenging, because it would require a rewrite of their existing code, which is derived from EQ-X (which is a commercial product with an existing customer base)
One has to admit, MT48 customers who want to import EQ tables generated by outside sources (e.g. online databases, REW, etc) is probably a small fraction of their current overall customer base
With that said, they (Merging) seemed to indicate that they WERE WILLING to develop a working solution (e.g. the ability to directly import EQ Tables, such as from Sound ID, as can currently be done with the Anubis), if there was enough demand for such a feature
The impression I got from the Merging tech I was in contact with was not that this formula was meant to be a "perfect" solution, but rather a clever "workaround."
A most exacting solution would require a different approach (or a reworking of code), and whether or not that would be worth the effort would depend on customer demand
As I indicated in my previous post, I strongly encourage owners of the MT48 (and/or Anubis) to contact Neumann/Merging and request this feature, as I was given the impression that they were willing to develop the feature, if there was a strong enough demand
With all of that said, I do want to thank you for your efforts, and I would be VERY INTERESTED in any alternative solution that you develop
I*'d be happy to test/provide feedback on anything you provide to the forum
dasein_geist
I thought my post made clear that the formula I was given was: a) NOT perfect, b) had a pretty significant caveat, and perhaps most significantly, was limited by the fact that users cannot enter exact PEQ values.
Without the ability to enter exact values, I don't see a way that any formula would be able to "pass" a loopback test (as any minor deviation in values would cause a mismatch on output)
While I am not defending Neumann's (or Merging's) decision to use a non-standard EQ framework (in fact, this is my biggest criticism of the MT48), I would not say that Neumann/Merging is merely trying to get me to "stop bothering them"
I was in weekly (sometimes daily) conversation with their engineers for nearly TWO MONTHS trying to get this issue worked out. This sort of dedication does not come from a company that "just doesn't want to deal with it," or they simply would have stopped answering my emails
Rather, my experience has been that they are aware of the issue, however, fixing the issue (to the extent that they even see this as an issue) is challenging, because it would require a rewrite of their existing code, which is derived from EQ-X (which is a commercial product with an existing customer base)
One has to admit, MT48 customers who want to import EQ tables generated by outside sources (e.g. online databases, REW, etc) is probably a small fraction of their current overall customer base
With that said, they (Merging) seemed to indicate that they WERE WILLING to develop a working solution (e.g. the ability to directly import EQ Tables, such as from Sound ID, as can currently be done with the Anubis), if there was enough demand for such a feature
The impression I got from the Merging tech I was in contact with was not that this formula was meant to be a "perfect" solution, but rather a clever "workaround."
A most exacting solution would require a different approach (or a reworking of code), and whether or not that would be worth the effort would depend on customer demand
As I indicated in my previous post, I strongly encourage owners of the MT48 (and/or Anubis) to contact Neumann/Merging and request this feature, as I was given the impression that they were willing to develop the feature, if there was a strong enough demand
With all of that said, I do want to thank you for your efforts, and I would be VERY INTERESTED in any alternative solution that you develop
I*'d be happy to test/provide feedback on anything you provide to the forum
dasein_geist
From my experience, in a company, the customer support is not the same person in the development team. The willing shown by them don't represent the whole company's attitude.
Why I suppose they just don't want to share:
1. From my loop back result, this EQ-X's PEQ is just common biquad filter, not some special designed filter. I create a EQ settings in MT48, measure the loop audio to REW, them almost every one can be matched a Generic EQ in REW with amplitue different down to 0.001
2. The EQ-X is one of their propertiy plugin, so they have the source code. They can more easily do the loop back test, just write some test code, no actual audio device needed here.
3. If they release the formual/alogrithm, you can easily make a EQ-X clone since just the convert is bidriectional.
4. I got the MT48 after initial release few weeks, and I them ask them about the formula, the reply is "We want to unify the result with common EQ", just like your option that "they want to deal with it".
