New interesting looking EQ pedal from Genzler - The re/Q

[Osiris]

Just had an email about this new intriguing looking EQ pedal from Genzler, featuring a 5 band EQ plus high and low pass filters. 

Got to admit I'm a massive Genzler fanyboy so looking forward to giving this a try as and when. 

 

RE/Q - DUAL FUNCTION EQUALIZATION PEDAL - Genzler Amplification

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Jus Lukin]

-

Edited March 15, 2022 by Jus Lukin

[krispn]

Nate with another great demo and solid information too. Well explained section about the HPF. 
EQ points look decent - love a treble control that is in and about 2-4kHz

Edited October 31, 2021 by krispn

[Cuzzie]

It looks the beans - and his whole set up is just mega

[Rich]

Would love to give this a whirl. Did they perhaps miss a trick by not incorporating a DI out?

[Cuzzie]

3 hours ago, Rich said:

Would love to give this a whirl. Did they perhaps miss a trick by not incorporating a DI out?

Nah mate - there is a DI out - don’t be fooled by it not having a 3 pin plug - the ‘out’ can be line or instrument level

[rmorris]

12 hours ago, Cuzzie said:

Nah mate - there is a DI out - don’t be fooled by it not having a 3 pin plug - the ‘out’ can be line or instrument level

 

It's not a DI output though from the block diagram.

It's simply an unbalanced output. Output level is not what defines a DI (in fact they'll often have a low 'mic' level output designed to be the input to a mic channel on a mixer).

Primarily a DI out needs to be balanced or 'Ground Cancelling'. And 1K0 output Impedance is rather high.

It's a shame that lots of pedals miss a DI out. Passive impedance balancing costs next to nothing.

[Cuzzie]

4 hours ago, rmorris said:

 

It's not a DI output though from the block diagram.

It's simply an unbalanced output. Output level is not what defines a DI (in fact they'll often have a low 'mic' level output designed to be the input to a mic channel on a mixer).

Primarily a DI out needs to be balanced or 'Ground Cancelling'. And 1K0 output Impedance is rather high.

It's a shame that lots of pedals miss a DI out. Passive impedance balancing costs next to nothing.

I get your point - but unless I am massively wrong it will still be able to go straight to desk or amp so long as you have the correct cables?

that was more the point I was trying to say

Edited November 2, 2021 by Cuzzie

[rmorris]

5 minutes ago, Cuzzie said:

I get your point - but unless I am massively wrong it will still be able to go straight to desk or amp so long as you have the correct cables?

that was more the point I was trying to say

 

You'll be able to plug it in and get a signal into the desk of course.

But that doesn't require any particular level.

For a 'DI' output best suited for the task the signal should be balanced (several variants possible) and low impedance - typically <100R for an active signal.

Some would also say it should be at a low 'mic' level but that's a slightly different question.

Without some form of balanced output you lose the benefit of noise(interference) rejection and breaking any 'Ground Loop' issue.

Basically your signal may well be noisier.

I also noticed there's one output only. A DI would normally have some form of parallel output so, typically, one output can go to an amp and the other straight into a desk.

[agedhorse]

If you wish to have a DI output, any passive DI will work, and just about all have a parallel in/out on the unbalanced side.
 

1K output impedance is very common, and is intended to drive any input of typically 10K or greater. Passive DI’s are all greater than 10K.

 

This pedal was not intended to be a DI. It’s a filter-EQ pedal.

[rmorris]

3 minutes ago, agedhorse said:

If you wish to have a DI output, any passive DI will work, and just about all have a parallel in/out on the unbalanced side.
 

1K output impedance is very common, and is intended to drive any input of typically 10K or greater. Passive DI’s are all greater than 10K.

 

This pedal was not intended to be a DI. It’s a filter-EQ pedal.

 

Yes. 1K0 is a common output impedance for fx pedals etc. I meant that it high for a DI output.

I understand that it is not intended to be a DI. A post indicated that the poster thought that it was a DI so I was correcting that.

