Recto with EQ pedal in loop....
- Thread starter jdurso
- Start date
Help Support The Boogie Board:
cellardweller
Well-known member
Thanks for the great info!
Chris McKinley
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jun 25, 2006
- Messages
- 568
- Reaction score
- 0
alex1fly,
There isn't such thing as a Recto fizz. In fact, even when you're hearing it, it will change dramatically depending upon how close and at what angle you are standing to the speaker cabinet.
That said, there are two basic reasons for it, and maybe a little something we can do about it. One reason is that people don't realize that any good tube amp is going to sound much fizzier "in person" than it does on record due to the frequency response characteristics of recording microphones, studio compression, EQ'ing in the mix, etc., so players are consistently surprised to find that roaring Recto tone they loved on the latest Tremonti CD isn't immediately leaping out from their own Recto when they get it home and fire it up. 6L6 tubes produce a lot of low bass, but they also produce a lot of higher highs than their EL34 cousins.
Secondly, part of the matter is that production tastes have changed quite a bit in the last 15 to 20 years. In the mid 80's, a souped-up Marshall sound with plenty of mids and a growling but not overdominating bass response was all the rage. Then along came Grunge: the Age of 200 Hz, and with it the muddiest guitar tones in rock history. It was fashionable to cut back a bit on the mids (but not Metallica territory) and crank the bass knob way up. This trend started on Marshalls with Nirvana and Pearl Jam, then really got going once the first Rectos started becoming the dominant recording amp, since the Recto was capable of even more muddy bass than the Marshalls.
After a brief hiccup called rap metal in the late 90's (we must have been drunk), bands started slowly but surely bringing.....gosh, dare we say it?....real metal back to the forefront. Only this time, it was Recto style. Gone were all the ridiculous overscooping of the mids from early thrash, and gone was the mushy, muddy, completely inarticulate bass from 90's Grunge guitar. The mids were back where they belong, since the guitar is a midrange instrument, and the bass was big, but crunchy.
However, as the new century wore on, guys got a little too happy with compression in the studio and also with their presence control on the Recto, and what was once an enhanced ability to bring some clarity out of the mud, and some extra scream to pinched harmonics, became a fizzy, buzzy crutch some players used to hide the fact that they couldn't play with clarity without the presence cranked way up. Having way too much treble response on a metal guitar track is like a man bragging about having large breasts. It doesn't belong there, and you just kinda want to go "ewww".
As a result, a lot of supposedly heavy guitar tracks in the last several years don't sound the slightest bit heavy at all. If you have the ear for it, you can often tell it was recorded on a Recto, and you can tell from the playing style that it's supposed to sound heavy, but you're left wondering where's the balls? A lot of early 80's Marshall tracks sound much heavier than today's supposed high-gain metal because of this.
If you're having fizz on your Recto, I'll bet dollars to donuts that it's on Channel 3 Modern. Start first by simply dialing the presence control down, maybe even way down, as in maybe even zero. Do it slowly, but do what needs to be done. Second, stop playing through crappy EMG-81 (read: toy) pickups. These were horrible back in the day, and they haven't gotten any better, they've just become trendy. Active pups are like playing your Recto head through a high-fidelity PA speaker system. Blech...nobody wants full-range reproduction of frequency response. We like what a good power amp and guitar speaker cab do to our sound. Guys like Seymour, Larry, and many others make an art out of correctly winding a pickup for just the right tone, but hordes of bad-playing wannabes buy up active pups in droves just because they want higher output. Oy ve.
Lastly, if you want to tweak out the fizzies on an EQ, you might try between 4 to 8 KHz. In recording, this is where I usually find fizzies hiding, but be warned that a simple graphic EQ is not a professional studio notch filter, and you may not find the precise frequency.[/i]
There isn't such thing as a Recto fizz. In fact, even when you're hearing it, it will change dramatically depending upon how close and at what angle you are standing to the speaker cabinet.
