weird problems with effects chain

[Grant]

I recently purchased a bunch of used effects on e-bay and installed them
on a home-built pedal board. The effects (in reverse order, because I
started typing before thinking) are:

Amp
|
Boss RV-3 Reverb/Delay
Dod Ice Box Chorus
Boss GE-? EQ
Proco Turbo Rat
Fulltone FD2
Boss CS-3 compressor
Budda Wah
|
Guitar

All of the effects are powered by a single daisychain power supply
(forgot the brand, but it's some fancy solid-state thing, and it's
supposed to be able to put out something like 1.5 amps of regulated 9V,
or more than enough for all of the above pedals).

Now for the weirdness, which comes in several flavors:

1) I found that if I unplug the signal jack from the output of the
compressor (i.e., the cable that runs to the input of the FD2), then ALL
of the pedals shut down, as if they weren't getting power. Plugging the
cable back in restarts all the pedals. What the ....???

2) Somewhere in the chain (I haven't succeeded in isolating it yet),
there frequently arises a pulsing sound (freq. around 3-4 per second)
which sometimes resembles an ultrashort piece of sampled guitar sound
being replayed repeatedly at low volume, almost like from a boomerang.
It comes up at random times after I've been playing for a while and then
persists indefinitely, unless I power off all the pedals and then
restart them again. Fortunately, it's only audible when I'm not
playing. Switching pedals on and off with the foot switches makes no
difference. At first I thought the RV-3 was doing this (after all, it's
a delay), but I found that the pulsing sound gets louder when I engage
the FD2, suggesting it's originating early in the chain (but it's not
the wah, which I had for a long time before all the other pedals).
Again, unplugging the output jack from the CS-3 has the effect of
shutting off power to *all* pedals -- when I plug it back in, the
pulsing has usually gone away, for a short time at least. Could a
compressor that's malfunctioning theoretically produce a pulsing sampled
sound? I wouldn't have thought that there's any digital sampling going
on in a compressor, but I could be wrong...

3) Now for the worst part: At my last gig, I suddenly started losing
signal intermittently -- my guitar volume would fade drastically and
then return after anywhere from a few seconds to a minute or more.
There was no crackling or abrupt in/out syndrome like you'd expect from
a bad connection -- it was more of a deep sagging effect that came and
went for no apparent reason. Switching pedals off didn't make any
difference. Switched cables to no avail, so ended up going straight into
the amp, whereupon the problem went away, suggesting it was indeed
something in the pedal board. Unfortunately, it's so intermittent that
I haven't succeeded in systematically tracking it down, and I'm afraid
to use my pedal board in a gig again until I do.

(On the bright side, I discovered that going straight into my new Gibson
Goldtone GA-15RV sounded pretty damned good for the most part, even on
songs that I thought absolutely required chorus, delay, etc.)


Comments, insights, etc., welcome.

- Grant

[kwahoho]

i'm not 100% sure about this, but i think most pedals need some kind of an
input to stay "on". for ex., if u take the RV-3 pedal by itself, power it up
and stomp on it to turn it on, it never will. it'll turn on only if u
connect ur guitar to it. the reason is to save battery power, so that the
pedal doesnt turn on by accident and drain the whole battery. so, for ex if
u disconnect the output of the FD2, u should all the pedals after that go
off...

"Grant" <gpetty@aos.wisc.edu> wrote in message
news:bgm4n0$dbq$1@news.doit.wisc.edu...
>
> I recently purchased a bunch of used effects on e-bay and installed them
> on a home-built pedal board. The effects (in reverse order, because I
> started typing before thinking) are:
>
> Amp
> |
> Boss RV-3 Reverb/Delay
> Dod Ice Box Chorus
> Boss GE-? EQ
> Proco Turbo Rat
> Fulltone FD2
> Boss CS-3 compressor
> Budda Wah
> |
> Guitar
>
> All of the effects are powered by a single daisychain power supply
> (forgot the brand, but it's some fancy solid-state thing, and it's
> supposed to be able to put out something like 1.5 amps of regulated 9V,
> or more than enough for all of the above pedals).
>
> Now for the weirdness, which comes in several flavors:
>
> 1) I found that if I unplug the signal jack from the output of the
> compressor (i.e., the cable that runs to the input of the FD2), then ALL
> of the pedals shut down, as if they weren't getting power. Plugging the
> cable back in restarts all the pedals. What the ....???
>
> 2) Somewhere in the chain (I haven't succeeded in isolating it yet),
> there frequently arises a pulsing sound (freq. around 3-4 per second)
> which sometimes resembles an ultrashort piece of sampled guitar sound
> being replayed repeatedly at low volume, almost like from a boomerang.
> It comes up at random times after I've been playing for a while and then
> persists indefinitely, unless I power off all the pedals and then
> restart them again. Fortunately, it's only audible when I'm not
> playing. Switching pedals on and off with the foot switches makes no
> difference. At first I thought the RV-3 was doing this (after all, it's
> a delay), but I found that the pulsing sound gets louder when I engage
> the FD2, suggesting it's originating early in the chain (but it's not
> the wah, which I had for a long time before all the other pedals).
> Again, unplugging the output jack from the CS-3 has the effect of
> shutting off power to *all* pedals -- when I plug it back in, the
> pulsing has usually gone away, for a short time at least. Could a
> compressor that's malfunctioning theoretically produce a pulsing sampled
> sound? I wouldn't have thought that there's any digital sampling going
> on in a compressor, but I could be wrong...
>
> 3) Now for the worst part: At my last gig, I suddenly started losing
> signal intermittently -- my guitar volume would fade drastically and
> then return after anywhere from a few seconds to a minute or more.
> There was no crackling or abrupt in/out syndrome like you'd expect from
> a bad connection -- it was more of a deep sagging effect that came and
> went for no apparent reason. Switching pedals off didn't make any
> difference. Switched cables to no avail, so ended up going straight into
> the amp, whereupon the problem went away, suggesting it was indeed
> something in the pedal board. Unfortunately, it's so intermittent that
> I haven't succeeded in systematically tracking it down, and I'm afraid
> to use my pedal board in a gig again until I do.
>
> (On the bright side, I discovered that going straight into my new Gibson
> Goldtone GA-15RV sounded pretty damned good for the most part, even on
> songs that I thought absolutely required chorus, delay, etc.)
>
>
> Comments, insights, etc., welcome.
>
> - Grant
>
>

[Boyd Williamson]

> From: Grant <gpetty@aos.wisc.edu>
> Subject: weird problems with effects chain
>
>
> I recently purchased a bunch of used effects on e-bay and installed them
> on a home-built pedal board. The effects (in reverse order, because I
> started typing before thinking) are:
>
> Amp
> |
> Boss RV-3 Reverb/Delay
> Dod Ice Box Chorus
> Boss GE-? EQ
> Proco Turbo Rat
> Fulltone FD2
> Boss CS-3 compressor
> Budda Wah
> |
> Guitar
>
> All of the effects are powered by a single daisychain power supply
> (forgot the brand, but it's some fancy solid-state thing, and it's
> supposed to be able to put out something like 1.5 amps of regulated 9V,
> or more than enough for all of the above pedals).
>
> Now for the weirdness, which comes in several flavors:
>
> 1) I found that if I unplug the signal jack from the output of the
> compressor (i.e., the cable that runs to the input of the FD2), then ALL
> of the pedals shut down, as if they weren't getting power. Plugging the
> cable back in restarts all the pedals. What the ....???
>
> 2) Somewhere in the chain (I haven't succeeded in isolating it yet),
> there frequently arises a pulsing sound (freq. around 3-4 per second)
> which sometimes resembles an ultrashort piece of sampled guitar sound
> being replayed repeatedly at low volume, almost like from a boomerang.
> It comes up at random times after I've been playing for a while and then
> persists indefinitely, unless I power off all the pedals and then
> restart them again. Fortunately, it's only audible when I'm not
> playing. Switching pedals on and off with the foot switches makes no
> difference. At first I thought the RV-3 was doing this (after all, it's
> a delay), but I found that the pulsing sound gets louder when I engage
> the FD2, suggesting it's originating early in the chain (but it's not
> the wah, which I had for a long time before all the other pedals).
> Again, unplugging the output jack from the CS-3 has the effect of
> shutting off power to *all* pedals -- when I plug it back in, the
> pulsing has usually gone away, for a short time at least. Could a
> compressor that's malfunctioning theoretically produce a pulsing sampled
> sound? I wouldn't have thought that there's any digital sampling going
> on in a compressor, but I could be wrong...
>
> 3) Now for the worst part: At my last gig, I suddenly started losing
> signal intermittently -- my guitar volume would fade drastically and
> then return after anywhere from a few seconds to a minute or more.
> There was no crackling or abrupt in/out syndrome like you'd expect from
> a bad connection -- it was more of a deep sagging effect that came and
> went for no apparent reason. Switching pedals off didn't make any
> difference. Switched cables to no avail, so ended up going straight into
> the amp, whereupon the problem went away, suggesting it was indeed
> something in the pedal board. Unfortunately, it's so intermittent that
> I haven't succeeded in systematically tracking it down, and I'm afraid
> to use my pedal board in a gig again until I do.
>
> Comments, insights, etc., welcome.
>

Gee, Grant, that's an awful lot of boxes in a chain. I would guess that:

1) keeping the signal level where it's supposed to be through all that would
be trickier than it might seem; and

2) your clean, unmodified tone with all of them switched off has gotta be
mud.

Each of these devices is going to cut the quality and gain of the original
signal at least a bit, because of all the circuitry involved, kinda like
using a 50 ft. guitar cable. They each make up for it by adding a preamp
section to restore gain, but some of the original signal quality has still
been sucked away. If you're only using one or two effects, this problem
isn't too significant.

But multiply this phenomena by the number of boxes you have in the chain,
and you're likely to have a damn pretty garbled signal at the end. If there
were no electronics inside any of the boxes, i.e., if there was simply two
inches of cable inside, between the jacks, you'd still notice significant
signal degradation, simply from all the connections.

The farther this garbled signal goes down the chain, the worse it gets, and
this is all each device has to work with, to begin with.

You should be able to use two or three effects in a row without too much
trouble, but putting together everything you have here really requires a
knowledgable and experienced tech to get everything going without weird
stuff cropping up. That's why the "big boys" have techs put their
pedalboards together for them, because it isn't as simple as just hooking
them all up together when you have that many.

The power supply is obviously a series connection, and the compressor's jack
has a tab that shuts the device off when nothing's plugged in, and thereby
breaks the series connection.

The 3-4 hz. pulsing is probably the chorus or the delay, because they're the
only ones that would have repeating cycles like that. It's even possible
that something is generating some radio frequencies that are being picked up
by something else. It's possible that weird signal stuff is leaking through
the common power supplied to everything. Try the whole thing powered only by
batteries, and see there's a difference.

If you have an effects loop on your amp, put the chorus and delay through
that. They'll sound better there, and get them out of the chain up front.

Start with the device you want the most, get to know it well, and add others
in one at a time.

If you really need to keep everything you have here, I would suggest getting
a few A/B or true bypass boxes, and divide your effects into sections or
combinations, so that when you're only using two or three at a time, the
signal bypasses the ones you're not using.

And don't forget that the truly good stuff on guitar happens with your
hands, not your feet!

