EQ frequencies

[rpjazzguitar]

Blu: 100 350 760 1600 3500
Bud: 80 420 1600 3500 7200
Boogie: 90 240 750 2200 6600
MXR 6 band: 100 200 400 800 1600 3200
GE7: 100 200 400 800 1600 3200 6400.
Bose S1 Pro +: Two band, plus presets, none of which are documented with regard to frequency.
Fender Rumble 3 band: 60 630 6000

(btw, those columns line up on my screen).

For reference, low E on a guitar is about 82hz and that number doubles for each successive octave.
So high E is about 328. If your guitar has 24 frets, the highest note would be 1312. (These numbers are slightly inaccurate because I didn't use the decimal portions).

Do you need the Bud's 80? That will affect the open E string and whatever sound is generated below that, presumably from resonance of the wood. Is that more relevant in an archtop than a solid body?

And how high do you need to go? I doubt that I could tell if the 7200 control was at min or max.

My guess is that what would be best for my application would be as many bands as possible in the range most people can hear well, which means the Blu might be better for me than the Bud. And, the MXR and GE7 would, in effect, be the same, since I can't hear the extra 6400 control anyway.

Thoughts?

[Tom Wright]

I have both GE7 and the MXR 6 band. The top is slightly different, in that the 6400 band will affect the 3200, like making it shelf if both are dipped.

For tone color the mids are key. Lots of small balance changes between 400 and 1000 are noticeable in setting character. To really get lost in options, a parametric EQ like the Baggs Para DI, with sweepable bands, is powerful.

These days I play through a GK MB200 head, which has tone controls at 60, 250, 1000 and 7K. It also has a "contour" option, which bumps up the bottom and top a bit but makes a large, -10db cut at 500. This is sufficient EQ for me. I need a mid cut to accommodate the overdrive pedal I use, but the main tone choice, in my experience, is the speaker cone. I like Eminence products, and am using Legend V128 12". The Beta 8" woofers are sweet, too.

[sgosnell]

IME those frequencies are just the center of the affected region, and frequencies both above and below them are affected to some degree.

[Tom Wright]

The EQ shape tends to be steeper as the boost or cut increases.

I also like my Trace Eliott Elf, which has tone controls at 80, 400, and 4.2K. Those should be useful for guitar, as well as the intended bass guitar. I'm using it for electric mandolin.

[rpjazzguitar]

That's interesting. For detail between 400 and 1000, the MXR and GE7 have the most center frequencies in that range. Of course, the curves could be quite different even if the centers are the same, although I'm having trouble imagining how they would sound different in practice.

I also think it's interesting that the Blu and Bud are so different.

[omphalopsychos]

I dislike graphic equalizers. The same frequency centers are not universally useful in all contexts. Also graphic eq usually have narrow frequency bands, which makes it hard to make subtle adjustments.

IMO all the problems discussed in this thread go away with a simple 3 band parametric eq with variable q. The empress paraeq is an example of such a device. Maybe one day I want my mids adjusting 800hz. The next day I might want it operating on 1200hz with a different amp, different guitar, different room.

[ccroft]

My thought is that guitar amps should have parametric EQ so we can place the nodes where they'll do us the most good. I think I've even seen it somewhere's? Maybe a parametric mid?

[st.bede]

I do not know what the problem is. How eq shapes the frequencies effect more then just a particular note but also the overtones.

If my memory severs me correctly, the overtones relative strength is what makes a particular instruments timbre different from another.

Another issue to remember is that when you cut or boost in one area it effects another area of frequency. I can not rember the physics, but I read a book on how to master. That was described in detail in that book.

(The person who wrote it was highly respected. I think I bought that book after reading a review of it in a Sound On Sound magazine. The overall moral of my story is, “use it or loss it”. Everyday I wish I remember half as much as I did. I would strongly suggest avoiding abuses relationship and the trauma they bring. There is no amount of money that is worth putting up with abuse).

[Boss Man Zwiebelsohn]

I do not know what the problem is. How eq shapes the frequencies effect more then just a particular note but also the overtones.

If my memory severs me correctly, the overtones relative strength is what makes a particular instruments timbre different from another.

Another issue to remember is that when you cut or boost in one area it effects another area of frequency. I can not rember the physics, but I read a book on how to master. That was described in detail in that book.

(The person who wrote it was highly respected. I think I bought that book after reading a review of it in a Sound On Sound magazine. The overall moral of my story is, “use it or loss it”. Everyday I wish I remember half as much as I did. I would strongly suggest avoiding abuses relationship and the trauma they bring. There is no amount of money that is worth putting up with abuse).

