I need an eq

[Nate Najar]

going through the tapes from my last concert with the trio (this past
tuesday), I've decided on something. An acoustic pickup isn't an
inherently bad thing, if you treat it properly. It's no longer an
acoustic guitar and you cannot attempt to make it sound like an
acoustic guitar. what you can do is use it as a signal that you can
treat and give it its own sound. and i you make it sound good, then
there it is. a nylon string acoustic, after all, puts out so little
sound, no microphone is going to succeed in the same way you can mike
a piano or a saxophone, etc....

in my DAW I managed to get a decent "pickup" sound- far better than I
get while amplifying live. and i realized that, while I didn't use
much eq, I used very specific eq. eq that not one acoustic amp or
preamp system addresses. with the exception of the pendulum- which I
may end up dealing with, but i only want one channel and would prefer
to not have a full rackspace. But I don't really see anything else
out there. I was thinking of calling mark mcquilken and seeing if I
could twist his arm into designing something.

what I'd like is a 4 band eq with shelving on the top and bottom and 2
parametric bands in the middle- with bandwidth controls. preferably
this unit wold also have a gain stage before the eq. It doesn't seem
like this should be too hard to find. with the endless amount of
acoustic preamps out there where they all say there's is the best,
none of them have enough control to do anything to the sound. It's as
if they're more interested in moving a lot of product than they are
making the right one. Some come close with one semi parametric band
of mids, but that ain't enough. The sound of the pickup flat is not
the regular sound, the way it is with a good microphone. The sound of
the pickup is not the true sound of the instrument. you HAVE to
sculpt it into a sound that stands on its own. they all get that.
"the sound of your guitar, only louder" is the dumbest thing I ever
heard.

rant off..... someone tell me about an eq I can find that does that,
so i can carry it with me.

N

[Arny Krueger]

"Nate Najar" > wrote in message


> what I'd like is a 4 band eq with shelving on the top and
> bottom and 2 parametric bands in the middle- with
> bandwidth controls. preferably this unit wold also have
> a gain stage before the eq. It doesn't seem like this
> should be too hard to find. with the endless amount of
> acoustic preamps out there where they all say there's is
> the best, none of them have enough control to do anything
> to the sound. It's as if they're more interested in
> moving a lot of product than they are making the right
> one. Some come close with one semi parametric band of
> mids, but that ain't enough.

It's overkill, but the Behringer DEQ 2496 would do what you want and more.

> The sound of the pickup
> flat is not the regular sound, the way it is with a good
> microphone. The sound of the pickup is not the true
> sound of the instrument. you HAVE to sculpt it into a
> sound that stands on its own. they all get that. "the
> sound of your guitar, only louder" is the dumbest thing I
> ever heard.

It stands to reason that a pickup wouldn't sound much like a regular
acoustical instrument. I apply heavy parametric eq to all of the electric
instruments I work with and also to the PZM inside the grand piano.

[hank alrich]

Nate Najar > wrote:

> going through the tapes from my last concert with the trio (this past
> tuesday), I've decided on something. An acoustic pickup isn't an
> inherently bad thing, if you treat it properly. It's no longer an
> acoustic guitar and you cannot attempt to make it sound like an
> acoustic guitar. what you can do is use it as a signal that you can
> treat and give it its own sound. and i you make it sound good, then
> there it is. a nylon string acoustic, after all, puts out so little
> sound, no microphone is going to succeed in the same way you can mike
> a piano or a saxophone, etc....
>
> in my DAW I managed to get a decent "pickup" sound- far better than I
> get while amplifying live.

I've forgotten what pikcup you're using. Is it passive or active?

> and i realized that, while I didn't use
> much eq, I used very specific eq. eq that not one acoustic amp or
> preamp system addresses. with the exception of the pendulum- which I
> may end up dealing with, but i only want one channel and would prefer
> to not have a full rackspace. But I don't really see anything else
> out there. I was thinking of calling mark mcquilken and seeing if I
> could twist his arm into designing something.

For passive pickups I have not found anything the equal of the Red-Eye
from Fire-Eye Development in Austin TX. (Disclaimer: I am listed as a
dealer and have sold a few of these. This grew out of tech questions I
put to the designer-manufacturer, which subsequently grew to become his
online Tech Questions page.)

