Using a graphic and parametric together

[bldozier]

Hello,

Is this a viable idea a la
Crown eq 2

[grumpy]

It will "work", but it will add noise (perhaps noticeably) and therefore reduce detail.

Also, there is much more opportunity for signal abuse (e.g., line level clipping and distortion,
particularly with boost involved).

Therefore, I would not generally recommend such a configuration, as most are not prepared
to setup and maintain it properly... and DSP solutions have mostly made such decisions moot.

Used properly and intelligently, it -could- be useful for setting independently used corrections,
such as room vs recording or "tone" control use, but with the aforementioned caveats.

What are your thoughts on thinking such a series EQ setup would be required?

[bldozier]

Thanks for your guidance, Really the noise created by daisy chaining both parameters, could be diffused someWith a line level noise reducer, out of a home configuration, although present day examples may Generate less noise, vs older components. The only viable solution I gather is to included a noise reducer between the chain, maybe this is a component that should be incorporated into a vintage system already... this or a recap, maybe in the recap I could combine the two component's into a single unit and do away with the daisy chain to save someof the discussed feedback issues, Your thoughts.

[grumpy]

Since I have no idea what you are talking about or are intending to show in the photo,
I'm afraid I'll have to sit this one out and see if someone else can help you
unravel your questions. Sorry.

[bldozier]

Just in case you decided to return,

Im also thinking down the line of adding a electronic crossover, for biamping,
I guess the parametric equalizer will be obsolete if this is done?
Thanks for the help.

[ivica]

Hello,

Is this a viable idea a la
Crown eq 2

Hi bldozier,

I have no idea why to use PEQ and GEQ together, if we are talking about say 30-taps GEQ, and say about 6~10-filter PEQ per driver.
Today most of the DSP driver networks can do either of the mentioned. I can only imagine to use GEQ in order to "fast-prototyping" the
necessary PEQ to be realized, if a kind of DSP driven network is 'in mind'.
Using GEQ with just a few taps I will call it GEQ at all.
If only 'analog realized' network is considered, then large number GEQ is highly available at the reasonable price, while PEQ is , I can guess , would be much
more expensive, so I would suggest You, DSP driven equipment.

You can start from Behringer less expensive models analog (GEQ) then DSP driven GEQ or PEQ, but may be DCX2496 would satisfy the needs as it has network ( 2x2) capability, and DSP loading factor call give You some PEQ capabilities. DBX (second-hand) can be possible solution too (an example DriveRack_PA or similar).
May be miniDSP product can be used too. A fiend of mine has used Xilica XD/XP 2080...

regards
ivica


regards
ivica

[bldozier]

The au here has an n.r. adapter connection.
68245

O whats up ivica.

[grumpy]

I'd assume that was for an outboard Dolby encoder/decoder (or similar), which
largely worked with tape or encoded FM transmissions (with the in/out
jack grouping essentially functioning as another "tape monitor" type circuit).

That really has nothing to do with what I was referring to.

I have not seen any discussion of why one might want to
use both EQ types together, other than what I've already suggested
(and do not recommend).

[bldozier]

Greater control over frequency. The center bands & range. I assuemed nr reduction was for line noise not hiss and pop noise.
But ive seen line noise reducers as well. I was just watching one on ebay.
I saw one from archer, maybe thats for a stage and not the line, anyhow thanks for the help

[Hoerninger]

I assuemed nr reduction was for line noise ...

Standard for analog telephone lines, there are ICs for encoding /decoding.
But NEVER for connecting HiFi equipment on line level.
___________
Peter

[Challenger604]

Hi,I use both. The parametric slightly.It works for me...C

[grumpy]

In series? or for a separate channel... at any rate, I didn't say
it couldn't be done or that there was no reason. It's easier to
over do (to the point of -creating- problems) and not for a novice.

If the rationale is to satisfy a self-identified equipment whore jones
(I've been called worse :) ), then I -almost- understand... having
had Meyer PEQ and virtual electronic crossover in-line at the same
time... for similar reasons, but it wasn't for more frequencies
it was for separate "problems" (room and tone control).


68250
In this case, a loudness control would likely suffice
but not look nearly as cool :)

[Challenger604]

In series? or for a separate channel... at any rate, I didn't say
it couldn't be done or that there was no reason. It's easier to
over do (to the point of -creating- problems) and not for a novice.

If the rationale is to satisfy a self-identified equipment whore jones
(I've been called worse :) ), then I -almost- understand... having
had Meyer PEQ and virtual electronic crossover in-line at the same
time... for similar reasons, but it wasn't for more frequencies
it was for separate "problems" (room and tone control).


68250
In this case, a loudness control would likely suffice
but not look nearly as cool :)

Hi Grumpy,

It's in series going into the Pq first. I have that set up for awhile and checked if it would generate any problemes but here, it doesn't. I had plugged the same Pq Eq on my home theater system and didn't work there. For some reason, the surround was canceled.

The Sabine is digital and when you bring one side all the way down, the remaining control both channel.

Oh no, it's feasible but as you say, you have to be careful to do not saturate the input...
C

[boputnam]

Im also thinking ... of adding a electronic crossover, for biamping,
I guess the parametric equalizer will be obsolete if this is done? Uh, no...

[bldozier]

Uh, no...

The electronic crossover having presidence.

[boputnam]

The electronic crossover having presidence.That would be precedence. Anyway...

The two have unique purposes:



A crossover separates band passes (using your selections for filter type, slope and knee) for each element in your sound reproduction/reinforcement system (e.g., speaker cabinets).




EQs (PEQ or GEQ) are used within each band pass to (most typically) reduce energy you are introducing into the listening environment which has frequencies coincident to resonances in the room/stage/system.


But, looking back through this thread, and focussing upon EQs, suggests we need more information on your signal path, and desires. What are you trying to achieve?

Most PA systems (my realm) commonly deploy both PEQ and GEQs, or, two of the former. The systems are "tuned" (and time-aligned) using DSPs with PEQs. After system tuning/aligning, in signal path sequence, either PEQs or GEQs are inserted to allow guest engineers (or even me!) to quickly notch a troublesome f as it arises during a show. In our situations, T and humidity constantly change, sometimes drastically - we must have the option to tune for that occurrence while not changing the system tuning/timing (provided it was done well). Coincidentally, Dave Rat addresses this simply in the recent LiveSound "Something In The Air (http://www.prosoundweb.com/article/something_in_the_air/)".

Back to your living space, if you're considering going bi-amped, you'll need the OEM guidelines on crossover points, slopes, and phasing for the elements in your "cabinets" (for lack of knowing what you're considering), and a crossover with the needed band passes and number of amp channels sufficient to get it done. Once done, you'll need an RTA and source of Pink to approximate a good measurement system to calibrate what you're hearing and use PEQs to flatten each band pass. Re-check your time alignment because each and every filter you use - be they crossover knees or bells/shelfs in your band passes - impart delays to the signal. These are additive. So, you need to be mindful of the time alignment of each element in your system (unless you've grown fond of smeared arrival times and comb filtering).

So, tell us what you're trying to do, what you're doing it with, and why it's all so needed. Maybe, you're doing just fine with the gear at-hand, and going deeper can often bring compounding headaches! :banghead: Trust me on that. Although, if you've got the willpower to acquire the knowledge and gear to get it done, it is like experiencing air conditioning for the first time...