The book was probably either "Mastering Audio: the art and the science" by Bob Katz or "The Mastering Engineer's Handbook" by Bobby Owsinski.

[garybaldy]

My 1st guitar amp back in the 60s had a tone knob!

[Cunamara]

My thought is that guitar amps should have parametric EQ so we can place the nodes where they'll do us the most good. I think I've even seen it somewhere's? Maybe a parametric mid?

The SansAmp Para Driver DI and the Baggs Para Acoustic DI both have bass and treble controls (Baxandall?) with a sweepable quasi-parametric mid EQ. It's pretty flexible and powerful in terms of shaping tone. I have successfully used the SansAmp into a powered speaker (QSC, I can't remember if 8 or 10 inch version) on a number of occasions. The SansAmp mid sweep offers 170 Hz - 3 kHz with a blend knob offering a lot of options. The Baggs I have is buried in a box right now, so I can't readily reference the sweep options, but similarly broad IIRC.

[Spook410]

The Empress ParaEQ with 3 bands allowing you to set center frequency, 'Q', and cut/boost works well enough though three bands isn't always enough. For archtop wish I had the current Deluxe MKII version with the extra low and high pass filters (pricey at $350). The EQ on the Grace Design Felix has a High Pass Filter (HPF, can be set up as a notch filter), low, sweep-able mid (with Q), and high also works well. It's nice to have the HPF for archtops when they get boomy. The Felix does a lot and they are absolutely worth it but they are expensive ($1255). The single channel Alix would be a better choice for most ($765). Bear in mind there's a lot of studio grade analog electronics involved.

Suppose everyone gets used to whatever it is they're using, but when you've had good EQ control for awhile, it's hard to go back.

[Bobby Timmons]

I use a 31 band eq. I wouldn't go any less than a standard 7 band pedal. Even 10 is kind of stingey. About the narrow bands being a disadvantage, you just have to actually learn the eq spectrum to be able to adjust it intuitively.

[jorgemg1984]

On graphic eqs, the center frequency means a certain amount of frequencies of that frequency to the right and to the left will be affected, so 80hz does affect your tone (just try a significant boost or cut and you'll see). Also, you have harmonics, so despite core frequencies not going much above 1.5k or something like that, you have harmonics until 4k or 5k - that's why guitar speaker usually go that high. Again, try a significant cut or boost on 3k, and you'll see it impacts your sound.

I actually like graphic eqs if they don't have many bands - so they can have some impact. They're simple to use and I usually adjust the same frequencies, but parametrics are more versatile of course I've seen the empress para eq recommendation many times and I don't think it's a wise purcahse, I had one once - the small zoom multi-fx pedals are much cheaper and do a better job than the empress on parametric eq (less noise and more accurate) and you can have six parametric eqs if you're crazy plus a tuner and a lot of other fx.

[rpjazzguitar]

On graphic eqs, the center frequency means a certain amount of frequencies of that frequency to the right and to the left will be affected, so 80hz does affect your tone (just try a significant boost or cut and you'll see). Also, you have harmonics, so despite core frequencies not going much above 1.5k or something like that, you have harmonics until 4k or 5k - that's why guitar speaker usually go that high. Again, try a significant cut or boost on 3k, and you'll see it impacts your sound.

I actually like graphic eqs if they don't have many bands - so they can have some impact. They're simple to use and I usually adjust the same frequencies, but parametrics are more versatile of course I've seen the empress para eq recommendation many times and I don't think it's a wise purcahse, I had one once - the small zoom multi-fx pedals are much cheaper and do a better job than the empress on parametric eq (less noise and more accurate) and you can have six parametric eqs if you're crazy plus a tuner and a lot of other fx.

Interesting. I've never used a parametric. I understand the concept, but I can't easily imagine how I would figure out how to adjust it on a gig.

I think "too much bass" or "the treble is sibilant". And, I can imagine the graph I want -- which the sliders show me instantly. Reach down and adjust in seconds. How does that work for parametric?

[Bobby Timmons]

I actually like graphic eqs if they don't have many bands - so they can have some impact.

No way around that huh. If an eq has more bands and they're therefore narrower, simply choose a set of them or range of them if you need to adjust a broader span of frequencies at once. You still get more precision in where and how the span begins and ends.

[garybaldy]

Interesting. I've never used a parametric. I understand the concept, but I can't easily imagine how I would figure out how to adjust it on a gig.

I think "too much bass" or "the treble is sibilant". And, I can imagine the graph I want -- which the sliders show me instantly. Reach down and adjust in seconds. How does that work for parametric?

