Parametric EQ tip - 'Contouring your sound'

Guys, Radley is spot on here. This is one of the most powerful things you can do with your tone because parametric EQ actually 'shapes' it rather than 'cut/boost' only.

No stealing anyone's thunder, but we've been talking about this going back to the very beginning of the original forum in some depth. It's amazing to me that folks are just finding it out now... though I am glad that folks are again 'catching on' as we go. :D

The Axe-FX is a toolbox and it is very beneficial to everyone using the thing to mess with the tools. :D Radley's a smart guy and is very cool for sharing this with guys.

Radley, thanks for posting this thread. The OP is very informative and explains it very well. Kudos.
 
Scott Peterson said:
Guys, Radley is spot on here. This is one of the most powerful things you can do with your tone because parametric EQ actually 'shapes' it rather than 'cut/boost' only.

No stealing anyone's thunder, but we've been talking about this going back to the very beginning of the original forum in some depth. It's amazing to me that folks are just finding it out now... though I am glad that folks are again 'catching on' as we go. :D

The Axe-FX is a toolbox and it is very beneficial to everyone using the thing to mess with the tools. :D Radley's a smart guy and is very cool for sharing this with guys.

Radley, thanks for posting this thread. The OP is very informative and explains it very well. Kudos.
Click to expand...

I'm not just finding the parametric. I've used EQ for years. With the Axe-FX though, I have been trying to get my sound just right with nothing more than amp and cab blocks for the most part. This was important to me to really learn them and how to make them work for me. The problem, just like in the real world, is that it still needs some doctoring at some point. I've learned a lot along the way, and I'm glad to be where I presently am. I feel like I'm really closing in on the tones I've been chasing for years.

The thing Radley explained here that I hadn't used, seen, or heard of on the forums (I'll admit I could have just missed it) was the blocking filters on each end of the spectrum with high Q values. I've always seen them as simple rolloff curves, and I don't recall seeing anyone make them into a bump at the rolloff point like this. That was a really cool tip that made a lot of things fall into place for me with a couple tones I just couldn't get all the way where I wanted them.

I'm just really excited about the Axe-FX and this community. The power and flexibility of this device is simply mind-blowing. Every time I think I've got it figured out I find some new curveball that makes it even more powerful and rewarding.

D
 
dk_ace said:
[quote="Scott Peterson":2ozjy98o]Guys, Radley is spot on here. This is one of the most powerful things you can do with your tone because parametric EQ actually 'shapes' it rather than 'cut/boost' only.

No stealing anyone's thunder, but we've been talking about this going back to the very beginning of the original forum in some depth. It's amazing to me that folks are just finding it out now... though I am glad that folks are again 'catching on' as we go. :D

The Axe-FX is a toolbox and it is very beneficial to everyone using the thing to mess with the tools. :D Radley's a smart guy and is very cool for sharing this with guys.

Radley, thanks for posting this thread. The OP is very informative and explains it very well. Kudos.
Click to expand...

I'm not just finding the parametric. I've used EQ for years. With the Axe-FX though, I have been trying to get my sound just right with nothing more than amp and cab blocks for the most part. This was important to me to really learn them and how to make them work for me. The problem, just like in the real world, is that it still needs some doctoring at some point. I've learned a lot along the way, and I'm glad to be where I presently am. I feel like I'm really closing in on the tones I've been chasing for years.

The thing Radley explained here that I hadn't used, seen, or heard of on the forums (I'll admit I could have just missed it) was the blocking filters on each end of the spectrum with high Q values. I've always seen them as simple rolloff curves, and I don't recall seeing anyone make them into a bump at the rolloff point like this. That was a really cool tip that made a lot of things fall into place for me with a couple tones I just couldn't get all the way where I wanted them.

I'm just really excited about the Axe-FX and this community. The power and flexibility of this device is simply mind-blowing. Every time I think I've got it figured out I find some new curveball that makes it even more powerful and rewarding.

D[/quote:2ozjy98o]

That's exactly right; and no slight to anyone at all in any manner. Kudos to everyone. Just being honest and personal here - it just surprises me sometimes me when we have all these tools in a toolbox and some guys are surprised to find a chisel when it has been there all the time. Especially if you've been looking for a chisel. :D

My post is one more of honest sincere surprise than anything else. Radley uses stuff to it's ability, no doubt! And I've thanked him for sharing those insights. I'm not condescending or being uppity at all here.

