PSA: Starting to see those Ibanez Pentatone parametric EQs for sale on Reverb

[Junk Yard Dog]

I have the MXR 10 and just got the Empress Para MKii Deluxe. The deluxe is overkill but I like it more than the MXR 10. Maybt its the 15 vs 12 db of boost ot cut difference or just thr overall tone, but the Empress just sounds better to me, but at twice the price.

I would love to try the new Ibanez PTEQ but my only gripe is ifs only 10db. Thats likely enoigh but i feel 12-15 would have been perfect.

 

[PurityS.L.G]

I am always curious what causes this. Does this mean it has a higher frequency range, so more high-highs? More compressed? Eq circuits are pretty universal.

The only way I can describe it is that it adds a harmonic liveliness when you’re boosting a frequency. For instance, if I boost 1.6k on the EQ4H say 6db with narrow q (to be as fair as possible comparing to a GEQ) it seems to add some harmonic character and color that makes it sound like a modded Marshall. Doing the same with the XTS just adds and opens up that filtering frequency and adds a plastic or artificial sounding top end.

@RaceU4her it still would be a useful tool for what you would want to use it for. It still works pretty good and can be very functional. Also WAY less noisey than stock GE-7. That is a standout feature for sure!

 

[braintheory]

The only way I can describe it is that it adds a harmonic liveliness when you’re boosting a frequency. For instance, if I boost 1.6k on the EQ4H say 6db with narrow q (to be as fair as possible comparing to a GEQ) it seems to add some harmonic character and color that makes it sound like a modded Marshall. Doing the same with the XTS just adds and opens up that filtering frequency and adds a plastic or artificial sounding top end.

@RaceU4her it still would be a useful tool for what you would want to use it for. It still works pretty good and can be very functional. Also WAY less noisey than stock GE-7. That is a standout feature for sure!

Yes, that “harmonic liveliness” is probably similar to what I mean when I hear something as more 3D/complex/rich and organic/alive/connected with the notes. I just don’t know as well how to describe some things in a more technical way

 

[Smash]

I used the empress to cut noise. It was very powerful when you got the q set

 

[Shask]

The only way I can describe it is that it adds a harmonic liveliness when you’re boosting a frequency. For instance, if I boost 1.6k on the EQ4H say 6db with narrow q (to be as fair as possible comparing to a GEQ) it seems to add some harmonic character and color that makes it sound like a modded Marshall. Doing the same with the XTS just adds and opens up that filtering frequency and adds a plastic or artificial sounding top end.

@RaceU4her it still would be a useful tool for what you would want to use it for. It still works pretty good and can be very functional. Also WAY less noisey than stock GE-7. That is a standout feature for sure!

I wonder if that is more related to graphic vs parametric than old vs new. For example, if I use my MXR 10 band, or GE-7, vs a rack or pedal parametric, I find that I cut the graphic more, giving more of a filtered sound, where with the parametric I can use a wider Q, but less deep cut to achieve a similar effect.

Basically, I need more extreme settings on the graphic to achieve a similar result, but that can result in a more filtered, notched sound as compared to a parametric. The parametric will seem more natural.

Also, most graphic EQs are variable Q, which basically means they are wider towards the 0db middle, but narrower near the extremes. They have a higher mid peak instead of a nice bell curve like a parametric.

 

[Shask]

I wonder if that is more related to graphic vs parametric than old vs new. For example, if I use my MXR 10 band, or GE-7, vs a rack or pedal parametric, I find that I cut the graphic more, giving more of a filtered sound, where with the parametric I can use a wider Q, but less deep cut to achieve a similar effect.

Basically, I need more extreme settings on the graphic to achieve a similar result, but that can result in a more filtered, notched sound as compared to a parametric. The parametric will seem more natural.

Also, most graphic EQs are variable Q, which basically means they are wider towards the 0db middle, but narrower near the extremes. They have a higher mid peak instead of a nice bell curve like a parametric.

This is what I am talking about. Most guitar Graphic EQs are like the top picture. The more you move the sliders, the more narrow the curve gets, which is going to give you a more extreme boost or cut, which sounds more synthetic and filtered. A parametric will stay more like the bottom picture where it is less extreme.

 

[braintheory]

I wonder if that is more related to graphic vs parametric than old vs new. For example, if I use my MXR 10 band, or GE-7, vs a rack or pedal parametric, I find that I cut the graphic more, giving more of a filtered sound, where with the parametric I can use a wider Q, but less deep cut to achieve a similar effect.

Basically, I need more extreme settings on the graphic to achieve a similar result, but that can result in a more filtered, notched sound as compared to a parametric. The parametric will seem more natural.

Also, most graphic EQs are variable Q, which basically means they are wider towards the 0db middle, but narrower near the extremes. They have a higher mid peak instead of a nice bell curve like a parametric.

With Graphic EQ pedals also I found I kept 4 different vintage ones and sold off the various recent made GEQ pedals I had for the same reason: they sounded a bit sterile/tonally bland comparatively to me vs the vintage ones sounding more organic, raw and rich tonally (regardless of settings). I also like most of what I have these 2 vintage Ibanez GEQ's, but also have a Boss GE-10 and Big Jam GEQ (all these pedals were made in Japan now that I think about it). It seems like these vintage Ibanez pedals got overlooked other than their tube screamers. I also prefer the Ibanez PQ401 to the Boss PQ4 I had