Graphic EQ placement in PA chain

Longtallronnie

For solo acoustic gigs I’m currently using a 2 channel graphic eq, basic mixer, power amp and speakers. I run vocals and guitar into separate channels of the EQ, then out to separate channels on the mixer which then has a mono looper on the aux send that returns to a third channel. 

I use the EQ like this so I can have better control over the vocals and guitar but I’m not sure if the is is strictly the “correct” way of doing it?

I did at one point have it between the mixer output and power amp. This was handy for soundchecks as I could loop some guitar and vox then listen out front and adjust to suit. This does mean applying global eq settings to everything though. 

I’ve learned loads from this section of the forum by asking (probably) stupid questions so thought one more couldn’t hurt! 

maltingsaudio

A graphic eq is used on the output of the desk to tune the whole system to the room so it sounds right befor any individual channel eq. They way your doing it is fine, it is the same as running your channels into a subgroup adding processing and then back into the main buss.

This is exactly why some people struggle with digital desks, if you learn routing this way in the analogue world, then digital routing becomes easior to understand. Everyone should learn on an analogue desk!

Longtallronnie

Cheers! 

shufflebeat

 No, this is madness.

It’s very likely your EQ is designed to work with line level signals from your mixer output, much greater than mic level. Unless you’re using a completely awful mixer then you’ll probably find tweaking a few frequencies will flatten the system sufficiently so that the mixer EQ will provide plenty of flexibility for vocal and guitar. If this is not the case then it may be worth reviewing your sound sources, choose a more suitable mic or consider your guitar setup.

Longtallronnie

shufflebeat said:

 No, this is madness.

It’s very likely your EQ is designed to work with line level signals from your mixer output, much greater than mic level. Unless you’re using a completely awful mixer then you’ll probably find tweaking a few frequencies will flatten the system sufficiently so that the mixer EQ will provide plenty of flexibility for vocal and guitar. If this is not the case then it may be worth reviewing your sound sources, choose a more suitable mic or consider your guitar setup.

Hadn’t considered that, the EQ has balanced inputs but can provide correction for unbalanced. 

I have access to another mixer that has channel inserts, maybe that would be a better solution? 

Or use a DI for the guitar so all inputs are balanced before hitting the EQ. 

I played a gig last week with the set up above and felt that the acoustic sounded a bit thin. I was also suffering with a cold so was concentrating more on just getting through the gig in one piece! 

I’ll experiment a bit more with different arrangements and see what works best. 

shufflebeat

Remember that every time you tweak an EQ you introduce phase issues which combine to turn your sound to mush (relatively speaking).

Best get it right at source (mic choice/position) then don’t touch it unless you have to, Same for system, choose your speakers, place them appropriately, turn them up.

There are very few bad mics, mixers and speakers these days, there are inappropriate mic choices and 1000 ways to get a crap guitar sound (see AGF for details).

AntonHunter

Longtallronnie said:

Or use a DI for the guitar so all inputs are balanced before hitting the EQ. 

A decent DI will almost certainly improve the sound of a plugged-in acoustic. I didn't fully believe that until I tried it recently with a passive piezo and it was like night and day going into my audio interface. 

shufflebeat

AntonHunter said:

Longtallronnie said:

Or use a DI for the guitar so all inputs are balanced before hitting the EQ. 

A decent DI will almost certainly improve the sound of a plugged-in acoustic. I didn't fully believe that until I tried it recently with a passive piezo and it was like night and day going into my audio interface. 

Your experience is to be expected but your initial statement is mistaken.

Most passive pickups expect a high impedance input, which an active DI (or a Boss GE-7, or any floor-standing acoustic preamp) will provide. If the input impedance is too low then lots of body, definition and responsiveness will be absorbed by the system before it can be amplified.

Not every “decent DI” or effect pedal will have a high enough input impedance to make the most a passive guitar pickup. A DI is usually only concerned with adapting an unbalanced signal to balanced, although most have a few other features and the input impedance is relatively higher than others.

In the vast majority of cases the only difference between a passive and an active pickup system is the presence of an onboard preamp which provides that high impedance for the pickup signal to work into, after that you can plug your guitar into any old impedance with little variation.