+1 for this from me. I work on the dLive mostly, and the 12 band PEQ is my tool of choice over the GEQs any day of the week. I believe the SQ doesn’t have enough processing power to do a 4 band parametric plus a 12 band parametric, but if we could get a halfway house based on the processing power available that might work for a lot of people.
I mix a lot of monitors and I’m regularly pulling out 9KHz and 7KHz to stop Beta58s and SM58s squeaking in the wedges, a job for which a GEQ that doesn’t have bands centred on those frequencies is unsuitable for.
I support your suggestion and view.
The graphic (1/3-octave) EQ originated decades ago as a technically feasible attempt at the time to achieve what appeared to be a visually controllable correction of the entire frequency response.
Its use back then was really more of a stopgap measure, and I fail to see what justification it has for existing today.
Adjusting the frequency response this way doesn’t exactly serve a “vintage” goal these days - does it?
It has always been nothing but a compromise, even if you buy the three additional modifications for it nowadays.
Strangely enough, it has survived the decades and is quietly accepted (and used?) by many professionals, whereas, for instance, narrow-band feedback suppression filters seem to be frowned upon on more professional consoles.
I, too, would prefer multiple variable bands (ideally with higher Q factors) over the graphic EQs that all are currently sitting idle in my setup.
How any developer thought 4 bands of PEQ was enough for a live board is crazy too me. I dont know any source that doesnt need 4 cuts to it, immediately limiting the PEQ to cuts only. So dumb. 7 should be minimum on any modern board.