Thanks for all the comments. A few answers from my point of view...
After a while, you won't need a graphic EQ. It will be visualized in your head. It's all I ever see now.
But can you see it in your head before you've heard it? The idea is to provide a quick way to make an educated guess of appropriate sounds for what you're looking for.
Maybe it's because I'm old, 😁 but I don't understand this now widespread refusal to use your ears.
As above. I agree that once you've listened you can use your ears but you can't until you've chosen one of more than 20,000 rigs. It would ack as a fast track to rig selection.
If these were templates that could then be refined then I think it's a great time saver and creative tool. You'll discover a whole bunch of amp/eq combinations.
You've got it!
I'm with Niko on this one. Not the worst idea ever. The little graphic eq icons used by the OP reminded me immediately of Seymour Duncan and some other pickup manufacturers where they put a comparative rating on their websites to give some general guidance to buyers. It isn't a replacement for trying the pickups yourself but it can definitely help narrow down the shortlist to try.
Exactly
I'm not sure how such a thing could be implemented.
What is the baseline to judge against?
Would users be responsible for entering their own perception? One persons' seriously scooped is another persons' mildly cut mids.
Don't know the answer to this one. Maybe the rig creator could have the option to add their subjective EQ, which would become an initial default. If you don't agree, this could be manually changed as per user once they've heard the rig and agree or not?
Agreed. Sounds like a great idea. It would be a lot of work to implement.
And sometimes a small change in EQ makes a huge difference. Sometimes not. Like a few dB change could be huge, but may be unnoticable in the small scale EQ diagram.
Completely understand. However, it doesn't have to be really scientific; just a useful tool that could be ignored or useful for those that like the idea.
In summary, we do use our ears and we also describe guitar tones as being bright, dark, flat, harsh, brittle, soft, round, muffled, resonant, squeaky or whichever adjective you come up with. Using words as meta could just as easily be used but an EQ graphic would fit into the GUI. Maybe the graphic could be simplified further so it doesn't get taken so scientifically? Each of the tree bands could only be divided by 0%, 25%, 50%, 75% and 100%