Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Amps and Cabs [BG]' started by BbbyBld, Jun 3, 2014.
Little bit of market research...you know what to do.
It really depends on the amp for me. On my Mark VIII XP I dig the GEq and shelving knobs, but I really like the Ampeg-esk pre on the clean channel on my Classic 400. Having the blendable Fender-esk dirty channel is just icing on the cake. I dont need a GEQ on the tube amp, or parametric mids on the Mark 8.
Which do I prefer? I think it really depends on the natural voicing of the amp.
Please tell me this is not related to the miniMega.
I like them mostly.
if the moon is an Aries then yes I like them
Go off on some tangent about the best frequency centers for metal?
I'm a big fan of fully parametric EQ, but I've always thought that a graphic with differing Q by frequency spectrum location might be kind of cool. How's that for a rabbit hole...
This is not related to the MiniMega.
I think I'll be having that blue pill .
I like it if it can be used like a 2nd channel on the amp. Have one for my fingerstyle setting and another for slap...I happen to think slap needs a bit more tweaking than my fingerstyle tone. If it's just layered on top of the same channel or isn't footswitchable then it comes off as next to useless for me if it's on the same amp as a set of knobs.
I don't really care one way or the other. As long as the amp sounds good and I can tweak it a little bit I'm happy.
I voted depends on the amp with the following explanation: I hooked up my Zoom B3 Via the effects return to see how it would be with my Carvin BX500. I was able to get some really Usable tones and dial in my signature sound. One very cool thing is that the Graphic EQ section still works while using the effects loop(I learned that yesterday). So I can set my favorite Zoom B3 patch and the "tweak" it Via the Sliders on the BX. Also, I run 2 4Ohm cabinets(2 Ohm total) and the BX500 handles it with ease. In the end though, I prefer My Hartke LH1000 with a whopping 3 tone knobs. Pure sweetness!!
I like them because I can make my amp smile at me when I'm having a bad gig and it makes me feel a little better. Or sometimes I make it frown at the guitar player's antics.
Actually...I'm not really all that into it. On stage, I usually have my hands pretty full of other details rather than tweaking 10 or so bands of EQ. I also don't really want more than 4 bands to mess with for a non-graphic EQ. In the past few years I've been getting great sound from amp setups that have a grand total of THREE EQ controls. Sometimes simple is just right.
Yeah big ol' sloppy q in the bass and low mid region is fine but treble and high mid need some high Q.
Yay, cause that one will be perfect as is.
I got all scared...
I voted -depends on the amp, but really, depends on the bass to me. With my passive fender j bass or my upright, I need one. With my active ibanez, not at all.
wirlwind bass ten eq http://whirlwindusa.com/catalog/black-boxes-effects-and-dis/effects/bass-ten-10-band-eq-fx-pedal
Depends on the application of course.
The graphic you guys put on my T-max has proven plenty workable enough for a bass instrument amplifier, but it's choice of bands/centers, etc. really shines in a small PA application.
As far as instrument specific amps go, GK's serial 4-band hasn't let me down yet. 60, 250, 1k, 4k centers does pretty much what one needs to do with our instrument, is intuitive, and has fixed bandwidths that are musical for both cutting and boosting.
A lot of y'alls amp are very well thought out and very useful, but for some players, graphics can lead to more eq'ing with eyes instead of ears, and there's a whole lot of people who don't intuitively grasp how to get the most out of a fully parametric.
You guys are usually out ahead of the curve on a lot of stuff, but sometimes, you need to simplify things for reasons of being "user-friendly" and letting users get the feeling that "you can't get a bad sound out of a Peavey amp".
The only times I've used or wished I had a graphic eq were when I had to tune something about the cab. Acoustic 370/301, as an example. Or the Variamp on the old 360 to take out that low mid hump.
I liked both the semiparametric and switchable center frequency mid controls on my old Edens, though.
Not that I dislike graphics, but I figure if an amp's normal tone stack works for me, I'd rather use that and skip the graphic.
If there had been an option for "has no beef with graphic EQs but just has never felt the need to use one" that would be me....