you folks' opinions on something...

**john turner** · #1 04-22-2009, 04:03 PM

hey guys

i just recently resurrected my big monster rig (as illustrated in this thread) but i'm sorta stuck on how i want to configure something.

i've got the x-over output from my 680 going into my switching matrix (plugging my instruments into the aguilar to switch between multiples).

i've been thinking that i'd use just the high frequency output from the aguilar to send to the effects - i x-over at about 100-120 hz.

what do you guys think about that? most effects aren't going to do much with lower frequencies anyway, but get all mucky, no? then again, the output from some of the effects (especially the octave stuff i do) might get lost if i don't have it x-overed into the sub as well.

so. any thoughts? anyone ever xover their signal and send just the highs (well, the 100Hz and up highs heh) to the effects?

bongomania · #2 04-22-2009, 04:10 PM

Sure, that's a great way to go for some (but not all) effects. I would do that with chorus, flanger, dirt of all flavors, delay, reverb, phaser, and hmm I'll think of some more in a minute. Ones that I would run full-range only would include filters, octavers, and tremolo.

Actually there might be some benefit to running only the highs through an octave-down effect, because (a) most of them can't process the lows well anyway, and (b) it gets muddy down there.

**john turner** · #3 04-22-2009, 04:14 PM

guess i'll just have to experiement with it some, but yeah, the more i think of it, the more i think the resultant sounds will remain relatively clean this way.

Jared Lash · #4 04-22-2009, 04:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bongomania

Sure, that's a great way to go for some (but not all) effects. I would do that with chorus, flanger, dirt of all flavors, delay, reverb, phaser, and hmm I'll think of some more in a minute. Ones that I would run full-range only would include filters, octavers, and tremolo.

Actually there might be some benefit to running only the highs through an octave-down effect, because (a) most of them can't process the lows well anyway, and (b) it gets muddy down there.

+1 though the new EBS TremoLo has a low pass filter which seems to work pretty well.

There are a number of bassists that use effects this way. I believe Dirk Lance from Incubus did this. And of course Bootsy had separate rigs for his highs, mids and lows and separate effects chains for each.

**john turner** · #5 04-22-2009, 05:02 PM

ooo. an effect on the low/sub. wow.

/googles bootsy's effects setup.
/takes notes.

vegas532 · #6 04-22-2009, 05:25 PM

Running distortions and modulations like this would be THE SHIZNIT!!

Jared Lash · #7 04-22-2009, 05:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by john turner

ooo. an effect on the low/sub. wow.

/googles bootsy's effects setup.
/takes notes.

You can google yo self in the earhole til the funk makes you scream if that's how you get down, but a quick search in TBFX gets you what you need Baby Bubba.

There was a recent thread on his ridiculous 1979 rig.

excane · #8 04-22-2009, 05:35 PM

I think splitting the signal like that would be great.

I used to play around with this a lot more, and adding only the modulation FX and sometimes a little dirt sounded very interesting on the upper frequencies. Very shimmery or "wet"....really nice for solo stuff.

Joe Gress · #9 04-22-2009, 06:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheBigO

gets you what you need Baby Bubba.

Umm.

b_carville · #10 04-22-2009, 06:37 PM

That sounds good.
Do put the octive splitter in the sub though.

**john turner** · #11 04-22-2009, 06:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheBigO

You can google yo self in the earhole til the funk makes you scream if that's how you get down, but a quick search in TBFX gets you what you need Baby Bubba.

pardon me stewardess...

Quote:

There was a recent thread on his ridiculous 1979 rig.

cool, i'll look it up.

Joe Gress · #12 04-22-2009, 07:42 PM

Bootsy's rig, 1979

Mudfuzz · #13 04-22-2009, 08:06 PM

JT, how many different sounds are you actually going to use? I know you have a lot of stuff going on there but I think it would be good to sit down a think on the root sounds you are trying to use, then try those with your different signal path ideas, and then base that on how you handle everything else. Personally I wouldn't go the that rout, if I was to go with a "monster rig" for FX I'd have everything in a patch bay[s] so I could switch everything around at will; and some day I will do this, I just need to break down and buy all the plugs and cable to make the patch cables........................

Thunderscreech · #14 04-23-2009, 08:26 AM

1. Split signals according to Bongo.
2. ????
3. PROFIT

**john turner** · #15 04-23-2009, 08:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mudfuzz

JT, how many different sounds are you actually going to use? I know you have a lot of stuff going on there but I think it would be good to sit down a think on the root sounds you are trying to use, then try those with your different signal path ideas, and then base that on how you handle everything else. Personally I wouldn't go the that rout, if I was to go with a "monster rig" for FX I'd have everything in a patch bay[s] so I could switch everything around at will; and some day I will do this, I just need to break down and buy all the plugs and cable to make the patch cables........................

yeah, the role of patchbay in my current rig is being served by a switchblade. sort of a 16 in/16 out programmable, midi-switchable patchbay. check em out - they have an 8 channel version too, that's not too pricey.

the only reason i'm trying to determine this right now is whether i want to use the aguilar as the plugin-point to the rig for my basses, or have my basses go directly into the switchblade first and then get routed from there.

audio-wise, the quality of the output is the same, ime - the switchblade is a great unit, and i notice very little difference in the tone with it in line or not. the only determining factor would be whether i wanted to split my signal or not before i applied effects.

Mudfuzz · #16 04-23-2009, 09:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by john turner

yeah, the role of patchbay in my current rig is being served by a switchblade. sort of a 16 in/16 out programmable, midi-switchable patchbay. check em out - they have an 8 channel version too, that's not too pricey.

Yeah those sound cool, will look into it; I have a old Akai one with a similar idea: Midi and a blend/volume for each of the patches/loops.

Quote:

Originally Posted by john turner

the only reason i'm trying to determine this right now is whether i want to use the aguilar as the plugin-point to the rig for my basses, or have my basses go directly into the switchblade first and then get routed from there.

audio-wise, the quality of the output is the same, ime - the switchblade is a great unit, and i notice very little difference in the tone with it in line or not. the only determining factor would be whether i wanted to split my signal or not before i applied effects.

It's hard for anyone to say what you would like your self; I like the idea of splitting your signal between different "amps" but "I" don't see the need for running on anything other then full range because even if you can't always "hear" the effect effecting the low freq's it still adds to the overall feel and depth of the sound and I don't see any of that as adding mud.