Parallel eq

[pucho812]

Am I missing something? I just don't understand the need to do parallel processing of eq. Can anyone explain?

 

[ln76d]

I only using with parallel compressor 

 

[gyraf]

In short, only non-linear functions (like comp, clip, IM) make real sense in parallel.

When doing parallel EQ, you could as well just use a different (less) setting, and use it in series as was intended with the unit.

Only exception is if you're after the "sound" part of the EQ, which may very well just be a nonlin component - making sense to parallel it in.

Jakob E.

 

[JohnRoberts]

Yup I've seen discussions of using parallel compression but don't think I've ever seen parallel EQ.

JR

 

[helterbelter]

Parallel EQ, why not ? 

There are also many equalisers that use parallel filterbands, so, why not ?

And, yes, what Jakob says : you can boost  more before overdoing it.

And besides, one of the important rules of audiomixing, is that you should neglect the rules sometimes. It's the endresult that matters.  If a mix needs to be run through a behringer cheap ass compressor to get to that result, then just do it.

 

[ln76d]

We are not talking about that it's outside the "rules" but about usefulness.
Of course there are multiple ways to get proper results.
I use really often parallel compression but i don't see any profits from parallel eq but if it's useful for someone else - why not?

 

[okgb]

Is this not the way some Rane and Massenburg have the filters internally ?

 

[pucho812]

well this came up  as I had people swearing that running an eq in parallel sounds better then as a normal eq in series.

While I have seen units that internally do parallel filtering(massive passive comes to mind) I was wonding about running the unit in parallel vs as a standard in series kind of thing.  For me I just do not see a real benefit to running it as a parallel process but hmmmm will have to further investigate. 

 

[Andy Peters]

Am I missing something? I just don't understand the need to do parallel processing of eq. Can anyone explain?

I can see using parallel EQ if one unit has three bands and you really need four or five bands of adjustment.  Just run two in parallel. The hitch, of course, is that you need a simple summing amp if your EQs are two separate hardware devices.

Some channel strips have the filters all in series. Some have them in parallel.  Most 31-band graphic EQs you see will have the filters in parallel.

If you're doing this in a DAW, I'm not sure that there's a difference.

-a

 

[Gold]

No.

A parallel EQ topology puts the individual EQ sections in parallel and sums them at the output. It doesn't mean there is wet/dry.

 

[shot]

Nightpro EQ-3D (Nite EQ) has parallel structure.
It sounds amazing. I don't know if it's the only reason, but due to having bandpass filters in parallel it's phase shift is really low when compared to "regular" equalizers that have filters in series...

 

[mushy]

I've seen some of the old NY guys put Pultecs and 550's on sends/returns to get that "mojo" across multiple channels.  It always seemed extraordinarily silly to me.

 

[ln76d]

Ok, so what we talk about?
I think that the best would be if the autor of the topic will give the answer

As example of parallel filters in EQ units in 3D

http://www.khstudio.us/DIY%20PICs/3D%20EQ%20-%20FULL.bmp

Filters are connected in parallel and they go to the sum.

There's is no direct signal in parallel to the filters so my guess is that there is some misunderstanding of topic

 

[12afael]

on 2012 me and Jens went to visit some studios in germany and in a particular mastering studio that I don't remember the name they have a dolby espectral processor 740 and the owner say that it have a parallel EQ it was like the secret weapon of the studio.
now reading the manual it is not exactly a parallel EQ (eq with threshold ¿?).

I remember the demostration impresed me at that moment. I can't remember with details sadly. Maybe Jens could remember something more. 

(would be cool to have something in the forum to call peoples attention like on facebook)

 

[dirtyhanfri]

Maybe it was a Dynamic Eq? I heard about that (In plugin format I think).

Parallel eq doesn't make any sense to me, If I'm boosting 6dbs @ 10khz and mixing it with non eq'ed signal at 50% is more or less the same than boosting 3dbs with no mixing.

I did tests some time ago and I wasn't thrilled by results, but maybe I'm missing some black magic

 

[ln76d]

With analog eq also there's a phase shift so when mixing it with direct signal it can affect whole frequency spectrum.
Maybe that's the mojo?!?

 

[pucho812]

dynamic eq is all the mojo, it's like cheating when mixing.

 

[gyraf]

With analog eq also there's a phase shift so when mixing it with direct signal it can affect whole frequency spectrum.
Maybe that's the mojo?!?

No. You'd still get the exact same time-domain response.

Again, for EQ'ing alone, it dosen't make sense.

Do I remember a clariphonic or such much hyped for something like this yesteryear?

Jakob E.

 

[jasonallenh]

With analog eq also there's a phase shift so when mixing it with direct signal it can affect whole frequency spectrum.
Maybe that's the mojo?!?

Do I remember a clariphonic or such much hyped for something like this yesteryear?

Jakob E.

Yep, that's specifically what they market it as: "EQ with Parallel Processing." It consists of maybe $30 worth of components.

 

[ln76d]

No. You'd still get the exact same time-domain response.

Always when am processing track with analog eq it is delayed in comparision to the original track. Amount of the delay depends on amount of equalization.

Again, for EQ'ing alone, it dosen't make sense.

I agree from beginning