Purchasing Pro EQ

  • Thread starter Thread starter Modern_Talking
  • Start date Start date
M

Modern_Talking

New member
Good day to all .

Just wondering if anyone could suggest a good pro quality 31 band eq.

I'm currently using the Behringer Ultra 31 EQ and it's not that bad. but it takes hours and hours just to get the right tweaking out of it sometimes some tracks don't just cut it out.

I've borrowed a freinds DBX EQ and right away after plugging it got amazing results. But since I like to get a better pro quality eq I was thinking either the DBX or Ashley models.
Haven't tried the Ashley yet, but the 15 band DBX sounded good. . .
Don't mind spending 1 time and gettting a better EQ gear rather than getting something on the lower end. Even though the Ultra EQ from Behringer was not bothering me at all but sometimes it's better to spend less time on tweaking on sounds with cheaper gear and spend more time somewhere else. [like drinking beer] hehehe :D
thanks.

Just a few names of good brand eq's that some of you pro's are using and
would recommend would be nice.
 
I personally prefer the Ashley GQX stuff over any of the DBX boxes I have ran systems through. The DBX is okay, but I think the Ashley box just has a little more precision.

For a more "transparent" eq, it is really hard to beat Klark Teknik DN360. You will see this eq in just about every major sound companies rack!

Another great sounding graphic eq is the While 4828. Another name you will see all over the place!

Truthfully, the Klark Teknik, and the White are the two I see in most big time companies racks I have worked on, and I see the Ashley's in many of the better club systems.

Yamaha had a very transparent graphic EQ in the 2031. This was a great workhorse standard in the 80's! I say it is transparent, but not very "musical". Any of the other eq's I have listed so far have a nicer "flavor" than the Yamaha, but the Yamaha is as good as any for how TIGHT it will cut/boost, and in it's ability to not cause ringing from deep adjustments.
 
The Ashly stuff is very solid. I use Ashly EQ's pretty frequently on monitors. They have very responsive filters, but aren't quite "musical" enough for me to feel as good using them at FOH. Ford Van's suggestion for the Klark Tekink is a good suggestion. They offer a good balance of tone to control. The nicer of the DBX EQ's are actually pretty nice as well. It is important to remember that DBX makes at least 3 different lines of EQ. The cheaper ones work fine, but don't sound as nice at FOH. As for White, those really aren't actually used that much anymore. In the last 9 years I have only run into one company still using White EQ's. If you want a really nice graphic, look for Klark Teknik, BSS, and XTA. If you are looking for a digital one, the new Lake Contour stuff is great as well. For less money, I would look at the BSS Opal series, the new Klark Teknik line (which I personally have not heard yet, but I am sure KT wouldn't do anything to damage their rep), Ashly, or a nicer DBX (not the Driverack PA crap though). TC Electronics also makes a nice digi EQ as well, but it only comes in 4 channel plus units and is pretty spendy. I would avoid the Yamaha EQ's though. They has got to be a reason why most every rider I get says they will not accept them. I used them years ago. I didn't noptice a problem with them, but they never really seemed to actually do much either.
 
In which situation will you be using this eq mostly (studio/live) ?
 
Pro EQ's

Hi
and thanks for all the responses . . Yes, those do seems like good EQ's by reading their reviews. . I will check and see it they carry those brand names at my local music stores. . . This way they give me 30 days to return it back.

I was looking at them at Ebay too and Klark Teknik seem to be almost the same price as the BSS but of course used (Klark Teknik). And that is pretty much max what I wanted to spend on a EQ provided that I can get that nice transparency type of sound.

Of course I was pretty happy even with the Behringer EQ and not to even mention my friend's DBX EQ which are all in the $300 cnd range as opposed to the above EQ's in $900us range. But I will demo these above eq's out if they have them and I will leave feedbacks as to how they performed for me.

thanks guys and have a great day !
 
The difference between a Behringer and a Klark-Teknik is night and day. You will need about 1/3 the adjustment with KT to hear the same on a Behringer.
 
My drummer just bought this for our PA:

http://www.zzounds.com/a--2676837/item--DBXIEQ31

It is freaking awesome. We've been using the built-in EQ on his Yamaha MG mixer and this new DBX EQ is like night and day. The difference is amazing. It sounds like he got new speakers.

We also used to use one of those Behringer EQs-- I forget the model I think it was 31-band. This DBX blows that one away in terms of sound quality.

Anyway, I just wanted to give a positive review to the DBX IEQ31. I haven't used it for any recording jobs and I've only played around with it for about an hour. But I'm really impressed with the sound quality of that EQ. It sounds *great!*
 
I have a DBX 2215 that I've only used for live sound... When recording I've just always used the software EQ's, assuming they'd be better than the 2215 anyways.

I primarily use 2 plugs for EQ:

Waves Renaissance Equalizer & the Waves Q10 Paragraphic EQ.

Just my thinking that these 2 soft EQ's would be better sounding than the 2215, I've never tried it. If I did purchase one of the hardware EQ's mentioned in this post like the Klark Teknik, BSS, White...etc., in your opinion will there be a noticeable difference in better sound quality over the software plugs I'm using now?
 
Zetajazz44 said:
your opinion will there be a noticeable difference in better sound quality over the software plugs I'm using now?
Click to expand...
I'm no expert, but I think the additional AD/DA conversion might negate any improvement that could be realized by using a hardware EQ.

Just a thought.
 
Scottgman said:
I'm no expert, but I think the additional AD/DA conversion might negate any improvement that could be realized by using a hardware EQ.

Just a thought.
Click to expand...


That's the main reason I've never tried the 2215... I figured staying in the digital domain would be better...
 
Scottgman said:
I'm no expert, but I think the additional AD/DA conversion might negate any improvement that could be realized by using a hardware EQ.

Just a thought.
Click to expand...
Only if your ad/da is subpar.
 
A graphic EQ on recording? Ever try any other type of outboard EQs? parametric?

It's not "wrong" to use graphic EQ in studio recording, but that's usually reserved to calibrate a high end and elaborate speaker systems in recording studios and live sound.

But if I had to choose between the DBX and the Berry (for the sake of this discussion), then DBX hands down.

I'd avoid all that A/D conversion. That's a bigger headache you don't really want to know about, trust me.
 
Maybe I am confused, but my reccomendation for graphic EQ was based on the assumption that it was for a PA, and not for recording. For recording though, those little 10 band API's really rock:D
 
Also, with decent converters and a good EQ (API, Neve, Trident etc...) there is a huge difference over most all software EQ's I have ever heard:)

I actually remember doing my best to master an album that a band did not want to send out to a mastering house. We messed with all sorts of things (UAD Pultec, Cambridge EQ, Waves etc...). They all made things sound a little better, but something was still missing. Just for fun I ran the mix back out without the software EQ to a stereo channel on my D&R console. I added a little bit of 15k on the channel strip and that was the magic it needed:)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top