I'm looking to get an eq. I've been doing dome reading and found some thread that say parametric will be more useful. But i can't really find any reasons why. Maybe i just suck at the search function. So what are the advantages/ disadvantages of both, and what are the top 3 for $500 or less?
Enjoy the benefits of a premium membership!
Upgrade Account
-
TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
Join free Log in
Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.
Graphic or Parametric eq?
- Thread starter zultimatez
- Start date
I never understood how a general EQ is better than a specific one. Your amp already has a parametric EQ. If you want to fine tune, use a graphic.
For 99% of the use cases of a 1/3 band graphic you can get the same frequency response curve with a 4 band parametric. You would have to really have some convoluted nonsense going on to not be able to match. And you are doing it with 4 filters in series instead of 33. That's way less noise, way less phase shift, way less distortion.
You can also do things with a parametric you can't do with a graphic. It is possible to get a very tight filter and make surgical changes. If you are trying to notch out a resonance a fixed frequency 1/3 octave filter is really a fairly blunt instrument.
Graphic EQ's are intuitive and easy to use. They are handy for quickly reaching over and killing feedback. They don't sound as good and are not as flexible as a parametric.
Okay, so I was being a bit premature.
I use my graphic EQ to make an otherwise... particular sounding graphite-necked instrument sound more musical. I need a graphic EQ - a parametric wouldn't cut it for my needs. Obviously not everybody has that need.
I'll revise my statement and agree with you that the vast majority of bassists are better off with a para EQ, thought not all.
A good graphic eq gives you a lot more scope for fine tuning, but they can be intimidating and hard to set up and take a bit of time to set up. Not really any good for a live scenario where you just want get a bit more mids by turning a knob, but if you spend a bit of time and get a good setting ultimately you should be able to get more subtle sound variations than with a parametric eq.
Spot on, except for the "don't sound as good" part. What standard are you using to determine this? How can one general category of EQ filter sound "better" than another, especially when you use them to make your instrument "sound good" in the first place?
To the OP:
If you want to do broad, general timbre adjustments with a good visual, choose a graphic. If you want to do more precise adjustments, go for the parametric (fully parametric, that is - adjustable Q and all.) Both have their unique uses.
I don't believe you specified whether you want a rack-mounted unit or not. If you want to get a graphic EQ but don't have a rack, try the MXR 10-band Graphic EQ pedal for $120. Granted, you won't get anywhere near the level of control that a 31-band will give you, but it serves its function well enough, given its size and price.
This is 100% the opposite of true.
Do you people understand what a parametric EQ is and how to operate it?
I think the problem is a lot of them are confusing the quasi-parametric EQ's on their amp or preamp with a fully parametric EQ unit.
What amp are you referring to?
Basically speaking, graphic EQ's got their name because thye looked like a bar graph. They had set center frequencies and you could either sliding them up or down to boost or cut that frequency. They became popular in the senventies are still are often misused by many who set them according to the visual pattern they create (such as a "smiley face") vs. what they're actually doing to your signal.
Parametric deals with not only being able to vary cut and boost but also the center frequency. You pick a frequency within a range, for example between 40 and 150 hertz and then cut or boost it. Parametric EQ's on most common bass amps are typically not fully parametric, which also have a Q or "width" type function. The Q function decides how wide or narrow an area along with the center frequency will be affected by the cuts or boost.
The first question in this thread is most pertinent IMO. What do you want or need it for? As far as spending $500 for either graphic or parametric, the OP's answer will go a long way towards making a case for or against it. IMO EQ's are one of the most misunderstood and improperly used sound shaping devices around and in many cases nowhere near as necessary as many think. Really learning about the gain structures in your signal chain and getting the basics down can go along way towards getting the sound you might want without as many tweaks.
Forgot to answer this question. A general (I'm guessing you mean non-adjustable center frequencies) can be "better" than a specific one (again, I'm guessing you mean being able to dial in a specific frequency) because it can be quicker and easier to use. Neither is better, period.
If my guesses are wrong, cool.
My guess is, what he is talking about is that most bass heads with parametric EQ just have one or two bands of SEMI-parametric EQ (with fixed Q), usually covering the mids. Most amps with graphic EQ cover the entire range of the instrument with the graphic.
For those who aren't fanatics about the gear stuff, a graphic EQ seems more intuitive and easier to use.
I personally prefer a head with four nice fixed bands of EQ, with appropriate shelving and center points.... my favorite is the TecAmp stuff..... 30hz shelving, 250hz low mid... wide Q, 800hz upper mid (with a bit narrower Q to my ear) and treble shelving around 8k or whatever. Assuming the amp is voiced reasonably 'flat' at the noon EQ settings, that allows you to very nicely control boom, punch, grind, and sizzle in a live situation with an electric bass (of course DB is a different animal).
IMO!
