[Joseph Hanna]

I would think the choice of eq's (especially if it's a question of either or) would be which eq is better.

I disagree with whomever suggested the Para DI is not a good eq. It has logically selected eq frequency points. 5k is an aggressive eq point and perfect for doing exactly what LR Baggs chose to label it. Presence. A little goes a long way and for live work in small doses can maintain your general guitar sound you've worked on and bring it forward to compensate for an unexpected noisy environment. 5k is not an overly pleasant frequency for most guitars but it serves a workhorse function.

10k is ok. I've heard eq's with better 10k and up "air" but the cost was in the 10x more area. Either way the "treble" control allows some fairly smooth air without getting clanky.

If there is a section that could be considered as having a lack of aggression it would be the mid section. The Q is wide and very gentle and not capable of notch type bell curves. That is of course by design and having an Art 5 band parametric in my acoustic rack (and unused) I can tell you that variable Q has the obvious advantages but also carries the weight of ENDLESS tweaking and try as I might the smoothness of the Para makes for easier adjustments. All in all a GREAT Eq and Direct Box and mixing for a living 10 hours a day 6 days a week I find nothing weak or lacking in depth on this unit. It does what it does remarkably well for it's cost

That said if the Fishman has these types of features and more AND the Eq sounds better (and eq's definitely sound different) that's the one I'd chose.

Did any of that make sense?