• TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
    Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
    Join free Log in
    Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.

CreativeAudioLabs Redeemer Circuit. WOW!!!

#21
I run a Redeemer in my Skjold Lion's Pride P (I think Pete is putting this in all of his passive instruments). It achieves the desired effects, but I have no real idea on how or why it does it other than what I read on there website.

I have taken the battery out and played with the bass passive, and its obviously not the same bass without it. I know this is about its effects on an active bass, but I just wanted to say that if you have a passive low output instrument, its definitely something worth looking into.
 
#22
SGD Lutherie said:
I was looking for an old thread on this... but this will do. :D

Pete, with all due respect, a buffer is any device that presents a high impedance load for the pickups, and a low impedance load to drive the cable. It isolates--buffers--the pickups from the cable, and/or controls. Technically speaking anything that does that job is a buffer. Almost all active devices used for audio have a buffer on the front end. This is true of a bass preamp with active tone controls, or your amplifier. The thing you want is to get the buffer as close to the pickups as possible, and before the cable.

On the old thread I had commented that I felt the Redeemer was a simple buffer, and apparently the people at Creation Labs say it's not. They also said it's not a transistor or op amp... but that leaves no other class of active devices. They also claim it's patent pending, but I looked, and they did not file any patent application I could find.

I felt the claims were rather outrageous, especially the one about getting more sustain because of the lack of loading on the pickups, which they claimed also loads the strings. And that's just not possible. If that were the case, a bass with no pickups or even just unplugged from the cord would sustain more, and that doesn't happen.

The one thing I did not try was disconnecting the battery from the Redeemer. I was more interested in seeing if it sounds any different from a FET or op amp buffer you can make for under $10. I had commented that a simple FET buffer would do the same thing, and sound the same as the Redeemer.

So a forum member (cybersnyder) was kind enough to loan me (and very patient since I had the thing much longer than intended) a Redeemer to try out.

So without further ado, here is a shoot out of some active devices. You can be the judge. I'm doing this as a blind test, with a clip of the bass run passive as a control. Any distortion or buzz heard is from my recording levels, and not the devices, and the buzz is due to all these things not being in a shielded control cavity. One device was slightly hotter than the rest, but I did not change recording levels at all during the tests, which were done one after another.

All clips were recorded with the same bass (SGD Scorpio 5 string with Neo Series 3 pickups) plugged directly into a Roland Digital mixer and recorded into TC Works Spark XL. No EQ was used at all. The signal was entirely in the digital domain. The pickups are running through a 500K blend and 500K volume pot. The volume was on full. The tone did not change with any of the units when I turned the volume down, which is a hallmark of a buffer.

I tried to play basically the same run each time. I played the bridge pickup first, then the neck, and then both.

Besides the passive clip, you will hear the Redeemer, an EMG BTC set flat, and a FET buffer. The clips are in random order and only marked A, B, and C.

So first here is the bass totally passive.

Link Removed

Now the test clips:

Link Removed

Link Removed

Link Removed

OK, so which is which? ;)

(I'll give the answers later)
Click to expand...

As I said you can call it a buffer , that is what it is but it does not function as a normal buffered gain stage in a preamp which is what people keep wanting to call it . The redeemer is not adding any gain of it's own , do your fet systems add gain ? If they do then they are not doing the same thing . Can you defeat the active buffer in those other devices without bypassing them totally ? With the redeemer you can take the battery out and still have it in line and you don't loose signal , just the effect the redeemer is having on what ever load you have comming in to the bass . You can set the redeemer up with a bypass switch which allows you to hear the difference . If you have a high quality cable and your plugging into anything that doesn't load your signal to begin with the redeemer won't have much effect at all , it is only when a loading cable or frontend of an amp or pedel that the redeemer does it's thing . With all the different variables this helps passive basses retain the original sound before any loading occures . It is just another avenue .

As I said before , I don't expect to change your mind on this and with all due respect ( and I do respect your knowlwdge and experience ) if you don't think the product is any good don't use it . It sounds like you are capable of finding and making what you like and have figured it out . I use the redeemer in my passive basses and I like what it does for them . I have also installed several for people who liked what it did for thier basses ( after A/Bing them with and without the redeemer .

