Cross-Over (Crossover or Splitter) pedals

[dannybuoy]

This conversation is above my head.
The Royal Blood (Mike Kerr?) bassist uses a crossover, no? It sounds like the higher frequencies get the guitar distortion treatment.

Sort of, but not quite. He splits the signal and one path goes through an octave up, through to other pedals and guitar amps. He could still have some high end in his 'bass chain' and some low end in his 'guitar' chain.

A crossover will split your circuit into into highs and lows at a definable point.

 

[dannybuoy]

My biggest issue with the Divaricator was that I wanted to use it with distortion, but the loss in gain when you set the crossover resulted in the distortion pedals behaving very differently. It needed a gain/boost control to bring the split signal level back up to a point where the dirt pedal would react more like it would with a full spectrum signal.

I felt the same when I tried the X&M years ago. I also didn't like the fact the distortion was naturally compressed but the bottom end wasn't (I didn't have a compressor at the time though!).

However, I've come to realise that a crossover setup is still worth while, you just have to make some changes. If you want to keep that distortion reacting how you're used to, keep that crossover point low, to just roll off a little bit of low end to keep it tight. If you want your crossover point a lot higher, you need to rethink your distortion setup, e.g. using higher gain distortions or amp sims designed for guitar, or even a pre-distortion boost!

 

[bassrique]

Sort of, but not quite. He splits the signal and one path goes through an octave up, through to other pedals and guitar amps. He could still have some high end in his 'bass chain' and some low end in his 'guitar' chain.

A crossover will split your circuit into into highs and lows at a definable point.

Kerr splits the full signal then. Ok.
Subscribed. I have much to learn.

 

[bass.slinger]

No problem.
Looks like the Brimstone gives you a series/parallel option the Transmutron doesn’t have. The Transmutron does have an upper/lower frequency limit adjustment control the Brimstone doesn’t. I’m sure they are both wonderful boxes.

The other fun thing with the Transmutron is that the 3.5mm jacks can be set to inst/line level and you can patch them in to the Boredbrain Patchulator, which is an interesting take on a patch bay for routing various effects loops and signal paths.

Looks like a cool product and I may need to get one (you can never have too many pedals). Thanks for the info.

 

[Robertron]

I felt the same when I tried the X&M years ago. I also didn't like the fact the distortion was naturally compressed but the bottom end wasn't (I didn't have a compressor at the time though!).

However, I've come to realise that a crossover setup is still worth while, you just have to make some changes. If you want to keep that distortion reacting how you're used to, keep that crossover point low, to just roll off a little bit of low end to keep it tight. If you want your crossover point a lot higher, you need to rethink your distortion setup, e.g. using higher gain distortions or amp sims designed for guitar, or even a pre-distortion boost!

Yeah boosting the signals is important for drive pedals.
With my FEA I often boost the gain on the high side to feed my Mastotron. Fuzz like those can react very differently when you cut the level they're being fed.

 

[31HZ]

FWIW, I'm here because I'm pretty new to effects and can't seem to use them in a dense live mix without the bottom falling out (either that, or I can't hear the effects). Hoping to figure out a solution with a crossover pedal.

 

[40Hz]

I felt the same when I tried the X&M years ago. I also didn't like the fact the distortion was naturally compressed but the bottom end wasn't (I didn't have a compressor at the time though!).

However, I've come to realise that a crossover setup is still worth while, you just have to make some changes. If you want to keep that distortion reacting how you're used to, keep that crossover point low, to just roll off a little bit of low end to keep it tight. If you want your crossover point a lot higher, you need to rethink your distortion setup, e.g. using higher gain distortions or amp sims designed for guitar, or even a pre-distortion boost!

For something like that I’d rather use a filter. A parametric EQ would let you sculpt the post split signal for any frequency and Q characteristic you wanted with greater accuracy and flexibility. Not to say a crossover wouldn’t let you do some of that. But I still think some form of bandpass or low pass filtering is a better way to go. That’s pretty much how it’s handled in the modular synth world when employing a process called ‘subtractive synthesis’ which basically means; “Just gimme everything. I’ll throw out whatever parts I don’t want.” The audio signal from an oscillator module is split and routed to a variety of filters to sculpt its frequency profile (I think of it as distilling) into whatever core sound is desired before being sent on to the next stage.

 

[BurningSkies]

I felt the same when I tried the X&M years ago. I also didn't like the fact the distortion was naturally compressed but the bottom end wasn't (I didn't have a compressor at the time though!).

However, I've come to realise that a crossover setup is still worth while, you just have to make some changes. If you want to keep that distortion reacting how you're used to, keep that crossover point low, to just roll off a little bit of low end to keep it tight. If you want your crossover point a lot higher, you need to rethink your distortion setup, e.g. using higher gain distortions or amp sims designed for guitar, or even a pre-distortion boost!