> (On the bright side, I discovered that going straight into my new Gibson
> Goldtone GA-15RV sounded pretty damned good for the most part, even on
> songs that I thought absolutely required chorus, delay, etc.)

Amen, brother!

Zoid

z9design.com

[D.R]

> 2) Somewhere in the chain (I haven't succeeded in isolating it yet),
> there frequently arises a pulsing sound (freq. around 3-4 per second)
> which sometimes resembles an ultrashort piece of sampled guitar sound
> being replayed repeatedly at low volume, almost like from a boomerang.
> It comes up at random times after I've been playing for a while and then
> persists indefinitely, unless I power off all the pedals and then
> restart them again. Fortunately, it's only audible when I'm not
> playing. Switching pedals on and off with the foot switches makes no
> difference. At first I thought the RV-3 was doing this (after all, it's
> a delay), but I found that the pulsing sound gets louder when I engage
> the FD2, suggesting it's originating early in the chain (but it's not
> the wah, which I had for a long time before all the other pedals).
> Again, unplugging the output jack from the CS-3 has the effect of
> shutting off power to *all* pedals -- when I plug it back in, the
> pulsing has usually gone away, for a short time at least. Could a
> compressor that's malfunctioning theoretically produce a pulsing sampled
> sound? I wouldn't have thought that there's any digital sampling going
> on in a compressor, but I could be wrong...

1). Unsure that you use quality shielded cables between each.
2). If you amp has any overdrive/distortion, then you need the modulation
(eg: chorus, reverb, eq) effects in the effects loop and wah, compressor,
overdrive, etc before the amp.
3). Ensure everything is well grounded/earthed
4). Ensure you are away from any electrical device that will cause
interference
5). Divide and Conqueor the problem...Test each pedal separately and add
them one by one until you find the culprit.

D.R.

[TB]

Grant,

I tend to agree that at least one of your problems involves an issue with
the power somewhere, and I would certainly start by tackling that before you
move on because it just may take care of the weird pulsing sound you
describe. I don't think it's the sheer number of pedals -- I run through a
baker's dozen before the signal hits the amp without much loss of signal,
although most of my effects are true bypass.

I suggest a bit of troubleshooting:

First, pull one pedal at a time out of the effects chain and see if the
problem persists. This may involve more than one pedal, but you might get
lucky and find it's only one.

Second, try batteries in the pedal you've isolated (or in all of 'em if you
haven't) and see if the problem persists.

Something else too: I don't own a Fulldrive, but I can tell you that both
my Soulbender and my '70 pedal REALLY don't like coming after buffered
pedals, which I believe is the method used by Boss. (I know it's what
Ibanez does, 'cause I can't put my tubescreamers before the fuzzes or they
sound horrible.) So, it wouldn't surprise me if you pulled out the
compressor and everything was hunky dory....

I suspect problem number 1 isn't a problem at all.... I'm just guessing,
but I suspect the way the compressor is wired (unlike most effects) shuts it
off when there's no input even when it's drawing DC from an adaptor.
Depending on how the daisy chain is wired, I suspect that cutting power to
the compressor could also cut out everything else following it on the power
path (as opposed to the signal path). But, I may be talking out my
behind....

Good luck!
TB

"Grant" <gpetty@aos.wisc.edu> wrote in message
news:bgm4n0$dbq$1@news.doit.wisc.edu...
>
> I recently purchased a bunch of used effects on e-bay and installed them
> on a home-built pedal board. The effects (in reverse order, because I
> started typing before thinking) are:
>
> Amp
> |
> Boss RV-3 Reverb/Delay
> Dod Ice Box Chorus
> Boss GE-? EQ
> Proco Turbo Rat
> Fulltone FD2
> Boss CS-3 compressor
> Budda Wah
> |
> Guitar
>
> All of the effects are powered by a single daisychain power supply
> (forgot the brand, but it's some fancy solid-state thing, and it's
> supposed to be able to put out something like 1.5 amps of regulated 9V,
> or more than enough for all of the above pedals).
>
> Now for the weirdness, which comes in several flavors:
>
> 1) I found that if I unplug the signal jack from the output of the
> compressor (i.e., the cable that runs to the input of the FD2), then ALL
> of the pedals shut down, as if they weren't getting power. Plugging the
> cable back in restarts all the pedals. What the ....???
>
> 2) Somewhere in the chain (I haven't succeeded in isolating it yet),
> there frequently arises a pulsing sound (freq. around 3-4 per second)
> which sometimes resembles an ultrashort piece of sampled guitar sound
> being replayed repeatedly at low volume, almost like from a boomerang.
> It comes up at random times after I've been playing for a while and then
> persists indefinitely, unless I power off all the pedals and then
> restart them again. Fortunately, it's only audible when I'm not
> playing. Switching pedals on and off with the foot switches makes no
> difference. At first I thought the RV-3 was doing this (after all, it's
> a delay), but I found that the pulsing sound gets louder when I engage
> the FD2, suggesting it's originating early in the chain (but it's not
> the wah, which I had for a long time before all the other pedals).
> Again, unplugging the output jack from the CS-3 has the effect of
> shutting off power to *all* pedals -- when I plug it back in, the
> pulsing has usually gone away, for a short time at least. Could a
> compressor that's malfunctioning theoretically produce a pulsing sampled
> sound? I wouldn't have thought that there's any digital sampling going
> on in a compressor, but I could be wrong...
>
> 3) Now for the worst part: At my last gig, I suddenly started losing
> signal intermittently -- my guitar volume would fade drastically and
> then return after anywhere from a few seconds to a minute or more.
> There was no crackling or abrupt in/out syndrome like you'd expect from
> a bad connection -- it was more of a deep sagging effect that came and
> went for no apparent reason. Switching pedals off didn't make any
> difference. Switched cables to no avail, so ended up going straight into
> the amp, whereupon the problem went away, suggesting it was indeed
> something in the pedal board. Unfortunately, it's so intermittent that
> I haven't succeeded in systematically tracking it down, and I'm afraid
> to use my pedal board in a gig again until I do.
>
> (On the bright side, I discovered that going straight into my new Gibson
> Goldtone GA-15RV sounded pretty damned good for the most part, even on
> songs that I thought absolutely required chorus, delay, etc.)
>
>
> Comments, insights, etc., welcome.
>
> - Grant
>
>

[tempus fugit]

Let me try to clarify some of the misinformation that's been posted here so
far (I'm not trying to start a flame war, but this is exactly the type of
place where this type of not-exactly-quite-correct info shows up, then gets
repeated, and pretty soon no one can tell the difference between the rumour
and the truth):

1st post: so, for ex if
u disconnect the output of the FD2, u should all the pedals after that go
off...

untrue. Most pedals have the ground connection to the battery broken by the
input or output jack, which is a 3 connector type. That way, when you plug
the pedal in, it effectively swtiches it on as well, and vice versa, thus
saving battery life (he was right about that part). However, unplugging one
pedal will NOT kill the power on all the others (if I understand your post
right - you mean the pedals are dead, not just in bypass mode right?)

2nd post: Each of these devices is going to cut the quality and gain of the
original
signal at least a bit, because of all the circuitry involved, kinda like
using a 50 ft. guitar cable.

also untrue. Most effects use a buffered output stage, which provides a low
impedance output. You could probably run a 50ft cable of the output of that
stage and not notice a big (if any) difference). The reason you start to
lose treble and tone off of a long guitar cable is because your pickups are
high impedance, making the effect of a long cable more dramatic. The
impedance is the issue, not the signal level (although there will be some
degradation, of course, but it shouldn't be terribly noticeable). I know
I'll get flamed by the golden ears crowd for that one, but your killer tone
will NOT turn to total **** because you've got some stompboxes in there - in
most cases.

2nd post again: The power supply is obviously a series connection, and the
compressor's jack has a tab that shuts the device off when nothing's plugged
in, and thereby breaks the series connection.

Only a moron would design a power supply for pedals with a series
connection. Since it is unlikely that a moron would have the ability to
design any type of power supply, it is illogical to conclude that this one
has a series connection. Further, if indeed it were a series connection,
unplugging any of the pedals would kill the rest of them, and since you
mentioned the CS3 specifically, I assume that it is only this pedal which
causes the problem.

3rd post: 5). Divide and Conqueor the problem...Test each pedal separately
and add
them one by one until you find the culprit.

absolutely true. This can get confusing, as you try a bunch of different
stuff and forget what works and what didn't, but it's the only way to
accurately analyze the problem.

5th post: Depending on how the daisy chain is wired, I suspect that cutting
power to
the compressor could also cut out everything else following it on the power
path (as opposed to the signal path).

See answer to 2nd post again.

So how do we fix this mess? Post 5 had a lot of good advice, and I would
follow it (except for the Depending on how the daisy chain is wired, I
suspect... part). This reeks of a power supply problem - the wierd thing
with the CS3, the sampled sound interference etc. It's possible that your
power supply is ****. Are all your effects centre negative (the Boss ones
are, but I'm not sure about the others). Double check that before you plug
anything back in. There should be a little diagram on or near the DC power
jack that shows you the polarity.

I would try everything with batteries first (ouch! that'll be a small
fortune right there - maybe use a cheaper brand just for testing). Try each
effect individually with a battery and make sure that it funcions the way
it's supposed to. There could be an intermittent ground in one of the
pedals. If everything is good, add each effect one at a time until the
problem arises. One of the posters mentioned keeping batteries in all of his
effects for insurance. That's also a good idea (like keeping spare cables,
strings, tubes, fuses, etc.) It's possible that the DC pop from unplugging
the CS3 is being induced in the power supply line somehow and triggering
some sort of protection circuitry. At this point, it's kind of guesswork,
but keep us posted (sorry about the pun) and we'll see if we can nail down
the problem. Since all the effects are uses, it certainly is possible that
one of them is screwed, but I'm voting for the power supply at this point.

Let us know what you find out.