Don't read anything into my intent nor words; they are exactly as I would say them. No sarcasm implied nor meant. I am not as much a dick as folks might perceive... honest! :D
 
I get what you're saying.

I think the thing for me was that I didn't know I needed the chisel. My patches weren't worlds away from what I wanted them to be. They were actually really close. The thing about getting really close is that sometimes it's hard to put your finger on exactly what's missing.

I just tried this tip because it intrigued me and I wanted to see what it did. It happened to be exactly what I had been looking for, but I probably wouldn't have discovered it on my own. Chopping off both ends of the signal and then placing a hefty bump at the rolloff point to create the illusion of the extended range isn't exactly intuitive IMO (maybe it is and I'm just slow :oops: ). It works brilliantly for some things, but I just wouldn't have thought of it on my own probably. I've had this box for a long time now and hadn't thought of it before.

D
 
dk_ace said:
With the Axe-FX though, I have been trying to get my sound just right with nothing more than amp and cab blocks for the most part. This was important to me to really learn them and how to make them work for me.
Click to expand...

+1

I'm still hanging onto that basic 'principle': the amp controls should suffice (plus the cabinet). I've always used my "real" amps without outboard EQ's (for gigging). If an amp tone itself needs extra EQ-ing (or other measures) to get it right, I'll dismiss it. I know, it's kinda rigid but it's my principle.

Nevertheless, this thread made me start experimenting with a PEQ block after the cabinet. Not to shape the amp tone, but as an alternative method to get rid of excessive low end (instead of using the low cut param).
 
yek said:
dk_ace said:
With the Axe-FX though, I have been trying to get my sound just right with nothing more than amp and cab blocks for the most part. This was important to me to really learn them and how to make them work for me.
Click to expand...

+1

I'm still hanging onto that basic 'principle': the amp controls should suffice (plus the cabinet). I've always used my "real" amps without outboard EQ's (for gigging). If an amp tone itself needs extra EQ-ing (or other measures) to get it right, I'll dismiss it. I know, it's kinda rigid but it's my principle.

Nevertheless, this thread made me start experimenting with a PEQ block after the cabinet. Not to shape the amp tone, but as an alternative method to get rid of excessive low end (instead of using the low cut param).
Click to expand...

You misunderstand what I'm saying. I wanted to just use amp and cab blocks for a period of time to make sure I sufficiently understood them and knew how to get what I wanted out of them. I can get just about everything I want out of them and now I'm trying to wring that last little elusive bit out of my tone.

I've never seen any amp that didn't need some amount of outboard processing to get it 100% right in a band context. Did you mic them and run them to the FOH? Did the sound engineer leave everything exactly flat? My guess is he didn't. That would be outboard processing to make it fit right in the band context if he touched the EQ at all, and that's what I'm doing with the parametric EQ as Radley explains using it here. That's a pretty rough example and not the best analogy, but I hope it clears up what I'm saying.

I'm not saying the Axe-FX amp or cab blocks are deficient in any way.

D
 
There's been some really good discussion on this thread :cool:

In my case, what I'm finding is that this EQ treatment is going to be helpful in my live settings. It seems that any time I develop a patch it has all that yummy high end sizzle that I love, and then I go and try it with the band and it just washes away. This treatment seems to have plenty of high end when played loud through my system (similar to band volume). However, I wanted to see what it sounded like recorded and it turned out flat and to no surprise... lacking the high end sizzle I love :lol: . I can see this tool as very useful for my loud, live band tones to help them cut through without getting lost in the mix. However, I will likely not use it (or at least use a modified version) for recording.

Also, I think I found the mud zone in the 125-150 Hz region in my setup. Notching in this region reduced the boxy character and greatly increased overall clarity.
 
dk_ace said:
You misunderstand what I'm saying. I wanted to just use amp and cab blocks for a period of time to make sure I sufficiently understood them and knew how to get what I wanted out of them. I can get just about everything I want out of them and now I'm trying to wring that last little elusive bit out of my tone.

