My octaver experience (rant)

fitz420 · #1 01-02-2011, 11:46 AM

Alright, I just felt the need to make a post regarding my experience with octavers, mostly because of my latest revelation.

My quest for the right octaver started a few years ago with an OC-2. I liked it, but at the time my technique with an analog octaver wan't up to par and I felt that I didn't have the time to put into it. After a year or so I was turned onto the Micro Pog. It was awesome because the digital tracking is so flawless that I needed no technique. I used it for about a year, maybe a bit less, and started to miss the analog growl and dislike sound of the Micro Pog. I then tried the Aguilar Octamizer and the MXR BOD. I decided that i like the BOD the best so I bought one. I have used it on probably 50-75 gigs and during that time I have perfected my technique with an analog octaver. I thought I couldn't possibly be happier. Last week I started working on new material and realized that i need a 2nd BOD because I refuse to turn knobs during gigs, and I have 2 distinct settings. I don't quite have the money so I borrowed my friends OC-2, assuming I'd buy another BOD this week.

Now I'm back to where it started for me. My technique with an analog octaver is currently up to par and I realized this whole time what i've been missing.....the OC-2. For me, it blows away the BOD in every way, from tracking to noise level to tone. I tend to shy away from Boss pedals, but this is one instance for me where I'm glad I've opened up a bit.

hiddenline · #2 01-02-2011, 12:00 PM

It's interesting to hear your experience with different ocatave effects. I'm just getting started with trying to use one (OC-3 which has the OC-2 mode) and haven't figured out how to make it work in the band mix.

Wondering if you can share some info about your technique? Anything to definitely stay away from doing when using the effect?

thanks

Jim C · #3 01-02-2011, 12:07 PM

I would also like to get your impressions on the BOD (thought the tone and tracking were very good) but never had the opprotunity to try the OC-2.
Some folks here have complained about how low the BOD tracks although it went to G# for me repeatedly; wonder if that is technique or do they differ in performance from unit to unit

warwick.hoy · #4 01-02-2011, 12:21 PM

With analog octavers there are quite a few factors that go into how well it will track. I didn't have a strong technique when I first got my OC-2 and wondered why. The first thing I did as a noobie was come on to TBFX and got straightened out.

Since most (if not all) analog octavers are monophonic having a clean precise technique that includes muting any non sounding strings is imperative.

If you even look at second chord tone,...or an errant string,....Glitch.
If you hit a deadspot,....glitch.
If you feed it too many overtones,....glitch
If your bass is poorly setup,....glitch

If your octaver doesn't get the right power (such as improperly powering an old ACA OC-2) it won't track well.

To comment on the overtones,....when I use my OC-2 I find that it works better if I roll of the highs and move to the neck pup.

Funny how a lot of detractors say that people use FX to cover up sloppy technique,...yet an effect like an analog octaver can expose bad technique.

fitz420 · #5 01-02-2011, 01:39 PM

jim, warwick.hoy is right on with what he said. i play near the neck, with the neck pup higher that the bridge pup and roll off the highs a bit. i try to avoid open strings and play as far down the neck as i can. i also try as concentrate as hard as i can on fretting each note as cleanly as i can and muting any string not in use.

@warwick.hoy: you mentioned powering the oc-2 properly. i've been using a one-spot and haven't noticed any issues. i had an old ce-2b that also "required" aca power and used my one spot with no issues. what would the proper way to power mine be? should i use a battery?

scotch · #6 01-02-2011, 01:46 PM

I'm missing the 'rant' part.

Question, is the Oc-2 analog? I know the Oc-3 is digital, but I thought all of the Oc-2's were digital as well.

fitz420 · #7 01-02-2011, 01:47 PM

yeah, i guess it isn't much of a rant. the oc-2 is analog.

scotch · #8 01-02-2011, 01:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fitz420

yeah, i guess it isn't much of a rant. the oc-2 is analog.

Man,... they just have a funky inorganic tone for being analog.

I wish someone would build an octave pedal the other way around, digital tracking with a more analog sounding effect!

warwick.hoy · #9 01-02-2011, 01:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fitz420

jim, warwick.hoy is right on with what he said. i play near the neck, with the neck pup higher that the bridge pup and roll off the highs a bit. i try to avoid open strings and play as far down the neck as i can. i also try as concentrate as hard as i can on fretting each note as cleanly as i can and muting any string not in use.

@warwick.hoy: you mentioned powering the oc-2 properly. i've been using a one-spot and haven't noticed any issues. i had an old ce-2b that also "required" aca power and used my one spot with no issues. what would the proper way to power mine be? should i use a battery?

This should explain it better than I can.

http://www.bossarea.com/other/aca.asp

I daisy chain my ACA powered OC-2 off of my TU-2

Quote:

Originally Posted by scotch

I'm missing the 'rant' part.

