Arrangement to test impact of effects v. straight in tone?

Some like 'em and some don't, but I bet everyone has at least a couple — Analog Delay, Digital Delay, Reverb, Chorus, Flanger, Phaser, Tube Overdrive, Transistor Overdrive, Fuzz, Octave Fuzz, Tremolo, Vibrato, Compressor and the list goes on!

Re: Arrangement to test impact of effects v. straight in ton

Postby Mr. Arkadin on Tue Jul 02, 2013 4:22 am

steveokla wrote:
DoneB4 wrote:
steveokla wrote:As to the TS808 in front of the wah. I see why you'd do that to add if you wanted to insert a buffered pedal between the wah and Ff, but I seem to recall reading somewhere that if you've got a string of distortion-type boxes (for instance, I used to use a Keeley Fuzz Head, followed by a Keeley modded TS9, the a Keeley modded BD2) you place them in descending order of distortion or some such. I can't remember exactly how it was stated, but, as I recall, the principle seemed to dictate that the FF went first, followed by the TS9, then the BD2. Not so?


To be very honest, you've got six pedals and there are a limited number of combinations. Play with them and don't worry about what any of us say. I've often found really good combinations by doing the opposite of what all the "experts" suggest. Even though I've got some Fuzz Faces, I don't have your pedal and they all react differently. I've also got a pile of Tube Screamers, Rats, etc. and none of them sound exactly alike and they act differently with different guitars and amps. Set up your stuff and experiment to find what works for you.

P.S. If you are still reading this instead of playing your gear, stop now! 8)
Mr. Arkadin
He of the over-sized avatar
 
Posts: 3736
Joined: Sat Jun 25, 2005 9:29 pm

Re: Arrangement to test impact of effects v. straight in ton

Postby steveokla on Tue Jul 02, 2013 1:07 pm

[/quote]

To be very honest, you've got six pedals and there are a limited number of combinations. Play with them and don't worry about what any of us say. I've often found really good combinations by doing the opposite of what all the "experts" suggest. Even though I've got some Fuzz Faces, I don't have your pedal and they all react differently. I've also got a pile of Tube Screamers, Rats, etc. and none of them sound exactly alike and they act differently with different guitars and amps. Set up your stuff and experiment to find what works for you.

P.S. If you are still reading this instead of playing your gear, stop now! 8)[/quote]
Sound advice on all fronts-wil comply.

Sound advice on all fronts-will comply.
steveokla
Baron
 
Posts: 3203
Joined: Mon Aug 29, 2005 7:55 pm
Location: oklahoma

Re: Arrangement to test impact of effects v. straight in ton

Postby DoneB4 on Tue Jul 02, 2013 2:48 pm

steveokla wrote: Thanks so much. I've been assuming the Dynacomp was buffered. If not, does that mean it's true bypass? I may have to abandon the Jimi setup. I' was also surprised to hear about the oscillation thing--certainly, Jimi played with his wah and FF both going-he just ignored the problem??


I think that none of the Dynacomps are true bypass. If yours isn't buffered, that means the input impedance of the effect will load down the signal, just like your vintage wah. How much loading will occur depends on the actual imput impedance of the Dynacomp as well as the output impedance of the source feeding it (guitar pickup or other effects box). One thing to keep in mind is that buffered pedals will have a buffered OUTPUT as well as input. This means that, even when off, these pedals will render both the output impedance of any PRECEDING signal, as well the input impedance of any FOLLOWING pedal or amp, a non-issue in almost all cases.

