I have a Rane GE-60 and a dbx 2231. I want the "better" one to be in my B rig and the other EQ to be in my C rig. The EQ will have the main L & R going through them. thanks
Which Graphic EQ is "better"??
- Thread starter Kelly Johnson
- Start date
Re: Which Graphic EQ is "better"??
Which seems better to you? If you can't tell, I would say that's evidence they're a horse apiece.
Which seems better to you? If you can't tell, I would say that's evidence they're a horse apiece.
Re: Which Graphic EQ is "better"??
If YOU can't tell a difference audibly speaking- which one is the easier of the two to use functionality-wise? The dimensions seem to be about the same so it comes down to a few features. First, I have always found the Rane unit a little awkward in their input knobs... 0 to 10... 10 what? You also get a limiter in the DBX and Noise Reduction. I can't say that I have ever used these two features, but if it's on your B/C rig than you might not have limiting some where else. The other thing that is unclear about the Rane unit is the max input and min output gain- I couldn't find it anywhere in the spec sheet... The DBX clearly tells you that it works in the +22dB area on both ends so you have plenty of headroom. The Rane seems like a DBX160 in the sense that you have to feel your way through it because they are very rarely ever calibrated.
So which system needs the extra features and is it possible that you take out the C system more than the B system?
If YOU can't tell a difference audibly speaking- which one is the easier of the two to use functionality-wise? The dimensions seem to be about the same so it comes down to a few features. First, I have always found the Rane unit a little awkward in their input knobs... 0 to 10... 10 what? You also get a limiter in the DBX and Noise Reduction. I can't say that I have ever used these two features, but if it's on your B/C rig than you might not have limiting some where else. The other thing that is unclear about the Rane unit is the max input and min output gain- I couldn't find it anywhere in the spec sheet... The DBX clearly tells you that it works in the +22dB area on both ends so you have plenty of headroom. The Rane seems like a DBX160 in the sense that you have to feel your way through it because they are very rarely ever calibrated.
So which system needs the extra features and is it possible that you take out the C system more than the B system?
Re: Which Graphic EQ is "better"??
How well they work is certainly a factor and not just how they sound but how effective they are and how easy they are to adjust, aspects that can differ greatly between different units. How the filter characteristics changes with level, how adjacent bands interact and so on can affect how easy an EQ is to work with. So which do you find easier to work with and which of your systems may require greater and/or more frequent adjustment? That seems to be what would really matter.
The GE 60 spec sheet, http://www.rane.com/pdf/old/ge60dat.pdf, very clearly identifies a maximum input level of +21dBu and a maximum output level of +22dBu while the 2231 spec sheet actually indicates +21dBu for both. The 2231 does have integrated Type III noise reduction and PeakStop limiting along with a fixed 40Hz, 18dB/octave low cut/high pass filter available on each channel while the GE 60 has variable 10-250Hz, 12dB/octave low cut/high pass and 3kHz-40kHz, 12dB/octave high cut/low pass filters for each channel. Both have bypass switches for each channel, the bypass on the GE 60 is passive such that if the unit power fails it still passes audio, I don't know about the 2231. I don't understand the 'calibration' comment.
How well they work is certainly a factor and not just how they sound but how effective they are and how easy they are to adjust, aspects that can differ greatly between different units. How the filter characteristics changes with level, how adjacent bands interact and so on can affect how easy an EQ is to work with. So which do you find easier to work with and which of your systems may require greater and/or more frequent adjustment? That seems to be what would really matter.
Re: Which Graphic EQ is "better"??
i honestly can't tell an audible difference, but the faders on the dbx are more comfortable to move. As far as adjusting bands, the "q" is wide, but thats the way graphics work. I really like the the high pass and low pass filters on the rane, but I love the limiting on the dbx. I have the dbx in my B rig and the Rane in my C rig, I think i'll leave them where they are. Thanks
i honestly can't tell an audible difference, but the faders on the dbx are more comfortable to move. As far as adjusting bands, the "q" is wide, but thats the way graphics work. I really like the the high pass and low pass filters on the rane, but I love the limiting on the dbx. I have the dbx in my B rig and the Rane in my C rig, I think i'll leave them where they are. Thanks
Re: Which Graphic EQ is "better"??
