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

[agedhorse]

Impedance balanced, or ground compensated outputs can be either depending on the designer's choice as well as the nominal calibration choices (including where an output level control may be set). That said, the maximum output level (for a given power supply) will be 6dB lower.

[Al Krow]

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

Marketing departments often blur the terms, the use of which then gets passed on to common parlance.

 

A preamp (pre-amplifier) is to take mic or instrument level up to line level, which can be passed to a power amp or effects which are designed to work with line level. The only 'feature' truly pertinent to pre-amplification is a gain control; it will usually have appx 70db of gain, as that is about the greatest difference between mic and line that occurs.

 

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.

 

EQ is EQ, OD is OD, comp is comp, a tuner is a tuner. All these functions can be combined into one unit, but the only way to define a preamp is that it takes low signals from mics and instruments and raises them to line.

 

Most units marketed as preamp pedals are really multi-effects, and a preamp which won't drive a power amp at line level is, whatever the branding says, no preamp at all.

 

On 12/11/2021 at 11:26, rmorris said:

 

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.

 

Some very helpful posts, gents.

 

Had a discussion with the OP a long while back as to what constitutes a multi-effect, he was of the view that more than one = multi, whereas for me "a few" = more than one but not many and that multi is more than a few i.e. many. Most pedals describing themselves as multifx do have many fx available (Zoom B1-4, Helix Stomp etc), so I personally wouldn't regard my VTDI as a "multi-fx" in commonly used bass-player parlance.

 

But it does leave me wondering which of the so called "pre-amp" pedals you would agree on being a true pre-amp and which ones you would regard as being merely an EQ with tonal colour added? E.g. Noble, Tech 21 plethora (Q Strip, VTDI, BDDI, dUg DP-3X etc.) MXR M81, DG plethora (AO, B7K, X Ultra), EBS Microbass 2, 3, Stanley Clarke etc

[Osiris]

36 minutes ago, Al Krow said:

Had a discussion with the OP a long while back as to what constitutes a multi-effect, he was of the view that more than one = multi, whereas for me "a few" = more than one but not many and that multi is more than a few i.e. many. 

Regarding the conversation in question, I was quoting the Oxford English Dictionary definition of the world multi whereas you were going by your own interpretation of the word.

 

Did you ever contact the OED to let them know they were wrong? 

[krispn]

Jesus lads it’s an eq pedal! 😂

 

 

[Osiris]

30 minutes ago, krispn said:

Jesus lads it’s an eq pedal! 😂

 

 

 

Or is it a pre-amp?

[Al Krow]

33 minutes ago, Osiris said:

Regarding the conversation in question, I was quoting the Oxford English Dictionary definition of the world multi whereas you were going by your own interpretation of the word.

 

Did you ever contact the OED to let them know they were wrong? 

Haha - zero need to do that as I also happen to have a copy of the said dictionary. It says: 'multi' [primary definition] 'many' (from the Latin multus = much, many) so it's hardly "my own interpretation" of the word, is it? It certainly does give a secondary definition of 'more than one'. 

However, I suspect very few guitarists and bass-players would consider something having just two (i.e. more than one) features to be a multi-fx. Just sayin'...

[Al Krow]

10 minutes ago, Osiris said:

 

Or is it a pre-amp?

 

Now that is a good question!  But it's not according to @agedhorse and tbf he does know his onions from his garlic.

Edited November 13, 2021 by Al Krow

[Osiris]

7 minutes ago, Al Krow said:

Haha - zero need to do that as I also happen to have a copy of the said dictionary. It says: 'multi' [primary definition] 'many' (from the Latin multus = much, many) so it's hardly "my own interpretation" of the word, is it? It certainly does give a secondary definition of 'more than one'. 

 

So we're both right.

Or we're both wrong. 

😃

 

8 minutes ago, Al Krow said:

However, I suspect very few guitarists and bass-players would consider something having just two (i.e. more than one) features to be a multi-fx. Just sayin'...