I've never seen any amp that didn't need some amount of outboard processing to get it 100% right in a band context. Did you mic them and run them to the FOH? Did the sound engineer leave everything exactly flat? My guess is he didn't. That would be outboard processing to make it fit right in the band context if he touched the EQ at all, and that's what I'm doing with the parametric EQ as Radley explains using it here. That's a pretty rough example and not the best analogy, but I hope it clears up what I'm saying.

I'm not saying the Axe-FX amp or cab blocks are deficient in any way.

D
Click to expand...

Ah, I understand. In that case strike the +1, hehe :))
Still, it's my own principle. I'm not configuring the amp for FOH amplification or recording, but for the tone I want to hear coming from the (FRFR) speaker. For that purpose the amp's tone controls should suffice.
 
yek said:
dk_ace said:
With the Axe-FX though, I have been trying to get my sound just right with nothing more than amp and cab blocks for the most part. This was important to me to really learn them and how to make them work for me.
Click to expand...

+1

I'm still hanging onto that basic 'principle': the amp controls should suffice (plus the cabinet). I've always used my "real" amps without outboard EQ's (for gigging). If an amp tone itself needs extra EQ-ing (or other measures) to get it right, I'll dismiss it. I know, it's kinda rigid but it's my principle.

Nevertheless, this thread made me start experimenting with a PEQ block after the cabinet. Not to shape the amp tone, but as an alternative method to get rid of excessive low end (instead of using the low cut param).
Click to expand...

Never have I mic'ed an amp without needing eq after the mic, even when the cab itself sounds great. If you can send your mic to the PA with no eq, you are either doing far better than I, or have very different taste in tone. If I used your principle, I'd dismiss every tone I ever achieved by mic'ing a speaker. More power to you.

I say this because the IRs in the Axe-FX are those of a mic'ed cabinet.
 
steadystate said:
I say this because the IRs in the Axe-FX are those of a mic'ed cabinet.
Click to expand...

I use the farfield Red-Wirez IR's. That makes a difference.

To each his own. I'm not disputing the possible need for EQ-ing at the mixing table. And I think it's terrific that people are sharing knowledge like this!
I'm just saying that - for me - the amp controls should be sufficient to get the amp tone that I like to hear to come through the speaker (edit: I mean a cabinet speaker) and not drown in a band setting. I use a FRFR-system, maybe that helps to avoid the need for much extra EQ-ing at the mixing table, I don't know, that's up to the soundguy.
 
There're some really good points mentioned, and I'll throw in my perspective for those new to mixing/eq'ing. The way I see it, there are three different approaches/stages to shaping your sound:

1) For the room. This is what your ears hear straight out of your cab w/o a mic.
2) For the mic: This is what your mic captures. Bone dry, and straight to the board/track.
3) For the mix: This is the basically (2) with additional eq and/or compression so it sits in the mix with other instruments.

(1) and (2) are fairly straight forward, especially with the Axe's excellent direct outs. (3) is the kicker: a guitar tone that sounds good by itself can very well sound like poo in the mix (and vice versa) if it's overlapping too much of the frequencies of the other instruments - for example, too much bottom end sounds massive by itself, but you could be stepping on the bass player's toes and muddying everything up; likewise, too much high end sounds great by itself, but it can get lost amongst the cymbals quickly. This is also why your amp never quite sounds like the tone on your favorite album after you recorded it - you're missing all the post processing that makes the guitar sound the way it does on the recording.

Now, a good sound engineer will take care of (2) in the studio for you, and a good mastering engineer will take care of (3). That said, in live settings, we aren't afforded the luxury of always having a good soundman, good eq's and compressors, or simply the time to dial things in (especially if your promotor decides to book seven bands for one evening, and you only have ten minutes to setup and sound check before you start playing...). Thus, it's nice to be able to send a "pre-shaped" direct signal to the board that you know would sit reasonably well in the mix - and that is where the aforementioned eq techniques come in. Of course, no two venues are alike, so you would still need the soundman to make the final adjustments, but it certainly helps if he doesn't need to setup everything from scratch when time and/or gear is limited. Assuming, of course, you've taken the time to listen to your tone through a PA (or recording) in the mix, and setup the eq in that context.

As always, I'm still learning new things myself all the time, and these are just my two cents from having been on both sides of the mixing board.
 
