Distorted tone, clean low end?

[Joe Lonsdale]

So, I have just spent a couple of hours experimenting with my new Umbrella Company "Fusion Blender". I am using it to split the bass signal into LF (which are clean) and HF (which are distorted). The results were disappointing, honestly. Whilst the theory is sound and I was able to get clean LF and balance it against the distorted HF signal, something was definitely lost in the process. My routing is sound, my goal is (technically) achieved, there are no phase-problems and I achieved a well-balanced final result, I just don't like it! It 'feels wrong', doesn't have the cohesive power as my 'old' sound and just sounded less powerful and dynamic than I imagined.

I think the main problem is that my distortion pedals work better with a full-range signal driving them and produce a better sound and a more satisfying dynamic when working 'as designed'. A secondary issue might be the way the "Fusion Blender" works - perhaps the crossovers are just not tuned in a way that suits the bass (or at least suits my ear). I ended up compressing the LF heavily to and then compressing the summed full-range but still not a great sound

Routing:

Bass> EBS multiband compressor> "Fusion Blender" Splitter> Spectracomp compressor/limiter> amp
- (LF loop> JHS White Tighty compressor)
- (HF loop > EH Bass Soul Food overdrive> Sansamp Bass Driver)

My routing is sound, my goal is (technically) achieved, there are no phase-problems and I achieved a well balanced final result, I just don't like it! It 'feels wrong', doesn't have the same, authentic, roaring, cohesive power as my 'old' sound and just sounded less tonally and dynamically satisfying.

I will be putting the Umbrella Company "Fusion Blender" up for sale, hopefully not for a loss! I would like to try the KMA Machines Tyler Deluxe to see how it compares, but I suspect I will end up with the same result. I would also like to try applying the theory within a digital environment, perhaps with something like a Line6 Helix...

I'm not giving up on the theory though, I'm just adapting it!. I now think it would be best to split the signal into two full-range signals, treat one as I do now to get my 'main' sound (then roll off some LF) and treat the other as a LF-only-channel (then roll off some HF). This is almost the same as just using the wet/dry mix knob (which both my distortion pedals already have) so perhaps all I need to do is add more 'clean' to my existing set-up!

Whatever I have lost financially with this experiment (hopefully nothing), it's really made me have a renewed appreciation of my existing tone!

 

[HelpImaRock]

Source Audio Ultrawave or its Multiwave predecessors.

 

[cheapbasslovin]

So, I have just spent a couple of hours experimenting with my new Umbrella Company "Fusion Blender". I am using it to split the bass signal into LF (which are clean) and HF (which are distorted). The results were disappointing, honestly. Whilst the theory is sound and I was able to get clean LF and balance it against the distorted HF signal, something was definitely lost in the process. My routing is sound, my goal is (technically) achieved, there are no phase-problems and I achieved a well-balanced final result, I just don't like it! It 'feels wrong', doesn't have the cohesive power as my 'old' sound and just sounded less powerful and dynamic than I imagined.

I think the main problem is that my distortion pedals work better with a full-range signal driving them and produce a better sound and a more satisfying dynamic when working 'as designed'. A secondary issue might be the way the "Fusion Blender" works - perhaps the crossovers are just not tuned in a way that suits the bass (or at least suits my ear). I ended up compressing the LF heavily to and then compressing the summed full-range but still not a great sound

Routing:

Bass> EBS multiband compressor> "Fusion Blender" Splitter> Spectracomp compressor/limiter> amp
- (LF loop> JHS White Tighty compressor)
- (HF loop > EH Bass Soul Food overdrive> Sansamp Bass Driver)

My routing is sound, my goal is (technically) achieved, there are no phase-problems and I achieved a well balanced final result, I just don't like it! It 'feels wrong', doesn't have the same, authentic, roaring, cohesive power as my 'old' sound and just sounded less tonally and dynamically satisfying.

I will be putting the Umbrella Company "Fusion Blender" up for sale, hopefully not for a loss! I would like to try the KMA Machines Tyler Deluxe to see how it compares, but I suspect I will end up with the same result. I would also like to try applying the theory within a digital environment, perhaps with something like a Line6 Helix...

