Any suggestions for a good one. Preferably rack but more interested in best performing.
YAMAHA YDP-2006
i really like this one because you can actually see what you doing to your frequencies on the screen.
Hi Chamai... I like the idea of 40 programable patches and midi. The
on screen curves are cool too. What's a good price for one?
HI,
you could also check out the Rocktron Pro-Q....older unit from Rocktrons Chameleon/Pro-GAP - era.
Nevertheless, very "powerful" in terms of eq'ing features plus the bonus of another HUSH.
With that one in the loop and your Intellifex`HUSH after the Preamp your rig should be dead-quiet.
(http://medias.audiofanzine.com/images/normal/rocktron-pro-q-enhancement-system-595443.jpg)
The Pro-Qs pop up on a regular basis on eBay/CL/.....
Hey SC... thanks for the heads up on the Pro Q. There's one on ebay for 370.00 plus 80.00 for shipping. From Bulgaria. I wont go for that but maybe one will turn up in the US for a decent price. Do you know what a good price would be?
That´s way too much...... They pop up here in Germany from time to time and go for up to 150€....so I´d guess up to 200$ shipped in the US seems reasonable.
Also check Craigslist and Music Go Round.....
I don't have any personal experience with this but Digitech made a couple of units that a lot of people use in full rack or half rack spaces. Search for the Digitech Mono 28, Digitech MEQ 14, etc.
I'm seeing three different graphic eqs. Alesis DEQ 830 and a Samson S-Curve 131. These are both mono. There is Samson S-curve 215 which is stereo. My rig is stereo. So my question is.... Should I run a mono eq in the loop ( post preamp) or should I run a stereo eq in line after my Intellifex which feeds MircoCab II. Or should I place the steteo eq last, after the micro cab. I havent purchased any eq yet...just feeling out the best possible scenario. I know the Alesis is a digital unit with preset capabilities. That would be an advantage when switching patches.
Very subjective.....
It it was me, I´d put it in the loop.... I always try to just add FX to the "finished" preamp core tone.
Placing the EQ last in line calls for eq'ing your complete tone/signal including the FX.
I´d also try to avoid any sources of noise/hum/hiss that far at the end of the signal line....With an EQ in that spot you´re boosting/cutting parts of the signal....probably freqs that are more prone to carry hiss/fizz.
Placing the EQ in the loop gives you a "shaped" core tone that you would add FX to. With the Intellifex, you´d have the HUSH to get rid of any unwanted noise/buzz/hiss/fizz/hum before before the "cleaned up" and eq'ed signal hits the FX.
EQ in the loop would also let you toggle it on or off as you need it....
Just my two €-cents
Good info... that's where its going (in the loop). So mono eq it is!!! Now just have to decide if its digital or sliders
Here´s one like the one JP used on the 20th anniv tour (Score)
http://www.ebay.com/itm/DOD-SR830Qx-Graphic-Equalizer-Rack-Mount-2-Channel-EQ-SR-830-Q-/281528550667?pt=US_Signal_Processors_Rack_Effects&hash=item418c68c50b (http://www.ebay.com/itm/DOD-SR830Qx-Graphic-Equalizer-Rack-Mount-2-Channel-EQ-SR-830-Q-/281528550667?pt=US_Signal_Processors_Rack_Effects&hash=item418c68c50b)
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v515/RandomHero12/JPFront.jpg)
As SC says, it's subjective but there are sensible gain and noise considerations of where to place it. You could run a stereo eq after preamp before FX like an overall eq of tone. In the loop the signal is then eq'd before MP1 chorus, which make sense also.
IMO Use analogue eq ONLY, digital (while very convenient) will AD/DA your signal. I accept there are much better digital eqs these days, but they aren't cheap and they are still (by their very nature) an approximation of the signal. Also all eqs "sound" different. Get one that sounds good.
I don't know exactly what you're after, but from a "studio quality" perspective there are a few companies I've found that make "high-end" products at mid-level prices. Two that immediately come to mind are Ashly and Symetrix. I've tested products from both of those companies from a technical spec perspective (I'm an electrical engineer) and was very surprised at the level of performance I saw from both of them. If you can get a Symetrix parametic EQ at a decent price I think you'll be more than pleased (and Ashly compressors are top-notch).
