Carl Martin Parametric EQ?

[Jgavin]

Hello everyone. Any love for the Carl Martin Parametric EQ? I have a Rare Earth Blend in my guitar currently and am using am Empress Para EQ to zero in on problem frequencies. Sounds good, but doesn't blow me away. Anyone using the CM?

[Doug Michaels]

Try to get your hands on a Raven Labs PMB-1.

[janmulder]

I have the Carl Martin ParaEQ ... it is one of my 'never get rid of' pedals.

I've used numerous Paras and the CM is one of the most musical sounding. Even though it is only semi para in that you can't adjust the Q values. However, this isn't an issue in use ... everything seems to be tuned perfectly for acoustic instruments. I've tried it on multiple guitars and violin.

It's positives to me are ...

- it uses mains which means no wallwart + puny wires and results in greater headroom (which can help with acoustic instruments since the dynamic range can be large)

- It is posibly the toughest pedal I have ... built like a tank.

- It is very very quick to dial in the sound you want.

The dials...

- Bass dial - great for removing any amplified boom
- Middle dial - removes the boxy sound (this is the typical seek and destroy para eq stuff - find the offending frequency and reduce)
- Treble dial - this is great to remove the freq that makes the guitar sound hard.

It has a DI out so it is a great grab-and-take-with pedal if don't want to take afull pedal array along but might need some quick eq adjustment going into someone elses equiment (PA etc.)

I tried it with an A/B switch against a ParaDI just to see the difference in effect/sound ... to me the main difference was that the ParaDI sounded very flat in comparison. The CM just made the guitar sound more alive. The ParaDI isn't bad ... it's a quality piece of kit ... I started out with that one but for better or worse I've moved on.

The Empress you mention is also supposed to be a high quality ParaEQ so maybe it's not a change of parametric eq you are looking for. I doubt the CM is better ... just different ... possibly tuned more for acoustic instruments.

I'd be interested in what you don't like about it. I have considered getting one of those to add to electric guitar array ... my CM is hard wired to my acoustic 'board'.

There is also the WMD Utility Parametric EQ : http://www.wmdevices.com/utility.php

This is all just my opinion ... you should try to get more opinions and best of all try out for yourself.

Hope that helps.

[Jgavin]

Thanks for the great information Jan. The Empress is certainly a quality piece of gear and very, very quiet. It is very powerful with regard to zeroing in on frequencies that need correction. The boost also works well and is quiet. I think what I'm missing is that sweet, lively sound you get from the front end circuitry of a good pre-amp. Just what you said about your comparison between the CM and Baggs PADI, the Empress just sounds a little flat, probably because it's not a pre-amp, just a great quality eq. I think I'll end up getting a CM, sounds like it has what I want.
Thanks again,
Joe

[coloradoman]

"- it uses mains which means no wallwart + puny wires and results in greater headroom "

Are you saying it is a high voltage device? Why would a footpedal run at high voltages - it would burn out your preamp. If it is the case do you have to run speaker cables with it?

[janmulder]

Originally Posted by coloradoman

Are you saying it is a high voltage device? Why would a footpedal run at high voltages - it would burn out your preamp. If it is the case do you have to run speaker cables with it?

It is just an electronic device that runs off mains power as opposed to 9v ... that doesn't mean the signal coming out of it is mains voltage.

The CM is an active EQ circuit which is really just an amplifier with tone circuits. Amplifiers benefit from higher and more stable voltages to do their thing. You could say it is the most important component of a good amplifier.

It is not the only pre-amp that relies on a higher voltage ... my D-Tar stuff and my Tonebone PZ Pre. If you look at the MXR 10 band it uses 18v ... and i have another EQ pedal that also runs off mains.

[janmulder]

Originally Posted by Jgavin

I think I'll end up getting a CM, sounds like it has what I want.
Thanks again,
Joe

Please don't get it just on my word ... it's not cheap! Hand made boutique pedals usually have a very definite character ... but this very fact means it's not for everyone.

Unless money is no object or you are willing to experiment I'd try to see any negative comments folks might have abou it or try one out if at all possible.

[janmulder]

Just a thought ... another parametric that is supposed to add a bit of life to an instrument is the AER Colourizer. Also worth a listen ... only one band of EQ but it has other interesting knobs :-) and anyway, you have a parametric already.

