baxandall vs gyrators

[Sensei Tim]

I don't have a whole lot of experience with EQs... i'm just starting to get into them.

would a 3-band gyrator based EQ have similar performance to a 3-band (B/M/T) baxandall EQ?

I haven't been able to find a layout for a 3-band Bax (found a schematic, though) or this 4-band gyrator which i would only use 3 of the 4 bands.

[Beaker]

Tim, have you built or used a two-band Baxandall EQ yet?

In my opinion - although others might disagree, the two band is really all you need. The two band is an easy build, and more importantly, very easy to dial in a great tone. With the pots set at centre, the EQ is flat. Turn the pots fully anti-clockwise, you cut all the treble and bass, leaving just the mids. Turn them fully clockwise you boost the treble and bass, and strip out all the mids.

It's a super simple and highly effective setup. The only downside is the volume of the pedal will increase as you rotate the tone pots clockwise. A little volume pot adjustment will be needed.

The three band is actually a really tricky beast to dial in great tones - the extra "mid" pot makes it more difficult rather than easier. Great tones are there, but you can end up spending a lot of time hunting for them instead of playing guitar.

I base this on having build a few pedals with two band Baxandalls, and of owning and playing both two band and three band Ampeg guitar amps.

What I'm trying to say is, IMO, don't complicate things when simpler is better.

[Sensei Tim]

Beaker: i'm a big fan of not over designing things :)

I've got a guy who's asking me to build him a boss hyperfuzz clone but to add a 3-band bax tone stack.  he's adamant about the 3 bands even though i've explained to him that the 2-band bax is really all that is needed. Tried to get him to think about a gyrator EQ but his mind is set.

who am i to argue.. the customer is always right... even when they're wrong lol