Jump to content

Multi Effects Philosophy


Recommended Posts

  • Members

What is everyones opinion of the best way to run effects. For me this will be primarily delay and reverb.

 

1: A single processor to do all your sounds.

 

2: Multiple processors with a line mixer

 

3: Multiple processors in separate loops

 

As in example 3 is it of merit to load your presets before a song starts and switch in the separate processors?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 64
  • Created
  • Last Reply
  • Members

What is everyones opinion of the best way to run effects. For me this will be primarily delay and reverb.


1: A single processor to do all your sounds.


2: Multiple processors with a line mixer


3: Multiple processors in separate loops


As in example 3 is it of merit to load your presets before a song starts and switch in the separate processors?

 

I got tired of running multiple effects units along with my preamps, so i bought a G-System to take care of everithing, and i'm more than happy with it :D

 

I'm still using the G-Major and mod-pro for my rhodes though, but that's a whole different story.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

As I'm still building up my rack, I currently use only one processor to fulfil my needs (a Digitech GSP1101). I plan to add further processors as the budget allows, though, and use a line mixer to blend the signals. I use an RJM Music RG-16 to select between my amps (Peavey Triple XXX and JSX) and handle channel switching, as well as switching in and out effects as needed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

What is everyones opinion of the best way to run effects. For me this will be primarily delay and reverb.


1: A single processor to do all your sounds.


2: Multiple processors with a line mixer


3: Multiple processors in separate loops


As in example 3 is it of merit to load your presets before a song starts and switch in the separate processors?

 

After having used MANY different pedals, processors, methods of signal routing, and multi-fx pedal board units-- IMO, the best stuff and way to run stuff is like this: ;)

 

NAMMpicscropped020.jpg

 

zachschematic.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

What is everyones opinion of the best way to run effects. For me this will be primarily delay and reverb.


1: A single processor to do all your sounds.


2: Multiple processors with a line mixer


3: Multiple processors in separate loops


As in example 3 is it of merit to load your presets before a song starts and switch in the separate processors?

 

 

There is no one right answer to be honest. It all depends what you need your rig to achieve. For ultimate control and versatility, probably 2. If you only need one delay effect and one reverb effect I'd get two dedicated units/pedals and run them through a looper like the GCX, related to your option 3. Best compromise if you want to keep it simple but also have some options would be a single processor as you've got in option 1.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

There is no one right answer to be honest. It all depends what you need your rig to achieve. For ultimate control and versatility, probably 2. If you only need one delay effect and one reverb effect I'd get two dedicated units/pedals and run them through a looper like the GCX, related to your option 3. Best compromise if you want to keep it simple but also have some options would be a single processor as you've got in option 1.

 

:thu: +99999999999999999999999999999999999999

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I got to play a G-Force yesterday and wasn't so impressed by its sound quality but I have to grant that it loaded really fast.

 

1: This is the modern design philosophy behind most guitar rigs.

?Is anyone going to notice load time besides me?

 

2: Same style setup Zachman is running.

I'm sure it sounds great but it's hella costly. The only question I have is are you running full configurations from each of the processors, running the processors for different components of the final product (ie: delay from the 2290 and reverb from the pcm, etc), or a bit of both?

 

3: This is how I heard people were running things in the late 80s. Someone would have a delay/reverb on one processor for the song and deactive the delay for reverb then run a separate processor for another configuration and loop switch between the two of then. (Generally a pair of H3000s or similar)

This itself is a compromise due to ridiculous load time. Everything would be program changed with a control function switcher.

 

 

Zachman, of all the stuff in your rack the only stuff I have a chance in hell of being able to afford any time soon is the PCM and the 2290. Is the 2290 as good a quality as I heard it is? I've also heard that the 2290 does the best delay just as the PCM does the best reverb money can buy, what's your opinion?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

I got to play a G-Force yesterday and wasn't so impressed by its sound quality but I have to grant that it loaded really fast.


1: This is the modern design philosophy behind most guitar rigs.

?Is anyone going to notice load time besides me?


2: Same style setup Zachman is running.

I'm sure it sounds great but it's hella costly. The only question I have is are you running full configurations from each of the processors, running the processors for different components of the final product (ie: delay from the 2290 and reverb from the pcm, etc), or a bit of both?


3: This is how I heard people were running things in the late 80s. Someone would have a delay/reverb on one processor for the song and deactive the delay for reverb then run a separate processor for another configuration and loop switch between the two of then. (Generally a pair of H3000s or similar)

This itself is a compromise due to ridiculous load time. Everything would be program changed with a control function switcher.



Zachman, of all the stuff in your rack the only stuff I have a chance in hell of being able to afford any time soon is the PCM and the 2290. Is the 2290 as good a quality as I heard it is? I've also heard that the 2290 does the best delay just as the PCM does the best reverb money can buy, what's your opinion?

