Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
Introduction
o 1 - Fixed Equalisers
o 2 - Tone Controls For Reproduction
o 3 - Tone Controls For Production
o 4 - Basic Tone Controls
o 5 - Graphic Equalisers
o 6 - Variable Frequency Tone Controls
o 7 - Parametric Equalisers
o 8 - Guitar Amp Tone Stacks
o 9 - Frequency 'Isolators'
o 10 - 'Tilt' Controls
Conclusions
References
Introduction
Equalisation (EQ) is one of the most contentious areas of hi-fi. For many years, it was expected of any
preamplifier that it would have (at the minimum) bass and treble controls. There were untold variations of
course, but the general scheme that ended up being used by almost all manufacturers was the 'Baxandall'
topology, named after its inventor Peter J Baxandall. This arrangement is used to this day, but for audio
production (as opposed to reproduction) the equalisation available is much more complex and
comprehensive.
The term 'equalisation' probably came from the requirements of various operators (phone, motion picture,
broadcast, etc.) to get their systems back to a flat frequency response - in other words to make it 'equal' to
the intended signal.
In reality, equalisation (or simply 'filtering' as it was known in the early years) has been part of recording and
PA equipment from the beginning of the technology. Western Electric (which eventually became Bell Labs)
described filters (equalisers) for the telephone system to adjust the frequency response and correct high
frequency rolloff in the telephone lines. Early 'tone' controls were in evidence not long after the advent of AM
radio ('wireless' as it was known at the time). These were typically only able to roll off the high frequencies to
make the sound more 'mellow' and reduce extraneous noise.
While audiophiles the world over eschew any form of EQ, at least 99% of the recordings they listen to have
already been processed with individual EQ on each channel, as well as overall EQ, compression, limiting,
and other 'effects' as may be deemed appropriate by the recording and mastering engineers. However, in
this article, I will discuss mainly 'user adjustable' equalisation ('equalization' for North American readers).
Mixing desks for recording and live production provide extensive EQ, and no-one would be silly enough to
build a mixer without it. Each channel has a comprehensive tone control network, almost always with at least
two bands of parametric equalisation. The term 'parametric' refers to the fact that all the parameters of the
circuit are adjustable - frequency, bandwidth (Q) and boost/ cut.
2
Daniel Flickinger introduced the first parametric equaliser in early 1971 (US Patent 3752928 A). His design
used opamps to create filter circuits that were not viable with other techniques. Flickinger's patent ("Amplifier
system utilizing regenerative and degenerative feedback to shape the frequency response") shows the circuit
topology that was used, and it forms the basis of parametric EQ used to this day.
An earlier form of comprehensive tone control was the graphic equaliser - so-called because the slider pots
described a 'graph' of the final frequency response. To be useful, a graphic EQ system needs a lot of
separate filters. Octave band graphic EQ systems used 10 slide pots, with one for each octave. More
expensive units had 20 sliders (1/2 octave) or 30 sliders (1/3 octave). It was common for these to use ferritecored inductors prior to the development of integrated opamps and the invention of the 'gyrator' circuit. A
gyrator uses an opamp, resistors and a capacitor to simulate an inductor (hence the generic name 'simulated
inductor').
It's often been stated that "tone controls are provided so the user can mess up the sound". In many cases
this is certainly true, but it has to be considered that the end-user is perfectly entitled to mess up the sound if
s/he wants to do so. This article is not about ultimate sound quality, but the various types of equaliser that are
available, and how they work.
It's also worth your while to browse the various circuits from the ESP projects list. There are quite a few
different types of equaliser described, ranging from simple bass and treble controls through to quasiparametric designs, graphic equalisers and fixed EQ systems for low frequency response extension for
loudspeakers and subwoofers.
Note that all the circuits shown below rely on a low or very low impedance
source. This can be an opamp (best), transistor emitter follower (ok) or a
valve cathode follower (worst), depending on the other circuitry used. So,
although input buffers are not shown they are essential in all cases. This
still applies where the input uses an inverting opamp stage, because the
insertion loss of the circuit depends on a low source impedance.
The circuits below are not for construction (although you can do so if you wish, but don't expect assistance).
Because they are not projects, none has been built as shown, and although all have been simulated no other
tests have been done. Likewise, there's been no attempt to optimise the circuits for any particular task, so
they may not be found suitable as described. I will respond to queries about projects, but I will not provide
assistance to anyone to build any of the circuits shown here.
Fixed Equalisers
The most common fixed EQ circuit is that used for RIAA vinyl phono playback from magnetic pickups.
