Quote:
@michi95: So you think there's TOO MUCH highs
No.
Using Bojcha's exp010.sts many tracks (modern productions) sound very close to original frequency structure (obvious we all agree about this).
Most older presets always add to every kind of music extra high frequency energy.
Bojcha's problem is (that's the way I understand him) that adding FM transmitter processing results in an unexpected big loss in high frequency.
Back to 12 band question:
As long as your only aim is to reach consistency in volume and loudness 10 bands are enough.
But with 12 bands you can use more aggressive settings for EQ, compression and clipping to nearly undo badly mastered original tracks.
Examples (for too aggressive snares):
Katrina And The Waves - Walking On Sunshine
Simple Minds - Don't You Forget About Me
Vanessa Paradis - Be My Baby
Beastie Boys - Fight For Your Right (To Party!)
etc.
Or try to listen to Lady Gaga at high volume with your headphones.
There are many productions with too much high frequency energy.

To reach consistency in frequency spectrum 12 bands are much better than 10 bands.
Don't get me wrong:
If Hans adds 2 bands I won't ask two weeks later for 16 and later for 32 bands.
I think 12 bands is the sweet spot.
Though I have to agree with Bojcha that 65 Hz (sometimes it's close to 62 Hz) is also a very important frequency.
It's difficult (sometimes impossible) to
design bass signature in the way you want with bands centered at 40Hz and 90Hz (what is good for some tracks is bad for others).
So why not 13 bands ?
Some might think: "13 bands, what's this ?".
But 13 bands would be really special

and will draw interest.
40 - 63.5 - 90 - 170 - 350 - 700 - 1.4K - 2.8K - 5.5K - 8K - 10K - 13K - 16K
