What's up with EQ?

[dincz]

I've been a dabbler on bass for many years but haven't owned or even used a lot of gear. I read a lot of complaints about the EQ on various brands/models - "the mid control operates at too low a frequency" or similar.

It seems to me that multi-band parametric (even semi-parametric) EQ allows a range of tone shaping that should satisfy almost anyone, so I'm wondering why fixed frequency EQ (eg Fender tone stack) with frequencies chosen to suit someone else, seems to be the norm.

[hamfist]

History and tradition.

Parametric controls are becoming much more popular (quite understandably) as the years go by. I wouldn't want to live without twin parametric mid controls any more. It's just such a powerful tone-shaping thing to have.

[Mr. Foxen]

Basically, the more control you give people, the more they'll screw it up. Its why sound engineer is a job. And why forums are covered in 'I cut all my mids but I still can't hear myself, do I need another kilowatt in my rig?' posts.

[Prime_BASS]

[quote name='Mr. Foxen' timestamp='1368015471' post='2072029']
Basically, the more control you give people, the more they'll screw it up. Its why sound engineer is a job. And why forums are covered in 'I cut all my mids but I still can't hear myself, do I need another kilowatt in my rig?' posts.
[/quote]

Lol jokes.

Thing is for me, 99times out of a hundred I'm going straight to desk so my bass is eq'd along with pedals using a full range PA and studio monitors.

The heads Eq is there to help me shape the speakers sound on stage so I can hear between ridiculous 100watt guitar stacks and a loud as hell drum kit.

I can see why tone shaping is important for others though.

[EssentialTension]

[quote name='dincz' timestamp='1367995480' post='2071946']
I've been a dabbler on bass for many years but haven't owned or even used a lot of gear. I read a lot of complaints about the EQ on various brands/models - "the mid control operates at too low a frequency" or similar.

It seems to me that multi-band parametric (even semi-parametric) EQ allows a range of tone shaping that should satisfy almost anyone, so I'm wondering why fixed frequency EQ (eg Fender tone stack) with frequencies chosen to suit someone else, seems to be the norm.
[/quote]
Because it's good enough for many of us. I don't want loads of knobs that I rarely if ever use.

[LawrenceH]

Personally I love para/semi-para EQs, but then I've used a fair number of consoles. There is a modest learning curve, but being able to put a name/number to the frequency regions you're hearing is a great, timesaving tool.
A nice simple compromise semi-para for me would have two sweepable mid bands, one a bit narrower than the other (say, q=1 the other between q=0.5-0.7). That'd let me deal with low-mid room mud where necessary and still leave the broader band for shaping the sound more generally.

Drawback of fixed frequency EQ for me is that the optimal centres vary so much from one instrument and musical context to the next. Graphics are ok but a bit ragged for altering character, rather than notching out problems

[stevie]

I had a TC Electronics bass preamp a while back - basically a four-band parametric eq - which I sold when I decided that dinky lightweight amps were a good idea. After that excursion, I tried to get hold of another one but they are difficult to find - so I bought a Behringer four-band mono parametric which, to my ears, is just as transparent. I'm using it with a Rauch or QSC power amp depending on how much power I need. The unbalanced input is perfect for bass and I have real control over my sound, and more importantly, the room I'm in.

It's a bit more messing about, but setting it up with a RTA (on a laptop) gets me the fattest, cleanest, punchiest sound I could wish for. It's not for the faint hearted, however, and you really do need to know what you're doing to avoid messing up. Which is probably why it's a step too far for most people.

Edited May 9, 2013 by stevie

[funkle]

[quote name='stevie' timestamp='1368128765' post='2073674']
I had a TC Electronics bass preamp a while back - basically a four-band parametric eq - which I sold when I decided that dinky lightweight amps were a good idea. After that excursion, I tried to get hold of another one but they are difficult to find - so I bought a Behringer four-band mono parametric which, to my ears, is just as transparent. I'm using it with a Rauch or QSC power amp depending on how much power I need. The unbalanced input is perfect for bass and I have real control over my sound, and more importantly, the room I'm in.

It's a bit more messing about, but setting it up with a RTA (on a laptop) gets me the fattest, cleanest, punchiest sound I could wish for. It's not for the faint hearted, however, and you really do need to know what you're doing to avoid messing up. Which is probably why it's a step too far for most people.
[/quote]

I'd be very interested in knowing your process to do this. Especially the RTA software, mic used, where you place the mic, etc.

I keep thinking iPhone RTA software & buying a mic to plug into the iPhone would be a portable RTA solution...

[EliasMooseblaster]

This made for very interesting reading:
http://pickroar.com/1003/the-tone-stack-explained-in-english-for-humans/

Now, I realise that FMV tone stacks are pretty rare on bass amps these days, and generally more the preserve of guitar amps, but it makes me think that they offer a lot more control than you might initially think...provided you have the time to think through what you're doing, of course! It's certainly led to my LB30 making much more sense to me (which, I believe, has an FMV stack, correct me if I'm wrong).

That said, a lot of my Laneys have had a parametric mid control (frequency sweep + midrange gain) which has always seemed like a good compromise to me between flexibility and simplicity.