But really, making a good EQ really isn't rocket science. I think any reliably piece of equipment would be fine for teaming up with a guitar amp/preamp. Don't forget, most guitar amp tone controls are just cheap carbon pots and carbon film resistors - it's not like they're "studio grade" circuits in the first place.
Back in the day, it was a common "trick" to pair the MP-1 up with a Furman PQ series parametric EQ. The Furmans were fairly poor performers in terms of noise and technical spec but they had a crazy amount of gain that could overdrive a preamp hard. But that's up front, not in the loop.
For something in the loop, I'd go with a para EQ from a reputable manufacturer - like I said, it's not rocket science and doesn't necessarily have to be "studio grade".
The only time I'd get particular about really high-end level specs is if you're recording and/or not using a noise suppressor. On the studio side of things I'd start looking at studio level equipment, otherwise, I'd go for something well-built and roadworthy.
Having said all that, I do like the Ashly 551E parametric EQ - studio grade for pretty cheap.
I have a Crazy idea here. I am still undecided on which eq to buy. Digital parametric, analog parametric , or analog graphic. Something draws to the Samson S Curve 131 analog graphic. I would simply put it in the loop, dail up the best tone I could get and basically forget about it. One trick poney. Now with the Samson 215 graphic, I was wondering ...could I use its 2 channels independently by plugging guitar into channel A, using it as a pre distortion eq and then using channel B in the loop as a post distortion eq? Is this a stupid idea? Should I just forget obout graphic completely and just go Parametric?
I believe that by placing it before the preamp it then EQs the tone of the guitar not the tone of the amp (so essentially you are changing the tone that gets captured by the pickups. Look at this video and you can hear the possibilities https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sVNfhBBMFfs
Quote from: Metropolis on January 20, 2015, 08:15:35 PM
I have a Crazy idea here. I am still undecided on which eq to buy. Digital parametric, analog parametric , or analog graphic. Something draws to the Samson S Curve 131 analog graphic. I would simply put it in the loop, dail up the best tone I could get and basically forget about it. One trick poney. Now with the Samson 215 graphic, I was wondering ...could I use its 2 channels independently by plugging guitar into channel A, using it as a pre distortion eq and then using channel B in the loop as a post distortion eq? Is this a stupid idea? Should I just forget obout graphic completely and just go Parametric?
I'd expect both channels of just about any rack EQ to be line level and fairly low impedance (~50 kohm). In other words, it will work well in a line level effects loop but won't work well with your guitar plugged directly into it.
I was just about to write the same.....
You would need a stomp box like a Boss GEQ7 or an MXR 10band to put it up front.
Also, setting it up the way you thought would be a fixed EQ in front of all your presets...SS, TC and TD....sounds kinda "limiting" to me ;)
Yea...I agree. I dont really know how much advantage I would gain from a parametric in the loop but without spending a ton whats a good one?
An EQ in the loop is really just like an external tone stack. Look at it like giving your amp more sophisticated and tweakable tone controls... because that's really what you're doing when you put an EQ in the loop.
An EQ up front is more like a distortion/overdrive shaping device. Almost all overdrive/distortion pedals have some sort of tone shaping built in. Think of the mid-hump a Tube Screamer or Boss OD or SD-1 has. The MXR Dist+, DoD 250, etc, all shape the tone to some extent before applying the signal clipping. By using an EQ in front of your preamp you're shaping the signal that hits the distortion circuitry in a similar way.
I think probably the most famous MP-1 tones were manipulated both with EQ before the preamp and afterwards... Mike Wagener has said that he used a Furman PQ-3 as a mild mid/treble boost in front of his MP-1 at Double Trouble Studios (where Extreme, Skid Row, etc, recorded), and a 9-band graphic EQ afterwards. So ADA preamps have a long and famous history of being used with both EQs before and after.
