EQ - Graphic Vs. Parametric?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Doctor Varney
  • Start date Start date
D

Doctor Varney

Cave dwelling Luddite
As far as I know, the difference is the centering and band shift controls given on a parametric, which the graphic lacks. Is that right? Or is there any more to it than that?

Is it normal for parametrics to have less bands than graphics? By that, I mean the main band sliders.

Is it okay or would it be considered 'wrong' (or superflous; or stupid?) to stack EQ VSTs by having a parametric and a graphic EQ both on one insert?

Is there any particular advantage to a graphic EQ over a parametric? Or does the para make the graphic superflous, due to the extra fine tuning?

Otherwise, what sort of situations would you say call for one over the other? Or is that a silly question?
 
It's not silly.
I used to use graphic eq's only, but at some point I realised there are limitations (you cant change the Q for example... what if you want to do a narrow cut on a frequecy that does not show up on graphic eq? You try to compensate it with maybe two nearest faders, but thats not the real thing. Besides that how do you sweep the frequencies with graphic eq?).
I have tried many parametric eq's now and the one I like the most is Fabfilter Pro-Q. You can have up to 49? handles, which is even more than the usual 31 bands on graphic eq + tons of other useful features.
 
Otherwise, what sort of situations would you say call for one over the other? Or is that a silly question?
Click to expand...
You'd generally use a graphic for dialing in a monitor system -- To take chunks of "problematic" audio out of speakers subject to feedback on stage. Parametrics for just about anything else (recording, mixing, etc.).

As far as the number of available bands -- Although certain plugs (like Pro-Q - A go-to here for that matter just for its flexibility) allow for more bands than others -- If you need more than 3 or 4 bands on a single source, you're probably working with the wrong source and have bigger problems than which EQ you have handy...
 
Graphics have more filters so there is a better chance one is near what you need. Parametric eq filters can be moved as needed so you don't need as many. You might use all the filters at once on a parametric, but it's not a good sign if you're using all the filters of a graphic.

Parametrics are more precise, but graphics are faster and simpler so are typically better for live use during the gig for tonal adjustments or feedback control. Parametrics in live use are generally set ahead of time to even out the response of speaker systems based on measurements.
 
bouldersoundguy said:
... graphics are faster and simpler so are typically better for live use during the gig for tonal adjustments or feedback control. Parametrics in live use are generally set ahead of time to even out the response of speaker systems based on measurements.
Click to expand...
+1 About the only plus I see in graphics is lots of filters in a small amount of easily accessible space.
Gees in just about every other aspect they're (arguably) almost total compromise-
Fixed centers- damned near never right where they ought to be
'Half the time to be too narrow for the shaping needed (use multiples- using several filters where one might have done it

And to a question of 'narrow enough', as a some times live guy' i actually wouldn't mind getting into the up/down sides of fixed center 1/3 oct for feed back control (1/3' being closer to one oct in practice if I understand it?) --if that isn't for another thread :guitar:
 
The fixed centers matched the frequencies on the test gear at the time, before parametric eqs were around. The filter widths may or may not be 1/3 octave even if the spacing is.

If you use an RTA to spot feedback then it displays in the same 30 or so frequencies you have on your eq. RTA reads hot at 6.2kHz so you just pull the 6.2kHz slider down. Being relatively fast and easy it saves your brain power for other tasks.
 
Don't most of the better parametric EQ's allow a whole bunch of bands to be added? I know with Reaper's stock ReaEQ you can add as many as you want....or at least way more than I've ever needed. I've put 14 bands on one and got tired of messing with it.
 
Greg_L said:
Don't most of the better parametric EQ's allow a whole bunch of bands to be added? I know with Reaper's stock ReaEQ you can add as many as you want....or at least way more than I've ever needed. I've put 14 bands on one and got tired of messing with it.
Click to expand...

Gregs eq only has one band, called 'get it right the first time'
 
In all seriousness, how many EQ's does one need? I'm not saying just because I don't hear a big difference between one EQ and another, nobody else does either. But is there really THAT big a difference between one prarametric and another, assuming they're both oconsidered decent to good quality.

Like Greg said, Re-EQ allows you to add as many bands as you want. How many other EQ's would one really need?