[stevie]

Funkle, it seems I missed your post. in answer to your question, I use the RTA section of Liberty Instrument's Praxis measurement software. It used to be available separately as a download but I now see that you have to download the whole program. I expect it's still available on the web somewhere. However, there are plenty of other free RTAs. I use a Creative EMU (0202, I think) connected to a netbook. I happen to have a very expensive calibrated mic but a cheapo would do nearly as well, as most of the benefits of expensive measurement mics are at the HF end.

I try to measure about 4 or 5 metres from the cab, as less than that fails to capture what the room is doing. You have to be quick though - people don't particularly like the sound of pink noise. Apart from that, mic position doesn't seem to be critical for this particular purpose, although you do need to move it about a bit to make sure you're not stuck in a null.

I currently have two Behringer parametric eqs and they make superb bass preamps. Because they have balanced/unbalanced ins and outs, you can plug directly into your bass amp, although they have enough output to drive a power amp on its own. I bought the second one for backup but have never needed it - so I will be selling it soon.

As the measurement process is a bit of a faff - not to mention having to tote the extra equipment - I only do it nowadays when I know I'll have plenty of time to spare.

Edited September 1, 2014 by stevie

[JTUK]

I found I was using an amp with Timbre/enhance type maps, so I decided to get a balls-out amp
with guts as I know my basses sound good so all I am really looking to do is project that core sound
and I don't need masses of EQ to do that. I have the pre on the bass as well to help out but mostly
that stays as is for most gigs.
Most of my gigs are volume level and about a minute max a the sound check to see/hear what is coming out
that I like. I may well pick the bass that speaks best in that situation as I carry two, but I don't need to go
chasing a sound and if you do, you are starting from the wrong place anyway. IMO.
Your stage sound should be an extention of your 'home practice' sound.

[funkle]

Thanks Stevie. If it's all a bit of a faff, I might give it a miss. I had hoped you might have a quick method (5 mins).

I do like the idea of a manufacturer coming up with a combo + mic where you turn up, stick the mic in front of the cab, quickly do the pink noise sweep (ideally built into the head), and the head then automagically does its DSP thing to allow for your favourite tone shape to come through. Or 'flat', if you want.

I guess you'd only need it for small to medium gigs, as otherwise you have FOH.

JTUK, on the theme of trying to get the home practice sound live...agreed, but room acoustics do make it a challenge......The absolute best sound I get from all of my basses is direct through a little Behringer mixing board into Audiophile 2496 in my PC into Beyerdynamic DT440 headphones for recording. No room resonances, the response is super fast, etc. Maybe a tiny bit of bass boost at 100Hz and cutting off everything below 50 Hz if I mess around with EQ. Clean and beautiful. It is impossible to reproduce live, but that doesn't mean I can't have fun trying.

Most of my gigs are quick jazz affairs. Plug in, play, get out. Only for bigger gigs - and rarely - is there any time to spend setting up the bass sound. Then, I might get to use the EQ in my Zoom B3/MS-60B. I tend to roll off a little bass and sometimes low mids. Cutting is better than boosting, as always. But you chaps already know that, I think.

[LukeFRC]

I think it depends what the Eq is doing - there is part which is fitting into the room, and another part where the Eq/Eq setting gives it's own character to the tone of the bass.

[Guest monsterthompson]

Para EQ is a powerful tool, but you can get easily lost in never ending adjustments depending on how it is designed and implemented, and how good your ear is when it comes to adjustments. Luke FRC hit it with the fact that part of the EQ's job is to get you "your sound" and the other part is to manage the room sound. For me, I have come to enjoy the Genz Shuttle 9.0 para mid; it is about the only knob I touch other than gain and master. On my Mesa Buster, I've taken advantage of the Graphic EQ as a learning tool; I will play and sweep each slider to hear just what that frequency is doing. In general, "Low" EQ is around 40hz, and it is the type of control you only want to bump up when playing at lower volumes, and you want to turn it down if you are at high volumes and getting boom. A kick drum is usually in the 30hz range, so 40 and below is going to muddy things down there. You will also notice many high-pass filters are set around 40-50 hz. Lows down there tend to eat up power and rob you of overall volume and risk speaker damage at higher output levels. Low mids start around 100-150hz and add punch and thump. as you get into higher mids, you get more growl, and then bite. As you start getting over 4k, you get into sizzle and are in competition with cymbals. Slappers like that high-end sheen, but it can get lost in the mix of a full band. Sorry I can't do paragraph spacing, but my browser seems to prevent me from entering returns.

[VTypeV4]

The problem with EQ and any musical instrument is that there are always two systems in play:

1: Using EQ as a corrective tool.

2: Using EQ as a creative tool.

Personally I use it as pretty much a creative tool to achieve the result I want from my bass sound. On the Trace, I'll use the 50Hz slider to correct any percived 'boom' but the rest of the graphic and pre-shape as creative. With the Ashton, I use the EQ on the bass to roll any boom out if (rarely) needs but the NE-1 and the passive EQ on the amp help do 'my' sound.

I think alot of issues arise from folks not understanding how different frequency components sonically fit into their sound. General terms like 'there's too much mid' or 'I like plenty of treble' are guilty (as much as ignorance at least) of keeping players away from the numbers which I believe are very important in achieving the required sound from their instrument.