I'm not giving up on the theory though, I'm just adapting it!. I now think it would be best to split the signal into two full-range signals, treat one as I do now to get my 'main' sound (then roll off some LF) and treat the other as a LF-only-channel (then roll off some HF). This is almost the same as just using the wet/dry mix knob (which both my distortion pedals already have) so perhaps all I need to do is add more 'clean' to my existing set-up!

Whatever I have lost financially with this experiment (hopefully nothing), it's really made me have a renewed appreciation of my existing tone!

When I tried the EHX Bass Big Muff I was surprised at how little I liked the crossover. I'm going to re-recommend trying a lowpassed dry with a full range dirt, if you still have the desire and opportunity.

Edit: re-read your post and realize you're looking at a version of what I'm talking about. I think there's no need to double blend (which is how I'm interpreting your post), but that may work, too.

 

[Joe Lonsdale]

Source Audio Ultrawave or its Multiwave predecessors.

This looks interesting, although the demos on the website are pretty "out there". Have you got this pedal? Do you have experience of trying to achieve something similar to what I am trying to achieve?

 

[sunbeast]

So, I have just spent a couple of hours experimenting with my new Umbrella Company "Fusion Blender". I am using it to split the bass signal into LF (which are clean) and HF (which are distorted). The results were disappointing, honestly. Whilst the theory is sound and I was able to get clean LF and balance it against the distorted HF signal, something was definitely lost in the process. My routing is sound, my goal is (technically) achieved, there are no phase-problems and I achieved a well-balanced final result, I just don't like it! It 'feels wrong', doesn't have the cohesive power as my 'old' sound and just sounded less powerful and dynamic than I imagined.

I think the main problem is that my distortion pedals work better with a full-range signal driving them and produce a better sound and a more satisfying dynamic when working 'as designed'. A secondary issue might be the way the "Fusion Blender" works - perhaps the crossovers are just not tuned in a way that suits the bass (or at least suits my ear). I ended up compressing the LF heavily to and then compressing the summed full-range but still not a great sound

Routing:

Bass> EBS multiband compressor> "Fusion Blender" Splitter> Spectracomp compressor/limiter> amp
- (LF loop> JHS White Tighty compressor)
- (HF loop > EH Bass Soul Food overdrive> Sansamp Bass Driver)

My routing is sound, my goal is (technically) achieved, there are no phase-problems and I achieved a well balanced final result, I just don't like it! It 'feels wrong', doesn't have the same, authentic, roaring, cohesive power as my 'old' sound and just sounded less tonally and dynamically satisfying.

I will be putting the Umbrella Company "Fusion Blender" up for sale, hopefully not for a loss! I would like to try the KMA Machines Tyler Deluxe to see how it compares, but I suspect I will end up with the same result. I would also like to try applying the theory within a digital environment, perhaps with something like a Line6 Helix...

I'm not giving up on the theory though, I'm just adapting it!. I now think it would be best to split the signal into two full-range signals, treat one as I do now to get my 'main' sound (then roll off some LF) and treat the other as a LF-only-channel (then roll off some HF). This is almost the same as just using the wet/dry mix knob (which both my distortion pedals already have) so perhaps all I need to do is add more 'clean' to my existing set-up!

Whatever I have lost financially with this experiment (hopefully nothing), it's really made me have a renewed appreciation of my existing tone!

This sounds at least partially like what I mentioned re: the beauty of the Omnilooper giving the ability to move the filters before or after the FX loops. As I mentioned then I find that drive pedals designed for bass in particular often tend to sound best when driven with a full-range signal (which creates the full amount of saturation and harmonic content they were designed for), then putting a filter after the drive to roll off the lows and replace them with clean lows really can tighten up their response.
With the filter placed pre-loop, sweeping the filter frequency also affects the gain and response of the drive circuit you are feeding and can definitely neuter it quite a bit. I find guitar-specific drive pedals work much better in this scheme (the kinds of drive pedals that usually sound too thin for bass use run straight), as these pedals often already have built-in input filtering to keep the drive tone tight. I have one of the Sugar Britches crossover pedals as well as the Omnilooper and find the simple Sugar Britches works just fine when using a guitar drive in the high loop, like a Klon or my Tech 21 Oxford which both generally cut too much bass to use straight with a bass. My bass-specific drives like my Darkglass pedals for example sound relatively neutered unless I feed them most of the entire signal (though a mostly full-range drive alongside a separate clean bass signal can still be useful, still more flexible with the Omnilooper).

