-
Juan, cheap converters these days have enough fidelity for an electric guitar signal. I found the Empress colored my sound a lot more than the Zoom, IMHO.
Originally Posted by omphalopsychos
-
02-03-2024 11:29 AM
-
Just my $0.02...
I hate EQs for guitar. I can see where in a full mix they would be required to get everything to fit together without stomping on other instruments/parts. But when it comes to a guitar and an amp, I'm from the old school camp of "if you can't get the tone you want out of your guitar and amp, then you should probably be looking at a different guitar (or pickups) or amp (or speakers)." Yes, I know that pickups and speakers "are EQ" to an extent. But I have always found EQs- especially graphic- "muddy the waters" more than they clear them, when it comes to getting a tone out of an amp. The amp can have EQ of course, but if that's not enough, you're barking up the wrong tree.
Or maybe I'm just adept at getting a tone I like out of my gear without adding additional EQ. But I couldn't imagine buying an amp with the attitude of "it's kinda' close to the tone I'm looking for, I'll put an EQ in front of it and it'll be perfect."
My one caveat: backlines. Having a powerful EQ pedal with you when using backlines can be extremely helpful. And it doesn't even have to be a big graphic EQ, just a simple EQ pedal like the Boss or MXR. And I go even simpler- I use a TC Spark Boost for the job, works quite well. I'll use the amp EQ to get as close as I can, then the TC will fine-tune it. But that's all because I'm using an amp that I wouldn't be using otherwise.
-
That’s definitely a unique experience. Empress is frequently lauded as uncolored studio grade analog processing and this is the first review I’ve heard of it coloring sound. Let’s agree to disagree, as I’m not ready to incorporate adc dac in my signal chain and probably won’t be any time soon. I had a zoom multifx for a minute and it sounded as cheap as it is. Originally Posted by jorgemg1984
-
I used to have an amp that wouldn't let me get what I wanted. It's not easy to try before you buy where I live. I set the tone controls flat and put an Empress in the loop. Done! That's what made me think all amps should have para EQ, unless you're a die-hard blackface guy or something.
Later I got a different amp and no longer need the Empress. I keep the it though, just in case I run into a situation like the first one again for some unknown reason. Like Ruger's backlines. If you can't travel with an amp a small pedal board is a good idea. It's also a powerful hooo killer if that comes up. Plus I'm not very good at selling stuff. I really should try harder.
-
If I was going to use a graphic eq, I would buy the source audio one. Since it is digital, it is programable, has presets, and takes midi CCs.
-
If, for example, you are plugging an ES175 into a Fender Twin at a moderate volume and that's what you want, and the single thing you do, you're probably good to go. Works for a lot of good players. Originally Posted by ruger9
However, once you depart from that equation, you're not in Kansas any more and you may find that swapping guitars, amps, et al, is a whole lot harder and expensive than adjusting EQ.
-
This is apples vs oranges. I have different guitars/pickups because they have different characteristics. You can't use a graphic EQ to make a tele sound like a Goldtop Les Paul. Or a strat sound like an ES-175. Originally Posted by Spook410
-
I used a PRS swamp ash special for a bunch of stuff. It is true that you can not get one type of guitar to sound like another type, but splitting the HB on PRS was close enough for live work.
Same thing with the piezo PU. They will not turn any electric guitar into a full sounding acoustic, even though ducks get scared of their quack, those piezo PUs are still finding their way into guitars.
Eq can do a lot. I always assumed that EHX Knockout was just a sophisticated EQ. Most (maybe all) analog cab sims are just sophisticated eq-s.
It goes back to the question, can you shape the harmonics (overtones) to create the timbre of another instrument. (I think the only reason it is not fully possible is because of the complex interplay between amplitude and the nonlinear impact it has on harmonics).
Maybe the question of “how close is close enough” has been answered because people pay large money for sophisticated samples, instead of using subtractive synthesis.
However, I would bet that many people could not tell the difference between a powerful synth well programmed and a live person playing on a track.
Just yesterday I was listening to a Metheny track. There was a part were, if was not really paying attention, I would have assumed there were real horns/reeds/woodwind used. It was a synthesizer. … pretty close in a busy mix.
-
What I'm thinking about isn't trying to make one guitar sound like another. (Would having an infinite number of bands permit that even in theory?)
Rather, it's to get my sound from my usual gear, on a gig, on the fly, in the dark, in a noisy room, during a song when, for some reason, it doesn't sound right.
Usually, the reason has to do with the needed volume, which amp I took to provide that volume, the sound of the room and the stage plot (a grandiose term for where stuff is on the bandstand). If the sound isn't right, I'm usually thinking that a high note sounds too thin, a low note sounds too boomy or a mid or high note sounds too dull or plinky.