I am sure the redeemer is not for everyone and not everyone is going to find value in it . I don't want to argue it's worth or value ( THATS UP TO THE PURCHASER ) and I don't want to argue how it works or if you could make one for 10.00 in parts . These are all up to the individual who might want to check one out . Thanks for posting your clips , I am glad you feel strongly enough about your opinion to go through the trouble . And as I said I do respect it , I would be interested in hearing your pickup at some point so I hope we can accept eachothers views .

Pete
 
#28
I wanted to add something to my other comments .

I agree with much of what David Schwab has to say regarding buffers and active electronics and some of the clains of the redeemer I don't get either , but I wanted to refine my points a little bit .

first , the redeemer doesn't add anything to your sound , it merely keeps it from changing when a load is introduced to the output of the bass . When you hear the redeemer in effect what you are hearing is the purest sound of your bass ( for better or worse ) . By plugging your bass into a cheap cable or a cable that atteuates treble , you lose topend clarity . If you plug into an amp that loads at the input you will lose gain . so when you don't lose any of this because the redeemer is preventing it it gives the imppression that you are gaining something just like a buffered gain does .

My other point is with a buffered gain or impedence buffer will do a very similar thing to the redeemer , it does this by ADDING gain or Changing impedence overall ( which will change the sound of your bass ) . If done right the result can be very desireable . So there is an option , I used several before I heard the redeemer .

I just happen to like the way the redeemer works VS the other options David Mentioned . They are all perfectly fine . I really don't know why the redeemer polarizes people this way , maybe because of the price or that it doesn't follow convention . I was skeptical when I first heard about it too . I was able to demo them at The Arlinton guitar show and found they worked for what I was looking for .

My speakers are not hooked up so unfortunately I can't hear the tests .

Pete
 
#29
Pete skjold said:
I wanted to add something to my other comments .

I agree with much of what David Schwab has to say regarding buffers and active electronics and some of the clains of the redeemer I don't get either , but I wanted to refine my points a little bit .

first , the redeemer doesn't add anything to your sound , it merely keeps it from changing when a load is introduced to the output of the bass . When you hear the redeemer in effect what you are hearing is the purest sound of your bass ( for better or worse ) . By plugging your bass into a cheap cable or a cable that atteuates treble , you lose topend clarity . If you plug into an amp that loads at the input you will lose gain . so when you don't lose any of this because the redeemer is preventing it it gives the imppression that you are gaining something just like a buffered gain does .

My other point is with a buffered gain or impedence buffer will do a very similar thing to the redeemer , it does this by ADDING gain or Changing impedence overall ( which will change the sound of your bass ) . If done right the result can be very desireable . So there is an option , I used several before I heard the redeemer .

I just happen to like the way the redeemer works VS the other options David Mentioned . They are all perfectly fine . I really don't know why the redeemer polarizes people this way , maybe because of the price or that it doesn't follow convention . I was skeptical when I first heard about it too . I was able to demo them at The Arlinton guitar show and found they worked for what I was looking for .

My speakers are not hooked up so unfortunately I can't hear the tests .

Pete
Click to expand...

Pete, I'm not against the redeemer…I'm not doubting that it works and probably works well…It's just that currently all of its claims taste and smell a bit like snake oil...
 
#30
PilbaraBass said:
Pete, I'm not against the redeemer…I'm not doubting that it works and probably works well…It's just that currently all of its claims taste and smell a bit like snake oil...
Click to expand...

Like I said when I read the claims i was skeptical too . I don't know if it does everything it claims frankly . I know it does what I want it too and that is why i use it . Like I have said it is up to the customer to decide . I put it in my bass as a standard unit on passive models . What it does for me is give my passive controlled basses a active type output without changing or adding anything that the bass has to offer from the start .

My question to you is have you tried one ? Would you like to try one ? ( I will get you one ) You can set it up with a bypass to really hear the difference . And once again , It only really has an effect if the equipment you are plugging into is sending back a heavy load to your electroncs and pickups . Then you really can hear how well it maintains the true sound of your bass . If you use a 150.00 cable that does the same thing than you don't need the redeemer and I have heard these cables . Who wants to spend 150.00 for ten feet of cable ? but these cables work and they do sell them for this very reason .

Anyway , I am not against anyone who thinks this thing is snake oil , just find out for yourself first hand . That is all I will say on this subject . Try it and if you don't like it , get your money back and post your first hand experience of the product .

