midnite_man
New member
Re: Next Tone Chart: EQ in Numbers? Or Bars?
+1
Guitarist said:
+1
Next Tone Chart: EQ in Numbers? Or Bars?
- Thread starter Evan Skopp
- Start date
Re: Next Tone Chart: EQ in Numbers? Or Bars?
I tend to prefer the numbers, even though they may only be relative. It would be nice to get some clarification on whether the numbers and bars (especially output values) are comparable across all pickups or only within a class of pickup (e.g., are the Strat outputs comparable to each other and HBs or only each other?).
Most important, I would like to see some of the errors and inconsistencies corrected. For example, one large fold-out brochure I have lists EQ numbers for the Tele Vintage Stack that look like they are reversed for the rhythm and lead pickups. There are also several inconsistencies between the numbers in that brochure and the bar graphs on the website.
I tend to prefer the numbers, even though they may only be relative. It would be nice to get some clarification on whether the numbers and bars (especially output values) are comparable across all pickups or only within a class of pickup (e.g., are the Strat outputs comparable to each other and HBs or only each other?).
Most important, I would like to see some of the errors and inconsistencies corrected. For example, one large fold-out brochure I have lists EQ numbers for the Tele Vintage Stack that look like they are reversed for the rhythm and lead pickups. There are also several inconsistencies between the numbers in that brochure and the bar graphs on the website.
Young Angus
Kometose Tonologist
Re: Next Tone Chart: EQ in Numbers? Or Bars?
yeah actually thats a great idea, im with artie too....get it
ishmun said:
yeah actually thats a great idea, im with artie too....get it
SOLO GUITAR STEWIE
New member
Re: Next Tone Chart: EQ in Numbers? Or Bars?
me too +1
oh and a 100 posts on the new forum... :arms: :hijacked: :biglaugh: :beerchug:
fftopic:
Lewguitar said:
me too +1
oh and a 100 posts on the new forum... :arms: :hijacked: :biglaugh: :beerchug:
fftopic:
Last edited:
Big Mike Blues
New member
Re: Next Tone Chart: EQ in Numbers? Or Bars?
I like that as well.
ArtieToo said:If it has to be one or the other, I prefer bars. But, I don't see why you can't have both.
To be perfectly honest, when I want to look at Duncan specs, I go to Guitar Electronics.
They present the info way better than you guys do. (Sorry.) :sigh:
I like that as well.
MikeS
Bengalsologist
Re: Next Tone Chart: EQ in Numbers? Or Bars?
+1 for Artie's suggestion. Seems like numbers and bars work well together. The graphics of a bar are a lot easier to cross compare pickups for visual people like me (and probably a lot of other costomers). The numbers would be there to please the overly picky folks
+1 for Artie's suggestion. Seems like numbers and bars work well together. The graphics of a bar are a lot easier to cross compare pickups for visual people like me (and probably a lot of other costomers). The numbers would be there to please the overly picky folks
Jeff_H
Dean Hardtail Fanologist
Re: Next Tone Chart: EQ in Numbers? Or Bars?
This idea rocks, great on Artie. I prefer bars if restricted to the choices at hand. I like to see the basic eq curve visually.
ArtieToo said:If it has to be one or the other, I prefer bars. But, I don't see why you can't have both.
To be perfectly honest, when I want to look at Duncan specs, I go to Guitar Electronics.
They present the info way better than you guys do. (Sorry.) :sigh:
This idea rocks, great on Artie. I prefer bars if restricted to the choices at hand. I like to see the basic eq curve visually.
F
Forbes
Guest
Re: Next Tone Chart: EQ in Numbers? Or Bars?
Arties is definately the best idea yet, and if this was done with upper and lower mids too, then it would make pickup comparisons far easier.
Arties is definately the best idea yet, and if this was done with upper and lower mids too, then it would make pickup comparisons far easier.
J.LaGrassa
New member
Re: Next Tone Chart: EQ in Numbers? Or Bars?
I vote for the Bars!
I vote for the Bars!
korovamilkdud
WhoDatologist
Re: Next Tone Chart: EQ in Numbers? Or Bars?
I really like what Artie has in his reply but I also think the addition of a low mid/ mid/ upper mid- category would be very helpful.
I really like what Artie has in his reply but I also think the addition of a low mid/ mid/ upper mid- category would be very helpful.
Artie
Peaveyologist
Re: Next Tone Chart: EQ in Numbers? Or Bars?
I hope everyone realizes that that graphic image was lifted from Guitar Electronics and was not created by me.
It was used just to illustrate how others are doing this.
Seymour Duncan would not be able to use that, (at least not exactly), because it's someone else's intellectual property.
Just wanted to clarify that.
I hope everyone realizes that that graphic image was lifted from Guitar Electronics and was not created by me.
It was used just to illustrate how others are doing this.
Seymour Duncan would not be able to use that, (at least not exactly), because it's someone else's intellectual property.
Just wanted to clarify that.
SOLO GUITAR STEWIE
New member
Re: Next Tone Chart: EQ in Numbers? Or Bars?
If you could use something like that with high mid and low mid's would be ideal...like others have said it would paint a better picture for people.
ArtieToo said:If it has to be one or the other, I prefer bars. But, I don't see why you can't have both.
To be perfectly honest, when I want to look at Duncan specs, I go to Guitar Electronics.
They present the info way better than you guys do. (Sorry.) :sigh:
If you could use something like that with high mid and low mid's would be ideal...like others have said it would paint a better picture for people.
texasguitarslinger
Mo Cow Bellologist
Re: Next Tone Chart: EQ in Numbers? Or Bars?
Numbers.
Numbers.
Gamera
New member
Re: Next Tone Chart: EQ in Numbers? Or Bars?
I like the segmented bars idea as in Artie's suggestion. Best of both worlds.
FWIW, I think Carvin's lo mid/hi mid chart is busy and confusing. Just gimme an average, I don't need all the scientific info.
And as for pure numbers, I think it invites too much confusion as these numbers may be taken as literal values and compared to other pup manufacturers that way.
Oh, and thanks for asking for our input, Evan. Mighty decent of you guys to listen to our input in this way.
I like the segmented bars idea as in Artie's suggestion. Best of both worlds.
FWIW, I think Carvin's lo mid/hi mid chart is busy and confusing. Just gimme an average, I don't need all the scientific info.
And as for pure numbers, I think it invites too much confusion as these numbers may be taken as literal values and compared to other pup manufacturers that way.
Oh, and thanks for asking for our input, Evan. Mighty decent of you guys to listen to our input in this way.
