Multiple EQs at the Same Time

[hans halmackenreuter]

at the moment i am really focused on tone shaping. I use different typ's of EQ and I am wondering which EQ you dial first. for example: first the amp EQ than a para EQ and than a graphic EQ.

I do it like I told in the example and already had some great results, but as it turns out to be a very complex issue, I wonder if some of you have some good advice for me.

thanks in advance

[fep]

Given the bandwidths are the same, if you take one eq at 500hz and raise it 3db and another at 500hz and you lower it 3db, then it seems you've done nothing, right?

Or, if you take one eq at 500hz and raise it 3db and another at 500hz and you raise it 3db, then that's the same as just using one and raising it 6db, right?

So, I really wonder why you need all of those eq's..

Given that you do use all three then:

I'd start with the amp and dial in the best sound I can. Then I'd use the parametric (how many bands do you have)... If I had 4 bands on a parametric eq I doubt I could find a use for a graphic eq. After that I'd use the graphic. But given you get a good sound from the amp, there isn't much left to do with the other eq's.

With the the parametric I'd use a high pass to cut everthing below 80hz as guitar notes don't live down there, just rumble and noise (if you are running through an effects loop this will also increase your headroom). I'd use a low pass at about 18k as that won't affect guitar tone but will get rid of some hiss.

Then if I had a problem with feed back and/or boominess, I'd find that frequency and dial it down with a parametric with maybe a 1/3 octave bandwidth. I'd cut as little as possible to get rid of the problem.

[jorgemg1984]

Shape EQ first to tame bass and treble and then parametric to add some fat (low mids) and cut some ice-pick (high mids). Amp flat frequency

I am not a big fan of graphic eqs.

[hans halmackenreuter]

I can use just the amps EQ but if I want to sound a little bit more modern I like to correct the mids with para EQ just a little bit. and if I use not my semi-acoustic but my headless or my strat , than I like to correct my signal a little bit with my graphic between 1000 and 1500. so I not really messing with whole signal, I just correct some tiny aspects.

And of course for some funky parts I like to use the graphic as well.

[hans halmackenreuter]

Shape EQ first to tame bass and treble and then parametric to add some fat (low mids) and cut some ice-pick (high mids). Amp flat frequency

I am not a big fan of graphic eqs.

I will try to work with a flat amp frequency first and than your idea.

thanks

[jorgemg1984]

Hans there are no rules... too much filtering can make the sound artificial but your ears are the judge

I am a big fan of flat frequency amps and good eq pedals. But when I play with a Fender type I usually end up using both pedals AND the amp's eq... sounds good to me!

[BigDaddyLoveHandles]

My favourite EQ-iffic amp is the Phil Jones M-500



Above the 12 band graphic EQ are the knobs for a 3 band parametric EQ.

The manual suggests setting the parametric EQ first:

Some instrument amplifiers have a pre-set EQ, which may have a selected feature of bypassing it or modifying it to another factory-selected pre-set. The PJB parametric is designed to give the player the exact amount of pre EQ required without the confines of a pre-set. It is infinitely adjustable so your tone can be exclusively yours. The best method of setting the parametric is to have the Graphic EQ switched off. Once the ideal tone is close, fine adjustment can then be done on the graphic EQ. This combination will give an infinite number of tonal possibilities.

[Jonathan0996]

I think you always start out with everything flat. If you need a whole lot of tone shaping, you have to consider if you've got the right tone at the source.

A lot of guys over-EQ, in my opinion. Tiny variances should get you the sound you want, unless you're going for some heavily processed sound. If you need a radical amount of EQ, you might consider whether you've got the right guitar and/or amp. A good guitar into a good amp and good speakers played by a player with good technique should produce pretty good sound. In my view, if you need three levels of EQ to get it right, you're doing it the hard way.

[hans halmackenreuter]

I think you always start out with everything flat. If you need a whole lot of tone shaping, you have to consider if you've got the right tone at the source.

A lot of guys over-EQ, in my opinion. Tiny variances should get you the sound you want, unless you're going for some heavily processed sound. If you need a radical amount of EQ, you might consider whether you've got the right guitar and/or amp. A good guitar into a good amp and good speakers played by a player with good technique should produce pretty good sound. In my view, if you need three levels of EQ to get it right, you're doing it the hard way.

you got me wrong, since for straight ahead things I just use guitar and amp and I'm really satisfied with my gear so far. I even reject the use of reverb. So traditional sound is not the issue, but in order to sound a little bit different from "typical" shape's, especialy with my solidbodies, I like to tweak my signal a little bit. And even though I like tradional jazzguitar sounds, I think that little processed or sometimes even heavily processed sounds can fit very well, if you and your fellow musicians are open to that.

[jorgemg1984]

I think you always start out with everything flat. If you need a whole lot of tone shaping, you have to consider if you've got the right tone at the source.