I feel like RANE is a slightly better name, but I am probably not your typical customer. The audio path in both should be adequately clean. Contrary to perception, all 1/3 octave GEQs are not the same Q or bandwidth. Rane has an article on their website explaining their EQ design philosophy. I'm not sure which Q/BW approach DBX used.
JR
I feel like RANE is a slightly better name, but I am probably not your typical customer. The audio path in both should be adequately clean. Contrary to perception, all 1/3 octave GEQs are not the same Q or bandwidth. Rane has an article on their website explaining their EQ design philosophy. I'm not sure which Q/BW approach DBX used.
JR
Re: Which Graphic EQ is "better"??
Their approach: "Gentlemen, these EQ things are highly profitable, and look really cool when the l.e.d. s in the slidey things light up.... let's sell the hell out of them." ;o)
Hammer
Their approach: "Gentlemen, these EQ things are highly profitable, and look really cool when the l.e.d. s in the slidey things light up.... let's sell the hell out of them." ;o)
Hammer
Re: Which Graphic EQ is "better"??
I have long been a proponent of null testing to enhance listening comparisons.
If you want to listen for differences, normal a single full range source to both EQ inputs, then take the the two outputs into two console input channels, applying a polarity inversion to one channel. Then assign both EQ to a single bus, at similar levels with all EQ sections flat (set levels with one muted, then the other to get a nominal level) for a null with both on and at the same level.
Now assuming you can get a decent null flat, start playing with the boost/cut sliders and you will be able to isolate and listen to what each EQ slider adds or subtracts from your signal, and how well the two of them track with each other. If they sound different, it your personal choice which you prefer.
Note: be careful about listening to one at a time for sound quality, with the polarity still reversed on one... that can sound subtly different.
JR
I have long been a proponent of null testing to enhance listening comparisons.
If you want to listen for differences, normal a single full range source to both EQ inputs, then take the the two outputs into two console input channels, applying a polarity inversion to one channel. Then assign both EQ to a single bus, at similar levels with all EQ sections flat (set levels with one muted, then the other to get a nominal level) for a null with both on and at the same level.
Now assuming you can get a decent null flat, start playing with the boost/cut sliders and you will be able to isolate and listen to what each EQ slider adds or subtracts from your signal, and how well the two of them track with each other. If they sound different, it your personal choice which you prefer.
Note: be careful about listening to one at a time for sound quality, with the polarity still reversed on one... that can sound subtly different.
JR
Re: Which Graphic EQ is "better"??
Thanks I couldn't find that Rane input level info anywhere. The calibration comment was meant to describe a DBX160 that hasn't been calibrated. I haven't used one in a while, but if you tried to look at the meters on one of those things and rely on it for truth, you could be trouble. Most of the ones that I ever came across told tales of input and gain reduction. They were based on the older analog units and had a small screw in the back for calibration.
Point was the Rane, like the DBX160, provide no real indication of what is actually happening due to the arbitrary 0 to 10 gains. Now if you can find one that goes to 11, that would be cool.
I'd be curious, where does one set the input and output of a older rane device to maintain proper gain structure?
Thanks I couldn't find that Rane input level info anywhere. The calibration comment was meant to describe a DBX160 that hasn't been calibrated. I haven't used one in a while, but if you tried to look at the meters on one of those things and rely on it for truth, you could be trouble. Most of the ones that I ever came across told tales of input and gain reduction. They were based on the older analog units and had a small screw in the back for calibration.
Point was the Rane, like the DBX160, provide no real indication of what is actually happening due to the arbitrary 0 to 10 gains. Now if you can find one that goes to 11, that would be cool.
I'd be curious, where does one set the input and output of a older rane device to maintain proper gain structure?
Re: Which Graphic EQ is "better"??
On the Rane graphics I have I use the bypass button to set the make-up gain. I do the EQ'ing, then hit the bypass button and raise the gain until the volume level is at or ACAP to the volume with the button engaged. Then just push the button to put it in the chain and be done.
On the Rane graphics I have I use the bypass button to set the make-up gain. I do the EQ'ing, then hit the bypass button and raise the gain until the volume level is at or ACAP to the volume with the button engaged. Then just push the button to put it in the chain and be done.