ampage Tube Amps / Music Electronics	For current discussions, please visit Music Electronics Forum.

ampage archive

Vintage threads from the first ten years

Re: EQ at GEO

:

10/12/1999 4:42 PM
Ed Rembold	Re: EQ at GEO O.K. R.G. Here's what I've got- I worked Really hard on this over the weekend and last night. What I propose you really can't buy, However, I realize that there's nothing new under the sun. that said- 80-160-320-750-1500-3000-6000 The kicker is 750hz has varible Freq. and Q, the other bands are standard graphic EQ. Whataya think R.G.? Ed Rembold

10/12/1999 8:03 PM
R.G.	Sounds like it's worth hacking a prototype. That's a simpler version of the thing I just mentioned to Mark; fixed frequency and width bands above and below something around 1kHz, variable frequency and Q at around 1K. The nice thing about that is that the number of bands is smaller, and thus it's perhaps easier to build.

10/12/1999 9:02 PM

It's basically what I was suggesting. I also thought about it a lot, and felt that with a broad "non-dedicated" chunk of the spectrum to influence (in your case, 320hz-1500hz), most folks would probably want at least two "points-of-influence" in there.

Clearly, what you sink into an EQ depends on the intended purpose. For instance, room-EQ's are generally 31-band, because there can be a lot of little niggly resonances to contend with in producing a pleasing sound for a house mix of multiple sources. For a single instrument, the needs aren't nearly so complex or extreme, but on the other hand, one tends to use it more for re-voicing the tone, rather than balancing out multiple sources plus room, so some modicum of fine-tuning is needed. So, part of the spectrum requires a bit more tweakability, and this is essentially the range you identified.

For instance, to "down-shift" the resonance of an instrument, you would need one band/stage to boost, and a slightly higher band/stage to attenuate. To upshift the resonance, you'd need the inverse. This was largely my rationale for having two sweepable bands in the middle. It's a little like what you often see on mixers: bass and treble shelving plus sweepable middle. Our combined suggested configuration simply allows for greater articulation.

In retrospect, I think I'd have to agree with you that - for solid-body guitar at least - having a resonant band over 6khz is wasted silicon.

10/12/1999 10:18 PM

Look guys, its not in my nature to debate with
vetrans- But, the problems not my ears or hands its the Math.
1,000hz is not a good mid-point for guitar
It was Jack Orman who first pointed out that the 12'th fret
on the littlt E was about 660hz . I checked my own
24fret HM strat- open E-82hz
open high E-322
12th fret big E-166
12th fret high E-675
24th fret big E-350
24th fret high E-1390hz
I think to get the High gain 90's grind,
we're gonna need Big Bass , scooped mids
at 750hz , rolled highs, with a little kick
at 3000hz.
at least its what I need. Ed Rembold

10/13/1999 4:35 PM

All well and good for a first approximation. Just remember the math you speak of does not factor in instrument and pickup resonances, speaker resonances, room resonances, or the relative balance between harmonics if some deliberate distortion stages are introduced anywhere in the signal chain.

Finding the *right* band to modify is something that is context-driven. The Scholz configuration you noted is something that is better suited to the guitar context, and that's good, or at least better than a layout which is aimed at no context in particular (the traditional 2, 1, or 1/3-octave arrangement). The nice thing about parametric or sweepable resonant EQ sections, though, is that you can magically produce the *right* band when you need it. Even a very planful arrangement like the Scholz one could leave the user saying "Cripes, I wish I had just one more band in between this one and that one."

Somewhere out there are players and rigs where a standard EQ-band layout does exactly what they need. Once upon a time I thought my old 6-band MXR was exactly what I needed. No longer. Some bands are pretty much useless to me now, and others are just insufficient to do the job. For me, a combination of a few tried n' true fixed bands, and a few sweepable bands is just what this particular doctor ordered, and for some other players, I imagine it will hold a similar status.

10/14/1999 4:24 PM
Ed Rembold	Dear Mark, I've never seen a single piece of Scholz gear, If I have chosen bands similar ,I think that proves those are the bands we need. I actually do not wish to discuss what others Have done But , what I desire to do. anyways, with R.G.'s math help, I'm on it.(its done in my head) Ed Rembold

10/14/1999 4:30 PM
Ed Rembold	I read my own post, it sounded "testy" sorry about that too. Ed Rembold

Page 2 of 4