IMO, 'boxiness' is a problem with the low freq. cutoff settings - either the freq. is set too high, or the 'Q' setting is too high. It is important to note that normally the 'Q' setting should not have to be very extreme to get the desired bump to make things sound right. In other words, don't crank the 'Q' up to 2.8 because you don't have enough highs (or lows) - simply adjust the Amp's treble or presence settings, knowing that the curve contour will still have it's overall effect. These settings allow for extreme tonal shaping, so our ears must always guide us - I believe most users will settle on some general settings that usually work for their sonic preferences & particular programming methods.
 
Another thing I've noticed when doing this is that it can give you some more options with the amp controls. For instance, if the sound is too dark after using the peq you can go back to the amp controls and turn up the treble and/or presence controls. I found that using the blocking filters on the high end allows me to use treble or presence settings I couldn't use without it since there's no longer any fizz to worry about. This has been particularly helpful with some Marshall and clean tones that I wanted a bit brighter but was fighting fizz.

D
 
Is this tip just for those folks using FRFR, or does it also apply to those running the Axe FX into a SS poweramp and cabinet ?

Thanks for these great tips... I learn something new about many aspects of amplifiers and sound in general each time I browse the forum. :)
 
Ochanomizu said:
Is this tip just for those folks using FRFR, or does it also apply to those running the Axe FX into a SS poweramp and cabinet ?

Thanks for these great tips... I learn something new about many aspects of amplifiers and sound in general each time I browse the forum. :)
Click to expand...
Ochanomizu,

The techniques are effective regardless, but the settings will need to be 'maximized' for different setups. As Joe Meek used to say, "If it sounds right, it IS right!"
 
Scott Peterson said:
That's exactly right; and no slight to anyone at all in any manner. Kudos to everyone. Just being honest and personal here - it just surprises me sometimes me when we have all these tools in a toolbox and some guys are surprised to find a chisel when it has been there all the time. Especially if you've been looking for a chisel. :D
Click to expand...

I think most of us have seen the chisel any number of times, and could even have identified that it's a chisel. The problem is that using a chisel is an art that requires practice and study. If you're accustomed to buying prehung doors, and exchanging them if they don't fit, and every time you've ever used a chisel the results were ugly, then you're reluctant to hassle with it.

In my opinion, this is very close to the situation with EQ. Folks are accustomed to having the EQ provided in the tone knobs of an amp, and writing off the EQ that's happening inside the amp's circuitry as the particular "mojo" of particular builders. If the knobs don't give them what they want, then they conclude that the amp "sucks," or that it simply is "not for them," or they have it modified, or they try changing speakers, or they sell it and try another.

EQ is a black art to the uninitiatied, and learning to use it takes a lot of time, a lot of ear training, and a lot of practice. This all adds up to a lot of patience, a virtue which most guitarists don't possess in the first place, and one that is in even shorter supply among those of us who aren't lucky enough to do it for a living and don't have a degree in electronic engineering. When you're getting off work and rushing to rehearsal or gig, you simply don't have the time to figure out whether a Q of .707 or .985 accomplishes what you want, even if you understand what Q means at an intellectual level. And that chisel is of ZERO use to you if this is what you get in the manual for explanation:

TYPE - sets the shape and cutting angle of the blade. Choices are now mortise, dovetail and butt (i.e. square).

I only jest a little. This is what the manual says about the PEQ:

TYPE - set the curve of the outer bands. Choices are now shelving, peaking and blocking (i.e. highpass).

I've understood what a highpass filter is for a couple of decades, but equating blocking EQ to a highpass filter is an oversimplification - or maybe I still don't fully understand blocking.

In any case, Radley did a great service with the original post, and subsequent comments expressing surprise that more of us hadn't caught on earlier don't do any service whatsoever - that just makes the rest of us feel like morons, which is counterproductive.
 
shredi knight said:
Well I did, but it was under my breath and I don't see how raz could have heard me.
Click to expand...
:lol: :lol: :lol:
raz makes a valid point about the manual though.it is rather vague.but anyone who wants to learn how PEQ works need only do a search and find a vast amount of info on it.(i'll show my age here ;) )i cut my PEQ teeth on a LAB L-10 i had back in '84.it was very simple control,but you figured out what it did real fast,made that amp sound great.(still kickin' myself in the ass for selling it $200.DOH :shock: )
sorry.....point being,just F' with it 'til you here something good! ;)
 
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom