Using bug, rack equalizer

Discussion in 'Effects [BG]' started by dindinbre, Aug 6, 2018.

  1. dindinbre

    dindinbre

    Aug 2, 2017
    Serbia
    I was thinking about getting myself a cheapo eq pedal, and realized that I can get a rack mountable graphical eq with 15+ bands. How good are they for bass? I want to heavily reshape sound of bass, and people suggested me to get an eq with as much bands as possible.
     
  2. dindinbre

    dindinbre

    Aug 2, 2017
    Serbia
    Anyone?
     
  3. AndyLES

    AndyLES

    Aug 25, 2008
    New York
    I wouldn't do it. Some rack EQs are designed to operate at line level (hotter than most basses) or have balanced inputs and outputs that likely won't readily interface with your amps and instruments.

    Plus, most of those bands will fall out of the useful spectrum of the bass guitar.

    I recommend going with a good EQ pedal.
     
  4. Wasnex

    Wasnex

    Dec 25, 2011

    Pro level rack equipment does typically operate at line level. Using line level equipment at instrument level will typical result in a lot of hiss. So if you plan to use the EQ before your preamp, definitely go with a pedal.

    There are applications where you can use line level equipment. For example some bass amps and preamps have line level effects loops, or you can use a line level EQ between a preamp and power amp.

    Regarding the usefulness of the frequency bands. That will depend somewhat on your tone. If you like a dark tone, many of the upper bands will be of limited use. However, if you like a bright open tone, most of the bands will give you useful tone shaping options. Note: The ISO center frequencies for 2/3 octave 15 band EQ are 25, 40, 63, 100, 160, 250, 400, 630, 1K, 1.6K, 2.5k, 4k, 6.3k, 10k, 16k.

    I installed a 31 band EQ in the accessory rack space of an SWR Redhead. I patched the EQ in the amps line level effects loop and it worked great and was very effective for dialing in a great tone and tuning out feedback modes on my string bass.
     
    dindinbre and AndyLES like this.
  5. dindinbre

    dindinbre

    Aug 2, 2017
    Serbia
    I want to experiment with different eq settings. I thought about plugging eq in preamp out and then power amp in. My small peavey has that. Or even use XLR after DI box for live purpose. My favourite bassist used extreme EQ-ing to create his signature sounds. I found several mono equalizers with both line and xlr inputs/outputs for around 50-60 euros. They seem fine.
     
  6. Wasnex

    Wasnex

    Dec 25, 2011
    Experimenting with EQ is a lot of fun and can produce a wide range of different sound. If you have a looper pedal or DAW, and play a little bit of guitar, I suggest you run experiments to learn how EQ can be used so the instruments pops out of the mix and don't fight with each other so much. If you want to learn more, Google terms like "masking, mixing, frequency slotting".

    IMHO the biggest different between amps is basically their characteristic EQ curve and how they deal with overload (compression and distortion).

    If you really want to explore EQ try a parametric....one of my first purchases was one of these.
    26280d1162846017-orban-672a-para-graphic-eq-orban672.jpg
    I learned a lot about sound and EQ with this device.
     
    dindinbre likes this.
  7. Jim C

    Jim C I believe in the trilogy; Fender, Stingray, + G&L Supporting Member

    Nov 29, 2008
    Bethesda, MD
    Many rack EQ's work just fine.
    I prefer a true parametric for bass and the Behringer works well and is cheap if you don't like it.
    Orban Parasound; I liked it OK but the Klark Technique and Urei's suited me better.
    One of each at 3 different studios in town

    There was a stereo White graphic at a GoGo studio I worked at controlling the big 2x15 Time Aligns
    You would think there would have been a better choice but the designer wanted that one and it did sound very good if not great.
    Of course those monsters make most things sound very good
     
    Wasnex likes this.
  8. Wasnex

    Wasnex

    Dec 25, 2011
    If you are using a line level device at instrument level, you can usually manage the levels and S/N ratio a bit better if the device has input and output gain. My 672a only has one gain control on the input side, so the device is noisy when used at instrument level. By the time you start getting the signal hot enough to push the noise floor down, the output signal is too hot for an instrument level device to handle.

    The 672a and several other common Orban products were primarily used in commercial radio to finalize the signal for broadcast. The only place I have ever seen a 672a is at radio stations and photos of Stanley Clarke's rack from the 70s. I have seen a few players use Orban 622 and 642 parametrics. Personally I prefer the paragraphic interface as it is a bit more intuitive.

    I have never come across an analog EQ that had more processing power than a 672a, but it is by no means the most musical EQ. My KT DN410 sounds way better but I bought the 672a around 1982 to function as a speaker processor because it has an HPF and LPF which can be configured as a 12 db/octave, 2-way crossover. Now I use KT DN9848Es for speaker processors.