Don't be startled by the lack of "features". Turns out that when the
preamp works properly a whole lot of those are just more crap in the
signal chain. My Baggs PADI had plenty of features, and I sold it
immediately when I started using the Red-Eye.

http://www.fire-eye.com/

What the Red-Eye did for my mandolin, a '21 Gibson A2 with a Baggs
saddle, is flat out amazing. I played at Anderson Fair in Houston last
week and just the first few notes at soundcheck turned all the tech
heads. Folks were startled. "Amplified mandolins usually don't sound
that good." Amen. Even I can tell that. <g>

> what I'd like is a 4 band eq with shelving on the top and bottom and 2
> parametric bands in the middle- with bandwidth controls. preferably
> this unit wold also have a gain stage before the eq.

http://www.speck.com/asc/asc_2.html

A pair of those ride in a rack with my Great River MP2-MH. They also
work superbly in combo with the Speck MicPre 5.0. That config gives one
five bands of control.

> It doesn't seem
> like this should be too hard to find. with the endless amount of
> acoustic preamps out there where they all say there's is the best,
> none of them have enough control to do anything to the sound. It's as
> if they're more interested in moving a lot of product than they are
> making the right one. Some come close with one semi parametric band
> of mids, but that ain't enough. The sound of the pickup flat is not
> the regular sound, the way it is with a good microphone. The sound of
> the pickup is not the true sound of the instrument. you HAVE to
> sculpt it into a sound that stands on its own. they all get that.
> "the sound of your guitar, only louder" is the dumbest thing I ever
> heard.

The K&K Minis with the Red-Eye have brought me closer to that than I'd
imagined ever happening.


> rant off..... someone tell me about an eq I can find that does that,
> so i can carry it with me.
>
> N


--
shut up and play your guitar * http://hankalrich.com/
http://armadillomusicproductions.com/who'slistening.html
http://www.sonicbids.com/HankandShaidriAlrichwithDougHarman

[Scott Dorsey]

Nate Najar > wrote:
>what I'd like is a 4 band eq with shelving on the top and bottom and 2
>parametric bands in the middle- with bandwidth controls. preferably
>this unit wold also have a gain stage before the eq. It doesn't seem
>like this should be too hard to find. with the endless amount of
>acoustic preamps out there where they all say there's is the best,
>none of them have enough control to do anything to the sound. It's as
>if they're more interested in moving a lot of product than they are
>making the right one. Some come close with one semi parametric band
>of mids, but that ain't enough. The sound of the pickup flat is not
>the regular sound, the way it is with a good microphone. The sound of
>the pickup is not the true sound of the instrument. you HAVE to
>sculpt it into a sound that stands on its own. they all get that.
>"the sound of your guitar, only louder" is the dumbest thing I ever
>heard.
>
>rant off..... someone tell me about an eq I can find that does that,
>so i can carry it with me.

Why not just get a regular 4-band parametric? Or do you absolutely need
shelving on top and bottom?

Some of the fancier parametrics allow switchable shelf/peak on the top and
bottom filters; the Millennia Media does and so do some of the Sontecs.

TOA actually made a paragraphic EQ that turns up cheaply now and then and
is severely underrated.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Ty Ford]

On Fri, 8 Apr 2011 11:27:28 -0400, hank alrich wrote
(in article >):

> For passive pickups I have not found anything the equal of the Red-Eye from
> Fire-Eye Development in Austin TX. (Disclaimer: I am listed as a dealer and
> have sold a few of these. This grew out of tech questions I put to the
> designer-manufacturer, which subsequently grew to become his online Tech
> Questions page.)
>
> Don't be startled by the lack of "features". Turns out that when the preamp
> works properly a whole lot of those are just more crap in the signal chain.
> My Baggs PADI had plenty of features, and I sold it immediately when I
> started using the Red-Eye.
>
> http://www.fire-eye.com/

+1

Regards,

Ty Ford


--Audio Equipment Reviews Audio Production Services
Acting and Voiceover Demos http://www.tyford.com
Guitar player?:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yWaPRHMGhGA

[Frank Stearns]

Nate Najar > writes:

>going through the tapes from my last concert with the trio (this past
>tuesday), I've decided on something. An acoustic pickup isn't an
>inherently bad thing, if you treat it properly. It's no longer an

Along with all the responses regarding EQ, do not forget to time-align the pickup
signal with any other acoustic sources you might have of the same instrument.
Typically, you'll delay the pickup channel because it's so much "closer" in time
than any mics on the instrument or in the room.