Although there is vast number of different topologies, the end result is pretty much the same. RIAA playback
EQ provides bass boost and treble cut to match the disc cutting process. This (by design) cuts the bass
response so the grooves aren't so wide as to cut into adjacent grooves, and boosts the treble as a form of
pre-emphasis. Upon playback, the treble cut reduces the disc's surface noise sufficiently to produce a fairly
quiet end result.
Other common fixed equalisers are or were used with recording tape, FM broadcast, long phone lines used
for radio or television distribution and a multitude of other systems. Pre-emphasis (treble boost) and deemphasis (complementary treble cut) increase the apparent signal to noise ratio (SNR) and these have been
used for many years. Pre-emphasis is used in FM broadcasts, and the receivers have a complementary deemphasis circuit that gives an overall flat response.
Fixed equalisers can also be used to allow a loudspeaker to achieve (or attempt) 'full range' from single
loudspeaker drivers. One of the best known is probably the Bose 901, which uses 9 x 100mm (4") drivers
and has a 'line level' equaliser that supposedly produces flat response (although it also has some tone
control available). Many subwoofers use a fixed equaliser to get as low as possible even in a small
enclosure.
3
Modern systems using DSP (digital signal processing) may also qualify as 'fixed' EQ, because after the setup
process is complete there is usually no facility to adjust the relative levels. There's also a movement to apply
EQ to 'correct' the speakers for the room, but this is a flawed concept for the most part, other than for
frequencies below ~100Hz or so. In a nutshell, you cannot equalise a room, because most of the problems
are caused by anomalies in time, and you cannot correct time with amplitude.
Fixed EQ is also used in smartphones, tablets and laptops, usually both for the inbuilt microphone and
speakers. The amount and type of EQ depends on the manufacturer, but it's safe to say that it will usually be
done using DSP. Some may allow applications to disable the microphone EQ (and compression) for wider
frequency and dynamic range. Another form of fixed EQ is a notch filter, and these can be extremely narrow
and used to remove an unwanted frequency. An example is the 19kHz notch filter used in FM receivers to
suppress the 19kHz pilot tone that's used for stereo broadcasts. Notch filters can also be used to remove
50/60Hz hum from a signal without greatly affecting nearby frequencies.
The primary purpose of this article is to describe user adjustable controls, not fixed EQ systems. Therefore I
shall not delve into the realm of fixed equalisers other than in passing.
4
variable Q (bandwidth) depending on the amount of boost and cut. The other type is 'constant Q', patented
by Ken Gundry of Dolby Laboratories and further developed by Rane. These have a (more or less) constant
bandwidth regardless of the amount of boost or cut.
The Langevin Model EQ-251A was the first equaliser to use slide controls, but in this case they were slide
switches, not pots as we expect today. It used only passive sections, and each filter had switchable
frequencies and used a 15-position slide switch to adjust cut or boost. The first true graphic equaliser was
the type 7080 developed by Art Davis's Cinema Engineering. It featured 6 bands with a boost and cut range
of 8dB. It used a slide switch to adjust each band in 1 dB steps. Davis's second graphic equaliser was the
Altec Lansing Model 9062A EQ. In 1967 Davis developed the first 1/3 octave variable notch filter set, the
Altec-Lansing 'Acousta-Voice' system.
5
the gain to allow boost for separate bass or treble controls wasn't an option. Gain was expensive, because it
required another valve stage. The important part here is that if you want to be able to boost bass or treble
with a passive network, the entire signal has to be reduced so the filters can be adjusted to provide an
apparent boost. Simple bass and treble cut controls are shown below, as these are the most basic of all.
9
Graphic Equalisers
While the basic shelving filters described above are fine for controlling bass and treble, to affect the
midrange or a troublesome frequency anywhere in the audio band isn't possible. In many cases bass and
treble controls don't even work for bass and treble. For example, if you want to get a 'fat' kick drum sound
you might add some bass, but you don't want or need to keep boosting all the way down to a few Hertz. Look
at Figure 6 - if you have 10dB of boost at 70Hz, you have slightly more than that at 40Hz and it's still there at
20Hz. A peaking filter can be tuned to 70Hz (for example) to give a satisfying 'thump' from the kick drum, but
the level returns to normal (towards 0dB gain) as the frequency increases or decreases.
Graphic equalisers have a series of bandpass filters, with each frequency band controlled by a slide-pot.
