I'm not familiar with the Samson 231, but a general point about that type of box is that graphic EQs are normally used for live sound (PA) applications for tuning out resonances in a venue. The reasoning behind this is that it is adjudged better to reduce resonances that might lead to acoustic feedback at the expense of sharp phase anomalies that they inevitably introduce. Studio usage has its place, but usually in the realm of effects.

See how you get on with it, but do look out for phasing problems, particularly if large EQ amplitude excursions are dialled in.

Thx for the reply...new over here and didn't know if the thread would generate interest...

You know I looked in the manual and it addresses what you're talking about in specific....says it has constant Q circuitry that eliminates this even at high end of dB boost....I was on the SOS forum a lot last week where some of the vets went into detail about this and clarified concepts relating to bandwith/skirt involved in EQ...so I think I'll be OK w/it.....

New to recording/mixing/
mastering...have a TASCAM DP-008ex that has a high/low shelf EQ built in and wanted to do more in terms of being able to target frequency areas....breadwise didn't see any parametric EQ in my budget range aftet checking around online so I got this.....

You mentioned a discussion in the SOS forum, so I took a brief look over there. It's amazing how certain people get bogged down in a single aspect of a topic and ignore the big picture. Hugh Robjohns detected this (but was too polite to call anyone out on it) and pointed you at the classic Rane paper, which is great reference material.

Strangely, nobody in that SOS discussion mentioned the problem of phase mangling with narrow-band graphic EQs, and it's really this aspect that makes them tricky to use in the studio. If I may make a suggestion: try using the Samson 231 for diagnostic work on difficult tracks to hunt down problem frequency ranges. This is more easily done by frequency boosting in places where cutting is needed. Make a note of the frequencies and bandwidth, then use the linear-phase parametric EQ in your DAW to do the actual cutting based on what you noted down as the problem frequency areas. This may take more than one pass if you can't string EQ blocks in series in your DAW.

I don't think he has a DAW.

All minimum phase eqs alter phase. Yes. steeper filters lead to correspondingly steeper phase shifts. Mostly it's not an issue as long as you're not using the eq in parallel.

Hey BSG saw your name over here the other day and decided to sign up...what does "eq in parallel" mean?

Yeah right now my setup is hardware based rather than computer based-
Zoom RT223
Casio WK 6600
Tascam DP008ex
and now the Samson coming tomorrow...

However I live a block from the library which has Audacity installed on the public computets so I'll be able to use that to do final touch mix mastering if needed....

Boswell re-SOS forum thread -I appreciated everyone's help understanding things and given my being new to this didn't mind any responses being too focused on a given aspect as ultimately I was able to see where terminology I was using didn't take specifics understood as being intrinsic to the term into account....and figured out how the slope on the Samson works ..

Having the people that replied over there (and on the other forums I've been using )take the time to go into detail about the things I'd been studying online made a lot of info from sites understandable where beforehand the concepts were a bit overwhelming/
confusing..
Hugh's help was great re-this as he posted a lot of links/graphs as did Sam Spoons who also was good enough to reply in detail until I figured things out..,

smg, post: 458137, member: 51339 wrote: Hey BSG saw your name over here the other day and decided to sign up...what does "eq in parallel" mean?

If the signal were split to two paths and one had the eq while the other didn't, that would be parallel eq. In that case you would have two versions of the same signal but with phase differences at some frequencies. The resulting interaction could be audible and not very pleasant when the two signals are recombined.

smg, post: 458137, member: 51339 wrote: However I live a block from the library which has Audacity installed on the public computets so I'll be able to use that to do final touch mix mastering if needed....

maybe they'd allow for Reaper, on one of the computers so you could edit your multi-tracks?

i used to use an alesis eq-231 graphinc eq along with my tascam 4track portastudio, and one thing the books noted about graphic eqs was to find the problem frequency, and cut/boost it, but also some from the neighboring frequencies too. creating a smoother curve, and less drastic single band boost.

Was that a 1/3 Oct EQ?(Alessis)

Thinking a lot about using the Samson for range allocation processes as well as specific cut/boost...

Also interested in using it w/the final mix to simulate different playback situations i.e."translation"...been reading about Soundways Reveal...posted a thread in Mastering about this ...

smg, post: 458162, member: 51339 wrote: Was that a 1/3 Oct EQ?(Alessis)

i'm pretty sure.

smg, post: 458162, member: 51339 wrote: Also interested in using it w/the final mix to simulate different playback situations i.e."translation"...been reading about Soundways Reveal...posted a thread in Mastering about this ...

this cant be done. it defies physics. eq is a manipulation of the phase relationships of a sound source. no matter how much eq is applied to flatten a signal, its always played back through a skewed room, speakers, or headphones. there is no perfect room or monitoring device yet. as you add eq you add to the cancellations that come from the eq, and that already exist in the signal. the problem is not what your hearing, its what your not. good rooms and monitoring devices strive to reproduce the audio spectrum accurately in both amplitude (volume) and Phase (time domain) so an ideal room every frequency hits the listener at the same time and volume. that would be the ultimately accurate room.