Quote from: Metropolis on January 21, 2015, 02:11:58 PM
Yea...I agree. I dont really know how much advantage I would gain from a parametric in the loop but without spending a ton whats a good one?
Lots of good stuff can be found for pretty cheap.....
Alex Lifeson used Behringer PEQ2200. That´s a 5band parametric that´s pretty solid.
John Petrucci had that DOD SR830Q I mentioned in an earlier post in his 20th anniv. Tour rig.....The tones he got on Score are among his best ever.....
Mark Tremonti uses a Behringer Ultracurve Pro DEQ2496......
Boogie even released their famous 5band EQ that´s featured on the Mark series amps as a stand alone foot pedal...
Can´t go that wrong if you stick with the tried and tested stuff :thumb-up:
If you do decide to buy an eq, get an analogue eq (or your lovely analogue MP1 signal will be converted to digital and back, which doesn't sound as good (see other posts re MikeBs rig with TC GMaj)). Parrametric gives you more control than graphic as you can select centre frequency and bandwidth, with graphic they are both set. That said, graphic eqs' optimised for guitar (e.g. 5 band boogie SC mentioned) make sense. The centre frequencies are set for guitar rather than the ISO standard points used for full range PA/studio graphics (e.g. 3rd octave 31 band).
Quote from: Systematic Chaos on January 21, 2015, 11:41:07 PM
Can´t go that wrong if you stick with the tried and tested stuff :thumb-up:
+1 :thumb-up:
Thanks to everyone for your replies... they have been very informative and inspirational. However my quest for knowledge continues before I do actually make my purchase. How should I have the MP1 tone stack set when begining to tweek the parametric eq. I mean... should I begin with my MP1 patches as they are and tweek the parametric or should I set the MP1 tone stack to 555555 etc and then tweek the parametric. My main disappointment is that with an analog parametric, I only have the one setting. I would have to physically turn the knobs to change up the tone. With a digital parametric, I could have several preset curves and use midi to change them up along with the MP1 patches and my Intellifex patches. But the digital parametric is gonna screw with my core MP1 analog tone, so I'm not sure which direction to go yet.
Metropolis,
The first rule is to listen to the sound.
If it was me, I would first get the best tone you can get out of your preamp and only use the external eq to either whittle away what you don't like, or reinforce what you do like.
One can't anticipate this. It comes with playing and familiarity of many details.
Don't worry about it so much -- play, listen, and let your ears guide you.
Sounds good.... thank you for the insight! I will certainly enjoy the process of tone creation.
I use a couple of parametric eq settings that are in my multi-fx units in the loop, however I also use a Boss GE-7 between my guitar and preamp. I boost the mids on the GE-7 and use it for Lynch or Boston anything nasally. The rest of the time its off and the multi-fx units parametrics are on.
Just don´t start off at all Tone-Ctrls set to 5 .... 0 on the MP-1 equals 5/noon on standard amp knob 8)
Very good point SC (though does vary amp to amp), as they go + and - so as SC says, 0 on MP1 eq is is flat. I'm with gtmm, I've never needed/wanted additional eq but if you do, get as close to the tone you want with MP1 eq and only add what you need. Also keep in mind that eqs' add and take away gain from the signal (albeit at specific frequencies) so the idea is to cut a bit if you boost a bit to have the eq running "unity" gain i.e. what goes in volts/level wise is what comes out (or you start to stuff your gain structure) but depending on the unit, this can be compensated for by the input and output level controls (not all have them). There are midi controllable analogue eqs (like the MP1 eq LOL, but also ADA MQ1 if you can find one). Also how much a digital eq stuffs your tone is very subjective (they try hard not to LOL and they are improving and I'm very picky/pedantic).
Also remember that volume make a huge difference due to the Flethcher Munchon curves. You ears hear the sound flat (as it is) at 98db (reasonably loud), at lower levels the mids are more dominant (most sensitive part of our hearing) so you need to boost bass and Treble (like a loudness button on stereo), above 98db the curves reverse and bass and treb appear louder (to your ears) than the mids.
