Empress ParaEQ

[jorgemg1984]

My experiences have been different.

For quite some time I've had a both Para EQ and a Zoom G3X, which shares the same EQ with the MS50G. They are very different pieces of gear, but putting aside the greater versatility of the Zoom for this discussion, I still think both the Empress and the Zoom have advantages for EQ.

If used only for EQ, the Zoom allows you to mix and match up to 6 instances of of graphic and/or parametric EQ. Each instance of the parametric EQ has two bands (hence the 12 bands that Jorge mentioned). For each of the two bands, you choose the center from a discrete list of frequencies, the Q from a long list of choices, and then dial in the boost or cut for the band. I have used up to 4 parametric instances (8 bands) to bracket and notch out a resonance and otherwise EQ an archtop.

The Empress is less versatile but easier to configure and adjust. There are low, mid, and high bands. Each band has the same three choices of Q (tight, mid, wide). OTOH, you can dial in the center of each band - you are not restricted to a discrete list, as with the Zoom.

There are pros and cons for each of them IMO.

• The Empress is quicker to configure for EQ. You don't have to navigate menus or press save etc. Just flick the Q toggle for each band and dial in the center and the boost or cut. Add overall boost as desired.
• The Empress is much quicker to configure as a notch filter. The Zoom's discrete list of frequencies is never centered on my resonance, so I need to bracket the resonance with two deep cuts, which makes the notch too wide; then I need to compensate for the excessive width ... etc. In contrast, with the Para I just set the Q to tight, sweep to find the center and adjust the cut.
• For the same reasons as above, the Para is easier to tweak for a different room, and much easier for tweaking out a resonance.
• The Para EQ is dead quiet and colorless in my experience, including when significant boost is used. However, there is a small amount of noise (and I think maybe color) with my Zoom G3X - maybe nothing that others would care about, but enough to annoy me.
• I dislike that if I use the Empress bass band as a notch filter, then I have no other, more general bass control.

But all things considered and as far as EQ only is concerned, I prefer the Empress for EQ whenever possible.

I agree with almost everything you said. The Empress is indeed easier to use but, for a digital pedal, the Zooms are very easy to use. I never use notch filters but what you say makes a lot of sense. My experience with noise was the opposite, the Empress was way noisier than any of the zooms but maybe it was faulty. But good to know someone else can also use the Zoom as a parametric eq, I was afraid of being crazy.

[jorgemg1984]

Dude , if u can't hear the artifacts of a poor digital device then good for u. But u don't get it. The zoom sounds ugly to me. Period . Some pedals color the sound in a good way but the zoom don't. Some pedals like the empress eq does not and is also very quiet in it self but , if you can't find noise with a EQ in a guitar signal I would say that something is wrong ! There is always noice!!!!!!!!!! If the zoom as u say is dead quite then it's filtering !

I've tried the Ms range and I think they suck ! Your giving the usual speech about low price value. Vake up, there are no free lunches! If someone asks for a high quality eq and you tell them to get a Zoom pedal, then I'm sorry but u don't get it !
As I said I won't argue this , i think u are wrong and that's that !

Man, relax - we're just talking eq pedals. The point of the forum is arguing, it's what we're doing. There are free lunches in the sense technology evolved a lot recently and cheap pedals like Zoom or Digitech are much better than they used to be.I am not saying the Empress is not a good pedal but I believe the Zoom is a better value, just that. I have nothing for cheap digital pedals or against analog boutique ones. I have used pedalboards with lots of expensive pedals (including lots of eqs) and found out the Zoom would do almost the same for less money and less size (which is very relevant for gigging). You didn't found that - great. But no need to be aggressive.

[jorgemg1984]

In theory and in the price range we're talking about, digital processing will be quieter than analog processing. If the Zoom stuff has a reasonable output stage, it's likely quieter and I really kind of doubt that it's processor or A/D's are so slow that artifacts are an issue. Still, for me, it's not applicable as I'm not hearing anything objectionable from my Empress.

Exactly right, Spook.

[JazzNote]

Do we have a communication problem here? I cannot see how these two statements can go along well with each other ...

I owned or tried almost all eq pedals available on the market. There is no difference between them.

My experience with noise was the opposite, the Empress was way noisier than any of the zooms but maybe it was faulty.

[jorgemg1984]

I'll explain slower, no problem. There's no difference between them in the sense that if you do a large q 12db boost at 400hz or a a small q 5db cut at 800hz the yielded results will be the same (I'll add the notch exception Spoon graciously mentioned). There are of course differences between them - price, size, features, analog or digital, noise, price, brand value perception, etc..

Of the analogs the best one was the BYOC. Schematic is available which allowed me to get a local builder to do it and customize frequency range, reduce to 2 bands, use OPA2134 op amps, add a boost, etc... The Empress by the way uses TLC2274 op amps, at that price point I would ask for OPA2134. But hey what do I know?

[HighSpeedSpoon]

... Of the analogs the best one was the BYOC. Schematic is available which allowed me to get a local builder to do it and customize frequency range, reduce to 2 bands, use OPA2134 op amps, add a boost, etc... The Empress by the way uses TLC2274 op amps, at that price point I would ask for OPA2134. But hey what do I know?