"Grant" <gpetty@aos.wisc.edu> wrote in message
news:bgm4n0$dbq$1@news.doit.wisc.edu...
>
> I recently purchased a bunch of used effects on e-bay and installed them
> on a home-built pedal board. The effects (in reverse order, because I
> started typing before thinking) are:
>
> Amp
> |
> Boss RV-3 Reverb/Delay
> Dod Ice Box Chorus
> Boss GE-? EQ
> Proco Turbo Rat
> Fulltone FD2
> Boss CS-3 compressor
> Budda Wah
> |
> Guitar
>
> All of the effects are powered by a single daisychain power supply
> (forgot the brand, but it's some fancy solid-state thing, and it's
> supposed to be able to put out something like 1.5 amps of regulated 9V,
> or more than enough for all of the above pedals).
>
> Now for the weirdness, which comes in several flavors:
>
> 1) I found that if I unplug the signal jack from the output of the
> compressor (i.e., the cable that runs to the input of the FD2), then ALL
> of the pedals shut down, as if they weren't getting power. Plugging the
> cable back in restarts all the pedals. What the ....???
>
> 2) Somewhere in the chain (I haven't succeeded in isolating it yet),
> there frequently arises a pulsing sound (freq. around 3-4 per second)
> which sometimes resembles an ultrashort piece of sampled guitar sound
> being replayed repeatedly at low volume, almost like from a boomerang.
> It comes up at random times after I've been playing for a while and then
> persists indefinitely, unless I power off all the pedals and then
> restart them again. Fortunately, it's only audible when I'm not
> playing. Switching pedals on and off with the foot switches makes no
> difference. At first I thought the RV-3 was doing this (after all, it's
> a delay), but I found that the pulsing sound gets louder when I engage
> the FD2, suggesting it's originating early in the chain (but it's not
> the wah, which I had for a long time before all the other pedals).
> Again, unplugging the output jack from the CS-3 has the effect of
> shutting off power to *all* pedals -- when I plug it back in, the
> pulsing has usually gone away, for a short time at least. Could a
> compressor that's malfunctioning theoretically produce a pulsing sampled
> sound? I wouldn't have thought that there's any digital sampling going
> on in a compressor, but I could be wrong...
>
> 3) Now for the worst part: At my last gig, I suddenly started losing
> signal intermittently -- my guitar volume would fade drastically and
> then return after anywhere from a few seconds to a minute or more.
> There was no crackling or abrupt in/out syndrome like you'd expect from
> a bad connection -- it was more of a deep sagging effect that came and
> went for no apparent reason. Switching pedals off didn't make any
> difference. Switched cables to no avail, so ended up going straight into
> the amp, whereupon the problem went away, suggesting it was indeed
> something in the pedal board. Unfortunately, it's so intermittent that
> I haven't succeeded in systematically tracking it down, and I'm afraid
> to use my pedal board in a gig again until I do.
>
> (On the bright side, I discovered that going straight into my new Gibson
> Goldtone GA-15RV sounded pretty damned good for the most part, even on
> songs that I thought absolutely required chorus, delay, etc.)
>
>
> Comments, insights, etc., welcome.
>
> - Grant
>
>

[TB]

In my own defense (I guess), I would point out that I ADMITTED I was talking
out of my ass on the "Depending on how the daisy chain is wired" bit.....
:-P

TB

"tempus fugit" <toccata.no.spam@ciaccess.com> wrote in message
news:ZsEXa.4348$1T5.2136@nntp-post.primus.ca...
> Let me try to clarify some of the misinformation that's been posted here
so
> far (I'm not trying to start a flame war, but this is exactly the type of
> place where this type of not-exactly-quite-correct info shows up, then
gets
> repeated, and pretty soon no one can tell the difference between the
rumour
> and the truth):
>
> 1st post: so, for ex if
> u disconnect the output of the FD2, u should all the pedals after that go
> off...
>
> untrue. Most pedals have the ground connection to the battery broken by
the
> input or output jack, which is a 3 connector type. That way, when you plug
> the pedal in, it effectively swtiches it on as well, and vice versa, thus
> saving battery life (he was right about that part). However, unplugging
one
> pedal will NOT kill the power on all the others (if I understand your post
> right - you mean the pedals are dead, not just in bypass mode right?)
>
> 2nd post: Each of these devices is going to cut the quality and gain of
the
> original
> signal at least a bit, because of all the circuitry involved, kinda like
> using a 50 ft. guitar cable.
>
> also untrue. Most effects use a buffered output stage, which provides a
low
> impedance output. You could probably run a 50ft cable of the output of
that
> stage and not notice a big (if any) difference). The reason you start to
> lose treble and tone off of a long guitar cable is because your pickups
are
> high impedance, making the effect of a long cable more dramatic. The
> impedance is the issue, not the signal level (although there will be some
> degradation, of course, but it shouldn't be terribly noticeable). I know
> I'll get flamed by the golden ears crowd for that one, but your killer
tone
> will NOT turn to total **** because you've got some stompboxes in there -
in
> most cases.
>
> 2nd post again: The power supply is obviously a series connection, and the
> compressor's jack has a tab that shuts the device off when nothing's
plugged
> in, and thereby breaks the series connection.
>
> Only a moron would design a power supply for pedals with a series
> connection. Since it is unlikely that a moron would have the ability to
> design any type of power supply, it is illogical to conclude that this one
> has a series connection. Further, if indeed it were a series connection,
> unplugging any of the pedals would kill the rest of them, and since you
> mentioned the CS3 specifically, I assume that it is only this pedal which
> causes the problem.
>
> 3rd post: 5). Divide and Conqueor the problem...Test each pedal separately
> and add
> them one by one until you find the culprit.
>
> absolutely true. This can get confusing, as you try a bunch of different
> stuff and forget what works and what didn't, but it's the only way to
> accurately analyze the problem.
>
> 5th post: Depending on how the daisy chain is wired, I suspect that
cutting
> power to
> the compressor could also cut out everything else following it on the
power
> path (as opposed to the signal path).
>
> See answer to 2nd post again.
>
> So how do we fix this mess? Post 5 had a lot of good advice, and I would
> follow it (except for the Depending on how the daisy chain is wired, I
> suspect... part). This reeks of a power supply problem - the wierd thing
> with the CS3, the sampled sound interference etc. It's possible that your
> power supply is ****. Are all your effects centre negative (the Boss ones
> are, but I'm not sure about the others). Double check that before you plug
> anything back in. There should be a little diagram on or near the DC power
> jack that shows you the polarity.
>
> I would try everything with batteries first (ouch! that'll be a small
> fortune right there - maybe use a cheaper brand just for testing). Try
each
> effect individually with a battery and make sure that it funcions the way
> it's supposed to. There could be an intermittent ground in one of the
> pedals. If everything is good, add each effect one at a time until the
> problem arises. One of the posters mentioned keeping batteries in all of
his
> effects for insurance. That's also a good idea (like keeping spare cables,
> strings, tubes, fuses, etc.) It's possible that the DC pop from unplugging
> the CS3 is being induced in the power supply line somehow and triggering
> some sort of protection circuitry. At this point, it's kind of guesswork,
> but keep us posted (sorry about the pun) and we'll see if we can nail down
> the problem. Since all the effects are uses, it certainly is possible that
> one of them is screwed, but I'm voting for the power supply at this point.
>
> Let us know what you find out.
>
>
> "Grant" <gpetty@aos.wisc.edu> wrote in message
> news:bgm4n0$dbq$1@news.doit.wisc.edu...
> >
> > I recently purchased a bunch of used effects on e-bay and installed them
> > on a home-built pedal board. The effects (in reverse order, because I
> > started typing before thinking) are:
> >
> > Amp
> > |
> > Boss RV-3 Reverb/Delay
> > Dod Ice Box Chorus
> > Boss GE-? EQ
> > Proco Turbo Rat
> > Fulltone FD2
> > Boss CS-3 compressor
> > Budda Wah
> > |
> > Guitar
> >
> > All of the effects are powered by a single daisychain power supply
> > (forgot the brand, but it's some fancy solid-state thing, and it's
> > supposed to be able to put out something like 1.5 amps of regulated 9V,
> > or more than enough for all of the above pedals).
> >
> > Now for the weirdness, which comes in several flavors:
> >
> > 1) I found that if I unplug the signal jack from the output of the
> > compressor (i.e., the cable that runs to the input of the FD2), then ALL
> > of the pedals shut down, as if they weren't getting power. Plugging the
> > cable back in restarts all the pedals. What the ....???
> >
> > 2) Somewhere in the chain (I haven't succeeded in isolating it yet),
> > there frequently arises a pulsing sound (freq. around 3-4 per second)
> > which sometimes resembles an ultrashort piece of sampled guitar sound
> > being replayed repeatedly at low volume, almost like from a boomerang.
> > It comes up at random times after I've been playing for a while and then
> > persists indefinitely, unless I power off all the pedals and then
> > restart them again. Fortunately, it's only audible when I'm not
> > playing. Switching pedals on and off with the foot switches makes no
> > difference. At first I thought the RV-3 was doing this (after all, it's
> > a delay), but I found that the pulsing sound gets louder when I engage
> > the FD2, suggesting it's originating early in the chain (but it's not
> > the wah, which I had for a long time before all the other pedals).
> > Again, unplugging the output jack from the CS-3 has the effect of
> > shutting off power to *all* pedals -- when I plug it back in, the
> > pulsing has usually gone away, for a short time at least. Could a
> > compressor that's malfunctioning theoretically produce a pulsing sampled
> > sound? I wouldn't have thought that there's any digital sampling going
> > on in a compressor, but I could be wrong...
> >
> > 3) Now for the worst part: At my last gig, I suddenly started losing
> > signal intermittently -- my guitar volume would fade drastically and
> > then return after anywhere from a few seconds to a minute or more.
> > There was no crackling or abrupt in/out syndrome like you'd expect from
> > a bad connection -- it was more of a deep sagging effect that came and
> > went for no apparent reason. Switching pedals off didn't make any
> > difference. Switched cables to no avail, so ended up going straight into
> > the amp, whereupon the problem went away, suggesting it was indeed
> > something in the pedal board. Unfortunately, it's so intermittent that
> > I haven't succeeded in systematically tracking it down, and I'm afraid
> > to use my pedal board in a gig again until I do.
> >
> > (On the bright side, I discovered that going straight into my new Gibson
> > Goldtone GA-15RV sounded pretty damned good for the most part, even on
> > songs that I thought absolutely required chorus, delay, etc.)
> >
> >
> > Comments, insights, etc., welcome.
> >
> > - Grant
> >
> >
>
>

[Guncho]

Modulation effects do not "have" to go through the effects loop. I
use my Boss DD3 delay and MXR Phase 90 in front of my amp, (which is
what I use for overdrive) and it sounds fine to me.

Chris
star.star
www.starstar.ca

[Sudsy]

On Tue, 05 Aug 2003 00:58:40 GMT, "TB" <tim956454@hotmail.com> wrote:

>I tend to agree that at least one of your problems involves an issue with
>the power somewhere, and I would certainly start by tackling that before you
>move on because it just may take care of the weird pulsing sound you
>describe. I don't think it's the sheer number of pedals -- I run through a
>baker's dozen before the signal hits the amp without much loss of signal,
>although most of my effects are true bypass.

A little OT . . but a suggestion most probably know. I use a LPB-1 at
the front of my effects chain (well . . after the Wah and tuner ;-),
and it does wonders to boost the signal, give the amp a little more
"oomph" and helps project the guitar sound above the band better.
TTYTT . . .that was the best investment I made . . without the LPB-1,
the sound seems flat, but with the LPB, it makes the sounds come alive
just enough to make a difference . . .

Sudsy . . .

[Boyd Williamson]

> From: "tempus fugit" <toccata.no.spam@ciaccess.com>
> Subject: Re: weird problems with effects chain
>
> Let me try to clarify some of the misinformation that's been posted here so
> far (I'm not trying to start a flame war, but this is exactly the type of
> place where this type of not-exactly-quite-correct info shows up, then gets
> repeated, and pretty soon no one can tell the difference between the rumour
> and the truth):

> 2nd post: Each of these devices is going to cut the quality and gain of the
> original
> signal at least a bit, because of all the circuitry involved, kinda like
> using a 50 ft. guitar cable.
>
> also untrue. Most effects use a buffered output stage, which provides a low
> impedance output. You could probably run a 50ft cable of the output of that
> stage and not notice a big (if any) difference). The reason you start to
> lose treble and tone off of a long guitar cable is because your pickups are
> high impedance, making the effect of a long cable more dramatic. The
> impedance is the issue, not the signal level (although there will be some
> degradation, of course, but it shouldn't be terribly noticeable). I know
> I'll get flamed by the golden ears crowd for that one, but your killer tone
> will NOT turn to total **** because you've got some stompboxes in there - in
> most cases.