Another interesting thing with ears is how octaves aren't exactly a doubling/halving of frequency the further you go in either direction, they wind in a bit (Hz wise) the further you go from your starting point (why pianos are generally tuned by ear either side of middle C)
Quote from: Systematic Chaos on January 22, 2015, 11:40:18 PM
Just don´t start off at all Tone-Ctrls set to 5 .... 0 on the MP-1 equals 5/noon on standard amp knob 8)
Personally I'm not too sure that's 100%. The MP-1 has an active eq system which both BOOSTS frequencies as well as cutting them, whereas a passive eq system which most amplifiers use, only CUT the frequencies.
After a long time of stubbornly forcing myself to keep the mids above zero (as I've NEVER scooped mids before in my life, since I love the tone of a nice middy amp, and scooping would be sacrilege to me! :lol:) I've finally realised that the way the eq works in the Mp-1 is WEIRD AS HELL versus what we're used to with normal amps :lol: . A typical setting that I'd use on a standard say, Marshall amp is completely different from that of the MP-1.
for example, on the MP-1 I tend to keep all the EQ levels below 6ish on the mp-1, with the mids almost ALWAYS set below zero. You'd think that having the mids under zero would lead to a more scooped sound, but even at -6 the MP-1 still has a high mid content. Once again, I believe this is due to the fact that the MP-1 has an active EQ versus the passive we're used to. When we go above zero on the MP-1, we're BOOSTING a frequency, adding more of the specific frequency to the signal, whereas the negative numbers take AWAY those frequencies from a signal, kind of like how an external EQ would work. This would lead to the thought that keeping the eq levels low on the MP-1 would lead to a more natural sound as boosting frequencies typically doesn't sound as natural as cutting frequencies, but YMMV.
Hey Jarrod, good input my friend and nice to hear from you (been a while :wave: ). IIRC this is an area close to your heart/passion LOL. Jarrod is indeed correct, not all amps include cut, mostly boost (unless like some boogie amps etc, they have a graphic eq along with the tone controls) but depends on the amp (hence my earlier post), but in general SC is on the money... If you want an MP1 to sound great, turn it up to gig level (I know it's nice they can be turned down (to accommodate city living)) but they are designed/meant to be stage volume, and in my experience with both MP1 and 2 they don't need additional eq. That said, the 9 band graphic in the MP2 was/is a feature I use a little.
Active eq ? what do you mean ? there are a quite a few ways to make filters (eqs). The overriding comparison was between digital and analogue (hopefully midi programmable) eqs but yes there are active active and passive analogue eq circuits. Which sound better to you Jarrod ?? I do take your point that M1 eq is active (but still analogue).
Quote from: rnolan on January 23, 2015, 06:08:33 AM
Hey Jarrod, good input my friend and nice to hear from you (been a while :wave: ). IIRC this is an area close to your heart/passion LOL. Jarrod is indeed correct, not all amps include cut, mostly boost (unless like some boogie amps etc, they have a graphic eq along with the tone controls) but depends on the amp (hence my earlier post), but in general SC is on the money... If you want an MP1 to sound great, turn it up to gig level (I know it's nice they can be turned down (to accommodate city living)) but they are designed/meant to be stage volume, and in my experience with both MP1 and 2 they don't need additional eq. That said, the 9 band graphic in the MP2 was/is a feature I use a little.
Active eq ? what do you mean ? there are a quite a few ways to make filters (eqs). The overriding comparison was between digital and analogue (hopefully midi programmable) eqs but yes there are active active and passive analogue eq circuits. Which sound better to you Jarrod ?? I do take your point that M1 eq is active (but still analogue).
Hahaha I've been around, just havn't really decided to post much of anything till I saw this thread here :lol:
But anyways, when it comes to the whole digital vs. analog debate, I don't have much I can really say on the matter. I believe analog sounds better than digital in SOME situations and completely depends upon the device being used and how it is being used. For instance, I really like the sound of my quadraverb which is a digital device, but digital chorus effects and EQs sound pretty 'meh' to me.
I think digital CAN sound as good as analog, it just depends upon how its being used, what the device is, and how high of quality that device is. However... the human ear hears in analog and not digital, so to me, analog will ALWAYS have a slightly upper hand...
