using an EQ through the input jack

[Wasnex]

Not an issue unless the bass being amplified has a piezoelectric pick up.

An unbuffered piezo will benefit from a 1-3meg of input impedance. The ideal amount depends on the type of pickup, but 10meg is too high. I suggest reading page 6 of the following thread, especially the posts from @agedhorse and @lowfreqgeek .

How might I play two basses through the same cabinet?

I have never seen an unbuffered piezo on an electric bass. It's common on string basses though. The piezos on my Yamaha TRB6-P goes through the bass's preamp, so they are buffered.

 

[Wasnex]

Interesting. I’ve tried putting EQ in the loop a few times just to see, and it never worked out very well. Mostly due to level, noise, or impedance issues. About the only EQ type device I ever found that did work well was a HPF that was spec’d to be used there.

I think if you’re going to go to that length, you'd be better off just getting an outboard preamp that can drive the effects return and sidestep the amp’s own preamp stage entirely.

Most effects loops are line level, so no suprise that an instrument level device is a bit noisy there.

 

[lat]

I'd love to find a cheap-ish rack EQ with adjustable HPF and LPF, High and Low Shelving, and a couple of parametric bands in the middle. That's why I scrutinized your post so closely

I got it to carve out offending frequencies on stages I play regularly, so the high / low shelves were a bonus. Can't beat the price. It was only around $160.

 

[Wasnex]

I got it to carve out offending frequencies on stages I play regularly, so the high / low shelves were a bonus. Can't beat the price. It was only around $160.

Yep...the tone controls for many amps work well to get a basic sound, but are totally worthless for dealing with acoustic problems. If you like the basic sound of your amp, but it needs a little help from time to time, I think an outbourd EQ is a good tool to have available.

 

[Slevage]

An unbuffered piezo will benefit from a 1-3meg of input impedance. The ideal amount depends on the type of pickup, but 10meg is too high. I suggest reading page 6 of the following thread, especially the posts from @agedhorse and @lowfreqgeek .

How might I play two basses through the same cabinet?

I have never seen an unbuffered piezo on an electric bass. It's common on string basses though. The piezos on my Yamaha TRB6-P goes through the bass's preamp, so they are buffered.

I had uprights and eub’s in mind.

 

[Sparkl]

Interesting. I’ve tried putting EQ in the loop a few times just to see, and it never worked out very well. Mostly due to level, noise, or impedance issues. About the only EQ type device I ever found that did work well was a HPF that was spec’d to be used there.

I think if you’re going to go to that length, you'd be better off just getting an outboard preamp that can drive the effects return and sidestep the amp’s own preamp stage entirely.

Agreed. The only thing why I see this as potentially a better choice is because you have an EQ that is placed after the preamp and is able to contain the preamp signal in a different way as if you would simply put the EQ in front. Whether this requires a special type EQ I don't know since I never tried this myself (I tend to buy amps that work for me from scratch and don't even have an EQ pedal) but from a studio technical POV this should provide best results in such a scenario.

 

[40Hz]

Agreed. The only thing why I see this as potentially a better choice is because you have an EQ that is placed after the preamp and is able to contain the preamp signal in a different way as if you would simply put the EQ in front. Whether this requires a special type EQ I don't know since I never tried this myself (I tend to buy amps that work for me from scratch and don't even have an EQ pedal) but from a studio technical POV this should provide best results in such a scenario.

Positioning in the signal chain is always an interesting experiment. And from a studio perspective where you’re dealing mainly with line level and mic level gear you don’t have to deal with matching impedance or worrying about signal inversion and all the other fun stuff you have to pull your hair out over with effects pedals and guitar oriented outboard gear.

I’ve got a personal bias against stacking EQ most times. I’ve found it tends to cause all sorts of confusion because it’s too easy to undo the effect of one EQ stage with another. You do things like boost 400Hz by 2dB on one, and then somewhere down the line you cut 400Hz by the same amount. Net effect? Zero. And it took two moderately expensive boxes to accomplish nothing. Or you’ll boost lows (seldom a good idea btw) on EQ-1 and later boost more on EQ-2. And when you’re told there’s too much bass and you bring EQ-2 back down and it’s still too much bass, you tell them you now have it set to flat so what's their problem?

With audio, simple is beautiful. So the fewer bits of gear you need to accomplish what you’re after, the better off you almost always are. Or so I think. Because my vision of a perfect world is one where it’s just a bass and amp with no controls other than a single volume knob on the bass. And with that, and my playing technique, I could get everything I wanted out if my rig without having to twiddle (wank? ) or stomp things.

Guess my early days on the upright are starting to show. It was just me, my hands, and It. And it was all that was needed. It’s a wonderful thing to just play and not have to get bogged in technical details extraneous to your instrument.

Smarter effects and better electronics are moving us closer to that, as well as allowing us to do things no unenhanced upright bass ever could - nor will. But we’re still a ways from achieving total transparency in that respect. So until that happy day we come again into sonic paradise…less is more and simpler better.

Or so I think anyway. (And I could be wrong!)

 

[Wasnex]

Agreed. The only thing why I see this as potentially a better choice is because you have an EQ that is placed after the preamp and is able to contain the preamp signal in a different way as if you would simply put the EQ in front. Whether this requires a special type EQ I don't know since I never tried this myself (I tend to buy amps that work for me from scratch and don't even have an EQ pedal) but from a studio technical POV this should provide best results in such a scenario.

Especially when your driving a gain stage into saturation, it definitely makes a difference if you apply EQ before or after the point where distortion is developed...so the intent of your advice is valid . However, IMHO we should be careful about giving general advice on this subject because effects loops can vary from one amp to the next. For example, the effects loop in my Trace Elliot and Ashdown tube amps is at the very beginning of the of the signal path; before the input Gain control and tone stack. Here's signal flow for the front end of the preamp Input Jack/Pad Network->1st Gain Stage->Effects Loop->2nd Gain Stage->Tone Stack->Input Gain Control->3rd Gain Stage->...->Master Volume.

The "..." between the 3rd Gain Stage and the Master Volume is used because there is functional circuit variation between these two points in the signal path between various Trace Elliot and Ashdown tube amps I own.

 

[Wasnex]

Positioning in the signal chain is always an interesting experiment. And from a studio perspective where you’re dealing mainly with line level and mic level gear you don’t have to deal with matching impedance or worrying about signal inversion and all the other fun stuff you have to pull your hair out over with effects pedals and guitar oriented outboard gear.

I’ve got a personal bias against stacking EQ most times. I’ve found it tends to cause all sorts of confusion because it’s too easy to undo the effect of one EQ stage with another. You do things like boost 400Hz by 2dB on one, and then somewhere down the line you cut 400Hz by the same amount. Net effect? Zero. And it took two moderately expensive boxes to accomplish nothing. Or you’ll boost lows (seldom a good idea btw) on EQ-1 and later boost more on EQ-2. And when you’re told there’s too much bass and you bring EQ-2 back down and it’s still too much bass, you tell them you now have it set to flat so what's their problem?

With audio, simple is beautiful. So the fewer bits of gear you need to accomplish what you’re after, the better off you almost always are. Or so I think. Because my vision of a perfect world is one where it’s just a bass and amp with no controls other than a single volume knob on the bass. And with that, and my playing technique, I could get everything I wanted out if my rig without having to twiddle (wank? ) or stomp things.

Guess my early days on the upright are starting to show. It was just me, my hands, and It. And it was all that was needed. It’s a wonderful thing to just play and not have to get bogged in technical details extraneous to your instrument.

Smarter effects and better electronics are moving us closer to that, as well as allowing us to do things no unenhanced upright bass ever could - nor will. But we’re still a ways from achieving total transparency in that respect. So until that happy day we come again into sonic paradise…less is more and simpler better.

Or so I think anyway. (And I could be wrong!)