One DOES lose signal quality with each box that is put between the guitar
and the amp. It usually isn't too objectionable a problem until there are
two or three in a series, but it doesn't take "golden ears" to hear it
happening. If one puts SEVEN in a row, yes, it's going to turn to "****."
Elementary.

I freely admit that I'm no expert on hooking seven up in a row, because I've
never done it. I could never get past two or three because the fundimental
sound was degrading so badly, becoming rubbery, indistinct, and losing
highs. I can only imagine what seven would be like.

> 2nd post again: The power supply is obviously a series connection, and the
> compressor's jack has a tab that shuts the device off when nothing's plugged
> in, and thereby breaks the series connection.
>
> Only a moron would design a power supply for pedals with a series
> connection. Since it is unlikely that a moron would have the ability to
> design any type of power supply, it is illogical to conclude that this one
> has a series connection.

This is not logic. It is simply someone wishing to call someone else a moron
(I hope they feel better now). If we hook seven things up in a row,
disconnect one, and they all shut down, does logic lead us to believe that
there's no series? That the power being supplied is parallel and independant
to each?

>Further, if indeed it were a series connection,
> unplugging any of the pedals would kill the rest of them, and since you
> mentioned the CS3 specifically, I assume that it is only this pedal which
> causes the problem.

"1) I found that if I unplug the signal jack from the output of the
compressor (i.e., the cable that runs to the input of the FD2), then ALL
of the pedals shut down, as if they weren't getting power."

What part of that didn't get communicated properly?
>
> 3rd post: 5). Divide and Conqueor the problem...Test each pedal separately
> and add
> them one by one until you find the culprit.

> absolutely true. This can get confusing, as you try a bunch of different
> stuff and forget what works and what didn't, but it's the only way to
> accurately analyze the problem.

I believe I said something to that effect...

"Start with the device you want the most, get to know it well, and add
others in one at a time."
>
> 5th post: Depending on how the daisy chain is wired, I suspect that cutting
> power to the compressor could also cut out everything else following it on the
> power path (as opposed to the signal path).
>
> See answer to 2nd post again.

Calling someone a moron is so enlightening, we really do want to read it
again as a study in logic.

> So how do we fix this mess? Post 5 had a lot of good advice, and I would
> follow it (except for the Depending on how the daisy chain is wired, I
> suspect... part). This reeks of a power supply problem - the wierd thing
> with the CS3, the sampled sound interference etc. It's possible that your
> power supply is ****. Are all your effects centre negative (the Boss ones
> are, but I'm not sure about the others). Double check that before you plug
> anything back in. There should be a little diagram on or near the DC power
> jack that shows you the polarity.
>
> I would try everything with batteries first (ouch! that'll be a small
> fortune right there - maybe use a cheaper brand just for testing). Try each
> effect individually with a battery and make sure that it funcions the way
> it's supposed to.

"Try the whole thing powered only by batteries, and see there's a
difference."

Obviously a failure on my part to communicate effectively.

> There could be an intermittent ground in one of the
> pedals. If everything is good, add each effect one at a time until the
> problem arises.

"Start with the device you want the most, get to know it well, and add
others in one at a time."

Again, I am wondering why, when I say it, it's "rumor...
not-quite-correct... misinformation," but when someone else says it, it's
"the truth?"

Inferiority complexes are a defense mechanism that commonly manifest
themselves by not being able to feel good about one's self unless they are
belittleing someone else.

One may well have some insights to contribute here, but one doesn't have to
try to destroy other's contributions, in an attempt to leave theirs as the
only one standing, to be useful.

And if one might think that running through seven outboard effects before
going into the front of the amp isn't going to degrade the signal, they
obviously need a bit more experience with the problem, or more finely
trained powers of observation.

I would humbly suggest that some people lighten up. Contribute. Add to the
knowledge. That they don't post as an ego stroke. And not assume that
everyone who is also contributing here with what they they have learned is
going to lay down and die in shame when presented with the brilliant
presence of someone else's alleged expertise.

Zoid

z9design.com

[tempus fugit]

Thanks for the probe into my psyche.

>One may well have some insights to contribute here, but one doesn't have to
> try to destroy other's contributions, in an attempt to leave theirs as the
> only one standing, to be useful.

Not trying to destroy anything, but if something is posted that isn't true,
or at even that I simply disagree with, I can correct it, cant't I? I live
in a free country - maybe the laws are different where you live.

FWIW I have 5 effects in my chain with no audible signal degradation. You
could never get past 2 or 3? What are you using? I do agree with your
statement that there will be some degradation of the signal; this is almost
self evident. However, if no one can actually hear the degradation, it
becomes irrelevant.

My point is that it seems very unlikely that the OP's problems are the
result of the signal degradation that everyone is so terrified of. Others
have responded and said they are running even more pedals without any
noticeable degradation.

Also, the moron thing was not directed to you personally. Have you ever had
a string of those Xmas tree lights that are wired in series? You know the
kind that has none of them lit up if one of them is burned out? OK, so as
you're trying in vain to figure out which bulb is defective are you not
thinking "what kind of %$#$ moron designed this?" They don't make Xmas tree
lights like that anymore, for that very reason. Does it not seem highly
unlikely to you that somewhere someone decided that would be a good design
for a pedal power supply? Not to mention the disadvantages for isolation
that a series design has.


"Boyd Williamson" <zoid@z9design.com> wrote in message
news:BB54DE16.F6E3%zoid@z9design.com...
> > From: "tempus fugit" <toccata.no.spam@ciaccess.com>
> > Subject: Re: weird problems with effects chain
> >
> > Let me try to clarify some of the misinformation that's been posted here
so
> > far (I'm not trying to start a flame war, but this is exactly the type
of
> > place where this type of not-exactly-quite-correct info shows up, then
gets
> > repeated, and pretty soon no one can tell the difference between the
rumour
> > and the truth):
>
> > 2nd post: Each of these devices is going to cut the quality and gain of
the
> > original
> > signal at least a bit, because of all the circuitry involved, kinda like
> > using a 50 ft. guitar cable.
> >
> > also untrue. Most effects use a buffered output stage, which provides a
low
> > impedance output. You could probably run a 50ft cable of the output of
that
> > stage and not notice a big (if any) difference). The reason you start to
> > lose treble and tone off of a long guitar cable is because your pickups
are
> > high impedance, making the effect of a long cable more dramatic. The
> > impedance is the issue, not the signal level (although there will be
some
> > degradation, of course, but it shouldn't be terribly noticeable). I know
> > I'll get flamed by the golden ears crowd for that one, but your killer
tone
> > will NOT turn to total **** because you've got some stompboxes in
there - in
> > most cases.
>
> One DOES lose signal quality with each box that is put between the guitar
> and the amp. It usually isn't too objectionable a problem until there are
> two or three in a series, but it doesn't take "golden ears" to hear it
> happening. If one puts SEVEN in a row, yes, it's going to turn to "****."
> Elementary.
>
> I freely admit that I'm no expert on hooking seven up in a row, because
I've
> never done it. I could never get past two or three because the fundimental
> sound was degrading so badly, becoming rubbery, indistinct, and losing
> highs. I can only imagine what seven would be like.
>
> > 2nd post again: The power supply is obviously a series connection, and
the
> > compressor's jack has a tab that shuts the device off when nothing's
plugged
> > in, and thereby breaks the series connection.
> >
> > Only a moron would design a power supply for pedals with a series
> > connection. Since it is unlikely that a moron would have the ability to
> > design any type of power supply, it is illogical to conclude that this
one
> > has a series connection.
>
> This is not logic. It is simply someone wishing to call someone else a
moron
> (I hope they feel better now). If we hook seven things up in a row,
> disconnect one, and they all shut down, does logic lead us to believe that
> there's no series? That the power being supplied is parallel and
independant
> to each?
>
> >Further, if indeed it were a series connection,
> > unplugging any of the pedals would kill the rest of them, and since you
> > mentioned the CS3 specifically, I assume that it is only this pedal
which
> > causes the problem.
>
> "1) I found that if I unplug the signal jack from the output of the
> compressor (i.e., the cable that runs to the input of the FD2), then ALL
> of the pedals shut down, as if they weren't getting power."
>
> What part of that didn't get communicated properly?
> >
> > 3rd post: 5). Divide and Conqueor the problem...Test each pedal
separately
> > and add
> > them one by one until you find the culprit.
>
> > absolutely true. This can get confusing, as you try a bunch of different
> > stuff and forget what works and what didn't, but it's the only way to
> > accurately analyze the problem.
>
> I believe I said something to that effect...
>
> "Start with the device you want the most, get to know it well, and add
> others in one at a time."
> >
> > 5th post: Depending on how the daisy chain is wired, I suspect that
cutting
> > power to the compressor could also cut out everything else following it
on the
> > power path (as opposed to the signal path).
> >
> > See answer to 2nd post again.
>
> Calling someone a moron is so enlightening, we really do want to read it
> again as a study in logic.
>
> > So how do we fix this mess? Post 5 had a lot of good advice, and I would
> > follow it (except for the Depending on how the daisy chain is wired, I
> > suspect... part). This reeks of a power supply problem - the wierd thing
> > with the CS3, the sampled sound interference etc. It's possible that
your
> > power supply is ****. Are all your effects centre negative (the Boss
ones
> > are, but I'm not sure about the others). Double check that before you
plug
> > anything back in. There should be a little diagram on or near the DC
power
> > jack that shows you the polarity.
> >
> > I would try everything with batteries first (ouch! that'll be a small
> > fortune right there - maybe use a cheaper brand just for testing). Try
each
> > effect individually with a battery and make sure that it funcions the
way
> > it's supposed to.
>
> "Try the whole thing powered only by batteries, and see there's a
> difference."
>
> Obviously a failure on my part to communicate effectively.
>
> > There could be an intermittent ground in one of the
> > pedals. If everything is good, add each effect one at a time until the
> > problem arises.
>
> "Start with the device you want the most, get to know it well, and add
> others in one at a time."
>
> Again, I am wondering why, when I say it, it's "rumor...
> not-quite-correct... misinformation," but when someone else says it, it's
> "the truth?"
>
> Inferiority complexes are a defense mechanism that commonly manifest
> themselves by not being able to feel good about one's self unless they are
> belittleing someone else.
>
>

>
> And if one might think that running through seven outboard effects before
> going into the front of the amp isn't going to degrade the signal, they
> obviously need a bit more experience with the problem, or more finely
> trained powers of observation.
>
> I would humbly suggest that some people lighten up. Contribute. Add to the
> knowledge. That they don't post as an ego stroke. And not assume that
> everyone who is also contributing here with what they they have learned is
> going to lay down and die in shame when presented with the brilliant
> presence of someone else's alleged expertise.
>
> Zoid
>
> z9design.com
>

[Patrick Keenan]

"kwahoho" <kwala@noplace.net> wrote in message
news:3f2ec7ef$0$40217$39cecf19@news.twtelecom.net. ..
> i'm not 100% sure about this, but i think most pedals need some kind of an
> input to stay "on". for ex., if u take the RV-3 pedal by itself, power it
up
> and stomp on it to turn it on, it never will. it'll turn on only if u
> connect ur guitar to it. the reason is to save battery power, so that the
> pedal doesnt turn on by accident and drain the whole battery. so, for ex
if
> u disconnect the output of the FD2, u should all the pedals after that go
> off...

