parametric equalizers?

DYohn wrote: Because it's a better choice, not a worse one. I give up.

sorry, i said that wrong i guess. the "seemingly" was meant to imply the hierarchy of Eq's based on what i wrote above that about high end HU's having graphic eq and middle end HU's having parametrics. like i said, i know that was a blanket statement and its not true in all cases but ill give you my evidence. my example will be JVC, their top level radios that are equipped with time alignment and a full feature 3 way crossover also have a large GEQ. the lower model JVC units have a selectible parametric. other evidence, the pioneer stage 5 radio has a built-in 30 band. i cant speak for all brands though i know that the top level clarion is equipped with a parametric, but i think its a 5-band. i didnt mean to say that one was worse than the other in terms of usefulness but the way that manufactures offer these features in relation to price would imply that one is more desirable to have than the other. trust me, i am on board with using parametric equalizers and you guys have done a good job helping me understand their usefulness. ill probably get one in the future. oldspark, i dont understand your comment about 120Hz hum. what hum are you talking about?

If your noise is on a band where you need a boost, then you have to remove the noise, before fixing the dip... ANY equalization on the frequency will only enhance the noise, if that's where the noise is. That's what the EQ does, and it can't differentiate between desired and undesired frequencies. 120Hz would most likely be a ground loop, fairly easily removed, isn't it?It all reminds me of something that Molière once said to Guy de Maupassant at a café in Vienna: "That's nice. You should write it down."

Yes, any hum in an audible frequency means you are what we call here in America "SOL," or "s*h*t out of luck." Fix your hum issue first before you do anything else.Support the12volt.com

A bit hard when it's "fixed" on the source - ie, disc or program. But hence parametrics etc.

well that is a given that an eq will boost noise as well as the normal audio. i never mentioned having any hum in my system so it confused me as to why it was brought up at all. you would need to deal with the hum a different way

Yes, but you were asking why parametrics? The hum or any noise is just an example (like FM whistle etc). And sure, hum or whistle or snare rattles should be avoided when recording, but what if not? But hence parametrics for "source" engineers. If you mean general domestic etc use, then graphics are the norm. I don't see why anyone would consider a parametric in those situations. Of course, if they have a particular note which to the listener is over emphasised and its elimination by graphic spoils the overall balance, we repeat the forgone discussion...

yea i dont know anything about the recording world uses of parametric equalizers, my post was meant to be specific to car audio, maybe even home or pro audio but not recording.

It's still the same in principle. If you have specific frequencies that you need to address, then use a parametric. Recording engineers require that to get the output suitable for consumers. By that I mean getting rid of undesirable noises, resonance, etc. Of course the engineer's or recorder's taste wrt to the overall equalisation curve may not be the end listener's choice or what the sound environment reproduces - hence the addition of graphic equalisers - but rarely do they include some exceptional narrow-band aberration. Again, parametrics are used when needed. It may be to get rid of any hum or noise - however generated - or maybe by very fussy listeners with specific desires. BTW - the 120Hz hum was merely an example of 60Hz AC noise etc. But it could be anything - maybe interference from electric drills etc, though in certain cases digital techniques may be required. (A parametric may do motor noise because although the "pulse rate" may vary, the interference frequency is usually constant. But if they exhibit a varying pitched whistes - like alternators...) Certainly try to remove all those sources - eg, mains filters for domestic equipment, caps or shielding for domestic or mobile. But until that is eliminated, post filtering is the only option. Digital filtering and software smarts has changed that world considerably. I recall early scratch filters being high-Q fixed or parametrics. These days scratches are recognised by their digital signature and subtracted. Again - old vinyl scratches being a mere example (CD scratches have a plethora of techniques or should I say, algorithms?). Though I have had HUs with 3 or 5 band EQs, none of those were parametric. These days I find my Alpines with their configurable roll off frequencies generally adequate, though with modern DIY mixed recordings I'd like a nice graphic EQ with mechanical sliders for inter-song adjustments. (No - I don't pre-process individual source or track EQs before I transfer to CD or USB etc. Maybe if I find some free automated software...)

i would assume they have all kinds of nifty digital filtering devices to get rid of unwanted noises during the recording process. the stuff we use in car audio is like a baby's rattle compared to the cutting edge equipment in use today by recording studios. also, its easy to make a case for using a PEQ to filter a hum of a certain frequency but it still wouldnt be perfect if you also had audio mixed in at the same frequencies. unless you had a super fine Q control to be able to filter your 120Hz hum for example without touching other frequencies around it then i guess the loss of that one frequency wouldnt be noticed by a listener

Absolutely correct. And why would anyone want to use that - ie, parametric equalisers in a car? Of course, some commonly available car systems do have sophisticated self tuning to suit the car and its occupant desires. In some ways their sophistication exceeds studio gear (ie intelligent equalisation) even if the basic hardware is the same.