EQ: Is too much control dangerous?

[riantide]

[WARNING: Potentially obnoxious, philosophical gear musings to follow]

I'm about to get another outboard EQ and I've been researching it like a madman. As I look at the dizzying array of options for the 500 series, I must admit to feeling a bit overwhelmed. In my search I came across this article the Fletcher from Mercenary had written for Mix magazine:

http://www.mercenary.com/readguidtovi.html

It's a great article in general, but I was especially interested in what he had to say about EQ:

"The beauty of most Neve modules is that Rupert Neve (everyone on your knees and salaam toward Texas, please) is so much smarter than the rest of us; he built modules that really couldn't be used to make things sound bad. There are generations of engineers who look like incredible geniuses because Neve wouldn't allow us the tools to screw up our audio."

"Parametric EQ is, for the most part, used badly. It gives the user the ability to phase-distort a signal into complete submission. Very few in our profession should be granted a parametric license. This is one of the reasons that older EQ designs are so sought-after."

So, hence my question: is too much control a bad thing?

I've been looking so lustfully at the Alta Moda AM20, the Great River/Harrison EQ, EQSM1, Speck, and a few others that give total control over frequency and even some control over the curve itself.

Then there are units like the Avedis E27, API 550a, and Quad Eight 511 which have fixed, selectable frequencies and little or no control over the curve. I've heard consistently great things about all three of those EQs though, and what really matters in the end is that whatever equalization you're applying is musical and helps the source co-exist with it's neighbors.

I've never heard anybody say that they felt "limited" by the EQ on a 1073, even though that piece doesn't offer near the flexibility of some of those mentioned above. I've been using the Daking Mic Pre/EQ a lot lately and I really like the fixed frequencies and stepped attenuators; I find they do a lot of the work for me and make it way more apparent where the "right" settings are.

So why am I so concerned about getting the Avedis or something like it and feeling somehow "limited" by it? When I need to do transparent, surgical cuts I have plugins that actually do that pretty darn well. Now what my plugins WON'T do is the kind of smooth, musical boost that I've come to associate with quality outboard units.

My first love with respect to EQ was a pair of Tridents. The mid bands were, if I remember correctly, fully parametric and the high and low shelves were sweepable, rather than fixed. I had never heard what a well-made, musical high shelf sounded like before and I just couldn't keep from smiling every time I got to use it. But even with all that flexibility, I find I'm able to dial sounds in faster with the Daking. I don't even like the EQ on the Daking nearly as much as the Tridents (whish is a bummer, since I believe that the Daking is based on Trident A-range designs), but yet it's still somehow easier to work with because I don't have the full sweep of the knob to decide between.

What are your preferences? Do you crave the wide open possibilities of the fully parametric sort or are you old-fashioned and look to your EQ for guidance?

Discuss.

[Z-Plane]

I have always preferred stepped, non-parametric EQ, especially for applying boost. The caveats are that you probably need a couple of units to meet your needs and may still need a fully parametric for surgical cuts. As mentioned, when the manufacturer gets it right, they are a joy to work with and provide very quick solutions. There's something most satisfying about not having to do battle with any Q values when it comes to applying EQ.

[T-rex]

I think starting with a fully parametric EQ could be daunting but once you have some experience then it's great. It's like anything it's how you use it that counts.

I started in DAW's and sucked at EQ because they were infinitely adjustable and I would spend forever tweaking and not really make anything sound better. Then I bought the API clone from URS and later the UAD 1073. No brainers, crank the cut or boost, switch through the freqs and it either sounded better or it didn't. Having the limitations really helped me get a handle on what frequencies work for certain things etc. Now I mainly use the eq on my board, which is shelving top and bottom and two parametric mids and it rules. Now that I have a little better handle on eqing, the parametric is nice to have for added flexibility and for fixing problems.

[Waltz Mastering]

[WARNING: Potentially obnoxious, philosophical gear musings to follow]So, hence my question: is too much control a bad thing?

Having to many options on an eq only becomes dangerous when your not sure what your doing.

Having a honest room/monitor system will help in making your eq decisions.