A lot of guys over-EQ, in my opinion. Tiny variances should get you the sound you want, unless you're going for some heavily processed sound. If you need a radical amount of EQ, you might consider whether you've got the right guitar and/or amp. A good guitar into a good amp and good speakers played by a player with good technique should produce pretty good sound. In my view, if you need three levels of EQ to get it right, you're doing it the hard way.

So with Fenders blackface type amps you always start with bass and treble close to zero? If not it's not flat frequency.

With Fenders for example they tend to be boomy, the original tone stack was designed considering those days speakers. If you cut the bass you loose quite some mids in an already scooped amp and the sound gets thin. In the high mids area, an area where I like to cut neither the treble or the mid knobs do something to it. The Duncan Tone Stack Calculator shows this very clearly.

So... you have two options - modding or getting good eq pedals (in my case I am "forced" to use Fenders in some gigs). When I use Fenders I keep things close to 5 and cut the bass and treble with one eq pedal and boost the low mids a bit and cut the high mids a bit - the final instrument timbre is not artificial at all to me and much more pleasing but of course you do need to use good pedals on the first place...

Most amps are designed to have one sound and offer very little shaping. What do you consider an over-eq sound vs a not over-eq sound?

[Jonathan0996]

So with Fenders blackface type amps you always start with bass and treble close to zero? If not it's not flat frequency.

True, and I agree that you wouldn't want to do that with a Fender blackface amp.

The OP was talking about parametric and graphic EQs, though, which is a little different. I would start out flat with those. I've heard a lot of guys mess up their sound by overdoing it with those EQs.

[Jonathan0996]

you got me wrong... I think that little processed or sometimes even heavily processed sounds can fit very well, if you and your fellow musicians are open to that.

I did indeed misinterpret what you were going after. My mistake.

For what you're trying to do, I think I'd get as close as I could to the sound I wanted with my primary EQ and then tweak it with another, if necessary. It gets confusing when you try to manipulate two or three EQs simultaneously.

Even with an aggressively processed sound it's easy to overdo EQ. I'd start with less and try it for a while before going further. You might find it a lot easier to start with a processor that has patches with the EQ and other processing set -- and then tweaking the parameters. It can be a lot of trial and error to find that heavily processed sound that's in your head, so hang in there.

[jorgemg1984]

True, and I agree that you wouldn't want to do that with a Fender blackface amp.

The OP was talking about parametric and graphic EQs, though, which is a little different. I would start out flat with those. I've heard a lot of guys mess up their sound by overdoing it with those EQs.

I get your point Jonathan. With graphics specially things can sound artifical - but a good eq properly used can save many gigs... Really extreme shaping is probably not necessary but I have used them for more than just a mere adjustment with excellent results. In studios it's actually common to apply some eq to things.

And most amps tend to be designed for rock and even "jazz amps" tend to have very simplistic preamps, which is what you pay for basically (exception to the new mambo, just played for an hour with one today and and eqd dispatch master delay and reverb, instant great sound with everything at 5).

[hans halmackenreuter]

I did indeed misinterpret what you were going after. My mistake.

For what you're trying to do, I think I'd get as close as I could to the sound I wanted with my primary EQ and then tweak it with another, if necessary. It gets confusing when you try to manipulate two or three EQs simultaneously.

Even with an aggressively processed sound it's easy to overdo EQ. I'd start with less and try it for a while before going further. You might find it a lot easier to start with a processor that has patches with the EQ and other processing set -- and then tweaking the parameters. It can be a lot of trial and error to find that heavily processed sound that's in your head, so hang in there.

thank you for your input Jonathan! I will experiment with every suggestion I can get here. I didn't put much attention on EQs in the past and that is why I am interested in EQs and thankful for any opinion that you and the other members are willing to share with me.

[hans halmackenreuter]

...What do you consider an over-eq sound vs a not over-eq sound?

I don't really know what I would consider to be the best. l play mostly just with my amp and my guitar, but an over-eq sound - which seems to have a bad image here, doesn't necessarily have to be something bad. and even if somebody would claim that sounding artificial is something that you would want to avoid than my statement would be that it always depends on the context. One way of making good use of an over-eq sound, is to use it just in specific parts or for specific motivs in your/ a tune.

[oldane]

at the moment i am really focused on tone shaping. I use different typ's of EQ and I am wondering which EQ you dial first. for example: first the amp EQ than a para EQ and than a graphic EQ.

I do it like I told in the example and already had some great results, but as it turns out to be a very complex issue, I wonder if some of you have some good advice for me.

thanks in advance

You're right, it's very complex. I think one does oneself a service by not complicatiing it more than necessary. An amp and one external EQ unit is more than enough for me.

