Analog multieffects?

[Jagdmusik]

Are there any analog multifx units out there, and if not, why not?

I know about the SWR Mo' Bass, but to my knowledge it's not really any better than just building a pedalboard from individual stompboxes. The Mo' Control will let you activate combinations of effects with a single footswitch, but AFAIK it won't let you use different parameter settings than you currently have set with each of the Mo's face knobs... and those 5 million knobs on the unit cost money to make. Isn't there a more efficient way to produce a group of analog effects?

Take a look at the Tech21 Programmable BDDI, for example. Analog signal path with digital control technology. Saves presets with one set of knobs. Why can't you do this with multifx?

I learned recently that a bunch of modulation/delay effects all use the same basic core circuitry, like an LFO and/or bucket-brigade. Moreover, there seems to be a real demand for features like tap tempo and/or optional expression-pedal control of rate/depth... but where's the sense in buying a bundle (one for Trem, one for Flange, etc.) of the high-end pedals that tend to include these features, each with their own tap tempo switches and/or expression jacks (not to mention going out and buying individual expression pedals for each!). Talk about redundancy...

So why doesn't some high-end company just make an all-encompassing modulation pedal unit, with ONE set of core LFO/bucket circuitry driving various modulation effects, ONE set of knobs for rate/depth/blend/level/etc., ONE expression pedal, ONE tap-tempo switch, an all-analog signal path, and digitally programmable presets? While we're at it, misewell toss in a tube and give it a drive section. Voila, analog multieffects.

Now comes the part where you get to tell me why I'm an idiot for thinking this.

 

[Taylor Livingston]

People like to mix and match their effects - not everybody who likes the EHX Small Stone thinks the Electric Mistress is the best flanger, for example.

But, analog Multi-effects do exist. Ibanez made some in the 80s, like this one:

[Invalid or Expired Link Removed]

 

[JanusZarate]

A pedalboard is essentially a giant, custom-assembled multi-effect unit.

Based on that, you can clearly see why analog multi-effect units don't really sell. Our tastes are too individual!

 

[bongomania]

Price is the main consideration. Even though a set of analog circuits sharing a housing might cost less in total than the same effects in separate housings, it would still be a steep bill. Look at the Carl Martin Quattro or the FoxRox Captain Coconut. Back when the Ibanez UE series were new, they were expensive. It's not like digital where you can use the exact same software engine for all the fx, you have to have a fair amount of extra physical circuit to have multiple separate analog fx, even if a couple of them shared a BBD chip.

 

[Jimbob Jones]

There are a couple of studio rack units I know about, but nothing bass dedicated, or suitable for live work.

If you can dig out a tape of the 1994 Pink Floyd Dark Side Of The Moon gig, Dave Gilmour was using a huge black floor box (about four ft by two) that could have been an analog multi-fx, but it's an extremely long shot.

 

[JanusZarate]

Actually, I think that was his Bradshaw switcher for the pedals and rack effects in his giant racks.

 

[Jimbob Jones]

Ah well, never mind.

 

[JanusZarate]

Ah well, never mind.

It sort of counts, though

He has also had a variety of giant multi-switch, multi-knob floorboards built by gutting the circuits from his favorite pedals - basically, giant multi-effects units!

IIRC, they were all moved to the the rack and controlled remotely in the late 1980s / early 1990s.

 

[Jagdmusik]

Price is the main consideration. Even though a set of analog circuits sharing a housing might cost less in total than the same effects in separate housings, it would still be a steep bill. Look at the Carl Martin Quattro or the FoxRox Captain Coconut. Back when the Ibanez UE series were new, they were expensive. It's not like digital where you can use the exact same software engine for all the fx, you have to have a fair amount of extra physical circuit to have multiple separate analog fx, even if a couple of them shared a BBD chip.

Well...


1) The analog multifx units mentioned here don't take much, if ANY, advantage of digital programmability; none of them even get up to the minimal level of the PBDDI. Not only would programmability seem to save a ton of hardware by letting you get away with fewer parameter-adjustment knobs and so forth in total, it also has obvious, potentially massive advantages in onstage flexibility compared to individual pedals. Sure, you can set up loopers to turn groups of pedals on and off simultaneously, if you want to go through the trouble (and expense; loopers and patch cables ain't free), but forget about adjusting your knob settings on the fly to fit with different effect combos.


2) I acknowledge that everybody fancies different sounds, and yeah that's a big driver behind the market for individual pedals... But I'd think there are at least a couple companies out there that could make everything well enough to get people to settle for the combined unit even if they slightly preferred other products for one or another effect... I'm thinking in particular of EBS, partly because they're so good all-around (and generally recognized as such) that I actually already went out and bought all their pedals individually. I wanted to get a set of known-to-be-top-quality effects, and to spend my time on learning to make music with them, rather than on cross-shopping every pedal on the planet to find the ones that I liked the absolute-most-bestest-EVAR. And even though I own it all already, I'd buy all of EBS' stuff again if they issued it in a programmably-flexible combined unit like I'm talking about here.


