Graphic EQ for mixing?

[Deuteronomy]

I'm interested to buy a 30/31 band Graphic Equalizer for mixing.I will use it mainly for every instrument, but i'm focusing more on guitars
Do you have anything to recomment?Budget is 200-300 euros.
DBX 231 looks interesting ( http://dbxpro.com/en-US/products/231s ).
Does anyone has experience with this EQ?
Cheers from Greece

 

[bryan_kilco]

Honestly, I don't think a graphic EQ is really preferred for shaping mixes as much as a parametric.

I have the ART 31 band that I had in my guitar rack for years, pulled it out and threw it in my recording rack. It works, yes, but you can't sweep around and snag the "in-between" frequencies like you could with a parametric.

 

[Trevoire520]

Total waste of time with any modern DAW having parametric eq on every channel.

 

[Machinated]

graphic=big chance of making a phasey mess. can see the benefit in a visual sense in a live environment, but beyond that I can't think of a reason to be mixing with one ITB. save your cash and learn a parametric eq.

 

[NickLAudio]

They can be handy in certain studio situations. Rarely though. Mostly live for feedback isolation where phase isn't as easily heard at such high SPLs. But like the consensus, a parametric is where you should invest your money if you absolutely need an outboard EQ for mixing.

You say you want to use it on every instrument. Don't. But if you do anyways, barely use it on every instrument.

EQ is like salt. It makes the food taste good. Too much salt, the food will taste like shit...


.

 

[bryan_kilco]

Total waste of time with any modern DAW having parametric eq on every channel.

And this.

 

[aortizjr]

The other thing about cheaper eqs is that plugins are generally better sounding and add less (as in usually zero) noise. So 31 bands, no way.

However something like an API 560 can be really cool with its selective bands.

An mxr 10 band is cool in an amps loop for dialing in a tone for tracking. Not for mixing though.

 

[egan.]

The other thing about cheaper eqs is that plugins are generally better sounding and add less (as in usually zero) noise.

This. I think so much mystique has been created around analog gear that a lot of people lose site of the fact that much of it is built to a price point and just isn't a step up from plugins at all. I think a good rule of thumb for analog gear is to really know what it brings to the table that you can't achieve otherwise.

If you find yourself looking for some generic eq and not a specific model you've used/heard/loved it should be a red flag that you're buying into vague hype and not real need.

 

[Ermz]

General rule of thumb is to chase analogue pieces for some elusive flavor they add, which hasn't yet been replicated ITB. For me this means primarily compression. Digital still hasn't mastered that pudgy grabbyness of analogue comps, so my money goes there. EQ-wise you'd want something bloody good like a Massive Passive, Pultec or GML to give you something that plug-ins can't.

 

[Drummerrrrr?]

What are the phase issues caused by a graphic vs a parametric?

 

[Machinated]

What are the phase issues caused by a graphic vs a parametric?

The phase "issues" would be exactly the same, just you'd expect to have more phase shift with a graphic as there's lots of bands, and typically a tighter "q".

Not that phase shift is always bad or good. Just for what you'd usually use several bands for on a graphic eq you could achieve with one band on a parametric.

 

[Deuteronomy]

Thanks a lot guys!Very useful feedback, i will consider your words.Cheers!