Each frequency can be cut or boosted, and uninformed fiddling can cause problems. There was a brief
period where stereo graphic EQ was considered a 'must' for what's probably better known as 'low-end hi-fi' comparatively cheap systems that made up for the lack of overall quality by including extras that made the
buyer believe s/he was getting a good deal.
This general form of equaliser was developed in the early 1970s, and inductors were used as part of the
frequency selective networks. Inductors are comparatively large, require many turns of wire and a magnetic
core (steel laminations or ferrite). They are expensive to make, and nearby magnetic fields can induce hum
into the windings.
Graphic EQ was therefore expensive and quite bulky until the invention of the gyrator (a 'simulated' inductor,
using an opamp to invert the action of a capacitor). Although the gyrator was proposed in 1948 (by Bernard
Tellegen, a Dutch engineer who also invented the pentode valve), practical realisation wasn't possible until
opamps became readily available. Very basic gyrators can be made using only a transistor, but their
performance is sub-standard. I don't know of anyone who has tried to make a gyrator using valves because it
would not be sensible. The active element of a gyrator is a non-inverting unity gain buffer, which should have
high input impedance and low output impedance.
Gyrators allowed designers to create large numbers of 'inductors' very cheaply compared to true inductors,
and gyrators are unaffected by magnetic fields so induced hum was no longer a major problem. The general
form of a graphic equaliser is shown below, but using inductors for clarity. It doesn't matter if the inductor is
'real' or simulated, it has exactly the same effect. Note that the value of the resistor (R2, R3, etc.) is often the
winding resistance of the inductor, and/or an external resistor used to ensure that the series resistance of
each tuned circuit is identical. In the following drawing, only the first 5 octave band filters are included. The
remainder follow the standard octave frequencies. Industry standard frequencies for the three most common
equalisers are ...
31
31
63
125
250
500
1k0
2k0
4k0
8k0
16k
44
63
87
125
175
250
350
500
700
1k0
1k4
2k0
2k8
4k0
5k6
8k0
11k
16k
20k
25 31 40 50 63 80 100 125 160 200 250 315 400 500 630 800 1k0 1k2 1k6 2k0 2k5 3k2 4k0 5k0 6k3 8k0 10k 12k 16k 20k
1/3 Octave Band Frequencies - 30 Band
The frequencies shown above are pretty much agreed upon worldwide, and have been adopted by all
manufacturers making graphic equalisers. The 1/2 octave and 1/3 octave frequencies are often extended
above and below those shown, and may include 20Hz and/or 25Hz, as well as 20kHz. The drawing below
shows ideal values rather than those readily available, purely for convenience. The Q of each filter is about
2, extreme accuracy is not really possible and fortunately isn't necessary. The circuit below must be driven
from a low impedance. Normally, there would be a unity gain buffer to drive the input. It isn't shown but must
be included unless the previous stage is an opamp or other very low impedance source.
10
11
12
13
14
In shelving mode, the circuit works almost identically to that shown in Figure 12. The range of each
frequency control can be changed by using a higher (or lower) value pot, and the frequencies are changed
by replacing C1, C2 and/or C3 with values that provide the desired ranges. For the peaking filter section (C1
in circuit), the ratio of C1 and C2 determines the resonant circuit Q (C2 determines the inductance of the
gyrator). Normally there is an optimum ratio (typically around 10:1) for C1 and C2, but because the
inductance is variable vis VR3, the optimum ratio can't be maintained.
There is one thing that the Figure 13 circuit does that is not especially desirable, When in peaking mode, the
Q changes depending on the setting of VR3. At very low frequencies the Q is higher than at higher
frequencies. This variable Q is either a benefit or a curse, depending on what you want to do. With the
values shown, the Q ranges from 9.5 to 2.0 (at maximum boost or cut, and at 35Hz and 150Hz respectively).
At settings below the maximum cut or boost the Q is reduced. It's normal for this type of equaliser, and if you
need a circuit that has consistent Q you need a proper parametric EQ as described next.
Parametric Equalisers
The most flexible EQ that occupies the least space is a parametric equaliser. Provided the bass can be
switched from shelving to peaking mode (and many can), you can insert a peak or dip anywhere you like to
get the sound you want. Parametric EQ ranges from simple fixed bandwidth types (such as the one shown
in Project 28) through to fully variable 'true' parametric equalisers based on state-variable filters. Simple
versions like the P28 circuit provide no control over the bandwidth (Q), but are nonetheless very flexible and
can perform most 'sound-shaping' EQ tasks very well. Variable Q is needed if you happen to have a
requirement to notch out a particular troublesome frequency. High Q (narrow bandwidth) peaks are rarely
needed and if used can create problems with the final mix.
