Does anybody else have an interest in overly complex and possibly unnecessary signal routing. Because I love this stuff.
Specifically, I would like to split my signal into three parts.
Unaffected Clean Bass
Affected Dirty Bass
Octave Up Guitar Sounds
…and then recombine them before sending the combined signal to a looper pedal, and then to the amp.
I know there’s a few different ways to make this happen.
Is anybody else doing anything like this?
If so, how are you doing it?
Is this something the HX Stomp can do?
Also, is there any need for phase switches in a setup like this?
I know the MOD Dwarf can do more than one and with a frequency-dependent split, which probably makes more sense than just dividing the signal, treating the two signals, and recombining them. Using a frequency-dependent split, you can preserve the low end and let your dirt-producing pedals work on the higher frequencies.
I guess you can get similar results by putting a low-cut/hi-cut (respectively) on each of the split signals in a standard splitter.
It can split your original signal in 3 (send), and then recombine them (return).
it depends on what you have on each signal. some effect pedals will invert the phase so, yeah, phase switches could be useful to be sure that your 3 signals are in phase at the end.
I have no idea what you are talking about, but wouldn’t it be a good idea, to just “simulate” a configuration with software (BIAS FX, TH-U, Ampltitube etc.) and then replicate that in hardware?
seeing as how this just seems at this point to be a fun experiment and you have no idea how it will turn out, if it were me i would be looking hard at the $29 behringer. let us know what happens.
I do it with the Boss GT-1000CORE.
It can split 3 ways and it has two effect loops for adding additional pedals. The effect loops can be added anywhere in the chain, so they can be used in the splits in parallel or serial.
Together, these would cost $239. For me, not a cheap solution. Nor as versatile as some of the other solutions brought up.
@terb The EHX Tri Parallel Mixer fits the bill and comes in at a better price but some of the bad reports I’ve read makes me hesitant. Jesse, here on the forum, uses one and has said it works well.
That Harley Benton StompControl looks interesting. I need to do more research on it. The manual is a bit thin. I’m waiting on an answer from Thomann about whether it can be programmed for parallel routing.
I need to get lucky like @Paul and find a Mastermind PBC/6X for incredibly cheap.
Software solutions are a definite option. Specifically, in the sense of being able to record each of the three tracks individually. That gets into whether I, finally, get around to forcing myself to learn Reaper. That would be the most cost effective solution. I don’t look forward to that, as my previous experience with Reaper was like pulling teeth.
I use Presonus Studio One, which is similar to Reaper. That really is not complicated for basic stuff.
What is complicated - at least fo me - is the overabundance of effects, what they do exactly, what the settings mean, in which order they need to be used and worst: how to use them in parallel!
Maybe effects is the wrong word. Pedals, amps, all that.
I mostly play clean.
But then I am fascinated by all the toys TH-U, Amplitube and BIAS FX provide. Mostly I just browse through all the presets and enjoy the rock’n roll coming out of my speakers, without understanding what it does.
For you it might sound strange, but for for somebody like me those “thingies” are mysterious miracles.
And I need to understand those gimmicks for the final mix of my cover, right?
No, it’s not strange. Maybe it’s just not something you should bother with, for now Just put one amp sim, choose the one that sounds best to your ears, and that’s enough. You can grow an interest in effects when you’ll need one
Not at all. An amp sim is enough to release a pretty decent cover. I use absolutly no effect for a lot of my covers (except compressors but that’s more a production thing than a musician thing ; not sure it can be considered as an effect really, as it changes the dynamics more than the sound ; and it’s even not mandatory to release a decent cover)
Yeah - I feel that I have about 1000 compressors. @howard convinced me that I need that for post production (and I do!), and now I am looking for a) the right one to use and b) the right settings.
A compressor just compresses, right? Why all those choices? And should it not have only one setting: compression ratio?
…and it’s one of the two most famous compressors of all time
No. A compressor reduces the dynamic range of the sound. The aural effect of this is to make the body of the sound louder compared to the peaks. With a compressor, you’re really doing two things - limiting or reducing transient peaks, and increasing the overall loudness and tonal body of the sound. Note that loudness in this sense has less to do with level/volume and is more closely related to saturation.
A good compressor has at minimum two knobs IMO, and I really like to have four; for me the optimal set of controls is: Ratio, Threshold, Attack, and Makeup Gain. A fifth I like to see is Release but Attack is much more important IMO.