I wouldn’t totally give up on your experiments with crossovers- you may find what you want just requires a slightly different approach than what you originally imagined- I know I realized that when going down this path.
Also not sure if the sweep of the filters or filter type used on the Umbrella? The Sugar Britches for example uses pretty shallow filters for each side that allow them to mix pretty organically (necessary since you can’t adjust both filters independently) while the Omniloopers are more dramatic but can also be swept around more and have crossover with each-other if necessary to avoid big holes in response (sometimes the holes sound good though).

 

[Joe Lonsdale]

When I tried the EHX Bass Big Muff I was surprised at how little I liked the crossover. I'm going to re-recommend trying a lowpassed dry with a full range dirt, if you still have the desire and opportunity.

Edit: re-read your post and realize you're looking at a version of what I'm talking about. I think there's no need to double blend (which is how I'm interpreting your post), but that may work, too.

Actually, you've expressed it really well: "...lowpassed dry with a full range dirt..." - yes that's my next plan of attack! My current pedal board is tiny and absolutely efficient in terms of using the space (in other words it's full) so I'll be looking for something that I can perhaps fit UNDER the board!

I'm not sure what you mean by "double blend" though? I am blending roughly 50/50 clean/dirty in my Soul Food and then again on my SansAmp, if that's what you mean?

 

[cheapbasslovin]

I'm not sure what you mean by "double blend" though? I am blending roughly 50/50 clean/dirty in my Soul Food and then again on my SansAmp, if that's what you mean?

Yes. I think with the LP blend, the blends on the other pedals will become redundant and unnecessary. I could be wrong, though.

 

[monsterthompson]

So, I have just spent a couple of hours experimenting with my new Umbrella Company "Fusion Blender". I am using it to split the bass signal into LF (which are clean) and HF (which are distorted). The results were disappointing, honestly. Whilst the theory is sound and I was able to get clean LF and balance it against the distorted HF signal, something was definitely lost in the process. My routing is sound, my goal is (technically) achieved, there are no phase-problems and I achieved a well-balanced final result, I just don't like it! It 'feels wrong', doesn't have the cohesive power as my 'old' sound and just sounded less powerful and dynamic than I imagined.

I think the main problem is that my distortion pedals work better with a full-range signal driving them and produce a better sound and a more satisfying dynamic when working 'as designed'. A secondary issue might be the way the "Fusion Blender" works - perhaps the crossovers are just not tuned in a way that suits the bass (or at least suits my ear). I ended up compressing the LF heavily to and then compressing the summed full-range but still not a great sound

Routing:

Bass> EBS multiband compressor> "Fusion Blender" Splitter> Spectracomp compressor/limiter> amp
- (LF loop> JHS White Tighty compressor)
- (HF loop > EH Bass Soul Food overdrive> Sansamp Bass Driver)

My routing is sound, my goal is (technically) achieved, there are no phase-problems and I achieved a well balanced final result, I just don't like it! It 'feels wrong', doesn't have the same, authentic, roaring, cohesive power as my 'old' sound and just sounded less tonally and dynamically satisfying.

I will be putting the Umbrella Company "Fusion Blender" up for sale, hopefully not for a loss! I would like to try the KMA Machines Tyler Deluxe to see how it compares, but I suspect I will end up with the same result. I would also like to try applying the theory within a digital environment, perhaps with something like a Line6 Helix...

I'm not giving up on the theory though, I'm just adapting it!. I now think it would be best to split the signal into two full-range signals, treat one as I do now to get my 'main' sound (then roll off some LF) and treat the other as a LF-only-channel (then roll off some HF). This is almost the same as just using the wet/dry mix knob (which both my distortion pedals already have) so perhaps all I need to do is add more 'clean' to my existing set-up!