No, not quite. Most pedals use a switching jack for the input; this
connects the battery when a cord is physically inserted. It makes no
difference to the switch if the other end of the cable is connected (or even
if there IS another end or cable for that matter). If a plug is inserted,
the power is on.

So, you cannot just unplug the first item in the chain and expect the
batteries to stop draining. You must pop the cables out of all the input
jacks.

Some effects also use a switching jack on the 9v power input which will
disconnect the battery, allowing you to leave things plugged together all
the time.

HTH
-pk

<snip>

[Grant]

Boyd Williamson wrote:
>>From: Grant <gpetty@aos.wisc.edu>
>
> Gee, Grant, that's an awful lot of boxes in a chain. I would guess that:
>
> 1) keeping the signal level where it's supposed to be through all that would
> be trickier than it might seem; and

It's not. I put the amp volume where I want it with everything
disengaged. I engage each pedal one at a time and set the level for
that pedal so that the overall level doesn't change from when it's
turned off (unless I want it to).

>
> 2) your clean, unmodified tone with all of them switched off has gotta be
> mud.

Nope. I can't tell any tonal difference between having the pedals in
the chain or going straight into the amp.
>
> Each of these devices is going to cut the quality and gain of the original
> signal at least a bit, because of all the circuitry involved, kinda like
> using a 50 ft. guitar cable. They each make up for it by adding a preamp
> section to restore gain, but some of the original signal quality has still
> been sucked away. If you're only using one or two effects, this problem
> isn't too significant.

On guitargeek.com, I've found that a lot of well-known pro musicians use
a lot of effects in a chain --- see for example Jeff Trott, the
guitarist for Sheryl Crow. And others. If it works for them, it's good
enough for me.


> The farther this garbled signal goes down the chain, the worse it gets, and
> this is all each device has to work with, to begin with.
>

Even if this is true (and I know it is to a small, and probably barely
discernible degree), it certainly is unrelated to the problem I was
describing.


> The power supply is obviously a series connection, and the compressor's jack
> has a tab that shuts the device off when nothing's plugged in, and thereby
> breaks the series connection.

I don't think this could possibly be the case. It doesn't make sense
electrically, for one thing. About the only place I've ever seen a
bunch of independent devices powered in series is with christmas tree
lights. That's where you have something 30 bulbs, each requiring 4 volts
apiece, wired in series, so that you can supply the whole string with
120 V. But this arrangement depends on (a) having *exactly* the right
combination of devices so as to total up to the available supply volts,
and (b) not taking any device out of the circuit at any time. You could
never do this with a 9V power supply that is designed to operate
anywwhere from one to 20 pedals.

> The 3-4 hz. pulsing is probably the chorus or the delay, because they're the
> only ones that would have repeating cycles like that.

That's what I thought until I realized that kicking in the gain on the
FD2 made it get louder. This is *before* the chorus and delay stage, so
how could increasing the gain make a signal originating further down the
chain louder?


> It's even possible
> that something is generating some radio frequencies that are being picked up
> by something else.

Again, I thought of that. But why does it go away (temporarily) if I
shut off the power to all the pedals and then restart them? It's like
some memory internal to one of the pedals is getting cleared, until some
glitch comes along to restart the pulsing.

> It's possible that weird signal stuff is leaking through
> the common power supplied to everything. Try the whole thing powered only by
> batteries, and see there's a difference.

That *is* something I will try.


> If you have an effects loop on your amp, put the chorus and delay through
> that. They'll sound better there, and get them out of the chain up front.
>

My amp (a Gibson Goldtone GA-15RV) is very simple and doesn't have an
effects loop. But as I wrote elsewhere, I tend to run it clean and let
the pedals provide most of the distortion, when needed.

[Grant]

>> The power supply is obviously a series connection, and the
>> compressor's jack
>> has a tab that shuts the device off when nothing's plugged in, and
>> thereby
>> breaks the series connection.
>
>
> I don't think this could possibly be the case. It doesn't make sense
> electrically, for one thing. About the only place I've ever seen a
> bunch of independent devices powered in series is with christmas tree
> lights. That's where you have something 30 bulbs, each requiring 4 volts
> apiece, wired in series, so that you can supply the whole string with
> 120 V. But this arrangement depends on (a) having *exactly* the right
> combination of devices so as to total up to the available supply volts,
> and (b) not taking any device out of the circuit at any time. You could
> never do this with a 9V power supply that is designed to operate
> anywwhere from one to 20 pedals.
>

Oh, and another reason why a series power supply couldn't work is that
it would require each device in the chain to draw exactly the same
amount of current. You couldn't put a device that normally draws 10 mA
of current at 9V in series with one that draws 100 mA and expect it to work.

[Road Warrior]

"Grant" <gpetty@aos.wisc.edu> wrote in message
news:bgonao$1r4$1@news.doit.wisc.edu...

> That's what I thought until I realized that kicking in the gain on the
> FD2 made it get louder. This is *before* the chorus and delay stage, so
> how could increasing the gain make a signal originating further down the
> chain louder?

Easy...

You are still pushing the _input of the other pedals harder_ when you click
on the FDII. It's gonna' add some input even though you've done the unity
gain thing. You just added distortion to the equation... IOW, it may be the
same "volume" you had, but the distortion has been added to the output of
that pedal and is now affecting everything else after it...


--
Jeff
http://www.mp3.com/JeffLiberatore

[Grant]

Road Warrior wrote:
> "Grant" <gpetty@aos.wisc.edu> wrote in message
> news:bgonao$1r4$1@news.doit.wisc.edu...
>
>
>>That's what I thought until I realized that kicking in the gain on the
>>FD2 made it get louder. This is *before* the chorus and delay stage, so
>>how could increasing the gain make a signal originating further down the
>>chain louder?
>
>
> Easy...
>
> You are still pushing the _input of the other pedals harder_ when you click
> on the FDII. It's gonna' add some input even though you've done the unity
> gain thing. You just added distortion to the equation... IOW, it may be the
> same "volume" you had, but the distortion has been added to the output of
> that pedal and is now affecting everything else after it...
>


Sorry, I don't quite agree. When I'm adding gain to the FD2 in the
experiment described, I'm doing so without there being any (external)
input to that pedal. If there's no signal at its input, then there's
nothing to amplify or distort, so its output shouldn't change in a way
that affects anything further down the chain. Admittedly, boosting the
gain does add some noise to the what's going down the chain. But what
I'm hearing is not a pulsing with noise added; rather, I'm hearing that
the pulsing itself is getting noticeably louder when I engage the FD2.
This can *only* happen, in my opinion, if the FD2 is seeing the pulsing
at its *input*, which theoretically should not be possible if the
pulsing is originating with the chorus or delay.

Others in this thread have suggested that the power supply might be at
least partly to blame, and that's what I'm going to look at
carefully.next. The PS is supposedly rated to give way more more
current at 9V than I'm actually drawing, but who knows .. maybe it's
defective. And the only explanation I can think of (so far) for the
loss of power to all the pedals one one jack is pulled out is if that
somehow shorts the power supply, so that that the voltage on the whole
chain drops to zero.

BTW, one minor complication I've just discovered in testing the pedals
individually is that I have them permanently mounted (with screws) on a
wood pedal board, connected by right-angle jacks. There's not enough
space to plug the guitar cable (with straight-in jack) into the
intermediate pedals, so I won't be able to isolate pedals until I either
(a) unmount all the pedals from the board or (b) buy a guitar cable with
a right-angle jack on one end. Had I known I would have this problem,
I would have designed things differently!! Live and learn...


- Grant

[Boyd Williamson]

> From: "tempus fugit" <toccata.no.spam@ciaccess.com>
> Subject: Re: weird problems with effects chain
>
> FWIW I have 5 effects in my chain with no audible signal degradation. You
> could never get past 2 or 3? What are you using? I do agree with your
> statement that there will be some degradation of the signal; this is almost
> self evident. However, if no one can actually hear the degradation, it
> becomes irrelevant.
>
> My point is that it seems very unlikely that the OP's problems are the
> result of the signal degradation that everyone is so terrified of. Others
> have responded and said they are running even more pedals without any
> noticeable degradation.

Well, maybe my 2 cents worth here isn't worth picking up off the ground.
Where I'm coming from, is back when I was doing a lot of gigs fulltime, and
I was hypersensitive to anything that was different in my setup. I mean, I
could almost hear the difference in tone from using a different color duct
tape!

I was very sensitive to stomp boxes inserted, and most didn't cut the
mustard because they were just too noisy to begin with. I much preferred
running straight into the amp, cranking it, and working everything
dynamically from my fingers and off the controls on the guitar. When I did
use an effect, it tended to get written into stone, and if the box was not
there for some reason, I felt I was screwed, so I preferred to steer clear
of them generally.

This is very, very different from someone who plays more occaisionally and
can afford to experiment with a lot of boxes, so I'm probably not the best
person to comment. I'll drop out at his point and defer to those who are
more familiar with this particular regime.

Zoid

z9design.com

[Bill]

On Tue, 05 Aug 2003 04:07:51 -0500, Boyd Williamson
<zoid@z9design.com> wrote:

>One DOES lose signal quality with each box that is put between the guitar
>and the amp. It usually isn't too objectionable a problem until there are
>two or three in a series, but it doesn't take "golden ears" to hear it
>happening. If one puts SEVEN in a row, yes, it's going to turn to "****."
>Elementary.

Not necessarily. It very much depends on which seven pedals you're
talking about. Some degrade the signal, even when bypassed, more than
others. Some don't degrade the signal at all.

[Steve]

<<
"Grant" <gpetty@aos.wisc.edu> wrote in message
news:bgonao$1r4$1@news.doit.wisc.edu...

> That's what I thought until I realized that kicking in the gain on the
> FD2 made it get louder. This is *before* the chorus and delay stage, so
> how could increasing the gain make a signal originating further down the
> chain louder?

Easy...

You are still pushing the _input of the other pedals harder_ when you click
on the FDII. It's gonna' add some input even though you've done the unity
gain thing. You just added distortion to the equation... IOW, it may be the
same "volume" you had, but the distortion has been added to the output of
that pedal and is now affecting everything else after it...>>

Possible solution: the way I did it...

I set everything in the pedalboard to rhythm output level--including the FD2.
Then, last in the pedalboard, is a pedal for clean boost, making anything that
went before a LOT louder.

Side benefit: gives yo a lead volume boost on ANY sound in your pedalboard.


SEFSTRAT
solo webpage: http://members.aol.com/sefstrat/index.html/sefpage.html
band webpage: www.timebanditsrock.com

[Road Warrior]

"Grant" <gpetty@aos.wisc.edu> wrote in message
news:bgos36$4fq$1@news.doit.wisc.edu...
> Road Warrior wrote:

> >>That's what I thought until I realized that kicking in the gain on the
> >>FD2 made it get louder. This is *before* the chorus and delay stage, so
> >>how could increasing the gain make a signal originating further down the
> >>chain louder?

> > You are still pushing the _input of the other pedals harder_ when you
click
> > on the FDII. It's gonna' add some input even though you've done the
unity
> > gain thing. You just added distortion to the equation... IOW, it may be
the
> > same "volume" you had, but the distortion has been added to the output
of
> > that pedal and is now affecting everything else after it...

> Sorry, I don't quite agree.