It's almost unheard of to use parametric EQ for a home system. These equalisers are not easy to drive, and
should only be used by those who understand how they work and what they do. If adjusted incorrectly it's
quite possible for an inexperienced user to not just mess up the sound, but it may be possible to kill tweeters
if a substantial boost is applied close to the crossover frequency, so the tweeter receives too much energy at
its lowest recommended frequency. Home systems aren't just operated by adults, and kids like to
experiment! Hi-fi manufacturers assume (not unwisely) that the average user would be confused by all the
options provided, and most 'high-end' equipment offers no form of tone control at all.
As with graphic equalisers, a parametric EQ can be configured for variable or constant Q. Each requires a
different approach to the circuit. There are countless variations for parametric equalisers, but the best allround filter network is the state-variable topology. This is a relatively complex circuit, but has the advantage
of being easily adjusted both for frequency and Q. Demands on the opamps are fairly modest and
comparatively cheap opamps can perform well.
15
A simpler version uses a Wien bridge as the variable frequency element. These really qualify as 'quasi
parametric' EQ, because the Q is fairly low (around 1.3) and can't be changed. However, they are well
behaved and easily tuned. A variable frequency stage needs only one opamp in its simplest form, and the
tuning network is completely passive. It might seem unlikely that this would be useful, but the Q is actually
much greater than a 3-band Baxandall tone control (which only manages a Q of about 0.5), and it can be
tuned with a dual-gang pot. This network is not suitable where high levels of boost or cut are needed, as the
circuit will oscillate if the gain is too high (set by R6). Without R6 the maximum boost and cut is 9dB and with
the values given the maximum is 12dB. The performance can be improved a little by adding a buffer between
the pot and the Wien bridge network, but in general the benefit does not outweigh the added expense.
There's a lot more info on this topology in Project 150. The Wien bridge network consists of VR2 (A & B), R2,
R3 and C1, C2.
Most 'true' parametric equalisers use a state-variable filter (see State-Variable Filters for a detailed analysis).
Although comparatively complex, the state variable filter gives independent control of Q and frequency.
There are many variations on the scheme, but the end result is fairly similar. In the following drawing, the
control section is identical to that shown in Figure 14, and the filter is simply changed from a Wien bridge to a
state-variable.
16
8 - Guitar Amp Tone Stacks
The 'tone stack' as it is commonly known is only suitable for guitar or other musical instrument amps. It's very
difficult to know where it came from, but tone stacks are used by most guitar amp manufacturers almost
exclusively. The arrangement is quite different from a traditional passive control network, and the control pots
are wired in series to form a 'stack' (hence the name). They are very economical, and use the minimum
possible number of parts, but the controls are usually highly interactive and there is almost always a
significant midrange 'scoop' (essentially a broad notch).
Since electric guitars in particular usually have a quite prominent midrange with little bass or extended treble,
the midrange scoop makes up for that by boosting the bass and treble and suppressing the midrange.
Varying the bass and treble controls shifts the notch or 'scoop' centre frequency and its depth. Where a
'midrange' control is included, the closest to flat response is obtained with bass and treble at zero, and
midrange at maximum. A true flat response is usually impossible though. The controls are used to get a
guitar sound that suits the player, and the tone controls (as well as the speaker, cabinet and power amp) are
used to create sound. The amp has to be considered as part of the instrument, as most guitarists will choose
an amp based on the overall sound they can get from the pairing of guitar and amplifier, and linked to their
playing style.
There are very wide differences between tone stacks, not only between different manufacturers but even
between different models from the same maker. Most are high impedance and are designed for use with
valve stages. For best performance they should be driven from a cathode follower, but in some cases even
that is abandoned. While guitarists will think that the tone stack in their favourite amp is a work of art, they
are really very basic and usually don't work well with sources other than guitar. From a manufacturing
perspective, these are the cheapest possible options for tone control, but it just so happens that the
characteristics are pretty close to ideal for the purpose. Only a few designers have strayed, and those who
were silly enough to try using Baxandall (active) tone controls have never been well received. An Australian
magazine once published a guitar amp using an active tone control, and it didn't go down well with most
experienced guitar players.
17
two. Many guitarists have a preference, but that's often because a particular amp brand is preferred. There
are many other guitar amps, and they nearly all use variations of the two circuits shown. It would be silly for
me to even try to show all the different circuits because there are so many.