3) Speaking of flexibility, maybe there's a market there. So, yeah, not everyone prefers a Small Stone, but if maybe if you gave it more adjustable parameters (made more feasible due, again, to programmability) it'd be enough to satisfy those people who'd prefer to find "their sound" by spending time with their instrument and effects, rather than on cross-shopping and research. Sure, the digital multifx market already appeals to these people, but that doesn't mean some of them wouldn't prefer a quality analog starting point for their effects explorations. Take a look at ToneCzar's stuff... I'd love to have that sort of flexibility AND top-notch quality, but personally I don't see shelling out $350+ a pop for each pedal, then getting expression pedals for them all in order to really take advantage of that flexibility. Ugh. :scowl:


4) On that subject, are the potential savings really so small for a unified analog system? Sure you need more circuitry than just LFO+BBD to run an array of modulation fx, but look at ToneCzar again... Beyond presumably sharing some modulation circuitry, their pedals are each replicating oodles of knobs and jacks and stuff because ALL of them have A) control over a bunch of parameters, B) multiple channels so you can have different sets of parameter settings accessible simultaneously, and C) extra features like optional expression-pedal control and what not. Couldn't they hack off a lot of the exorbitant combined cost of those units by using unified construction and digital programmability to do away with those multiple channels and redundant hardware?



Hmm... so I guess all my rambling can be summed up by asking: "Does digital programmability not offer all the same potential advantages for analog multifx as for digital multifx? Why then are there digital pedals, analog pedals, and digital multifx... but no analog multifx?"

Okay, so I'll grant that the cost savings for digital multifx are proportionately greater than for analog, but I still don't think that's convincing. If there's a market for uber-pricey individual pedals, there should be a market for uber-pricey multifx. To me it just looks like manufacturers haven't yet thought to apply the PBDDI's digital+analog approach as widely as it deserves... Though maybe there's some technical hurdle of which I'm totally ignorant.

Or maybe you're right, and most buyers just ain't me.

 

[JanusZarate]

There's just not enough of a market for it, IMO. A few reasons:

• Not everyone needs three different phase shifter settings, for example - they're often content with just one. Their second, if any, is usually a different pedal with a different sound. The KISS principle is as popular as ever.
• Extreme tweakability scares some musicians who worry that it will take hours to find "their" sounds (don't worry, I'm not one of them ). Many are content with simpler units that sound great out of the box.
• Multi-effects units have a generally bad rap, and it impacts the not-so-fantastic sales of even the really great ones.
• Size is always an issue; not everyone wants a pedal that large, no matter how many cool switches are on it.
• Price is enough of an issue that you'll lose a chunk of the market already. It's why the big pedal manufacturers rarely have pedals in excess of $200 - the minimal return is just not very lucrative.
• Digital has nowhere to go but up; it offers more flexibility than analog could ever provide, although actual quality is still hit-or-miss at this point. One of my digital pedals is so good (my EHX Stereo Electric Mistress) that you'll never convince me to go back to analog flangers. IMHO, of course.

That's just my two cents on the matter.

 

[bongomania]

Honestly, I think most mainstream builders are uninterested in sticking their necks out with a product that only a very small market will buy (compared to the huge turnover of inexpensive single pedals). And I think most "boutique" builders are not knowledgeable in DSP design or manufacturing.

Look to Pigtronix, they are stepping over those boundaries just a little, and may do so more in the future.

 

[Taylor Livingston]

Also, on the subject of "programmable" analog circuits, IIRC the PBDDI saves each parameter as one of maybe 10 values. For example, when you set your knob to 12 o clock, it gets saved as "5", but if you were to set it to about 12:20, it would still get saved as a "5", because that's the degree of quantization in this particular setup.

That probably works ok for a preamp/OD (I don't have a PBDDI, but it seems popular), but it wouldn't work at all for the speed control on a phaser; imagine having your speed saved as 3hz whether it was 3.3hz or 2.7hz - sounds mundane, but if you were timing the LFO to the BPM of your song, it would quickly go out of sync.

This isn't a necessary limitation of digitally-controlled analog ciruitry, but making a design that is more continuously variable than that would probably be expensive, or Sansamp would have done it.

 

[Jagdmusik]

• Not everyone needs three different phase shifter settings, for example - they're often content with just one. Their second, if any, is usually a different pedal with a different sound. The KISS principle is as popular as ever.
• Extreme tweakability scares some musicians who worry that it will take hours to find "their" sounds (don't worry, I'm not one of them ). Many are content with simpler units that sound great out of the box.

• 
  
  Actually I'm not too big a fan of tweakability myself... I'd rather get usable sounds quickly than have infinite options. But a tweakable unit holds the promise that buying it will get me some sort of useable variation on the basic effect, whereas with a narrow unit I might need to just get rid of it and shop around some more.
  
  I'd rather spend time tweaking, and thereby at least develop an understanding of how the parameters affect sound, than shopping, from which I won't learn much musically. Also, in theory, programmability can supply a shortcut through the tweaking by supplying factory presets.
  
  But, hey, I suppose some people like shopping for its own sake. In fact, I've long suspected that's part of what drives demand for individual pedals.
  
  
  

  And I think most "boutique" builders are not knowledgeable in DSP design or manufacturing.

  
  Good point. A small operation might be run by a couple guys that really know their stompbox circuitry, but DSP might be another world entirely for them... whereas a mainstream manufacturer with easier access to DSP wouldn't experience the same potential cost savings, nor do they necessarily have the top-quality analog effects base that would make an analog multifx system worthwhile for customers, nor would their beancounters be easy to convince to green-light the project.
  
  
  

  Also, on the subject of "programmable" analog circuits, IIRC the PBDDI saves each parameter as one of maybe 10 values. For example, when you set your knob to 12 o clock, it gets saved as "5", but if you were to set it to about 12:20, it would still get saved as a "5", because that's the degree of quantization in this particular setup.

  
  Good to know (especially since I was thinking about getting a PBDDI myself). This is the sort of hurdle that I was wondering about... I wouldn't be surprised if there are more of them, but I'd sure like it if more manufacturers made the attempt anyway.