As far as Jimi goes, once again the debate rages on about whether or not Roger Mayer built a buffer either onto the output of Jimi's wah, or onto the input of the FF. I've read that Mayer denies doing this. But there's simply no way these two pedals will work in their stock form in the order that Jimi arranged them. Perhaps Mayer somehow modified one or the other and solved the impedance problem w/out a buffer? I don't even know if this is possible. Either way, it's not possible that Jimi got all those Fuzz/wah tones we all know with unaltered pedals IMHO.
DoneB4
Court Jester
 
Posts: 64
Joined: Mon Nov 03, 2003 8:01 am

Re: Arrangement to test impact of effects v. straight in ton

Postby Mr. Arkadin on Tue Jul 02, 2013 5:13 pm

DoneB4 wrote:As far as Jimi goes, once again the debate rages on about whether or not Roger Mayer built a buffer either onto the output of Jimi's wah, or onto the input of the FF. I've read that Mayer denies doing this. But there's simply no way these two pedals will work in their stock form in the order that Jimi arranged them. Perhaps Mayer somehow modified one or the other and solved the impedance problem w/out a buffer? I don't even know if this is possible. Either way, it's not possible that Jimi got all those Fuzz/wah tones we all know with unaltered pedals IMHO.


The early Hendrix has no wah (I Don't Live Today is hand wah), because he used germanium trannies, but the later stuff was silicon. Here's some info that a friend (who is the best expert I know) recently shared with me:

i know this is splitting hairs but i still maintain Jimi was using bc183's till the end . although the oscillation from his wah from 7/70-9/70 would indicate possible bc-108's at randall island and isle of fehmarn (last concert) 9/4/70 . Still saying the tfk bc108 transistor was his sound is not really accurate. woodstock and berkeley were his "red" face (apparently his favorite with the tape on the knobs) and that was a non stamped late 68-69 w/ 183's. That seems to be Eric Johnson whole thinking too notice how his own dunlop fuzzface uses 183L's he's aint no dummy and he will never tell ya why but i think hes on to the "true" sound and how it cuts live. these are all educated guesses from personal research over the years . I dont claim authority on this info.good luck.always like bc209's better than 108's more even harmonics and less raspy . but a really good matched pair of 108's can be good but its the exception ive found.
Mr. Arkadin
He of the over-sized avatar
 
Posts: 3736
Joined: Sat Jun 25, 2005 9:29 pm

Re: Arrangement to test impact of effects v. straight in ton

Postby DoneB4 on Tue Jul 02, 2013 10:07 pm

Mr. Arkadin wrote: The early Hendrix has no wah (I Don't Live Today is hand wah), because he used germanium trannies, but the later stuff was silicon. Here's some info that a friend (who is the best expert I know) recently shared with me:

i know this is splitting hairs but i still maintain Jimi was using bc183's till the end . although the oscillation from his wah from 7/70-9/70 would indicate possible bc-108's at randall island and isle of fehmarn (last concert) 9/4/70 . Still saying the tfk bc108 transistor was his sound is not really accurate. woodstock and berkeley were his "red" face (apparently his favorite with the tape on the knobs) and that was a non stamped late 68-69 w/ 183's. That seems to be Eric Johnson whole thinking too notice how his own dunlop fuzzface uses 183L's he's aint no dummy and he will never tell ya why but i think hes on to the "true" sound and how it cuts live. these are all educated guesses from personal research over the years . I dont claim authority on this info.good luck.always like bc209's better than 108's more even harmonics and less raspy . but a really good matched pair of 108's can be good but its the exception ive found.


Yes, Jimi didn't acquire a wah until after the first album, probably sometime in the summer of 1967. He then famously used it on "Burning of the Midnight Lamp", his first studio use of the device, in July of that year.

You're friend's theory is interesting, but I don't know of any data proving what transistor model was in Jimi's red FF. If such data exists, I would love to see it, as that would be another piece of the Jimi tone puzzle.

I still maintain that something must have been done to either the wah circuit, the FF circuit, or both to deal with the oscillation/shallow sweep problems. In using a Vox wah before various FF clones, I've found oscillation occurs much more with silicon and when the fuzz is at/near max. Germanium doesn't always oscillate, but the shallow sweep (the bottom of the range is missing) is common to both types of transistor.