When it comes to passive vs. active eq now, its all personal preference really. After my MP-1 I have a graphic eq (which would be an active device) which I use to fine tailor my sound. I wouldn't ever use a graphic eq to majorly shape the sound of my MP-1, but just tweak it to my own personal preferences. For example, depending on the cab I'm using I'll either boost very slightly or cut a bit around the 250hz and 400hz frequency in order to help either clear up some mud, or bring some body back into the sound (if the cab is particularly thin sounding). I find boosting above around 4-6db in any frequency begins to sound a bit unnatural and overproduced, so I tend to cut unwanted frequencies instead of boosting good frequencies as cutting tends to typically sound more natural and 'real' versus boosting.
And yes, turn those MP-1s up! They were meant to be played loud and proud and won't sound as good as they should at low volumes! Crank it up to stage level and let your walls shake hahah! :metal:
Quote from: jarrodthebobo on January 23, 2015, 05:07:02 AM
Quote from: Systematic Chaos on January 22, 2015, 11:40:18 PM
Just don´t start off at all Tone-Ctrls set to 5 .... 0 on the MP-1 equals 5/noon on standard amp knob 8)
Personally I'm not too sure that's 100%. The MP-1 has an active eq system which both BOOSTS frequencies as well as cutting them, whereas a passive eq system which most amplifiers use, only CUT the frequencies.
After a long time of stubbornly forcing myself to keep the mids above zero (as I've NEVER scooped mids before in my life, since I love the tone of a nice middy amp, and scooping would be sacrilege to me! :lol:) I've finally realised that the way the eq works in the Mp-1 is WEIRD AS HELL versus what we're used to with normal amps :lol: . A typical setting that I'd use on a standard say, Marshall amp is completely different from that of the MP-1.
Well that all theppends how are the stock freqs set, I meen you can build a normal amp and set the MID that even at 0 it has more MID than any other amp out there... so the same goes for the MP-1 maybe the reqs that you have at their minimun value have more in them than another amp at its max!
BTW I normally run my mids at -8!
To Eq or Not To Eq Tis thee question. I use -4 on my mids with a slight eq mod tweaks. For any Modern Metal tone and for any Balls Eq is a must. Even with my 2:90 with the Deep function on the MP1 still needs shaping its Bass department. Sorry 180hz for bass sounds like shit.
http://www.mesaboogie.com/Product_Info/pedals/boogie-eq-pedal.html
bout damn time!
The eq points of a Mesa Mark should be the stepping stones for a Guitar amp period.
Slighty OT....
The Mesa Mark series tone stack is way different than that of e.g. an MP-1 as the Mark series "initial" tone stack is "within" the gain stages, unlike an MP-1 where the tone stack is after the gain stages.
So the gain on a Mark is cascaded in the way the tone ctrls are set. The actual post eq'ing then happens with the 5band graph eq.
To close-emulate that specific EQ these values should get you in a *very close* ballpark:
80Hz @ Q = 1.17
240Hz @ Q = 1.94
750Hz @ Q = 2.12
2200Hz @ Q = 0.68
6600Hz @ Q = 1.0
It's not off topic were talking Eq.. and duh the tone stacks are in different locations and different values. Thats why I've done my own eq mod to better with with my Parametric and Mesa 2:90.
Quote from: Systematic Chaos on January 23, 2015, 12:31:15 PM
...
To close-emulate that specific EQ these values should get you in a *very close* ballpark:
80Hz @ Q = 1.17
...
wow I was using Q like at 6 (I think) the other day testing!!!
Interesting how "Q" gets used in various audio descriptions. In sound engineering (when I did the course ~1980) Q = centre Feq (e.g. Q = 80hz, band width = 1.17, shape = notch).
For speakers Q = resonant freq, but seems to be used differently by different people in different decades...
http://www.astralsound.com/parametric_eq.htm (http://www.astralsound.com/parametric_eq.htm)
Nice one SC :thumb-up: , as I was saying, Q is being used differently in difference decades. It mean't centre frequency back then.
Quote from: rnolan on January 23, 2015, 01:33:43 AM
...
