Graphic EQ....discuss.

R

RAMI

Guest
I haven't touched a graphic EQ in years, ever since I had a shitty DOD with my first Fostex 4-track set-up. I actually sort of totally forgot they even existed.

Now, with software, there are so many good parametrics. But I just downloaded a cool looking Voxengo Graphic EQ since it was free.

I'm well aware of how they're used and how they work, so I don't need a lesson in that. Just wondering if there are times when a graphic is more useful than a parametric? Do you guys still use graphic EQ's?
 
I use one when "mastering". I made my own preset with a graphic EQ after mucho trial and error with my room and speakers. It's basically a very shallow but wide cut across the mids. If I'm not liking the way the mix sounds, sometimes I'll throw it on and sometimes it does the trick.

Other than that, it's always a parametric.
 
I demoed the API 560 Graphic EQ on waves. It's certainly easy, no Q to wory about just slide the various bands up or down

Ultimately I decided not to get it though, I just prefer the more versatile parametrics. In a way, to me, a Graphic sees almost like a preset where someone else has decided the frequencies that you can adjust and how wide the Q is. In the case of the API one its all on multiples of 1k so bands at 31 63, 125 250, 500 hz and 1,2,4,8,16khz.
If all of your stuff has it's frequencies centered at those points then super easy, if not it may be just a little off

That's just my experience though YMMV
 
I'd try one to fine tune my monitoring. Not sure I'd choose it over a parametric for recording though, for the reasons Bristol Posse mentioned.
 
I've got a dbx 2215 in the rack which I use quite frequently for gentle shaping; usually on the 2mix, but sometimes on individual tracks. The advantage to a 2/3rds or 1/3rd octave graphic, IME, is that you can create full-spectrum curves in easy, "natural" (for lack of a better word) shapes that are difficult, if not sometimes impossible, to get with even 8 bands of parametric.

And, believe it or not, I really like Voxengo's little 7-band EssEQ on the 2mix. It's easy to dismiss as a toy, but I really like the character of it's sound.

G.
 
SouthSIDE Glen said:
The advantage to a 2/3rds or 1/3rd octave graphic, IME, is that you can create full-spectrum curves in easy, "natural" (for lack of a better word) shapes that are difficult, if not sometimes impossible, to get with even 8 bands of parametric.
Click to expand...

Not to dissuade anyone from trying this, but perhaps a word of caution is in order. The sliders on the front panel may show a smooth, graceful curve, but if you overdo it your actual response curve could end up being a series of large dips and peaks. ;)
 
diggy_dude said:
Not to dissuade anyone from trying this, but perhaps a word of caution is in order. The sliders on the front panel may show a smooth, graceful curve, but if you overdo it your actual response curve could end up being a series of large dips and peaks. ;)
Click to expand...
That's a good point. Which is why I used the phrase "gentle shaping". Rarely do I boost or cut any individual slider on a x/3rd octave EQ more than a couple of dB.

Even on the little EssEQ, it's rarely more than 2 or 3 dB either way in any given band, and often less.

That's one nice little feature on the dbx, is that it allows you to change the range on each band from +/-12dB to +/-6db, so you can get finer control over the small changes.

That's the big difference between graphic and parametric, IMHO. Parametrics are great for targeting narrow Q surgery, which, at times, (but most certainly not always) can mean cuts of 4 or 5 dB or more. But for overall shaping and fine-tuning, only gentle curves of wide-Q and minor cut or boost are usually needed, and graphic is great for that IMHO. If you need to make bigger wide-Q adjustments than that, you probably have bigger problems that probably need to be addressed upstream of that. (Special effect EQing excepted.)

G.
 
Last edited:
SouthSIDE Glen said:
That's a good point. Which is why I used the phrase "gentle shaping". Rarely do I boost or cut any individual slider on a x/3rd octave EQ more than a couple of dB.
Click to expand...

Preaching to the choir, son. I just wanted to emphasize it for the "more is better" crowd.

SouthSIDE Glen said:
If you need to make bigger wide-Q adjustments than that, you probably have bigger problems that probably need to be addressed upstream of that.
Click to expand...

Absolutely. Which is why I'd use a graphic to fine-tune my monitoring but not to try to fix egregious room defects.

I had been shopping for a graphic equalizer before I joined HR, but I decided afterward that parametric was the way to go. Now I'm seeing that the two needn't be mutually exclusive.
 
I've probably mentioned this here before, but fwiw

~10 year ago I got a great deal on a matched pair of Klark-Teknik DN300 graphic equalizers. I'm talking a stoopid good deal...basically, they were free. I figured, holy crap, two top-of-the-line 31-band EQs from a well respected industry standard company, how can I go wrong? Installed them in the outboard rack, wired them to the patchbay, ready to do my bidding

...and 5 years later I realized that in those preceeding 5 years I had only ever used one of the EQs two, maybe three times, and I had never used both of them.

There are just so few times that an application calls for a graphic EQ, so few situations where it's not easier or more effective to grab a parametric or a program EQ, that these things were just gathering dust & wasting rackspace.

So I sold them. Haven't missed them since.

Yeah, every now & then when I'm tracking drums I wish I had a couple API 560s on hand. But other than that, imho a graphic EQ in a recording studio control room is a complete luxury at best.
 
I picked up a Yamaha Q2031B 2x31 among my finds this weekend. And another rack stand to put all my new stuff in. I was looking for an excuse to split my rack into separate digital and analog racks anyway. :spank:
 
Yes, but the mounting system baffles me. It doesn't have rack ears on either side. There's a flange that looks like one big, long rack ear along the bottom. I think it's supposed to mount on the front edge of a mixer rack.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top