I'm sure some will say that they here a huge difference between one EQ and another. But I think these are the same people that will claim they can tell a mic'ed amp from a good sim every time, which makes them wrong at best and liars at worst. :D
 
Right, I mean, EQ's aren't supposed to "color" the sound right? Are they like compressors or pre-amps, in which people just have to use "their" EQ for "their" sound? I would think they're like a gate or something - it just does what it does. I don't hear any difference with plug-in parametric EQ's. I think it just boils down to the user and how comfy they are with the controls. I like ReaEQ because it's simple, and basic, and the layout and controls are intuitive and make perfect sense. It's very easy to use. I've used other EQ's that work just fine, but the layout is flashy and unnecessarily complex. It's like developers are more interested in making a cool looking plug instead of one that just does what it's supposed to do while being easy to use.
 
I'm only talking about software eqs here, but I found the digidesign eqs really annoying to use. They made what seems like a 1x1px active area for each eq point so you gota try to grab it ten times. Maybe that's just me.
A couple of the waves ones had fixed HPF/LPF slopes that bugged me. Normally there'
s a q option to adjust the slope, and I rely on that a lot.

Other than that, I generally wouldn't know one from the other if I'm honest.
I pretty much always use waves r-eq for everything.

That said, I felt the same way about compressors and limiters until a recent project. I tried about five or 6 different limiters under extreme settings and couldn't believe how differently they acted!
 
Yeah in my experience compressors and limiters definitely act and sound differently. I can see someone sticking to their faves for those things. I also don't like fixed anything with EQ. Like graphic EQ plugs. Why? Why would anyone want that when a parametric is ten billion times more accurate and flexible? I don't like fixed high and low pass filters. I want total control and I'll choose my own roll-offs and notches, thanks.
 
Yes, I agree about the slopes on H/L-Pass filters.

I've also noticed a huge difference with different limiters. I've had 2 limiters at the same threshold, ratio, etc....and one was almost totally transparent while the other "pumped" itself to death.
 
Eqs can definitely sound different though sometimes it's subtle. Linear phase eqs are quite different from the usual minimum phase type. But I do find myself attracted to eqs with good user interfaces for workflow reasons.

Re: Pro Tools eq, you can grab the numbers below the graph to precisely adjust one parameter at a time. Once I've roughed in the curve on the graph I like to tweak the parameters individually this way.
 
Phase is an important issue in all EQs, and a big reason to stay away from graphics in general. The phase of frequencies around the filter point gets all weird (yes, that's the scientific term), and especially when you're using two or three neighboring bands on a graphic things get even weirder pretty fast.

It's tough to make a good, smooth, wide curve with a graphic. The neighboring bands overlap in sometimes mysterious waves to create "wiggles" along the curve, peaks and troughs in the frequency response which usually is not what you're looking for.

Back in the analog days I sometimes dug graphics because they were...well, graphic. I could see an approximation of the curve that I was applying to the sound. Nowadays a lot of the parametric EQ plugs will show you a graph of the curve you're making. Yes, I know that I'm supposed to use my ears, but it just feels more concrete to me if I can see it, it's just how I roll.

I think that most of the reason for so many different plugs is in the way that they fail to do exactly what they say. Like the phase thing, or the way they break up when they are abused - either run too hot altogether, or when you use overlapping bands to both boost and cut at the same time. The particulars of the distortion that ensues is a big part of the niche of all these different plugs. Some actually do add a bit of color, or character, or whatever you want to call it just by inserting them, even set flat. It is usually subtle, but it's there.

I generally use the Reaper EQ for basic sculpting and troubleshooting in the frequency domain. I use some of the Modern and Nasty plugs when I'm looking for color. Then there's Voxengo's Overtone GEQ, which is the coolest graphic EQ in the world, and well worth checking out.
 
bouldersoundguy said:
Re: Pro Tools eq, you can grab the numbers below the graph to precisely adjust one parameter at a time. Once I've roughed in the curve on the graph I like to tweak the parameters individually this way.
Click to expand...

I know, but I prefer being able to manipulate the shape directly.
Thanks for the tip though. IIRC, Q is the only thing I have to change with the numbers.
 
RAMI said:
In all seriousness, how many EQ's does one need? I'm not saying just because I don't hear a big difference between one EQ and another, nobody else does either. But is there really THAT big a difference between one prarametric and another, assuming they're both oconsidered decent to good quality.

Like Greg said, Re-EQ allows you to add as many bands as you want. How many other EQ's would one really need?

I'm sure some will say that they here a huge difference between one EQ and another. But I think these are the same people that will claim they can tell a mic'ed amp from a good sim every time, which makes them wrong at best and liars at worst. :D
Click to expand...

I can hear differences between one EQ and another. Definitely. I'm not lying and I'm not sure how my ears can be wrong but, perhaps, it could be down to how accurate visual scale is?

As mentioned, the workflow and general look of the VST would make one better/ preferable/ different to another. I like something with a wide window and the ability to add control nodes wherever I please.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top