Harpo said:maybe additional switches to decrease filters frequency range (freq.x1 / x10) or increase frontpanel hight to 2HE so you can use bigger knobs for the frequency pots ?
JohnRoberts said:I have long been a fan of parametric EQ for it's complete flexibility, and I did a similar parametric with shelving option in a (LOFT) console input strip back in the late 70s/early 80s. I also sold a simpler hifi parametric kit in Popular Electronics ( Sep 1979).
Using a Paul Buff design (Valley People) is as good a starting point as any, while I think that brand is still being sold by somebody other than Paul.
From a quick glance at an old schematic I found on the WWW, the main thing I would have done differently is configured the variable frequency pots as potentiometers (dividers) instead of rheostats (variable resistors), for better accuracy, The bulk resistance tolerance of most screened pots is around 20%. (The better way to handle this has been discussed in other parametric threads here, but simply the accuracy of the taper is better than the accuracy of the resistance. Letting the divider go all the way to ground and shunting with a fixed resistor in parallel makes the LF end limit accuracy 1% or 5% vs. the 20% pot.).
For studio use accuracy and repeatability is always nice, so reduced pot range with switched in capacitors for x10 or whatever will improve control resolution and extend range.
JR
flaheu said:cool project 8)
when will it be available ?
I've got some w492 and altough they are nice I'm not so impressed, but these seems to be what I need.
druu said:Bump!
Sylvain D. said:...and the picture that "came out... naturally"... ;D ;D
mulletchuck said:how about a 2-slot 51X version??
Enter your email address to join: