Pre-EQ for DI Guitars

[Scott Smith]

I was planning on using a (Behringer) DEQ2496 before the input on a PODXT
Pro, however can anyone think of a better choice in the $300-$400 price
range, or if the DEQ is worth the money?

Thanks for your input

[Don Pearce]

On Sat, 02 Sep 2006 09:10:02 GMT, "Scott Smith" >
wrote:

>I was planning on using a (Behringer) DEQ2496 before the input on a PODXT
>Pro, however can anyone think of a better choice in the $300-$400 price
>range, or if the DEQ is worth the money?
>
>Thanks for your input
>

This is actually not suited to a guitar as it stands. At 22kohms the
input impedance is far too low. If you can find some sort of DI box to
put in front of it though, it will probably do a good job - but I have
to say it all looks a little over-the-top for eq-ing a guitar.

d

--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

[Scott Dorsey]

Scott Smith > wrote:
>I was planning on using a (Behringer) DEQ2496 before the input on a PODXT
>Pro, however can anyone think of a better choice in the $300-$400 price
>range, or if the DEQ is worth the money?

So how are you going to get the guitar signal up to line level before
running it into the EQ?

There are some guitar equalizers that are somewhat cruder (well, a lot
cruder) but have a built-in high-Z instrument preamp stage.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[amost]

"Scott Smith" > wrote in message
. ..
>I was planning on using a (Behringer) DEQ2496 before the input on a PODXT
>Pro,

Why? Seriously there's enough parameters EQ-wise on the Pod XT Pro or
otherwise to make it work going direct...IMO for sure.

--


www.andymost.com


however can anyone think of a better choice in the $300-$400 price
> range, or if the DEQ is worth the money?
>
> Thanks for your input
>

[Mike Rivers]

Scott Smith wrote:
> I was planning on using a (Behringer) DEQ2496 before the input on a PODXT
> Pro,

This isn't the appropritate tool for that job, for a couple of reasons.
Don't you have enough controls on the POD to get the sound that you
want? That's what it's supposed to be able to do.

[Scott Smith]

"Mike Rivers" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>
> Scott Smith wrote:
>> I was planning on using a (Behringer) DEQ2496 before the input on a PODXT
>> Pro,
>
> This isn't the appropritate tool for that job, for a couple of reasons.
> Don't you have enough controls on the POD to get the sound that you
> want? That's what it's supposed to be able to do.

The built-in EQ is a 4 band parametric with fixed bandwidth.

[Scott Smith]

"Scott Dorsey" > wrote in message
...
> Scott Smith > wrote:
>>I was planning on using a (Behringer) DEQ2496 before the input on a PODXT
>>Pro, however can anyone think of a better choice in the $300-$400 price
>>range, or if the DEQ is worth the money?
>
> So how are you going to get the guitar signal up to line level before
> running it into the EQ?

Maybe run it after the XTPro? Although a concern is that the DEQ is balanced
while my 1010LT has unbalanced inputs.

[Scott Smith]

"amost" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> "Scott Smith" > wrote in message
> . ..
>>I was planning on using a (Behringer) DEQ2496 before the input on a PODXT
>>Pro,
>
> Why? Seriously there's enough parameters EQ-wise on the Pod XT Pro or
> otherwise to make it work going direct...IMO for sure.

You can make it work, but for precision I need more than 4 bands or an
adjustable bandwidth for those that are built-in.

[Don Pearce]

On Sat, 02 Sep 2006 16:55:42 GMT, "Scott Smith" >
wrote:

>
>"Scott Dorsey" > wrote in message
...
>> Scott Smith > wrote:
>>>I was planning on using a (Behringer) DEQ2496 before the input on a PODXT
>>>Pro, however can anyone think of a better choice in the $300-$400 price
>>>range, or if the DEQ is worth the money?
>>
>> So how are you going to get the guitar signal up to line level before
>> running it into the EQ?
>
>Maybe run it after the XTPro? Although a concern is that the DEQ is balanced
>while my 1010LT has unbalanced inputs.
>

