I need info from people using EQ's. Pros, Cons, Beneficial?

[M Attacker]

I use a simple BOSS one. It is essential for me. I switch between fingers and slap. And my slap is quieter...so I use it as a boost mostly, plus refine my slap tone a bit...add in more low mids mostly.

So i use it kinda of like an effect more then really shaping my overall tone. Both my head and bass itself do that

 

[Wasnex]

Rack mount EQs generally have a broad and even spectrum for tuning components of a PA system to work within an acoustic space. While there are some rack EQs that are good for tone shaping instruments generally they are really not the right tools for that job. Generally for instrument tone simpler is better.
Something like a 10 band Eq can sometimes be a good tool but any more bands really starts to be less effective.
If you are lucky there are some half rack units that were very useful from Roland\Boss and a very sweet instrument Eq from Sholtz. Peavey had a bass preamp with useful features and interesting Eq points the ProBass1000.

IMHO...more bands provide more control, but are more complicated and confusing. Many bass players prefer a 3-band EQ and rarely touch it. I generally like my amp have to have 4-5 bands of EQ and make adjustments on almost every gig to offset differences in acoustics.

For an amp's EQ to work for me, the bandwidth and frequency centers of the tone controls have to meet my specific needs. Another player may not be able to dial in the their sound with the same EQ section because they want to peak or cut at different frequency centers. One way to make amps a bit more flexible is to make a couple of the EQ bands semi-or fully-parametric. For example the Ampeg SVT's mid control with selectable frequencies is essentially a semi-parametric EQ.

If I am using outboard gear for tone sculpting, I want either parametric or 31-band graphic...but that is my preference. Why? If I need more EQ than my amp has, the EQ needs to be as precise and flexible as possible. I have a 10-band MXR KFK EQ on my pedal board, and sometimes I cannot achieve the desire results because the frequency centers are in the wrong place to compensate for a specif room anomaly or to produce a specific tone. Never had that problem with a good 31-band graphic or 5-band parametric.

 

[mapleglo]

Small Board 3.5

• mapleglo
• Jun 22, 2018
• pedal board tech 21 q-strip

another change to my small pedal board, swapped the VT for a Q-strip

I've been using this Q\Strip for a while now. I mainly use it to EQ out room resonances. There's a pretty bad one at about 110hz in our practice space and you never know what you're going to find at any particular gig.

 

[descendent22]

What else is going in the rack set-up? Your choice of pre...maybe power...amp will have some bearing on my response. Why the *meh* for effect pedals?

Riis

Right now I have an ETA PD8L power conditioner, Ampeg SVP BSP preamp and a Crown XLS 1502 power amp. I'm looking for a more dry gritty no so distortion sound in my dirty channel. I like my clean and th dirty has a lot,of tonal options but I got this sound in my head I been trying to achieve and I'm getting close but I'm still off. I've tried so many different heads. I came across a compressor I think may help but I'm seeing if an EQ may help as well

 

[bassbrad]

IMHO...more bands provide more control, but are more complicated and confusing. Many bass players prefer a 3-band EQ and rarely touch it. I generally like my amp have to have 4-5 bands of EQ and make adjustments on almost every gig to offset differences in acoustics.

For an amp's EQ to work for me, the bandwidth and frequency centers of the tone controls have to meet my specific needs. Another player may not be able to dial in the their sound with the same EQ section because they want to peak or cut at different frequency centers. One way to make amps a bit more flexible is to make a couple of the EQ bands semi-or fully-parametric. For example the Ampeg SVT's mid control with selectable frequencies is essentially a semi-parametric EQ.

If I am using outboard gear for tone sculpting, I want either parametric or 31-band graphic...but that is my preference. Why? If I need more EQ than my amp has, the EQ needs to be as precise and flexible as possible. I have a 10-band MXR KFK EQ on my pedal board, and sometimes I cannot achieve the desire results because the frequency centers are in the wrong place to compensate for a specif room anomaly or to produce a specific tone. Never had that problem with a good 31-band graphic or 5-band parametric.

Again it comes down to using the tool for two different purposes. One is getting "tone" to which my preference is simpler the better. The other is room equalization and here a broad range like a 31 band or multi band parametric is more fitting. But with most bass players playing into the house pa these days it is rare we need to bring in the bass rig to the room any more, and if you did you would use a processor instead of winging it by ear.

 

[Wasnex]

Again it comes down to using the tool for two different purposes. One is getting "tone" to which my preference is simpler the better. The other is room equalization and here a broad range like a 31 band or multi band parametric is more fitting. But with most bass players playing into the house pa these days it is rare we need to bring in the bass rig to the room any more, and if you did you would use a processor instead of winging it by ear.

It comes down to a philosophical difference of opinion on approach rather than using the tool for different purposes. Your approach is best for you, my approach is best for me. The OP needs to figure which approach he prefers.