You're allowed! ;-)

> When I'm adding gain to the FD2 in the
> experiment described, I'm doing so without there being any (external)
> input to that pedal.

Right...

> If there's no signal at its input, then there's
> nothing to amplify or distort, so its output shouldn't change in a way
> that affects anything further down the chain.

Yes, it will... If you turn the pedal "out of bypass mode" (which is "on"),
you are adding output to all the pedals after it... Maybe I'm missing
something Grant, but I've been where you many times in the past. I've been
doing pedals at gigs for 25 years...

> Admittedly, boosting the
> gain does add some noise to the what's going down the chain.

OK... I'm reading... We agree on that part, I guess...

> But what
> I'm hearing is not a pulsing with noise added; rather, I'm hearing that
> the pulsing itself is getting noticeably louder when I engage the FD2.

Dude... I think the FDII is adding gain/distortion/*volume* to the signal
path... Still... I don't know what's causing the initial problem, but I bet
it's the power supply. I've had similar problems. I ended up dumping the
daisy chain... Too many pedals that didn't work together well with the power
supply I had... Now I just run a power strip (on my pedal board) and
adapters to it. No more problem...

> This can *only* happen, in my opinion, if the FD2 is seeing the pulsing
> at its *input*, which theoretically should not be possible if the
> pulsing is originating with the chorus or delay.

OK... I disagree... But that's cool. Maybe I'm not getting it... But, ANY
pedal, especially one beFORE another will affect the one further down the
line. See, if the FDII is "off" you don't notice it as much. The second you
turn it on, you do... But really, I don't think this is the crux of the
problem. I only see it as adding to something that's already there....

> Others in this thread have suggested that the power supply might be at
> least partly to blame, and that's what I'm going to look at
> carefully.next.

Definitely...!

> The PS is supposedly rated to give way more more
> current at 9V than I'm actually drawing, but who knows .. maybe it's
> defective.

From experience, I can tell you that some pedals just don't work well
together in a daisy chain. Polarity differences, impedence issues, etc...
That's what I found out when I did this several years ago... It was a pisser
for about a week, them I got smart.

> BTW, one minor complication I've just discovered in testing the pedals
> individually is that I have them permanently mounted (with screws) on a
> wood pedal board, connected by right-angle jacks. There's not enough
> space to plug the guitar cable (with straight-in jack) into the
> intermediate pedals, so I won't be able to isolate pedals until I either
> (a) unmount all the pedals from the board or (b) buy a guitar cable with
> a right-angle jack on one end. Had I known I would have this problem,
> I would have designed things differently!! Live and learn...

Well, the only OTHER thing you could do, is get power supplies for all the
pedals and plug them into a power strip. Anyway, that's where I am now.
Yeah, it costs a lot more, but it works for me. If I had the problem you're
having, I'd be freaking out too... You'll get it right, but definitely check
out that power source.

Good luck Grant! :-)

Jeff

[john v verkuilen]

cgunter@hotmail.com (Guncho) writes:

>Modulation effects do not "have" to go through the effects loop. I
>use my Boss DD3 delay and MXR Phase 90 in front of my amp, (which is
>what I use for overdrive) and it sounds fine to me.

Nothing "has" to go anywhere. :)

But modulation in the loop *often* sounds better. Naturally a crappy loop
circuit or crappy boxes will not help.

Jay
--
J. Verkuilen jayv@uiuc.edu
"You spend too much time reading, Spenser. You know more stuff that don't
make you money than anyone I know." --Lennie Seltzer (Robert B. Parker)

[tempus fugit]

>
> BTW, one minor complication I've just discovered in testing the pedals
> individually is that I have them permanently mounted (with screws) on a
> wood pedal board, connected by right-angle jacks. There's not enough
> space to plug the guitar cable (with straight-in jack) into the
> intermediate pedals, so I won't be able to isolate pedals until I either
> (a) unmount all the pedals from the board or (b) buy a guitar cable with
> a right-angle jack on one end. Had I known I would have this problem,
> I would have designed things differently!! Live and learn...


Ouch. I know, I hate that too, when you've got everything done and a
problem crops up. I always try to leave as much of the hardwiring as
possible till the end. Do you know how to test the PS? I know I had a
problem with a swirly kind of sound that seemed to be coming from my chorus
a while back. COuldn't ever pin it down, but the switch went, and after I
replaced that, it went away. Maybe there's some bad connection in one of the
pedals somewhere. Maybe it's just the CS3 with a loose or bad connection
somewhere that's causing all this.

Anyway, let us know what you find out.

Good Luck

[Kerry Maxwell]

"Boyd Williamson" <zoid@z9design.com> wrote in message
news:BB557786.F780%zoid@z9design.com...
> > From: "tempus fugit" <toccata.no.spam@ciaccess.com>
> > Subject: Re: weird problems with effects chain
> >
> > FWIW I have 5 effects in my chain with no audible signal
degradation. You
> > could never get past 2 or 3? What are you using? I do agree with
your
> > statement that there will be some degradation of the signal; this is
almost
> > self evident. However, if no one can actually hear the degradation,
it
> > becomes irrelevant.
> >
> > My point is that it seems very unlikely that the OP's problems are
the
> > result of the signal degradation that everyone is so terrified of.
Others
> > have responded and said they are running even more pedals without
any
> > noticeable degradation.
>
> Well, maybe my 2 cents worth here isn't worth picking up off the
ground.
> Where I'm coming from, is back when I was doing a lot of gigs
fulltime, and
> I was hypersensitive to anything that was different in my setup. I
mean, I
> could almost hear the difference in tone from using a different color
duct
> tape!
>
> I was very sensitive to stomp boxes inserted, and most didn't cut the
> mustard because they were just too noisy to begin with. I much
preferred
> running straight into the amp, cranking it, and working everything
> dynamically from my fingers and off the controls on the guitar. When I
did
> use an effect, it tended to get written into stone, and if the box was
not
> there for some reason, I felt I was screwed, so I preferred to steer
clear
> of them generally.
>
> This is very, very different from someone who plays more occaisionally
and
> can afford to experiment with a lot of boxes, so I'm probably not the
best
> person to comment. I'll drop out at his point and defer to those who
are
> more familiar with this particular regime.
>

Boyd- I think your original caveat about using a lot of pedals covers
this:

>That's why the "big boys" have techs put their
>pedalboards together for them, because it isn't as simple as just
hooking
>them all up together when you have that many.

Obviously chains of more than 5 effects are quite possible without *mud*
, as many a pro player has just such a rig, but as you mention it does
make things complicated, and it does help if you have someone else
dealing with it. Some amps respond better than others to having
stomboxes in front as well.

Kerry M

[Kerry Maxwell]

"john v verkuilen" <jayv@uiuc.edu> wrote in message
news:i3WXa.328$9m4.3910@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu...
> I'll make one quickie suggestion that doesn't really deal with your :
>
<snip>


>I too agree that connecting 7 pedals in a chain CAN be done, though the
> ears crowd won't stand for it. Keep yourself happy since most
> of your listeners won't have any clue anyway.
>

Also keep in mind the many *champagne* eared players who are/were known
to use quite a few effects ( Frank Zappa, Adrian Belew, Steve Vai,
Robert Fripp for starters- it's a very long list). I would say 7 or more
pedals in a chain is probably quite common among many top pro and *Big
Name* players. But as was mentioned earlier, these are all guys who can
pay someone else to make it work. If you are schlepping to bar gigs for
$100 bucks a night you may well be advised to simplify.

Kerry M

[Grant]

Steve wrote:

> Possible solution: the way I did it...
>
> I set everything in the pedalboard to rhythm output level--including the FD2.
> Then, last in the pedalboard, is a pedal for clean boost, making anything that
> went before a LOT louder.
>
> Side benefit: gives yo a lead volume boost on ANY sound in your pedalboard.

Actually, that's in large part what I use the EQ pedal for. I placed it
where I did in the chain so I could shape the tone of the distortion
pedals if I wanted to, but more commonly I just set it fairly flat
(though maybe with a little bass and treble boost) and set the overall
level a notch above neutral. So the EQ pedal ends up being effectively
a volume boost when I kick it on. I guess I could just as easily put it
at the very end of the chain, but I don't think that makes a huge
difference, as long as I'm not overdriving the chorus and reverb pedals
(not likely).

[Grant]

Kerry Maxwell wrote:
>
>>That's why the "big boys" have techs put their
>>pedalboards together for them, because it isn't as simple as just
>
> hooking
>
>>them all up together when you have that many.
>
>
> Obviously chains of more than 5 effects are quite possible without *mud*
> , as many a pro player has just such a rig, but as you mention it does
> make things complicated, and it does help if you have someone else
> dealing with it. Some amps respond better than others to having
> stomboxes in front as well.
>

Just wanted to reiterate that "mud" is not my problem with my setup.
When it's working properly (which is 95% of the time; it's that 5%
during a gig when it's not working that's driving me crazy) it sounds
fine to my ear, and I've learned that my ear is more critical of what I
hear than the ears of most of our audience. So hooking up seven pedals
must not be rocket science -- as long as they (and the power supply) all
work as advertised.

Now a question to those who decry the use of lots of pedals: Let's say
you play in a cover band, and you play everything from Beatles to CCR to
Hendrix to the Police to U-2 to Nirvana. Which of the effects in my
chain would you ditch, and why? The delay? The chorus? The Rat? The
FD2? The compressor/sustainer? The wah (true bypass, by the way)? The
EQ (which I use as volume boost and distortion shaper)?

Just curious...

- Grant

[Boyd Williamson]

> From: Grant <gpetty@aos.wisc.edu>
> Subject: Re: weird problems with effects chain
>
> Now a question to those who decry the use of lots of pedals: Let's say
> you play in a cover band, and you play everything from Beatles to CCR to
> Hendrix to the Police to U-2 to Nirvana. Which of the effects in my
> chain would you ditch, and why? The delay? The chorus? The Rat? The
> FD2? The compressor/sustainer? The wah (true bypass, by the way)? The
> EQ (which I use as volume boost and distortion shaper)?

I would concentrate on covering the music well, vocally and instrumentally.
If you work and achieve some success in getting a good tone from your voice
and instrument, you really don't need much else. The music is the bottom
line, not the effects or exact sound textures.

You can always play the music a little better, and I would advise working on
that. Playing with too many effects puts you off on a time and energy
consuming tangent when you could be practicing the music, making it better
(and leaving more cash in your pocket instead of handing it over to the
music store).

For me, that means a good mic, a good monitor, a good guitar (a spare for
when a string breaks), a good amp (spare tubes & fuses), a stomp box for
putting my leads out front, and a chorus to fill out the sound a bit. With
these tools in order, I'm happy working on the music. I can always do it a
bit better than I did it last time, and more effects would just get in my
way.

So, I play CCR "Born On The Bayou" without a tremelo effect, and I play
Hendrix "Little Wing" without a flanger. Big deal. I do the music real well,
put my heart into it, and that's what people respond to. Blowing their mind
with effects, generally doesn't. Keeping all the batteries, connections, and
settings straight on a wide array of stomp boxes would be a distraction I
neither need nor want.

Anytime I've heard a guitar player that blew me away, or heard anyone else
talk about someone that way, it wasn't because of what they were doing with
their feet, unless it was a guitar player who had no arms and was sitting on
a stool playing the strings with his toes.

