jgventura
Well-known member
whats the difference? i think more people lean towards series..?
parallel, series loop
- Thread starter jgventura
- Start date
Help Support The Boogie Board:
Elpelotero
Well-known member
parallel takes a small % of your amp's overall tone and sends that to the efx unit then that piece gets returned with the built in efx. it gets added to the rest of the amp's natural tone. this is useful if you don't want your amp's tone to be "sucked away" by a cheap unit. However, the drawback is only certain efx work well w. such a loop.
a serial loop is one where all of the amp's tone is sent to the efx unit and then all comes back at once. if you have a bad cheap unit, a lot of the amp's tone will get sucked out.
Is there anything else....?
a serial loop is one where all of the amp's tone is sent to the efx unit and then all comes back at once. if you have a bad cheap unit, a lot of the amp's tone will get sucked out.
Is there anything else....?
jgventura
Well-known member
so, with a series loop, if you've got a good effects unit, all that tone will come back and sound better than it would if you had a parallel loop? And is it possible to covert from parallel to series?
ibanez4life SZ!
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jan 27, 2006
- Messages
- 2,380
- Reaction score
- 0
Some amps comes with both parallel and series loops. The Road King for example.
With a series loop, quality effects are a must!
With a series loop, quality effects are a must!
jgventura
Well-known member
Well, i've got a Trem-o-verb, and i THINK it's a '98 model, so i'm pretty sure its parallel. I was looking at a Zoom G9, would that count as quality effects..?
MetalMatt
Well-known member
ibanez4life SZ! said:
Yes, the Road King I comes with parallel and series. Now the Road King II comes with both loops in series.
jgventura
Well-known member
can you convert from parallel to series or not possible?
Elpelotero
Well-known member
yes, but a technician has to do it, unless you're a technician obviously. it costs about 75$ usually i hear. As for the zoom....ehh...there's probably a few more transparent units out there, such as tc electronics and lexicon. you never know though until you try, so i recommend you try every possible option w. your zoom and the parallel efx unit before you think of modding it. you may have to compromise a little with the levels and not set everything at 10.
talk to road king owners that use their series loop and parallel loops. that's what i'd do.
talk to road king owners that use their series loop and parallel loops. that's what i'd do.
jgventura
Well-known member
thanks a lot man!
fatboy135
Well-known member
There is an awful issue on parallel fx with digital multifx.
If your multifx has an apreciable latency then the adder of the non processed and processed path on a parallel path could origin an awful out of phase waves ( the non processed and the processed ) so the out of phase gets 99% of times into the known comb filter-flange fx.
For that reason I want to add an idea to the mighty trouble of serial or paralel: Use a serial loop with digital multifx and the parallel loop with analog fx.
Using the parallel with analog pedals you could maintain your original tone amp in one path and mixed and added with the pedal processed, so you could have the best analog sound. But never, never, never use a parallel loop with a latency multifx device.
If your multifx has an apreciable latency then the adder of the non processed and processed path on a parallel path could origin an awful out of phase waves ( the non processed and the processed ) so the out of phase gets 99% of times into the known comb filter-flange fx.
For that reason I want to add an idea to the mighty trouble of serial or paralel: Use a serial loop with digital multifx and the parallel loop with analog fx.
Using the parallel with analog pedals you could maintain your original tone amp in one path and mixed and added with the pedal processed, so you could have the best analog sound. But never, never, never use a parallel loop with a latency multifx device.
musicbox
Well-known member
he's refering to processing latency, like the one you might experience while playing through softwear on a computer. the latency is in the order of a few milliseconds, and this causes phase interactions when the dry signal is mixed in parrallel with the wet signal(which is a few milliseconds out).
think when you're tuning your guitar using the 5th fret, and the notes are just barely out. you can hear a waver in the tone when both strings are plucked. this is a phase interaction.
think when you're tuning your guitar using the 5th fret, and the notes are just barely out. you can hear a waver in the tone when both strings are plucked. this is a phase interaction.
fatboy135
Well-known member
:wink: good job music box
that´s right in ever digital enviroment, the signal pass through ADC+DSP+DAC in that kind of systems the response is not instantanely or inmediately, you need a bit of time to do all the operations that are implied on that kind of systems, then if you mix two waves, one processed and one unprocessed it results into a perfectly modulation fx, because the waves don´t begins in the same time position (one starts on 0 ms and the other starts a few ms after due the latency of the systems ) so both waves interactue and produces maximun and minimuns on the total waveform that produces amplitude modulations in the case that music box saids as the strings tunning or a phase modulation in the case we are discussing now.
Classical modulation fx are for example the chorus, flanger or phaser.