eq can be useful as the last 1% to make small cuts only, to tame a slightly loud frequency or two. boosting eq frequencies, is boosting what is inherently not on the sound source, or reproduced by the room and monitoring signal, no matter how much you try, it is impossible to boost, or hear what isnt there in the first place. it would be akin to painting a black room, more black. to complicate things more, sound behaves differently in the mids/highs, than in the lows. lows fill a room and move like jello, or the middle of the ocean, or a pond with w rock thrown in the middle. lows move in waves. mids and highs move like laser beams, or formally, they move as rays.

to complicate even further, no human being hears the same frequency response, and all typical human hearing is more sensitive to mid range (voice) frequencies. so our hearing is not flat.

if it were as easy as any old graphic eq, or a pluggin, thats what we would all use. unfortunately it is not. i encourage you to read about the basics of acoustics and room design, that is where you'l find deeper explanations of how the room size, shape, and what its surfaces are made of, effect what you hear.

Thx for the detailed reply man...
Appreciate the concepts you emphasized...
I have been studying about what types of filters the Soundways Reveal uses in terms of frequency ranges and want to use it to simulate this...that's what I was trying to communicate....They have different types of perspectives created using this approach and I'd like to see how doing a similar type of thing w/the Samson will affect the overall mix....

smg, post: 458167, member: 51339 wrote: Thx for the detailed reply man...
Appreciate the concepts you emphasized...
I have been studying about what types of filters the Soundways Reveal uses in terms of frequency ranges and want to use it to simulate this...that's what I was trying to communicate....They have different types of perspectives created using this approach and I'd like to see how doing a similar type of thing w/the Samson will affect the overall mix....

it never hurts to have different perspectives. hopefully you find some benefits to your experiments one way or the other.

Have you heard about this (Soundways Reveal)?

i took a look, it's a waste of time. if you need to identify problem frequencies, use an eq and sweep thru (as stated by the other members above), or use an RTA pluggin. the rest of of looks like a pseudo, mastering chain of which there are several better options, Izotope ozone, and the mastering bundle from fabfilter being popular ones. $250 will go a fair way to improving your room acoustics as opposed to wasting it on a pluggin thats making false claims. Sound on Sound magazine has a monthly column that outlines professional mixes on commercial releases, and it goes thru the entire session, showing what they use. if you want to know what they really use, (not soundways reveal) have a look at some of those articles. you'll notice some trends, especially on the master bus.

im not trying to be mean, its just the pluggin is advertising crap. it wont work. there are no shortcuts, and ozone has some assistance built into their pluggins to help beginners get the most of their mix. Engineering takes a long to to get the hang of due to a steep learning curve, and wild variables between listening acoustics, so just enjoy the ride as your learn, and dont fall for ads that use the word "pro" constantly.

I took a look at SOS magazine-are you talking about "Inside Track"?

smg, post: 458173, member: 51339 wrote: I took a look at SOS magazine-are you talking about "Inside Track"?

yes, thats the one.

bouldersound, post: 458133, member: 38959 wrote: I don't think he has a DAW.

All minimum phase eqs alter phase. Yes. steeper filters lead to correspondingly steeper phase shifts. Mostly it's not an issue as long as you're not using the eq in parallel.

I agree except if it is a multi-microphones setup. For exemple, If you are introducing phase shifts to a drum mic, it may do damage to the cooherence or introduce more problems.
Phase coherence is already difficult to obtain when micking drums with multiple mics.. ;)

bouldersound, post: 458133, member: 38959 wrote: I don't think he has a DAW.

All minimum phase eqs alter phase. Yes. steeper filters lead to correspondingly steeper phase shifts. Mostly it's not an issue as long as you're not using the eq in parallel.

Marco's post alerted my attenion to this, and sorry not to have spotted it when you posted it.

I take the point about access to a DAW.

As far as filter types go, the distinction to be made here is between linear phase (as in my post) and minimum phase.

A minimum-phase filter has no zeroes outside the unit circle in its pole-zero plot, and, as a result, the filter and its inverse are inherently stable. In addition, it has a minimum phase shift over the range of passband frequencies, but the phase shift still varies with frequency, as you point out.

By contrast, a linear-phase filter exhibits a pure time delay at all frequencies (both passband and stopband). This happens because phase is an integral of time, and therefore the first derivative of a linear phase slope is a constant with dimensions of time. If the time delay is compensated, e.g. by moving the input track forward in time when mixing, then the filter output can be time-aligned with the other tracks, resulting in amplitude changes only relative to its input with no phase change at any frequency. Only a DAW or other device that has access to negative time (yet to happen) data can implement correct linear-phase filters. It's because of this that true linear-phase filters cannot usefully be used during tracking or for live sound PA systems.

If you are using a DAW to mix a multi-mic setup on a drumkit, then time correction is necessary anyway in order to delay the kick, snare and tom mics relative to the overheads to account for the velocity of sound. If the DAW does not automatically time-align the outputs of its linear-phase EQ, then adding the time correction is a simple change of these delays by an amount equivalent to the sampling interval multiplied by half the filter length selected for the EQ. Note that this is equivalent to decreasing the physical microphone distances used when calculating the velocity of sound corrections.

smg, did you catch all that?