I am looking for a CPU-cheap EQ. I tried someones (included the ones from this thread), but they all use biquad~... or fft~ (Katja). Thanks everyone for sharing.

If bp~ and vcf~ are cheap for CPU... Why I found just one person who did it? (http://puredata.hurleur.com/sujet-4281-patch-return-keyboard-controllable-equalizer) Would it be low-quality?

I know that an EQ is not so easy for processing... but I tried putting a mono EQ7 for my microphone and a stereo one for the output... but my CPU got on fire (because my patch is consuming 26% doing nothing and 30% at full working... but this is another issue in another thread).

The one for my microphone is because, maybe, I will use different ones (SHURE SM-58 and SHURE Headset), they sound different. I would like them to sound similar. And, the output is for general EQ and to avoid possible acoustic feedbacks (because of some FXs with feedback, as delays).

Suggestions?

Maybe a bp~ EQ5-7 for the mic, a EQ3 for general-out and a band-stop for the feedback?

[biquad~] really isn't that inefficient at all. It's just calculating the coefficients that takes some processing. You might want to look at my [filtercoeff.mmb] abstraction. It generates coefficients for EQ-style filters.

I wouldn't use [bp~] because the phase response is weird and it can be noticeable. It also has a frequency response that looks more like a resonant low-pass than a band-pass. [vcf~] isn't so bad when it comes to phase response, but the attenuation of the stop-band is frequency dependent IIRC, which can make it a bit tricky to get expected levels when summing it with other bands. And, obviously, neither of those will let you come up with some shelving or hp/lp filters.

Ideally, if you're using an EQ with several filters, you would be able to bypass and [switch~] off the ones you're not using. That should save you some processing. Unless your using a graphic EQ (e.g. a bank of parallel band-pass filters), but those aren't really that great, anyway.

It's a bit difficult to understand for me... but thank you very much for the explanation.

Maelstorm, I won't use EQ for FXs... just one EQ for the input (microphone) and one for the output (speakers).

I like your gui.eq7.mmb~ (and eq7.mmb~)... I like it because it has switch~ (I love switch~). So, if I don't need to equalize, it doesn't spend process. I think I will use it for the output.

But I don't know which I should use for the input to make one mic sounds like the other (hand mic and headset mic). I had been using the one with lop~s and hip~s and it worked well (for my ear)... What about this technique? (I attached the file... but remember that it is old, it was a subpatch and even it did't use "$0-" variables).

Maelstorm! I don't find eq7.mmb~-help.pd file! It is not in GitHub...
Also, a lot of "expr divide by zero detected" messages appear when I open gui.eq7.mmb~-help.pd.

http://www.pdpatchrepo.info/hurleur/eq5_mey_old.pd

@MarioMey said:

Maelstorm! I don't find eq7.mmb~-help.pd file! It is not in GitHub...
Also, a lot of "expr divide by zero detected" messages appear when I open gui.eq7.mmb~-help.pd.

I haven't made a helpfile for it. But, really, just look at the messages that come out of the middle outlet. Those are all the messages that work with [eq7.mmb~]. And don't sweat those "divide by zero" errors. Those just pop up when the [filtercoeff.mmb] astractions are initializing, but by the time it's done initializing they are taken care of.

As far as getting the mics to sound similar, that's mostly something you'll just have to do by ear, and you're not likely going to nail it. You could use the analyzer on [gui.eq7.mmb~] to help you. Try and run white noise through both mics, and adjust the EQ of one so the analysis looks as similar as you can get it. That might at least get you on the right track.

I told you about its help file, because, in gui.eq7 help file, it says "All other messages are the same as [eq7.mmb~]. See it's helpfile." But I had used the out messages to learn how to change its parameters.

To get one mic sounds similar to another... is "more or less". Last year, I did it with a by-me-made eq5, using lop~ and hip~. I wanted to know if that technique was "aberrating".

Another eq.mmb would eat my CPU. I'm already using two, for stereo-out.

EDIT: finally, I put EQ3 from Hardoff modified to have a band bypass (switch~) and general bypass. For the output, gui.eq7.mmb~ and eq7.mmb~ (both channels).