Outboard EQ Parametric or Graphic?
Home > Home Recording Forum > Gear Gab > Outboard EQ Parametric or Graphic?
Posted on Jun 18, 2004 03:27 pm
Keegan
Do U Beleev in D-Flo?
Member Since: Jun 15, 2004
If I'm looking at getting my first outboard EQ, which would be a better choice for an all around unit, ie tracking, mixing, mastering, and possibly removed from the studio for use with a guitar in a live setup.
What do you consider to be the advantages and disadvantages of both types of unit? Would your decision be any different if you knew more units would be purchased later?
[ Back to Top ]
WaltChief Cook and Bottle WasherMember
Since: May 10, 2002
Jun 20, 2004 09:31 am They both have their fort'e's. I guess where it me I would go with the graphic first considering that it will be used live as well. With a graphic say 32 band you have a lot more leverage than with most parametric which have usualy four bands. The advantage of the parametric is that for narrow band work it can get right down to a real tight bandwith and do the job where even a 32 band graphic is around 600hz wide per band. The other advantage of the graphic is greater control over the eq curve. A parametric is pretty much limited to a bell shaped curve.
KeeganDo U Beleev in D-Flo?Member
Since: Jun 15, 2004
Jun 21, 2004 09:03 am So it would appear that a parametric would be better for isolating specific frequencies, and then expanding the bandwidth to suit. I suppose when you consider overall tone shaping the graphic would be a pretty logical choice.
Jun 21, 2004 09:11 am I rarely use a graphic...I live by parametrics myself...well, that and Har-Bal.
KeeganDo U Beleev in D-Flo?Member
Since: Jun 15, 2004
Jun 21, 2004 10:28 am Har-Bal, is that like a frequency modeling software? I only glanced at the web site. I can see were that could potentially totally replace an outboard EQ (graphic or parametric), but I need an analog alternative since I want to use it live as well, and I don't have a digital recording system.
