I'm sorry, but it's a -vs- thread. Behringer EQ's

[AG]

For a rackmount guitar rig, which would you say is gonne be the best option? Parametric, or Graphic EQ?


This Parametric one:

http://www.behringer.com/T1951/index.cfm?lang=ENG

Stereo, 4 band per side with two 12ax7 tubes.

Or this Graphic one:

http://www.behringer.com/FBQ1502/index.cfm?lang=ENG

Stereo, 15 band per side with feedback detection circuitry (this thing is so cool, my Libe Sound tutor brought his in, it was ace, found the frequency that was feeding back immediately)


The Graphic is a little less expensave than the Parametric.

My rig is gonna consist of a few toys;

A couple of Pre-amps, I've been looking at all the usual names, ADA MP-1, JMP-1 and a Marshall 9001.

Behringer Tube Compressor

Behringer Virtualizer (FX)

BBE Sonic Maximizer

Marshall/MESA 50/50 Poweramp.

[airborne50caliber]

i would get the graphic. I'm not really familiar with parametrics though. anyone fancy doing a short summary of the differences and applications?

[AG]

Parametric is like the EQ on your amp, Bass/Low Mid/High Mid/Treble.

Graphic gives you more advanced controll over specific frequencies.

I think that's how it works anyways.

[artificial infection]

Graphic EQs allow easier precise set boosts or cut points, whilst Parametics have continuous variable boost/or cut points.

[diesel]

A graphic eq works with a group of sliders that adjust a fixed frequency range (like your home stereo, but more freqs to choose from), this is fine for tone shaping but it's a little clumsy for feed-back reduction.

A parametric EQ has 3 adjustments,
1) Gain (how much you're boosting/cutting)
2) Frequency (What the center freq of your cut/boost is)
3) Q or Bandwidth (How wide a chunk you take or boost)

Parametric EQs can focus on freq ranges that are much smaller than a 31-band eq (each slider on a 31 band is 1/3 of an octave), and as such, are excellent feed-back destroyers.

Overall, I prefer graphic EQs for guitars, nothing like a good old smiley face to get some good hard rock going.

[moaner]

I'd say go for the parametric, simply because the only frequencies on the graphic that'll be of any use to you are those between about 100Hz and 7kHz, which is probably about half of it.

[Aes820]

Diezel is correct in explaning the difference between the two.

With graphic EQs the frequency which each band affects is set. As to it is its bandwidth (or Q).
Think of the parametric like a graphic EQ, but with the ability to be able to slide those boost+cut sliders anywhere you want across the left and right of the front panel.

The Q refers to how much one slider would affect it's neigbouring frequencies. A large Q factor will mean that a large boost at one frequency will also roll over and boost nearby frequencies. A boost with a small Q factor will only affect that frequency.

Parametrics are more useful for achieving smooth EQ curves for you 'tone'.
Graphic EQs are better for frequency correction. If it is for a guitar rig, go for a parametric. The most graphic bands you'd need for guitar would only be around 7 or so anyway.

[moaner]

/wins

[airborne50caliber]

what about for vocals, where you need to shape the high frequencies?

[Moseph]

[QUOTE=Aes820]
The Q refers to how much one slider would affect it's neigbouring frequencies. A large Q factor will mean that a large boost at one frequency will also roll over and boost nearby frequencies. A boost with a small Q factor will only affect that frequency.
QUOTE]

Actually, this is backwards for most systems. Traditionally, Q is an engineer-designed term that is inversely proportional to bandwidth. Q is a made up term to have the following definition:

Q = w/B; where w is the center/resonant frequency of the filter and B is the bandwidth of the filter.

Q was invented to allow engineers to compare resonance sharpness using an intuitive "higher is better" system. A higher Q means that the bandwidth is narrower, and the "Quality Factor" is higher: there's less bleed into other frequencies. Typically (especially for analog systems), a higher Q value also means that the gain will be higher for the selected frequency.

Again, your system might be different, but this is the traditional approach taken by electrical engineers.

[Aes820]

That sounds correct.
I'll double check on my Para EQ tonight. I may have just gotten the two mixed up.
But I reckon I stand corrected.

[larry_emder]

^

There Is No God!!!

[moaner]

^

There Is No God!!!

http://www.roflcopter.com/roflcopter.gif

[Chasing_amy]

ide go for the parametric, simply bcos i love the sound an feel of them and its a tube one too.....nice!

but practically u should prob go for the Graphic, u will be able to get a more broader shape with it.

Sounds like a good rig, am looking into getting an eq for my setup too....will be a while tho....i really need to get out into the 'real' world and start earnign some dosh!

the parametric is only 156 euro!!!!!holy shift...might be getting it sooner then i thought!

[airborne50caliber]

but what about when you want to add and subtract very specific frequencies, you can't do that with the peaking filters in parametrics can you? That's the main reason I was planning to get a graphic. More fine-tune controls, and each band can be adjusted, even if the bands on a para. are centre-defineable, you only have three of four to control at any one time.

[Moseph]

but what about when you want to add and subtract very specific frequencies, you can't do that with the peaking filters in parametrics can you? That's the main reason I was planning to get a graphic. More fine-tune controls, and each band can be adjusted, even if the bands on a para. are centre-defineable, you only have three of four to control at any one time.

For amateurs, a general rule of thumb is that the more specific you get, the more likely you are to make things sound awful as well (particularly w/ low-end gear such as Behringers). I recommend the parametric for this reason, and also b/c once you learn f/ experience, you can adjust the Q value to get as specific as you like.

[Aes820]

Having a digital parametric EQ with some sort of visual reinforcement of what you are doing to your EQ curve makes it a lot easier.

Graphics are useful because you can actually get a general idea of what your EQ curve looks like.
With many parametrics, all you are relying on is a bunch of numbers, and sometimes it is nice to have some kind of idea of what your curve looks like, not just relying on your ears.

[airborne50caliber]

so you wouldn't recommend behringher eqs for the studio? I thought they were quite high-end... what company do you suggest?

[moaner]

so you wouldn't recommend behringher eqs for the studio? I thought they were quite high-end... what company do you suggest?

they're mid-end really, at low level prices.

you always get your sceptics... :rolleyes:

[Moseph]

so you wouldn't recommend behringher eqs for the studio? I thought they were quite high-end... what company do you suggest?

The best EQ's are basically application specific. I'm sure you could get good results w/ Behringers as well, but high-end audio gear is designed to be as narrow in their use as possible, mostly b/c boutique gear makes it really easy to do some good stuff to your sound. Focusrite and Avalon make some "general use" EQs that are pretty well-known, but I've never heard any of them personally.

I tend to just stick to Parametric EQs built into the mixer if I use analog EQ gear, rather than outboard. Of course, there's also always plugins, but that's a whole other story.