I have low and high mids parametric eq on my multifx that I use in a covers band. I've never really known what frequencies I need to centre on. I get the sound I need by trial and error.

[jorgemg1984]

Interesting. I've never used a parametric. I understand the concept, but I can't easily imagine how I would figure out how to adjust it on a gig.

I think "too much bass" or "the treble is sibilant". And, I can imagine the graph I want -- which the sliders show me instantly. Reach down and adjust in seconds. How does that work for parametric?

They're not simple to use, although not that hard. You can choose the center frequency and you can choose Q (how narrow or wider is that band). Q is actually an "inverted" scale (or something like that, English is not my first language), which means a low Q is a wider band (affects a wide group of frequencies left and right of the center frequency) and a high q is a narrower band (affects a narrow group of frequencies left and right of the center frequency). A very high Q will probably give you something closer to a "notch", which is used un acoustics and archtops to kill a certein frequency that is giving you feedback.

Personally I control bass and treble with the amp's eq and high cut or low cut if needed - and use graphics or parametrics to control the mids. Usually a graphic is more than enough for that.

[jorgemg1984]

I have low and high mids parametric eq on my multifx that I use in a covers band. I've never really known what frequencies I need to centre on. I get the sound I need by trial and error.

I usually think of 400hz/500hz as "low mids", where the fatness comes from. And 800hz/1k as "high mids", the "ice pick" region. Usually I boost the first a little, and cut the cond a little - with a clean blackface amp.

[jorgemg1984]

No way around that huh. If an eq has more bands and they're therefore narrower, simply choose a set of them or range of them if you need to adjust a broader span of frequencies at once. You still get more precision in where and how the span begins and ends.

I didn't say there was no way around - I said I prefered fewer bands, for my personal use. But thanks for the workaround, who would've thought of that?

[Boss Man Zwiebelsohn]

The best way to learn frequencies is to learn the location of vowel formants in the spectrum.

[Bobby Timmons]

I didn't say there was no way around - I said I prefered fewer bands, for my personal use. But thanks for the workaround, who would've thought of that?

Yep haha. I commonly read people post that though. That they don't want a 31 band because they think they have to put the 100 slider up, the 125 down, the 160 up and the 200 down.

I usually think of 400hz/500hz as "low mids", where the fatness comes from. And 800hz/1k as "high mids", the "ice pick" region. Usually I boost the first a little, and cut the cond a little - with a clean blackface amp.

Sorry, this is incorrect tho. 400/500 are upper low mids, but 800/1k are not upper mids, they are plain old mid mids. Upper mids are about 1.5k on up to 5k. Highs start at 6k.

Sound Frequency: How To Use the Spectrum For Better EQ | LANDR Blog

[jorgemg1984]

Yep haha. I commonly read people post that though. That they don't want a 31 band because they think they have to put the 100 slider up, the 125 down, the 160 up and the 200 down.

Sorry, this is incorrect tho. 400/500 are upper low mids, but 800/1k are not upper mids, they are plain old mid mids. Upper mids are about 1.5k on up to 5k. Highs start at 6k.

Sound Frequency: How To Use the Spectrum For Better EQ | LANDR Blog

Well, I guess irony is becoming a lost art

As for the frequencies, they're not "incorrect" - as I said, it's how I think of them FOR ELECTRIC GUITAR. The link you posted is a description of frequencies in general, and yes, no one in a studio or hifi environment thinks of 1k as high mids. But in a guitar environment, where core frequencies end up at 1.5k, I think it's fair to call 800hz/1k "high mids". 6k is also not treble for electric guitar, it's already out of the harmonics spectrum - 3k/4k is more lke it. All depending on how the eq is deigned, of course.

[Bobby Timmons]

Well, I guess irony is becoming a lost art

As for the frequencies, they're not "incorrect" - as I said, it's how I think of them FOR ELECTRIC GUITAR. The link you posted is a description of frequencies in general, and yes, no one in a studio or hifi environment thinks of 1k as high mids. But in a guitar environment, where core frequencies end up at 1.5k, I think it's fair to call 800hz/1k "high mids". 6k is also not treble for electric guitar, it's already out of the harmonics spectrum - 3k/4k is more lke it. All depending on how the eq is deigned, of course.

3k/4k are high mids regardless of if one perceives them as high. There's no such thing as out of the harmonics spectrum. Harmonics go up indefinitely, but they taper off in intensity. Electric guitar absolutely produces frequencies above 6k clean or dirty. You can't say electric guitar doesn't produce highs, it cuts off after mids..

[omphalopsychos]

Zoom multifx converts your whole signal to digital and back using not so great converters. There is no way I’d use that for an EQ.