Whatever I have lost financially with this experiment (hopefully nothing), it's really made me have a renewed appreciation of my existing tone!

I’ve found similar findings in my attempts. One of the big problems is that splitting the signal will reduce the gain of signal going to the distortion path, so there needs to be a way to compensate for that or the distortion pedal will behave differently.

Another point of curiosity/frustration that I couldn’t solve is that I wanted the final signal to have a proportionate amount of clean low and dirty high for each note across the fretboard, say the lower 1/3 of the frequencies to be clean and the upper 2/3 to be dirty. Since the cutoff point is fixed on a single frequency by the split on the pedal, there isn’t a way to get that kind of dynamic filtering. I’m not sure this dynamic filtering idea would be what I wanted anyway, but I’d like to try.

 

[Joe Lonsdale]

This sounds at least partially like what I mentioned re: the beauty of the Omnilooper giving the ability to move the filters before or after the FX loops. As I mentioned then I find that drive pedals designed for bass in particular often tend to sound best when driven with a full-range signal (which creates the full amount of saturation and harmonic content they were designed for), then putting a filter after the drive to roll off the lows and replace them with clean lows really can tighten up their response.
With the filter placed pre-loop, sweeping the filter frequency also affects the gain and response of the drive circuit you are feeding and can definitely neuter it quite a bit. I find guitar-specific drive pedals work much better in this scheme (the kinds of drive pedals that usually sound too thin for bass use run straight), as these pedals often already have built-in input filtering to keep the drive tone tight. I have one of the Sugar Britches crossover pedals as well as the Omnilooper and find the simple Sugar Britches works just fine when using a guitar drive in the high loop, like a Klon or my Tech 21 Oxford which both generally cut too much bass to use straight with a bass. My bass-specific drives like my Darkglass pedals for example sound relatively neutered unless I feed them most of the entire signal (though a mostly full-range drive alongside a separate clean bass signal can still be useful, still more flexible with the Omnilooper).

I wouldn’t totally give up on your experiments with crossovers- you may find what you want just requires a slightly different approach than what you originally imagined- I know I realized that when going down this path.
Also not sure if the sweep of the filters or filter type used on the Umbrella? The Sugar Britches for example uses pretty shallow filters for each side that allow them to mix pretty organically (necessary since you can’t adjust both filters independently) while the Omniloopers are more dramatic but can also be swept around more and have crossover with each-other if necessary to avoid big holes in response (sometimes the holes sound good though).

Yes, that is exactly what you said! But I just had to find out for myself, didn't I - but at least that's now TWO people (actually maybe 3 including Ric5) advocating against my method from personal experience! The filters on the Umbrella were quite shallow and seemed to blend "pretty organically", nevertheless, I didn't like the overall effect - it wasn't 'bad', just not as good as what I already have in most respects! Another lesson learned. I shall investigate the Omnilooper further as well as try the digital route...

 

[Joe Lonsdale]

I’ve found similar findings in my attempts. One of the big problems is that splitting the signal will reduce the gain of signal going to the distortion path, so there needs to be a way to compensate for that or the distortion pedal will behave differently.

Another point of curiosity/frustration that I couldn’t solve is that I wanted the final signal to have a proportionate amount of clean low and dirty high for each note across the fretboard, say the lower 1/3 of the frequencies to be clean and the upper 2/3 to be dirty. Since the cutoff point is fixed on a single frequency by the split on the pedal, there isn’t a way to get that kind of dynamic filtering. I’m not sure this dynamic filtering idea would be what I wanted anyway, but I’d like to try.

Yes - you want a low end that follows the note, and doesn't just sit at 80Hz (or whatever)... Agreed. It's almost as if what we really need is two amps/cabs (perhaps a 2x10 and a 1x15 or similar) which someone suggested earlier in the thread (that I shot down as I am absolutely NOT carrying two amps/ cabs around!).