[sdelsolray]

Originally Posted by Jgavin

Hello everyone. Any love for the Carl Martin Parametric EQ? I have a Rare Earth Blend in my guitar currently and am using am Empress Para EQ to zero in on problem frequencies. Sounds good, but doesn't blow me away. Anyone using the CM?

EQs are functioning best when they sound "good". If you want them to blow you away then you are treating the EQ as an effect and not as a more mundane corrective tool.

Now, there are certainly different flavors of good, and there are certainly EQs than outshine others in terms of sonics (I'm leaving aside features). More than many other parts of a signal chain, learning how to use a parametric EQ requires significant effort in terms of the learning curve, ear training and experimentation. Once the operational skill is acquired, a parametric EQ is a great tool.

For my functional uses I prefer a full parametric EQ with at least three filters per channel. Semi-parametric EQs can be useful (these usually omit or limit the "Q" control). Graphic EQs can work well too but I believe more filters are needed in the first place.

I have no experience with the EQ you have or are considering.

[janmulder]

Originally Posted by sdelsolray

EQs are functioning best when they sound "good". If you want them to blow you away then you are treating the EQ as an effect and not as a more mundane corrective tool.

I believe considering EQ as an effect is not a dirty word even if it is just used as a corrective tool. After all, it changes the the signal going through it to make it sound different.

My comments here are not meant as an argument against anything said here ... just as food for thought

For me, one of the most interesting things about EQs is how different they can sound. I think the main causes of this is due to the phase relationship of different frequencies as they travel through the circuitry and air.

That is probably what gives great equipment their character and distinctive sound - and why we often lust after great vintage equipment or a copy of it. The specific character that comes from the old equipment is often pleasingly imperfect ... and that goes for EQ too. For this reason I've often wished to wire up my own Pultec clone ... one of the most beautiful sounding EQ IMO ... unfortunately, even the kits cost about 1000$

Finally, leaving aside the differing characters of EQs, I also think there is a place for using EQ as an effect ... just as one example, in a band situation instruments can often conflict with one another so judicious use of high and low shelving or cut can help give band members the space they need.

[janmulder]

Hi Joe,

As requested in your PM ... a little sound demo.

All I'm doing in this video is increasing the volume of each of the bands, sweeping the frequency knob till I find the offending frequency and then reducing the volume knob to get rid of it.

I start with the mid frequencies to get rid of the boxy sound, then go to the bass frequencies to get rid of the boom and finally go to the high frequency knob to get rid of the tinny/hard sounds.



Sorry for the lack of quality (and structure to the demo) but you get the general idea of what it can do and also see how quick it is to dial in a particular sound.

This is how I dial my sound and it literally takes only a couple of minutes.

Just to clarify the equipment ...

Standford OM5v with Lyric pickup > CM ParaEQ > Tonebone PZ Pre > AER Compact 60/2

The CM ParaEQ is in-line (before the Tonebone) and not in the Tonebone effects loop.

Hope that helps.

[JStotes]

Thanks Jan! Nicely done.

[akagilligan]

Have you considered an Empress compressor or Cali76 compressor or a pre/di. I'll comment on the compressor half because I run a different pickup. I'd run it after the ParaEQ if the settings never change or first if you tweak it for different songs. My experience has been lowest ratio with the right attack/release really enhances tone. If you don't have a way to parallel mix, I'd get the empress so you can set the amount of signal that passes through unaffected. I mention these two because I have experience with them. Had a Rothwell, dead quiet but didn't enhance tone. Just an idea. Jan may have something to add, but my hunch is that his pz pre adds a lot (a thought on the pre/DI). I've run the Empress ParaEQ with the compressor and I lost a lot without slight compression.

First pedalboard...


What I use now....

[StevenL]

Don't overlook the D-Tar Equinox. Seriously good eq. 3 overlapping bands. 2 notches. Boost. Quiet and clean.

[akagilligan]

Originally Posted by StevenL

Don't overlook the D-Tar Equinox. Seriously good eq. 3 overlapping bands. 2 notches. Boost. Quiet and clean.

D-TAR makes killer stuff