Better Than True Bypass?

[Trailblazer Fan]

"The new Chopper features improved by-pass circuitry that is superior to a true by-pass in terms of preserving the instrument signal in cables (gig-fx will soon be releasing test data to support that claim). The new Chopper also has improved tremolo / pan depth control, flush-mounted power jack for easier and more reliable connections, and access through the base of the pedal to the optical switch adjustment if needed."

 

How is this Possible? How could something be better than true bypass?

[Alchemist]

you get signal loss over long distances of cable or lots of pedals if all are true bypass.... so its not hard to imagine a quality buffer being better.....

[pbone]

Yeah, probably a buffer

[cdawzrd]

you get signal loss over long distances of cable or lots of pedals if all are true bypass.... so its not hard to imagine a quality buffer being better.....

 

 

+1. People are way too often confused about what true-bypass does and what its benefits and drawbacks are.

[tommyld]

Yeah, they're talking about a quality buffer. Good buffers are good.

 

MI Audio makes their Boost 'N' Buff buffered because they found it sounded better (they suggest the best setup is one good buffered pedal, the rest true bypass, sounds best).

 

Visual Sound also claims to use a high quality buffer that's better.

 

EHX pedals that are stereo are buffered and sound great.

[amp_surgeon]

I'd like to see the test data when they do finally produce it. I'm sure they can give their buffer a small amount of gain to restore lost signal amplitude, but there isn't anything they can do to restore frequencies lost to the capacitance in upstream cables, nor to prevent downstream cables from doing the same thing.

If they've got a good quality broad spectrum buffer that doesn't color the signal in any way nor cause signal loss, then they should just say that rather than trying to push it as "better than true bypass".

From an electronics viewpoint, a true bypass pedal disappears from the signal chain when it's in bypass mode, but it can't make all of that cabling disappear with it, and a buffer can't do that either.

[Zachman]

"The new Chopper features improved by-pass circuitry that is superior to a true by-pass in terms of preserving the instrument signal in cables (gig-fx will soon be releasing test data to support that claim). The new Chopper also has improved tremolo / pan depth control, flush-mounted power jack for easier and more reliable connections, and access through the base of the pedal to the optical switch adjustment if needed." How is this Possible? How could something be better than true bypass?

 

Use a good switching system, and you'll hear.

 

From: http://www.customaudioelectronics.com/frequently_asked_questions.htm

 

What are buffers and how are they used?

 

Buffers are extremely important in a multi-component system. They are often misunderstood and often get a bad rap by those who are uninformed. In a CAE system, a buffer is a unity gain (input level equals output level) impedance converting circuit. It essentially protects your high impedance guitar output (or any other high impedance source, such as an amps' effects loop send) from being loaded down by the input it is connected to. In effect, it converts high impedance to low, which means subsequent stages are then driven by a low impedance source (the buffer's output). High impedance sources such as your guitar's output (assuming you have passive pickups) has very little current drive capability and it's signal is subject to a harsh environment once it leaves the guitar. You already know the adverse affect a long cable has on your tone. Same thing happens if you pass your signal through a bunch of effects pedals. Even if they have "true bypass" (an ugly, over-used term), each one will suck a little more of your signal along with the cables and connectors, mainly due to capacitive loading of your high impedance guitar signal. The end result is a muffled weak signal that lacks clarity. But once your high impedance guitar signal hits a properly designed buffer with a high input impedance, the buffer takes over, and uses its higher current capability (remember, its an active circuit that requires a power supply) to drive all subsequent stages, thus preserving your instrument's tone. This brings us to buffer quality. Buffers come in all types of designs, from discrete transistor, op-amp, to esoteric tube designs. All have their own unique sonic stamp. At CAE we use the op-amp approach. It has served us well for years, is low noise, and is extremely transparent to our ears. Buffers often get blamed for causing an overly bright sound, but we feel if its designed properly, any perceived "brightness" is because now the guitar is not being loaded down by subsequent stages!

