more bands of global EQ!!

[kabong]

How about a global eq with more bands and frequency range? That would really be helpful to compensate for different playing environments, especially if you're running to different house systems venue to venue. I don't think the global eq on the Axe-Fx covers a broad enough range for a system that runs full range. Just for giggles, I hooked up an old dual 15 band eq I had and flattened the global in the Axe. It was amazing how much more flexible it made the system. I don't know if there's any software issues in creating a bigger eq, but if it can be done, I hope Fractal looks into it.
Try the experiment yourselves and see how handy it is.

 

[marvinx]

gotta love the folks who are scared of more options.
Personally i have found the global eq to be slightly lacking. For example rather than use my power amps 50hz hi pass filter , i waned to globally cut everything below 50. Can't do that tho.

I think if not more bands, possibly assignable bands. But in reality i think 15 bands is pretty much standard and i don't see why anyone wouldn't want that kind of control.

Or even the ability to select between the number of bands.

The current one is good. more would be better. those who don't need it will say its unnecessary , but i think alot of folks would find use for it.

~mx~

 

[marvinx]

OH btw i think this thread goes in the wish list forum.

 

[kabong]

gotta love the folks who are scared of more options.
Personally i have found the global eq to be slightly lacking. For example rather than use my power amps 50hz hi pass filter , i waned to globally cut everything below 50. Can't do that tho.

I think if not more bands, possibly assignable bands. But in reality i think 15 bands is pretty much standard and i don't see why anyone wouldn't want that kind of control.

Or even the ability to select between the number of bands.

The current one is good. more would be better. those who don't need it will say its unnecessary , but i think alot of folks would find use for it.

~mx~

Couldn't agree more! Why anyone wouldn't want the option of better global tailoring eludes me. No one says you have to use it, but it would be nice to have the option.

 

[logicroxx]

gotta love the folks who are scared of more options.

I don't know that I'd agree that, especially given the odd phrasing of the poll. Maybe a more balanced option would have sounded like "I don't think it's necessary" rather than "no, I don't want them"

With the amount of parametric and graphic eqs at our disposal, I (and I may be alone here) don't have or foresee a need for any more. So perhaps my voting in opposition has more to do with wanting Cliff to devote his time to more pressing issues rather than giving us more of the same.

Nothing to do with fear of options.

IMHO, YMMV, etc...

 

[kabong]

gotta love the folks who are scared of more options.

I don't know that I'd agree that, especially given the odd phrasing of the poll. Maybe a more balanced option would have sounded like "I don't think it's necessary" rather than "no, I don't want them"

With the amount of parametric and graphic eqs at our disposal, I (and I may be alone here) don't have or foresee a need for any more. So perhaps my voting in opposition has more to do with wanting Cliff to devote his time to more pressing issues rather than giving us more of the same.

Nothing to do with fear of options.

IMHO, YMMV, etc...

Why would anyone object to a more effective global eq? For those of us that do a lot of gigs, pa's change, acoustics vary, etc. Being able to make quick tweaks at a gig can make all the difference. With so few bands eq, it really limits what you can do. You don't want to go into the individual patches that you have set up overtime and start tweaking them.
It's true that we have a number of per patch eqs, but having an expanded global eq for on the fly adjustment at gigs makes since. The global eq exists, the poll is not asking for another eq, just more bands for the one we have. Cliff is constantly tweaking and refining the AxeFx. In the grand scheme of things, adding more bands would not be difficult and would really enhance global flexibility.

 

[Sixstring]

Totally agree with you on this subject though I'll go one further and say in addition to more bands, have the option of those bands to have selectable freqs. so if you can't get what your looking for in 8 then you can at least tune some of the bands to the freqs you need.

 

[GM Arts]

I don't want them.

Global EQ is for quick re-shaping of all patches to match room acoustics. Usually it's a quick tweak with the highs but ocasionally some mids or bass. If you're looking for intricate frequency response adjustment, that's what the PEQs and filter blocks are for.

I'm genuinely curious; what detailed EQ changes are you trying to achieve with all of your patches?

 

[kabong]

I don't want them.

Global EQ is for quick re-shaping of all patches to match room acoustics. Usually it's a quick tweak with the highs but ocasionally some mids or bass. If you're looking for intricate frequency response adjustment, that's what the PEQs and filter blocks are for.

I'm genuinely curious; what detailed EQ changes are you trying to achieve with all of your patches?