Running it after the XTPro is an option, but the effect will be
totally different to running it in front, particularly if you use it
to increase the brightness - it will make the distortion content of
the XTPro sound quite unpleasant, probably. May be an interesting set
of variations, of course.

d

--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

[Scott Smith]

"Don Pearce" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 02 Sep 2006 16:55:42 GMT, "Scott Smith" >
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Scott Dorsey" > wrote in message
...
>>> Scott Smith > wrote:
>>>>I was planning on using a (Behringer) DEQ2496 before the input on a
>>>>PODXT
>>>>Pro, however can anyone think of a better choice in the $300-$400 price
>>>>range, or if the DEQ is worth the money?
>>>
>>> So how are you going to get the guitar signal up to line level before
>>> running it into the EQ?
>>
>>Maybe run it after the XTPro? Although a concern is that the DEQ is
>>balanced
>>while my 1010LT has unbalanced inputs.
>>
>
> Running it after the XTPro is an option, but the effect will be
> totally different to running it in front, particularly if you use it
> to increase the brightness - it will make the distortion content of
> the XTPro sound quite unpleasant, probably. May be an interesting set
> of variations, of course.

Is there any real advantage to going that route vs. just using an EQ plugin?

[Don Pearce]

On Sat, 02 Sep 2006 17:18:28 GMT, "Scott Smith" >
wrote:

>
>"Don Pearce" > wrote in message
...
>> On Sat, 02 Sep 2006 16:55:42 GMT, "Scott Smith" >
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Scott Dorsey" > wrote in message
...
>>>> Scott Smith > wrote:
>>>>>I was planning on using a (Behringer) DEQ2496 before the input on a
>>>>>PODXT
>>>>>Pro, however can anyone think of a better choice in the $300-$400 price
>>>>>range, or if the DEQ is worth the money?
>>>>
>>>> So how are you going to get the guitar signal up to line level before
>>>> running it into the EQ?
>>>
>>>Maybe run it after the XTPro? Although a concern is that the DEQ is
>>>balanced
>>>while my 1010LT has unbalanced inputs.
>>>
>>
>> Running it after the XTPro is an option, but the effect will be
>> totally different to running it in front, particularly if you use it
>> to increase the brightness - it will make the distortion content of
>> the XTPro sound quite unpleasant, probably. May be an interesting set
>> of variations, of course.
>
>Is there any real advantage to going that route vs. just using an EQ plugin?
>

Do you mean as in a computer plugin - DX or VST? They would give you
latency problems.

But is this for live playing or recording? If it is for recording,
just do what you need - including plugins. If it is live, keep it all
as simple as possible, even if it means sacrificing the last nuance of
tone. After all, you will probably be the only person in the room who
notices it.

d

--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

[Mike Rivers]

Scott Smith wrote:

> Maybe run it after the XTPro? Although a concern is that the DEQ is balanced
> while my 1010LT has unbalanced inputs.

That would be a way to use it in the signal chain. Don't worry about
connecting balanced and unbalanced units together. Just do it. Pretend
the balanced output is unbalanced.

But are you sure you actually need it? Is there some sound that you
can't get with the POD? Since you're using a 1010LT, I assume you're
recording using a DAW program. Perhaps you should consider doing your
fine-tune EQ in software rather than committing to a sound that you
might not like later on.

But if you have your mind made up that you want a fancy cheap digital
equalizer in line, then guitar -> POD ;> Equalizer -> Sound Card is the
way to go.

[Scott Smith]

"Mike Rivers" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>
> Scott Smith wrote:
>
>> Maybe run it after the XTPro? Although a concern is that the DEQ is
>> balanced
>> while my 1010LT has unbalanced inputs.
>
> That would be a way to use it in the signal chain. Don't worry about
> connecting balanced and unbalanced units together. Just do it. Pretend
> the balanced output is unbalanced.
>
> But are you sure you actually need it? Is there some sound that you
> can't get with the POD? Since you're using a 1010LT, I assume you're
> recording using a DAW program. Perhaps you should consider doing your
> fine-tune EQ in software rather than committing to a sound that you
> might not like later on.

If it doesn't make any difference whether it's fixed in the box or correct
at the source then I'd probably opt for a software solution, but what's your
take on it?

