Opinions about needing an EQ in the loop

MadAsAHatter

MadAsAHatter

Well-known member
With an EQ in the loop you can get a perfectly useable tone that sounds good. Without the EQ in the loop there's absolutely nothing you can do to get it to sound right.

So which way do you look at it?
1. The core tone you want is not there without the EQ and it's just not the right amp for you.
2. You get a good tone and the EQ in the loop is just another piece to the tone shaping puzzle.
 
I went forever without using an eq....now that I discovered the 10 band in my ms-3 I cannot imagine not using one. Clean or dirty. Just like the eq on a mark 4...
 
Like boosting, I just see it as another tool. I don’t think there are many recordings we hear that don’t have at least a little eq going on be it at the board or in post mixing, I’d prefer to do it at the source with an eq in the loop. Certain cabs might have a resonate note somewhere in the low mids kind of ruining everything that a simple little dip could fix, I don’t see why one would be against easily fixing something like that
 
I like EQs because pretty much no amp does 'MY' tone on its own out of the box.

However, that is not saying I would try to make an amp something that its not. I would start with something close to the ballpark and go from there.
 
you wanna try one .... let me know

1716218553845.jpeg
 
MadAsAHatter said:
With an EQ in the loop you can get a perfectly useable tone that sounds good. Without the EQ in the loop there's absolutely nothing you can do to get it to sound right.

So which way do you look at it?
1. The core tone you want is not there without the EQ and it's just not the right amp for you.
2. You get a good tone and the EQ in the loop is just another piece to the tone shaping puzzle.
Click to expand...
Number 1 with a bullet. Long ago, I read how running one in the loop was the way to go....tried it, and while yes you can really sculp the tone which is cool, using the loop in any fashion became an obvious tone sucker. That's what loops do, so I try to avoid using them.
The only amp that sounded better with an eq in the loop was a Randall Diavlo 100. Sold it pretty fast.

I've found that an eq in front can sculp the tone just as good.
 
Racerxrated said:
Number 1 with a bullet. Long ago, I read how running one in the loop was the way to go....tried it, and while yes you can really sculp the tone which is cool, using the loop in any fashion became an obvious tone sucker. That's what loops do, so I try to avoid using them.
The only amp that sounded better with an eq in the loop was a Randall Diavlo 100. Sold it pretty fast.

I've found that an eq in front can sculp the tone just as good.
Click to expand...
This. Whenever I try an EQ in the loop, the negatives outweighed the positives. Even when it achieved the desired frequencies, it sucked tone and colored the amp in a negative way.
If I can’t make an amp work with as little as boosting/EQing in front, it’s a goner.
 
I've never been able to effectively use an outboard EQ outside of the Orange 2 Stroke, which I use to make my noiseless singles coils more single coil ish.

People usually recommend using EQ's, but I've always had better results using an OD pedal set for minimal boost. EQ pedals have always made things sound and feel weird to me.
 
I don't mind an EQ in the loop or in post, it's just part of the puzzle and another tool in the box. Especially in the "old days" with fewer amps, or more expensive amps not readily available and so on. I wouldn't fault anyone for picking up a $400 JCM900 and throwing an EQ in the loop and using that as their main amp.

However now that there are seemingly infinite amp makers of all different flavors, and that $400 JCM900 is now a $1000 "vintage" amp, I really can't see the argument for EQ's in that situation. If you can afford an amp that has a core, base tone that you love, without EQ, then go get it. You can EQ here and there but it's less necessary. I can't fathom some of the advice I've seen (elsewhere) that's like "buy this $1000 amp then add an EQ to get a good tone" when that same $1000 would just buy an amp that is good out of the box.

I'd liken it to recording video, or shooting photos. Can I touch up your photo? Can I reduce noise or color grade a video clip? Absolutely. But if the photo or video was shot correctly in the first place, I have a lot more range in editing, as far as both the quality of those touch-ups while simultaneously having less touching up required. So think of it the same way for an amp, if I have a shitty tone, I can lipstick it with an EQ all I want, and it might sound anywhere from "unique" to great. But if I start with a great tone already, it just gives me that much more flexibility.
 
Racerxrated said:
Number 1 with a bullet. Long ago, I read how running one in the loop was the way to go....tried it, and while yes you can really sculp the tone which is cool, using the loop in any fashion became an obvious tone sucker. That's what loops do, so I try to avoid using them.
The only amp that sounded better with an eq in the loop was a Randall Diavlo 100. Sold it pretty fast.

I've found that an eq in front can sculp the tone just as good.
Click to expand...
you need to try one that is true bypass .... with out a gain/volume boost .....
 
I view EQ in the loop as part of that last 5%. Everything about the pickups I use, pedals, amp, cabinet, etc., should get me 95% or more of where I want to be. I need to have the core tone from everything else, but I also recognize that we all have different tastes, and the tone stacks in our amps aren't one-size-fits-all.
 
I tune down to G#. 99.9% of amps were not designed for that so EQ in the loop is absolutely necessary or it’s butt mud city.

I’m a rack guy. I’m very sensitive to tone suck and with a good analog EQ between the pre & power amp I don’t hear any signal degradation which leads me to believe that those mentioning tone suck have a shitty equalizer or their head has a shitty loop.

To those saying if they need an EQ then the amp is not for them, sure, you’re a steak and potatoes guy, you do you, but if you also try different pickups/speakers/strings/tubes/boost but draw the line on EQ, that makes no sense to me.
 
Even besides EQ’s, no pedal period has had the ability to redeem an amp for me. They’re there to enhance an amp you already like or see good potential in

If an amp has subpar quality tone a pedal won’t save that and if anything most recent made pedals will make it even worse with their inherently filtered/plastic-y sound

A boosted vintage Marshall or 2ch recto doesn’t count because we can hear the inherently great tone that just needs that extra kick of the boost. If the tone of those wasn’t good to begin with (aka synthetic or inorganic sounding) we’d just chuck them
 
Not in the loop, but my pedalboard is set up with a Boss EQ-200 both sending to the amp and receiving from the amp, so it's very easy to experiment.

With my DSL100 I use an EQ on the return from the OD1 channel to fatten it up, whereas on the Crunch channel I have an EQ in front simply to push it into modded JCM800 territory (I stack that with my SD-1). Neither channel "needs" EQ in this case, but it's a very convenient tool to refine a sound.
 
As with many things, it depends. If the amp has a distinct voice or character that can't be tamed via the stack ( e.g. the Bogner "chew") an EQ won't do much. Boogie Marks are an exception; the GEQ commonly set for an agressive mid scoop is there for a reason..

If the cab and speaks have a unique and very strong character, an EQ won't do much there either.
If the rig is dialled in and there is some unique thing needed - e.g. cut below 80Hz or tune some frequency to the room bandmates etc, then an EQ works great..
I used EQs with my main band who also used the same sound guy. When I took that rig to other gigs or sessions, it sounded not right..
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top