That said, there are two basic reasons for it, and maybe a little something we can do about it. One reason is that people don't realize that any good tube amp is going to sound much fizzier "in person" than it does on record due to the frequency response characteristics of recording microphones, studio compression, EQ'ing in the mix, etc., so players are consistently surprised to find that roaring Recto tone they loved on the latest Tremonti CD isn't immediately leaping out from their own Recto when they get it home and fire it up. 6L6 tubes produce a lot of low bass, but they also produce a lot of higher highs than their EL34 cousins.
Secondly, part of the matter is that production tastes have changed quite a bit in the last 15 to 20 years. In the mid 80's, a souped-up Marshall sound with plenty of mids and a growling but not overdominating bass response was all the rage. Then along came Grunge: the Age of 200 Hz, and with it the muddiest guitar tones in rock history. It was fashionable to cut back a bit on the mids (but not Metallica territory) and crank the bass knob way up. This trend started on Marshalls with Nirvana and Pearl Jam, then really got going once the first Rectos started becoming the dominant recording amp, since the Recto was capable of even more muddy bass than the Marshalls.
After a brief hiccup called rap metal in the late 90's (we must have been drunk), bands started slowly but surely bringing.....gosh, dare we say it?....real metal back to the forefront. Only this time, it was Recto style. Gone were all the ridiculous overscooping of the mids from early thrash, and gone was the mushy, muddy, completely inarticulate bass from 90's Grunge guitar. The mids were back where they belong, since the guitar is a midrange instrument, and the bass was big, but crunchy.
However, as the new century wore on, guys got a little too happy with compression in the studio and also with their presence control on the Recto, and what was once an enhanced ability to bring some clarity out of the mud, and some extra scream to pinched harmonics, became a fizzy, buzzy crutch some players used to hide the fact that they couldn't play with clarity without the presence cranked way up. Having way too much treble response on a metal guitar track is like a man bragging about having large breasts. It doesn't belong there, and you just kinda want to go "ewww".
As a result, a lot of supposedly heavy guitar tracks in the last several years don't sound the slightest bit heavy at all. If you have the ear for it, you can often tell it was recorded on a Recto, and you can tell from the playing style that it's supposed to sound heavy, but you're left wondering where's the balls? A lot of early 80's Marshall tracks sound much heavier than today's supposed high-gain metal because of this.
If you're having fizz on your Recto, I'll bet dollars to donuts that it's on Channel 3 Modern. Start first by simply dialing the presence control down, maybe even way down, as in maybe even zero. Do it slowly, but do what needs to be done. Second, stop playing through crappy EMG-81 (read: toy) pickups. These were horrible back in the day, and they haven't gotten any better, they've just become trendy. Active pups are like playing your Recto head through a high-fidelity PA speaker system. Blech...nobody wants full-range reproduction of frequency response. We like what a good power amp and guitar speaker cab do to our sound. Guys like Seymour, Larry, and many others make an art out of correctly winding a pickup for just the right tone, but hordes of bad-playing wannabes buy up active pups in droves just because they want higher output. Oy ve.
Lastly, if you want to tweak out the fizzies on an EQ, you might try between 4 to 8 KHz. In recording, this is where I usually find fizzies hiding, but be warned that a simple graphic EQ is not a professional studio notch filter, and you may not find the precise frequency.[/i]
MusicManJP6
Well-known member
Marvelous once again Chris. i usually skim long posts, but you are a word smith, and I found myself reading every single word! You should right a book! I mean that in a very good way.
MetalMatt
Well-known member
Chris those are some very informative posts, thank you.
I have a question. Would Parametric EQ's be better suit for a Recto than a Graphic EQ?
I have a question. Would Parametric EQ's be better suit for a Recto than a Graphic EQ?
Chris McKinley
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jun 25, 2006
- Messages
- 568
- Reaction score
- 0
Thanks for the compliments, guys. I'm just glad to help.