I lot more than me if you know what op amps are inside.

[Klatu]

When I purchase effects, preamps, etc, the first thing I take into account is the sound, but that doesn't mean that I don't also consider construction quality and aesthetic design. Perhaps I'm old school, but beyond enjoying quality construction for its longevity, I attain a certain amount of "pride in ownership" when acquiring a top of the line piece.

All things being equal, I also take design into account. In the case of my amps, I own Acoustic Image Clarus heads that are practical but unattractive IMO. They serve their purpose extremely well but don't hold a candle to my Heritage Amps or Earcandy Cabs' beauty.

As to deciding between the Zoom and the Empress, I'd go for the Zoom if I were in a pinch and needed an inexpensive piece of quality gear pronto. If the need wasn't so urgent, I'd try and save up for the Empress because I think that it would please me more in the long run.

In fact, I think that if I had to build a pedalboard out of just one effects company, I just must might choose Empress as all their products seem to get consistently high ratings in terms of sound, build, and design.

[feet]

given my experience with another of their products, and having seen a few videos regarding its usage and abilities, i wouldn't hesitate to give the paraeq a shot. i'm sort of a tactile person, and it seems very well thought out in more of a studio dork kind of way as opposed to a guitarist's tool, which i like. it appears to be a serious piece of kit and i do like its functionality and the thinking behind it.

zoom makes cheap plastic lazer boxes, according to me in the late 90s i kid. i know they are vastly improved since then, but i generally prefer not to have everything boxes or have to dive through menus, as i'm constantly fiddling to match up different amps and guitars.

would love to hear about opamps, though. byoc doesn't offer a finished version, but i like the apparent functionality of the empress more at the moment.

eq:

[oldane]

The Zoom MS-50G is in IMHO a very good pedal - despite its low price. Especially if one wants to use the EQ only. Some of the effects may not be comparable to the best (and expensive) units.

I have also used the Sansamp Para DI a lot with an AI head and it's also great, but it has a steeper learning curve and is more temperamental (a slight turn of a knob changes the tone a lot). Some like it a lot, others hate it.

The ParaEQ is excellent and it's the one I grab if I only want EQ - if not for anything else, then for the simpler user interface as compared to the Zoom or the Sansamp. When they are carefully dialled in, I have a hard time hearing sound differences between the three pedals.

[Bushwackbob]

Where do folks with the Para use it in their chain? In the loop and replace the amp's stack or in front and use in addition to the amp's controls? I have found the learning curve with the Para steep in trying to tame my Lonestar Special.

[oldane]

Where do folks with the Para use it in their chain? In the loop and replace the amp's stack or in front and use in addition to the amp's controls? I have found the learning curve with the Para steep in trying to tame my Lonestar Special.

Both ways work well with an AI head (that's what I have experience with). BTW, that goes for both the Empress ParaEQ and the Sansamp Para DI.

[HighSpeedSpoon]

Where do folks with the Para use it in their chain? In the loop and replace the amp's stack or in front and use in addition to the amp's controls? I have found the learning curve with the Para steep in trying to tame my Lonestar Special.

I use it first, but it depends on the amp and what you want to accomplish. The Para also has a clean boost (squeaky clean in my experience) which can make up for an overall drop due to the EQ or can be used to add drive.

[ColMc]

Any love here for the LR Baggs paraDI?
I use one with my fiddle now and then, it sounds fine to me.
Plenty of knobs to twiddle with and runs on phantom power when plugged into the PA.

[JazzNote]

A brand new empress para EQ has arrived yesterday. Will have to wait a little while until i find some time to check it thoroughly.

[Jazz_175]

The reason why I returned it is that I had the impression that the Empress ParaEq was capable of subtle changes in the tone, as people say "sculpt their tone", something I don't really care that much.
For example, put in front of my Henriksen it didn't do much. I preferred the Barb Eq, which changes a bit the character of the amp.
But I only had it for a day, so....

[JazzNote]

So i finally found some time to try out the pedal and after an hour of experimenting i decided to send it back. The shop where i bought it initially offers money back guarantee if not satisfait a 100%, so there are no worries on my side.

What made me decide to send it back was that soundwise i heard no improvement over my Carl Martin. Actually i prefer the tone of the Carl Martin which is a little fatter, probably because of the built in preamp. The Empress also developed slightly audible hum when some boost was applied just as the Carl Martin does, probably not disturbing for a live situation, but for recording i wouldn't like it. By experience i know that i am more "noise-concious" than most other players, so i regard this to be of no importance to anybody else than me. The Empress seems to be a great pedal, the parametric design ist more versatile than the one in the Carl Martin which does not allow adjustments of the bandwidth.

[Stevebol]

This is the best EQ there is;



IMO you might need it to compensate for an amp more than a guitar. If I had to play through a Vox amp I would use this. Bass, treble, and an adjustable mid-range frequency is all you need. This has adjustable Q too. An earlier model doesn't have the Q but that's a good one too.