As with any signal-chain related stuff, you have to think about what works best, especially when dealing with pedals that may have certain requirements (gain staging, dynamics, etc.). At one point (in a simpler time) I ran most of my things in the loop except for one or two in front. Now I have a signal chain that follows conventional wisdom but allows for me to do some moving about of where things are. While I use a loop/switch unit that has programmable patches, not everything needs to be in that system. some is out front and some behind...and having MIDI implementation means you don't have to have those pedals looped, unless you're playing with chain order or parallel effects.

This is what I am currently using for effects.



1 - First I run into an equalizer

2 - Then I split the signal into 4 parallel signals with a rolls mixer.

3 - I run one of the parallel lines into the Line6 bass pod where I model an acoustic 360 with a rat or big muff distortion pedal. I use this to get a retro growlly distorted sound. Or I also model an Ampeg fliptop with the Rat Distortion pedal. And I also Model an old Marshall amp. With the bass pod I can get a wide range of clean or dirty sounds and various effects and model different amps and speaker cabinets.

4 - The second parallel signal goes into a MXR bass di+. I use this pedal to get a clean modern sound. It also has a distortion button that can give a moderate to extreme amount of modern distortion.

5 - The third parallel signal goes into a Marshall Guv'nor. This gives me an old 60s marshall stack sound. This can go from a small amount of distortion to an over the top marshall sound. This effect can give you a the classic Jack Bruce Cream tone.

6 - The fourth parallel signal goes into a Tech21 VT Bass pedal. With this effect I get a slightly dirty Ampeg SVT bass amp sound with a tube like growl.

7 - Then I remix the 4 signals back together and run it into a bass amp, or pa, or studio mixer. Because the signals are parallel I can mix clean and overdriven sounds together and still get effect and a sound that punches through the mix.

Schematic diagram of my effects.

Cool, you're basically getting much of the advantages of a loop switcher on a manual level by having those two mixers. Here's my setup (I've done my best to show the order of the audio chain (orange, numbered), the loops (green numbered) and the MIDI (blue, numbered).

You can see that things like the compressors,Spark (clean/colored boost), Synths (FI & Mantic) are out front of the loops, then the delay/verb are after the loops. The MIDI Implementation means that the FI, delay & verb are all effectively in their own loops, just not movable in the signal chain.

In the past, I've also had chorus and delay & verb in my crossover loop. but since those pedals can be HP's individually I don't need them there now.

 

[BurningSkies]

FWIW, I'm here because I'm pretty new to effects and can't seem to use them in a dense live mix without the bottom falling out (either that, or I can't hear the effects). Hoping to figure out a solution with a crossover pedal.

This is definitely a good way to use a crossover pedal then. If you have effects that are stripping out your lows or you're just getting wash deep down, this will retain your clean un-effected bass tone in the lows.

 

[Seashore]

I like this thread. I do some parallel processing with my rig, but not with a crossover. I'm going into both channels of an old tube head and the controls seem to interact with one another in unpredictable ways. I had initially tried to use one channel for "fat" compressed low end and the other for the high end with guitar-like distortion -- EQing and blending at the amp -- but I find that I get a better result with this setup when I use the channels for complementary full-range tones. Still "fat clean" vs. "guitar distortion", but I get low and high end out of both. I'd still be curious to try feeding the front end of the amp out of a crossover, to see what happens.

Seems like the new Boss EQ-200 could be set up to do something like this - it's got two separate channels that can be run either stereo, parallel, or series, with programmable memory and a few other features that look pretty useful.

 

[BurningSkies]

I like this thread. I do some parallel processing with my rig, but not with a crossover. I'm going into both channels of an old tube head and the controls seem to interact with one another in unpredictable ways. I had initially tried to use one channel for "fat" compressed low end and the other for the high end with guitar-like distortion -- EQing and blending at the amp -- but I find that I get a better result with this setup when I use the channels for complementary full-range tones. Still "fat clean" vs. "guitar distortion", but I get low and high end out of both. I'd still be curious to try feeding the front end of the amp out of a crossover, to see what happens.

Seems like the new Boss EQ-200 could be set up to do something like this - it's got two separate channels that can be run either stereo, parallel, or series, with programmable memory and a few other features that look pretty useful.

Theoretically you could attenuate all the lows on one channel then all the highs on another, but the real question ends up being how tight are the Q's for those bands and if it effectively does what you want or you have to fiddle with the slopes in the range where you're trying to split? It seems like if you've got one and you want to try it would be worth playing, but if you're buying a device to cross over, there are easier and smaller ways?

 

[monsterthompson]

FWIW, I'm here because I'm pretty new to effects and can't seem to use them in a dense live mix without the bottom falling out (either that, or I can't hear the effects). Hoping to figure out a solution with a crossover pedal.