MetalMatt,
RE: "Would Parametric EQ's be better suit for a Recto than a Graphic EQ?". Better for what? If you're talking about being able to find and notch "fizzy" frequencies, then yes, a parametric, especially one with an adjustable Q, will be able to do that where a graphic EQ won't unless the fizzy just happens to fall precisely on one of the sliders' predetermined frequencies. This is going to be true regardless of which amp you are considering. Parametric, graphic or digital EQ has nothing to do with brand name of amp, only with what you are trying to accomplish.
MetalMatt,
RE: "Would Parametric EQ's be better suit for a Recto than a Graphic EQ?". Better for what? If you're talking about being able to find and notch "fizzy" frequencies, then yes, a parametric, especially one with an adjustable Q, will be able to do that where a graphic EQ won't unless the fizzy just happens to fall precisely on one of the sliders' predetermined frequencies. This is going to be true regardless of which amp you are considering. Parametric, graphic or digital EQ has nothing to do with brand name of amp, only with what you are trying to accomplish.
stompboxfreak72
Well-known member
Great posts. So lets step back and punt for a moment. I used a Boss EQ pedal a few years ago but did not like it. I also never tried it in the loop !
I no longer own an EQ pedal but now curiosity has me. What pedal ( MXR ? Boss? ) are you getting the best results with in the loop ?
Last.....I run delay in my loop. Eq before or after delay in the loop ?
Great Frigging thread!
I no longer own an EQ pedal but now curiosity has me. What pedal ( MXR ? Boss? ) are you getting the best results with in the loop ?
Last.....I run delay in my loop. Eq before or after delay in the loop ?
Great Frigging thread!
MetalMatt
Well-known member
Chirs... Yes, that is what I was trying to say, but didn't say it... LOL. Thanks for clearing that up for me.
Chris McKinley
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jun 25, 2006
- Messages
- 568
- Reaction score
- 0
stompboxfreak72,
RE: "I used a Boss EQ pedal a few years ago but did not like it. I also never tried it in the loop !". I'm guessing you ran it in front of your amp. If you're like many younger players these days, maybe even most, you may also think it's ok to run other kinds of effects in front of the amp as well. Don't worry; that's not all your fault. When Grunge came along, there was such a backlash movement to the "overproduced" 80's that guys went too far in the other direction and got sloppy and eventually ignorant about how to put together a good guitar tone. Of course, then they also forgot to tell the next generation of players how to do it as well, so many guys never learned in the first place.
RE: "What pedal ( MXR ? Boss? ) are you getting the best results with in the loop ?". As far as graphic EQ's go, I've owned a Boss GE-7 (which I gave away to a friend), a Danelectro Fish n' Chips, a Behringer 7-band EQ, and a Boss EQ-20 Programmable Equalizer. Of all of them, the Danelectro is by far the quietest, and at around $30, it's a great bargain, too. All of them pretty much cover the same frequencies, and all of them work just fine.
RE: "Last.....I run delay in my loop. Eq before or after delay in the loop ?". Unless you're recording, you will always run the EQ before the delay. EQ is part of the tone group of effects, delay is part of the modulation group. Let me give you a basic rundown of the correct placement of effects in the chain.
Before the amp: you can put treble boosters, clean boosts, overdrives, wah's, and even an EQ between the guitar and amp. Never place modulation (chorus, flanger, phaser) effects, delay (echo, delay) effects, or reverb effects here. To do so is to sound like *** and will guarantee you will never get laid again.
In the effects loop: First come the tone group of effects such as compressors, EQ's, or even wah's. Next come the modulation effects such as chorus, flanger, phaser. Then come the delay-based effects such as echo, analog delay, digital delay, etc. Finally come the reverb effects.