Also remember that volume make a huge difference due to the Flethcher Munchon curves. You ears hear the sound flat (as it is) at 98db (reasonably loud), at lower levels the mids are more dominant (most sensitive part of our hearing) so you need to boost bass and Treble (like a loudness button on stereo), above 98db the curves reverse and bass and treb appear louder (to your ears) than the mids...
How would you recommend checking how many db is coming out of my cab? Allways wanted to meassure how much my 5watt amp is making!
You need an Sound Pressure Level (SPL) meter and then it can get a bit complicated as different db weightings are applied for different reasons.
These days there are reasonably simple SPL meters available that give you ball park (designed for people to take to concerts etc IIRC).
There's probably a phone app that does it ?? though the mics in phones are all about speech so not sure how accurate it would be, but then unless you are doing a frequency analysis of your room, simple is probably good enough.
Quote from: rnolan on January 23, 2015, 09:18:01 PM
Interesting how "Q" gets used in various audio descriptions. In sound engineering (when I did the course ~1980) Q = centre Feq (e.g. Q = 80hz, band width = 1.17, shape = notch).
For speakers Q = resonant freq, but seems to be used differently by different people in different decades...
Q is not the center freq but the quality factor of the filter,so the higher the Q the lower the bandwith the better the filter is,and also harder to construct.
For speakers the resonant freq is called Fs,again Q also stands for quality factor Qts which can be calculated from Qes and Qms.Qes is the electrical quality factor and Qms is the mechanical quality factor.These are part of the Thiele and Small parameters to calculate a cab for a specific speaker.All the parameters can be found in the datasheet of the speaker.
Any opinions on Symetrix 551e? Or Aphex 109
Grab this one:
http://www.ebay.com/itm/141556997430?ru=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ebay.com%2Fsch%2Fi.html%3F_from%3DR40%26_sacat%3D0%26_nkw%3D141556997430%26_rdc%3D1 (http://www.ebay.com/itm/141556997430?ru=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ebay.com%2Fsch%2Fi.html%3F_from%3DR40%26_sacat%3D0%26_nkw%3D141556997430%26_rdc%3D1)
Fair price and you def won´t be disappointed!
Too bad we are anal on it beeing pure analog eq because im getting a Behringer Half Rack DSP8024 for $50 bucks...
PS:
I think that an analog half rack eq that has say the 10 more guitar focus eq bands would be a great thing!
Cool... I've been considering a Behringer 2496. Let me know how that works out.
Hey El, as SC says, each to their own with digital. Hey some (allot of) people listen to MP3 files (convenient but so lossy). But whatever floats your boat. From the basic physics and my ears I prefer to preserve the analogue signal chain. And did some experiments with the TXC GMaj to validate my thinking. And got a second opinion, basically MikeB gave up quite a bit of flexibility and CC of GMaj to preserve the tone. But in the end, if it sounds good and how you want.... There is a discernible difference, but do you care ?? Is it that big a difference (well enough for me, my choice though >:D ).
Samson D 3500....is this something that is practical for use with the Mp1?
Hey Metropolis, not really, it's designed to automatically suppress feedback in PA systems (front and foldback), I'm not sure how it would react to guitar feedback (the kind we like), it's designed to eliminate it. For squeals you don't want e.g. at high gain it would suppress them I spose. Basically it's like a frequency sensitive compressor but seems a bit smarter than earlier versions of this idea where they compress the frequency you don't want, this seems to turn the eq for that frequency band down when it senses feedback and then restores your setting when the singer turns the mic back away from the speakers. It's a lazy mans way though (albeit a better idea than early feedback eliminators/suppressers). Good quality gear (mics/speakers/desk/amps) with good gain structure, plenty of power amp headroom and properly positioned will control feedback and get a better sound.
I believe this thing has 3 modes, one of which is a 15 band programable parametric with user definable freq, q, and gain. The other 2 modes are the feedback surpressor thing. If parametric mode is selected, the other 2 modes are not engaged. I would be using only the 15 band parametric eq portion of the unit. I know that 15 band is probably overkill for guitar but from what I understand, you can defeat several band and use only as many as you wish, basically making the unit a (up to) 15 band parametric with user definable filters. Correct me if im wrong but thats what I gathered. I can get one for 100.00 dollars.
