Boss GT-1B ... Arrogant? Stupid? Definitely unusable live.

[ChubbyJerk]

There isn't really a typical bypass on the GT-1B. I mean, it isn't like there's a bypass switch. You've got your virtual chain, and you can turn things on and off in that chain, but you can't just bypass the whole thing. Closest would be either an empty effect chain, chain with everything off, or maybe tuner bypass mode?

If you're worried about what it sounds like "bypassed", you're missing the point of the unit, IMO. To me, that's outside the scope of its intended use cases.

Obviously this is just my opinion. That's how it feels to me when I use it.

 

[moles]

GT1-B no, MS-3 yes. Very cool little machine. While not a wiring fest like the ES8 it should be great for someone liking to mix pedals with a multi. Outstanding modulations and delays.

On the topic of conversion and bypass, the bypassed MS3 is audibly different from a cable bypass. Not bad but hearable. It has that bright clean tone shared by a lot of Boss gear. I certainly could live with it.
There already are tests around with measurements that demonstrate the B3n bypass as impossible do distinguish from cable bypass. It doesn't come as a surprise since it was already the case with the B3.
The same early tests regarding the GT1B currently go from "unbearable" to "decent".

This is literally the opposite experience I've had - both GT-10B units I've owned had basically the best bypass of any pedal I've owned; The B3 had one of the worst...I itself vnot worth bailing on the B3, but it was a factor...

I do NOT say this to be contrary, (unfortunately I think that's how it was taken in the B3n thread) but I think what it illustrates is that what we are comparing is often two different impedance values - your amp input, how it works together with your bass' output, and then what happens to the signal when the 'thing' in question is inserted in the chain.

My opinion these days is there is no such thing as transparent - you got "it screws with my signal I the same way my amp does", "it screws with my signal in a different way than my amp does but it sounds good", and, "it screws with my signal in a different way than my amp does and it's bad sounding".

 

[Jazz Ad]

There isn't really a typical bypass on the GT-1B. I mean, it isn't like there's a bypass switch.

Like most if not all multis on the market, your GT-1B has a bypass mode merged with the tuner. You can activate it by pressing the 2 left pedal together.

This is literally the opposite experience I've had - both GT-10B units I've owned had basically the best bypass of any pedal I've owned; The B3 had one of the worst...I itself vnot worth bailing on the B3, but it was a factor...

I do NOT say this to be contrary, (unfortunately I think that's how it was taken in the B3n thread) but I think what it illustrates is that what we are comparing is often two different impedance values - your amp input, how it works together with your bass' output, and then what happens to the signal when the 'thing' in question is inserted in the chain.

My opinion these days is there is no such thing as transparent - you got "it screws with my signal I the same way my amp does", "it screws with my signal in a different way than my amp does but it sounds good", and, "it screws with my signal in a different way than my amp does and it's bad sounding".

There is no reason for a properly designed device to screw the signal, it being an amp or effect.

In the case of the B3, its bypass mode has measurably no impact, good or bad on the sound of the instrument. It's absolutely transparent. Whatever you experience didn't come from a bad bypass on the B3.

The only way I could see you hearing a difference is if you used a passive bass with no buffer on the signal path and compared the B3 to a true bypass loop, in which case you compared the impact of 2 different impedances into your amp input rather than the quality of 2 bypasses.
True bypass in a long signal chain is lethal to passive basses, which is why a good buffer early in the chain is essential to avoid signal degradation.

 

[ChubbyJerk]

Like most if not all multis on the market, your GT-1B has a bypass mode merged with the tuner. You can activate it by pressing the 2 left pedal together.

Right. I mentioned that.

What I said was correct. There is no bypass switch. There is a tuner, which you have to press two buttons to activate, and which mutes instead of bypasses by default.

Point being, I don't think they expected or intended for bypass mode to really be an oft-used mode.

 

[TodaysTomSawyer]

Right. I mentioned that.

What I said was correct. There is no bypass switch. There is a tuner, which you have to press two buttons to activate, and which mutes instead of bypasses by default.

Point being, I don't think they expected or intended for bypass mode to really be an oft-used mode.

Yeah, on units like the GT-10B its labeled Tuner/Bypass. The function is the same as you guys mentioned on the little units... But, I think the bypass info came up regarding the new Boss MS-3 bypass, which I am in the process of scoring!

 

[moles]

Like most if not all multis on the market, your GT-1B has a bypass mode merged with the tuner. You can activate it by pressing the 2 left pedal together.There is no reason for a properly designed device to screw the signal, it being an amp or effect.

In the case of the B3, its bypass mode has measurably no impact, good or bad on the sound of the instrument. It's absolutely transparent. Whatever you experience didn't come from a bad bypass on the B3.

The only way I could see you hearing a difference is if you used a passive bass with no buffer on the signal path and compared the B3 to a true bypass loop, in which case you compared the impact of 2 different impedances into your amp input rather than the quality of 2 bypasses.
True bypass in a long signal chain is lethal to passive basses, which is why a good buffer early in the chain is essential to avoid signal degradation.

?

None of what you're referencing had anything to do with my real world experiences....
Apparently you couldn't be bothered to actually read my post though And want to go go down the same road. Ain't playing.

 

[gumtown]

Point being, I don't think they expected or intended for bypass mode to really be an oft-used mode.

I have to agree with this, if using a multi effects with all the bells and whistles, including amp modelling,
why the need for a bypass, as that defeats the purpose of having the thing.
I don't see many pedal boards which are loaded with rows of effects/pedals having a bypass to exclude the entire pedal board.

 

[Jazz Ad]

I use multis the same way I use separate pedals. Very often I will play with a clean tone, ie no effect engaged.
A good bypass also shows that the tone of your instrument will be respected when effects are engaged. This is crucial for clean tones.
If you start with an altered version of the sound of your bass, it can take a lot of tweaking to get back to it. It's one of the reasons why so many people are reluctant to use digital effects.

There is no bypass switch. There is a tuner, which you have to press two buttons to activate, and which mutes instead of bypasses by default.

Point being, I don't think they expected or intended for bypass mode to really be an oft-used mode.

I'm sure you know that there is a menu that lets you choose between mute and bypass for the tuner. A good bypass is essential to me for the forementioned reasons.

None of what you're referencing had anything to do with my real world experiences....
Apparently you couldn't be bothered to actually read my post though And want to go go down the same road. Ain't playing.

Where's the frustration coming from?
I answered your post the best I could based on my personal experience, which at this point extends to pretty much all bass multis that ever where created.
I can't however react to info that isn't presented.

 

[jimfist]

I have to agree with this, if using a multi effects with all the bells and whistles, including amp modelling,
why the need for a bypass, as that defeats the purpose of having the thing.
I don't see many pedal boards which are loaded with rows of effects/pedals having a bypass to exclude the entire pedal board.

This is probably way off base since its apples-to-oranges, but I was definitely spoiled by the AxeFx (Ultra and II), and they both had a dedicated BYPASS switch (not true bypass, though). It was very handy when testing to see how a loaded up signal chain compared to the bypassed fully dry signal for tone and maintaining unity gain (when needed).

I believe the Helix/LT both have a BYPASS switch. Again, different leagues, but there it is.

I'm aware of a number of bassists using modeling multi-fx who appreciate amp modeling, but haven't been sold on cabinet simulation. And yes, I do believe that there are bassists who use modeling multi-fx for just the front-end effects, or in their amp's effects loop. These usage scenarios may not necessarily be the primary intent of a multi-fx modeler...but....if the amp/cab modeling sims were only intended to be used ALWAYS, then why are they individually able to be bypassed?

I think manufacturers have to acknowledge that not all users are going to employ amp/cab sims 100% of the time, and to not allow for this would be a terrible limitation decision, don't you think? Thus some sort of 100% dry/bypass scheme has to exist. JMHO

 

[The Deep End]

I have to agree with this, if using a multi effects with all the bells and whistles, including amp modelling,
why the need for a bypass, as that defeats the purpose of having the thing.

You're describing why I need a bypass on a multi: I'm NOT using all the bells and whistles - IN PARTICULAR not the amp modeling. I happened to find amps / cabs that I love BEFORE I went looking for effects. I want to use JUST the effects in the multi, but then bypass it all.

I don't see many pedal boards which are loaded with rows of effects/pedals having a bypass to exclude the entire pedal board.

My pedal board - all "real" pedal boards - do have a way to bypass all pedals: on/offs on each pedal. Obviously I state the obvious .

My hope for multis is that I get a better "virtual" pedal board. More effects, less stomping, and less pieces that can fail.

 

[ChubbyJerk]

I think manufacturers have to acknowledge that not all users are going to employ amp/cab sims 100% of the time, and to not allow for this would be a terrible limitation decision, don't you think? Thus some sort of 100% dry/bypass scheme has to exist. JMHO

They do allow it. But to your main point...no. I don't think that's a terrible limitation decision. Because it's not the point of the pedal. They have a wide variety of pedals available. And there are many other companies that make pedals. This one pedal doesn't have meet everybody's needs.

The Aftershock could have included models for reverb pedals. They have to acknowledge that not every customer is going to want drive pedals, and to not include reverbs is a terrible limitation decision, right?

No. If you don't want an amp or can or preamp or whatever always on, and you don't like the bypass implementation, maybe the pedal isn't right for you. That's ok, dude. I understand.

It makes sense, given the nature of the pedal. Again, just my opinion.

And once again, it's pretty much the industry standard for these types of pedals, right?

 

[jimfist]

Yes, of course BOSS has not locked anyone into being forced to use amp/cab modeling 100% of the time. Naturally. But the fact that you can bypass the amp/cab simulation would indicate that BOSS also recognizes that not everyone will necessarily want to implement that feature, or else they might as well lock that feature in as ALWAYS ON. I'm sure that there are reasonable ways to work around whatever ails end-users WRT bypass tone/level, etc. And if not, then sure, you've got the wrong pedal. What should you expect from a sub-$200 multi-fx pedal anyway? All good.

