# Pros / Cons Parametric EQ vs. multiband EQ



## BlueSQ (Mar 22, 2007)

Ive heard parametrics are better cause they span a whole section of frequencies and curve them instead of spiking certain ones like a multiband. I have a 16 band ind. l & r built into the H/U but since I dont have equipment to measure the whole spectrum, I figure a 5 band parametric would be best.

Am I right? What do you all prefer.


----------



## dvsadvocate (Mar 17, 2008)

You mean between a Pioneer 880RS and an Alpine deck with 5 bands of EQ?


----------



## Oliver (Jun 25, 2007)

Mebbe a Constant Q ? Constant-Q Graphic Equalizers


----------



## ECM (Dec 23, 2007)

Without some sort of measuring capability the use of an EQ will not be optimized. I've used both graphic and parametric eq and prefer parametric because you can select the exact frequency you intend on cutting or boosting (cutting is preferred).

In your case, I would choose a 5 band parametric over a 16 band graphic especially if the parametric is a "full" parametric with boost/cut, freq, AND "q." The parametric I used did not have a "q" adjustment, but still worked better than the graphic eq it replaced. I replaced an AC EQQ with an RF OEQ-2.


----------



## invecs (Jul 30, 2005)

16 bands is 16 bands...with independent left and right eq...that is much more powerful than just 5 bands peq for both. 5 bands of peq is just that...5 bands. It is nice to have 5 bands of peq if the install is already sounding good prior to equalization The beauty of the peq is that you can adjust the Q if there are huge peaks and dips in fr of the system. In most cases, 5 bands will not be enough. Take a look at the car...left and right side acoustics are different then throw in the angle of the speakers...the driver side speaker is more off axis than the right side. You've got to have atleast 30 bands of graphic eq and some peq to really equalize the sound.


----------



## donkeypunch22 (Nov 5, 2008)

16 bands is 16 bands, but what if most of those 16 bands happen to fall outside of your problem area. You could be quickly looking at say, just three effective bands on your so called "powerful" graphic eq. 

Parametric eqs, on the other hand, can focus all of its processing power to your specific problem areas, and when all is said and done, 5 bands per channel may be more than enough (10 per channel and active would be better - get Zapco DC!). 

Graphic vs Parametric --kinda like-- AK47 vs sniper rifle

If you accurately place your shots, you don't need so many bullets to get the job done.


----------



## Hillbilly SQ (Jan 26, 2007)

donkeypunch22 said:


> If you accurately place your shots, you don't need so many bullets to get the job done.


That's sig material right there. 

I definately prefer a peq because of their ability to grab problem areas by the horns. Unless you're building and tuning your car to impress a judge (not my thing) you really don't need to go insane on the eq if you make wise choices in drivers and placement.


----------



## guitarsail (Oct 12, 2007)

DP summed it up... fixed freq eq is like shooting at a penny with a shotgun shooting 00buck shot with 9bbs from 50ft....one of your bb's MIGHT hit the penny, but you'll certainly make a mess around the penny...

Lets say 2.7k is your problem..on your fixed freq eq, you have 2.2k and 3. whatever K...you can kill both and the freq in the middle you were trying to get but now you've made a mess of everything around it. 

Besides if you are tweaking every single band of a 16...31...whatever band fixed eq...you have other problems you need to address. In live sound, when we ring out a microphone, if we start adjusting around 7 bands of eq or more, you've reached the point of diminishing returns and you essentially need to flatten out and re assess the situation.


----------



## dvsadvocate (Mar 17, 2008)

Is there a reason why most of the good SQ head units out there have parametric EQs?


----------



## guitarsail (Oct 12, 2007)

Because Para's are better?


----------



## Hernan (Jul 9, 2006)

I like PEQ most. One or two frecuencies per driver is enough. If not, you should go back to the basics, XO, gains, install...


----------



## VP Electricity (Apr 11, 2009)

invecs said:


> 16 bands is 16 bands...with independent left and right eq... 5 bands of peq is just that...5 bands.


Can't argue with logic like that... given that it simply seems to be counting...



invecs said:


> .that is much more powerful than just 5 bands peq for both.


Really? I disagree pretty damned wholeheartedly on that one. 



invecs said:


> It is nice to have 5 bands of peq if the install is already sounding good prior to equalization


Look, if the install doesn't sound good prior to equalization, *don't equalize*. *Start over*. EQs are NOT to bail your ass out of bad system design. Said it for over 20 years: _"EQs are literally the last thing you add to the system. "_



invecs said:


> You've got to have atleast 30 bands of graphic eq and some peq to really equalize the sound.


Interesting assertion. Once again, I don't agree. You seem to depend on the EQ for things that you should have accomplished without it. 



The reason HUs are getting parametrics is that it's easier to do in DSP than ever before, and (I suspect) because preamp ICs are now including more flexibility. Back when the bass and treble were actual analog circuits on the board rather than IC functions or (in some cases) DSP functions), it was a lot harder to include more progressive tone controls. So my vote is "it's easier".