Say it's too boomy. I think, "lower the sliders toward the left of the box". Or maybe, "tilt the amp back". Then, I know what to do.
I could think, "I need a different preamp model, cabsim or IR" and then I'd have no idea what to try first.
If I ever thought "I want a Les Paul sound for my next chorus", I'd then probably lose my place in the chart while I was mentally comparing Les' sound with low impedance pickups, Page, Frampton and Slash's. To quote Woody Allen, "20 minutes later, she's in the shower while I'm trying to decide how to pitch to McCovey". Apologies for an obscure reference.
So the question in the OP was to pick the EQ box with the best array of center frequencies to quickly and easily solve those kind of problems. Looks to me like the MXR 6 band and the GE7 pack the most sliders into the range of the guitar that I can hear.
-
There was an article once in EQ [sic] magazine (IIRC, might as well have been Guitar Player) about Bill Gibbons of ZZ Top actually using a separate 31-band EQ in 19" rack size for each of his guitars to match their sounds during the show.
-
Yes, I just got the Empress, it is amazing. The Deluxe version also has a high and low shelf as well as a high and lowpass filter- not sure why they included both. I mainly use the shelves and one band of the EQ, or two as needed. Very powerful device, probably overkill for most. I could be happy with a high and low shelf and one parametric midband, like a Neve preamp. Originally Posted by omphalopsychos
-
None of us really know what it sounds like at the back of the bar/club. What we do know is that it's totally different to what we are hearing.
-
There's an argument to have a wireless transmitter so you can walk back there while still playing, at least for the sound check. But, I don''t think they work more than 30 feet or something in that range. Originally Posted by garybaldy
Common issue is to hear an archtop player who sounds boomy and muddy in the audience. He can't possibly sound like that to himself where he is sitting. Of course, many players don't have that problem and their archtops sound awesome.
-
I use wireless with my covers band with (usually) a LP. We start the sound check with me on stage. I then walk around the venue getting different mixes everywhere but always realise my guitar is too quiet!! Anyway after getting the sound somewhere decent, once we start playing and after a couple of numbers, the on stage sound has morphed into something else which sounds 'comfortable' so God knows what it's then like elsewhere! But the crowd seem happy. I also use the wireless for my double bass sound. I don't do an awful lot of jazz guitar gigs. Originally Posted by rpjazzguitar
-
I think a looper might be a good way to hear what you sound like from afar.
Also what Gary said. Rooms change completely when they're filled with warm meat.
-
Wow, really? I really can't hear any difference when I turn it on set flat. In fact it's up there with many studio EQ's I've heard. Originally Posted by jorgemg1984
There are several EQ's on the market that convert to digital, and I won't put any of them in my guitar chain, and in general I like what analog EQ brings to the sound. However, I do think digital EQ is great in a mixing environment. When things are already converted to digital. I just don't want to add too many digital conversions to the sound. I can hear the degradation in a second conversion in a pretty high end digital console for instance.
I also look for pedals with true analog pass through for the dry signal. Some digital pedals have an audibly better analog pass through. The Keely Halo comes to mind.
-
I think many (most?) of us have gone through that search for the perfect amp, I know the I have. I am in fact very happy with my amps. But I actually do think that most of them are "kind of close" and benefit from an EQ. Especially for jazz, but even for other styles. So I am happy to have one, though I can live without it. Originally Posted by ruger9
But for sure be aware that some graphics sound muddy. I have a GE7 modified by Analogman for better fidelity, it's one of the best sounding graphics, but it still sounds a bit cloudy. I didn't realize this until I got an Empress, a much better EQ. Not to mention the increased flexibility of a multi band parametric with high and low shelving- just like the preamps I use in the studio.
What graphics have going for them though is simplicity. Really quick to adjust an individual band. But parametric are much better if you understand them. They sound better, have less distortion, and just function better for adjusting EQ. If they didn't, you would see a lot more graphics in recording studios than you do. All great studio EQ's are parametric.
To use a parametric for guitar, first get a good bass and treble tone, usually through your amp controls or using those features on the EQ. I set my amps so that as I turn them up I stop just as I hear them doing anything- in other words set pretty low.
It's in the mids where guitar lives, and that's a dial often missing from an amp: low mids (2005-500) for jazz guitar warmth, around 750 for electric lead playing (where a tube screamer boosts, or 1K, where a Klon boosts), and higher for sparkle or to get rid of ice pick. A studio engineer told me to turn a parametric up all the way and sweep the frequency to find what you are looking for, then dial it up or down as needed. This still works for me to this day.