I think that my arguments are clear as water, but if anybody don´t understand or want to calculate his multifx latency you only need the multifx an audio program like wavelab, get a high frecuency cosine wave from the signal generator of the wavelab and on the same time record the outputs from the multifx on the wavelab, then compare both signals and get your own conclusions
that´s right in ever digital enviroment, the signal pass through ADC+DSP+DAC in that kind of systems the response is not instantanely or inmediately, you need a bit of time to do all the operations that are implied on that kind of systems, then if you mix two waves, one processed and one unprocessed it results into a perfectly modulation fx, because the waves don´t begins in the same time position (one starts on 0 ms and the other starts a few ms after due the latency of the systems ) so both waves interactue and produces maximun and minimuns on the total waveform that produces amplitude modulations in the case that music box saids as the strings tunning or a phase modulation in the case we are discussing now.
Classical modulation fx are for example the chorus, flanger or phaser.
I think that my arguments are clear as water, but if anybody don´t understand or want to calculate his multifx latency you only need the multifx an audio program like wavelab, get a high frecuency cosine wave from the signal generator of the wavelab and on the same time record the outputs from the multifx on the wavelab, then compare both signals and get your own conclusions
musicbox & fatboy:
Well spoken regarding the explanation of latency, but anyone familiar with how a mixer works understands the answer is not that you can only use digital FX with serial loops and analog FX with parallel loops.
Nothing could be further from the truth.
It is the type of effect that dictates whether or not it should be used serial or parallel, not whether it is digital or analog, latency issues notwithstanding.
Anything that is intended to shape tone (like an EQ), or envelope (like a compressor or noise gate) is normally used in series--regardless of whether it is a digital or analog unit. The intent is to have ALL the signal enhanced by the effect (except in rare instances).
On a mixing board, these would be labeled "Insert" effects.
Anything intended to shape ambience (chorus, delay, reverb) is normally used in parallel. Often, only a portion of the signal is necessary to obtain the desired effect.
On a mixing board, these would be "Send" effects.
When used in series in tone or envelope shaping, the latency inherent in a digital processor would only bother a guitarist if the latency were more than, perhaps, 8 milliseconds. Less than that would be unnoticeable to nearly everyone.
When used in parallel for reverb, delay, or chorus, the latency is again rarely an issue unless it is so high that there is an audible gap between the struck note and the beginning of the effect. This is not likely for dedicated digital hardware-based processors.
Any inherent latency would be inconsequential in a reverb or delay when added back to the original signal. These two effects are a product of latency in a defined physical space anyway. I might buy the argument that chorus or flange effects could be somewhat audibly affected, but again, as a "Send" (parallel) effect, you probably won't hear the comb filter effect because that is exactly how chorus/flange effects work.
If you were to use a reverb, delay, or chorus in a series loop, you would set the unit's wet/dry control to allow some of the dry signal through. This is avoided by using a parallel loop, where you can set the effect to 100% wet, and use the loop level control to dial in the amount of effect you want.
Use the correct kind of loop for the correct kind of effect and you can minimize difficulties.
Well spoken regarding the explanation of latency, but anyone familiar with how a mixer works understands the answer is not that you can only use digital FX with serial loops and analog FX with parallel loops.
Nothing could be further from the truth.
It is the type of effect that dictates whether or not it should be used serial or parallel, not whether it is digital or analog, latency issues notwithstanding.
Anything that is intended to shape tone (like an EQ), or envelope (like a compressor or noise gate) is normally used in series--regardless of whether it is a digital or analog unit. The intent is to have ALL the signal enhanced by the effect (except in rare instances).
On a mixing board, these would be labeled "Insert" effects.
Anything intended to shape ambience (chorus, delay, reverb) is normally used in parallel. Often, only a portion of the signal is necessary to obtain the desired effect.
On a mixing board, these would be "Send" effects.
When used in series in tone or envelope shaping, the latency inherent in a digital processor would only bother a guitarist if the latency were more than, perhaps, 8 milliseconds. Less than that would be unnoticeable to nearly everyone.
When used in parallel for reverb, delay, or chorus, the latency is again rarely an issue unless it is so high that there is an audible gap between the struck note and the beginning of the effect. This is not likely for dedicated digital hardware-based processors.
Any inherent latency would be inconsequential in a reverb or delay when added back to the original signal. These two effects are a product of latency in a defined physical space anyway. I might buy the argument that chorus or flange effects could be somewhat audibly affected, but again, as a "Send" (parallel) effect, you probably won't hear the comb filter effect because that is exactly how chorus/flange effects work.
If you were to use a reverb, delay, or chorus in a series loop, you would set the unit's wet/dry control to allow some of the dry signal through. This is avoided by using a parallel loop, where you can set the effect to 100% wet, and use the loop level control to dial in the amount of effect you want.
Use the correct kind of loop for the correct kind of effect and you can minimize difficulties.