Hey if it can stay in eq mode, then for $100 is probably a good buy (for what your after). If it doesn't work out for guitar, there's plenty of other uses for it :thumb-up:
For a pure analog EQ that is designed for guitar, nothing beats the SR&D Rockman. With a half-rack design you can mount two of them side by side in a Rockman rack tray for stereo. Plus they have foot switch controllable bypass if that is necessary.
Here's a shot from the Rockman.fr site of three of them:
(http://i1240.photobucket.com/albums/gg481/GuitarBuilder/Triple_EQ_zps09bd5fea.jpg) (http://s1240.photobucket.com/user/GuitarBuilder/media/Triple_EQ_zps09bd5fea.jpg.html)
The alesis micro EQ is also a good analog semi parametic eq.It has 3 bands and is only 1/3 19".I have one of these and they work very well for instrument use.
The Rockman stuff is pretty awesome still have a XL100 sitting in a drawer, used to use it accross 2 Marshalls for lead.
I spoke with the Samson tech guy on the phone just moments ago inquiring about the D3500. I might as well have spoke with a zombie. :??? That unit is not for me...and so my quest continues!
Another good one is the furman PQ-3,that is if you can find one for a decent price.These are really kickass EQ's.
Furman are way over priced due to Pantera fans lol. The PQ,3,4,6 are nice for over driving the front end.Eq with lots of gain.
Presonus used to make a 3 band Parametric eq. Listen to any modern Exodus album...Gary runs those with Engl rigs and gets some pretty heavy tones.
I perfer RANE in my rigs.Their less noisy and cleaner than Furman.
Hey Metropolis, the tone comes from a variety of places but primarily from your fingers. I've never had the need to use additional eq with either MP1/2, granted I use a couple of additional tweaks in the MP2 9 band graphic but nothing big. If you really want one (and there are shitloads to choose from), they all have a "sound", pick one you like the sound of that goes with your rig. The really expensive eq's are typically very transparent. I've used lots of different brands over the years but in a PA context and I've been gob smacked by the difference in the way they sound (without climbing into the circuit and why they may be different). Again remember that graphic eqs for audio are mostly set at the ISO standard centre frequencies which suit full range audio. The guitar centric eqs' (like the boogie one SC suggested) have the centre freqs' set (as does MP2 9 band graphic) where it works best for guitar (so worth keeping in mind). IIRC RandallRG really liked his MXR 6 band eq (better in front of MP1 or in the FX loop as is mono but is analogue ), this is a guitar eq, made for guitar players. Do you really need more eq ?? Anyway your preference, my 2 cents worth.
Cheers R
I got a bid in on a Rane SP15 five band mono parametric. Dont know if it will be necessary but it will still be a cool toy to play with.
Looks like a nice (and very usable/versatile) unit, you could run it in the MP1 loop and dial in any eq you want :thumb-up: As RobbHell says, Rane are good eqs, hope your bid works out.
It looks like a line level device so wouldn't work so well between guitar and the MP1 input. And will be a cool toy to play with >:D
Thanks for the reply...I definatley will only use it in the loop.
:thumb-up: hope you win the bid !!
Well I won the the auction on the Rane SP15. 68.00 total delivered to my door. Should recieve it buy the end of the week. :banana-trip:
:whoohoo!: Looks like a nice eq :thumb-up: enjoy my friend... :thumb-up:
http://www.amazon.com/ARTEC-SE-PEQ-Parametric-True-Bypass/dp/B00488W2NS
cheap, one band, seems to have Q control.
Any feedback on this?
Hey Metro, well only one band, careful what you mean by "Q", as in other posts, I knew Q as centre frequency back in the old days when I did audio engineering degree, as MJMP points out, that's not what it means these days. IIRC he said it means quality, and also the resonant frequency of a speaker. This (link) doesn't mention Q so what do you mean by it ?