So what your saying is you don't want them, therefore nobody should? Just because I don't use particular blocks on the AxeFx doesn't make me think they shouldn't be there. It just adds more flexibility for live situations.
As far as detailed changes, Do you have a lot of experience gigging? Especially running things direct? I have been doing this since the late 70's and I can tell you from lots of experience that having a decent global eq for live tweaking can be invaluable. You talk about quick tweaks with mid, bass, high. Which highs? Which mids? With a little experience it's not difficult to learn to identify a basic frequency range that may be a problem in different venues. Having more bands enables you to quickly fix the problem while not affecting a large range. The result?.... a much more satisfactory night. I disagree with you about the intricate adjustments....at least in live situations. You can fine tune globally very quickly if you develop an ear.

 

[GM Arts]

So what your saying is you don't want them, therefore nobody should?

No. I'm saying that I don't believe more are necessary for what IMHO is their intended purpose: broad tone shaping of all patches to compensate for different room acoustics.

Just because I don't use particular blocks on the AxeFx doesn't make me think they shouldn't be there. It just adds more flexibility for live situations.

It also adds more complexity for what often needs to be a quick and simple adjustment.

As far as detailed changes, Do you have a lot of experience gigging? Especially running things direct? I have been doing this since the late 70's and I can tell you from lots of experience that having a decent global eq for live tweaking can be invaluable.

It's not necessary to turn this into a "mine is bigger than yours" contest. I happen to have similar experience to what you've mentioned.

You talk about quick tweaks with mid, bass, high. Which highs? Which mids? With a little experience it's not difficult to learn to identify a basic frequency range that may be a problem in different venues. Having more bands enables you to quickly fix the problem while not affecting a large range. The result?.... a much more satisfactory night. I disagree with you about the intricate adjustments....at least in live situations. You can fine tune globally very quickly if you develop an ear.

That was my question, which you've answered with your need for more detailed adjustments. IMHO and IME I've found that as long as my patches have an even tone balance I've had no trouble using minor global adjustments to play in different rooms. So that's fine - we disagree.

 

[ToreFagerheim]

A global Parametric EQ would be extremely helpful, at least for me.

 

[GM Arts]

A global Parametric EQ would be extremely helpful, at least for me.

Now, I'd be in for that

 

[Matt_B]

A global Parametric EQ would be extremely helpful, at least for me.

I wouldn't mind that but some folks don't understand how to use a parametric EQ correctly so at the very least we'll have more posts about it. Another option could be a quasi parametric EQ (frequency, level but no Q control). Being able to select either a X band graphic or X band parametric EQ would be best option.

 

[marvinx]

More bands of eq would be really helpful for those looking to correct deficiencies in their FRFR systems.
Besides, this would probably take all of 30 minutes for cliff to program.

I really don't see the downside, unless you've recently had a lobotomy.
~mx~

 

[kabong]

Just because I don't use particular blocks on the AxeFx doesn't make me think they shouldn't be there. It just adds more flexibility for live situations.

It also adds more complexity for what often needs to be a quick and simple adjustment.


Adding a few more bands of EQ doesn't really increase the complexity.

As far as detailed changes, Do you have a lot of experience gigging? Especially running things direct? I have been doing this since the late 70's and I can tell you from lots of experience that having a decent global eq for live tweaking can be invaluable.

It's not necessary to turn this into a "mine is bigger than yours" contest. I happen to have similar experience to what you've mentioned.

Sorry if you took my question the wrong way. Could be the way I worded it. I was just curious about whether you were focused more on gigging or on studio use. I certainly was not trying to belittle you. I was just sharing my experience. We started running everything line direct many years ago and faced a lot of challenges. Having good globals really enables us to fine tune quickly.

You talk about quick tweaks with mid, bass, high. Which highs? Which mids? With a little experience it's not difficult to learn to identify a basic frequency range that may be a problem in different venues. Having more bands enables you to quickly fix the problem while not affecting a large range. The result?.... a much more satisfactory night. I disagree with you about the intricate adjustments....at least in live situations. You can fine tune globally very quickly if you develop an ear.

That was my question, which you've answered with your need for more detailed adjustments. IMHO and IME I've found that as long as my patches have an even tone balance I've had no trouble using minor global adjustments to play in different rooms. So that's fine - we disagree.[/quote]

Wasn't arguing the point of making minor adjustments, just being able to be more selective in them.

 

[kabong]

More bands of eq would be really helpful for those looking to correct deficiencies in their FRFR systems.
Besides, this would probably take all of 30 minutes for cliff to program.

I really don't see the downside, unless you've recently had a lobotomy.
~mx~

That is exactly the point I was trying to make. If your fortunate enough to not need it...fine. But having it there would help all of us less fortunates. No, seriously, a wider range would be helpful.

I would be for pretty much anything that increases the flexibility of the current global eq. The present one is just very limited. I ended up putting a stereo 15 band eq in my rack, but I would much prefer just having a better global in the AxeFx.

 

[marvinx]

Yeah, and i have no extra space at all in my rack so this would be very helpful.
~mx~

 

[Jed]

I didn't and won't vote - because I don't care. I have no dog in this fight.

It's an interesting argument that because you go direct that you should need more global eq on the AxeFx. If you're going direct and you have a challenging room, wouldn't you want to make your "global EQ" adjustments at FOH? That way it corrects for the whole band. Certainly if some venue has enough of an issue that a graphic or parametric is required to balance the room, then you'd want to apply that where it would do the most good for the most people - at FOH.

Personally I do run direct but don't gig often and I have an 8-band parametric built into my MOTU 828 mk3 that's always in my rack - so I have much more control than I ever need. I don't use the MOTU's parametric for the AxeFx but it's there if I need to use my 828 as a small mixer.

I don't know how easy / difficult / resource using / overhead diminishing - adding more global EQ's to the Axe Fx would be - and neither do you. That's Cliff's call and so far he isn't saying anything.

Bottom line is that global EQ is primarily for people that are not running direct - IMO.

I don't participate in wish-list stuff primarily because I want Cliff to govern and control his own time (maybe if we leave him alone the MFC-101 would come to market more quickly).

cheers,

 

[kabong]

I didn't and won't vote - because I don't care. I have no dog in this fight.

It's an interesting argument that because you go direct that you should need more global eq on the AxeFx. If you're going direct and you have a challenging room, wouldn't you want to make your "global EQ" adjustments at FOH? That way it corrects for the whole band. Certainly if some venue has enough of an issue that a graphic or parametric is required to balance the room, then you'd want to apply that where it would do the most good for the most people - at FOH.

In some instances that is true, however, many times you encounter a situation where the vocals, other instruments may sound fine but something is not sounding right on your specific instrument. Having a dedicated eq means not committing house resources. Plus, a lot of guys run a direct mix and use backline gear for monitoring. Either one could be off and with the AxeFX you have two globals.

Personally I do run direct but don't gig often and I have an 8-band parametric built into my MOTU 828 mk3 that's always in my rack - so I have much more control than I ever need. I don't use the MOTU's parametric for the AxeFx but it's there if I need to use my 828 as a small mixer.

I don't know how easy / difficult / resource using / overhead diminishing - adding more global EQ's to the Axe Fx would be - and neither do you. That's Cliff's call and so far he isn't saying anything.

An 8 band parametric definitely gives you some killer control! I am not nearly that ambitious in suggesting more bands ( although I don't think anyone would turn it down)

Bottom line is that global EQ is primarily for people that are not running direct - IMO.

I agree, and more and more musicians are starting to run direct.

I don't participate in wish-list stuff primarily because I want Cliff to govern and control his own time (maybe if we leave him alone the MFC-101 would come to market more quickly).

As far as the MFC-101...how's that goin for you? Just kidding, it will arrive eventually I'm sure. There are just a lot of irons in the fire. Got to say though, it's really hard to complain about Fractal....those guys are absolutely fantastic!!

 

[Jed]

As far as the MFC-101...how's that goin for you? Just kidding, it will arrive eventually I'm sure. There are just a lot of irons in the fire. Got to say though, it's really hard to complain about Fractal....those guys are absolutely fantastic!!

LOL So far not so well, . . . but I'm a patient man. Sooner or later it will come to market or I'll press Cliff for a prototype. ;-) I must say that as long as I'm not gigging heavily (probably true for the rest of my natural life) - a MidiMate is working well enough for me for now. I love all the options that the Ultra gives me but in actual use I'm only interested in a few (direct to amp) types of sounds. Funny that I bought the Ultra for the effects but continue to use it for the amps with just a minimal amount of coloration via effects (compression, reverb, delay and the rare tremolo for swamp rock).

I couldn't agree more about Cliff and company. They can do little wrong in my book.

Cheers,