Article about EQ types

bongomania · #1 11-06-2008, 02:18 AM

Hey gang,
I just finished writing an article about EQ, here: http://www.ovnilab.com/articles/eqtypes.shtml
...and I'll be adding to it and making changes over time, so I wanted to solicit your input- is there anything you wish I explained, or where my explanation is confusing (or even wrong)? Any suggestions, corrections, questions, etc. are welcomed.

Colonel_Claypoo · #2 11-06-2008, 02:22 AM

thanks,
i think this will be very informative.

reading now

Chris V. · #3 11-06-2008, 03:08 AM

I've got a double free now, so I'll have a look at it.

Thanks a lot!

EDIT: I finished reading it and it prompted me to look up the EQ stats for my Aguilar AG 500. Can someone help me there..?

Great article, by the way.

slyjoe · #4 11-06-2008, 05:53 AM

Looked fine to me. Good job as usual

The only thing I might add would be more of a discussion of how 1 eq's band (low mid high) is not another's. Or any band for that matter. Maybe what we generally mean by "lows", "low-mids", etc., and how it applies to bass. I think there have been a few threads lately.

stflbn · #5 11-06-2008, 06:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by slyjoe

Looked fine to me. Good job as usual

The only thing I might add would be more of a discussion of how 1 eq's band (low mid high) is not another's. Or any band for that matter. Maybe what we generally mean by "lows", "low-mids", etc., and how it applies to bass. I think there have been a few threads lately.

Agreed. It's another one of those things that lots of people talk about but seems about half really don't know.

Lows usually fall in range **, Low/Mid's here, Mids here, high here, etc.

OriginalCrash · #6 11-06-2008, 06:46 AM

Great article, well written... One thing you may or may not want to add (though it certainly could be useful in an article about different types of eq) would be a description on Fender vs. Baxandall tone stacks. I actually found this article that did the best job at describing it so far (thanks to the graphs).

Brian

greenboy · #7 11-06-2008, 07:07 AM

Hey Bongo,

Maybe you don't want to get into this in your FAQ, but if you do...

Though due to practicalities of knob-naming on parametrics a "midrange" band might sweep from 100 Hz to 1000 Hz, I've found that dividing frequency response into octaves thusly helps describe how they actually function in tone:

Low bass: 31 Hz to 62 Hz (and below)
Mid bass: 62 Hz to 125 Hz
Upper bass: 125 Hz to 250 Hz

Low midrange: 250 Hz to 500 Hz
Mid midrange: 500 Hz to 1K Hz
Upper midrange: 1K Hz to 2K Hz

Low treble: 2K Hz to 4K Hz
Mid treble: 4K Hz to 8K Hz
Upper treble: 8K Hz to 16K Hz (and up)

SuperDuck · #8 11-06-2008, 07:16 AM

Great article - I'm sure that it will be very helpful to many people with questions about EQ.

I only have one real suggestion, and it's regarding the composition. The beginning is fairly abrupt, as you have one introductory sentence about parametric EQs and then you dive into the topic of what a band is. I would suggest having an introductory paragraph that outlines what you're about to tell the reader, and then jump into the first point you want to make in the paragraph that follows.

One of the things that I'll always remember from a composition class in school is about having the introduction, body, and conclusion: tell them what you're going to tell them, then tell them, and then tell them what you just told them.

**BullHorn** · #9 11-06-2008, 07:23 AM

Very informative, thanks.

Now i also know why fender sounds deeper with all eq at noon than other amps.

RCCollins · #10 11-06-2008, 07:49 AM

Concise and informative. Thanks BM!

Kgoodrich · #11 11-06-2008, 07:51 AM

just clicked the link, reading as we speak.

Many thanks!

JimmyM · #12 11-06-2008, 10:33 AM

I liked it, but maybe I'd have discussed the two and three band EQ's a little more in depth, and the difference between Fender and Baxandall and Marshall 2 and 3-bands. The other stuff was solid.

markjazzbassist · #13 11-06-2008, 10:42 AM

great. i don't understand the graph in the begining though. they all have the same center frequency but different things are boosted. so what knob is getting cut or boosted to make all the lows disappear and end up with just a mid band?

bongomania · #14 11-06-2008, 01:46 PM

I have updated the intro paragraph, and I will now focus on the three-band and two-band variations and freq. ranges. I do intend to make a better graphic for that first concept- that one I heisted from another site

and I needed to make my own anyway, so when I do I'll make it more clear.

Smurf-o-Deth · #15 11-06-2008, 02:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by markjazzbassist

great. i don't understand the graph in the begining though. they all have the same center frequency but different things are boosted. so what knob is getting cut or boosted to make all the lows disappear and end up with just a mid band?

It's a graph demonstrating different widths of frequencies (the Q) that get adjusted by rolling up a given frequency on a preamp (with the center point being the listed frequency--40 Hz, 250 Hz, whatever). It's just there to visually reinforce the previous paragraph.

To make it more clear, Mr. Bongo, you might want to explain the terms that show up in the graph, specifically the low Q and high Q terms.

Quote:

Originally Posted by greenboy

Maybe you don't want to get into this in your FAQ, but if you do...

Though due to practicalities of knob-naming on parametrics a "midrange" band might sweep from 100 Hz to 1000 Hz, I've found that dividing frequency response into octaves thusly helps describe how they actually function in tone:

Snip

An excellent suggestion.

Nice work, as always, B. Mania, Esq.

JimmyM · #16 11-06-2008, 09:58 PM

Killer new draft! Love the 2 and 3 band stuff, also the bit about the different switches you see on amps. Much better...a very good primer on EQ's.

bongomania · #17 11-06-2008, 11:28 PM

Thanks! I just now made a few more additions. If anybody else has suggestions or requests, please let me know.

Taylor Livingston · #18 11-07-2008, 12:47 AM

One thing I've always been curious about is how recording people will often talk about particular EQs as if they have an inherent sound. It seems to me that 2 good fully-parametric EQs shouldn't sound different from each other. Is that wrong? On a related note, what is "British" EQ?

René_Julien · #19 11-07-2008, 04:48 AM

Very good stuff bongomania.

What also would be cool is if we made a "try this" sorta database where everyone can contribute their expirience by sharing EQ settings (simple 2band to 12band graphic) that can work well for certain genres, instruments, specific sounds...

Like for example: can anyone recommend me a eq-setting for a clean no-grit metal tone for a solid state amp?

These kind of questions get asked a lot by bassists (and other musicians) here, wether they are newbies or more experienced.
Hey, I myself am guilty of ignorance about EQ from time to time. After 9 years of playing I'm starting to realize I don't per se need a graphic equaliser.

JimmyM · #20 11-07-2008, 10:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by C'thulhu

Very good stuff bongomania.

What also would be cool is if we made a "try this" sorta database where everyone can contribute their expirience by sharing EQ settings (simple 2band to 12band graphic) that can work well for certain genres, instruments, specific sounds...

Like for example: can anyone recommend me a eq-setting for a clean no-grit metal tone for a solid state amp?

These kind of questions get asked a lot by bassists (and other musicians) here, wether they are newbies or more experienced.
Hey, I myself am guilty of ignorance about EQ from time to time. After 9 years of playing I'm starting to realize I don't per se need a graphic equaliser.

Yep...just one more thing in the chain to create noise.

But your idea about different settings can only apply to a particular amp, since they all have different EQ curves. If you used the same EQ on a SWR amp as you use on an Ampeg, for example, you will end up with a completely different tone.