PS , the original poster bought one and did just that , posted his satisfaction and impression of the product . Done

Pete
 
#31
In a while I'll be giving David's clips a critical listen.... can't right now. It strikes me that one of the reasons why people are skeptical about the Redeemer is due to the way it has been marketed, shrouding the device in mystery. Why not say it is a proprietary circuit like the Villex equalization circuit? Surely the Redeemer doesn't violate the laws of physics and works according to well understood principles.....
 
#32
Oh, surely it does, but that doesn't mean it's being represented in accordance with those laws and principles. ;) Pete S., setting aside the question of "is it any good" for a moment, I guess I don't understand your use of the term 'load'. My understanding was that loading is caused by having an output impedance that is too high relative to the input impedance it connects to. Any active buffer lowers the z out to the point that any normal amp or pedal z in will be significantly higher; and there is a point of diminishing returns, where increasing the gap further becomes less and less audible or relevant. Now, I grant that the "understanding" I just described may be flawed in some particular, as I'm no expert. But if what I have described is not flawed, then the load you say the Redeemer is "blocking" does not actually exist in any practical sense (in the context of using an active pre). The whole point of onboard preamps is to significantly diminish the effect of cable capacitance and other loads.

IOW, the argument "against" the Redeemer is that merely lowering the output impedance further will not have the advertised effects. For it to have the advertised effects, therefore, it is not merely lowering the z out. I think we are in agreement there, yes? So then the cynics among us say "if it doesn't use known technology, WTH does it use?"

For the record, I loved the tone of sample "C", liked the passive sample tone OK, and hated the two other active samples. If sample C is the Redeemer, I will buy one.
 
#34
bongomania said:
Oh, surely it does, but that doesn't mean it's being represented in accordance with those laws and principles. ;) Pete S., setting aside the question of "is it any good" for a moment, I guess I don't understand your use of the term 'load'. My understanding was that loading is caused by having an output impedance that is too high relative to the input impedance it connects to. Any active buffer lowers the z out to the point that any normal amp or pedal z in will be significantly higher; and there is a point of diminishing returns, where increasing the gap further becomes less and less audible or relevant. Now, I grant that the "understanding" I just described may be flawed in some particular, as I'm no expert. But if what I have described is not flawed, then the load you say the Redeemer is "blocking" does not actually exist in any practical sense (in the context of using an active pre). The whole point of onboard preamps is to significantly diminish the effect of cable capacitance and other loads.

IOW, the argument "against" the Redeemer is that merely lowering the output impedance further will not have the advertised effects. For it to have the advertised effects, therefore, it is not merely lowering the z out. I think we are in agreement there, yes? So then the cynics among us say "if it doesn't use known technology, WTH does it use?"

For the record, I loved the tone of sample "C", liked the passive sample tone OK, and hated the two other active samples. If sample C is the Redeemer, I will buy one.
Click to expand...

I really don't want to be the mouth piece for the redeemer , if what I am saying isn't making sense then I appoligize . From what I have learned from the guys over at creation audio labs is that the redeemer deals with the loading from the cable and units you plug into . That being said , I plugged my bass into thier demo rig , I tried my bass in passive and then I tried it with the redeemer and there was a very noticeable difference in the sound , tone and output . I liked it more than the straight passive tone I was getting . The output was very noticeable . We also tried it in active mode and though it was subtle it was still doing something . I agree in terms of active preamps , I use East preamps and there was very little effect ( but still effect none the less ) on the active setting . I am not a electronics expert and much of what I know I have learned from the makers . If you choose to dismiss it I totally understand , I dismissed it myself the first time I got something in the mail from them . If it sounds to good to be true than ignore it and advise others to do the same . Meanwhile people like the OP will come across it and decide if they want one or not . If you want one PM me .

Pete
 
#35
One other thing , if you guys feel this strongly about it , why haven't you called Creation Audio Labs about it and put them on the spot ? They are very accessible . I feel like the messenger and personally I don't care if you like the product or not . Just be aware of what it is you don't like about it is my only point .

I would like to bow out of this as I don't want to offend anyones opinion or argue theories or assumptions . I will be watching this thread but if you have something directed at me please PM me with those comments . I feel this thread got really derailed and I am sad I was a part of that . The OP stated how he liked the product and his experience so far , that is the main topic here .