This is all assuming that you are using the preamp gain stage of your amp as your main source of gain, distortion and overdrive. If you're using a distortion pedal into the clean channel of your amp and you're using a boutique amp like a Recto, you piss me off for wasting a good amp and I don't want to help you anyway. :mrgreen:
RE: "I used a Boss EQ pedal a few years ago but did not like it. I also never tried it in the loop !". I'm guessing you ran it in front of your amp. If you're like many younger players these days, maybe even most, you may also think it's ok to run other kinds of effects in front of the amp as well. Don't worry; that's not all your fault. When Grunge came along, there was such a backlash movement to the "overproduced" 80's that guys went too far in the other direction and got sloppy and eventually ignorant about how to put together a good guitar tone. Of course, then they also forgot to tell the next generation of players how to do it as well, so many guys never learned in the first place.
RE: "What pedal ( MXR ? Boss? ) are you getting the best results with in the loop ?". As far as graphic EQ's go, I've owned a Boss GE-7 (which I gave away to a friend), a Danelectro Fish n' Chips, a Behringer 7-band EQ, and a Boss EQ-20 Programmable Equalizer. Of all of them, the Danelectro is by far the quietest, and at around $30, it's a great bargain, too. All of them pretty much cover the same frequencies, and all of them work just fine.
RE: "Last.....I run delay in my loop. Eq before or after delay in the loop ?". Unless you're recording, you will always run the EQ before the delay. EQ is part of the tone group of effects, delay is part of the modulation group. Let me give you a basic rundown of the correct placement of effects in the chain.
Before the amp: you can put treble boosters, clean boosts, overdrives, wah's, and even an EQ between the guitar and amp. Never place modulation (chorus, flanger, phaser) effects, delay (echo, delay) effects, or reverb effects here. To do so is to sound like *** and will guarantee you will never get laid again.
In the effects loop: First come the tone group of effects such as compressors, EQ's, or even wah's. Next come the modulation effects such as chorus, flanger, phaser. Then come the delay-based effects such as echo, analog delay, digital delay, etc. Finally come the reverb effects.
This is all assuming that you are using the preamp gain stage of your amp as your main source of gain, distortion and overdrive. If you're using a distortion pedal into the clean channel of your amp and you're using a boutique amp like a Recto, you piss me off for wasting a good amp and I don't want to help you anyway. :mrgreen:
stompboxfreak72
Well-known member
Thanks again Chris. I generally use channel 2 of my 3 channel DR. I like channel 3 but channel 2 seems to have more body or girth behind it. I rarely use the clean channel.....I prefer an Ernie Ball Jr and just roll off the volume for a cleaner tone and clean passages.
My pedal board goes Teese Real Mccoy Wizard Wah > Boss Ns 2 ( in the loop of the NS-2 I have an Analogman Maxon ts9 and Analogman DODYJM OD) > Analogman Mini chorus> Analogman Boss TR-2 > EVH phade 90> input of amp.
In the loop I have a Tc Electronics Vintage delay.
The tremolo/chorus/phaser should go in the fx loop but they sound better in front. I have always attributed that to the parallel loop on the DR.
I will try the Danelctro before the Delay in the loop tomorrow and see what happens. Thanks again.
My pedal board goes Teese Real Mccoy Wizard Wah > Boss Ns 2 ( in the loop of the NS-2 I have an Analogman Maxon ts9 and Analogman DODYJM OD) > Analogman Mini chorus> Analogman Boss TR-2 > EVH phade 90> input of amp.
In the loop I have a Tc Electronics Vintage delay.
The tremolo/chorus/phaser should go in the fx loop but they sound better in front. I have always attributed that to the parallel loop on the DR.
