bro
Well-known member
should i use a graphic or parametric eq with my triaxis?
eq/triaxis help?
- Thread starter bro
- Start date
Help Support The Boogie Board:
straitouttahell
Well-known member
bro said:
Whatever suits you best.
Matt_B
Member
Which one you choose is a matter of taste.
Most folks like graphic EQs because they are "graphic" - it's very easy to see and understand how you are shaping your tone. However, IMHO, almost all if nto all rackmount graphic EQs that are currently available are overkill because they have far more bands than most guitar players need. Consider the fact that the Mesa graphic EQ has a mere 5 bands while dedicated rackmount graphic EQs commonly have 31 bands.
The 15 or 31 band graphic EQ is designed with sound reinforcement or, to a lesser degree, the recording studio in mind. In both enviroments the EQ has to tackle a wide range of applications that cover a broad frequency range. A 15 or 31 band EQ allows for very precise cuts (or boosts) on many, many frequencies when compared to a parametric EQ (which is typically 3-5 bands).
A parametric EQ is designed to shape a sound (tone) as opposed to dealing with specific issues with the sound. However, a parametric EQ can be used a notch filter to some degree (that depends on the maximum Q or bandwidth) of the filters.
The way a parametric EQ works is slightly more difficult for some guitar players to wrap their head around though the advent of PC based recording and higher resolutions displays (on FX processors) is making it easier to the non-engineer to truely understand how a parametric EQ works. Simply put, A parametric EQ isn't as visual as a graphic EQ.
Personally, I prefer a parametric EQ for shaping my guitar tone because I can tweak the frequency points in my sound that I want to adjust based upon my ear. I'm not locked into the fixed frequencies of a graphic EQ nor do I have so many sliders to deal with.
Most folks like graphic EQs because they are "graphic" - it's very easy to see and understand how you are shaping your tone. However, IMHO, almost all if nto all rackmount graphic EQs that are currently available are overkill because they have far more bands than most guitar players need. Consider the fact that the Mesa graphic EQ has a mere 5 bands while dedicated rackmount graphic EQs commonly have 31 bands.
The 15 or 31 band graphic EQ is designed with sound reinforcement or, to a lesser degree, the recording studio in mind. In both enviroments the EQ has to tackle a wide range of applications that cover a broad frequency range. A 15 or 31 band EQ allows for very precise cuts (or boosts) on many, many frequencies when compared to a parametric EQ (which is typically 3-5 bands).
A parametric EQ is designed to shape a sound (tone) as opposed to dealing with specific issues with the sound. However, a parametric EQ can be used a notch filter to some degree (that depends on the maximum Q or bandwidth) of the filters.
The way a parametric EQ works is slightly more difficult for some guitar players to wrap their head around though the advent of PC based recording and higher resolutions displays (on FX processors) is making it easier to the non-engineer to truely understand how a parametric EQ works. Simply put, A parametric EQ isn't as visual as a graphic EQ.
Personally, I prefer a parametric EQ for shaping my guitar tone because I can tweak the frequency points in my sound that I want to adjust based upon my ear. I'm not locked into the fixed frequencies of a graphic EQ nor do I have so many sliders to deal with.
bro
Well-known member
has anybody used a mxr 10 band eq?
