• 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.

Help me to choose my envelope filter

#21
redangel said:
How about if I want a wet sound? Maxon AF-9 and Moog MF-101, right?

As I know both Bottom Feeder and Tonefactor 442 are based on DOD 440, so both should be subtle, right?

I could not choose which should I go for, for the size Maxon win, but for the sound, I have tried out Moog only... I don't know if Maxon could fit my need.
Click to expand...

I compared the Moog to the AF-9 when I went filter shopping. During my test run of the two, I found that the lack of an "up" filter on the Moog was practically a dealbreaker on its own. Secondly I found it difficult to instinctively dial in a good tone. Lots of options and not intuitive enough for me. Thirdly, the gain control on it made the bypass funky. Honestly I walked away finding the thing unweildy. There are a lot of satisfied Moog customers out there but for me it just was not plug and play oriented enough for my needs.
 
#22
Unrepresented said:
I compared the Moog to the AF-9 when I went filter shopping. During my test run of the two, I found that the lack of an "up" filter on the Moog was practically a dealbreaker on its own. Secondly I found it difficult to instinctively dial in a good tone. Lots of options and not intuitive enough for me. Thirdly, the gain control on it made the bypass funky. Honestly I walked away finding the thing unweildy. There are a lot of satisfied Moog customers out there but for me it just was not plug and play oriented enough for my needs.
Click to expand...

Great! Finally someone compared them.
So you took the AF-9 right?
Would you think AF-9 and Moog MF-101 are similar tone?

Thanks
 
#23
redangel said:
Great! Finally someone compared them.
So you took the AF-9 right?
Would you think AF-9 and Moog MF-101 are similar tone?

Thanks
Click to expand...
Yeah. Chose the AF-9.

I really don't think I can give a fair review of the MF-101's tone though because I didn't devote enough to time to getting to know the thing --- that was half my complaint honestly, not intuitive enough. I'm sure a well learned owner can do great things with the down filter on it (Moog has been making these guys forever, there's obviously a reason), but if you wanna go "up" too you're outta luck.
 
#24
Unrepresented said:
I compared the Moog to the AF-9 when I went filter shopping. During my test run of the two, I found that the lack of an "up" filter on the Moog was practically a dealbreaker on its own. Secondly I found it difficult to instinctively dial in a good tone. Lots of options and not intuitive enough for me. Thirdly, the gain control on it made the bypass funky. Honestly I walked away finding the thing unweildy. There are a lot of satisfied Moog customers out there but for me it just was not plug and play oriented enough for my needs.
Click to expand...

I came to the same conclusions.
 
#26
Err, the Moog goes up, not down. Also you can make it go down with a control voltage attenuator, or you can make it do all kinds of crazy stuff with various LFOs and other weird CV stuff. Moog is definitely not for normal, well-adjusted players who just want an auto-wah, it's for insane people who want to achieve sounds that are inconceivable to the human mind. One is not enough when it comes to Moog. Get the AF9.
 
#27
fivestringgecko said:
Subtle is exactly what I'm looking for. Any thoughts on the Boomstick Bottom Feeder vs. the 442?

I was under the impression that the 442 was more for guitar and that the 442 Red (the one designed more specifically for bass, which they don't make any more) became the Bottom Feeder?

5sg.

P.S. That shirt DOES kick @$$... You could send me the link, too! :)
Click to expand...

Yeah the 442 was designed for guitar. The 442 Red is almost the same but with expanded frequency range to better suit bass. I have the 442 red, which is identical to the Boomstick Bottom Feeder. And they are all based on the original DOD 440, that's why they are called the 442(too) haha.

It is subtle that's what I like, there are no unusable settings. If you are after over the top wet bubbles look elsewhere, if you want a musical filter to add a little funk the 442 is where it's at imo. :bassist:
 
#28
Wow, for guys who compared both MF-101 and AF-9, all of them recommended AF-9!
Great! But is it a true bypass? Because I see that the footswitch style does not a true bypass switch.
Also, about the up and down, can someone explain to me?
 
#30
redangel said:
Wow, for guys who compared both MF-101 and AF-9, all of them recommended AF-9!
Great! But is it a true bypass? Because I see that the footswitch style does not a true bypass switch.
Also, about the up and down, can someone explain to me?
Click to expand...
AF-9 is true bypass Moog isn't.
Ely said:
A filter sweeping up means that it would start out low and raise the cutoff frequency with the sweep, whereas a downward filter sweep usually starts high and lowers the cutoff frequency.
Click to expand...
Yeah. Sometimes one is more useful than the other. I've personally found that "up" is more useful for my needs because it uses the high pitched section to cut through and establish the rhythm of my playing at the onset of the note, as opposed to having the dub-like low start which lacks definition.

Although, I use my BMS in down mode almost without exception....
 
#31
JoshC said:
Yeah the 442 was designed for guitar. The 442 Red is almost the same but with expanded frequency range to better suit bass. I have the 442 red, which is identical to the Boomstick Bottom Feeder. And they are all based on the original DOD 440, that's why they are called the 442(too) haha.

It is subtle that's what I like, there are no unusable settings. If you are after over the top wet bubbles look elsewhere, if you want a musical filter to add a little funk the 442 is where it's at imo. :bassist:
Click to expand...

Cool, thanks for the confirmation! I'm still in search of an envelope filter that really grabs me and the Bottom Feeder has been on my list to check out.

I'll add another filter to the mix:
I know it was just released, but does anyone have any opinions on the Barge Concepts Grinder? It's a Lovetone Meatball clone (with improvements, according to their site), which seems to be a pretty coveted pedal around TB. I would think that with all those controls, I could certainly find any sound I could ever want, but what if it can't be subtle enough, you know? $360 is a little too much coin to shell out on one pedal without at least hearing it first, IMO.

Anyone have any thoughts?

5sg.
 
#32
I'd suggest a Lovetone Meatball, but they are out of production so you'd have to find one used for $600 on EvilBay. Try to locate a clone if you like the Meatball's sound. I have a Meatball clone, its called the Meatball. Do a search on talkbass, you'll find the guy who makes them, he frequently posts here. You can pick up a clone for $300ish. I would highly recommend at least finding some soundclips of the Meatball or Meatwad, they are killer. Seriously.

The guy that makes the clone is RobotFactory, or that's his handle anyway.
 
#33
fivestringgecko said:
Barge Concepts Grinder ... I would think that with all those controls, I could certainly find any sound I could ever want, but what if it can't be subtle enough,
Click to expand...

I've got a Meatwad (another Meatball clone) and it doesn't have any issues with doing subtle (and a whole pile of other useful noises), so I imagine the Grinder will be able to do it too.

But that is a lot of money if you only want the one sound. I just had a BYOC 440 clone turn up in the mail today and I think you were right on the money when you were discussing that circuit - it's very subtle, and a hell of a lot cheaper than a Meatball clone. I'd say get the Boomstick box or a 440 filter kit from BYOC.
 
#34
kevteop said:
I've got a Meatwad (another Meatball clone) and it doesn't have any issues with doing subtle (and a whole pile of other useful noises), so I imagine the Grinder will be able to do it too.

But that is a lot of money if you only want the one sound. I just had a BYOC 440 clone turn up in the mail today and I think you were right on the money when you were discussing that circuit - it's very subtle, and a hell of a lot cheaper than a Meatball clone. I'd say get the Boomstick box or a 440 filter kit from BYOC.
Click to expand...

How's the lowend with the BYOC kit? Lose any?
 
#37
One of the interesting things about the MF-101 is that you can send it into self-oscillation and generate some really spaced out synth like tones. And kill your speakers.

Other than that, I just use it as a "normal" auto-wah in my main rig. I prefer it over the EHX Q-Tron+ XO, which in turn I preferred to a lot of other envelope filters. Unfortunately I've not been able to test those others listed in the OP....
 
#38
Anderson J said:
I gots some love for the bassballs. Great effect

CLUBSHIRT2005-BOOTSY01.gif
Click to expand...

fretlessman71 said:
Okay, I GOTTA have that shirt. Send me a link...? :)
Click to expand...

Badass shirt. Could I have the link too?
 
#40
One thing I forgot to mention about this DOD clone:

There's this one wolfy "hump" in its downward sweep, that it's difficult (impossible?) to dial out. You'll only notice it if you sustain a note for a while and let the filter slowly close, but it's very obvious when you do hear it, sounds like a sharp resonant peak that it passes on the way down. The DOD FX-25 I had years ago did the same thing.

I've never used a Bottom Feeder but I did ask an owner once if it did this, and he said it did. So maybe it's all DOD (and derived) circuits that do it. I haven't heard this effect from any other filter.
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back