Members jonnygreentrees Posted June 21, 2012 Members Share Posted June 21, 2012 I don't really know the first thing about the inner workings of pedals but have been trying to teach myself stuff about chips, circuits etc and am finding it an interesting way to try and cut through a lot of the BS surrounding boutique pedals. Interesting fact of the day that I read on FSB, the Electro Harmonix Holy Stain contains the same off the shelf chip as the Neunaber Wet, the only difference is that the Holy Stain uses the inbuilt effect algorithms and the Neunaber uses a custom programmed reverb algorithm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil O'Keefe Posted June 21, 2012 Share Posted June 21, 2012 Interesting fact of the day that I read on FSB, the Electro Harmonix Holy Stain contains the same off the shelf chip as the Neunaber Wet, the only difference is that the Holy Stain uses the inbuilt effect algorithms and the Neunaber uses a custom programmed reverb algorithm. I have no idea if that's true or not. I've never dug into the interior of either one. However, it's not unusual for different companies to use the same chips and processors. Universal Audio uses SHARC chips in some of their stuff, as does Strymon. It doesn't mean their reverbs will have the same sound - it just means they're both running big, bad processors. In addition to programming and algorithm differences, there's also the A-D/D-A to consider, the clocking, the filtering; all the analog stuff that gets you into and then back out of the land of 1s and 0s. The quality (or lack thereof) of all those things makes a difference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members jonnygreentrees Posted June 21, 2012 Author Members Share Posted June 21, 2012 Interesting fact of the day that I read on FSB, the Electro Harmonix Holy Stain contains the same off the shelf chip as the Neunaber Wet, the only difference is that the Holy Stain uses the inbuilt effect algorithms and the Neunaber uses a custom programmed reverb algorithm. I have no idea if that's true or not. I've never dug into the interior of either one. However, it's not unusual for different companies to use the same chips and processors. Universal Audio uses SHARC chips in some of their stuff, as does Strymon. It doesn't mean their reverbs will have the same sound - it just means they're both running big, bad processors. In addition to programming and algorithm differences, there's also the A-D/D-A to consider, the clocking, the filtering; all the analog stuff that gets you into and then back out of the land of 1s and 0s. The quality (or lack thereof) of all those things makes a difference. Yes I'm sure the WET has much better components overall and by all accounts sounds much better, just surprised that they shared the same chip! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members BHz_econo Posted June 21, 2012 Members Share Posted June 21, 2012 Interesting fact of the day that I read on FSB, the Electro Harmonix Holy Stain contains the same off the shelf chip as the Neunaber Wet, the only difference is that the Holy Stain uses the inbuilt effect algorithms and the Neunaber uses a custom programmed reverb algorithm. I have no idea if that's true or not. I've never dug into the interior of either one. However, it's not unusual for different companies to use the same chips and processors. Universal Audio uses SHARC chips in some of their stuff, as does Strymon. It doesn't mean their reverbs will have the same sound - it just means they're both running big, bad processors. In addition to programming and algorithm differences, there's also the A-D/D-A to consider, the clocking, the filtering; all the analog stuff that gets you into and then back out of the land of 1s and 0s. The quality (or lack thereof) of all those things makes a difference. But I've always thought the holy stain had some good sounding effects. It was the effect's interface that fails for me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Cirrus Posted June 21, 2012 Members Share Posted June 21, 2012 all the analog stuff that gets you into and then back out of the land of 1s and 0s. The quality (or lack thereof) of all those things makes a difference. And ironically, that's the sound of digital that people complain about! Cheap analogue. Is that Ironic? No matter how I use that word, someone is always there telling me that I'm not dealing in Irony. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members BHz_econo Posted June 21, 2012 Members Share Posted June 21, 2012 And ironically, that's the sound of digital that people complain about! Cheap analogue.Is that Ironic? No matter how I use that word, someone is always there telling me that I'm not dealing in Irony. I think you got it that time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members LSDis4me Posted June 21, 2012 Members Share Posted June 21, 2012 All I know is that Red Dot = better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members hotmess Posted June 21, 2012 Members Share Posted June 21, 2012 All I know is that Red Dot = better. I don't think this is necessarily true. As an expert in audio electronics, I've stumbled upon some things mainly out of curiosity that have been rather enlightening discoveries. While I usually don't like to share my trade secrets, I figure I can go ahead and let this one out. While the term "better" may be somewhat subjective, here is what I've learned. Adding a red dot to your pedal allows more gain with a thicker bottom end and lower mids, while not putting a red dot on the pedal will allow extended frequencies and tighter bass response. However, when it comes down to it, the bottom line is this: "The Alpha Drive II Standard is the Finest Overdrive on the market today, bar none." "The Alpha Drive II - Red Dot is the Finest Overdrive on the market today, bar none." THEY ARE BOTH THE FINEST BAR NONE! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members LSDis4me Posted June 21, 2012 Members Share Posted June 21, 2012 ^ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Pedaltones Posted June 21, 2012 Members Share Posted June 21, 2012 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members macadood Posted June 21, 2012 Members Share Posted June 21, 2012 nutella Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members scolfax Posted June 21, 2012 Members Share Posted June 21, 2012 THEY ARE BOTH THE FINEST BAR NONE! Ironic! ...no, wait... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members mmolteratx Posted June 21, 2012 Members Share Posted June 21, 2012 Yes I'm sure the WET has much better components overall and by all accounts sounds much better, just surprised that they shared the same chip! It's not really surprising once you understand what the chip is used for... A Deluxe Memory Man uses a few JRC4558s, as does a Tubescreamer. Doesn't mean they're anything alike. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members tim gueguen Posted June 21, 2012 Members Share Posted June 21, 2012 Or that the Korg Kronos workstation synth uses an Atom D510 processor, just like a "nettop" computer. Doesn't mean you can write and read e-mail or watch YouTube vids on it, as the software it's running isn't Windows 7. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.