I use an AI amp head. It's a good and powerful PA like amp. It is designed and well suited for acoustic instruments, but really not ideal for magnetic guitar PUs. The problem is the center frequencies of the three tone controls which are not optimal for that. Therefore I set the tone controls on the AI head flat and dial in the tone on a Sansamp Paradriver DI, which has a semiparametric midrange control, allowing great tone shaping by moving the center frequency around. It can fatten the sound to have more punch or scooping it like a Fender amp. In addition it can add "tube like" distorsion - anything from a slight "fur" to wild heavy metal distorsion - with a gain knob. I don't know if it really is so tube like, but anyway, an almost imperceptable bit of it warms up the otherwise somewhat sterile solid state sound of the amp. One tone control I do use on the AI head is the adjustable low cut filter (not the same as the bass control), which is a great help in getting rid of room generated boom. The Para DI can also be used for connection directly into a PA system or a mixer, omitting the amp. It has both jack and XLR in- and outputs and it can be phantom powered. The AI amp head can provide the phantom power, but I don't use it because it intruduces extra hiss and sometimes also other unwanted sound artefacts.

An even more flexible tool is the Empress ParaEQ, which works parametric on all three controls. It can also boost the signal but it doesn't add "dirt" on the tone, it stays clean all the way. However, if one has an amp which can do that, this pedal can add a lot of flexibility - in fact more than most will ever need. I have one lying around which I dont use it in my present setup, but it's definitely a keeper - one never knows when it will come in useful.

I also have a 30 years old Boss GE but haven't really used it because I find it too noisy (hissing).

I like to keep things simple, so to avoid carrying around and set up the Paradriver and its power supply (I hate those flimsy cables), I have ordered a Mambo amp head. The center frequencies of the tone controls on the Mambo is exactly where I want them and in addition it also has a tone "warm up" option. There has been written a lot about them lately in another thread on this forum.

[jorgemg1984]

Nice explanation Oldane - although I must say I have used two eqs and the amp's eq (with Fenders) and had nice and very natural souding results.

Using good eq pedals is the key to me. The Para DI is a good one although I prefer it without the gain side... Besides using the Fromel and my custom Para I have also used the Para DI with a Boss RPQ-10 plus amp's eq with very good results. Again, with the right tools it will not sound artificial.

To Hans: I am still clueless about what is an over-eq sound vs a non over-eq sound... How does one tells what an over-eq sound is?

To Oldane: glad to know you got the Mambo, I am also expecting my head and mt two cabs. Played my friend's again yesterday and it's excellent, using the gain pretty high and the master low with the warm circuit and everything at 5 it sounds just perfect. You will love it!

[oldane]

Nice explanation Oldane - although I must say I have used two eqs and the amp's eq (with Fenders) and had nice and very natural souding results.

Oh, I don't doubt that one can get an excellent tone (may that be natural or unnatural - whatever natural is with electric guitars) with multiple EQ units. It's just that the adding up of them also add more knobs to control and set right, and I like to keep it simple.

To Oldane: glad to know you got the Mambo, I am also expecting my head and mt two cabs. Played my friend's again yesterday and it's excellent, using the gain pretty high and the master low with the warm circuit and everything at 5 it sounds just perfect. You will love it!

Yes, I think I will like it when it arrives one of these days. It seems Jon has his hands full of work with our orders. He just e-mailed me that he's temporally out of power amp units and his Swedish source is backordered, so he won't be able to begin the assembling of my amp before in a month or so. But it should be worth waiting for and I do have my AI and the Para DI. I have been lurking on the Mambo thread here and have also have e-mailed back and forth with Jon a couple of times during the last ½ year. He is indeed a very nice and accomodating person. He even answered an e-mail from me from his iPhone when he was out gigging last friday. BTW, I was inspired by your custom features and asked him to make mine with full reverb controls and the limiter - both are definitely nice to have.

[Jazz_175]

.... Again, with the right tools it will not sound artificial.

To Hans: I am still clueless about what is an over-eq sound vs a non over-eq sound... How does one tells what an over-eq sound is?

You are right, however I don't understand what you mean by artificial.
That will also be up to the listener, or there is a way to classify an artificial sound?

[jorgemg1984]

Oh, I don't doubt that one can get an excellent tone (may that be natural or unnatural - whatever natural is with electric guitars) with multiple EQ units. It's just that the adding up of them also add more knobs to control and set right, and I like to keep it simple.

Yes, I think I will like it when it arrives one of these days. It seems Jon has his hands full of work with our orders. He just e-mailed me that he's temporally out of power amp units and his Swedish source is backordered, so he won't be able to begin the assembling of my amp before in a month or so. But it should be worth waiting for and I do have my AI and the Para DI. I have been lurking on the Mambo thread here and have also have e-mailed back and forth with Jon a couple of times during the last ½ year. He is indeed a very nice and accomodating person. He even answered an e-mail from me from his iPhone when he was out gigging last friday. BTW, I was inspired by your custom features and asked him to make mine with full reverb controls and the limiter - both are definitely nice to have.