You might benefit from something like the Damnation Bloop (blend/loop). The loop is still a full range signal, but the clean blend is pass-filtered around 1k, and it has a level control for the filtered blend, and phase switch. It helps keep the lows, but it sounds more blended than using a full range parallel clean blend. It’s a cheaper option and smaller footprint than some of the units being discussed.

 

[monsterthompson]

SFX used to make a crossover pedal, or so I thought. Their current product list seems like it is thinner than I recalled. They do custom orders, so it might be worth looking into.
[sfx]:home

 

[BurningSkies]

SFX used to make a crossover pedal, or so I thought. Their current product list seems like it is thinner than I recalled. They do custom orders, so it might be worth looking into.
[sfx]:home

Yep. Its on the list on my first post in this thread, but it's out of production.

[Invalid or Expired Link Removed]

Some may be be able to find an XM on the used market.

 

[31HZ]

I approached SFX earlier this year, but they were not interested in making an S&M at the time.

I have also wondered if the Bloop would be worth a try.

 

[gregmon79]

I've been using the Damnation Audio Loop/Blender to blend my dirt boxes in with my signal for a while. While not a crossover, it's awesome for blending in a low passed clean signal with whatever you send through it. I keep mine on at all times so it's actually effecting my whole signal at all times. I really like that pedal. It's become a staple for me now. The price is pretty high for what it is, a utility pedal. But I've found over the years, that those utility pedals are usually the ones that have the most beneficial effect on your signal in most cases. So after I got it and used it, I realized the price actually isn't that bad at all. I've used a Big Bottom an that was pretty nice too.

I also use the HX Effects to run certain things in parallel with my clean signal. That really comes in handy sometimes. It's cool too because I can really utilize that for my entire board if I set it up that way. I usually just use it for effect that in the HX though. A really great tool to have on my board.

 

[Seashore]

Theoretically you could attenuate all the lows on one channel then all the highs on another, but the real question ends up being how tight are the Q's for those bands and if it effectively does what you want or you have to fiddle with the slopes in the range where you're trying to split? It seems like if you've got one and you want to try it would be worth playing, but if you're buying a device to cross over, there are easier and smaller ways?

You're right, I suppose it would only be an approximation of a crossover, similar to the LS-2 > separate EQ setup that was mentioned earlier. And yes, I'm considering getting that EQ pedal anyway, so it's something I'd mess around with on the side to see if a dedicated crossover pedal would work with my rig.

 

[Nick von Nick]

Theoretically you could attenuate all the lows on one channel then all the highs on another

I'm 99% sure that's how Doug Pinnick achieved his tone in King's X. He frequently notes how Chris Squire's setup - a bass-specific amp for the lows and a guitar-specific amp for the highs - inspired him to try the same.

I've found this works pretty well when I've tried it with my EHX POG and two combo amps. I've considered using a High-Pass Filter in the Effected/Octave-Up chain to clean it up, but I'm not sure it would do anything terribly useful.
~Nick von Nick

 

[BurningSkies]

I'm 99% sure that's how Doug Pinnick achieved his tone in King's X. He frequently notes how Chris Squire's setup - a bass-specific amp for the lows and a guitar-specific amp for the highs - inspired him to try the same.

I've found this works pretty well when I've tried it with my EHX POG and two combo amps. I've considered using a High-Pass Filter in the Effected/Octave-Up chain to clean it up, but I'm not sure it would do anything terribly useful.
~Nick von Nick

The bi-amping situation is certainly a tried and true thing in the bass world, I'm just not sure that using a graphic EQ achieves it as effectively as something that actually is designed to cross over. I would guess most professionals who are actually bi-amping are doing it with a rack crossover. Also, lots of people get somewhat confused about running two amps full-range v. actually bi-amping which does take a crossover to split signals.

 

[Ric5]

As with any signal-chain related stuff, you have to think about what works best, especially when dealing with pedals that may have certain requirements (gain staging, dynamics, etc.). At one point (in a simpler time) I ran most of my things in the loop except for one or two in front. Now I have a signal chain that follows conventional wisdom but allows for me to do some moving about of where things are. While I use a loop/switch unit that has programmable patches, not everything needs to be in that system. some is out front and some behind...and having MIDI implementation means you don't have to have those pedals looped, unless you're playing with chain order or parallel effects.



Cool, you're basically getting much of the advantages of a loop switcher on a manual level by having those two mixers. Here's my setup (I've done my best to show the order of the audio chain (orange, numbered), the loops (green numbered) and the MIDI (blue, numbered).

You can see that things like the compressors,Spark (clean/colored boost), Synths (FI & Mantic) are out front of the loops, then the delay/verb are after the loops. The MIDI Implementation means that the FI, delay & verb are all effectively in their own loops, just not movable in the signal chain.

In the past, I've also had chorus and delay & verb in my crossover loop. but since those pedals can be HP's individually I don't need them there now.

you make my pedalboard look simple