----------



## Mr Marv (Aug 19, 2005)

VP Electricity said:


> Look, if the install doesn't sound good prior to equalization, *don't equalize*. *Start over*. EQs are NOT to bail your ass out of bad system design. Said it for over 20 years: _"EQs are literally the last thing you add to the system. "_



Well said!  I have found that once you get the install, gain structure, levels, crossovers, acoustic polarity and phase done correctly for your specific application it will sound pretty darn good. Once you get to that level EQ'ing will be "icing on the cake" and I use it mainly to knock down large peaks not fixed otherwise and to equalize the left side the same as the right side. In any case I'd rather have about 10 bands of PEQ with left/right capabilities and variable Q (old Hifonics Plato comes to mind ) but if the choice came to 16 band graphic l/r or 5 band stereo PEQ I'd prefer the 16 band with l/r capabilities _as long as everything else was done properly_.


----------



## pionkej (Feb 29, 2008)

dvsadvocate said:


> Is there a reason why most of the good SQ head units out there have parametric EQs?


I think it was just explained above. I have a 13 band on my current Sony H/U (going to be a H701 soon, so I will have the option of either) and would trade it for a 3 band para any day (especially if it has an adjustable Q)


----------



## invecs (Jul 30, 2005)

I don't think alot of you guys get me. More bands will help you contour the sound in alot of ways...even if you don't have the bands where the problem lies in...there are other ways to equalize a peak or dip. You can attenuate other frequencies relative to a dip...or boost other frequencies relative to a peak.

EQ is just make up. It will help an already good sounding system sound better. I don't say that it is impossible to have good sound without eq...it is but very difficult. My system has no EQ. But my speaker placement is what most people can't do. I don't even need TA.

In most cases, people are limited to installing speakers in doors and or pillar installs. Most people can't put speakers in optimal locations in optimal enclosures...well the car is not even the right place to do audio. Most people don't even have the needs or means to swap speakers to get to what they want...or try different speaker locations and/or speaker angles. Most people just want a drop in install to factory locations. So what all of these leads us to? We rely more on processing to make things a little better. Yes...I agree with you guys that it is improper to rely on processing alone...but again, I'm talking about most people..I guess we all in this forum are not most people.

And to the OP, if you are running the P880rs...the frequency bands selected in that HU covers the most likely problems encountered in cars. You just need a good tuner.

BTW, there's a reason why Alpine has Imprint. How many bands again are in Imprint?


----------



## dvsadvocate (Mar 17, 2008)

@invecs
I believe it has 512 bands.


----------



## donkeypunch22 (Nov 5, 2008)

Since we are talking about the Imprint, does anyone know anything more specific on the 512 tap filters the Audessy uses. Like what kind of Q, how much boost/cut per filter (+/- 9 or what), how small are the TA increments, and is the phase adjustment continuously variable?

Don't mean to hi-jack, but I guess it kind of applies to the OP's original question.


----------



## dtek01 (May 24, 2009)

So would an aivic-f90bt 3 band para be decent? I assumed it was more generic than the 13 band I had before.


----------



## BlueSQ (Mar 22, 2007)

dvsadvocate said:


> You mean between a Pioneer 880RS and an Alpine deck with 5 bands of EQ?


Ya but it'll have to be in line with the pioneer like an audio control. I want one in the dash though Im not sure what equipment i need for that.


----------



## BlueSQ (Mar 22, 2007)

I thought a parametric EQ with a 'q' adjustment setting let you set the range of focus on the band. You could set it like a spike or a hill, hit the whole midrange or highs collectively or just a certain one. 

The 16 band eq in the deck isnt going away, I was going to set it to flat and use the parametric to accomplish what i described above but I wanted to know what I should expect.


----------



## 96jimmyslt (Jan 31, 2011)

Does a 16 or 31 band graphic EQ have a known Q factor? (Or lack of it?) 

31 band on the phone app, 16 band on the 80prs.

From what I can gather so far, it seems that a graphic EQ only allows a flat/straight line transition between frequencies and a parametric allows a nice smooth curve which is also adjustable?


----------



## GrM (Feb 11, 2021)

I haven’t read all of this but enough to assume no one did more than touch on this briefly. Which will be better will depend entirely upon what is needed. Which you can’t know without an RTA mic and free software such as REW. PEQ will be practically useless without the, you’d be shooting in the dark without knowing which way is up. If you aren’t going to get a mic (can get a good USB mic for less than $100 [such as UMIK-1) you’d probably be better off using the 16 fixed bands. If you do get a mic you’ll have to run some sweeps and use those to decide which would be better. But 5 bands of PEQ is nothing. I’m using a VXi (10 bands) and that’s no where near enough, had to run the toslink output to the input to get another 10 bands of global EQ. 5 almost certainly won’t be enough unless everything’s pretty good except for one or two problematic areas


----------



## SWRocket (Jul 23, 2010)

96jimmyslt said:


> Does a 16 or 31 band graphic EQ have a known Q factor? (Or lack of it?)
> 
> 31 band on the phone app, 16 band on the 80prs.
> 
> From what I can gather so far, it seems that a graphic EQ only allows a flat/straight line transition between frequencies and a parametric allows a nice smooth curve which is also adjustable?


I believe a 31 band equalizer is 1/3 octave so a Q of 4.3 Not sure about the 16 band...


----------