To me, I'd rather have the options. Start out on the wide q's and only get narrow when you need to get at something micro.

It's like the 64 set of crayons, you can get a way with the 5 set, but it's nice to have the versatility - you just don't need to use them all at the same time.

[firby]

Hello.

Just a technical term nazi-esque post to remind everyone that a parametric eq has a q function. A sweeping shelf ? eq like my trident has where you have a boost/cut and a sweep function is not a parametric eq because it does not have variable q range.

At least that's how I understand it, and I'm sticking to my guns!

[Waltz Mastering]

Hello.

Just a technical term nazi-esque post to remind everyone that a parametric eq has a q function. A sweeping shelf ? eq like my trident has where you have a boost/cut and a sweep function is not a parametric eq because it does not have variable q range.

At least that's how I understand it, and I'm sticking to my guns!

Semi-Parametric Equalizer

A variant of the parametric equalizer is the semi-parametric equalizer, also known as a sweepable filter. It allows users to control the amplitude and frequency, but uses a pre-set bandwidth of the center frequency.

[calaverasgrandes]

I swear I never saw anything called "semi parametric" until Mackie came out with the 2nd version of the 1604 mixer. This time in place of a fixed mid eq they had a "semi-parametric" eq.
As far as EQ goes, and please feel free to correct me on this, all EQ designs are flawed. Even Rupert Neve's. All EQ's will exhibit an anomaly in one of three areas. Phase, group delay or distortion. I might have that partially wrong as it has been a few years since I thought I was an electrical hack.
But essentially any design that has zero phase deviation is going to have problems in group delay and/or distortion. Any design that has zero group delay will likely have phase errors. With most designs, the more you boost or cut, the greater the artifacts of that phase or group delay error. The good Eqs don't have that much less error than the bad ones, they just figured out how to balance the problems euphonically.
After I studied electronics for a little while I decided I had to stop using EQ!
Asfar as Neve's being perfect, they are great for boosts but they dont go low enough for cuts that Ilike to do. 360hz is really good but I like to cut in the 150-250 hz region. When I have used neves (or more commonly neve-alikes) I end up having to just use the low knob to roll of everything under 180 or 250 or whatever the higher range is on those, I forget.

[Andy Peters]

As far as EQ goes, and please feel free to correct me on this, all EQ designs are flawed. Even Rupert Neve's. All EQ's will exhibit an anomaly in one of three areas. Phase, group delay or distortion. I might have that partially wrong as it has been a few years since I thought I was an electrical hack.
But essentially any design that has zero phase deviation is going to have problems in group delay and/or distortion. Any design that has zero group delay will likely have phase errors. With most designs, the more you boost or cut, the greater the artifacts of that phase or group delay error. The good Eqs don't have that much less error than the bad ones, they just figured out how to balance the problems euphonically.

The phase change due to the standard analog equalizer circuits is unavoidable -- if you want frequency-selective amplitude change, you must accept the phase change that goes along with it. (Look up "Hilbert Transform.")

An analog equalizer cannot have zero phase deviation or group delay. And of course group delay is simply the slope of the phase (first derivative, if you like).

The "better" equalizers are better because of attention paid to the circuit design: better caps that have lower drift and better response, pots that track better (it's tricky designing a four-gang pot that tracks well!) and have a well-behaved resistance over the entire travel, etc etc.

Then there's the trade-off over a filter's frequency range. If you want a very wide frequency sweep then it's harder to make the circuit work well. Some users won't like the narrower sweep range, which means that you might prefer a couple more filters in the product, making it more expensive ...

I agree Fletcher's thesis -- those old Neve and other EQs "sound better" because you can't do dumb shit like crank the Q to max which causes the circuit to ring!

-a

[calaverasgrandes]

Like I said, its been a while since I was sharp at electonics. Andveverything I know I got from the Traister books. EG; his book on power supplies is where I picked up how to make an EQ. However, it's an aside in a discussion of filtering AC from a DC supply. I did make some fun boxes though!

[riantide]

a parametric eq has a q function. A sweeping shelf ? eq like my trident has where you have a boost/cut and a sweep function is not a parametric eq because it does not have variable q range.

