Which Blender Pedal?

[slapstick13]

Looking into getting a blender pedal to blend my clean signal with my overdrive/distortion pedal. Have it pretty much narrowed down to the Xotic Blender and the Wounded Paw blender(new version 2 foot switches) as these both have bass/treble controls for the effect signal, which I will use to add some bass to my effect signal(the boss ls2 does not have eq so Ive counted that out).

X blender is $176 new

Wounded paw is $120

Anyone have experience with either? Pros/ cons?

[fasto]

get the X-Blender pedal ... i love it, thats the heart of my pedalboard and my best "effect".

[ergbass]

Originally Posted by fasto

get the X-Blender pedal ... i love it, thats the heart of my pedalboard and my best "effect".

+1

It´s so useful, great pedal and a lot of applications!

[Jared Lash]

While the Wounded Paw has pretty much all the features of the XBlender (phase inversion, EQ controls, boost capability etc) I didn't like the design nearly as much - primarily the two separate volumes for clean and effected rather than a blend with an overall master volume.

Plus the XBlender's knob is big enough to adjust with your foot.

[TOOL460002]

ill chime in with my constant, broken record answer for getting the sound you want: parallel loopers!

if you get a two channel parallel looper you can send one signal to a pedal thatll eq things and keep the bass. then you can use the other channel to go to whatever other effect you want layered on top.

this is much more useful in my opinion, because if you just want a clean signal and an effect, you can do that as well, but sometimes you want two dirty channels layered over each other. as long as each channel has a volume knob, youre good.

i can recommend badger effects. i got a stripped down version of the schism, but the schism has more options you may want, and the price is excellent, as is the quality, and build time. i liked it so much i got two. hehe...

oh, and he will do just about any powder coat for no additional charge. i got an mc escher tessellation in some cool colors. here it is (look for the interlocking lizards):



EDIT: its probably also one of the smallest loopers. i mean, this thing has a footprint about a quarter inch wider than a zvex pedal all around (for comparison). the jacks are all on the same side too, which eats up even less pedal board real estate. thats very important to me, so i thought id mention it, though that may or may not be the case for you. just another option i can vouch for...

[Fab Savage]

Hi, can I hijack this thread briefly....I am in the process of deciding between the schism and the x blender as both look great. I agree with the idea of 2 parallel blends, I see this as very useful for combining fuzz etc on bass, however if you did this with each channel of the schism dont you lose your clean blend as it only blends 2 signals not three?

Also I like the idea of a footswitchable option between a serial and parallel loop, so I am leaning more towards the x-blender atm. Would a full wet blend on the badger be the same as doing a serial loop on the x-blender?

Final question is the master bypass on the badger true bypass? (I do like the ability to run the muted loops as a buffer if needed though!)

Many thanks if you can help and sorry to the OP for the hijack


Mike

[TOOL460002]

Originally Posted by Fab Savage

Hi, can I hijack this thread briefly....I am in the process of deciding between the schism and the x blender as both look great. I agree with the idea of 2 parallel blends, I see this as very useful for combining fuzz etc on bass, however if you did this with each channel of the schism dont you lose your clean blend as it only blends 2 signals not three?

Also I like the idea of a footswitchable option between a serial and parallel loop, so I am leaning more towards the x-blender atm. Would a full wet blend on the badger be the same as doing a serial loop on the x-blender?

Final question is the master bypass on the badger true bypass? (I do like the ability to run the muted loops as a buffer if needed though!)

the schism is true bypass. what i got is the one above that only has two channels, and no inversion switches or anything; just volume one each channel (and it can go above unity gain, so you could use it as a boost if you really wanted [i find this handy for the odd super quiet pedal]).

if you switch on a channel and it has nothing plugged into it, you just get a clean, direct signal. if you have everything in that loop off, its comparable to a clean signal, provided you have pedals that arent really noisy. if both channel are off, its mute; essentially a kill switch. oh, and its buffered as well.

i also have a three channel parallel looper from robot factory, which is also true bypass. buffered, and can function as a kill switch as well as a boost. this one has more options (expression control over the volume of every channel which over rides the volume knob). it also cost a bit more, but was certainly reasonable, and is incredibly sturdy).

if you have just a volume knob on each channel, i would find that to be far superior to blending wet and clean. if you want more wet, just turn up the volume. if you want less, turn it down. i looked into the barge concepts one, but opted for the ones mentioned above. i am very happy with my choice. however, just because it works for me doesnt mean itll work for you.

EDIT: oh, and im pretty sure you could get a schism, stripped down or otherwise (stripped down just has a smaller footprint and ditches options i dont want), you could probably get a three channel one. i think thats what you were asking. if you wanted two dirty fuzz channels and a clean signal, then you have another channel to go clean. if you want three dirty and one clean, you need four channels, etc, etc...

[cheapbasslovin]

I think if you want two parallel and a clean you need to step up to a Wounded Paw Super Blender or the Robot Factory deal that Tool460000000000000000002 mentioned.

I have a version of the Badger, and have also run three loops with a mini mixer, and I can tell you that when you get to the point where you are running two distinct chains, it becomes difficult to make out a clean bass besides. Usually when I run two parallel effects it is to seriously alter the bass sound in some way. Even when I run two dirts in parallel, I usually end up with one semi clean tone and a really dirty tone.

FWIW the X blender only blends one external channel with one internal channel. The Schism makes it so that both channels can be run to/ through effects. Like TOOL said, bypass one set of effects and use the other set and you have a clean blend. Use both at the same time and you have parallel chains. [/ramble]

[Fab Savage]

[quote=TOOL460002;10133019]

if you have just a volume knob on each channel, i would find that to be far superior to blending wet and clean. if you want more wet, just turn up the volume. if you want less, turn it down. i looked into the barge concepts one, but opted for the ones mentioned above. i am very happy with my choice. however, just because it works for me doesnt mean itll work for you.