Looks pretty cheap and cheerful to me, if you just want to boost one area of the sound (it doesn't appear to have cut (so to me isn't even a 1 band parametric)).
Interesting the spelling (Dial in percise EQ settings) and you get to dial in 1 setting only (at a time).
I've not heard one, but the Rane you have coming should be good.
Hi rnolan...my Rane Sp15 is at the post office and I will be getting it later today. I'm not sure what the previous poster was refering to but the Sp15 is in fact a single CHANNEL 5 band para with Freq, bandwidth (Q), and gain for each of the 5 overlapping bands. I will post results and pics of the complete rack tomorrow afternoon.
Hi Rnolan,
I think you were referring to the link i posted.
The Atrec pedal seems to me a good solution for the bass weakness of MP-1, but have no feedback on the quality sound.
If you look at the photo is visible a "width" knob which should be the Q control.
M
Hey Micky, doh :facepalm: my bad sorry. It looks like a reasonable option to add some bass boost and very tunable to where you'd want it (assuming it has full range freq sweep, my guess it does). You could run it in MP1 loop to add a bit of 80 Hz (bottom E = 82Hz (ish) when tuning A = 440 Hz, Europe used to be A = 445 Hz, not sure if it still is ??).
Ok so we are on the same page now re Q = Bandwidth and I'll go with the times and shutup about the old days LOL.
@Metro, cool, hope it's all good :thumb-up: . Parametric's are very useful and very tweak-able. I'd suggest starting with the centre frequencies of the 5 band boogie graphic as they are set for guitar. IIRC SC posted them a little while ago.
I recieved my Rane Sp15 and placed it in the MP1 loop. Readjusted the gain levels for unity, adjusted the parameters og each band using my ears and not any given protocol and Wow!!! Really opens up the breath of my tone dramatically. I've sampled 5 crunch and 5 clean patches with the same settings on the Rane and am very satisfied. Now I've got to experiment with the endless possibilities. :banana-guitar: I have not yet dialed up a Mesa freq setting yet, kinda saving that for later today. Heres a pic of the rack. MosValve not included cause it's own rack box. I LOVE my MP1 rig. Thanks to everyone here for their input, knowledge and inspiration.
Hey Metro, happy to help, enjoy >:D :thumb-up: :whoohoo!: BTW rack pic is upside down :facepalm: . I suspect the Mesa settings will take you on yet another journey LOL. After 44 years I've "kind of settled" on my sound(s), but the new guitar is taking me places I haven't been (or been for a while) before. It never stops but you have to slow it down so it's usable (a bit esoteric but hope you get what I mean).
Thanks. ..I tried 4 times to get that pic up-side- right. Its right on my phone. If you click on the pic in my post, it comes in the right way. Not sure what to do?
Hey Metro, don't sweat it LOL, it seems an iPhone thing ?? is that's what your using ? You could use a pc ? Connecting your phone to the internet is dangerous BTW (but I'm an ICT Security consultant, so I very rarely connect mine, just for OS updates and I don't download apps, 900% increase in malware in Google Apps last year...)
Can you please post your comments and settings and describe what the idea is behind those settings (Mesa, etc,...). Next week I get a Rane too and it will be a good starting point on my quest for new tones :)
El Chiguete...i am at work right now so I cant give you settings until tomorrow. I can however tell you that it will not be easy to give you accurate values of frequency because the unit is analog and does not have a digital display. It has rotory pots. The knob points to a scale of frequencys that are printed on the face plate of the unit. A very small rotation of the freq knob can make quite a difference. So for example if I have a knob set at exactly 400hz on the dail, then yes I can tell you that its at 400 hz. If the knob is set slightly above 400hz, I really dont know the exact value now because there is not a printed value on the face plate at that particular spot. The next printed spot might read 500hz so I would assume the value to be between 400hz and 500 hz proportionally. The 5th freq band, I believe, covers a much greater range, I think its luke 6k -20k, so the dail position cannot clearly spell out exactly what freq your manipulating. I can give you position of the knobs as hands of clock. Anyway I really love the unit and I hope yours suits your needs as well.