Yes, my rms power limiter mod is giving him some trouble... I hope to get mine soon! He's incredibly nice and open to any suggestions customers make... I am glad you followed my ideas. Both of them are so logical I don't really get why they are not more generalized, "jazz amps" makes should work more on that - the reverb for example is pretty easy, if you use that chip why not give the customers the maximum control possible? It's just some extra pots...

And the rms limiter is great because you can use "jazz cabs" with Beta speakers but also more guitaristic cabs in the 100w / 150w area... A little harder to implement but once you design it it's done!

I am curious to hear your thoughts on the amp Oldane... will you use it with Jon's cabs or your Redstone?

[jorgemg1984]

You are right, however I don't understand what you mean by artificial.
That will also be up to the listener, or there is a way to classify an artificial sound?

In my case although an archtop has much more acoustic vibe than a solid body it's still pretty much an electric guitar because of the magnetic pickup. Given this it's hard to me to understand what artificial is or what over-eq is... I find all my tones, even those with plenty of eq, pretty natural.

Of course if you make a gigantic cut or boost on some frequencies it will sound pretty weird

[fep]

To Hans: I am still clueless about what is an over-eq sound vs a non over-eq sound... How does one tells what an over-eq sound is?

The general rule is you want smooth eq lines for the audio to sound natural.



By using multiple eq's you risk creating narrow spikes or peaks at certain frequency or at multiple frequencies. The different eq settings can fight with each other. Imagine a setting of 1/3rd octave bandwidth peak at 200hz of 3db on one eq and a 1/5th octave bandwith cut of 6db at 240hz on your other eq. You'd create a weird 'nonsmooth' eq curve. The question again is why 3 eq's?

I don't care for graphic eq's although visually they are easy to relate too which for me is their advantage. I prefer to have lots of bands of paramtric eq's. So the only reason I could see for using 3 eq's is to have two parametrics so I could have more bands. This type of eq'ing is what I do when I'm mixing. Setting up a guitar tone for a performance, I use the amps settings.

The result of problems at certain frequencies can create strange sounds, like 'hollowness', or nasal-ness, etc. (it's hard to describe sounds).

[Bryan T]

The most complicated EQ setup I've used had controls on the guitar, an EQ pedal, and the controls on the amp.

With the guitar tone all the way up, I'd adjust the amp for my base sound - as bright as I'd want to be, knowing that I could tame the brightness with the guitar's tone control. I try to minimize boominess in the low end and shrillness in the high end. The EQ pedal was used when I added another pedal (overdrive, fuzz) to the signal path that didn't work well with the amp's EQ setting. For me, that typically meant shaping the upper mids and treble frequencies. I'm allergic to 'fizz' in my distorted sound, so I'd dial that out with the EQ pedal.

Eventually, I ended up using a Moog Low Pass Filter (total overkill!) for taming the fizz instead of a graphic EQ. Ultimately, I ended up selling all of my electric gear and only playing acoustic for a few years.

[jorgemg1984]

The general rule is you want smooth eq lines for the audio to sound natural.



By using multiple eq's you risk creating narrow spikes or peaks at certain frequency or at multiple frequencies. The different eq settings can fight with each other. Imagine a setting of 1/3rd octave bandwidth peak at 200hz of 3db on one eq and a 1/5th octave bandwith cut of 6db at 240hz on your other eq. You'd create a weird 'nonsmooth' eq curve. The question again is why 3 eq's?

I don't care for graphic eq's although visually they are easy to relate too which for me is their advantage. I prefer to have lots of bands of paramtric eq's. So the only reason I could see for using 3 eq's is to have two parametrics so I could have more bands. This type of eq'ing is what I do when I'm mixing. Setting up a guitar tone for a performance, I use the amps settings.

The result of problems at certain frequencies can create strange sounds, like 'hollowness', or nasal-ness, etc. (it's hard to describe sounds).

Good point, I forgot about overlapping frequencies. In my two pedals they don't overlap - the fromel works on the bass and treble and the parametric on different areas of the mids. It might sometime fight with the amp's controls if it's not a flat frequency amps but still never had any of the issues you mentioned

[fep]

When I'm doing my home recording mixing this is the parametric eq I currently use. You can add as many bands as you want and can choose different type of eq's like high pass, low pass, shelf, band. With an eq like this it really makes no sense to have more than one. It just confuses things while not adding any value.



Also, the same can be said of the 24 band eq above. If you had 24 bands, why would you need anything else?

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, the only reason I can see using multiple eq is to create more bands, and like jorgemg said, you wouldn't want to have them overlap. Hans, is that how you're using them?

or... perhaps you'd have them for different settings, one eq for jazz another for funk, another for acoustic etc.