Pete
 
#36
FWIW speaking for myself only, when I challenge something it is meant as an invitation to improve my (and other peoples') understanding of it, not to be offended or offensive. I understand that my "tone" is often interpreted that way though, so I apologize if that's how I was taken.
 
#38
Just for the record... I wasn't saying anything against Pete! I have much respect for his work and he seems like a cool guy. We might disagree slightly about the Redeemer, and that's OK. He knows what he's talking about, so I wasn't correcting him.

I also was not badmouthing the Redeemer per se, but some of their marketing speak bothers me. I would have accepted that it's a clean transparent buffer, and it does sound good, and does what a buffer should without making your bass sound like something else.

So it's a fine high quality product, but if they try to tell me that it does something that other buffers don't, well, I'm not buying it.

I'm not telling the answers yet... :D
 
#39
Pete skjold said:
As I said you can call it a buffer , that is what it is but it does not function as a normal buffered gain stage in a preamp which is what people keep wanting to call it . The redeemer is not adding any gain of it's own , do your fet systems add gain ? If they do then they are not doing the same thing .
Click to expand...

My FET systems have a gain adjustment trim pot. Ordinarily they run unity gain, but you can get a 10X boost out of them. This was necessary when I was making very low output pickups. The gain doesn't alter the tone though, just makes it louder.

Any active circuit can run at unity gain. Running at lower than unity gain is the tricky part, but that's hardly ever needed. For those reading that might be unfamiliar with the term, unity gain means the circuit does not add gain, so the level in is the level out.

Can you defeat the active buffer in those other devices without bypassing them totally ?
Click to expand...

I haven't tried it, but I would guess not. Clearly they are doing something tricky there, which is evident by the way they have the jack power switching wired up. But if you are going to condition a signal, you have to run though the device. The fact that the Redeemer needs a battery to work shows it's an active device. There's no way around the fact that the signal path has to be running through a semi conductor of some type.

I'm guessing they have some type of bypass circuit going on.

You can set the redeemer up with a bypass switch which allows you to hear the difference .
Click to expand...

Well you can hear the difference in the sound clips I posted. The buffered signal in each case is clearer and brighter. In two cases the buffers did not alter the tone significantly, except for the effects of the buffering.

If you have a high quality cable and your plugging into anything that doesn't load your signal to begin with the redeemer won't have much effect at all , it is only when a loading cable or frontend of an amp or pedel that the redeemer does it's thing . With all the different variables this helps passive basses retain the original sound before any loading occures . It is just another avenue
Click to expand...
.

So they are presenting a lower input impedance than what you might get with a FET. However, the sound clips posted say the FET and the Redeemer sound very much alike.

As I said before , I don't expect to change your mind on this and with all due respect ( and I do respect your knowlwdge and experience ) if you don't think the product is any good don't use it . It sounds like you are capable of finding and making what you like and have figured it out . I use the redeemer in my passive basses and I like what it does for them . I have also installed several for people who liked what it did for thier basses ( after A/Bing them with and without the redeemer .
Click to expand...

The Redeemer is a fine sounding product, and does what you want a buffer to do. If they are doing something so remarkably different that they think it's patentable, then I'm not hearing it. I'm sure they have a clever circuit in there though. There's more than one way to skin a buffer. :)

But as I said, the old thread got me intrigued to see the difference between the redeemer and a simple, yet hi-fi, FET circuit, and yes, they sound a bit different, but that's to be expected. Any two circuits sound a bit different. I have an old Bartolini Hi-A TC-1 preamp, and that sounds different still... warmer than the FET circuits (Bill says it's discreet, i.e., not an IC, so it must be a bipolar junction transistor and not a FET. The lower impedance would sound that way.
 
#40
12bass said:
Question for David Schwab.... Do you know the input impedance on the recording device? It would be worth knowing what sort of load we are dealing with. Some inputs are only 10K or less, while others are 1M or higher - quite variable!
Click to expand...

I believe it's 150K. It's the "Guitar (Hi-Z)" input on a Roland VM-3100Pro Digital Mixer. I have the manual around here somewhere... but I remember looking it up when I started recording sound clips with it.
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back