[bug?] Confusing: the order of the eq bands are reversed

The order of the four equalizer bands are listed in reversed order, from 4 to 1 (See image).
Just a bit confusing.
Is this on purpose for some reason?
eqbandorderreversed.png

Way it is. If you open the Channel Settings window you’ll see it goes low to high, from left to right.

In any case, it makes sense to have the lower frequencies below the upper ones, so I think it’s OK.

I dont understand how that would “make sense”.
How do you mean?

Left to right. Top to bottom. That is how I read things.

The first node in the graph is the one to the left (#1).
I cant see how you would expect the first node to be the last one in the list.

Weird.

Do you read volume levels from up to down too? lower is always below, be it volume, frequency, height, whatever.

Don’t you agree?

It makes perfect sense to me. What is really strange is that someone would try to call this a BUG.
Even if it was bass-ackwards (which I don’t think it is) why would one say the word bug over it?
A bug is when there is an error in the code that causes something to function other than intended which is clearly not the case here. It is just a design choice.
J.L.

No, I do not agree.

This is an enumeration of configurable nodes.
Not a scale.

The question is really about usability. Its that simple.
I would expect the first node to be listed first.
And designing an interface to have the features where you expect them to be is a big part of usability.

I think the usability experts at Steinberg is the ones to decide.

Like this since C4, at least. I’d advise getting used to it, seems intuitive here.

Ok, that is good to know.
But why … ?

I’m not going into a fight over the definition of “bug”.
But as a software developer, I can say that bugs can be more than mistakes in the code, e.g. in the specifications.
Even when the code does exactly what the specification says, but the specification is wrong, it is still considered a bug in the system.
The final judges are always the users, not the ones writing the specification, nor the ones writing the code or the testers.

Another “software developer”. :mrgreen:

Don’t know what it is about them, but they do seem to have the most difficulty with DAWs. :wink:

How do you mean?

I’m also a software developer and I find the current implementation totally logic.

You are dealing with filter bands, not numbers. It’s not a text document, but a DAW. Things have to be in context.



Given it’s been this way since at least C4 and you’re the only one to complain, I’d say the users have voted. If it worked as you say it should, we’d be living on the bottom of the ocean. The Earth would be inside the Sun and the Moon inside the Earth, etc… . Up would be down, black would be white.

Cool, we’ve found the exception to the rule. :mrgreen:

Maybe because I do many other things too :mrgreen:

Low frequencies are heavier than higher ones so it make sense they are at the bottom :laughing:

Well, I just registered at this forum and tried to post a couple of simple bug reports, and I think I was pretty sober about it. And then my posts were mocked upon. Pathetic.

Have you found some bugs as well? This isn’t a bug, just something you’d prefer to be different!

Are the bass controls above the treble ones on a real mixer? I think you’ve lost this one :slight_smile:

Thanks, first meaningful answer to my question in this thread.
So it is to conform to some HW legacy then.

Do you find the “legacy” arrangement of putting treble controls above bass controls illogial? :slight_smile:

I admire a man who sticks to his guns - but this is getting silly!