EQ'ing the typical pickup is dicey enough; add in comb-filtering from time delay(s)
in the mix, and you're asking for a long stay in a room with soft walls and very,
very long-sleeved jackets. :/

Frank
Mobile Audio
--

[Nate Najar]

On Apr 8, 5:05*pm, Frank Stearns >
wrote:
> Nate Najar > writes:
> >going through the tapes from my last concert with the trio (this past
> >tuesday), I've decided on something. *An acoustic pickup isn't an
> >inherently bad thing, if you treat it properly. *It's no longer an
>
> Along with all the responses regarding EQ, do not forget to time-align the pickup
> signal with any other acoustic sources you might have of the same instrument.
> Typically, you'll delay the pickup channel because it's so much "closer" in time
> than any mics on the instrument or in the room.
>
> EQ'ing the typical pickup is dicey enough; add in comb-filtering from time delay(s)
> in the mix, and you're asking for a long stay in a room with soft walls and very,
> very long-sleeved jackets. *:/
>
> Frank
> Mobile Audio
> --
> *.

speaking of which, how long does it take sound to travel? and how
does time relate to sample length?

thanks everybody for your consistent putting up with helping educate
me! I just want to do my part to eliminate bad sound in the world!

N

[Nate Najar]

On Apr 8, 10:31*am, Nate Najar > wrote:
> going through the tapes from my last concert with the trio (this past
> tuesday), I've decided on something. *An acoustic pickup isn't an
> inherently bad thing, if you treat it properly. *It's no longer an
> acoustic guitar and you cannot attempt to make it sound like an
> acoustic guitar. *what you can do is use it as a signal that you can
> treat and give it its own sound. *and i you make it sound good, then
> there it is. *a nylon string acoustic, after all, puts out so little
> sound, no microphone is going to succeed in the same way you can mike
> a piano or a saxophone, etc....
>
> in my DAW I managed to get a decent "pickup" sound- far better than I
> get while amplifying live. *and i realized that, while I didn't use
> much eq, I used very specific eq. *eq that not one acoustic amp or
> preamp system addresses. *with the exception of the pendulum- which I
> may end up dealing with, but i only want one channel and would prefer
> to not have a full rackspace. *But I don't really see anything else
> out there. *I was thinking of calling mark mcquilken and seeing if I
> could twist his arm into designing something.
>
> what I'd like is a 4 band eq with shelving on the top and bottom and 2
> parametric bands in the middle- with bandwidth controls. *preferably
> this unit wold also have a gain stage before the eq. *It doesn't seem
> like this should be too hard to find. *with the endless amount of
> acoustic preamps out there where they all say there's is the best,
> none of them have enough control to do anything to the sound. *It's as
> if they're more interested in moving a lot of product than they are
> making the right one. *Some come close with one semi parametric band
> of mids, but that ain't enough. *The sound of the pickup flat is not
> the regular sound, the way it is with a good microphone. *The sound of
> the pickup is not the true sound of the instrument. *you HAVE to
> sculpt it into a sound that stands on its own. *they all get that.
> "the sound of your guitar, only louder" is the dumbest thing I ever
> heard.
>
> rant off..... *someone tell me about an eq I can find that does that,
> so i can carry it with me.
>
> N

once I move a few things on ebay, I think I'll probably pick up a
speck eq. looks like the best option considering the features and the
size and the price. I imagine the sound is top notch on that thing.

N

[Scott Dorsey]

Nate Najar > wrote:
>
>speaking of which, how long does it take sound to travel?

About a foot a millisecond. It changes with changes in humidity and
temperature too, which is why although you notch the feedback modes at
the soundcheck, when the hall is full of hot and sweaty audience members
they have moved slightly.

>and how
>does time relate to sample length?

If you are taking 44.1 thousand samples per second, how many milliseconds
is one sample? Hint: it's less than one.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Trevor]

"Scott Dorsey" > wrote in message
...
> Nate Najar > wrote:
>>
>>speaking of which, how long does it take sound to travel?
>
> About a foot a millisecond.

Right, that's the approximation most use when setting delays.

>It changes with changes in humidity and
> temperature too, which is why although you notch the feedback modes at
> the soundcheck, when the hall is full of hot and sweaty audience members
> they have moved slightly.

I don't really think that's the main reason, unless your hall is changing
temperature/humidity by a lot more than most!
Simply adding all the extra bodies physical presense is the main reason.


>>and how
>>does time relate to sample length?
>
> If you are taking 44.1 thousand samples per second, how many milliseconds
> is one sample? Hint: it's less than one.

Gee, I wonder how many people really can't work out for themselves it's 44.1
per milisecond?
(or 48 or 96 or 192)

Trevor.

