Passive EQ with "real" Q adjustment

GroupDIY Audio Forum

Help Support GroupDIY Audio Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

Jonte Knif

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 23, 2005
Messages
272
Location
Finland
My question is simple:
Has there ever been or is there currently any commercial passive EQ available with "real" Q switch/adjustment. I mean of the sort that switches different coils and caps for the same freq depending on the Q and not something based on series resistance, which is quite limited method.
How about non-commercial units? Anybody here made one?
Should be cool for mastering I think.

-Jonte
 
Imo, the series-resistor method of varying Q is valid enough - changing L/C to tailor Q just adds this "resistance" in a different way..

What kind of a behavior would you expect from a device like that?

Jakob E.
 
Well, easily controllable and accurate and with substantially wider Q range than the resistor method can offer (at reasonable max boost / min accuracy off course). The same reasons why there are parametric EQ:s in the first place. Sure it is nice to switch Q without change in boost/cut amount and maximum available boost/cut.
I know it gets complex and expensive but that is the only reason not to do it IMHO. Probably the reason I've never seen it done commercially. Of course there is the fact that suitable components for making it in acceptable size and cost came too late, parametric EQ:s already reigned.

I can understand that since passive designs are not very versatile it has become a paradigm that they are "musical", "intuitive", "subtle", "for general shaping" etc. Which they probably are.

And sure, it could be cool in mixing too, why not.

 
I don't think this is passive but it is LC. Very fancy.
http://www.buzzaudio.com/products/req2.2.htm
 
I sketched an eq a while back based on the Forssell "passive" eq article, of course it's not really passive but LCR wrapped in the feedback loop of an opamp.  Rather than switch coils and caps my thought was to have a 2 position Q switch which would vary the R in series with the LC. Another pole on this same switch would choose between two resistor ladders on the 2 deck boost/cut rotary switch to compensate for the different gains.

Cheers,
Ruairi
 
Gold said:
I don't think this is passive but it is LC. Very fancy.
http://www.buzzaudio.com/products/req2.2.htm

Fancy indeed. It seems like every module has it's own µ-controller doing the whole switching.
So in theory they could automate/recall that whole thing. Would be interesting to see what
they use as the actual switches, but unfortunately the picture isn't good enough.
 
volker said:
Would be interesting to see what
they use as the actual switches, but unfortunately the picture isn't good enough.

Are you talking about the electronic switches? Tim is pretty open about that stuff. You could ask. As for the rotary switches you can order it with either Elma or Palazzo. A really beautiful design and build. It sounds great too.
 
Buzz is in a way the closest then, even if it actually isn't passive, does not use relays and uses resistor based Q in active topology. So perhaps I can use the words "only" and "first" when referring to my design then.

Here is my design:
https://picasaweb.google.com/jonte.knif/Soma#slideshow/5573893952172130114

It is 99% ready, just some cosmetic improvements coming. I use simple binary logic and multiple tapped inductors, properly shielded in mu metal. Relays are rated for 10 million operations. There are no connectors in signal and power lines (well, tube sockets). I use teflon wires and turrets on PCB:s to make repairs and mods clean and easy if needed. Those ribbon cables are for control signals only.

MS-matrix is done with input and output trannies. Caps are polyprop except for the lowest freqs.

Note that gains have markings for every other position only.

It sounds good and works as planned. Versatile and easy to use.

-Jonte
 
Yes and thanks!

I have learned from mistakes that genuine inventions are very very scarce, and if one claims something in public one better to be sure about originality. Now, off course, we are not talking about "invention" per se, but novelty perhaps, something I certainly would love to state in "marketing" i.e. on web site one day.

-Jonte
 
Jonte Knif said:
Buzz is in a way the closest then, even if it actually isn't passive, does not use relays and uses resistor based Q in active topology. So perhaps I can use the words "only" and "first" when referring to my design then.

Here is my design:
https://picasaweb.google.com/jonte.knif/Soma#slideshow/5573893952172130114

It is 99% ready, just some cosmetic improvements coming. I use simple binary logic and multiple tapped inductors, properly shielded in mu metal. Relays are rated for 10 million operations. There are no connectors in signal and power lines (well, tube sockets). I use teflon wires and turrets on PCB:s to make repairs and mods clean and easy if needed. Those ribbon cables are for control signals only.

MS-matrix is done with input and output trannies. Caps are polyprop except for the lowest freqs.

Note that gains have markings for every other position only.

It sounds good and works as planned. Versatile and easy to use.

-Jonte

That is simply stunning ;o)
Best,
Bruno2000
 
Three months later from one of the top mastering plants in the world. (shameless self promotion, but hey, this is not a commercial, I don't think I'm going to find customers here, this is merely to boost my underdeveloped ego and tell that the design actually has real world potential)

The message is unedited. Well, removed names though. 

"Let me say first I think the eq is an incredible engineering achievement! It is stunningly clean for a tube/L/C design. In fact my impression is it's one of the cleanest sounding eq's I've ever heard regardless of type. I used it on 2 occasions and on 4 or 5 different projects. It has a very precise feel to it, physically and sonically. I am very accustomed to eq'ing in M/S so that is a nice option to have. I mainly compared it to a very modified Sontec 430B that is my main eq. This particular Sontec is very transparent. Sometimes I would eq with the Soma and go with that, sometimes I would dial in a very similar setting on the Sontec and compare with an instant A/B via insert switches on the mastering console. Sometimes I went with the Sontec, sometimes the Soma. Compared to the Sontec on program material with heavy drum transients, I felt like the Sontec let a very small amount of punch through. Not good or bad, just what I observed and I mean a VERY small amount of transient difference. This was also coupled with the Soma having a very slightly rounder, fatter low end. Once again I'm talking miniscule difference, but audible. The high frequencies were similar with the Soma being possibly a tiny bit smoother. I think the quality to the highs are one of the eq's strong points. The mids seemed sonically similar, with the Soma having maybe a little more precise feel to it. That is, I could hear small changes in frequency choices and bandwidth a little better than the Sontec. Sometimes the mids on the Sontec felt a little 'larger' in a hard to describe way.
To some people, the Soma will be too clean sounding, to others the lack of any major coloration will be welcomed. I congratulate you on your acheivement!"


Perhaps there is a little irony in the fact that I'm using all kinds of components and techinques assosiated with (euphonic?) colorations and end up with nearly neutral gear. But that is very much what I tried to do.

Sorry for the "promo", but there is probably more to come on a bit more commercial scale, so you might excuse me.

-Jonte

(I switched to Soviet 6H30Pi tubes for the output stage (the first demo unit has C3g). Very nice tube indeed, highly recommended. With those oversized cathodes and a lot of gettering it will last for ages. I also combined shelf to Q rotary switch to improve ergonomics a bit)
 
gyraf said:
Imo, the series-resistor method of varying Q is valid enough - changing L/C to tailor Q just adds this "resistance" in a different way..

Jakob E.
The main drawback is that the higher the BW (decrease Q), the less max Boost/cut you get. Typically you can get BW ranging 2.5:1 with 6dB boost or cut, range of 2:1 with 9dB boost/cut.
For me it qualifies as a BW trim, not really a full-range control.
 
it seem a cool eq ,
http://www.buzzaudio.com/products/req2.2.htm

impossible diy "mission" ?

any audio sample around ?

(checked on the "tube" but only "words" found...)

peace
R.
Gold said:
I don't think this is passive but it is LC. Very fancy.
http://www.buzzaudio.com/products/req2.2.htm
 
here is a guts shot i found
Buzz%20EQ%202.jpg
 
Back
Top