mic pre with tone controls instead of EQ

GroupDIY Audio Forum

Help Support GroupDIY Audio Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
[quote author="pucho812"]good idea or bad idea?
opinions[/quote]

Semantics.

A tone control is an eq.

If you refer to having a simple 'baxendall' style shelving hi and lo eq (a k a bass and treble) than why not. If that's all it takes to get the sound right then why overcomplicate matters with something more elaborate.

I'm all for simple stuff...
 
I have never been clear on the difference between the two, do you just mean the more simplified eq common in guitar amps and the like? If so why not, I am sure it would find its uses in recording. There is no reason that I can see that it could not implimented into a mic pre successfully, it would just come down to if you like the sound or not. Why not stick a transformer on the input of a guitar preamp and see how it sounds, or just add some in on an existing eq lacking pre. Simple enough to try out. That is this is what you mean by tone control vs EQ.

adam
 
Semantics.

A tone control is an eq.
true :oops:
I ment to be a tone control similar to a guitar amp style with just a bass and treb VS a parametric EQ/graphic/filter. Then having that in a external mic pre. good idea or bad idea. worth it or not?
 
The kind of tone control that you see on guitar amps is generally referred to as a "tone stack" due to the way the hi/mid/lo bands are stacked in the schematic.

A good example can be found here:

http://www.duncanamps.com/technical/tonestack.html

Note - this is a passive design and you will need a gain stage to make up the loss of level in the tonestack. It probably means some tradeoff in signal-to-noise but should not be a great concern.

Do try it!
 
[quote author="pucho812"]My question is do people feel it would be a good idea.[/quote]

You need the OK of "people" to go ahead?

I was sceptical when I read your first posting in this thread but now I think you're on to something different and potentially good. It's not going to cost you an arm and a leg to try, so go ahead - worst case you will have learnt something new and that is never a waste of time.

dare to be different :wink:
 
I think it's a cool idea, but you're probably not going to be able to get a flat frequency response with a tone stack unless you can completely bypass it. But who really cares if it's flat, as long as it sounds good.

I think a regular low / mid / high EQ with a rotary switch that would change the mid frequency / cap would be cool. I've always thought it would be cool to use a guitar pre amp as a mic pre.
 
You need the OK of "people" to go ahead?

No I was just looking for opinions of the people. If I do it or not is purely my own decision.
The idea is basicly less is more. Bass,treb and mid boost tied to a mic pre who needs parametrics on certain instruments. Yeah the response would totally be non flat but I feel would sound great. :thumb:
But as this is in the drawing board, It's about comming up with a new twist on an old fave.
 
Actually, the tone controls seen in many Ampeg amps--the circuit that's often mistakenly referred to as a "Baxandall"--gives an essentially flat response with the pots at mid rotation. The real Baxandall is a similar-looking circuit, but it's wrapped around an amplifier to make it an active, rather than passive, tone control.

I don't see anything wrong with a mic preamp followed by a simple bass and treble tone control.
 
The original circuit of Peter Baxandall's used center-tapped pots as well iirc. Just about everybody uses conventional linear pots now, with a bypass switch if you want to feel really safe that the circuit is defeated.
 
About mic pre with tone controls.
There is nothing new about this, the L@ngevin DVC solid state preamp made by M@nlee has baxendall equaliser.

chrissugar
 
Back
Top