Parametric EQ tip - 'Contouring your sound'

Radley

Experienced
Hello again, fellow Axers -

Here’s another technique I’ve been using lately to get the most out of the AFX’s Parametric EQ - Cliff’s version of the classic 5-band parametric EQ is QUITE versatile, but some aspects of it’s versatility may not be so obvious, and hence this thread.

How many times have you wanted to filter some ultra-lows or ultra-highs from a patch without losing the ‘overall personality’ or ‘punch’ of the sound? You know - remove some cumbersome low end and fizzy highs, without losing fullness or hi-end articulation. This has never been an easy thing to accomplish, but with the AFX we have been given an incredible tool to do just that - it is the AFX Para-EQ....

The real magic for accomplishing this is found in the first (1st) and last (5th) bands of the AFX Parametric - it is here we can define the overall frequency spread (narrow or wide), as well as the specific contour (shape) of that spread, while the remaining 3 para bands are still available for whatever else we may want to alter in the remaining EQ curve. Although the user manual is rather sparse on description, there are 3 selections for the Type parameter of these 2 outer bands:

Shelving - All frequencies at or below the specified frequency are boosted by the selected db amount. Most Treble & Bass amp EQs operate this way.

Peaking - The frequencies at or or close to the specified frequency (i.e. bell curve), are boosted referenced to the selected db amount, as defined by the width of the Q setting. A more definable type of boost or cut.

Blocking - Just the name alone sounds rather negative and unusable, no? WRONG! :shock: IMO, this is just what we need to sculpt almost any response curve desired.

Here’s how simply it’s accomplished:

The first and last bands of the Para EQ are used to literally define the width and shape of the overall tonal response of the patch by these steps: (it is assumed that the PEQ will be positioned after the Amp & Cab)

Low (1st) band - Select Blocking as the Type. Select the frequency you want to be the center frequency - this frequency parameter will determine where the filter will start rolling off the low frequencies - typically, this will sound rather lackluster, as you will start to miss the extended low end <BUT> we have another parameter called ‘Q’, and it is very powerful in this instance. Start increasing the Q value until you hear (and see on the AFX display) a beautiful boost at the operative frequency - at this point you may want to alter the center frequency somewhat....go for it. Keep in mind that this boost does not effect the frequencies below the cutoff frequency (they have effectively been ‘nixed’). With this technique, we can retain fullness, while eliminating unwanted lower frequencies that can interfere with the bass & bass drum in a mix.

High (5th) band - Again, select Blocking as the Type. The frequency parameter will determine where the filter will start rolling off the high frequencies - typically, this also will sound somewhat lackluster & dark, as you will start to miss the extended high end brightness <BUT> lest we forget, we have that extra parameter called ‘Q’, and it is just what the doctor ordered to ‘make up the difference’! Example: If you feel there is excess hash/fizziness upwards of 4k, simply select 4k as the center frequency, and then use the ‘Q’ parameter to restore any presence that is apparently lacking - it’s there in spades my friends. At this point you may want to fine-tune the center frequency for refinement...

Keep in mind that you still have 3 bands of para EQ that have not yet been used! ;)

Tips:

* An approximation of a Billy Gibbons/ZZ Top OD tone would probably involve low/hi rolloffs of somewhere around 165z and 3.2kz - tweak Q according to taste, and don’t forget the 3 remaining para bands.

* Try this Para-EQ technique on some of your favorite patches - you may find that you like the sound of your favorite Amp model with a more limited/customized bandwidth!

Bottom Line: This technique can not only enhance existing patches, but also transform them into totally new entities if desired. In general, the smaller the real amp you are wanting to ‘cop’, the more narrow the bandwidth should be (cutoff frequency points moved towards the center) - you can create some interesting sounds like an old Rockman or a funky drive-in theatre speaker by decreasing the frequency spread. For Voxy/British tones, you might want to also cut some at 1.5kz (‘Q’ somewhere around 2), using one of the unused para bands.

Have fun ;)
 
Thank you very much for this detailed "Tip"! This is exactly the kind of tutorial I love to see.

Explained in simple enough terms that I don't need to be an engineer to understand and with some examples of how it may be applied so I can visualize/hear the focal point of what is being taught.

Bravo!
 
While I found the reverb tips to be self-evident (obviously they were extremely helpful for many), this eq technique is one that might not be obvious to many users, and has been *indispensible* for me since the first week I owned the Axe.

When I first used the Axe-FX, my main problem was finding a cab IR I liked. None of them had a hi end response I was crazy about. The standard eqs and Air were of limited help.

Using the last filter as a blocking filter allows me to shape the high end to my liking. The blocking filter, with variable frequency and Q, allows me to tailor the highs in ways the Air control and other eq methods do not.

I can even use blocking filters, in addition to standard eqs and microdelays, to create cab sims I prefer to many (if not most) of the built-in IRs.
 
I used to do that on all my presets back before we had the passive tonestack option. Before the passive tonestack option I thought the frequency range of the Fender models was way out of whack, far too much highs and lows that simply don't exist in the real amps.........the parametric was great for bringing the highs and lows into their proper place.

Great tip, it works like a charm.

p
 
Radley,are you becoming the new Axe-Fx guru? :D
great posts,the reverb post was awesome,works great.now this?great work!
the para. eq. is a powerful tool.i've always preferred Para. over Graphic.find it much more flexible.
Do you find that it is always better to cut freq. rather than boost them,with the para. eq.?

this is what we need,effects tips,rather than patch exchanging. :)
 
There are many knowledgeable 'gurus' here - I'm just trying to share some of the tidbits that work for me ;)

Although I know many serious engineers swear by cutting frequencies, I find myself boosting more often than cutting. I have gravitated to using more focused EQing, by using higher 'Q' settings that don't alter the overall contour so much.
 
