will a gforce/system/major work well in parallel fx loop?

[rectonator296]

is it gonna work and sound well? so i only have a delay in my RoV's loop, i tried adding a volume pedal with it but totally sucked. is parallel fx loop meant to go with one pedal only or all time-based pedals?

 

[clutch71]

Mesa suggests that you set the processors mix at 100% and a lower setting on the mix knob.

There is a parallel to series mod, but you'll lose the solo feature.

 

[nomad100hd]

the parallel loop will cause a phase issue because of the latency in the digital processor. aka sound bad

 

[camsna]

Yeah. It's best to run in series. But I do know that the G-Major has a 'kill dry' feature that allows you to run it in parallel.

 

[nomad100hd]

how does the dry feature affect the latency so there is not phase issue in the parallel loop.

 

[camsna]

Well. I reckon that since no dry signal is being fed back into the amp from the G-Major, there's really nothing for the amp's dry signal to be slightly out-of-phase with.

You DO lose a grip of functionality, though. The reverbs and delays will still sound good. But forget about chorus/phase/flange/wah/etc...

 

[nomad100hd]

I think your confused on what i meant. The dry signal that's present and causes the phase issue is provided by the amp even when the mix on the amp is set full wet.

 

[camsna]

I get that. But, as I understand it, if only effects are coming from the G-Major, there's nothing to create phase problems.

Can the dry signal from the amp cause a phase issue with JUST the 100% wet delay signal coming into the loop receive from the G-Major?

 

[nomad100hd]

All digital processors have a latency, and the little bit of dry signal the parallel loop lets threw causes a pretty audible phase issue.

 

[camsna]

A phase issue with what?! I'm so confused!

I understand that the digital processor is latent. And I understand that dry signal - from the amp - makes it back into the amp even if the loop mix set at 100%.

But if the G-Major isn't passing ANY dry signal through, then where is the phasing issue? There's nothing for it to be out-of-phase against! There's only one dry signal making it to the power section and it's from the preamp section.

Am I dense? My head hurts...

 

[coppa]

dry signal is out of phase with the wet signal?. I guess.

the dry signal passes all the way through the amp from input to output

a bit of it is fed through the processor via parallel loop, what comes out of the processor is a little bit out of phase from the original then it goes back into the power section.

Am I close?.

 

[nomad100hd]

exactly!

 

[camsna]

But the processor has that Kill Dry function I was talking about. So it doesn't pass any of the dry through. No phase issue.

 

[wastoid]

But the processor has that Kill Dry function I was talking about. So it doesn't pass any of the dry through. No phase issue.

How would that work, given that the amp is what is mixing the dry back in, not the processor? I mean I could see them trying to invert the dry signal and mix it into the processor's output to cancel it out the dry but even then, how could it determine the amplitude to correctly cancel the signal when it gets mixed back in the by the amp (since that's determined by the level your mix knob is set at)?

I'm just curious really.

 

[domct203]

Any signal that passes through the ADDA coverters in the processor (wet or dry) will have latency, and the chance of phase cancellation when mixed in the parallel loop with the unprocessed signal of the amp..

Dom

 

[prskier17]

If the kill dry function is active, I think effects such as reverb should have less of a phase issue since it is a modified waveform and shouldn't cancel out with the dry signal being passed through the amp (not through the loop). Isn't the original (dry) signal what causes most of the phase issues if it is reintroduced with latency? I'm not sure if any othe effects besides reverb (purely wet) will be OK in a parallel loop. I use a G-Major in a series loop, otherwise I'd try it out.

 

[NoGlassNoClass]

Isn't the original (dry) signal what causes most of the phase issues if it is reintroduced with latency?

EXACTLY. The out-of-phase issue arises when the processor returns some of the dry signal i.e. if the processor is set to a 50% mix. If the processor returns ONLY the effected signal, and you use the mix knob on the amp the way it is intended, you will have no problems.

If whatever FX you are using does not have the killdry feature, you just set the individual effects to be 100% wet.

 

[Monsta-Tone]

I use mine in my DC's all the time.

Mix at 100%.

No issues whatsoever. In fact, the only issues that I ever had were due to the output of the G-Major being too hot and overdriving the return on the amp.


Maybe the ROV is different.

 

[nomad100hd]

hmm well my tone lab didn't like the parallel fx loop, nor did my sonic stomp. On the tone lab i didn't have the fx patches set to 100% wet because i don't like them like that, and i'm not going to change the mix knob on the back of the amp differently for every FX patch. I'm sure i could find a compromise for the tone lab, but for the sonic stomp there there is no fix. Modding the FX loop on my nomad was easy and at some point i might put in a push pull pot to have it switchable.

 

[Monsta-Tone]

I have to admit that the G-Major sounded at it's absolute best with my old Heartbreaker.

I think that a little is lost in the mix, but I can get mine to sound really good.

Since I can't keep my hands out of my amps, :lol: I've been tossing around the idea of making the Loop Series, or doing what you said and adding a switch to go between the 2.