Two years passed, they release the monitor mission, they release a lot of changes on effects support (more EQ bands, compressor on monitor mission, etc), they even make the device support Dante.
But, for this little EQ-X convert to REW function? No, Nothing. They don't provide a option to use the internal EQ same as REW, they don't release any tools for convert REW result to EQ-X, they even don't release a correct formula for you to manual calculate. As I can get a decent result with loopback test , there is NO reason for them to delay such long time for this task.
Try this:
MagicNumber = 0.2666 + sin_rand(freq / 20000 * 1.975 + 1.5786) * 0.3647
Q_REW = MagicNumber * Q_Mer * 10^(abs(gain)/40) / 10
only for peak, other type not check yet.
GitHub - PureLin/MT48EQ_Control
Contribute to PureLin/MT48EQ_Control development by creating an account on GitHub.
github.com
Try this, read the README first.
I already tested with my MT48.
dasein_geist
Member
- Joined
- Jan 12, 2021
- Messages
- 10
- Likes
- 8
Did you ever get a recent update from Neumann/Merging about their PEQ Q-values, and some kind of conversion to normal Q-values?
GitHub - PureLin/MT48EQ_Control
Contribute to PureLin/MT48EQ_Control development by creating an account on GitHub.
Try this, read the README first.
I already tested with my MT48.
AnalogCircuit
Member
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2023
- Messages
- 53
- Likes
- 19
How are you guys managing power on your MT48? Do you use it on your primary computer for general audio use on and off all day like I do?
There doesn't appear to be a auto-standby power feature on the MT48 and it takes 45-60 seconds to boot and initialize each time you power it on.
In contrast, I have been using a RME that has a customizable power off timer so I never have to worry about shutting it off and it boots in 3 seconds.
There doesn't appear to be a auto-standby power feature on the MT48 and it takes 45-60 seconds to boot and initialize each time you power it on.
In contrast, I have been using a RME that has a customizable power off timer so I never have to worry about shutting it off and it boots in 3 seconds.
I had a mt48 for a year or so, but not having normal q values for eq made it almost worthless for headphones at least compared to other companies that have normal eq settings. The fan was annoying at times being a desktop interface so when the fans kick in it’s annoying or will ruin a recording if recording at your desk. Yes you can turn the fan to only kick on when really hot: but not sure about longevity. My first one had a screen that died in about 5 minutes so I was always a bit worried about my replacement. Overall in 25+ years of owning many interfaces and rack gear: 99.9% doesn’t have a fan, and if there is: it’s a rack mount piece of gear that you can stick in a rack in a closet or something. The fan on this was louder than my computer when it turned on.
The atmos and multichannel routing and volume control and now Dante capabilities is great. If they built a 2nd version that’s a bit larger with no fan and normal eq and maybe a second adat output or Madi or even spdif to go to a pair of their own speakers: I’d probably consider picking up another. (It was annoying using a cheap adat to spdif converter to hook up to their own Neumann speakers digitally: just another power supply and cable to deal with) A ucxii or motu mk5 has similar or higher I/O in a smaller size with no fan and it doesn’t get nearly as hot. But the mt48 is definitely better for atmos monitoring though than most anything else I’ve tried.
Just a quick update of my own personal experience with it.
The atmos and multichannel routing and volume control and now Dante capabilities is great. If they built a 2nd version that’s a bit larger with no fan and normal eq and maybe a second adat output or Madi or even spdif to go to a pair of their own speakers: I’d probably consider picking up another. (It was annoying using a cheap adat to spdif converter to hook up to their own Neumann speakers digitally: just another power supply and cable to deal with) A ucxii or motu mk5 has similar or higher I/O in a smaller size with no fan and it doesn’t get nearly as hot. But the mt48 is definitely better for atmos monitoring though than most anything else I’ve tried.
Just a quick update of my own personal experience with it.
Last edited:
Similar threads