I will try the Danelctro before the Delay in the loop tomorrow and see what happens. Thanks again.
nitrous2400
Well-known member
i run a bbe sonic maximizer into a dbx 31 band eq in my loop... it gets articulate sound and with all the bands i can cut out the subfrequencies that distort the sound while still being able to boost the highs and lows the maximizer works great but once u plug a eq after it, the sound gets focused alot more if thats possible :lol:
Chris McKinley
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jun 25, 2006
- Messages
- 568
- Reaction score
- 0
stompboxfreak72,
RE: "The tremolo/chorus/phaser should go in the fx loop but they sound better in front. I have always attributed that to the parallel loop on the DR.". Reading that makes my teeth itch, it's so horrible. If you don't pull those modulation effects out of your freakin' preamp chain right now, we may have to do an intervention on you. You will be strapped in a room with only a solid-state Fender amp and forced to play along to Emo and Nu-Country 24 hours a day.
The parallel effects loop is particularly incompatible with digital effects of any kind, and modulation effects in particular. The inherent lag delay in signal in any digital effect creates an out-of-phase noise with the unaffected signal path. The result is not only unmusical, it's unuseable, since it gives you a nice whiny pulse like a sinewave generator on the fritz. Now, the modulation effects you listed are all analog, so there won't be any problem with phase noise. You can just do like Randall recommends and set the effects to 100% mix and use the mix knob on the back of the Recto to set the right blend of wet and dry signal. Nobody would ever want 100% wet modulation sound anyway, it makes your guitar sound like a toy and kind of defeats the purpose of modulating. So at the very least, put your modulation effects in the loop where they belong and learn to use your loop controls correctly. It will sound a helluva lot better than what you're running right now.
However, what you must do, in the name of all that's good, holy and metal, is to stop using those modulation effects before your gain/distortion stage. The one option that is not available to you is to keep using them in front of the preamp of a Mesa, or Randall may sue you for slandering his tone.
RE: "The tremolo/chorus/phaser should go in the fx loop but they sound better in front. I have always attributed that to the parallel loop on the DR.". Reading that makes my teeth itch, it's so horrible. If you don't pull those modulation effects out of your freakin' preamp chain right now, we may have to do an intervention on you. You will be strapped in a room with only a solid-state Fender amp and forced to play along to Emo and Nu-Country 24 hours a day.
The parallel effects loop is particularly incompatible with digital effects of any kind, and modulation effects in particular. The inherent lag delay in signal in any digital effect creates an out-of-phase noise with the unaffected signal path. The result is not only unmusical, it's unuseable, since it gives you a nice whiny pulse like a sinewave generator on the fritz. Now, the modulation effects you listed are all analog, so there won't be any problem with phase noise. You can just do like Randall recommends and set the effects to 100% mix and use the mix knob on the back of the Recto to set the right blend of wet and dry signal. Nobody would ever want 100% wet modulation sound anyway, it makes your guitar sound like a toy and kind of defeats the purpose of modulating. So at the very least, put your modulation effects in the loop where they belong and learn to use your loop controls correctly. It will sound a helluva lot better than what you're running right now.
However, what you must do, in the name of all that's good, holy and metal, is to stop using those modulation effects before your gain/distortion stage. The one option that is not available to you is to keep using them in front of the preamp of a Mesa, or Randall may sue you for slandering his tone.
cellardweller
Well-known member
Large portions of this thread should go into a FAQ or sticky. :!: :!:
stompboxfreak72
Well-known member
Chris McKinley said:
????? You just made my point. modulation effects are incompatible with the parallel fx loop. Which is why I do not put them there.
***check out http://www.stinkfoot.se/andreas/diy/articles/loop.htm
stompboxfreak72
Well-known member
As a follow up I decided to revisit my signal chain and the results were exactly as I remembered.....
My Analogman Chorus Pedal sucks volume when in the loop. You can adjust the send/return any way you want. Once the pedal is turned on the volume drops. Same occurs with my MXR phases. Sound better in the loop though not drastically but completely sucks tone in the loop. The volume drops as well.
My delay pedal allows you to set the output of the pedal which is why it does not lose volume/tone in the loop.
My Tremolo pedal is only used as a toggle switch effect so I like to have it in the preamp for a better result in the way that I use it.