Right, I guess what I'm saying is that I remember having control of the Q on the model I used, but I could be wrong about that. And "sweeping" was the best way I could come up with to say "not fixed" at whatever wee hour I posted that. I fully admit to making that term up.

It is nice to have control of the q, especially when you're doing something like eliminating buzz or zapping a weird resonance in the tracking room (which was a huge problem at the last place I was in). And as I mentioned before, I have plugins that can apply corrective EQ (and by that I guess i mean cuts) rather transparently, but I often find I want to tailor the low end before the signal gets to the compressor (assuming I'm tracking with compression, which I do more often than not).

I have always preferred stepped, non-parametric EQ, especially for applying boost. The caveats are that you probably need a couple of units to meet your needs and may still need a fully parametric for surgical cuts. As mentioned, when the manufacturer gets it right, they are a joy to work with and provide very quick solutions. There's something most satisfying about not having to do battle with any Q values when it comes to applying EQ.

I agree, I think I'm falling more along this line of thinking. It was the Daking that showed me the way.

Here's one thing I've always been curious about: anytime you're using something with fixed frequencies, like typical hi/lo shelves on a console, and it's being used consistently on a record/song, wouldn't those frequencies build up across multiple tracks and start to sound bad? I'm not even talking about really cranking stuff, but if most tracks were going through the same front end and all the shelving was happening at the same frequencies, even if you were being conservative it would seem very easy for those frequencies to sound funny.

[The Scum]

wouldn't those frequencies build up across multiple tracks and start to sound bad?

They could...but the reality is that the EQ is imposing the new spectral curve on the input signal. If a frequency isn't present in the signal to begin with, boosting that band with an EQ isn't going to magically create it. If I boost 50 Hz on the hihat, female vox and fiddle, it's not going to add a bunch of 50 Hz to the result (though it might accentuate proximity effect, or room rumble).

And one of the main uses of EQ (at least in my current view) is to create complementary holes in multiple tracks to keep them sitting nicely together. If I boost 50 Hz on the kick, I'll probably cut 50 on the bass, where I might boost 200. I'll use EQ to sort out all of the crud that builds up in the center of the midrange - vocals, guitars, snare drum, etc, all at ~1k. So from a practical viewpoint, boosting the same frequency on everything just won't work very well.

A couple more things worth mentioning: different EQs excel at different tasks...some EQs are good for surgical work...some are good at altering or flattering the musical emphasis of a track. You pick the tool based on the task at hand. There are times that one band of parametric is more useful than a room full of Pultecs.

Also, as far as musical EQ goes, I've found that really low Q (really wide/broad bells) is more flattering than really high Q (narrow bells). Some of the classics (1084, 550) are wider than you might think, and are sometimes wider than many parametrics will let you go.

[silver sonya]

I'm going to recommend a very simple EQ with a fantastic tone. The Electrodyne 511.

I am a man of many EQ's (by nature of the work I do professionally, an essential tool). I have the Great River MAQ2NV, the EM PEQ, a pair of Avedis E27's, and an Electrodyne 511.

These are all fantastic and all have their characters, but I recommend the 511 as a great you-can't-go-wrong tool.

Master its basic parameters and then move on to more complex EQ's.

On the software side, this new Fabfilter EQ is pretty great too. A really good learning tool for learning what the different frequencies are and how they impact your music.

cheers,
c

[svbsound]

The phase change due to the standard analog equalizer circuits is unavoidable -- if you want frequency-selective amplitude change, you must accept the phase change that goes along with it. (Look up "Hilbert Transform.")

So what's different about a "phase-linear" EQ? I'm a little unclear on the math here

[riantide]

I'm going to recommend a very simple EQ with a fantastic tone. The Electrodyne 511.

Damn! Yeah, that was the one I was leaning the most towards. I think you might put me over the edge. Those EQ points look very useful and very intuitive.

I've been reading some glowing reviews of the Avedis, as well.

[Babaluma]

i love my thermionic culture pullet. it is quite versatile, but also pretty hard to make it sound bad.