 

[Joe Lonsdale]

This sounds at least partially like what I mentioned re: the beauty of the Omnilooper giving the ability to move the filters before or after the FX loops. As I mentioned then I find that drive pedals designed for bass in particular often tend to sound best when driven with a full-range signal (which creates the full amount of saturation and harmonic content they were designed for), then putting a filter after the drive to roll off the lows and replace them with clean lows really can tighten up their response.
With the filter placed pre-loop, sweeping the filter frequency also affects the gain and response of the drive circuit you are feeding and can definitely neuter it quite a bit. I find guitar-specific drive pedals work much better in this scheme (the kinds of drive pedals that usually sound too thin for bass use run straight), as these pedals often already have built-in input filtering to keep the drive tone tight. I have one of the Sugar Britches crossover pedals as well as the Omnilooper and find the simple Sugar Britches works just fine when using a guitar drive in the high loop, like a Klon or my Tech 21 Oxford which both generally cut too much bass to use straight with a bass. My bass-specific drives like my Darkglass pedals for example sound relatively neutered unless I feed them most of the entire signal (though a mostly full-range drive alongside a separate clean bass signal can still be useful, still more flexible with the Omnilooper).

I wouldn’t totally give up on your experiments with crossovers- you may find what you want just requires a slightly different approach than what you originally imagined- I know I realized that when going down this path.
Also not sure if the sweep of the filters or filter type used on the Umbrella? The Sugar Britches for example uses pretty shallow filters for each side that allow them to mix pretty organically (necessary since you can’t adjust both filters independently) while the Omniloopers are more dramatic but can also be swept around more and have crossover with each-other if necessary to avoid big holes in response (sometimes the holes sound good though).

Yes, that is exactly what you said! But I just had to find out for myself, didn't I. But now that is TWO people advocating against my method from personal experience! The filters on the Umbrella were quite shallow and seemed to blend "pretty organically", nevertheless, I didn't like the overall effect - it wasn't 'bad', just not as good as what I already have in most respects! Another lesson learned. I shall investigate the Omnilooper further as well as try the digital route.

This sounds at least partially like what I mentioned re: the beauty of the Omnilooper giving the ability to move the filters before or after the FX loops. As I mentioned then I find that drive pedals designed for bass in particular often tend to sound best when driven with a full-range signal (which creates the full amount of saturation and harmonic content they were designed for), then putting a filter after the drive to roll off the lows and replace them with clean lows really can tighten up their response.
With the filter placed pre-loop, sweeping the filter frequency also affects the gain and response of the drive circuit you are feeding and can definitely neuter it quite a bit. I find guitar-specific drive pedals work much better in this scheme (the kinds of drive pedals that usually sound too thin for bass use run straight), as these pedals often already have built-in input filtering to keep the drive tone tight. I have one of the Sugar Britches crossover pedals as well as the Omnilooper and find the simple Sugar Britches works just fine when using a guitar drive in the high loop, like a Klon or my Tech 21 Oxford which both generally cut too much bass to use straight with a bass. My bass-specific drives like my Darkglass pedals for example sound relatively neutered unless I feed them most of the entire signal (though a mostly full-range drive alongside a separate clean bass signal can still be useful, still more flexible with the Omnilooper).

I wouldn’t totally give up on your experiments with crossovers- you may find what you want just requires a slightly different approach than what you originally imagined- I know I realized that when going down this path.
Also not sure if the sweep of the filters or filter type used on the Umbrella? The Sugar Britches for example uses pretty shallow filters for each side that allow them to mix pretty organically (necessary since you can’t adjust both filters independently) while the Omniloopers are more dramatic but can also be swept around more and have crossover with each-other if necessary to avoid big holes in response (sometimes the holes sound good though).

Yes - the Omnilooper looks amazing (https://schalltechnik04.de/en/instructions/omnilooper) and, typical of a lot of German engineering seems to cover all bases (sic) with solid and practical solutions. Where the hell do you BUY them? Oh, I see from previous threads, from you!!

 

[monsterthompson]

Yes - you want a low end that follows the note, and doesn't just sit at 80Hz (or whatever)... Agreed. It's almost as if what we really need is two amps/cabs (perhaps a 2x10 and a 1x15 or similar) which someone suggested earlier in the thread (that I shot down as I am absolutely NOT carrying two amps/ cabs around!).