I could give a rat's ass if I don't have the same exact sound as Dimebag
Daryl. If the music ain't great, I don't do it. I want to feel like a
genuine musician, and that the music is coming from my head, voice, heart,
and hands. I never want to feel like I'm just needed to press buttons to
make it go. I'd rather be a DJ.

I'm talking about the stuff I can't just have just by forking over $50 or
$100 or $500. I'm talking about stuff I have to work at, investing my time
and talent in the most productive way, because it gives me a tremendous
advantage over relative beginners who are trying to convince their newbie
crowd that they're some kinda stars because of the "toy show" they put on.

And when people tell me afterward that I'm really good, and that they really
enjoyed my performance, I thank them very warmly. I humbly accept the
compliments and the cash, and take them both to the bank.

My $.02. Not much, but well-earned.

Zoid

z9design.com

[RC Moonpie]

On Fri, 08 Aug 2003 22:41:37 -0500, Boyd Williamson
<zoid@z9design.com> wrote:



>I would concentrate on covering the music well, vocally and instrumentally.
>If you work and achieve some success in getting a good tone from your voice
>and instrument, you really don't need much else. The music is the bottom
>line, not the effects or exact sound textures.


to a point. pedals are fun, and having different sounds at your
disposal are fun. Playing in a cover band, also, like he does, lots of
the audience will admire a guitarist who can emulate the specific
guitar sound on any given song. You dont, so groovy, but, lots of
other people will.

i'm not saying "dont work on your overall playing skills" either.
Sure, those come first.

I dont use a bunch of effects now, cos i'm not in a cover band, but
when i was, yeah, i used a ton of them, and my band mates liked all
the different sounds i could come up with. There probably was always
one or two guys in the audience every night, watching my fingers, with
their arms crossed, sneering that a real man only needed a strat and a
twin and a tubescreamer. Thats ok, they still payed the cover charge.



studio album and free soundfiles:
http://www.snowwhitetrashband.com

[Grant]

Boyd Williamson wrote:
>>From: Grant <gpetty@aos.wisc.edu>
>>Subject: Re: weird problems with effects chain
>
> My $.02. Not much, but well-earned.
>

A thoughtful, and thought-provoking, response. Thanks.

- Grant

[Guncho]

I run through a Ernie Ball Volume Pedal - Dunlop Crybaby - MXR
Microamp - Boss DD3 - MXR Phase 90 and have also plugged right in. I
have not noticed a difference.

Chris

[Not A Speck Of Cereal]

As Boyd Williamson <zoid@z9design.com> so eloquently put:
[...]
[] I would concentrate on covering the music well, vocally and instrumentally.
[] If you work and achieve some success in getting a good tone from your voice
[] and instrument, you really don't need much else. The music is the bottom
[] line, not the effects or exact sound textures.

Zoid,

Well said. Few would disagree that the ability to express yourself
with your instrument is often the most valuable.

But good music through great playing doesn't need to be confined to a
purist, no-effect vacuum. We could spend all day bringing up examples
of really great players who's signature 'tone' involved an effect.

Instead, I'll pose the question of what is an effect, and who's job it
is to delineate which effects are valid. In it's most basic form (all
you need, as you say), a rig without pedals has still undergone a few
tone shaping stages. There's the variable effects of preamp gain, the
amp (both of which can be one of a myriad of circuits and tubes) and
EQ in-between. Also, one can shape their tone with various cabinet
selections. Then there's the compression of an over-driven amp.

These changes in tone are effects, that affect the listener and player
alike. You're free to consider them tone-shaping tools rather than
effects, but they are variables (an important term, which I'll touch
on more).

And still, without adding pedals, you have room. This is pretty
important. Let's skip the aspects of sound reinforcement, the FOH
mixer and how it really ends up sounding to the audience. Instead,
let's consider only the acoustic properties, which include foremost
reverb. More variables.

In the studio, the room sound is further shaped by mic selection and
placement. Mics are often setup to capture the room sound as well,
because of course, close-mic studio recording has lost the experience
of the live sound. There's tons room for experimentation here, all
variable.

So if the playing is valid from a technical stand point, what's the
problem with a musicians particular choice of variables, whether it be
choices mentioned above, or from various other sources? Why are some
valid and others invalid?

I agree that some of the baggie-pants shoe-gazers lost in a wash of
effects and over-driven amps *may* not be demonstrating much
musicality, relying totally on effects, but even so, this persons
choice may not be invalid. Texture is legal, if it's lacking in licks.

But I'll even put that aside and talk only about players ability and
the respect they must garner with their ability, while using effects.

Good players can "play" effects. There are countless examples of this.

Yes, you can play those Hendrix covers without the emulating pedals,
but he wouldn't have copped those time honored tones without them, and
I dare say that their musical performances would have been quite
different without them. You can learn Little Wing and play it without
a pedal, but would Jimi had played it the same way without the
effects?

I've gone on too long. In closing, I'll offer an allegory: the
painter. Discuss.

Chris

--
"My current strat is actually a hollow tele."
-- Fabio
Remove X's from my email address above to reply
[These opinions are personal views only and only my personal views]

[RC Moonpie]

On Tue, 12 Aug 2003 03:39:24 GMT, Not A Speck Of Cereal
<XchrissherwoodX@Xcomcast.netX> wrote:


> In closing, I'll offer an allegory: the
>painter. Discuss.
>


Magritte sucked. Oils suck. Real men use a conte crayon and sheetrock.

[Not A Speck Of Cereal]

As RC Moonpie <rcm@hotmail.com> so eloquently put:
[] On Tue, 12 Aug 2003 03:39:24 GMT, Not A Speck Of Cereal
[] <XchrissherwoodX@Xcomcast.netX> wrote:
[]
[]
[] > In closing, I'll offer an allegory: the
[] >painter. Discuss.
[]
[] Magritte sucked. Oils suck. Real men use a conte crayon and sheetrock.

So, you admit, finally, that pre-CBS conte crayons and script-logo
sheetrock are "responsible" for your tOnE?

--
"My current strat is actually a hollow tele."
-- Fabio
Remove X's from my email address above to reply
[These opinions are personal views only and only my personal views]

[Not A Speck Of Cereal]

As Boyd Williamson <zoid@z9design.com> so eloquently put:
[] > From: Not A Speck Of Cereal <XchrissherwoodX@Xcomcast.netX>
[] > Subject: Re: weird problems with effects chain
[] >
[] >... In closing, I'll offer an allegory: the
[] > painter. Discuss.
[] >
[] > Chris
[]
[] Point well made. I don't mean to say that there is only one way to do it;
[] absolutely not. I merely speak from my own experience, what works for me,
[] and that the only way to do it ISN'T with every effect conceivable.

My bad then.

[] A painter is a good analogy, because both painting and music are art forms
[] requiring tools and media from a vast array available. A good painter would
[] indeed explore and experiment with many forms of media in the persuit of his
[] own vision.

Aye, but not just the medium--what's painted on, with what tool, with
what paint--but what genre they paint and how they use the media
uniquely. There were several "too much technique" artists scoffing at
the impressionists.

Then there was Warhol. Hmmmm.... punk rock.

[] And, I personally think that most eventually settle down to a familiar set
[] that works for them, be it watercolor, acrylics, oils, charcoal,
[] photography, computers, whatever, and then use it to paint what he sees in
[] his mind.

Agreed. And it also matters if he is going to apply his work to an
existing genre, extend into a sub-genre, or forge ahead into something
entirely new. With or without effects.

[] There's absolutely nothing wrong with artists venturing into unfamiliar
[] territory and trying something new. It may be debateable whether experiments
[] are as valid as art with a clear vision, but, what the hell, it's all art.
[] If you like it, fine, if you don't, screw you. It's art!
[]
[] I feel that good art should say something, and that the media is simply the
[] medium to that end. Experiments with no clear meaning may be ponderous and
[] interesting, but good art has a message, captures emotions, and conveys them
[] to whoever is viewing or listening to it.

In general, I would agree that those who are expressing a clear
message or producing something that is likely to garner a known,
expected response is probably going to be more successful at having an
audience, if they're good at the practice.

But it's the pioneers who laid those courses followed. Without getting
into ancient musical history, where plenty of revolutions and
evolutions occurred, just look at the past 50 years. Keerist, there
are so many genres and sub-genres in the music industry today, it's
overwhelming.

And they're all valid.

My point here is that many of those genres had a relatively unique
genesis (while others were conglomerations of existing genres--not
that there's anything wrong with that!).

I could bring up a large list of examples, but I'm guessing I don't
need to.

[] To continue the parallel, I would suggest that composition and color, light
[] and shade, subject and substance, translate to music as melody and harmony,
[] rhythm and chords, lyrics and phrasing, comedy and tragedy, even love and
[] hate, more importantly than sound effects. My humble opinion.

Your opinion is completely valid, I totally respect it. But I
personally like to believe that effects in music can translate to the
following in a painting: texture, tonality, mood.

Both music and painting can express the following: repetition, space,
shade, dynamics, and a large degree of subtle variances on a theme.

So, the extreme in either world may not appeal to some. A painting
with nothing but a wash of color, tone, dynamics may be no more
interesting than someone dropping nails into a piano, which is mic'ed
and piped into an effects processor set to stun.

As an example: a photograph of complex ripples on water reflecting a
deeply colorful twilight sky. Nothing else in the frame but that
texture. Okay, I got a box of that in the basement.

Add some foreground: the shore, some grass, a silhouette of a person,
some trees to the side to frame the image. Add to the some background:
the horizon, with colorful clouds in the sky, perhaps an island poking
out of the ripping water. Now you have form that appeals to most.

I'm down with that. There's a place for the close up texture shot, but
pulling back is probably more meaningful to most.

[] But it's all valid. Anything in art is valid, whether it even works or not.
[] Some may love what others may hate. It's all art.

Yeah. Insert many debates about rap here.

[] But I would encourage any artist to "paint" what he sees, and not be too
[] influenced by the guy selling the tools. That's his art, not yours!

Meanwhile, leaving the philosophical allegories aside: yes, the guys
are selling the tools, and a lot of the consumers lay passed out on
the couch with the heavy lids reminiscent of the opium smoker; but
there are those of us that actually program those effects as a means
to an end.

Just sayin'.

Not all effects users are ear-candy addicts.

Chris

--
"My current strat is actually a hollow tele."
-- Fabio
Remove X's from my email address above to reply
[These opinions are personal views only and only my personal views]

[RC Moonpie]

On Wed, 13 Aug 2003 04:28:45 GMT, Not A Speck Of Cereal
<XchrissherwoodX@Xcomcast.netX> wrote:


>[] Magritte sucked. Oils suck. Real men use a conte crayon and sheetrock.
>
>So, you admit, finally, that pre-CBS conte crayons and script-logo
>sheetrock are "responsible" for your tOnE?


i'm not a real man, with no real tone. I use Illustrator and
Photoshop.

[RC Moonpie]

On Wed, 13 Aug 2003 05:24:27 GMT, Not A Speck Of Cereal
<XchrissherwoodX@Xcomcast.netX> wrote:

>
>So, the extreme in either world may not appeal to some. A painting
>with nothing but a wash of color, tone, dynamics may be no more
>interesting than someone dropping nails into a piano, which is mic'ed
>and piped into an effects processor set to stun.


or, it could be very interesting. Jackson Pollack vs Brian Eno. I
never could understand the attraction to Pollack, but an art professor
told me, well, he thought of it first, you didnt. I guess. Eno is sort
of groovy in a trippy way. The wife hates his stuff.