Yes - you can of course use a separate DI (active or passive) - but I still say that in general it's a shame to miss the opportunity to provide an impedance balanced DI signal on most audio units.

I do understand why it's not done.

 

[agedhorse]

You can still impedance balance the signal, it just requires a custom cable with matching resistance in the ring line. 
 

 

[rmorris]

6 hours ago, agedhorse said:

You can still impedance balance the signal, it just requires a custom cable with matching resistance in the ring line. 
 

 

Yes. Good point. Though not exactly convenient 🙂. and you may also want a "ground lift" circuit in the Screen connection. It's a lot to fit in a standard Jack plug body - although you can get those larger bodies jacks from Neutrik...

Edited November 10, 2021 by rmorris

[Downunderwonder]

If it had a DI folks would complain it didn't have any overdrive to complete the straight to desk package.

[Al Krow]

8 hours ago, rmorris said:

 

Yes. 1K0 is a common output impedance for fx pedals etc. I meant that it high for a DI output.

I understand that it is not intended to be a DI. A post indicated that the poster thought that it was a DI so I was correcting that.

Yes - you can of course use a separate DI (active or passive) - but I still say that in general it's a shame to miss the opportunity to provide an impedance balanced DI signal on most audio units.

I do understand why it's not done.

 

What you're saying makes very good sense. It seems that 'preamp' pedals will typically have a DI out whereas 'pure' EQ pedals less commonly so. Although at exactly what point an EQ pedal decides it's a preamp is an interesting one! I guess a 'transparent' preamp is basically an EQ and introducing tonal colour marks the transition to being a preamp. The Tech 21 Q Strip, which does have a DI and which I suspect would be a competitor to the Genzler, markets itself as both. 

[agedhorse]

1 hour ago, Al Krow said:

 

What you're saying makes very good sense. It seems that 'preamp' pedals will typically have a DI out whereas 'pure' EQ pedals less commonly so. Although at exactly what point an EQ pedal decides it's a preamp is an interesting one! I guess a 'transparent' preamp is basically an EQ and introducing tonal colour marks the transition to being a preamp. The Tech 21 Q Strip, which does have a DI and which I suspect would be a competitor to the Genzler, markets itself as both. 

A couple of important differences, the first being that on the Q-strip there is a parallel through jack on the input, which allows the signal to pass through the pedal onto whatever else may feed the input of an amp while the eq'd XLR output feeds something else, and while the Q-strip is an eq-DI, the RE/Q is a HPF-LPF-EQ pedal, the filters being sweepable and each function being foot switched. 

 

Both are pedals that combine different functions, and different players will have different needs for the different functions. 

[Al Krow]

6 hours ago, agedhorse said:

A couple of important differences, the first being that on the Q-strip there is a parallel through jack on the input, which allows the signal to pass through the pedal onto whatever else may feed the input of an amp while the eq'd XLR output feeds something else, and while the Q-strip is an eq-DI, the RE/Q is a HPF-LPF-EQ pedal, the filters being sweepable and each function being foot switched. 

 

Both are pedals that combine different functions, and different players will have different needs for the different functions. 

 

It does blur at the edges though as the Q-strip also includes HPF and LPF, albeit not sweepable, whereas it provides a variable/sweepable dual-band mid EQ which the RE/Q doesn't. I was just using the Q Strip as one example of preamp/EQ with DI, obviously there are loads of others similarly featured with a DI e.g. MXR M81 or the excellent value Laney DB-Pre. And then you have something like the Boss EQ 200 which is a 'pure' EQ and doesn't. 

 

I'd be interested in whether folk consider the RE/Q to be closer to a classic pedal 'preamp' or a 'pure' EQ of the Boss EQ 200 variety? My hunch is that it may add a little Genzler Magellan tonal colour and would therefore fall into the 'preamp' category, but I'm looking forward to hearing the OP's review when he's had a chance to put one through its paces. In which case @rmorris's point about it lacking a DI out would be spot on.

 

Edited November 11, 2021 by Al Krow

[Jus Lukin]

-

Edited March 15, 2022 by Jus Lukin

[Jus Lukin]

-

Edited March 15, 2022 by Jus Lukin

[agedhorse]

The RE/Q pedal is not what I would consider a preamp pedal, nor is it intended to be a preamp pedal. 