Hadley,

Thanks for the tips! I appreciate your contributions as well as that of others who are sharing tips on how to achieve the desired end-result. I am always learning new stuff with the Axe-Fx, in large part due to those like yourself who are willing to share their knowledge.

-Steve
 
Thanks for the tip Radly,

I did the exact opposite to achive a Boston tone by using it in fromt of the amp just as Tom did with the old MXR 6 band and it works rather well. Boosting 400, 800 and 3.2K is a major part of that equation.
 
Sixstring said:
Thanks for the tip Radly,

I did the exact opposite to achive a Boston tone by using it in fromt of the amp just as Tom did with the old MXR 6 band and it works rather well. Boosting 400, 800 and 3.2K is a major part of that equation.

Very cool! Are those the 'official frequencies' Tom boosted as well? It certainly made his Marshall sound unique.
 
Radley said:
Sixstring said:
Thanks for the tip Radly,

I did the exact opposite to achive a Boston tone by using it in fromt of the amp just as Tom did with the old MXR 6 band and it works rather well. Boosting 400, 800 and 3.2K is a major part of that equation.

Very cool! Are those the 'official frequencies' Tom boosted as well? It certainly made his Marshall sound unique.

A note: that EQ is pre-distortion.

http://www.rockmancentral.com/RockmanCe ... shall.html

Further note: in that article when Tom says "after the preamp", he isn't talking about the distortion generating preamp (from the Marshall), he's talking about a boost pre that he has on his pedalboard.

Also, the author is being a little naive in saying that this EQ is the key to the Boston tone. It lies just as much in running a Marshall cranked into a power soak as it does in any pre-distortion EQ.
 
Ventanaman said:
Who knew Hugh Jackman was such a Fractal aficionado? :D
:lol: aXe-MEN! Tone Mutant!


Another great tip and another great reason to have an FX section on the forum.
Thanks again Radley, your explanation is very easy to follow and understand, look forward to more!
 
Wow! Great tip Rad. I just tried this on my CA3+ patch and it brought it up front much more - if that makes any sense :cool: . It sounds like it will cut through the mix much better without harshness. We'll see this weekend when I play with Animal... I mean my drummer :shock:
 
InsideOut said:
Wow! Great tip Rad. I just tried this on my CA3+ patch and it brought it up front much more - if that makes any sense :cool: . It sounds like it will cut through the mix much better without harshness. We'll see this weekend when I play with Animal... I mean my drummer :shock:
Great - keep in mind that you may need to do some minor tweaks at the gig to make it ideal. I would love to hear how it goes & what your bandmates think... :cool:
 
Really?

This was the first thing I went after when I got my Axe-FX.

It is a great thing to use, but I'm surpised more people didn't just do it immediately.

Oh well, it is a great tip :idea:
 
same here - I've used this since day one. It's probably more valuable to FRFR users.

One thing I've found: the default Q of 0.707 is the steepest cutoff you can get without a resonant peak at the cutoff frequency. Higher Q's give a peak which I usually find too severe for the general tone shaping I aim to do with the PEQ.

So if I want a peak around the cutoff freqencies, I use one of the other bands, say band 4, with a frequency just below band 5 (or band 2 with freq just above band 1 freq) with the Q set to a "lowish" value (less than 1) and however much gain I need for the peak. This approach sounds more natural to my ears.

Also another tip: Often the default Q of .707 is steeper than I want, so (as Rad has posted) you can reduce the Q for a gentler rolloff, however, you'll need to also increase the frequency to compensate for lower Q in band 5 (or decrease freq with lower Qs in band 1). This allows you to compare similar tonalities with different rolloff slopes. I usually use Q values in the range 0.4 to 0.7.
 
GM Arts said:
same here - I've used this since day one. It's probably more valuable to FRFR users.
Actually, I use this approach solely for attaining what I consider to be pro-sounding amp emulations direct to the house or recording console - I’ve never used my AFX with any FRFR setups to date.

Why make a point of ‘who was doing it when’ (who would know, and who cares)? The idea is to actually post techniques that others may find helpful, no? Explaining the how and why requires a lot more effort than simply programming a preset.

FWIW, I like the sound of controlled resonance (resonance we can manipulate as needed) - the typical guitar speaker is full of peaks and resonances, and it’s generally considered a big part of a speaker’s sonic ‘character’. Many times, these occur at the speaker’s natural rolloff frequency, which is what the described technique duplicates pretty closely. Big smooth curves just don’t seem to sound as ‘real world’ to my ears, but that’s what makes a race-horse (or is it horse-race) ???
 
Since upgrading to 9 and using Redwirez, I was getting great rhythm sounds, but when using a flat filter block for solo boost (as I always did before) It was too trebly.

So last few gigs I have been using a PEQ block instead of a flat filter with boost at the end of the chain. I use a peaking setting with a fairly wide Q but the peak is in the mids, so the solos cut through really nice without too much treble.

Works for me.

cheers
 
Radley said:
GM Arts said:
same here - I've used this since day one. It's probably more valuable to FRFR users.
... Why make a point of ‘who was doing it when’ (who would know, and who cares)? The idea is to actually post techniques that others may find helpful, no? Explaining the how and why requires a lot more effort than simply programming a preset.
Spot on, Hadley - my comment was that I have used this since day one and never bothered to post about it. I thought most folks knew about it, but you DID post about it and some have found it really helpful. So I also made the effort to share my experiences on how I've used it as well. :)
 
Back
Top Bottom