 

 

Ya, unfortunately it is costly.

 

The way I am running stuff is IMO, unlimited- as mostly I use stuff as dedicated units, though they can all pull double duty, however; the Eventide H8000FW is AWESOME. It is (In my rig) being run BOTH Parallel AND/OR Series, depending on which algorithm/algorithms that I am running on it, I select which routing option to utilize. As the H8000FW has the routing features that it does, along with the "Virtual Racks" feature the lag time issues can be avoided. The H8000FW unfortunately, costs as much as 4 or 5 H3000's, but is also that much more powerful.

 

So, to answer your question it's mostly dedicated, but also a bit of both, if chosen.

 

The thing is- to maximize the potential of these processors and afford the real time control of all of them, they need to be run in a specific way (signal routing, through mixers and switchers) and the stuff necessary is also very expensive-- and for me- in the end it was a matter of being sick of compromising, with my previous rigs because they while good, always left me realizing that I wish something or another was being done better, or wishing that a control aspect was available.

 

IMO, The 2290 is the KING of Delays. I got my 1st one back in '87 and have yet to find something that knocks it off the top of the heap.

 

The PCM is a benchmark sound for certain... The Eventide stuff does stuff that could have me eliminating the PCM, but I like the sonic stamp that the Lexicon brings to the table.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

What is everyones opinion of the best way to run effects. For me this will be primarily delay and reverb.


1: A single processor to do all your sounds.


2: Multiple processors with a line mixer


3: Multiple processors in separate loops


As in example 3 is it of merit to load your presets before a song starts and switch in the separate processors?

 

 

I have tried option 1, having a single processor to handle all effects and was very unhappy with the results. Besides, very few processors can do both pre-gain and post-gain effects (save the G-system, Lexicon MPX-G2, and perhaps an Eventide Orville or H8000 could be routed in this way).

 

Options 2 and 3 can both work. Personally, my next build is going to be, at most, two effects units post-gain (for delay, EQ, tremolo, etc.) and a handful of pedals pre-gain.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Come to think of it, Zachman, why did you go with the H8000 over the Orville or 7600? It looks, from the schematic, that you're using two inputs on the 8000, but can run a parallel pair in as well.

 

Are there advantages to the 8000 over the 7600 if only running two inputs?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Come to think of it, Zachman, why did you go with the H8000 over the Orville or 7600? It looks, from the schematic, that you're using two inputs on the 8000, but can run a parallel pair in as well.


Are there advantages to the 8000 over the 7600 if only running two inputs?

 

I chose the H8000FW over the others because it's the most powerful with the most routing features. The virtual racks feature of the H8000, as well.

 

No the schematic shows all 4 I/O's in use: Line level send 2= I/O 1 &2, Line level send 3= I/O 3 & 4 ;)

 

What I am doing is I/O 1 & 2 is for parallel operation and I/O 3 & 4 are being used for Series operation (Sampling, fuzz, tremolo, univibe, etc...), I have a 2nd set of XLR cables for I/O 3&4 that I can use instead to run parallel for all 4 I/O's if necessary as well. I tried to design the rig with all possible points of contention for signal routing ahead of time.

 

NAMMpics016A.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I'm not sure if you've ever tried one but what advantaged would the PCM give me over the MPX 550 I'm using?


Would the sound quality be much different?

 

Sound quality would be different, but I am not sure that it would necessarily provide an advantage to you.

 

The PCM stuff tend to be much more tweakable, but in a guitar rig scenario, you may not need that much tweakability, unless you're crazy like me, in which case God be with you. ;)

 

I need to renew my host service/domain, and haven't gotten around to it. I have been so busy gigging that I just been slacking re: the website stuff.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Is anyone going to notice load time besides me?

 

No, they are a pain, particularly in units that drop out while changing algorithms. I have this problem with the Viscount EFX-10 processor I use.

 

I have just solved this problem by getting a Nobels SPX-31 splitter/mixer and using it to turn my amp's serial loop into a parallel one. This way the dry signal always comes through keeping the sound going and the processor drop-out is unnoticeable while it changes algorithm.

 

So for post gain effects, I personally use a single processor with a line mixer. :thu:

 

spx-31_300.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I've never found a single effector I liked--I always liked some programs from some and other programs from other effectors. I've ALWAYS hated routing through any effector--the tone's always screwed up.

 

I finally went the mixer route. I go into a rackmount mixer, and use the effect sends to drive the effectors and bring the results back through other channels. The dry tone (Rocktron Piranha) goes in channel 1 and back out the mixer to a Boogie 395, so it never goes through any other effectors for tone suckage.

 

For some reason the Yamaha MV802 works GREAT for this--I'm not getting any tone suckage on the dry signal. For some reason (impedance matching?) it works well if I take the balanced out from the mixer rather than the line out--I made an XLR->phone cable and it works just fine. If I take the line out it's incredibly buzzy for some reason.