If EQ centers on the amp are not to my taste, the 31-band or parametric is more likely to give me what I want. It doesn't matter if I am compensating for a problem with the room, or trying to get a sound that I can't dial in with the amp because it's tone controls are not centered at the right frequencies. The filters in a 31-band EQ are narrow band, rather than broad band; and the filters are closely spaced with just a bit of overlap. These factors allow me to be more precise in creating a specific tone or dialing out a specific resonance in the room that is causing a problem

For comparison, I have my MXR KFK 10-band EQ and also a Mesa M9 with a built in 9-band graphic. IMHO a good 31-band graphic or my KT DN410 provides far superior results.

In general I plug my bass into a DI and then plug the DI into my amp, so FOH gets the flat, unprocessed sound of my bass. I use my amp as a personal monitor, and any EQ I use is intended for my own needs and does not impact anyone else's mix. Other players usually hear the bass through individual mixes in fold back monitors.

 

[Starford]

My recent acquisition of a Peavey Headliner rack amp has a 5 band EQ in that that can be overridden, but I don't. I like the sound It helps create. I also use a Behrenger 7 band EQ in my pedal set up. I use this occassionally, because when it's on, it gives a power boost that I really don't need. If I slide back it's volume control, it adds a bit more desireable flavor (that I like) to my overall sound.

 

[scotch]

EQ can be a powerful tool but can quickly yield unfavorable results. It took me a long time to learn to use it properly (i.e. make changes that I hear in my mind without causing things to be harder to mix downstream). I think it's important for any musician employing electronics (like an electric bass player) to learn to use eq.

One HUGE tip that I learned from studio pros is to always default to SUBTRACTIVE eq. Boosting is fine, but the folks that really know what they're doing start cutting before they start boosting! Yes, this goes for trying to get more bottom end, too! I'm sure there are great resources online from mix magazines, pro sound, etc that will point you into a much quicker learning curve direction.

 

[Wasnex]

EQ can be a powerful tool but can quickly yield unfavorable results. It took me a long time to learn to use it properly (i.e. make changes that I hear in my mind without causing things to be harder to mix downstream). I think it's important for any musician employing electronics (like an electric bass player) to learn to use eq.

One HUGE tip that I learned from studio pros is to always default to SUBTRACTIVE eq. Boosting is fine, but the folks that really know what they're doing start cutting before they start boosting! Yes, this goes for trying to get more bottom end, too! I'm sure there are great resources online from mix magazines, pro sound, etc that will point you into a much quicker learning curve direction.

In dialing in a sound on a bass amp I use boost and cut. Many amps don't even have a flat EQ setting, and if they do it may not be all controls at noon.

In correcting for room problems or dialing out feedback, I use cut only and try to be as surgically precise as I can to avoid gutting the sound. Knowing the overtone series may be helpful here as feedback is often related to harmonics and sub-harmonics.

When using EQ boost, discretion and judgement is important as there may be unintended consequences. EQ boost may eat up system headroom, excite feedback or room resonance modes, cause unnatural keying of compressors, etc.

 

[ll Rip ll]

I never play without an EQ because my main bass is active. If EQs we're pointless, so would active basses, since the the preamp is essentially an EQ.

 

[Marhmol]

Rack mount!

Do you have space? Add it.
Still have space? Add more

 

[Zooberwerx]

Right now I have an ETA PD8L power conditioner, Ampeg SVP BSP preamp and a Crown XLS 1502 power amp. I'm looking for a more dry gritty no so distortion sound in my dirty channel. I like my clean and th dirty has a lot,of tonal options but I got this sound in my head I been trying to achieve and I'm getting close but I'm still off. I've tried so many different heads. I came across a compressor I think may help but I'm seeing if an EQ may help as well

Hmmm...as I understand it, the SVP / BSP is pretty much going to define your sonic footprint. Attempting a work-around can be an exercise in futility and expensive. The BSP is not the most highly regarded Ampeg rackmount for various and sundry reasons and I would hesitate to use one as the cornerstone for my rig. Have you considered swapping it out for another pre?

Riis

 

[descendent22]

Hmmm...as I understand it, the SVP / BSP is pretty much going to define your sonic footprint. Attempting a work-around can be an exercise in futility and expensive. The BSP is not the most highly regarded Ampeg rackmount for various and sundry reasons and I would hesitate to use one as the cornerstone for my rig. Have you considered swapping it out for another pre?

Riis

Yes it's not permanent. I have about 30 /45 days to return it at GC. Like I said I been testing a lot of stuff throughout the year. I been playing this lately and been noticing more and more that it's a cool preamp but may not be what I'm looking for.

 

[Zooberwerx]

Yes it's not permanent. I have about 30 /45 days to return it at GC. Like I said I been testing a lot of stuff throughout the year. I been playing this lately and been noticing more and more that it's a cool preamp but may not be what I'm looking for.

Good call. Latch on to something more to your liking and then we'll talk embellishments. What alternatives do you have in mind?

Riis

 

[Beheroth]

the bsp has a fx loop for each channel, try an EQ in it for each channel. if you're still not satisfied, move on.