Guitar Player's Thread

[vikk]

Correct me if I'm wrong.

well, the thing is, in music, you should never make a generalization, both parametric and graphic have their place. like, would be nice to have Q's in graphics, but in the other hand, parametrics mostly have 5 bands, in contrasts with 31 in Graphics.

for most guitar players they don't care much about "defined" frequencies, they work on areas, like low, mid, high. and normally they just burst a area he likes the most. so the parametric would fit more his needs.

but for instance, wen working on a mix or a drum, i would like to use a graphic, to bust of remove specifics frequencies on a sound, this is even more clear wen EQing a drum.

As a practice, get a 31 band graphic EQ, and burst and remove every band, on every drum piece, to note the difference between near frequencies. sometimes a single frequency, can make a huge difference

 

[TheKid]

lolo this again. It's been repeatedly stated that this( || ) setup gives more "strength" to the lower strings, so they'll be more consistent if you do dives and in general vary the pitch using the FR, i.e a power chord should stay "in tune" longer during dives, than they normally would.

However, i have had this setup, and a normal setup ( /| ) for years, and I'm yet to pinpoint an actual noticeable difference

I think its all in the head of some people, but whatever floats their boat. It's like a lucky charm, i guess.

When I get a guitar with a floyd I'm taking the springs out of my strat copy and having all 5 springs in. FO' THE LULZ


but seriously I am going to do that

 

[marfal66]

well, the thing is, in music, you should never make a generalization, both parametric and graphic have their place. like, would be nice to have Q's in graphics, but in the other hand, parametrics mostly have 5 bands, in contrasts with 31 in Graphics.

for most guitar players they don't care much about "defined" frequencies, they work on areas, like low, mid, high. and normally they just burst a area he likes the most. so the parametric would fit more his needs.

but for instance, wen working on a mix or a drum, i would like to use a graphic, to bust of remove specifics frequencies on a sound, this is even more clear wen EQing a drum.

As a practice, get a 31 band graphic EQ, and burst and remove every band, on every drum piece, to note the difference between near frequencies. sometimes a single frequency, can make a huge difference

For your example with equing a drum mix, you can do the exact same thing with a para, and be even more specific, the only good thing I can think about a graphic eq is that it's quick for when you need to adjust something fast in a live situation, there might be other useful purposes but I can't think of them.
You have 31 bands, but you don't need them all, especially when you shape them like a wave, you're definetly better off with a parametric because of the straight line you have opposed to the 'cuts' from a graphic.

Ofcourse, these are details, differences are barely noticable, if at all, but I tend to grab a parametric rather than a graphic eq.

 

[marfal66]

When I get a guitar with a floyd I'm taking the springs out of my strat copy and having all 5 springs in. FO' THE LULZ


but seriously I am going to do that

Why? Isn't it going to fuck up your neck, string tension, action, or all simultaneously?

 

[snowy]

ohh dw, i already knew those things, there pretty helpful
thanks, ill keep practicing at those!!
anything else i can do to increase speed and hand-eye co-ordination??

Graphic eq's make "little cuts" into the sound, meaning the bandwidth (Q)

I stopped reading here.

Because wanking with ''knowledge'' and saying Bandwith = Q factor is not cool.

You have 31 bands, I don't need them all, especially when I shape them like a wave, I'm definetly better off with a parametric .

.

 

[Swabs]

Are you seriously criticising is grammar when you just said "It should I"?

 

[snowy]

fuck you, I just corrected it.
don't be so rude

 

[Swabs]

And besides, you're wrong to say that anyway, the word "you" can be used as a general term without specifically referring to anyone.

 

[Ensi]

dicks

 

[<-Warheart->]

lolo this again. It's been repeatedly stated that this( || ) setup gives more "strength" to the lower strings, so they'll be more consistent if you do dives and in general vary the pitch using the FR, i.e a power chord should stay "in tune" longer during dives, than they normally would.

However, i have had this setup, and a normal setup ( /| ) for years, and I'm yet to pinpoint an actual noticeable difference

I think its all in the head of some people, but whatever floats their boat. It's like a lucky charm, i guess.

I agree on all of this. I had it and didn't notice a thing.

 

[snowy]

And besides, you're wrong to say that anyway, the word "you" can be used as a general term without specifically referring to anyone.

Ja, ja

 

[marfal66]

I stopped reading here.

Because wanking with ''knowledge'' and saying Bandwith = Q factor is not cool.



It should be I not you.

Bandwidth is typically labeled "Q" on the unit

So I tried my best explaining why I think paras are better, I'm aware I don't know the full thing, and I asked for correction, so now you shut up, or start writing something I can learn from.

Thanks for trolling me, asshole.

 

[TheKid]

Why? Isn't it going to fuck up your neck, string tension, action, or all simultaneously?

It would have to be done whilst I was setting it up.
And tbh I'm shit with action/neck curvature

 

[snowy]

^^I kinda corrected you twat
The bandwidth isnt the Q factor. They're related (the bigger the q factor the smaller the bandwith and the other way round) to each other but not the same.
Though it's a common mistake. And the wikipedia thing.. It's wrong.
''Der Gütefaktor Q = f0 / B wird häufig fälschlicherweise mit der Bandbreite B = f2 &#8722; f1 gleichgesetzt. Ein großer Gütefaktor entspricht jedoch einer kleinen Bandbreite B und umgekehrt, wie aus obigen Gleichungen zu ersehen ist.''

 

[The Emptier]

to whoever is using the economy picking or whatever and not using alternate@

please learn how to use alternate at all times, it's very important to have precise alternate picking, you'll fuck up everything if you don't know how to be precise with it in the beginning. i only downpicked for the first year i played and had to re-learn how to do everything

 

[WildChildNumber2]

Ah, ok. I think I understand what you're saying now. And how to do it with a parametric EQ rather than Graphic, which I can see is better. Or at least easier for me to work.




Ok, Wildchild Number 2. Increasing speed (and playing accurately) isn't about learning specifically how to play fast. And it's especially not about hand-eye coordination (you shouldn't ever have to rely on looking at what your hands are doing). As great players have said here many times before, it's about building up the muscle memory and way of playing it CORRECTLY at a slow speed first, and working up from there.

But you already knew that, right Pro Shredder?

Ohh shit, I didnt mean hand-eye co-ordination, I meant hand syncronisation And yea I knew that, but I want some examples of good exercises... Or will practicing scales and pentatonics do?

 

[vikk]

So I tried my best explaining why I think paras are better, I'm aware I don't know the full thing, and I asked for correction, so now you shut up, or start writing something I can learn from.

Thanks for trolling me, asshole.

i understand what you're saying, for you they are better, but for others, they may prefer the graphic

 

[snowy]

Graphic eq's make "little cuts" into the sound, meaning the bandwidth (Q) and the center frequencies are determined, and only the amplitude can be changed.

Also this is not 100% correct.

 

[Earth Breather]

sup brothers

 

[charli]

isnt an equalizer meant to make all parameters go "equal"