comparison: 442, bottom feeder

phatbass30 · #1 01-22-2008, 01:30 AM

hey guys, pls give me some descriptions of each of these filters so i could compare them and finally choose the right one that i need. i tried the af-9, liked it. but i'm also curious about the bottom feeder and 442 cos i heard lots of good things about them. i'm looking for a wet and funky filter that doesn't lose the low end and doesn't get lose in the mix during live performances. any experiences with these filters could help. thanks!!!

Ryan Mohr · #2 01-22-2008, 04:58 AM

I am pretty sure the bottom feeder is just a version of the 442 designed for bass.

TaySte_2000 · #3 01-22-2008, 05:02 AM

The Bottom Feeder and the 442 Red are the same pedal there is only a slight difference between these and the guitar version but if possible get the bass one it's much better really.

In terms of in a band situation to me its the most musical filter I've ever used, not to squeltchy not to big of a sweep so you don't get all those drops and peaks that sound cool in your bedroom but just cause you to cut out on stage.

In terms of plug and play there is no better filter for band use IMHO of course

Ryan Mohr · #4 01-22-2008, 05:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TaySte_2000

The Bottom Feeder and the 442 Red are the same pedal there is only a slight difference between these and the guitar version but if possible get the bass one it's much better really.

In terms of in a band situation to me its the most musical filter I've ever used, not to squeltchy not to big of a sweep so you don't get all those drops and peaks that sound cool in your bedroom but just cause you to cut out on stage.

In terms of plug and play there is no better filter for band use IMHO of course

Do you use it in a band situation often? I can't seem to find places to use mine, and when I try it sounds out of place.

TaySte_2000 · #5 01-22-2008, 05:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AqueousView11

Do you use it in a band situation often? I can't seem to find places to use mine, and when I try it sounds out of place.

I find places for a Noise Box in my music

it always depends what you are doing

phatbass30 · #6 01-22-2008, 08:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TaySte_2000

The Bottom Feeder and the 442 Red are the same pedal there is only a slight difference between these and the guitar version but if possible get the bass one it's much better really.

In terms of in a band situation to me its the most musical filter I've ever used, not to squeltchy not to big of a sweep so you don't get all those drops and peaks that sound cool in your bedroom but just cause you to cut out on stage.

In terms of plug and play there is no better filter for band use IMHO of course

how is it compare to emma and af-9 when it comes to live situation?

Jared Lash · #7 01-22-2008, 10:59 AM

Personally, I liked the sound of the AF-9 better than the EMMA or the Boomstick, but it is a bit harder to use live only because of the bigger volume spikes. A blender and/or a compressor would solve that.

But Tayste is right that the Boomstick Bottom Feeder is more plug and play. Same thing with the EMMA.

I consider those two to be more subtle filters that give you some funk while still letting more of your tone through. IMO the EMMA is funkier sounding and the Bottom Feeder is better for spacey, more rock oriented stuff.

That said, I like less subtle filters, so my choice would be the AF-9. I also really like the Pigtronix EP-1, though the filter that's currently on my board is the Xotic Robotalk.

gibsualdo · #8 03-06-2008, 01:36 AM

Sorry to kinda hijack this thread, but can anyone tell me if the Bottom Feeder can help achieve a sound like this - Rollins Band - What Do You Do bass intro

This is of course provided that an adequate bass/rig and distortion pedal are used. I'm almost convinced that this is the filter for me, if there's a chance I can get close enough to an Andrew Weiss-esque sound with it's help then I'm sold.