Are you STILL using Graphic EQ? | Graphic Equalizer from Behringer X32 measured in Smaart 

Are you loving your GEQ or shying away from it?

Not all graphic eq's work like this. For example, the 560 from API's midband is a very wide band for broad strokes. I would argue that this kind of graphic eq is good for certain applications, just like any tool. It's just a tool, and it's your knowledge of how to use it and what it does to your signal that helps you choose the right tool for the job at hand. Also, not all parametric eq's can get as tight of a q as the one you're using, which again comes down to the differences between eq builds and not the difference between graphic vs parametric. I would argue that how the result sounds is the only important factor. What you told it to do depends on what you hear while applying the tool.

Thanks Aleš! I’ve been wanting a video exactly like this. So helpful to see what’s happening with GEQ - definitely helps to understand our audio tools better.

yup i agree. TruEQ is better than the regular GEQ for speaker calibration, but fully parametric eq is the best eq

Thanks Aleš! Definitely more going on there than we might think!

Parametric EQ with frequency bands is all i need im Ear And Visual guy it helps so much

Thanks for the informative video. I am old school sound engineer and used mainly analogue equipment because digital wasn't around at the time. I encountered on tour every night different equipment and remembered a cheap nasty Yamaha Eq on a system and just pulling a frequency I was getting feedback. It was so inaccurate. Anyway are well build graphic analogue EQs behaving similar???? Also use to work on same venue for many years using DB monitors. Always pulled maybe 2 or 3 freq out if needed at all. Nice powerful monitor. One night visiting tech brought his cheap Allen and Heath digi desk did some drastic EQ and the monitor never sounded so bad and hardly any volume. Anyway curious if analogue EQ are adding the same inaccuratecy. Thanks again. Raymond Steeg

if you narrow the Q of a parametric and cut 1k by 15db, it will also pull down the neighboring frequencies. so with parametric, you have maybe six, maybe four frequency ranges you can alter, each affecting the nearest frequencies to it. with a graphic, you have so much more control. if you wreck it to the point of phasing then you have problems on your board.

Okay, you make a lot of good points. Now, how can you have more than 5 adjustment points on the VEQ? Why cant you get a smaller Q setting on the GEQ? After all, this is all digital and SHOULD be more customizable.

I use an EQ to cut or lower frequencies most of the time but what if we boost frequencies, does the same thing happen when you boost frequencies that are next to each other?

But you never mention it the impact of phase correlation of the eq's and the impact it has on the phase. In theory you can use pinpointed PEQ to cut a frequency better that the GEQ, but can you pinpoint it exactly during showtime? That is why GEQ is useful. I tend to use PEQ when doing soundcheck, when playing safe. I use GEQ when fixing things during show I use TEQ on matrix busses to calibrate primary or secondary systems, As you can see, TEQ has the least impact on phase offsetting, which i think is the most important for a clear and pristine sound, and if you found yourself eq'ed too much, the system just sounds like through curtain, and is unable to punch lungs, drop guts and bite. Nice video though, i want to see you compare different models of digital mixers' eq's for phase correlation, do some mixers have better designed eq's, what about vs analog GEQ like the BSS maybe... Keep up the good work.

Ok. So for FOH PA systems, if you need much manipulation even in your parametric EQ, pack up the rig and get one that presents a balanced response for the frequency range needed for the application(talking head events don’t need 30hz). So use your parametric on the PA, but I swear if you need more than one band any kind of huge notch then there are bigger problems, regardless of the room, save for very extreme circumstances. In other words, the PA should present as flat. Any issues or corrections should be done in the corresponding channels. The moment you shape a PA around a lead vocal mic, is the moment you should just send the band home. It’s not the fault of the snare drum, or the bass, or the keyboards, that a vocal mic has to be the most compromised input as it is usually the one with the highest input level to output needed discrepancy of any mic on stage. So when you shape around a vocal or even a great track, everything else suffers. Now the keys sound hollow, the snare is all highs and lows, with no meat, the bass has disappeared, but you can feel it. Ugh. The cymbals are all glassy. All because of a vocal mic. So shape the vocal mic with the parametric. Need more? Well, first off, sorry. But there are plenty of ways to put more eq into the chain. Regardless of whether I’m doing the symphony or death metal or the mayoral inauguration, the PA eq is all but flat. The input being offensive should be repaired. In the PA rig feed back should really not be an issue. Unlesss....... But for Monitors, it’s almost the opposite. Yes we should start with optimum frequency response from our wedge. Start with a coherent and cohesive product. Notch the mic a little, high pass as needed for sure in the card. Then the graph comes into its own. With thousands and thousands of hours of experience the graph becomes your buddy. Not a crutch. You learn how harmonics interact and how you can shape a wedge sound to beat feedback yet try to retain to meat and potatoes. Accuracy is crucial. So of course, obviously, a parametric would be great. But apart from a Lake Contour I/O , most parametric are four to six bands max. Trust me, I had an O1V. Graphs are needed for monitors. The tutorial about the accuracy of the perceived curve with parametric eqs is great. What’s most revealing is the harmonic interactions between frequency bands that can both confound you and make you smile. Try to use a graph to RTA match a room and you will be chasing your tail for hours, but more importantly you will learn about relationships and interaction. So yeah, I guess this means you’ve got a new 31 band parametric eq to insert?

Honestly I feel at this point we're splitting hairs, especially when it comes to live shows, this level of detail doesn't really matter. Just like guitarists obsessing over the minutia of their tone live. The crowd doesn't care.

you cant get better music without hardware equalizer.

Look I understand your motive to make these kind of comparison videos, but I would say don't waste your and other's time by making these kinds of childish stuff cause the pros who have relied on graphic eq's for years aren't gonna change their mind by seeing the analyser cause the parametric one's won't give them the results that they would get with the graphics. So yeah consider another useful topic next time. Thanks.