 

Buffers can cause problems, too. There are some effects devices that don't like to see the low output impedance of a buffer. These are typically discrete transistor designed fuzz circuits (such as the Dallas Arbiter Fuzz Face). They react better to the high impedance output of the guitar. In fact, the guitar output, cable and input stage of the Fuzz Face complete a circuit that is highly dependent of those 3 components to work correctly. Fuzz Faces clean up nicely when you roll back the guitar volume control... not so if a buffer is between the guitar and Fuzz Face input. So if you have a pedal board with a Fuzz Face on it , put it first! Other pedals may react the same way. Experiment to see what works best for you. Keep in mind all active pedals (such as Boss, Ibanez, etc...) act as buffers and will impart their own sonic stamp even when bypassed. This is what started the whole "true bypass" (ugh! that term again) craze. See? Too much of a good thing can be "bad". Which brings us to how we utilize buffers in CAE custom switchers. We only use buffers where absolutely necessary. Typically, in a pedal based system we will not buffer until after the first 4-5 loops, which is usually just prior to sending the signal down to the pedal board (via a long cable run, hence the need to buffer) to hit the wah/volume pedals. Any more than 4 or 5 loops, and the guitar signal may be affected by capacitive loading. So the first few loops is where you would put any impedance sensitive effects. This also means your guitar will go through fuzz, overdrive or distortion pedals BEFORE the wah. We prefer this order because the wah then has a more harmonically rich signal to filter. Try it yourself. Of course, if a specific order is required, we will do everything we can to make it happen. Buffers are also necessary to drive isolation transformers, since the relatively low primary impedance of the transformers may be detrimental to whatever circuit is feeding it. This is also why amp splitter circuits must be buffered. You can't drive multiple amps with a relatively high impedance source. So there usually is a buffer somewhere in the output stage of your custom switcher. That's usually it. 2 places minimum. There may be more active stages depending on your system requirements.

[TheGareth]

You guys know what I do? Plug in and play and don't worry about it.

[attic]

Moogerfooger buffers are

[melx]

How is this Possible? How could something be better than true bypass?

 

 

Seriously don't believe the True Bypass hype.

 

TB pedals create just as many problems (if not more IMO) as any other bypass. Since I junked my 100% TB set up I have less problems with volume drops/boosts.

[pbone]

But then again, I'd much rather have an all true bypass board then an all buffer board. Buffers aren't the greatest thing since sliced bread. In my experience, they change a lot with the kind of set up you have, what pedals are before and after, etc. When they do good, it's just a tad noticeable, but when they're bad, they're really noticeable.

[Uma Floresta]

"The new Chopper features improved by-pass circuitry that is superior to a true by-pass in terms of preserving the instrument signal in cables (gig-fx will soon be releasing test data to support that claim). The new Chopper also has improved tremolo / pan depth control, flush-mounted power jack for easier and more reliable connections, and access through the base of the pedal to the optical switch adjustment if needed." How is this Possible? How could something be better than true bypass?

 

 

Probably just a buffered bypass. Superior if you're running a lot of effects and you put it near the end of your rig.

[amp_surgeon]

 

 

Ok, all basically true, but not a complete treatment of the subject. It still reads like a pedal maker trying to justify the decision they made by throwing a lot of technical slight of hand at the reader.

 

Yes, unity gain buffers are great for impedance matching, but impedance matching is not supposed to be necessary between a guitar and amplifier. The amp's input was designed for the high output impedance of a guitar. And neither guitars nor amps were designed for the long cable runs and multiple devices that many guitarists now use between the guitar and amp. This is the price we pay for maintaining support for the legacy gear, and making sure that a '57 Strat will still work with a brand new AC-30. If Leo Fender had any idea that this sort of stuff was going to happen then his first guitars would probably have had low impedance balanced outputs, just like microphones. He never imagined people would stand more than a few feet from their amp, separated by anything more than a short length of cable.

 

Yes, buffers can increase the drive current into the signal chain, but as the author admits, it can cause problems with pedals which aren't designed for low impedance high current signal sources.

 

Yes, you can put "problem" pedals upstream so that they aren't overdriven by a buffered pedal, but what if that's not the order you want your pedals in? What if you WANT to put a Fuzz Face after a buffered pedal?

 

Yes, "true bypass" is an overused and possibly even misleading term. Nonetheless, it's the term everybody uses and understands. Perhaps it would have been better if the first person to coin the phrase had chosen "passive bypass" instead, but they didn't. "True bypass" is now part of the lexicon of guitar gear junkies, and pedal makers who find it offensive should just embrace the horror.

 

Ok, every engineer who designs a pedal has to make decisions which will affect how the pedal works with other pedals. In the vast majority of cases, they have very good reasons for choosing the options they select. Sometimes these decisions have unfortunate side effects when their pedals are combined with other pedals. That's life. They should just explain why they made the decisions they made, and how to cope with problems that might crop up as a result. Anything else comes across like preaching from your dad when he says "This is for your own good, Johnny. Now bend over and take it like a man!".

 

I don't mind when a pedal maker pimps their design, but I get annoyed when they play loose with the science to make out that their's was the best possible design, and when it doesn't work well with other pedals it's because the other pedals are somehow lesser quality designs. Every design is a compromise. There's nothing wrong with admitting that. There's far too much hype coming from both sides. The truth lies somewhere in between.

[m_Calavera]

[Zachman]

 

They should just explain why they made the decisions they made, and how to cope with problems that might crop up as a result. Anything else comes across like preaching from your dad when he says "This is for your own good, Johnny. Now bend over and take it like a man!". I don't mind when a pedal maker pimps their design, but I get annoyed when they play loose with the science to make out that their's was the best possible design, and when it doesn't work well with other pedals it's because the other pedals are somehow lesser quality designs. Every design is a compromise. There's nothing wrong with admitting that. There's far too much hype coming from both sides. The truth lies somewhere in between.

 

 

The truth that the most flexibility and options comes from running ones gear through a switching system, for the reasons cited is hardly playing loose w/ science.

 

The fact that some choose not to run their gear through a switching system for a variety of reasons not withstanding... It isn't a requirement. It is however the solution providing the most comprehensive flexibility and options to the user.

[m_Calavera]

again with the

[Zachman]

again with the

 

:poke:

 

Sorry, a healthy discussion on varying concepts and points of view are clearly not appreciated by some, but... those peoples opinions on such things are unimportant

[attic]

Just listen to the pedals.

Like it? Buy it.

 

What about the combinations?

Well, try a pedal out with the pedals you already have.

Like it? Buy it.

[Zachman]

 

Just listen to the pedals. Like it? Buy it. What about the combinations? Well, try a pedal out with the pedals you already have. Like it? Buy it.

 

 

+1 re: using pedals with rack processors because when you find that pedals don't allow for certain functions, features, and/or just don't cut it by themselves...

 

in the end, everyone's gear requirements are different, & having choices, and available solutions is cool

[pbone]

+1 re: using pedals with rack processors because when you find that pedals don't allow for certain functions, features, and/or just don't cut it by themselves... in the end, everyone's gear requirements are different, & having choices, and available solutions is cool

 

 

Ah, the voice of reason.

[attic]

I love it when people state a moderate opinion.

[Zachman]

Ah, the voice of reason.

surely a troll will come by and take issue, if not I'd be surprised. Either way, the options are there for those truly seeking them.

[m_Calavera]

I just didn't see the need for you to break down his post bit by bit..

FWIW i agree with your last post, it's all about choice

[Zachman]

I love it when people state a moderate opinion.

I prefer it when people state facts and then share their experience on the pros and cons of available solutions, rather than spouting off, in an emotional manner, regarding gear and ways of running it, that they have no frame of reference to discuss, other than some blog citations from the internet.

[Zachman]

I just didn't see the need for you to break down his post bit by bit.. FWIW i agree with your last post, it's all about choice

 

I almost didn't bother, but there was so much misinformation there that I thought a fair and balanced response was in order, so that people looking at the information as a means of helping them to make a choice, would be able to make a well-informed choice.