>As an example: a photograph of complex ripples on water reflecting a
>deeply colorful twilight sky. Nothing else in the frame but that
>texture. Okay, I got a box of that in the basement.
>
>Add some foreground: the shore, some grass, a silhouette of a person,
>some trees to the side to frame the image. Add to the some background:
>the horizon, with colorful clouds in the sky, perhaps an island poking
>out of the ripping water. Now you have form that appeals to most.


take that to the extreme, and you are in WalMart, loking at poster
prints of Thomas Kinkaid. Yeah he sold 25 million prints that ended up
in the bathrooms of suburbia. He has great skill, I'm not knocking
that at all, I coulndnt do anywhere near as good, but he does sort of
represent the whole "disco-n'synch-macdonalds of modern art". I know
of a fabulously talented water-colorist who will puke if you even
mention his name.



>I'm down with that. There's a place for the close up texture shot, but
>pulling back is probably more meaningful to most.


I guess. milli vanilli sold more than Bela Fleck too. It's sort of all
about perception. And the mainstream perception, towards art in
general, is usually, "I dont know what it is, but i like it" or dont
like it. And traditionally, the mainstream always responds to more
representational forms of art, ie, pop vocal, traditional realism in
art, etc.

I'm not disagreeing with you, at least i dont think i am, i think
maybe we are saying the same things.

Personally, i need to find a Kandinsky random distortion generator
pedal for my ToN3.

[Les Cargill]

RC Moonpie wrote:
>
> On Wed, 13 Aug 2003 05:24:27 GMT, Not A Speck Of Cereal
> <XchrissherwoodX@Xcomcast.netX> wrote:
>
> >
> >So, the extreme in either world may not appeal to some. A painting
> >with nothing but a wash of color, tone, dynamics may be no more
> >interesting than someone dropping nails into a piano, which is mic'ed
> >and piped into an effects processor set to stun.
>
> or, it could be very interesting. Jackson Pollack vs Brian Eno. I
> never could understand the attraction to Pollack, but an art professor
> told me, well, he thought of it first, you didnt.


Pollack's stuff reminds me of Ornette Coleman jazz. It's about
what is signal and what is noise - and what does your mind
imprint on a non structured object d'art.

Also, at the time, the New Yawk people needed some art heroes and
those guys all happened to be there. And "Bluebeard" by Kurt
Vonnegut is a pretty insightful thing about that whole idea
at the time.

> I guess. Eno is sort
> of groovy in a trippy way. The wife hates his stuff.
>

I don't think Hank done it that away.

> >As an example: a photograph of complex ripples on water reflecting a
> >deeply colorful twilight sky. Nothing else in the frame but that
> >texture. Okay, I got a box of that in the basement.
> >
> >Add some foreground: the shore, some grass, a silhouette of a person,
> >some trees to the side to frame the image. Add to the some background:
> >the horizon, with colorful clouds in the sky, perhaps an island poking
> >out of the ripping water. Now you have form that appeals to most.
>

Don't forget the happy little bush.

> take that to the extreme, and you are in WalMart, loking at poster
> prints of Thomas Kinkaid. Yeah he sold 25 million prints that ended up
> in the bathrooms of suburbia. He has great skill, I'm not knocking
> that at all, I coulndnt do anywhere near as good, but he does sort of
> represent the whole "disco-n'synch-macdonalds of modern art". I know
> of a fabulously talented water-colorist who will puke if you even
> mention his name.
>

So the fabulously talented water colorist gets a buzz off being
superior to some guy who industrialized the thing. That's an
expensive hobby, being artistically superior.

> >I'm down with that. There's a place for the close up texture shot, but
> >pulling back is probably more meaningful to most.
>
> I guess. milli vanilli sold more than Bela Fleck too.

You sure about that? For the life of the material? The Fleck
stuff will be available for library use in film and stuff.

> It's sort of all
> about perception. And the mainstream perception, towards art in
> general, is usually, "I dont know what it is, but i like it" or dont
> like it. And traditionally, the mainstream always responds to more
> representational forms of art, ie, pop vocal, traditional realism in
> art, etc.
>

And what exactly is wrong with that? I think Norman Rockwell is
right up there with 'em. But his stuff is essentially honest
material. I think that making something good which is also
accessible to the mainstream is *hard friggin work*.

> I'm not disagreeing with you, at least i dont think i am, i think
> maybe we are saying the same things.
>
> Personally, i need to find a Kandinsky random distortion generator
> pedal for my ToN3.

I will not touch your monkey, no matter what.

--
Les Cargill

[RC Moonpie]

On Wed, 13 Aug 2003 15:10:17 GMT, Les Cargill
<lcargill@worldnet.att.net> wrote:


>
>
>Pollack's stuff reminds me of Ornette Coleman jazz. It's about
>what is signal and what is noise - and what does your mind
>imprint on a non structured object d'art.


I guess. I didnt get him either. Here cometh the fury of the jazz
snobs. what can I say. I played bass in a bee bop band for a bit, i
got turned onto Bird, Bud Powell, Dizzy, Monk, all them guys, and i
dont exactly go out and buy up all the Kenny G albums.



>Also, at the time, the New Yawk people needed some art heroes and
>those guys all happened to be there. And "Bluebeard" by Kurt
>Vonnegut is a pretty insightful thing about that whole idea
>at the time.


he's great.

was that one about the guy who had some big barn behind his house and
it was full of, some mysterious thing, cant remember what it was....
some art thing...



>
>I don't think Hank done it that away.


probly one of those missionary only, dog style is for fags, guy.


>Don't forget the happy little bush.

that what she said to Hank.



>>
>
>So the fabulously talented water colorist gets a buzz off being
>superior to some guy who industrialized the thing. That's an
>expensive hobby, being artistically superior.


uh, well, there is that, however, she is extremely talented, and does
quite well as full time painter herself. Its no hobby. I dont know
about Kincaids water-color abilities, but he would have to be quite
skilled to be on her level. Sure, professional jealousy, maybe a bit,
but i honestly think his way mainstream thing sort of is at polar
opposites to what she can do. Maybe Mozart hated Handel.




>> I guess. milli vanilli sold more than Bela Fleck too.
>
>You sure about that? For the life of the material? The Fleck
>stuff will be available for library use in film and stuff.


good point. no i'm not sure. bad example maybe.



>> It's sort of all
>> about perception. And the mainstream perception, towards art in
>> general, is usually, "I dont know what it is, but i like it" or dont
>> like it. And traditionally, the mainstream always responds to more
>> representational forms of art, ie, pop vocal, traditional realism in
>> art, etc.
>>
>
>And what exactly is wrong with that?


wel, nothing. its only perception and thats what i was getting to.
Personally I dont feel myself finding the appeal in art that is more
mainstream. I can always at least appreciate the skill that goes into
making it.




I think Norman Rockwell is
>right up there with 'em. But his stuff is essentially honest
>material. I think that making something good which is also
>accessible to the mainstream is *hard friggin work*.


Norman Rockwell was a skilled beyond belief artist. An exhibition of
his stuff came thru here recently. I wish a Maxfield Parrish display
would next...




>I will not touch your monkey, no matter what.


she probly said that to Hank too

[Les Cargill]

RC Moonpie wrote:
>
> On Wed, 13 Aug 2003 15:10:17 GMT, Les Cargill
> <lcargill@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >Pollack's stuff reminds me of Ornette Coleman jazz. It's about
> >what is signal and what is noise - and what does your mind
> >imprint on a non structured object d'art.
>
> I guess. I didnt get him either.


Nobody does. It's like guessing the letters in alphabet soup. You
just kinda let it wash over you.

> Here cometh the fury of the jazz
> snobs.

&^$* 'em. Them guys can't play Elvis stuff at all, usually. Can't
hang on Stones, neither.

> what can I say. I played bass in a bee bop band for a bit, i
> got turned onto Bird, Bud Powell, Dizzy, Monk, all them guys, and i
> dont exactly go out and buy up all the Kenny G albums.
>

It's depressing. Back when there was no mafia, the mafia
guys ( that didn't exist) kept all them clubs going. Now
they all Starbucks.

> >Also, at the time, the New Yawk people needed some art heroes and
> >those guys all happened to be there. And "Bluebeard" by Kurt
> >Vonnegut is a pretty insightful thing about that whole idea
> >at the time.
>
> he's great.

I think he knew all them guys.

>
> was that one about the guy who had some big barn behind his house and
> it was full of, some mysterious thing, cant remember what it was....
> some art thing...
>

Yeah. Shining purple tubes and all.

> >
> >I don't think Hank done it that away.
>
> probly one of those missionary only, dog style is for fags, guy.
>
> >Don't forget the happy little bush.
>
> that what she said to Hank.
>

Geez, no respect for Fro Guy at all.

> >>
> >
> >So the fabulously talented water colorist gets a buzz off being
> >superior to some guy who industrialized the thing. That's an
> >expensive hobby, being artistically superior.
>
> uh, well, there is that, however, she is extremely talented, and does
> quite well as full time painter herself. Its no hobby.

What can you do? Low low prices every day cuz we shop the Wally way.

> I dont know
> about Kincaids water-color abilities, but he would have to be quite
> skilled to be on her level.

I am quite sure. I wouldn't buy any of that stuff, but I appreciate
the sort of engineering that goes into designing for the mass
market.

> Sure, professional jealousy, maybe a bit,

Nah. It's an implied accusation of prostitution.

> but i honestly think his way mainstream thing sort of is at polar
> opposites to what she can do. Maybe Mozart hated Handel.
>

Prolly.

> >> I guess. milli vanilli sold more than Bela Fleck too.
> >
> >You sure about that? For the life of the material? The Fleck
> >stuff will be available for library use in film and stuff.
>
> good point. no i'm not sure. bad example maybe.
>

I'm not sure there is a good example, because stuff shows up
in weird places all the time. I don't see a whole lot of
Elmer Bernstein records in the Top 40 but I bet he's worth more'n
most of them.

> >> It's sort of all
> >> about perception. And the mainstream perception, towards art in
> >> general, is usually, "I dont know what it is, but i like it" or dont
> >> like it. And traditionally, the mainstream always responds to more
> >> representational forms of art, ie, pop vocal, traditional realism in
> >> art, etc.
> >>
> >
> >And what exactly is wrong with that?
>
> wel, nothing. its only perception and thats what i was getting to.
> Personally I dont feel myself finding the appeal in art that is more
> mainstream. I can always at least appreciate the skill that goes into
> making it.
>

I think there's some probability distribution that represents how
good art is. I think there's another that says how mainstream it is.
Multiply those and you get "good and mainstream", and that's a
much smaller subset than both the others. So to me, good
mainstream art is probably of more value than *just* good or *just*
mainstream.


> I think Norman Rockwell is
> >right up there with 'em. But his stuff is essentially honest
> >material. I think that making something good which is also
> >accessible to the mainstream is *hard friggin work*.
>
> Norman Rockwell was a skilled beyond belief artist. An exhibition of
> his stuff came thru here recently. I wish a Maxfield Parrish display
> would next...
>

I think it's more than skilled. Anybody who can make something
which could be extremely trite out into a fine peice of art,
that's held up for decades had to be one of the good ones.

> >I will not touch your monkey, no matter w