[rmorris]

On 11/11/2021 at 09:35, Jus Lukin said:

A DI is to take line or instrument level and bring it down to mic level, lowering the impedance and balancing the signal to match, usually, a mic preamp on a sound board.

 

 

Good points re terminology wrt Pre-Amp / DI etc. Much of the time people are discussing what is really a preamp or effects unit that incorporates a DI output.

A "Pure DI" function isn't intended to colour the sound. It just provides a low impedance balanced signal suitable for a mixing desk channel or similar.

I have to dispute that it should necessarily produce a low 'mic' level signal though. This has certainly been the 'traditional' practice and it's basically inherent in a passive (transformer only) based DI that is taking a signal directly from a passive Hi-Z pickup*.

But now that mixing desks / interfaces etc often have proper Line Level inputs there's often no advantage and some disadvantage in deliberately attenuating a signal when you don't need to.

Much depends on what goes on 'under the hood' of the receiving channel in terms of gain/attenuation - but in general it's not a good idea to attenuate then amplify. It's all about 'Gain Staging' really.

As it happens this has recently been the topic of a discussion on a pro audio orientated forum where I dabble. One member was most adamant that only mic level was   'legitimate' but couldn't really articulate why.

There are, of course, good reasons why mic level might be preferred eg the user simply likes the sound of a particular mic pre working at some gain.

And more pragmatically a live mixing setup may have a default configuration of expecting only mic levels from the stage lines. And mix in whether active DIs are being powered from Phantom 48V and whether line level is accepted on the XLR Inputs or only on TRS Jacks (Where there won't be Phantom 48V).

 

* Technically this never seems a good idea since using a typical 5:1 stepdown transformer into a typical mic channel input  with 2K2 input impedance presents  c. 55K impedance to the pickup. When an amplifier etc input typically presents a minimum of 470K and often 1M0. Additionally driving a transformer from a high impedance will tend to increase distortion. But I'm aware of at least one DI box that has/had options to use a buffered output or go straight into the transformer - and have it on the designer's authority that for bass guitar most people preferred the direct to transformer option.

 

EDIT: Reading this back it occurs to me that I should mention that the designer in question is Cyril Jones of Raindirk fame. The obvious question is what was the specific transformer. Unfortunately when I asked him more recently he couldn't actually recall the detail.

Edited November 12, 2021 by rmorris
Additional Info'

[Jus Lukin]

-

Edited March 15, 2022 by Jus Lukin

[rmorris]

Yes. I guess I'm more biased toward recording rather than live work. 

Agree wrt your keys player - unless his keyboard is mains earthed itself and so the DI would give him the opportunity to avoid a hum loop in the system.

[agedhorse]

There are still products (including g interfaces and mixers) that can’t accept true nominal +4dBu line level balanced signals. This alone makes a mic signal more universal as a line level signal won’t work in that situation. 
 

 

[rmorris]

4 hours ago, agedhorse said:

There are still products (including g interfaces and mixers) that can’t accept true nominal +4dBu line level balanced signals. This alone makes a mic signal more universal as a line level signal won’t work in that situation. 
 

 

 

 

 

yes it can be useful to have the option to work at 'non-professional' nominal level eg -10dBv (lower level and different dB reference - standards are great - that's why we have so many 🙄) and I have been in the situation where I've chosen to configure a DIY attenuating pad to archive some stuff from DAT (remember when that was a thing ???) using my now old multichannel TDIF interface that has unbalanced inputs at a low nominal level. But I still prefer to work at +4dBu until I have to attenuate.

In reality all audio going into an ADC is going to be squeezed down to a 5V range or less. But attenuating directly before the ADC gives best SNR.

Also worth noting that signals that are impedance balanced or 'Ground Cancelling' are likely to be at -2dBu nominal level. Since the -ve leg of the signal isn't driven.

As for mixers that don't handle +4dBu - tbh I'd just say use a different mixer.