No, an EQ isn't totally necessary, unless you are using unfamiliar amps or you are a studio player. But they sure are nice to have. And I haven't even gotten into creative uses!
-
Sorry, but you certainly can! Not exactly, but close! Originally Posted by ruger9
-
You are correct in your hyperbolic examples: not what EQ is for. Originally Posted by ruger9
EQ is for adjustment and adaptation. It's particularly useful in varying situations like getting rid of feedback, boominess (technical term there..), or slotting into a range in a group. Or just because what you liked yesterday isn't what you like today. This is typically accomplished with analog or digital electronics. But if changing guitars and amps because you need to take a bit of the edge off the high end without wiping out the high mids is your preferred approach, by all means. Umm.. wait.. was that hyperbolic? Damn.
-
I think converters do a pretty good job ever since we went to 24 bits. Some gear is still 20 bit and I think I can hear a difference. Not that I actually can. More typical is the noise from cheap analog circuits. Originally Posted by jorgemg1984
Sorry the Empress didn't work out for you. No telling why. Pretty sure there's nothing wrong with your hearing so it's more likely something else. Most of us have found these to be transparent but when you have a pedal board full of stuff seems it's always something.
-
Just my experience, and it was a long time ago, maybe I need to try it again. In general, I've found digital EQs to be superior in every way to analog ones - more transparent, way more precise and way less noisy. I can understand something like the Zoom for a reverb might change your sound, but just as an eq/tuner, it's very transparent. But hey, if you want to pay almost 400€ for an eq, be my guest Originally Posted by bluejaybill
-
Yeah, I agree. Digital pedals have come a long way - I still remember using Line 6 or TC Electronics gear and it clearly introduced digital artifacts. These days, not so much... Originally Posted by Spook410
It's really nothing against the Empress, I had that impression from almost all analog EQs I tried (the Fromel Shape EQ, for example, colored the sound but in a way I actually liked a lot). And it's just not they color the sound, it's also a precision aspect - I've found the Zoom digital parametric to be a lot more precise than the Empress. All IMHO and YMMV, of course.
From the Zoom website
A/D CONVERSION: 24-bit, 128x oversampling D/A CONVERSION: 24-bit, 128x oversampling SIGNAL PROCESSING: 32-bit floating point and 32-bit fixed point
-
I don't think "close" means what you think it means Originally Posted by bluejaybill
And "close enough for live work"- that's true; hell I don't even need my PRS and EBMM with coil taps to get "close enough". All I need is my tele. My tele can do it all.
...but I still hate outboard EQs. If the EQ on the amp isn't enough, look for another amp. As I said, I do own one, for backlines when I have to use someone else's amp. I have an EQ and an overdrive for those situations. Usually the amp EQ and the overdrive is enough to get the job done.
-
No disrespect, but unless you're vastly wealthy, that's not good advice. Some people get lucky and can get a great sound out of a guitar/amp situation (say, Bernstein and his Zeidler/Vibrolux combo). But not everyone get's that lucky - and it's very expensive and tiring to just keep buying amps or speakers or pickups hoping to find something that works when a simple EQ can solve the problem. Originally Posted by ruger9
As an example, I had a boomyness problem with my Guild X-500 - no matter the amp it just produced a lot of bass and it made live sound a true nightmare. I tried quite a few amps and speakers to no avail, and an EQ (low-cut) solved the problem in a way no bass EQ on any amp on earth could solve - no boomyness and I still got fatness in the sound. Later I found out the source of the problem (the pickup) and I no longer use EQ for that, but it was a very simple and cheap solution. Still today I, when I (rarely) use amps, I can get by with the bass and treble controls, but I much rather use an EQ pedal for the mids than the mid knob on any tone stack - specially if it's a blackface.
A lot of people would save a lot of money and time on gear, if they just learned how to use an eq.
-
LOL I'm not vastly wealthy. I'm not any kind of wealthy. Originally Posted by jorgemg1984
The tone journey takes a lifetime; you don't buy EVERY guitar and EVERY amp at once and decide what works. You buy things over time, learn them, live with them, decide if you want to keep them or move on.
And your last sentence I agree with, but I would add: "and learn how to use their hands. Touch is a huge part of the tone equation."
Ever notice how Kenny Burrell sounds like KB no mater what guitar and amp he's using? That's knowing how to play your gear.
(and before somebody says "yeah but"... I'm not talking about a tele bridge pickup into an AC30 sounding like the neck pickup of an ES-175 into a Polytone, let's stick to comparing apples to apples LOL)Last edited by ruger9; 02-04-2024 at 10:21 AM.
Reply With Quote
“Shearing style”
Today, 05:26 PM in Comping, Chords & Chord Progressions