Any advantages to running effects in parallel?

[OptimusPrime]

I'm seriously considering trying out the possibility of running some of my effects in parallel. Something along the lines of out of my wah pedal then splitting the signal sending clean to both an OD and a fuzz, then recombining it and sending both signals to a phaser and flanger separately. Then recombining and going to my amp. Make any sense to anyone but me? I tried to make a nice diagram with some pictures, but Paint is a bitch to work with. Could I achieve this with Y-cables, or do I need to get some custom TB loops made that run in parallel? Any advantages to running effects like this? Do I need some small mixers? I'm just toying with the idea. But I think it could come out well. I definitely want to run the flanger and phaser separately. And I think keeping my dirt separate would kick some major ass too.

[rustynuts]

Buy a Boss LS-2. Tayste has effects running in parallel and my new board will have parallel channels too, with a volume pedal on each side, but set up differently than Tayste's....

[OptimusPrime]

Originally Posted by rustynuts

Buy a Boss LS-2. Tayste has effects running in parallel and my new board will have parallel channels too, with a volume pedal on each side, but set up differently than Tayste's....

Yeah ... I'm really trying to stay away from that thing. I don't care if it is the solution to all my problems (it's not). I'd much rather have something custom made. I hate that little grey ****er.

[rustynuts]

Do you want the parallel channels to be "always on", or to have the ability to turn them on and off, switch between them, etc.?

[Bob the bassist]

Totally cool idea.

I'd like to have a chain like this, someday:

                       highs -> fx -> DI, amp, etc.
Bass -> Pre -> xover -<
                       lows -> fx -> DI, amp, etc.

. . . and it might have parallel fx chains on the highs, too.

[OptimusPrime]

Originally Posted by rustynuts

Do you want the parallel channels to be "always on", or to have the ability to turn them on and off, switch between them, etc.?

I really wish I had a way to draw up a diagram. I guess I want 2 of these but I want the loops to be in parallel, not in series. One would be used for dirt and one for modulation. I don't need to mix them, I don't think.

[OptimusPrime]

Originally Posted by Bob the bassist

Totally cool idea.

I'd like to have a chain like this, someday:

                       highs -> fx -> DI, amp, etc.
Bass -> Pre -> xover -<
                       lows -> fx -> DI, amp, etc.

. . . and it might have parallel fx chains on the highs, too.

Dirk Lance did something similar. I had an idea a while back for something similar to his rig in pedal form. But it got too complicated to be practical.

[cheapbasslovin]

Here is something more, "custom made". Or for more freakiness. I've got one of these cheapo things and it's doing me OK for now, if your into cheap.

[JanusZarate]

Any time that two signals merge (such as the final signal heading to your amp), you'll NEED an active mixer or blend circuit of some sort... a passive mixer will do a terrible job.

Blend loop pedals are popular examples of running two signals in parallel and then combining them. In such a pedal, your dry signal runs parallel to the effect signal until it hits the blend circuit.

Some effects pedals run different effects in parallel, like the EHX Stereo Electric Mistress (parallel flanger and chorus).

Is there an advantage? Yeah. But it's always fairly cumbersome to implement, especially if you decide to run two parallel rigs instead of mixing signals into one rig. But mixing signals can get even more complicated depending on the signal paths involved.

Bite the bullet... fire up Microsoft Paint and do a rough diagram of EXACTLY what you want the paths to look like, from bass to amp(s). We'll then fill in the blanks from there.

[JanusZarate]

BTW, I read over your plan a few times... so let me get this straight:

AMP <-- MIX <-- Phaser <-- MIX <-- Overdrive <-- SPLIT <-- Bass
^ <-- Flanger ^ <-- Fuzz <--

I'll warn you now... you might run into some freaky frequency-cancellation stuff, based on the nature of some of these pedals. But if you don't... joy.

But all you need are two blend pedals, and then a bypass loop pedal with two loops ("semi-master" switches) to control everything.

I'll prepare a better diagram in MS Visio... give me a few minutes.

EDIT: Crap, that typed diagram is acting funny... ignore it for now. >_<

[JanusZarate]

Now, here's the kicker: All four loops shown above CAN be built into a single box.

In fact, the ideal way to do it would be to add two additional regular loops - one for the fuzz, one for the flanger. Then you can control ALL pedals from the loop box.

[JanusZarate]

And here's the other version:



This is more ideal. All four loops can exist in ONE box. Then, if desired, you can add on master switches to control pairs of loops (ideally, Loops 1 and 2 together, and 3 and 4 together).

[JanusZarate]

...uh... wait.

Crap.

Let me try those again. These aren't entirely right.

Okay, you are going to need a LOT more stuff... eep. I just thought about this one. You'll need one mono mixer, one stereo mixer, and a Y-box.

[JanusZarate]

THAT is what it should be.

I'm sure you could find someone to design a loop box incorporating these features and adding master loop switches for each blended group.

[OptimusPrime]

Originally Posted by MysticBoo

THAT is what it should be.

I'm sure you could find someone to design a loop box incorporating these features and adding master loop switches for each blended group.

That's exactly what I'm looking for. Thanks a ton man.

[Ely]

I want to get a second Moog Low Pass Filter set with a downward sweep in parallel with my current one. I think that will sound crazy.