I know what I want but I dont know what it is

[skaelin]

I don't want to run my effects in series any more. It's a sound quality issue. I have effects that are supposed to be true bypass but when I made a comparison between bypassing the effect and pulling it out of the chain physically, the latter normally sounded better. In some cases it was pretty dramatic.

What I would like is some kind of effect mixer -- something that is more than a switcher. It would be great to at least have the option of having the effect in parallel with the dry signal and then have a volume control to mix in the amount of effect you want. Many amps have an effects loop which basically does just that; but I need multiple effects loops with an individual mix pot for each loop.

I searched Musicians Friend but their "loopers" are not what I need; they are the type of thing that will record musical phrases that then allow you to layer multiple phrases on top of each other.

Is there a piece of kit that will allow me to do what I want?

Thx

[bongomania]

Yes, several- search here on "blender". Popular brands include Xotic, Barge, Radial, and Boss. For multiple blended loops talk to Barge about a custom build.

[98dvl]

First of all, sounds like you better be prepared to spend a lot of money... especially if you want to blend every single pedal you have (how many?)

What pedals are you using that are causing issues?

[JanusZarate]

Echoing 98dvl... what pedals do you have? You listed an EBS Multicomp and Hartke Bass Attack in your profile... neither are true bypass, so I'm not surprised by your bypass complaint. I'm sure you haven't listed everything, though.

Realistically speaking, you probably don't need as many blend loops as you think. It all depends on what you've got.

[skaelin]

Originally Posted by MysticBoo

Echoing 98dvl... what pedals do you have? You listed an EBS Multicomp and Hartke Bass Attack in your profile... neither are true bypass, so I'm not surprised by your bypass complaint. I'm sure you haven't listed everything, though.

Realistically speaking, you probably don't need as many blend loops as you think. It all depends on what you've got.

I need to update my profile. Here's what I have: ESB Multicomp, SABSDI (coming soon), EH Mini Q-tron, EHS Bassballs, Yamaha NE-1, EH Little Big Muff, Hartke Bass Attack, and I'll soon be getting the EBS Octabass.

I'm not sure what you mean in terms of not having listened to everything. Believe me I have and in various combos with and without them engaged and with or without them being in the signal chain.

It's not just a sound quality issue, but it is a control and flexibiltiy issue as well especially with the EH effects. They are supposed to be true bypass but I can definately hear a difference when I physically take them out of the chain.

[dancehallclasher]

1. You say you've compared true bypass pedals to your direct signal, but have you tested this blind? Your imagination can play a BIG part in this, bigger than you think, and I'd suggest getting together with a friend and setting up a blind test that establishes you can indeed tell the difference consistently. Otherwise you're going to be wasting a ton of money.

2. Are you sure this has nothing to do with cable quality? If you're using crap patch cables this could account for a better signal when running direct.

3. If it is indeed your pedal bypass that's the problem, I'd go to www.loop-master.com for a TB strip. No individual blend pots offered, but maybe they'd do a custom job?

[skaelin]

Originally Posted by dancehallclasher

1. You say you've compared true bypass pedals to your direct signal, but have you tested this blind? Your imagination can play a BIG part in this, bigger than you think, and I'd suggest getting together with a friend and setting up a blind test that establishes you can indeed tell the difference consistently. Otherwise you're going to be wasting a ton of money.

2. Are you sure this has nothing to do with cable quality? If you're using crap patch cables this could account for a better signal when running direct.

3. If it is indeed your pedal bypass that's the problem, I'd go to www.loop-master.com for a TB strip. No individual blend pots offered, but maybe they'd do a custom job?

I'm pretty confident in my listening skills. I owned a very hi-end audio store in silicon valley for many years and listening to different components in the signal chain was a huge part of my job. I've done enough hidden blind A/B comparisons to know I'm pretty good at detecting true difference vs. any kind of placebo effect.

[JanusZarate]

Originally Posted by skaelin

I'm not sure what you mean in terms of not having listened to everything. Believe me I have and in various combos with and without them engaged and with or without them being in the signal chain.

You misread what I said. "Listed", not listened.

Originally Posted by skaelin

It's not just a sound quality issue, but it is a control and flexibiltiy issue as well especially with the EH effects. They are supposed to be true bypass but I can definately hear a difference when I physically take them out of the chain.

