Graphic EQ vs. Parametric EQ

RadioactiveGuy4 · #1 03-06-2011, 04:22 AM

All the amps i have owned that had parametric eq's on them and i have to admit that i have always wondered if the was a real diffrence in sound. I do like the idea of a grapic eq but i want to pick your brains about the subject.

Thx

Interceptor · #2 03-06-2011, 06:02 AM

I'll go out on a limb - both sound fine. Where the difference is in the user interface.

As an example, my process for setting eq up in sound check is I start flat, and do a sweep trying to excite the room by turning up one of the low freq parametrics almost all the way open and then sweeping the freq range of that eq. If anything stands out, I use that freq and then cut a couple of dB. I then do the same thing in reverse and sweep the mids by cutting and then sweeping. I boost the hole area by a couple of dB. I finish up by fine tuning to the feel of the room with the Thunderfunk's timber control.

It takes me like two minutes and I'm done. One could do the same thing with a graphic.

KJung · #3 03-06-2011, 06:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RadioactiveGuy4

All the amps i have owned that had parametric eq's on them and i have to admit that i have always wondered if the was a real diffrence in sound. I do like the idea of a grapic eq but i want to pick your brains about the subject.

Thx

+1 to the above. I wouldn't really worry about it. In general, the semi-parametric EQ's on most bass amps are set at 1/2 octave (or even full octave), which is pretty wide. If you have a graphic with a lot of sliders (i.e., 8 or 10 frequency centers that can be impacted), the Q is probably quite a bit tighter than that, giving you more control.

Very few bass amps have full parametrics which allow you to vary the Q (i.e., the width of the frequency distribution impacted around the center point).

So, graphic with limited number of frequency points (4-6) versus a couple of semi-parametric mid controls..... pretty much the same thing.

Buy the amp that sounds good!

Jonathan1990 · #4 03-06-2011, 06:24 AM

I've heard that graphic eq's use more filters, thus sacrificing tone. Is this true?

Zooberwerx · #5 03-06-2011, 06:30 AM

A PEQ is always my first choice to tame bumps and clear up sonic mud. Variable bandwidth is preferred...a fairly wide setting is helpful when boosting and a narrow notch is most effective when cutting offending frequencies.

Riis

billfitzmaurice · #6 03-06-2011, 07:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RadioactiveGuy4

All the amps i have owned that had parametric eq's on them

Are you sure? They're quite rare. At best some amps have a sweepable mid, which resembles a parametric, but it's not the same thing, lacking a Q control.

craig.p · #7 03-06-2011, 07:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jonathan1990

I've heard that graphic eq's use more filters, thus sacrificing tone. Is this true?

That's a good question, but it applies more to the audiophile world than to the M.I. world. In the M.I. world, and especially in the electric guitar and bass guitar worlds, "tone" is already shot to hell. (Oftentimes the whole idea is to shoot it to hell.)

greenboy · #8 03-06-2011, 07:22 AM

6 more more bands of graphic often is easier to grok for bassists, and if implemented well serves most people fine. Here's a six-band graphic approach:

Myself, I like parametric and DPS-driven at that. But I am pretty happy with the right graphic approach too.

will33 · #9 03-06-2011, 07:36 AM

Ya, parametric is the wrong word. Some refer to them as semi-parametric which refers to the sweep knob so you can adjust where you want your boost or cut but it still doesn't allow you to adjust how wide you want that boost or cut to be.

I like the sweeps myself because it allows more control but to some it makes more confusion. Graphics or just plain old "tone control" knobs work fine to provided there's a slider or a dial set at or at least close to whatever frequency needs adjusting. I've had them all and haven't had a problem getting a good sound with any of them but then again I don't need much wild eq'ing to get my particular sound.

Just something to cut boomy resonances if there are any, that's where the sweep helps, or to add a little lows if you're playing through a cab that's shy in the bass.

Zooberwerx · #10 03-06-2011, 07:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by billfitzmaurice

Are you sure? They're quite rare. At best some amps have a sweepable mid, which resembles a parametric, but it's not the same thing, lacking a Q control.

The only one I can recall is the Yamaha PB-1 which has the variable Q. My Ashly PB-1 has a switchable wide / narrow setting but that falls short of being a true parametric. The SansAmp RPM is fixed as are the treble & bass "peak" controls on the Presonus Studio Channel...the mid control is fully parametric, though. IIRC, the Eden is a fixed Q, as well.

Riis

greenboy · #11 03-06-2011, 08:07 AM

Full parametric is what is usually in my bass rig.

But I won't suggest that many bassists could leverage that unless they've already spent a lot of time experimenting and sharpening their ears to the various frequency groups (here's an inkling: http://greenboy.us/fEARful/frequency...#bassmidtreble), or using it in the studio or for SR.

Rather than suggest one approach is better than another on various preamps, I'd just say that some are implemented well for their type, and some are not so well thought out (or bean counters have gotten too involved), considering what speaker cabs are often like.

But then again, if the EQ facilities of a preamp are really well-planned there's still no guarantee that the user ever learns it well.