Question, is the Oc-2 analog? I know the Oc-3 is digital, but I thought all of the Oc-2's were digital as well.

It's analog.

Jim C · #10 01-02-2011, 02:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fitz420

jim, warwick.hoy is right on with what he said. i play near the neck, with the neck pup higher that the bridge pup and roll off the highs a bit.

I understand the technique issue and had no problems with the one BOD I tried; reasonably quick tracking and low as an F#; great stuff; what diiferences between it and the OC-2?

Jared Lash · #11 01-02-2011, 02:58 PM

Analog is a strange term to use with octavers considering how the octave down is produced by the circuit, but yes - given the normal conventions the OC-2 is analog.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jim C

I understand the technique issue and had no problems with the one BOD I tried; reasonably quick tracking and low as an F#; great stuff; what diiferences between it and the OC-2?

The BOD's "Growl" knob is practically identical to the OC-2 sound. The MXR adds the "Girth" knob tone, the mids boost switch and more available gain on each octave, making it more versatile than the Boss.

The MXR also tracks just a bit more reliably on low notes (G#, G, F# etc) but the Boss tracks noticeably faster and cleaner. All IME. I ended up keeping the Boss and selling the MXR for those reasons but I could see why some would prefer the more flexible BOD.

FWIW I get the best tracking playing near the end of the fingerboard but favoring the bridge pickup.

MR PC · #12 01-02-2011, 03:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by scotch

I wish someone would build an octave pedal the other way around, digital tracking with a more analog sounding effect!

The original EBS pedal with the input jack on the left side. I don't know if the newer ones are the same.

scotch · #13 01-02-2011, 03:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MR PC

The original EBS pedal with the input jack on the left side. I don't know if the newer ones are the same.

I had one of those. Loved the output tone! However, of course, it was all analog!

Jim C · #14 01-03-2011, 12:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jared Lash

The BOD's "Growl" knob is practically identical to the OC-2 sound. The MXR adds the "Girth" knob tone, the mids boost switch and more available gain on each octave, making it more versatile than the Boss.

The MXR also tracks just a bit more reliably on low notes (G#, G, F# etc) but the Boss tracks noticeably faster and cleaner. All IME. I ended up keeping the Boss and selling the MXR for those reasons but I could see why some would prefer the more flexible BOD.

FWIW I get the best tracking playing near the end of the fingerboard but favoring the bridge pickup.

Great comparison; just the info I needed; thanks.

The Lurker · #15 01-03-2011, 09:13 PM

It's actually the twitchy gurgling that I like about the OC-2-- sometimes I deliberately set it up to fail, because I like the glitching.

EthanTheHeathen · #16 01-03-2011, 09:21 PM

Ampeg Sub-Blaster!!!! Kind of a different breed of octave effect than the OC-2. The Ampeg has a very deep, thick lower octave and tracks really really well (and is analog). I've used it primarily for cello (overtone city!) and it has done a great job. Might be too thick for some bass applications though, as it doesn't have that growly thing like other analog octave pedals do.

**jmattbassplaya** · #17 01-03-2011, 09:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EthanTheHeathen

Ampeg Sub-Blaster!!!! Kind of a different breed of octave effect than the OC-2. The Ampeg has a very deep, thick lower octave and tracks really really well (and is analog). I've used it primarily for cello (overtone city!) and it has done a great job. Might be too thick for some bass applications though, as it doesn't have that growly thing like other analog octave pedals do.

Good luck finding one, too. Those things are rare

fitz420 · #18 01-03-2011, 09:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jim C

I understand the technique issue and had no problems with the one BOD I tried; reasonably quick tracking and low as an F#; great stuff; what diiferences between it and the OC-2?

for me it seems to track quicker passages better than the bod. i do really like the options with the bod, it IS a great pedal. i also think the oc-2 is quieter than the bod. i had some noise issues running the bod into fuzz. i have less with the oc-2.

fitz420 · #19 01-03-2011, 09:30 PM

so....i also just got back from picking up another oc-2. i already have a later MIJ one with the normal "octave" as opposed to the earlier "octaver" name. the one i just bought locally is a MIT one. i'm curious to see if there is any audible difference or tracking differences. i plan to do a thorough comparison this week.

as a side note, i popped them open and checked the guts out. they look completely different inside. maybe i'll try and get some pix up.

Smallequestrian · #20 01-04-2011, 08:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fitz420

so....i also just got back from picking up another oc-2. i already have a later MIJ one with the normal "octave" as opposed to the earlier "octaver" name. the one i just bought locally is a MIT one. i'm curious to see if there is any audible difference or tracking differences. i plan to do a thorough comparison this week.

as a side note, i popped them open and checked the guts out. they look completely different inside. maybe i'll try and get some pix up.

I had an MIJ and MIT at the same time. No difference. The only reason I had both is because I got them cheaply.