EQ effectiveness?

[volounteer]

@alu

what do you mean more ‘aggressive’ EQ?

EQ is EQ. You can vary the Q and amount but that is still just EQ?

So do you want higher Q lower Q more dB fewer dB or what ?

[SteffenR]

EQ curves can differ in shape

[volounteer]

@SteffenR

Indeed they can.
But what makes some shape more aggressive than another ?

What can you vary besides the Q and amount applied?

[Alu]

The problem is Measurements cannot measure tone.

[SteffenR]

What can you vary besides the Q and amount applied?

for example constant-Q or proportional-Q
this defines the behavior of the curves with same Q when the gain changes

[Wolfgang]

The problem is Measurements cannot measure tone.

OK, so it’s a matter of taste!

That is always open to debate.
Some people want EQs that work neutrally, others want EQs that make the result as audible as possible.
Both cannot be realised at the same time.

Maybe it would really be an idea for the future if we could choose different EQ models. This would make it possible to create a working basis for as many tastes as possible.

But what I still have to deny is that the EQs in the dLive would not work well.

[volounteer]

@SteffenR

I am not sure how that would benefit the sound but I suppose it could be done if A&H really thought it was useful to enough folks to help sales more than doing something else with their resources.

[Mike C]

The different curve types like Steffen mentioned have a lot to do with how the EQ reacts with adjacent EQ bands and how they affect frequencies to either side of the center frequency.

The overall “feel” of the EQ gain control can vary a lot, some have a lot of gain change happening in the fist maybe 1/4 turn of the control and then it becomes more gradual after that, others are very linear for the full range of the control.

Some like that early fast change in gain so they can hear something changing very quick.

[volounteer]

@MikeC

I think we are talking two different things.
One is how the Q and gain are set.
The other what the Q and gain can do that is ‘aggressive’.

The shape and gain will allow setting width depth or anything else that is feasible.
And some of the comments made me think some folks wanted the changes to happen in RT with some sort of magic AI doing it.

There is a big difference between EQ effectiveness per the OP, and the ease of setting the EQ to be used.

[SteffenR]

that was not part of my post
I’m not sure as well, if this will be audible

but there are more variations to the EQ’s possible
I found the following article that describes it a bit

https://www.sweetwater.com/insync/understanding-eq-curves-why-identical-eq-settings-can-sound-different/

[SteffenR]

ok I was writing while you are both posted…

I think we are talking two different things.

not really, what Mike refers to is the interaction between the gain and Q settings
and that is very the same thing what I was writing about
this could be different and it will sound slightly different and it could all interact by design
like the analog EQ’s do

in the Lake controllers and the DSP’s from Powersoft are asymmetrical EQ implemented
just another possibility

[volounteer]

@SteffenR

of course they interact.

digital design will make them appear to interact differently than analog did,
but you can still adjust them to get the EQ you need.

really the only difference is how fine your control is in bandwidth and gain; and for filters the slope steepness.
some home gear only has low mid high. or maybe none.
pro gear typically would have 1/3 octave x 30+ bands to adjust.

what really matters is using the EQ you have properly to achieve your goal.
at home playing back well mixed content you should not need more than 3 to adjust to taste. then forget the EQ in the future.
while mixing live you need many more freq bands with finer control so you can stop feedback, tweak mikes, and carve out space for multiple instruments.

[Mike C]

pro gear typically would have 1/3 octave x 30+ bands to adjus

In this day and age with PEQ’s available on every output and in system DSP processors
there is little reason to use a graphic EQ short of maybe for an emergency frequency
grab.
PEQ have less band to band interaction and a better phase response than doing a bunch
of adjustments on the graphic eq.

Back in the analog days I only had two four band PEQ’s available for insert where needed all the monitors and mains were EQ’d with 31 band graphics.

Then when I switched all system processing to DSP’s instead of analog crossovers I could then take care of speaker EQ need’s via the PEQ’s on the band pass outputs of the DSP’s resulting in less room EQ needed with the system graphic EQ’s

The DSP’s are still inplace and the last room EQ is done on the digital mixer output PEQ’s and for the main drive I go with AES from the mixer in to the DSP’s.
Makes for a very clean signal path.

[volounteer]

@MikeC

Some gear has both graphic and parametric EQs.
We use the graphic to ring out the room, but find it easier to tweak mikes with the parametric when needed.

[Mike C]

Some gear has both graphic and parametric EQs.

Indeed they do but use the PEQ first as you can narrow down to the needed center frequency and the
width of the filter.

[Author]

Posts