Philosophically I agree with you, stacking EQ is a bit sloppy and can easily lead to bad results. Unfortunately, I think it's often necessary because the tone stacks in most amps are not flexible or powerful enough to sufficiently do what we need them to do.

FYI I gigged for a couple of decades on upright bass in large professional ensembles and I was an early adopter of EQ. I have used both parametric and 31 band graphics for feedback suppression and general tone shaping and proper use of these tools allowed me to play louder and with better tone. I bought my first parametric, an Orban 672A, after reading a magazine interview with Stanley Clarke in which he said the Orban was really the heart of his live rig, which was either biamped or triamped at the time (late 70s or early 80s). The Orban was perfect for my use because it has 8 bands of parametric EQ and also 12dB/octave switchable HPF and LPF that can be configured as a crossover...it was the heart of my rig for awhile too.

These were commonly used in FM Radio broadcast mastering...I have seen them in several radio stations, and I have never seen another musician use one...just me and Stanley Clarke I guess?

Invalid Link Removed

 

[40Hz]

the Orban

Ah! The Orban!!!

Loved the control layout on those. Center frequency and Q on dials and the boost and cut on a slider. Something about that seemed so intuitive. Never saw anybody use those live so it could well be just you and Mr. Clark who did.

Regarding multiple EQs: I’ll agree in the real world there’s sometimes justifications for more than one EQ stage. I wasn’t saying you should never do it. I will upon occasion. Usually it’s a bax for my main tone and a parametric to deal with any problem spot frequencies. I also have a few different graphic EQs I can use depending on the situation. So it’s “more what ya call guidelines than actual rules.” I should have been more clear about that earlier.

My point was not to just go stacking EQs willy-nilly because you can. Most times it’ll be counterproductive unless you have a very specific reason to do so. Unlike gain stages, where more can often be better.

 

[Sparkl]

Positioning in the signal chain is always an interesting experiment. And from a studio perspective where you’re dealing mainly with line level and mic level gear you don’t have to deal with matching impedance or worrying about signal inversion and all the other fun stuff you have to pull your hair out over with effects pedals and guitar oriented outboard gear.

I’ve got a personal bias against stacking EQ most times. I’ve found it tends to cause all sorts of confusion because it’s too easy to undo the effect of one EQ stage with another. You do things like boost 400Hz by 2dB on one, and then somewhere down the line you cut 400Hz by the same amount. Net effect? Zero. And it took two moderately expensive boxes to accomplish nothing. Or you’ll boost lows (seldom a good idea btw) on EQ-1 and later boost more on EQ-2. And when you’re told there’s too much bass and you bring EQ-2 back down and it’s still too much bass, you tell them you now have it set to flat so what's their problem?

With audio, simple is beautiful. So the fewer bits of gear you need to accomplish what you’re after, the better off you almost always are. Or so I think. Because my vision of a perfect world is one where it’s just a bass and amp with no controls other than a single volume knob on the bass. And with that, and my playing technique, I could get everything I wanted out if my rig without having to twiddle (wank? ) or stomp things.

Guess my early days on the upright are starting to show. It was just me, my hands, and It. And it was all that was needed. It’s a wonderful thing to just play and not have to get bogged in technical details extraneous to your instrument.

Smarter effects and better electronics are moving us closer to that, as well as allowing us to do things no unenhanced upright bass ever could - nor will. But we’re still a ways from achieving total transparency in that respect. So until that happy day we come again into sonic paradise…less is more and simpler better.

Or so I think anyway. (And I could be wrong!)

You have compiled your thoughts very nicely and I honestly say I fully agree. I strongly agree that IMHO stacking filters over filters will rarely mean a better result especially if you have no clue what you are doing and since we don't bring 1000usd studio grade cables and components to our gigs the signal loss can get pretty big anyways so why complicate things further when you have a whole pedalboard to worry about anyways right

I also strongly agree that a perfect amp and bass is the one with a volume knob or, even better, just plug and play, no knobs whatsoever. Zero interference. Sweet utopia