Originally Posted by cheapbasslovin

I think if you want two parallel and a clean you need to step up to a Wounded Paw Super Blender or the Robot Factory deal that Tool460000000000000000002 mentioned.

FWIW the X blender only blends one external channel with one internal channel. The Schism makes it so that both channels can be run to/ through effects. Like TOOL said, bypass one set of effects and use the other set and you have a clean blend. Use both at the same time and you have parallel chains. [/ramble]

Cheers Guys

Yeah I think parallel blending would be the way to go, it would just be nice to have a 100% wet signal as a footswitchable option ala the X-Blender. Tool Iam not sure how a volume pot is superior to a blend? Does that mean as the channel volume increases, the main output increases also, rather than the ratio of dry:wet?

Cheapbasslovin that Wounded Paw super blender looks awesome! Seems like it would do everything the X-blender and Schism would do if combined And only 175 is the same price as a X-Blender alone... I wonder if sound/build quality is as good?? Never had experience with Wounded Paw products.

To the OP again sorry for the hikjack if your just looking to blend 1 OD/fuzz with clean I think either a stripped down Schism or X-blender would be a great option. X Blender would be easier to adjust on the fly due to that giant blend knob!!

[slapstick13]

I dont see an eq on the schism, which is what I really like about the x blender. And yea Im pretty sure I just want to blend 1 effect with my clean so I dont think I need a parallel looper. I THINK im going with the x blender. Now if only someone had one in the classified still....

[kai_ski]

I'm bumping this thread because I'm looking for something like the Wounded Paw Blender v1. One blend channel, with wet/dry blend and master volume. This *seems* like a simple product, any suggestions for something similar that's < $125 with an active circuit? Also, possibly with a smaller footprint?

edit.... volume does not necessarily need to go to 11.

[Hutzbordello]

the blender v2 is like 10 bucks more with an eq and what not......not that thats what your looking for but im getting one in the mail soon.

ill throw a review up when i get it and let you know. until then you could look at the boss LS2. pretty much the same thing but 75ish and boss sized

[kai_ski]

Yeah, I know, but they aren't really the same are they? The blender v2 has a clean volume, and a separate loop volume, right?

Does anyone know what the input impedance of these pedals?

I'm confused by the mode knob on the LS-2, which mode would you use to emulate the blend & master volume above?

[Hutzbordello]

yea i think v2 has eq and the wet AND dry signal

it doesnt look to be much bigger, or that much more complicated. i get a better vibe off of it that i wont be held back by the pedal either. then again im a tweaker...


info on ls2:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mbNcI...eature=related

the host is a douche though

[walker rosewood]

You can find the LS-2 owners manual here: http://www.bosscorp.co.jp/products/e...cd=303&iStcd=4

I use my LS-2 in A+B Mix-->bypass mode. I run a few effects in loop A, then leave loop B empty (clean). So it toggles between bypass and blending an effective loop with a clean loop, each having their own volume.

[kevteop]

Originally Posted by walker rosewood

You can find the LS-2 owners manual here: http://www.bosscorp.co.jp/products/e...cd=303&iStcd=4

I use my LS-2 in A+B Mix-->bypass mode. I run a few effects in loop A, then leave loop B empty (clean). So it toggles between bypass and blending an effective loop with a clean loop, each having their own volume.

I used to do that, but always wanted to be able to footswitch to a single loop soloed too. And I wanted it to act as a high-quality line driver when bypassed (the LS-2's bypass sounded a little muggy to me), so I got Max at SFX to make me an uber-LS2 (it's on this page - click the 'Loop Logic' link).

[kai_ski]

okay, that makes sense.

I guess my train of thought right now is, why spend $125 for something relatively simple, when you could spend $60 more for something with 3x the capability (super blender) and have some excellent creative options. Anybody have one of these pedals and regret it?

I'm trying to make up for volume drop on my FX25, and the lack of blend on my subdecay noise box (the feedback loop would be insane with that pedal.) I could always find a use for the third channel for my bass octave deluxe and envelope filter, but these have blend features of their own and I already like the results I achieve with them.

Thinking "out loud" here, but my head is saying "go big or go home."

[kai_ski]

Originally Posted by kevteop

I used to do that, but always wanted to be able to footswitch to a single loop soloed too. And I wanted it to act as a high-quality line driver when bypassed (the LS-2's bypass sounded a little muggy to me), so I got Max at SFX to make me an uber-LS2 (it's on this page - click the 'Loop Logic' link).

yeah, that would probably work great. it's essentially 3 channels correct? blending channel 1 or 2 or both with the clean signal?

i bet it was pricey. how much did that run?

[walker rosewood]

Yeah I get what your saying, I've always wanted the LS-2 to have a mode that went A ->B -> A+B -> Bypass. I guess that would be too much stomping. Or just be awesome like SFX and do it with two buttons.

If money isn't a huge concern, I agree. Just get a one stop routing shop and be done with it.

[kevteop]

Originally Posted by kai_ski

yeah, that would probably work great. it's essentially 3 channels correct? blending channel 1 or 2 or both with the clean signal?

i bet it was pricey. how much did that run?

No it's just like an LS-2, two loops, but they have a bypass footswitch each so you can switch between bypass, one loop soloed, or both blended with your foot.

I think it was around £150 but it was a bespoke job, I've wanted a box to do exactly this for a long time and Max did a great job on it.