> But if you have your mind made up that you want a fancy cheap digital
> equalizer in line, then guitar -> POD ;> Equalizer -> Sound Card is the
> way to go.

So it wouldn't really be preferred to put the EQ before the POD?

[Mike Rivers]

Scott Smith wrote:

> So it wouldn't really be preferred to put the EQ before the POD?

It wouldn't be very productive. Since the input impedance of the
equalizer is much lower than that the guitar wants to see, the guitar
would lose both level and treble, so you'd have to boost both to get
back to where you started, and add boost noise in the process.

Putting the equalizer after the POD at least gives you a reasonable
impedance and operating level match.

[Mike Rivers]

Scott Smith wrote:

> You can make it work, but for precision I need more than 4 bands or an
> adjustable bandwidth for those that are built-in.

I think you're nutz, but if you realyl need that level of precision for
your guitar, either get your guitar fixed or fine tune it after you
record. You have a choice of hundreds of equalizers in software, some
you probabably already have, others which cost less than the Behringer
equalizer.

[amost]

"Scott Smith" > wrote in message
...
>
> "amost" > wrote in message
> . ..
>>
>> "Scott Smith" > wrote in message
>> . ..
>>>I was planning on using a (Behringer) DEQ2496 before the input on a PODXT
>>>Pro,
>>
>> Why? Seriously there's enough parameters EQ-wise on the Pod XT Pro or
>> otherwise to make it work going direct...IMO for sure.
>
> You can make it work, but for precision

I don't know what you're going for but I've recorded alot direct with the
Pod XT as is & I'm not sure what an external EQ would do at least pre-mix.
It would just get in the way...that's just me though.

--


www.andymost.com


I need more than 4 bands or an
> adjustable bandwidth for those that are built-in.
>

[Scott Smith]

"amost" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> "Scott Smith" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "amost" > wrote in message
>> . ..
>>>
>>> "Scott Smith" > wrote in message
>>> . ..
>>>>I was planning on using a (Behringer) DEQ2496 before the input on a
>>>>PODXT Pro,
>>>
>>> Why? Seriously there's enough parameters EQ-wise on the Pod XT Pro or
>>> otherwise to make it work going direct...IMO for sure.
>>
>> You can make it work, but for precision
>
> I don't know what you're going for but I've recorded alot direct with the
> Pod XT as is & I'm not sure what an external EQ would do at least pre-mix.
> It would just get in the way...that's just me though.

In my experience using the XT for high gain recording, the onboard EQ is
insufficient for taming some of the ratty, high end distortion (fizz) in
some of the models, due to the fixed bandwidth of the two bandpass bands;
they're too wide for some of my uses. I'd like to notch out very specific
regions in the 5-6K range, but find it a challenge using the onboard EQ,
namely because I can't narrow the bands; I end up notching out more than
necessary.

[Mike Rivers]

Scott Smith wrote:

> In my experience using the XT for high gain recording, the onboard EQ is
> insufficient for taming some of the ratty, high end distortion (fizz) in
> some of the models, due to the fixed bandwidth of the two bandpass bands;
> they're too wide for some of my uses. I'd like to notch out very specific
> regions in the 5-6K range

In that case, you'd definitely want to put the equalizer after the Pod.
That way you could modify the distortion that the Pod is adding rather
than change what's going into it.

What's not obvious about that? Am I missing something in your setup?

[Scott Smith]

"Mike Rivers" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>
> Scott Smith wrote:
>
>> In my experience using the XT for high gain recording, the onboard EQ is
>> insufficient for taming some of the ratty, high end distortion (fizz) in
>> some of the models, due to the fixed bandwidth of the two bandpass bands;
>> they're too wide for some of my uses. I'd like to notch out very specific
>> regions in the 5-6K range
>
> In that case, you'd definitely want to put the equalizer after the Pod.
> That way you could modify the distortion that the Pod is adding rather
> than change what's going into it.
>
> What's not obvious about that? Am I missing something in your setup?

Not having tried it the other way, I wasn't sure. I appreciate the input
though. Thank you.