So before you go calling the tone police or anyone else on me I strongly suggest that you remember that there is no right or wrong in effects placement. Anyone who suggests otherwise is narrow minded.
There is thread after thread on this board about tone suck in the fx loop of the DR. I am interested in the EQ suggestions aforementioned and thank you for the information.
As far as sitiing me in a room with a solid state fender......I suggest you act with a little more respect to members of this board before you hit your 20th post.
Wel;come to the Boogie Board EQ Master.
My Analogman Chorus Pedal sucks volume when in the loop. You can adjust the send/return any way you want. Once the pedal is turned on the volume drops. Same occurs with my MXR phases. Sound better in the loop though not drastically but completely sucks tone in the loop. The volume drops as well.
My delay pedal allows you to set the output of the pedal which is why it does not lose volume/tone in the loop.
My Tremolo pedal is only used as a toggle switch effect so I like to have it in the preamp for a better result in the way that I use it.
So before you go calling the tone police or anyone else on me I strongly suggest that you remember that there is no right or wrong in effects placement. Anyone who suggests otherwise is narrow minded.
There is thread after thread on this board about tone suck in the fx loop of the DR. I am interested in the EQ suggestions aforementioned and thank you for the information.
As far as sitiing me in a room with a solid state fender......I suggest you act with a little more respect to members of this board before you hit your 20th post.
Wel;come to the Boogie Board EQ Master.
Chris McKinley
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jun 25, 2006
- Messages
- 568
- Reaction score
- 0
stompboxfreak72,
Before I get started, I should remind you that you asked my opinion, not the other way around. Your referencing of Andreas's article, which I've read long ago, doesn't really make your point, given that Andreas himself starts off with a big politically-correct Kumbayah by telling us there's no right way to use effects, then proceeds to spend the rest of the article telling us the right way to use effects, which btw, are exactly the recommendations I've made in this thread. The hypocrisy of that article mitigates its impact. Music is art, but not all art, which is subjective, is qualitatively equal. Therefore, not all approaches to rig configuration are qualitatively equal. Some sound great, some sound horrible.
Next, I apologize if I've hurt your feelilngs. My posts were so hyperbolic that they were obviously meant to inject a little humor into the often dry discussion of effects placement. If you felt offended, I'm sorry. I was just giving you what I meant to be a good-natured hard time. If I didn't have respect for the posting members of this forum, including yourself, I wouldn't waste significant time crafting lengthy posts full of lots of useful, specific information. I've played guitar for 30+ years and have a lot more experience in playing, rig setup, recording, producing and making my own effects by hand from scratch than many of the guys and girls posting here, so I just figured I'd make that information available.
Ultimately, I know you're all gonna do what you want to do anyway, and (rightfully) you're gonna play what sounds good to you. That isn't going to stop me from having my strongly-held opinions, nor should it, since my opinions aren't going to stop you either. The real point here, as evidenced by the people mentioning that these posts have educated them, is that a lot of people aren't making informed choices about what sounds best to them. Many people simply don't know any better, but would like to. This whole guitar rig/effects chain thing can get pretty complicated, and there's a lot to remember. If you're new to the game, or never had anybody who could show you how to make it work, you may not know what options exist for you in your own rig in order to choose what sounds best to you.
Now, as a show of good faith and to show that you have my respect, I'll offer some advice on the specific problems you brought up in your last post.
RE: "My Analogman Chorus Pedal sucks volume when in the loop.". Yep, that's good circuitry. It means Mike is putting a decent buffer into his circuits so they don't fry when some over-eager effects loop send signal hits it. Volume regulation in no way implies that the effect "sucks tone", which is a meaningless phrase anyway, since "tone" isn't a single adjustable attribute that you can dial more or less of, or have sucked out. It would be more meaningful and useful if guys would go into a little more objective detail in describing what they mean when they say something sucks tone. Does it lower the gain of the signal? Does it alter the treble, mid, bass balance? If so, in what way?
