I'm happy if any of my ramblings made some sense, after all.
Oh thanks, my pleasure, you're most welcome. None of them are graphic EQs as such, but work nicely for different occasions. I'm no expert on plugins, but my EQ favorites have been PLparEQ, NyquistEQ, Electri-Q (posihfobit) and Spectro. There's also features once only dreamed of, like Stillwells Spectro, the real-time spectral editor mentioned below.
With parametric EQ you can do surgical work, get rid of a specific annoying frequency or bring up just the right tonal spike you want to.Ĭombine them both or something totally new? Software plugins are nice on visual side, making even the fancier parametrics easier to handle than their hardware equivalents. At least in the hardware world, with graphic EQ you get more frequencies to adjust, it's easier to visually verify what you are adjusting and they are maybe faster to work with. This is kind of a compromise, but works often pretty good. It's also pretty common to see EQs which will have fixed low and high frequencies ( low and high shelf) along with couple of parametric, freely adjustable centers. The limiting factor of parametric EQ is the number of frequency spots that are available, usually just a few. This gives you the possibility to do precise cuts or boosts in any frequency you'd like, without affecting any other frequencies. On parametric EQ one can change the frequency center and adjust both the width and the level. Using the standard 1/3-octave (31 band) equalizers will hopefully keep the bands narrow enough for regular use. The fixed Q also means that on many occasions one ends up affecting a broader frequency range that would be necessary for the situation. On the other had, by their very design graphics are inflexible and don't allow you to do high precision adjustments, if needed. This makes graphic EQs easy and fast to adjust and they also offer the benefit of visually seeing the adjustments over the whole frequency range, with all those curves and dips.although, with software this visual difference has pretty much disappeared. You can not usually change the center frequencies nor the Q yourself, but only the level of each frequency center that you have available, represented visually by a slider/fader. Like you know, on graphic EQ all the center frequencies are fixed and their Q (the bandwidth) is set so that each band overlaps the adjancent frequencies a little. Is there some situation where one is better than the other ?Īnd a last question : what are the best graphic & parametric eq in VST format ? What's the point in using a parametric es instead of o graphic eq ? I prefer using graphic equalizer, but i don't really know the difference (in term of sound of course!) or can't hear it.
Posted: Tue 2:17 am Post subject: Parametric EQ or graphic EQ ?
Profile Log in to check your private messages Log in Audiobank 5 Band in-Dash Stereo Graphic Equalizer with Line Driver with Three Stereo RCA Outputs/Frequency Response: 10Hz to 50000Hz 1dB / Maximum Output Voltage AB-EQ05.