I doubt the Mini Q-Tron or Bassballs are true bypass. The new XO/Nano series versions are, but the originals aren't likely to be. That could be part of the problem.

The BDDI, NE-1, Multicomp, and Octabass are not true bypass; everything except the NE-1 is buffered bypass, and the NE-1 simply doesn't have a bypass. They present their own problems there, too - and they are more noticeable.

Now, the Little Big Muff IS true bypass... I've done the bypass sound test myself, and if it isn't true bypass, it certainly sounds like it is, because my tone was untouched.

Now, getting to my point... a blind test would be a good idea, using a true-bypass loop pedal. Any other way of doing it would provide misleading results.

Also keep in mind that the length of the signal path has a minor (IMO negligible in most cases) difference on the sound. Cable quality is a more significant factor, but once you get past crappy cables, the differences among high-end cables are negligible, IMO.

[bongomania]

Loop-Master doesn't do active blenders AFAIK, but Barge does. However a BIG +1 to cable quality. Crappy patch cords can definitely dull your tone.

Note too that any bypass system may alter your signal levels; hardwire "true bypass" should not alter the levels in theory, but any device in the chain introduces the possibility of signal loss. Non-TBP systems can alter your signal levels significantly in bypass mode. This is an issue because higher signal levels will sound better. If one signal is even a little bit louder the listener will tend to say that signal had clearer highs, better articulation, deeper lows, less mud, etc. etc. -it's not you, it's human nature.

Another factor is impedance. It may be that the input of your amp presents the optimal input impedance for your bass's direct signal, and something in the chain of pedals is making the impedance relationship non-optimal at some point. That can cause a signal to sound weaker or less dynamic or otherwise "not as good". Unfortunately that's something that may not necessarily be fixed by an outboard blender-loop box.

To get much further you'll need to do some more experimenting with the input and output level settings on the pedals and your preamp.

[skaelin]

Bongo, you are right on so many things I don't know where to begin.

Originally Posted by bongomania

Loop-Master doesn't do active blenders AFAIK, but Barge does. However a BIG +1 to cable quality. Crappy patch cords can definitely dull your tone.

I have some cheap cords here and some some really high end ones as well. The high-end ones are being used exclusively. For these listening tests, I'm using a combination of Cardas Lava cable and/or a shielded silver stranded cable with a teflon dialectric that I designed. Both are transparent as hell.

Note too that any bypass system may alter your signal levels; hardwire "true bypass" should not alter the levels in theory, but any device in the chain introduces the possibility of signal loss. Non-TBP systems can alter your signal levels significantly in bypass mode. This is an issue because higher signal levels will sound better. If one signal is even a little bit louder the listener will tend to say that signal had clearer highs, better articulation, deeper lows, less mud, etc. etc. -it's not you, it's human nature.

Yes, true.

Another factor is impedance. It may be that the input of your amp presents the optimal input impedance for your bass's direct signal, and something in the chain of pedals is making the impedance relationship non-optimal at some point. That can cause a signal to sound weaker or less dynamic or otherwise "not as good". Unfortunately that's something that may not necessarily be fixed by an outboard blender-loop box.

I think the solution to the above two problems can be ameliorated with a passive router that has individualized volume controls with active buffers on the inputs and outputs. Buffering should solve the issue of mismatched impedance. And if all the components were high quality, the signal loss should be minimal. I used to use passive preamps in my audio system and as long as the input sensitivity of the amp was high enough and the input impedance of the amp was around 100 K it worked great as long as the cable were low capacitance and kept short. I need the pro-audio equivalent of that.

Does someone make such a thing?

[bongomania]

Yep. Barge again. Their loops and blends are buffered/active, and they will put as many in a box as you want. Check with TB'er Pickles for his take on the subject, or just look for his posts in the various threads where Barge is mentioned.

[Swimming Bird]

How many loops are you talking here? I'd bet that one and maybe two loop options are out there, but anything more may be a long shot. Also, it's likely to get pretty costly.

Is there a chance that just getting a big multi-loop bypass could work (I understand it isn't your ideal solution)? You'd still run into the impedance problems when you had every pedal on, but I think it's more workable.