 

It's nice, too, because I can select for effects between songs and not in the middle of one. I have all the presets come up with a volume of 0% and I have expression pedals to fade them in. That way they're not on/off . . . I can mix in as much or as little as I want to and then fade them out again. Some effectors take a second or two to switch programs (I have some antique stuff that I like) and this method avoids switching during a song.

 

One thing I found is that I REALLY have to watch levels in the mixer's busses--you can get a high level on the main bus by running the input levels high and it will look okay in the VU meters if you turn the masters down. Pushing the busses near clipping (without clipping) seems to screw up the tone, though--the MV802 has a set of main bus outs BEFORE the main volume controls, so I stuck a meter there so I can watch the level there. Once I did that everything sounds peachy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

I've never found a single effector I liked--I always liked some programs from some and other programs from other effectors. I've ALWAYS hated routing through any effector--the tone's always screwed up.


I finally went the mixer route. I go into a rackmount mixer, and use the effect sends to drive the effectors and bring the results back through other channels. The dry tone (Rocktron Piranha) goes in channel 1 and back out the mixer to a Boogie 395, so it never goes through any other effectors for tone suckage.


For some reason the Yamaha MV802 works GREAT for this--I'm not getting any tone suckage on the dry signal. For some reason (impedance matching?) it works well if I take the balanced out from the mixer rather than the line out--I made an XLR->phone cable and it works just fine. If I take the line out it's incredibly buzzy for some reason.


It's nice, too, because I can select for effects between songs and not in the middle of one. I have all the presets come up with a volume of 0% and I have expression pedals to fade them in. That way they're not on/off . . . I can mix in as much or as little as I want to and then fade them out again. Some effectors take a second or two to switch programs (I have some antique stuff that I like) and this method avoids switching during a song.


One thing I found is that I REALLY have to watch levels in the mixer's busses--you can get a high level on the main bus by running the input levels high and it will look okay in the VU meters if you turn the masters down. Pushing the busses near clipping (without clipping) seems to screw up the tone, though--the MV802 has a set of main bus outs BEFORE the main volume controls, so I stuck a meter there so I can watch the level there. Once I did that everything sounds peachy.

 

 

What is your setup? Your description has me believing you're a sound engineering student or a keyboardist, who dabbles in guitar

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

What is your setup? Your description has me believing you're a sound engineering student or a keyboardist, who dabbles in guitar

 

It's at the end of the "post your rack" thread.

 

And do NOT call me a keyboardist! Them's fightin' words! :)

 

I grew up in an electronic engineering family so I was around it all the time. It always drove me nuts when I couldn't recreate recorded stuff live (mostly due to tone and ear candy tweaking), so I ended up bastardizing whatever I could find to make it happen. At the same time, it had to be simple enough from the pedalboard end that I could play without having to think about all this crap in my head.

 

So, I have one A/B switch for clean/dirty, controllers so I can pick effects BETWEEN songs (rather than during) and a few expression pedals (used as faders) to mix them in while I'm playing. No thinking while playing! Woo hoo!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

I chose the H8000FW over the others because it's the most powerful with the most routing features. The virtual racks feature of the H8000, as well.

 

 

Ah, I must have missed that... So, through the 8000, you're running four analog inputs and four analog outputs...

 

I know the Orville isn't around anymore, but if I recall, it was also 4x4, and had virtual racks...

 

But then again, if you have the funds for the 8000 and need a 4x4 instead of a stereo processor, I can see why you went with the 8000 instead of the 7600.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I've thought about the expression pedal mixing but I don't really know how to implement it.

 

The other problem I'm having is that I can't find a way to defeat the Ground Control Pro's control of the GCX. To try to explain better: the GCX has it's own menu to control it within the Ground Control Pro which if you just leave blank deactivates all the loops therefore I can't just switch my effects processor and then activate the loop on it or fade it in with an expression pedal later.

 

I've thought about using instant access switches for my effects processor but you can't set different instant access switches for different banks so it would be kind of impractical.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

I've thought about the expression pedal mixing but I don't really know how to implement it.


The other problem I'm having is that I can't find a way to defeat the Ground Control Pro's control of the GCX. To try to explain better: the GCX has it's own menu to control it within the Ground Control Pro which if you just leave blank deactivates all the loops therefore I can't just switch my effects processor and then activate the loop on it or fade it in with an expression pedal later.


I've thought about using instant access switches for my effects processor but you can't set different instant access switches for different banks so it would be kind of impractical.

 

 

Wish I could tell you how to do it (I'm using ancient ARTs, but their expression pedal control is dead simple) but it's DEFINITELY worth it. I got SO tired of constantly resetting levels of effects . . . I think I just liked it here one day and there another (you know how it goes--guitarists constantly have to twiddle). With the expression pedal you can fade it in until it sounds right and then you're done.

