1 (edited by mr.r 2021-12-27 03:37:20)

Topic: More EQ per channel for usage as room EQ

Still my by far most wished RME feature.

It would be so helpful to have a 6 or better 9 pole EQ instead of 3 poles for usage as room EQ and for headphones.

I really don't have the need for any of the other FXs.

I would be totally fine to disable all the FX on all other channels to get this enhanced EQ on 2 or 3 channels.

Re: More EQ per channel for usage as room EQ

It can be achieved by loopback, digital will best and analog is acceptable.
I think the RME team don't have plan for doing that, I ask about widen Q value before, they have Q up to 10 for adi2 but others still only have 0.7-5

3 (edited by DrFrankenspine 2022-01-03 21:40:57)

Re: More EQ per channel for usage as room EQ

I'd like to second this.

For the amount of people potentially using this for podcasting/streaming or even vocal recordings, having a few more channels to tune a mic/cut room noise would be most welcome.

mr.r wrote:

Still my by far most wished RME feature.

It would be so helpful to have a 6 or better 9 pole EQ instead of 3 poles for usage as room EQ and for headphones.

I really don't have the need for any of the other FXs.

I would be totally fine to disable all the FX on all other channels to get this enhanced EQ on 2 or 3 channels.

Re: More EQ per channel for usage as room EQ

purelin is right though, you can most likely achieve what you want with loopback. Most RME interfaces have an exorbedant amount of channels. If you're not using one of your ADAT connecters for expansion you can just loop it into itself, and then apply EQ to the output and input and mix into another channel with loopback for recording.

On my MADI FX card I have the 3rd MADI connection looped into itself for stuff like this, there's actually a ton of functionality in a physical loopback as the channel can be re-routed unlike when you use the virtual loopback. Basically no delay either, there has to be some, but nothing you could notice. I loop back my mic before monitoring it and can't tell the difference.

MADI FX, Fireface UFX+, ADI-648, HDSPe RayDAT, ADI-192 DD

Re: More EQ per channel for usage as room EQ

Ninbura wrote:

purelin is right though, you can most likely achieve what you want with loopback. Most RME interfaces have an exorbedant amount of channels. If you're not using one of your ADAT connecters for expansion you can just loop it into itself, and then apply EQ to the output and input and mix into another channel with loopback for recording.

On my MADI FX card I have the 3rd MADI connection looped into itself for stuff like this, there's actually a ton of functionality in a physical loopback as the channel can be re-routed unlike when you use the virtual loopback. Basically no delay either, there has to be some, but nothing you could notice. I loop back my mic before monitoring it and can't tell the difference.


Amazing ! I'd like a visual guide for this of some sort lol. Will try and see if I can figure it out as per described first though cheers

Re: More EQ per channel for usage as room EQ

Ninbura wrote:

purelin is right though, you can most likely achieve what you want with loopback. Most RME interfaces have an exorbedant amount of channels. If you're not using one of your ADAT connecters for expansion you can just loop it into itself, and then apply EQ to the output and input and mix into another channel with loopback for recording.

On my MADI FX card I have the 3rd MADI connection looped into itself for stuff like this, there's actually a ton of functionality in a physical loopback as the channel can be re-routed unlike when you use the virtual loopback. Basically no delay either, there has to be some, but nothing you could notice. I loop back my mic before monitoring it and can't tell the difference.

Surely this causes phase issues through the added latency?

7 (edited by Ninbura 2022-01-08 00:08:17)

Re: More EQ per channel for usage as room EQ

brooksaudio wrote:

Surely this causes phase issues through the added latency?

The added latency can't even be measured in milliseconds, it's basically non-existent.

Imagine chaining an analog mixer into itself. Plug a mic into input one, turn it up on the main mix, and then send the main mix back into the mixer on input 2. If you were to monitor that with headphones, the added delay would be imperceivable.

Also take into consideration what an ADAT expansion does, like the RME OctoMic XTC. You send a mic over ADAT from the OctoMic into your interface with no perceivable delay. Though in the case of looping an ADAT connection into itself there's even less delay, as the signal doesn't need to be converted from analog to digital or vice versa like it does on the OctoMic.

MADI FX, Fireface UFX+, ADI-648, HDSPe RayDAT, ADI-192 DD

8 (edited by mr.r 2022-01-11 15:44:02)

Re: More EQ per channel for usage as room EQ

purelin wrote:

It can be achieved by loopback, digital will best and analog is acceptable.
I think the RME team don't have plan for doing that, I ask about widen Q value before, they have Q up to 10 for adi2 but others still only have 0.7-5

I know this workaround. But it's complicated to maintain.

Especially with more than one monitor out and an additional headphone. Tuning headphones by previous high quality measurements has become quite popular, because most headphone manufactures have quite strange frequency tuning for some reason. 

I guess there are no plans, but this doesn't mean that it never will be a plan when they get enough feedback on this topic and it's technically possible.

I never use totalMix FX currently. But a high quality monitoring EQ for all your monitors/headphone would be such a helper, currently I have to do this all in my daw with plugins on the out and even tried sonarworks (not satisfied by their systemwide driver, not really stable here).

Re: More EQ per channel for usage as room EQ

Another way to do this that I've found & made a tutorial for... this is for EQing headphones, but would work with your monitors too!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GQJTHLTGUDs