One option for a single pedal solution is the Hilbish Sol Invictus. It is a Sunn Beta clone, and the range of sparkling clean sound from the gain knob is limited. That said, you get an A + B channel which can each have unique EQ settings and distortion levels. The EQ controls are active and have a ton of boost/cut range. I've had one for a while and enjoy it. The tone isn't for everyone, but if it is your style, then it works great.

https://www.hilbishdesign.com/shop/sol-invictus

 

[sunbeast]

Yes, that is exactly what you said! But I just had to find out for myself, didn't I. But now that is TWO people advocating against my method from personal experience! The filters on the Umbrella were quite shallow and seemed to blend "pretty organically", nevertheless, I didn't like the overall effect - it wasn't 'bad', just not as good as what I already have in most respects! Another lesson learned. I shall investigate the Omnilooper further as well as try the digital route.

Yes - the Omnilooper looks amazing (https://schalltechnik04.de/en/instructions/omnilooper) and, typical of a lot of German engineering seems to cover all bases (sic) with solid and practical solutions. Where the hell do you BUY them? Oh, I see from previous threads, from you!!

Haha you have to order the kits straight from Schalltechnik- I made two and sold one because I ended up with two kits due to a USPS blunder and it made more sense to me to just build both and sell one than send the extra all the way back to Germany. I have considered asking Julian from Schalltechnik if he would be cool with me buying a bulk of them to build and sell here since they are still under-represented in the US and I think they would really be a popular niche kinda thing around these parts. Not sure that I really have the time now though, post-lockdown (the Omnilooper isn’t a particularly difficult kit, but fairly time-consuming).

Of course these signal chains can be quite complex to keep track of once you really go down the rabbit-hole, which is where something like an HX Stomp starts to get really attractive. Still there are so many fun uses of a pedal-sized crossover to make music with that I don’t think I’ll ever get tired of it! I’ve even used my Rhodes piano or synth into the Omnilooper to make separate bass/melody FX chains and amp splits, which works surprisingly well once you hone in on the right frequencies. Also using the low filter to feed sub-octave pedals that prefer a darker tone (like the OC-2), etc- sooo many applications

 

[Joe Lonsdale]

Haha you have to order the kits straight from Schalltechnik- I made two and sold one because I ended up with two kits due to a USPS blunder and it made more sense to me to just build both and sell one than send the extra all the way back to Germany. I have considered asking Julian from Schalltechnik if he would be cool with me buying a bulk of them to build and sell here since they are still under-represented in the US and I think they would really be a popular niche kinda thing around these parts. Not sure that I really have the time now though, post-lockdown (the Omnilooper isn’t a particularly difficult kit, but fairly time-consuming).

Of course these signal chains can be quite complex to keep track of once you really go down the rabbit-hole, which is where something like an HX Stomp starts to get really attractive. Still there are so many fun uses of a pedal-sized crossover to make music with that I don’t think I’ll ever get tired of it! I’ve even used my Rhodes piano or synth into the Omnilooper to make separate bass/melody FX chains and amp splits, which works surprisingly well once you hone in on the right frequencies. Also using the low filter to feed sub-octave pedals that prefer a darker tone (like the OC-2), etc- sooo many applications

Maybe I'll make it my first foray into pedal building, it isn't too expensive and might make a nice new year project! Absolutely loving this forum at the moment

 

[sunbeast]

Maybe I'll make it my first foray into pedal building, it isn't too expensive and might make a nice new year project! Absolutely loving this forum at the moment

You'll just want to ensure you have a decent (ideally temp controllable) soldering iron with some smallish (and well-cleaned) tips and patience! You can read the assembly instructions to get a gist of what it involves. If you've never soldered circuit boards before you might want to practice that on something else first as it isn't too difficult to lift circuit board traces if you aren't confident and put too much heat into things (I did some pedal kits and mods back when I was first learning in my teens and definitely made a mess of a few with my cheapo iron and dirty tips!).