RE: "My Tremolo pedal is only used as a toggle switch effect so I like to have it in the preamp for a better result in the way that I use it.". That one is fine, since like a wah-wah, it's a filter-pass effect that doesn't significantly alter your tone if the circuit components are good quality.
RE: "There is thread after thread on this board about tone suck in the fx loop of the DR.". And almost all of them are nearly useless in addressing the problem, since they are describing an effect on the sound of their guitar in individually subjective terms. "Tone" means something slightly different to each player, it's not like "volume", which is an objectively measurable factor that can be manipulated to taste. Saying that something "sucks tone", while a colorful description, isn't useful in reality because there isn't a suck knob we can dial down to fix it.
Further, a lot of guys (not all) making that observation in their threads simply don't know the technical terms for what they're trying to describe. For instance, a lot of guys don't know that they have to maintain the proper amperage in the power supply to their effects or it will result in treble roll-off. Or that decreasing voltage will result in more distortion in analog distortion effects, or that increasing voltage to 18V will result in more headroom in distortion circuits that can handle it, but will fry lesser circuits. All of these effects could fall under the umbrella description of "sucking tone", but all of them require very different solutions. All are easy to fix once you understand what specifically is going on.
If you're happy with your sound, then keep it, and don't hesitate to tell guys like me to go flap in the breeze. If you'd like more specific advice about your particular setup, I'll be happy to offer what I can.
Before I get started, I should remind you that you asked my opinion, not the other way around. Your referencing of Andreas's article, which I've read long ago, doesn't really make your point, given that Andreas himself starts off with a big politically-correct Kumbayah by telling us there's no right way to use effects, then proceeds to spend the rest of the article telling us the right way to use effects, which btw, are exactly the recommendations I've made in this thread. The hypocrisy of that article mitigates its impact. Music is art, but not all art, which is subjective, is qualitatively equal. Therefore, not all approaches to rig configuration are qualitatively equal. Some sound great, some sound horrible.
Next, I apologize if I've hurt your feelilngs. My posts were so hyperbolic that they were obviously meant to inject a little humor into the often dry discussion of effects placement. If you felt offended, I'm sorry. I was just giving you what I meant to be a good-natured hard time. If I didn't have respect for the posting members of this forum, including yourself, I wouldn't waste significant time crafting lengthy posts full of lots of useful, specific information. I've played guitar for 30+ years and have a lot more experience in playing, rig setup, recording, producing and making my own effects by hand from scratch than many of the guys and girls posting here, so I just figured I'd make that information available.
Ultimately, I know you're all gonna do what you want to do anyway, and (rightfully) you're gonna play what sounds good to you. That isn't going to stop me from having my strongly-held opinions, nor should it, since my opinions aren't going to stop you either. The real point here, as evidenced by the people mentioning that these posts have educated them, is that a lot of people aren't making informed choices about what sounds best to them. Many people simply don't know any better, but would like to. This whole guitar rig/effects chain thing can get pretty complicated, and there's a lot to remember. If you're new to the game, or never had anybody who could show you how to make it work, you may not know what options exist for you in your own rig in order to choose what sounds best to you.
Now, as a show of good faith and to show that you have my respect, I'll offer some advice on the specific problems you brought up in your last post.
RE: "My Analogman Chorus Pedal sucks volume when in the loop.". Yep, that's good circuitry. It means Mike is putting a decent buffer into his circuits so they don't fry when some over-eager effects loop send signal hits it. Volume regulation in no way implies that the effect "sucks tone", which is a meaningless phrase anyway, since "tone" isn't a single adjustable attribute that you can dial more or less of, or have sucked out. It would be more meaningful and useful if guys would go into a little more objective detail in describing what they mean when they say something sucks tone. Does it lower the gain of the signal? Does it alter the treble, mid, bass balance? If so, in what way?