 

[The Deep End]

Yes, of course BOSS has not locked anyone into being forced to use amp/cab modeling 100% of the time. Naturally. But the fact that you can bypass the amp/cab simulation would indicate that BOSS also recognizes that not everyone will necessarily want to implement that feature, or else they might as well lock that feature in as ALWAYS ON. I'm sure that there are reasonable ways to work around whatever ails end-users WRT bypass tone/level, etc. And if not, then sure, you've got the wrong pedal. What should you expect from a sub-$200 multi-fx pedal anyway? All good.

I still ask the question: why NOT make multis easier to bypass? Slightly different design - which wouldn't add much (if anything) to manufacturing costs - can make device more versatile and satisfy more of us. Boss didn't see this as "desirable" enough which just seems foolish.

 

[jimfist]

I still ask the question: why NOT make multis easier to bypass? Slightly different design - which wouldn't add much (if anything) to manufacturing costs - can make device more versatile and satisfy more of us. Boss didn't see this as "desirable" enough which just seems foolish.

I'm guessing that this is one of those features that is deemed to be secondary to their target market. To be honest, I've no idea how easy or difficult/expensive it is to implement a simple bypass feature (digital or otherwise) for one of these inexpensive multi-fx pedals. BOSS is not alone, though, in this respect.

It appears to be one of those things particular to the low cost market, populated by large numbers of home users, beginners, part-time hobbyists, etc. Nothing wrong with that IMO. It just means that those of us who have more specific/serious requirements have to allow for certain shortcomings or shell out the coin for augmentations or for a more full-featured product. Can't have everything indulged on the cheap. Oh well.

 

[ChubbyJerk]

I still ask the question: why NOT make multis easier to bypass? Slightly different design - which wouldn't add much (if anything) to manufacturing costs - can make device more versatile and satisfy more of us. Boss didn't see this as "desirable" enough which just seems foolish.

What do you want? Another switch? There isn't really room, and if they made room I'd much rather have the additional switch for turning on individual pedals. Maybe the ability to assign a switch to a single press tuner on/off? That might already be possible, not sure. I'd never use it like that. Seems like a waste of a switch on this pedal.

It's a very small pedal. The switches are already about as close as you could reasonably make them and still make it so you don't hit two at once. They wanted it to be small and light. It fits into the pouch on my gig bag. I like that. IMO they did a good job of keeping it small and fitting a good amount right on the front.

IMO, it's a great little pedal. Versatile. Sounds good. Cheap. Small and easy to carry around. Nice menus, pretty easy to program from the unit.

There are things I don't like about it. It lacks a power switch, for example. But it's a cheap all in one multi, and it does its job well.

 

[Jantelagen]

I still ask the question: why NOT make multis easier to bypass? Slightly different design - which wouldn't add much (if anything) to manufacturing costs - can make device more versatile and satisfy more of us. Boss didn't see this as "desirable" enough which just seems foolish.

I agree... Although, Boss does have the MS3 to accommodate those needs

 

[gregmon79]

I'm sure this thing sounds pretty sweet. If it's anything like the MD500 it's great. I got the MD500 a month or so ago and I REALLY like it. It's surprising that it is so hard to use say in a live setting though. The MD500 is simple and fluid. But then the this isn't the same thing. I'm just surprised that they can make something like the MD500, or any of the 500 series, and have this one be so tough to use.

 

[ChubbyJerk]

I've been using it live fine. I find it to be fairly intuitive. I wouldn't want to sit down at a gig and program up a patch, but programming at home goes smoothly, and operating the unit live after doing that goes smoothly.

I added a double switch for live use, so I have 2 switches for up/down patch navigation, 3 switches I can assign to turn on/off individual effects, and the expression pedal. It's a nice setup, and it all easily fits in the front pouch of my gig bag.

 

[warrplayer]

I've been using it live fine. I find it to be fairly intuitive. I wouldn't want to sit down at a gig and program up a patch, but programming at home goes smoothly, and operating the unit live after doing that goes smoothly.

I added a double switch for live use, so I have 2 switches for up/down patch navigation, 3 switches I can assign to turn on/off individual effects, and the expression pedal. It's a nice setup, and it all easily fits in the front pouch of my gig bag.

How does it sound compared to the Helix you recently owned?

 

[ChubbyJerk]

How does it sound compared to the Helix you recently owned?

I have no problem getting sounds I'm happy with. There are drastic limitations compared to the Helix when it comes to routing, parallel paths, I/O, and so on, but it's hardly fair to compare features on units priced $1300 apart.

Helix had just added some bass models, like a B7k ultra, and I miss those. I'm struggling to get a wah sound I'm satisfied with (though I like the auto-wahs), but beyond those I'm ok with it as a cheap alternative.