 

[HelpImaRock]

This looks interesting, although the demos on the website are pretty "out there". Have you got this pedal? Do you have experience of trying to achieve something similar to what I am trying to achieve?

I have the Multiwave, which is only distortion. The new Ultrawave does a lot of things that don't fit into my sound. But it also does some things I'd want in my pedal, specifically with EQ and compression, that would be super helpful.

 

[BAG]

Yes - you want a low end that follows the note, and doesn't just sit at 80Hz (or whatever)... Agreed. It's almost as if what we really need is two amps/cabs (perhaps a 2x10 and a 1x15 or similar) which someone suggested earlier in the thread (that I shot down as I am absolutely NOT carrying two amps/ cabs around!).

Yep, you were pretty clear on not wanting to go down that route..... but after this disappointment it may be worth looking into.
The dirty amp doesn't have to be nearly as big or powerful as the clean amp as it won't be dealing with the low frequencies..... so it really wouldn't be too much more lugging of gear.

My bi-amp rig for my 8-string (double course) bass consists of my usual bass amp set clean for my 4 string basses and a small guitar amp with the bass rolled right off and some reverb and dirt for the octave strings to ring out.
I just use a cheap Leem AB-200 pedal to split my signal (and to mute the guitar amp when I'm not using the 8-string). If I solo the guitar amp it sounds very thin and quiet, but combined with the bass amp it adds enough sparkle and dirt to really help the 8-string sound much better than going through a bass amp alone.

Before spending any extra money you might want to try it at home and see if it gets you the sound you are looking for. You probably don't even need to buy a splitter pedal to test, just get yourself a Y splitter cable or make one. If you don't have a second amp borrow one from a friend. Your situation is different to mine so a guitar amp may or may not work for you..... only one way to find out.

 

[Joe Lonsdale]

Yep, you were pretty clear on not wanting to go down that route..... but after this disappointment it may be worth looking into.
The dirty amp doesn't have to be nearly as big or powerful as the clean amp as it won't be dealing with the low frequencies..... so it really wouldn't be too much more lugging of gear.

My bi-amp rig for my 8-string (double course) bass consists of my usual bass amp set clean for my 4 string basses and a small guitar amp with the bass rolled right off and some reverb and dirt for the octave strings to ring out.
I just use a cheap Leem AB-200 pedal to split my signal (and to mute the guitar amp when I'm not using the 8-string). If I solo the guitar amp it sounds very thin and quiet, but combined with the bass amp it adds enough sparkle and dirt to really help the 8-string sound much better than going through a bass amp alone.

Before spending any extra money you might want to try it at home and see if it gets you the sound you are looking for. You probably don't even need to buy a splitter pedal to test, just get yourself a Y splitter cable or make one. If you don't have a second amp borrow one from a friend. Your situation is different to mine so a guitar amp may or may not work for you..... only one way to find out.

I'll be honest, I'm not willing to even carry a bass guitar with more than 4 strings, let alone more than one cab! I'm pretty minimal and can get my gear in from the car in one go...

 

[Joe Lonsdale]

You'll just want to ensure you have a decent (ideally temp controllable) soldering iron with some smallish (and well-cleaned) tips and patience! You can read the assembly instructions to get a gist of what it involves. If you've never soldered circuit boards before you might want to practice that on something else first as it isn't too difficult to lift circuit board traces if you aren't confident and put too much heat into things (I did some pedal kits and mods back when I was first learning in my teens and definitely made a mess of a few with my cheapo iron and dirty tips!).

Can you recommend a good starter project? I've been meaning to build a pedal kit for years but (insert excuse here)...

 

[sunbeast]

Can you recommend a good starter project? I've been meaning to build a pedal kit for years but (insert excuse here)...

These days there are kits for just about anything available out there, but some classically easy circuits are Rats and Big Muffs and various other types of overdrives, distortions and fuzzes are generally pretty easy and straightforward to put together. If you feel comfortable on any of those, the Omnilooper will really just be the next step up with some tighter spaces, more parts, and more fiddly to get into the enclosure but without any particularly sensitive components to burn out or anything- there is one SMD component in the kit which can be fiddly if you don't have a fairly small tip and tweezers!