9 - Frequency 'Isolators'
This type of equaliser is almost only ever used by DJs, and it's quite common in DJ mixers. You will rarely
see it elsewhere, but if you were to build a 4-way active system based on Project 125 (a 4-way active
crossover) you get this ability free. A frequency isolator is usually simply a 3-way crossover network with its
outputs summed to return to a flat response. Project 153 describes a 3-band, 12dB/octave, variable
frequency isolator, and if you want to see the full version please refer to the project article. The version
shown below has fixed frequencies, and although this may seem quite limiting it's often as much as you are
likely to need. The term itself is something of a misnomer, in that you can't really isolate the frequency bands
because they have a finite rolloff. You can use 24dB/octave filters (as found in Project 125), but that's
generally not necessary to get the effects needed.
To be able to get a flat response without having to bypass the equaliser, the filters must use a Linkwitz-Riley
alignment. If Butterworth filters were to be used, there would be +3dB peaks at each crossover frequency
(410Hz and 4.1kHz) when the pots are all set the same.
18
19
10 - 'Tilt' Controls
Finally, there's one last tone control arrangement that was popular for perhaps 5 minutes or so, sometime in
the 1970s. It was used in at least one Quad preamp as well as a couple of others, but it died out fairly quickly
because it's not really very useful. The effect was to literally tilt the frequency response, so if the bass is
boosted, the treble is simultaneously reduced and vice versa. I'm not entirely sure why anyone thought this
was a good idea, but it's part of tone control history, so is included.
20
Conclusions
It's fair to say that with the ready availability of opamps, tone controls with greater flexibility and more usable
features became possible than were ever available before. When a modern design is set for flat response,
there is virtually no change to the signal at all, other than a truly tiny amount of added noise and distortion
which is inevitable with any active circuit. Earlier designs could also be fairly flexible, but at the expense of
many components (including inductors), and frequencies that could only be switched rather than
continuously variable.
When it comes to wide range, flexible EQ, opamp circuits simply cannot be beaten by any earlier technology,
despite any contrary claims you might hear. Using DSP is the next level, but there are still many people who
prefer to keep signals in the analogue domain if possible. Controlling a complex filter using a touch-screen
may be 'high tech', but it's often very hard to beat the feel of knobs on high quality pots. Rotary encoders can
be used with digital systems, but you usually lose the ability to see the settings by looking at the knob
pointers.
Analogue circuits have another major benefit - they can be built by anyone who can use Veroboard and a
soldering iron, or mount parts on a PCB. This isn't even an option for most digital systems unless the person
building the circuit can not only solder surface mount parts, but also knows how to program a DSP. There's
another disadvantage to the digital approach, and that's IC continuity. Many modern digital ICs (DSPs, ADCs,
DACs, etc.) have a short production life, so if the IC fails after a few years it may be impossible to replace. In
contrast, opamps have been with us for many years, and there's no indication that any of the popular devices
will disappear. Even if an opamp does become unavailable, you can be sure that a suitable replacement with
equal or better performance can be found easily.
Whether you like the idea of EQ or not, it's inevitable that it has been used during the production of the
original recording. There may be a very small number of tracks that have been created as direct to tape or
hard disk without any processing, but they will be few and far between. If such material is not a genre you
even like, then there's no point at all. In general, EQ will hopefully be applied only where necessary, and
preferably with as little change as possible. However, many producers will abuse your senses and the
recording by manipulating frequency response so that even more compression can be added without turning
the music to mush. Regretfully, this seems to be a popular pastime .
Phase response wasn't even mentioned in any of the descriptions, because it's extremely variable. All
equalisers cause phase shift, and the change of phase is much more rapid with a high Q circuit. We can hear
the frequency response variation caused by any equaliser, but the phase shift is not audible. There is any
number of people who claim that phase is audible, but the claim belies the fact that most programme
material has had at least some equalisation, and therefore has phase that varies from the original either for
particular instruments and/or for the complete mix.
References
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Simple Tone Control Circuit - E.J. James, Wireless World, February 1949
Negative Feedback Tone Control - P.J. Baxandall, Wireless World, October 1952
Operator Adjustable Equalizers: An Overview - Dennis Bohn, Rane Corp.
Duncan's Amp Pages - Tone Stack Calculator
G.R. Thurmond, "New Devices for Equalization," 52nd Convention of the AES,
(Abstracts), vol. 23, p. 827 (Dec. 1975) preprint 1076
6. Constant-Q Graphic Equalizers - Dennis Bohn, Rane Corp.
7. How to Use a Parametric Equalizer