I find parametric EQs extremely easy to use:
1) Crank gain to max
2) "Sweep" the frequency slowly through from bottom to top until the frequency you want to boost (or cut) jumps out at you (and it will)
3) Adjust the gain to provide the degree of boost (or cut) on that frequency.
I used to be a graphic EQ fan for shaping my bass tone but have now gone over to parametric because I really don't know what 250 Hz sounds like vs. 500 Hz or whatever so on a graphic I really don't know where to start sometimes -- and the more sliders, the more confusing it gets. Whereas with a parametric, my ears tell me everything I need to know. Another problem I find with graphic EQs is that they don't get precise enough in terms of the frequency being impacted, and/or people don't know how to set them or get lazy about it (e.g., there's low rumble so the guy pulls down ALL of the faders from 31 Hz to 125 instead of just the offending one -- removing the rumble but also taking out the entire bottom of the sound range).
I like what someone posted earlier here about a scalpel vs. a blunt instrument. A graphic makes it too easy to tweak a wider frequency range than is often necessary, whereas a parametric forces you to hone in and gives you the precision to do that.
That all being said, the 31-band graphic EQ definitely has its place especially in a P.A. rack to "tune" the overall band mix. Since this was posted in the Live Sound thread I'm assuming the context for the OP is a P.A. application and not something for his individual bass tone. I would land on saying parametric is the way to go for an amp head, whereas graphic may be a better choice for P.A. IF it is properly operated.
My .02, anyway.
1) Crank gain to max
2) "Sweep" the frequency slowly through from bottom to top until the frequency you want to boost (or cut) jumps out at you (and it will)
3) Adjust the gain to provide the degree of boost (or cut) on that frequency.
I used to be a graphic EQ fan for shaping my bass tone but have now gone over to parametric because I really don't know what 250 Hz sounds like vs. 500 Hz or whatever so on a graphic I really don't know where to start sometimes -- and the more sliders, the more confusing it gets. Whereas with a parametric, my ears tell me everything I need to know. Another problem I find with graphic EQs is that they don't get precise enough in terms of the frequency being impacted, and/or people don't know how to set them or get lazy about it (e.g., there's low rumble so the guy pulls down ALL of the faders from 31 Hz to 125 instead of just the offending one -- removing the rumble but also taking out the entire bottom of the sound range).
I like what someone posted earlier here about a scalpel vs. a blunt instrument. A graphic makes it too easy to tweak a wider frequency range than is often necessary, whereas a parametric forces you to hone in and gives you the precision to do that.
That all being said, the 31-band graphic EQ definitely has its place especially in a P.A. rack to "tune" the overall band mix. Since this was posted in the Live Sound thread I'm assuming the context for the OP is a P.A. application and not something for his individual bass tone. I would land on saying parametric is the way to go for an amp head, whereas graphic may be a better choice for P.A. IF it is properly operated.
My .02, anyway.
As someone has already pointed out, this is just not true. Each band of a full parametric EQ allows you to adjust 3 parameters (frequency, gain, and Q). Each band of a graphic EQ allows you adjust only 1 parameter (gain).
Imagine a graphic EQ where you can not only move the fader up and down, but also from side to side so you can select the exact frequency that is being adjusted. Now imagine that in addition to being able to move the fader up and down and from side to side, you can also adjust how wide the fader is. That's a parametric EQ. I can't imagine any "fine tuning" that can be done with a graphic EQ than can't be done more precisely with a parametric EQ.
i've used a real parametric EQ for my PA system for years now.
it does sound better, mainly because it forces you to mix with your ears, not your eyes. too many people just grab sliders on the graphic and "sculpt" them into a curve that they expect to sound good, without even listening as they do so.
with a parametric, you have to actually listen for, find, and get rid of bad frequencies, which you can do with precision and without affecting the sound around the trouble spots. (unless you want to, by widening the bandwidth.)
done properly, you'll be surprised how much of the sound you can just leave alone. with my system, most of the parametric's 5 bands are usually bypassed!
the rane PE17 is a good EQ that can be scored used for a couple hundred bucks.
(it's totally overkill for an electric bass, but can be a lifesaver on an upright, where it can surgically kill feedback without carving up the tone.)
it does sound better, mainly because it forces you to mix with your ears, not your eyes. too many people just grab sliders on the graphic and "sculpt" them into a curve that they expect to sound good, without even listening as they do so.
with a parametric, you have to actually listen for, find, and get rid of bad frequencies, which you can do with precision and without affecting the sound around the trouble spots. (unless you want to, by widening the bandwidth.)
done properly, you'll be surprised how much of the sound you can just leave alone. with my system, most of the parametric's 5 bands are usually bypassed!
the rane PE17 is a good EQ that can be scored used for a couple hundred bucks.
(it's totally overkill for an electric bass, but can be a lifesaver on an upright, where it can surgically kill feedback without carving up the tone.)
I agree. Nothing like an EQ and/or a compressor to make an otherwise nice-sounding rig sound like poo.