 

It's especially nice if you can control the volume pre-effect . . . then if you shut it off the old effect tail can finish on its own and it sounds more natural.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

It's at the end of the "post your rack" thread.


And do NOT call me a keyboardist! Them's fightin' words!
:)

I grew up in an electronic engineering family so I was around it all the time. It always drove me nuts when I couldn't recreate recorded stuff live (mostly due to tone and ear candy tweaking), so I ended up bastardizing whatever I could find to make it happen. At the same time, it had to be simple enough from the pedalboard end that I could play without having to think about all this crap in my head.


So, I have one A/B switch for clean/dirty, controllers so I can pick effects BETWEEN songs (rather than during) and a few expression pedals (used as faders) to mix them in while I'm playing. No thinking while playing! Woo hoo!

 

Ya, I saw that after I posted my question. After seeing the processors you selected Alesis and ART looks like, I can understand why you say you haven't found too much happiness with your processors.

 

The way you are running things is interesting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

Ya, I saw that after I posted my question. After seeing the processors you selected Alesis and ART looks like, I can understand why you say you haven't found too much happiness with your processors.


The way you are running things is interesting.

 

 

The truth is that there isn't a huge amount of difference in effects boxes in the last decade or so . . . once you're on or past 24 bits and 44k you just aren't going to hear much of a difference any more.

 

I'm quite happy with the way the processors sound, I've just always had problems with signal processors passing the ORIGINAL sound. I haven't heard a box yet where you could punch "bypass" and it sounded the same as if you removed the box entirely. It seems like they put most of their effort into the effect sounds (which you'd expect, since that's what you're buying) but I've always had tone degradation with the original tone if the main signal passed through the box . . . and this goes with the newer boxes as well.

 

Part of that, I think, is because most companies engineer the stuff to work with their other products. When you mix products from different companies things aren't always happy.

 

So, I removed ALL of the processors from the dry tone entirely . . . now it doesn't matter. I don't pass the dry tone through ANY processors--they're all set to 100% wet since I bring them together in the mixer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

So, I removed ALL of the processors from the dry tone entirely . . . now it doesn't matter. I don't pass the dry tone through ANY processors--they're all set to 100% wet since I bring them together in the mixer.

 

 

This is what most of the guys who use large, parallel or W/D/ W/D/W rigs do, me included-- The main difference I guess, is that I chose to run things the way that the A list session and touring guys do it, using the same gear as them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

The Truth is: We'll have to disagree on that one. I can hear a HUGE difference between an Alesis Midi Verb, and EVERY ART processor I've owned and used and my Eventide, Lexicon, TC Electronic gear, and apparently so can EVERYONE else in the recording and guitar playing universe.

 

 

It depends which program you're using. Yeah, the ART's verbs stink (their algorithm is just horrific), so I don't use them. I like the verb in the Alesis, so I use it for that. Some of the other programs sound quite good, so I use the ARTs for that.

 

I use different parts of a tool for what it's good at rather than out the entire tool.

 

 

That's likely due to the choice in gear that you're using, and the quality of the opamps used in your choice of processors and switchers, and the relatively lame signal to noise ratio, dB rating and THD levels of the processors you're choosing.


No, it's because anytime you put ANYTHING between your guitar and amp, you're affecting the impedance of the original signal.

 

 

I'm not putting them between the guitar and the amp. I'm putting them between the preamp and the amp, or in the effects loop. There's nothing between the guitar and the amp.

 

 

This is what most of the guys who use large, parallel or W/D/ W/D/W rigs do, me included-- The main difference I guess, is that I chose to run things the way that the A list session and touring guys do it, using the same gear as them.

 

 

I don't really care what anyone else does . . . if it sounds good to my ears, I go with it. We're creating sounds, not recreating them, so whatever works is what works--isn't that the point? It might be a mega-processor that's fresh from the lab, or it might be a piece-of-crap box that's 30 years old . . . if it gives the sound it gives the sound. I think that limiting yourself to "this is what my guitar hero" does limits your sonic choices . . . I'll try anything and everything to see what it'll sound like. Often times sonic purity and clarity is NOT the goal--it's something that sounds good.

 

Why on EARTH would I want to sound like someone else?

 

And, if the truth be told, a LOT of those "A list" guys don't know the guts of what they're using. They either paid someone else to put them together or went on someone else's advice and are simply perpetuating what someone else told someone who told someone.

 

And, as far as session guys go, I doubt they'll have ANY effects in there. More likely they're running completely dry and the engineering adds effects in later (who records wet?), so I don't know where that's valid.

 

I'm quite happy with my sound, and every time I'm out I have at last 4 or 5 guitarists coming over to see how I'm gettting my sound so I'm doing SOMETHING right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...