To my ears, Jimi's fuzz/wah sound on later live recordings such as Woodstock and BOG doesn't suffer from these problems. The "oscillation" people often hear on Jimi's live recordings is, I believe, simply the feedback one would expect when using a wah at massive volume/gain.
DoneB4
Court Jester
 
Posts: 64
Joined: Mon Nov 03, 2003 8:01 am

Re: Arrangement to test impact of effects v. straight in ton

Postby Mr. Arkadin on Wed Jul 03, 2013 12:58 pm

To be honest, I don't know where he got that info either, but the guy knows more about those units than anybody I've ever met and also has examples of each model as well as being a great repair/builder (He actually rescued my AC128 FF when no one else could.). All my knowledge comes from trial and error. :wink:
Mr. Arkadin
He of the over-sized avatar
 
Posts: 3736
Joined: Sat Jun 25, 2005 9:29 pm

Re: Arrangement to test impact of effects v. straight in ton

Postby DoneB4 on Wed Jul 03, 2013 2:54 pm

Mr. Arkadin wrote:All my knowledge comes from trial and error. :wink:


Ultimately the best advice to follow :wink:
DoneB4
Court Jester
 
Posts: 64
Joined: Mon Nov 03, 2003 8:01 am

Re: Arrangement to test impact of effects v. straight in ton

Postby steveokla on Thu Jul 04, 2013 3:30 am

[

i know this is splitting hairs but i still maintain Jimi was using bc183's till the end . although the oscillation from his wah from 7/70-9/70 would indicate possible bc-108's at randall island and isle of fehmarn (last concert) 9/4/70 . Still saying the tfk bc108 transistor was his sound is not really accurate. woodstock and berkeley were his "red" face (apparently his favorite with the tape on the knobs) and that was a non stamped late 68-69 w/ 183's. That seems to be Eric Johnson whole thinking too notice how his own dunlop fuzzface uses 183L's he's aint no dummy and he will never tell ya why but i think hes on to the "true" sound and how it cuts live. these are all educated guesses from personal research over the years . I dont claim authority on this info.good luck.always like bc209's better than 108's more even harmonics and less raspy . but a really good matched pair of 108's can be good but its the exception ive found.[/quote]

The remark about the 209 transistor captured my attention, particularly the observation to the effect that they are less raspy than the 108's with 'more harmonics'. Have you had occasion to play the 209 version, and, perhaps, make a comparison with the other transistors, the 108 and 183? If so, I'd be very interested in your impressions.
steveokla
Baron
 
Posts: 3203
Joined: Mon Aug 29, 2005 7:55 pm
Location: oklahoma

Re: Arrangement to test impact of effects v. straight in ton

Postby Mr. Arkadin on Thu Jul 04, 2013 4:37 am

I had a beautiful faded red one in my grasp (looked like it was stonewashed), but I let it go because I did not have money for it and the 73 Marshall PA head I was grabbing at the same time. I should have plugged it in, but I didn't! When Terry told me that about the 209, I felt like I'd let Moby Dick get away. Still, this is his personal taste--what he likes might not be right for me. A lot of people love the early Big Muffs, but my favorites are the last issue 1981 version with the tone bypass switch. My favorite 808's are the ones without the trademark, etc. It's really what works for you that counts.
Mr. Arkadin
He of the over-sized avatar
 
Posts: 3736
Joined: Sat Jun 25, 2005 9:29 pm

Re: Arrangement to test impact of effects v. straight in ton

Postby jcs on Fri Jul 05, 2013 4:27 am

I notice a bit of tone change to quite a lot with several of my pedals.... and I own 50+.

The first one I really noticed a huge tone suck was a green Russian Big Muff...I had 2 of these and both sucked tone like crazy....really muffled...they did sound great engaged though! I sold both for over $150 each, folks love them apparently.

@steveokla, my Italian wah does not suck much tone either, it has the film can inductor....maybe we got lucky.

I have owned several other wahs that sucked tone quite a lot.

What I DON'T like in any pedal is crappy clean tone with the guitar volume rolled down and the pedal engaged or not engaged.

Fuzz Face are famous for having outstanding tone with the guitar volume rolled down....my EH Double Muff is superb in this regard as well.
jcs
King
 
Posts: 5978
Joined: Sat Jun 16, 2001 7:01 am
Location: on a frickin hill

Previous

Return to Effects and the Signal Chain

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest