- May 16, 2007
- 3,395
- 4,869
- Disclosures
- Volunteer developer/beta tester with Source Audio, Morningstar Engineering & MORTRIX
Enjoy the benefits of a premium membership!
Upgrade Account
-
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.
Future Impact now available!! WAS: deep impact reissue!!! interested?
- Thread starter lokki
- Start date
- May 16, 2007
- 3,395
- 4,869
- Disclosures
- Volunteer developer/beta tester with Source Audio, Morningstar Engineering & MORTRIX
I programmed it with P bass and flats so it’ll play differently with anything else. Should work on a Jazz with front pickup favoured or soloed. If using rounds, turn the passive tone control down.
I’m away at the moment but can do a recording when back, it’s on all sounds but most noteanble on things with a slow attack - played into an external decay you. An hear it repeat! (I did wonder if its similar to that pic earlier where there was a short errant C note at the start of the note, accurate setting minimises it but doesn’t remove it)
When I first updated and tested the sounds, I was getting the pops, too. Since creating a new bank with a mixture of new and old sounds, I haven't noticed the pops...
- May 16, 2007
- 3,395
- 4,869
- Disclosures
- Volunteer developer/beta tester with Source Audio, Morningstar Engineering & MORTRIX
There is a bit of an artefact upon note release that’s been a bugbear of mine for ages. It is much more apparent on certain patches; if you play notes in quick succession, it can make you think it’s the attack causing the issue but it’s actually the release of the previous note.
Last edited:
Yeah I noticed the click/pops too, wasn't at first sure they were only related to certain algo sounds or all of them.... so I didn't mention it. But it put me off and through it was a tracking issue compared to VA mode.
Problem solved using Dexed instead of Midi-Ox.
I bought the Roland UM-One but, using Midi-Ox, the .syx file still was corrupted.
Then a friend of mine suggested me to use dexed to receive the dump from the DX7 and it worked!
Now, finally I can load my patches to the FI.
@sunbeast thanks anyway for your suggestion about the Roland interface, it definitely works better than the other cheap interface I own.
I hope this information can be useful to other DX7 users.
Last edited:
Its the one I use! Thanks Quatschmacher!
Most of my sounds are on the VA side. The Dexed is nice for finding unique patches which I mostly use for adding accents or melody to my loops. Unique factory patchs I like where i cut out my dry signal 100% is the one that sounds like bells. The flute style ones are cool (maybe pan pipe not sure), the harmonica, that one is really fun for melodies as well I think I got about 40 very usable favorites from the factory and only a small handful of what I wanted from dexed. There's so many Dexed so I haven't super dug in yet but...I dont really have to... Cheers 
Future Impact (4.5 VIP) vs MXR Bass Synth – Real World Take (R&B Cover Band Use)
So I used my FI 4.5 VIP pedal on a gig for the first time this weekend. I've also spent a good amount of time with the MXR Bass synth pedal on gigs since it's release. Below I offer my comparison of the two pedals.
The FI produces a more multi-dimensional, layered, and full synth tone. It feels like an actual instrument rather than an effect sitting on top of your bass signal. Notes have depth, weight, and complexity. You hear distinct oscillator behavior, filtering, and envelope shaping working together in a way that feels organic and “synth-like.”
By contrast, the MXR tends to sound more like a processed bass signal—almost like a filter + fuzz combo rather than a true synth engine. It can sound good in a mix, but it lacks that 3D, harmonically rich character you want for classic R&B synth lines (think Stevie Wonder / Parliament/ Michael Jackson / Bruno Mars / Chaka Khan / Whitney Houston).
The difference, I think, comes down to architecture. The FI is essentially a full synth engine (multiple oscillators, envelopes, filter etc.) The MXR feels more like a preset-based effects processor approximating synth tones. If you goal is "convincing synth bass," the FI wins IMO.
By contrast, the MXR has no computer connectivity, no editor, no preset ecosystem, no way to browse or import sounds. You are basically limited to what's on the pedal + whatever you can dial in by ear. And you are doing it in the blind. There is no visual feedback for parameter values, no way to really understand what's happening under the hood. As someone with limited knowledge re synth programming, the FI easily wins. The user interface is far superior.
The Future Impact is not perfect. The vast majority of the factory presets on the FI are not usable for my gigs. (I realize that it is not strictly a bass synth pedal.) It has a steeper learning curve than the MXR. (Hopefully Panda Audio will produce some YouTube instructional videos to lower the curve.) But with the addition of the new 4.5 presets there are now enough classic bass synth programs on the pedal itself to make it a true "plug and play" bass synth pedal, if that is what you are looking for. Yes, there are now 198 presets with the addition of the FM sounds. The shear number of sounds can be overwhelming. But Panda Audio wisely added the Setlist mode to address this. And for non-programers the huge user-created database offers more than enough sounds for a gigging bass player to browse and download. Kudos to @Andras Szalay, @Quatschmacher and the rest of the Panda Audio team for the new and improved 4.5 Future Impact pedal.
So I used my FI 4.5 VIP pedal on a gig for the first time this weekend. I've also spent a good amount of time with the MXR Bass synth pedal on gigs since it's release. Below I offer my comparison of the two pedals.
1. Sound Quality – This Is the Big One
For me, the Future Impact simply sounds better. Not subtly better—meaningfully better.The FI produces a more multi-dimensional, layered, and full synth tone. It feels like an actual instrument rather than an effect sitting on top of your bass signal. Notes have depth, weight, and complexity. You hear distinct oscillator behavior, filtering, and envelope shaping working together in a way that feels organic and “synth-like.”
By contrast, the MXR tends to sound more like a processed bass signal—almost like a filter + fuzz combo rather than a true synth engine. It can sound good in a mix, but it lacks that 3D, harmonically rich character you want for classic R&B synth lines (think Stevie Wonder / Parliament/ Michael Jackson / Bruno Mars / Chaka Khan / Whitney Houston).
The difference, I think, comes down to architecture. The FI is essentially a full synth engine (multiple oscillators, envelopes, filter etc.) The MXR feels more like a preset-based effects processor approximating synth tones. If you goal is "convincing synth bass," the FI wins IMO.
2. Editor + User Database = Huge Advantage
This is where the gap really widens. The FI pedal is augmented with computer Editor software, and more importantly for me (since I'm not well versed in synth programming) has access to a huge user preset database, which is continually updating. That's a game changer. If I can't find what I need on the pedal, I can go to the database and find a preset that gets the job done and load it into the pedal. In addition, I can tweak the preset and user sounds using the Editor. (Something I hope to get better at in the future).By contrast, the MXR has no computer connectivity, no editor, no preset ecosystem, no way to browse or import sounds. You are basically limited to what's on the pedal + whatever you can dial in by ear. And you are doing it in the blind. There is no visual feedback for parameter values, no way to really understand what's happening under the hood. As someone with limited knowledge re synth programming, the FI easily wins. The user interface is far superior.
3. Hardware Interface
Both pedals are well-built and gig-worthy. No complaints there. But the adjustable parameters on the FI pedal itself are clearly defined. You know what your are adjusting and can make intentional, repeatable changes. On the MXR pedal, as explained above, adjustments feel more like guesswork. In addition, the new Setlist mode on the FI pedal itself is extremely useful when using it on a gig. (And you don't need a computer to do this.) I can organize my sounds in performance order prior to the gig. The MXR has no comparable feature.Bottom Line
The MXR Bass Synth is a solid and fun pedal. It's compact, sounds decent, and it's preset are all usable in a gig situation. But the Future Impact sounds more like a real synth, offers vastly better control and flexibility, and has a huge ecosystem via the user database. For my use case the FI isn't just better, it's on a different level.The Future Impact is not perfect. The vast majority of the factory presets on the FI are not usable for my gigs. (I realize that it is not strictly a bass synth pedal.) It has a steeper learning curve than the MXR. (Hopefully Panda Audio will produce some YouTube instructional videos to lower the curve.) But with the addition of the new 4.5 presets there are now enough classic bass synth programs on the pedal itself to make it a true "plug and play" bass synth pedal, if that is what you are looking for. Yes, there are now 198 presets with the addition of the FM sounds. The shear number of sounds can be overwhelming. But Panda Audio wisely added the Setlist mode to address this. And for non-programers the huge user-created database offers more than enough sounds for a gigging bass player to browse and download. Kudos to @Andras Szalay, @Quatschmacher and the rest of the Panda Audio team for the new and improved 4.5 Future Impact pedal.
I’ve had the MXR since release and the Future Impact since its second year IIRC. To me the reason for the difference in sound response has a lot to do with how the MXR’s amp envelope responds to release/decay in the input signal- with sustained notes the synth oscillator voice “fizzles” unnaturally when the input signal drops below a threshold (probably where the “fuzz” comparison comes from as the same unnatural decay tends to happen when using gated fuzz to emulate a synth sound), whereas the current iteration of the Future Impact allows for clean note sustain and decay that can actually sustain beyond what the strings of a bass are capable of. I felt like older firmware versions of the Future Impact could have similar issues with decay as the MXR at some settings (though it was usually somewhat smoother), while the newest updates have really upped the ante by including a fully functional ASDR amp envelope that can sustain notes indefinitely. For fast playing and short note values I think the MXR is still pretty cool, and I really like the filter in the MXR and the relatively simple interface. Strong compression into the MXR (or the internal compressor) can also help increase note sustain. But yeah the current Future Impact is undeniably capable of sounds and responses far beyond the MXR if you are willing to invest the time into it (and I’d say the current tracking of the FI is much more forgiving and noticeably faster too though the speed of the MXR is pretty impressive in 4-string mode).
- May 16, 2007
- 3,395
- 4,869
- Disclosures
- Volunteer developer/beta tester with Source Audio, Morningstar Engineering & MORTRIX
Thank you for this very thoughtful and detailed comparison.
One other thing that distinguishes the FI from any other synth or pedal that I am aware of is the steady improvement in all areas - UI, sound quality, tracking, algorithms, included presets, and hardware power.
And @Quatschmacher. That’s a BIG plus.
And @Quatschmacher. That’s a BIG plus.
The MC4 Pro arrived today, it's a cute little thing. Now I'll have to learn how to use it. Here's my current board, not all hooked up but laid out. Soon I hope to replace the big honking bypass looper by a Morningstar ML-10X.
I’ve been having a lot of fun sending FI into the PF101
And into my prunes and custard clone it’s literally magic.
One of the things that I like about my FI is the way it plays naturally and also combines with other effects, I’ve not had them at the same time but I’ve tried various multi fx, fuzz filter combos and C4 for synth sounds and nothing has worked and sounded as nicely as this
Converted V4.5 factory presets BA_SONG 1-13 to pr3 format with LLM
After converting my own patches from pr3 to pr4 with the editor I was wondering if it would also work the other way. So I asked LLM Claude to find the differences between pr3 and 4 format and write a prompt for converting pr4 format back to pr3. So it did.
I tested the prompt with Claude and the analog V4.5 factory presets BA_SONG 1-13. Seems like it is working.
Limitations discovered so far:
Chorus/ Delay time is not converted properly (probably because the range has changed between V3 and V4?). Other new parameters like OSC Sync, new flexi curves etc. will of course also not be converted.
It seems to work quite well for all V4 patches that use parameters and values that were already present in V3.
usage: You probably need to add ".txt" at the end of the file before upload so the LLM can read it as text. Or open the pr4 file in a text editor and paste the text in the LLM.
It is not a super difficult task so all LLMs should be able to do it. I only checked with Claude so far.
Here is the prompt I used:
*******************************
You are given a preset file in PR4 format. Convert it to PR3 format following these exact rules:
Line 0 (Header): Replace the value 244 with 243.
Lines 1–124: Copy these lines exactly as they are, without any changes (field 0 through field 9 poti 6, ser.no. 1–124).
Line 125 (contains field:9 poti:7 ser.no.:125):Set the value (the number before the semicolon) to 0. The rest of the line (the comment with field/poti/ser.no.) remains unchanged. The result must be:0 ; field: 9 poti: 7 ser.no.: 125
Line 126 (contains field:9 poti:8 ser.no.:126):Replace the entire line with:0 ; dummy
Lines 127–128: Copy unchanged (these are already 0 ; dummy).
Lines 129–170 (field 15 through field 18):Copy all values and field/poti labels exactly. Change only the ser.no. number
ecrease each ser.no. value by exactly 1. (Example:ser.no.:127 becomes ser.no.:126, ser.no.:168 becomes ser.no.:167).
Total line count: The file must still have exactly 171 lines.
Formatting: Preserve the exact indentation and spacing of each line (leading spaces before the value, spacing between fields).
Output the complete converted file.
******************************************
I uploaded the converted pr3 files to the database under /pack:
V4.5 BA_SONG 1-13 factory patches in pr3 format – Future Impact Program Database
PS. The Thriller patch uses OSC Sync in V4. So it will sound different in V3.
PS.PS. This is not a perfect solution but it can save you a lot of work when you want to convert patches.
After converting my own patches from pr3 to pr4 with the editor I was wondering if it would also work the other way. So I asked LLM Claude to find the differences between pr3 and 4 format and write a prompt for converting pr4 format back to pr3. So it did.
I tested the prompt with Claude and the analog V4.5 factory presets BA_SONG 1-13. Seems like it is working.
Limitations discovered so far:
Chorus/ Delay time is not converted properly (probably because the range has changed between V3 and V4?). Other new parameters like OSC Sync, new flexi curves etc. will of course also not be converted.
It seems to work quite well for all V4 patches that use parameters and values that were already present in V3.
usage: You probably need to add ".txt" at the end of the file before upload so the LLM can read it as text. Or open the pr4 file in a text editor and paste the text in the LLM.
It is not a super difficult task so all LLMs should be able to do it. I only checked with Claude so far.
Here is the prompt I used:
*******************************
You are given a preset file in PR4 format. Convert it to PR3 format following these exact rules:
Line 0 (Header): Replace the value 244 with 243.
Lines 1–124: Copy these lines exactly as they are, without any changes (field 0 through field 9 poti 6, ser.no. 1–124).
Line 125 (contains field:9 poti:7 ser.no.:125):Set the value (the number before the semicolon) to 0. The rest of the line (the comment with field/poti/ser.no.) remains unchanged. The result must be:0 ; field: 9 poti: 7 ser.no.: 125
Line 126 (contains field:9 poti:8 ser.no.:126):Replace the entire line with:0 ; dummy
Lines 127–128: Copy unchanged (these are already 0 ; dummy).
Lines 129–170 (field 15 through field 18):Copy all values and field/poti labels exactly. Change only the ser.no. number
ecrease each ser.no. value by exactly 1. (Example:ser.no.:127 becomes ser.no.:126, ser.no.:168 becomes ser.no.:167).Total line count: The file must still have exactly 171 lines.
Formatting: Preserve the exact indentation and spacing of each line (leading spaces before the value, spacing between fields).
Output the complete converted file.
******************************************
I uploaded the converted pr3 files to the database under /pack:
V4.5 BA_SONG 1-13 factory patches in pr3 format – Future Impact Program Database
PS. The Thriller patch uses OSC Sync in V4. So it will sound different in V3.
PS.PS. This is not a perfect solution but it can save you a lot of work when you want to convert patches.
Bugfix. „: D“ in the prompt was accidentally turned into a smiley after posting.
So here is the corrected prompt:
You are given a preset file in PR4 format. Convert it to PR3 format following these exact rules:
Line 0 (Header): Replace the value 244 with 243.
Lines 1–124: Copy these lines exactly as they are, without any changes (field 0 through field 9 poti 6, ser.no. 1–124).
Line 125 (contains field:9 poti:7 ser.no.:125):Set the value (the number before the semicolon) to 0. The rest of the line (the comment with field/poti/ser.no.) remains unchanged. The result must be:0 ; field: 9 poti: 7 ser.no.: 125
Line 126 (contains field:9 poti:8 ser.no.:126):Replace the entire line with:0 ; dummy
Lines 127–128: Copy unchanged (these are already 0 ; dummy).
Lines 129–170 (field 15 through field 18):Copy all values and field/poti labels exactly. Change only the ser.no. number: Decrease each ser.no. value by exactly 1. (Example:ser.no.:127 becomes ser.no.:126, ser.no.:168 becomes ser.no.:167).
Total line count: The file must still have exactly 171 lines.
Formatting: Preserve the exact indentation and spacing of each line (leading spaces before the value, spacing between fields).
Output the complete converted file
So here is the corrected prompt:
You are given a preset file in PR4 format. Convert it to PR3 format following these exact rules:
Line 0 (Header): Replace the value 244 with 243.
Lines 1–124: Copy these lines exactly as they are, without any changes (field 0 through field 9 poti 6, ser.no. 1–124).
Line 125 (contains field:9 poti:7 ser.no.:125):Set the value (the number before the semicolon) to 0. The rest of the line (the comment with field/poti/ser.no.) remains unchanged. The result must be:0 ; field: 9 poti: 7 ser.no.: 125
Line 126 (contains field:9 poti:8 ser.no.:126):Replace the entire line with:0 ; dummy
Lines 127–128: Copy unchanged (these are already 0 ; dummy).
Lines 129–170 (field 15 through field 18):Copy all values and field/poti labels exactly. Change only the ser.no. number: Decrease each ser.no. value by exactly 1. (Example:ser.no.:127 becomes ser.no.:126, ser.no.:168 becomes ser.no.:167).
Total line count: The file must still have exactly 171 lines.
Formatting: Preserve the exact indentation and spacing of each line (leading spaces before the value, spacing between fields).
Output the complete converted file