 

Possibly true as a sweeping generalisation, but in literal terms it's still accurate whether people choose to define it that way or not. Just sayin'... 😉

 

10 minutes ago, Al Krow said:

 

Now that is a good question!  But it's not according to @agedhorse and tbf he does know his onions from his garlic.

 

I know, it was meant to be rhetorical as it's already been covered. Maybe another case of adding a smiley would have made my intention clearer 🙄

[Al Krow]

👍😊

[krispn]

GB call it an eq and it’s their pedal/design so I’ll stick with their definition. 
I have a preamp/eq pedal which can drive a power amp and I think of that as a preamp.

[stewblack]

1 hour ago, Osiris said:

Maybe another case of adding a smiley would have made my intention clearer

Please God no! Trust us to be intelligent enough to get your meaning, and those who don't - well they're always going to struggle in a written forum aren't they?

 

 

[agedhorse]

It's not what I would call a preamp pedal, it's a filter-eq pedal.

[Guest]

 

[NancyJohnson]

I'm weirdly interested in this.  Does anyone know whether the high and low pass filters work as well as a crossover?

[Jus Lukin]

-

Edited March 16, 2022 by Jus Lukin

[agedhorse]

This is not designed to be used as a crossover, though you could adopt two pedals to make one that is effectively a low pass and one that is effectively a high pass, each with its own eq. 

 

LR filter topolopy is not essential for crossovers, as it's essentially a similar topology as a lower Q Butterworth filter alignment. The bigger difference is that for constant power summing the filter's are specified at the -6dB point rather than the 3dB point. In practice, this simply slides the specified filter points apart to result in constant power summing at the crossover point (due to the voltage squared in the power equation).

 

[edit for glaring typo]

 

Edited December 24, 2021 by agedhorse

[Daz39]

1 hour ago, agedhorse said:

This is not designed to be used as a crossover, though you could adopt two pedals to make one that is effectively a low pass and one that is effectively a high pass, each with its own eq. 

 

LR filter topolopy is not essential for crossovers, as it's essentially a similar topology as a lower Q Butterworth filter alignment. The bigger difference is that for constant power summing the filter's are specified at the -6dB point rather than the 3dB point. In practice, this simply slides the specified filter points apart to result in constant poser summing at the crossover point (due to the voltage squared in the power equation).

Next on Open University late night specials - super hard quantum physics.

[SumOne]

It does look interesting, I'm tempted regardless of what pedal catagory it gets put into! I suppose it fits more in the realms of high-end EQ pedals like the Empress Para EQ, WMD Para EQ, Sine Effects Mega Para, Source Audio EQ2, Boss EQ 200, none of which have DI features or would generally be called Preamps.

 

It seems to me that adding the LFP and HPF makes it something I'd want to use at the end of my signal chain though (whereas I might want an EQ without those features to go in in other signal chain places - to do things like adding mids feeding an overdrive) so I'd like it to also have DI features and not just by adding an adapter as I'd want it to have a separate XRL out with ground lift and a pre/post switch (e.g. to select what's sent depending if it's going to FOH or FRFR speakers) as well as a separate output to the Amp. That must be what a lot of customers want as lots of combined EQ/Preamp pedals incorporate it, the trouble is that none of them seem quite as good on the EQ and HPF/LPF front as the Genzler though so it is currently sitting in my Thomann shopping basket - it's payday after all! 

 

....I haven't clicked 'buy' yet though, the main competition for me is coming from the Fishman Platinum Pro.  

 

Edit: I've gone for the Fishman. It looks like it's got a decent EQ, and HPF, and LPF of sorts with the 'brilliance' control which is +/- 7db at 5kHz and it has the notch filter. If it was all about the EQ and HPF/LPF I might have gone for the Genzler, but the Fishman has loads of useful additional features too: DI (XLR with pre/post, ground lift), phase, FX loop, Tuner/mute footswitch, Compressor, Boost (with footswitch), takes batteries (that last 30hrs). I'm hoping it'll be a decent EQ pedal up there with the best of them but also a decent DI, and a useful tuner and compressor for times when I can just throw it in a bag to take to band practice to cover all the main things without even needing a power supply.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited January 28, 2022 by SumOne