[Frank Stearns]

Nate Najar > writes:

>On Apr 8, 5:05=A0pm, Frank Stearns >
>wrote:
>> Nate Najar > writes:
>> >going through the tapes from my last concert with the trio (this past
>> >tuesday), I've decided on something. =A0An acoustic pickup isn't an
>> >inherently bad thing, if you treat it properly. =A0It's no longer an
>>
>> Along with all the responses regarding EQ, do not forget to time-align th=
>e pickup
>> signal with any other acoustic sources you might have of the same instrum=
>ent.
>> Typically, you'll delay the pickup channel because it's so much "closer" =
>in time
>> than any mics on the instrument or in the room.
>>
>> EQ'ing the typical pickup is dicey enough; add in comb-filtering from tim=
>e delay(s)
>> in the mix, and you're asking for a long stay in a room with soft walls a=
>nd very,
>> very long-sleeved jackets. =A0:/
>>
>> Frank
>> Mobile Audio
>> --
>> =A0.

>speaking of which, how long does it take sound to travel? and how

Approximately 1130 feet per second at sea level. I say "approximately" because
humidty, temp and altitude (barometric pressure) will affect transmission speed a
little bit. (As an example, sound travels 6000 feet per second in water, perhaps
12,000 in steel, IIRC; and at many different rates in different material. Do a web
search on it.)

>does time relate to sample length?

Depends on what you mean by "relate"... Don't get me started by asking the
question "what happens if there's sound 'between' samples..." Arrgh!

But if you're sampling at 44100 times per second, and sound is moving 1130 feet per
second, you can do some simple arithmetic to see how many samples you might want to
delay the pickup signal in relation the acoustic travel time to a mic 12 inches away
from that same source.

In this case, we're something just shy of 1/1000 of a second, or just a shade less
than 44 samples.

One good way is to simply listen. Bring up the pickup and mic to roughly equal
values. If you use Protools, use one of the delay plugins. Click in the value box,
and then you can use the up/down arrows to change the delay one sample at a time.

Listen to what happens!!

Adjust to taste. The arithmetic gets you in the ball park; tune by ear.


>thanks everybody for your consistent putting up with helping educate
>me! I just want to do my part to eliminate bad sound in the world!

And thanks for paying attention to it!

Frank
Mobile Audio

--

[Ty Ford]

On Sat, 9 Apr 2011 17:26:41 -0400, Nate Najar wrote
(in article
>):

> speaking of which, how long does it take sound to travel? and how
> does time relate to sample length?
>
> thanks everybody for your consistent putting up with helping educate
> me! I just want to do my part to eliminate bad sound in the world!
>
> N

Nate,

Where were you in science classs?

approx 1130 feet per second at Standard Temperature and Pressure (STP).

or, about 1 foot per millisecond.

Regards,

Ty Ford


--Audio Equipment Reviews Audio Production Services
Acting and Voiceover Demos http://www.tyford.com
Guitar player?:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yWaPRHMGhGA

[Nate Najar]

On Apr 10, 12:16*pm, Ty Ford > wrote:
> On Sat, 9 Apr 2011 17:26:41 -0400, Nate Najar wrote
> (in article
> >):
>
> *> speaking of which, how long does it take sound to travel? *and how
>
> > does time relate to sample length?
>
> > thanks everybody for your consistent putting up with helping educate
> > me! *I just want to do my part to eliminate bad sound in the world!
>
> > N
>
> Nate,
>
> Where were you in science classs?
>
> approx 1130 feet per second at Standard Temperature and Pressure (STP).
>
> or, about 1 foot per millisecond.
>
> Regards,
>
> Ty Ford
>
> --Audio Equipment Reviews Audio Production Services
> Acting and Voiceover Demoshttp://www.tyford.com
> Guitar player?:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yWaPRHMGhGA

thanks!

believe it or not, I made it all through school without ever taking a
physics class.... lots of biology and one year of introductory
chemistry. and I don't remember a damn thing!

N

[Cyberserf[_2_]]

On Apr 10, 12:55*pm, Nate Najar > wrote:
> On Apr 10, 12:16*pm, Ty Ford > wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Sat, 9 Apr 2011 17:26:41 -0400, Nate Najar wrote
> > (in article
> > >):
>
> > *> speaking of which, how long does it take sound to travel? *and how
>
> > > does time relate to sample length?
>
> > > thanks everybody for your consistent putting up with helping educate
> > > me! *I just want to do my part to eliminate bad sound in the world!
>
> > > N
>
> > Nate,
>
> > Where were you in science classs?
>
> > approx 1130 feet per second at Standard Temperature and Pressure (STP).
>
> > or, about 1 foot per millisecond.
>
> > Regards,
>
> > Ty Ford
>
> > --Audio Equipment Reviews Audio Production Services
> > Acting and Voiceover Demoshttp://www.tyford.com
> > Guitar player?:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yWaPRHMGhGA
>
> thanks!
>
> believe it or not, I made it all through school without ever taking a
> physics class.... *lots of biology and one year of introductory
> chemistry. *and I don't remember a damn thing!
>
> N

Yeah...Intro to Chemistry did that to me too.