RE: "My Tremolo pedal is only used as a toggle switch effect so I like to have it in the preamp for a better result in the way that I use it.". That one is fine, since like a wah-wah, it's a filter-pass effect that doesn't significantly alter your tone if the circuit components are good quality.
RE: "There is thread after thread on this board about tone suck in the fx loop of the DR.". And almost all of them are nearly useless in addressing the problem, since they are describing an effect on the sound of their guitar in individually subjective terms. "Tone" means something slightly different to each player, it's not like "volume", which is an objectively measurable factor that can be manipulated to taste. Saying that something "sucks tone", while a colorful description, isn't useful in reality because there isn't a suck knob we can dial down to fix it.
Further, a lot of guys (not all) making that observation in their threads simply don't know the technical terms for what they're trying to describe. For instance, a lot of guys don't know that they have to maintain the proper amperage in the power supply to their effects or it will result in treble roll-off. Or that decreasing voltage will result in more distortion in analog distortion effects, or that increasing voltage to 18V will result in more headroom in distortion circuits that can handle it, but will fry lesser circuits. All of these effects could fall under the umbrella description of "sucking tone", but all of them require very different solutions. All are easy to fix once you understand what specifically is going on.
If you're happy with your sound, then keep it, and don't hesitate to tell guys like me to go flap in the breeze. If you'd like more specific advice about your particular setup, I'll be happy to offer what I can.
I laughed the whole time I read those two posts. I mean, its a forum board, respect isn't important as long as you don't flame people. Do you think Mesa respects any of us? 
Next time someone with a lot of knowledge joins up, please don't try to scare them off by shaking your Forum Dominance Big Stick, or by proving that "Hey I know things too!" It's silly, and knowledgeable people can easily stop sharing their knowledge.
Next time someone with a lot of knowledge joins up, please don't try to scare them off by shaking your Forum Dominance Big Stick, or by proving that "Hey I know things too!" It's silly, and knowledgeable people can easily stop sharing their knowledge.
Spherion
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 26, 2007
- Messages
- 56
- Reaction score
- 0
(I find myself habitually copy/pasting Chris' posts into emails and emailing myself for future reference. The Boogie Board's own personal Craig Anderton--suweeet!)
Okay, a few things.
I get oscillation when using chorus' and delays in the FX loop of my TR--volume drops and swells, phasing sounds, etc. I initially attributed that to a mono FX loop with stereo chorus and got a few Y cables which now makes it a little less obvious. I guess it's documented that you need the FX loop RETURN at 100% to avoid this, correct? It does seem to diminish when I set it this way. But it would seem that I'm out of luck using the FX loop at all in that ALL the FX that I have are digital. So where could I possibly put them?? My Eventide won't take a guitar input (peaks at the bottom meter). I really would like to avoid stomp boxes and would hate to trade my investment to go the simplistic route just because the "new guy" in my rig doesn't play nice with friends.
But at least Chris explained alot. Hiss and strange modulations seem to be characteristic of a TR/DR. I was seriously beginning to think I had a defective unit.
Okay, a few things.
I get oscillation when using chorus' and delays in the FX loop of my TR--volume drops and swells, phasing sounds, etc. I initially attributed that to a mono FX loop with stereo chorus and got a few Y cables which now makes it a little less obvious. I guess it's documented that you need the FX loop RETURN at 100% to avoid this, correct? It does seem to diminish when I set it this way. But it would seem that I'm out of luck using the FX loop at all in that ALL the FX that I have are digital. So where could I possibly put them?? My Eventide won't take a guitar input (peaks at the bottom meter). I really would like to avoid stomp boxes and would hate to trade my investment to go the simplistic route just because the "new guy" in my rig doesn't play nice with friends.
But at least Chris explained alot. Hiss and strange modulations seem to be characteristic of a TR/DR. I was seriously beginning to think I had a defective unit.