[skaelin]

Originally Posted by Swimming Bird

How many loops are you talking here? I'd bet that one and maybe two loop options are out there, but anything more may be a long shot. Also, it's likely to get pretty costly.

Is there a chance that just getting a big multi-loop bypass could work (I understand it isn't your ideal solution)? You'd still run into the impedance problems when you had every pedal on, but I think it's more workable.

5 or 6 loops would be nice with each one having its own blend control. I'd like it to be passive and if it were buffered I don't think mismatched impedances would be a problem.

Barge makes something like this, but I think their units only accommodate 1 to 2 loops at the most. It looks like I might have to have Barge or somebody build me a custom box.

[bongomania]

Originally Posted by skaelin

I'd like it to be passive and if it were buffered I don't think mismatched impedances would be a problem.

Just FYI "passive" and "buffered" are opposites. Buffered = active.

[skaelin]

Originally Posted by bongomania

Just FYI "passive" and "buffered" are opposites. Buffered = active.

Yea, this debate has been going on for years. If you think about it, even the label "passive preamp" is an oxymoron. I think it's just a matter of convenient labeling -- a passive "preamp" normally occupies the same position in the chain as an active preamp, it just doesn't have the active circuitry.

I understand the same problem lies with a buffered passive, but most people understand that this device introduces no amplification but addresses the impedance issues inherent in all passive designs.

I think it's best not to think about it too deeply, otherwise it will drive you crazy.

[bongomania]

There is no such thing as a passive preamp. Where have you even seen that phrase?

Originally Posted by skaelin

Yea, this debate has been going on for years.

No, actually, I don't mean to be jerky, but it hasn't. There has never been any debate about passive versus active preamps, because there is literally no such thing as a passive preamp. Amplification requires power. Anything that requires power is active. Perhaps you are thinking of passive tone controls? But they are not a preamp, and are not buffered. Buffering requires power.

Note: Villex claims to have created a passive boost system, but it works by robbing power from some frequencies in order to apparently "boost" others.

[skaelin]

Originally Posted by bongomania

There is no such thing as a passive preamp. Where have you even seen that phrase?

No, actually, I don't mean to be jerky, but it hasn't. There has never been any debate about passive versus active preamps, because there is literally no such thing as a passive preamp. Amplification requires power. Anything that requires power is active. Perhaps you are thinking of passive tone controls? But they are not a preamp, and are not buffered. Buffering requires power.

Note: Villex claims to have created a passive boost system, but it works by robbing power from some frequencies in order to apparently "boost" others.

Disagreeing with someone is not being jerky so no offense is taken. Friendly debate is always interesting. But you are wrong on one point -- this debate does in fact exist and the fact that we are debating it right now only proves that. I agree with you that using the term passive preamp is indeed a misnomer, but there has been an endless debate and/or various attempts to clarify what these passive devices should be called. Here are some examples:

http://community.klipsch.com/forums/t/38467.aspx

http://forums.audioholics.com/forums...ad.php?t=28300

http://www.audioasylum.com/forums/MU...ages/4080.html

http://archive2.avsforum.com/avs-vb/...d.php?t=499241

If you do a search on "+passive +active +preamp +{ misnomer OR debate} on www.audioasylum.com you'll see this topic come up again and again.

Notice how many people refer to the term "passive preamp" and how many try to correct them by calling it a "passive controller." Passive preamp is technically incorrect, but it has become a permanent part of the audio lexicon for better or worse. And to confuse matters more, a "passive" with buffers is called "a passive with buffers."

Don't shoot me I'm only the messenger.

[bongomania]

Wow. I don't spend time among stereophiles, so I had never encountered this terminology/usage before. In the MI/PA/recording/engineering worlds I believe you will never hear anyone say the phrase "passive preamp".

Originally Posted by skaelin

Notice how many people refer to the term "passive preamp" and how many try to correct them by calling it a "passive controller." Passive preamp is technically incorrect, but it has become a permanent part of the audio lexicon for better or worse.

I do see in those threads exactly what you're saying there, but there's literally a response of "misnomer" every single time someone says it; if you go to an engineer or pedal builder and ask for a passive preamp they will probably just look at you with their eyebrows raised.

Beyond the terminology though, is there anything about the "passive preamp" concept that you wanted related to the blender-looper pedal, or is it just a side issue of wording that I got caught up in?