-CS

[hank alrich]

Ty Ford > wrote:

> On Sat, 9 Apr 2011 17:26:41 -0400, Nate Najar wrote
> (in article
> >):
>
> > speaking of which, how long does it take sound to travel? and how
> > does time relate to sample length?
> >
> > thanks everybody for your consistent putting up with helping educate
> > me! I just want to do my part to eliminate bad sound in the world!
> >
> > N
>
> Nate,
>
> Where were you in science classs?

He was practicing guitar, and it shows. <g>

> approx 1130 feet per second at Standard Temperature and Pressure (STP).
>
> or, about 1 foot per millisecond.


--
shut up and play your guitar * http://hankalrich.com/
http://armadillomusicproductions.com/who'slistening.html
http://www.sonicbids.com/HankandShaidriAlrichwithDougHarman

[Bill Graham]

Cyberserf wrote:
> On Apr 10, 12:55 pm, Nate Najar > wrote:
>> On Apr 10, 12:16 pm, Ty Ford > wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Sat, 9 Apr 2011 17:26:41 -0400, Nate Najar wrote
>>> (in article
>>> >):
>>
>>>> speaking of which, how long does it take sound to travel? and how
>>
>>>> does time relate to sample length?
>>
>>>> thanks everybody for your consistent putting up with helping
>>>> educate me! I just want to do my part to eliminate bad sound in
>>>> the world!
>>
>>>> N
>>
>>> Nate,
>>
>>> Where were you in science classs?
>>
>>> approx 1130 feet per second at Standard Temperature and Pressure
>>> (STP).
>>
>>> or, about 1 foot per millisecond.
>>
>>> Regards,
>>
>>> Ty Ford
>>
>>> --Audio Equipment Reviews Audio Production Services
>>> Acting and Voiceover Demoshttp://www.tyford.com
>>> Guitar player?:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yWaPRHMGhGA
>>
>> thanks!
>>
>> believe it or not, I made it all through school without ever taking a
>> physics class.... lots of biology and one year of introductory
>> chemistry. and I don't remember a damn thing!
>>
>> N
>
> Yeah...Intro to Chemistry did that to me too.
>
> -CS

You mean you guys don't know the difference between metals and non-metals?
Or between "bases" and "acids"? I think you picked up a bit more than you
are willing to give yourselves credit for.

[Nate Najar]

On Apr 10, 8:25*pm, (hank alrich) wrote:

> He was practicing guitar, and it shows. <g>
>


thanks Hank

N

[Ty Ford]

On Sun, 10 Apr 2011 13:55:07 -0400, Nate Najar wrote
(in article
>):

>> Nate,
>>
>> Where were you in science classs?
>>
>> approx 1130 feet per second at Standard Temperature and Pressure (STP).
>>
>> or, about 1 foot per millisecond.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Ty Ford
>>
>> --Audio Equipment Reviews Audio Production Services
>> Acting and Voiceover Demoshttp://www.tyford.com
>> Guitar player?:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yWaPRHMGhGA
>
> thanks!
>
> believe it or not, I made it all through school without ever taking a
> physics class.... lots of biology and one year of introductory
> chemistry. and I don't remember a damn thing!
>
> N

Nate,

That you own up to it is is proper and makes me think more highly of you.

I didn't have that option and look what it did to me.:)

Regards,

Ty Ford



--Audio Equipment Reviews Audio Production Services
Acting and Voiceover Demos http://www.tyford.com
Guitar player?:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yWaPRHMGhGA

[Ty Ford]

On Sun, 10 Apr 2011 20:25:58 -0400, hank alrich wrote
(in article >):

> Ty Ford > wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 9 Apr 2011 17:26:41 -0400, Nate Najar wrote
>> (in article
>> >):
>>
>>> speaking of which, how long does it take sound to travel? and how
>>> does time relate to sample length?
>>>
>>> thanks everybody for your consistent putting up with helping educate
>>> me! I just want to do my part to eliminate bad sound in the world!
>>>
>>> N
>>
>> Nate,
>>
>> Where were you in science classs?
>
> He was practicing guitar, and it shows. <g>

I waited until after class to practice...;)

Regards,

Ty Ford



--Audio Equipment Reviews Audio Production Services
Acting and Voiceover Demos http://www.tyford.com
Guitar player?:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yWaPRHMGhGA