• 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.

Iron Ether Appreciation Society

#3,661
Grahams Groove said:
Octave and/or Gated-ish Fuzz before it. Find a sensitivity where the filter opens to your liking when playing clean/traditional filter sounds, and then adjust the output level of the fuzz/octave before it so they get the envelope to trigger in a way that sounds good to your ear. There's a lot of preference going on in the question, since the ideal sensitivity and responsiveness of a filter completely depends on what you want. I will say that I find the XD to be a better synth filter than traditional filter. For traditional standalone filter sounds, I like Moog, 3 Leaf, and MuTron stuff more. That said, if you like the XD for just filter sounds, you should be pleasantly surprised by how well it does synth sounds with dirt/octaves going into it...
Click to expand...
I've used a FEA Photon Fuzz 2 before teh XD which has a built in up-octaver which really fills out the high end nicely, and like every FEA pedal it's built like a tank (and sounds great). I've also used a SA UltraWave with success but (like almost every SA pedal) requires a good amount of remote tweaking from a iphone or computer to get some good sounds loaded.

I find that because of the natural compression any fuzz/dist after the XD filter removes any dynamics, so its def better before then after (unless thats teh sound you want).

I have a Wounded Paw Audio effect loop blender that has the "effected" channel in a loop I can swell in/out, the channel is:
WP send --> Dubterrenea (or FMeron) --> SA UW --> FEA PF2 --> XD --> WP return

I've used a bunch of filters and the XD is still the top pedal based one I can find... I really like the filter in the Moog Minitaur but its a PITA to get it working on external audio, not really feasible on a pedalboard. (I have the Moog MF-101 and like the XD waaay better)
 
  • Like
Reactions: warptheory
#3,662
warptheory said:
Have a Xerograph Deluxe. Sounds great, but trying to get synthy tones out of it, what/where do you put drive? Before/After and overdrive/distortion/fuzz/gatedfuzz/bitcrush? Do you change knob position when drive is on/off? I'd like to be able to switch between classic wah and synth just by turning drive on or off, but that may not be possible or get the best results.

Just seeing what people have found success with.
Click to expand...
I find the 4-pole setting is a bit synthier than the 2-pole setting so I'd start there. You'll probably need to adjust the filter level when switching (if you are currently on 2-pole) since the two don't respond equally.

I run an Octaver (3 Leaf Octabvre MKII) into a fuzz (3 Leaf Doom 2) into my XD. Sounds brilliant. I then vary the modulation after it depending on what synth tone I want. Sometimes I use no modulation. Sometimes I use phaser, chorus, pitch-shift, delay, and/or reverb.
 
  • Like
Reactions: warptheory and gkbass13
#3,663
warptheory said:
Have a Xerograph Deluxe. Sounds great, but trying to get synthy tones out of it, what/where do you put drive? Before/After and overdrive/distortion/fuzz/gatedfuzz/bitcrush? Do you change knob position when drive is on/off? I'd like to be able to switch between classic wah and synth just by turning drive on or off, but that may not be possible or get the best results.

Just seeing what people have found success with.
Click to expand...
When it comes to pedal signal chains, you can always change the order to see what fits your sonic vision.

Personally, I would run:
OC2, Fuzz, Drive, Bitcrusher, harmony/pitch, modulation, filter, Drive, detune, delay/reverb

Drive, Fuzz, and bitcrushing work well on both sides of the Xero, and putting bitcrushing in front of fuzz can also be cool (ideally you would have both to mimmic a synth).

I think it's pretty possible to setup a nice Expression controlled sweep on one side and then an envelope filter on the other.
 
  • Like
Reactions: warptheory, SoundOfOneHandSlapping and gonzkal
#3,665
mrgreenlantern said:
When it comes to pedal signal chains, you can always change the order to see what fits your sonic vision.

Personally, I would run:
OC2, Fuzz, Drive, Bitcrusher, harmony/pitch, modulation, filter, Drive, detune, delay/reverb

Drive, Fuzz, and bitcrushing work well on both sides of the Xero, and putting bitcrushing in front of fuzz can also be cool (ideally you would have both to mimmic a synth).

I think it's pretty possible to setup a nice Expression controlled sweep on one side and then an envelope filter on the other.
Click to expand...
I second bit crushing before fuzzing.
IMG_20221106_144617.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jakeman, jasonmitsch, odarellmc and 12 others
#3,667
theunknowndude said:
That’s pretty much an ideal “best of brands” that I’d use too if I ever scouted / hunted long enough - looks like the ultimate synth board.
Click to expand...
Haha, thanks! Yes, it took me some time to gather these. It started with the XD and Octabvre Mini, bought them new in 2016. They were obtainable at that time...
 
  • Like
Reactions: warptheory, gh0st42 and theunknowndude
#3,669
warptheory said:
Have a Xerograph Deluxe. Sounds great, but trying to get synthy tones out of it, what/where do you put drive? Before/After and overdrive/distortion/fuzz/gatedfuzz/bitcrush? Do you change knob position when drive is on/off? I'd like to be able to switch between classic wah and synth just by turning drive on or off, but that may not be possible or get the best results.

Just seeing what people have found success with.
Click to expand...

The best synth tone I get with it is in combo with the Subterranea (or Dubterranea I suppose, but I don't have one). They were designed to be paired together, and it's just amazing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: warptheory and thumbslapper
#3,675
Jakeman said:
I’m a huge fan of IE, owning and actively using all their products except the Nimbus. But I’m curious - I was going back and forth between the SubT and DubT today while playing, and decided I massively prefer the Sub. Anybody else feel like the Dub can’t compete with its predecessor? Just a random curiosity.
Click to expand...

100% I've owned a Dubterranea twice & wanted to love it but the Subterranea tracks so much better & sounds more solid. It has a little bleed through from the synth channel but the Xerograph cleans it up so its a non issue... Subt, Oxide, & XD are an unparalleled combination of evil synth nastiness
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: theirishpimp and Jakeman
#3,676
I tried the DubT for a few months and while I loved the sounds, the tracking for me was a bit of a dealbreaker. I wonder if Taylor could take another look at the circuit in the future and figure out what made the SubT track better and apply that to future DubT builds.
 
#3,677
Batrachos said:
I tried the DubT for a few months and while I loved the sounds, the tracking for me was a bit of a dealbreaker. I wonder if Taylor could take another look at the circuit in the future and figure out what made the SubT track better and apply that to future DubT builds.
Click to expand...
Analog vs Digital.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MisticoRitualista
#3,678
It's not so much an analog/digital thing - really they just work in different ways. The Subterranea is more of a waveshaper - it takes your signal, turns it into a square wave, and uses that square wave to switch a filter at audio rate to generate the "sawtooth" wave. I'm simplifying of course but that's the idea.

The Dubterranea on the other hand really is tracking the frequency and using that to control actual oscillators. In theory this could be done with all analog tech but I promise it would glitch even more and you'd have to keep retuning it as it warmed up throughout a set.

The downside with the Subterranea's approach is that it isn't a very accurate sawtooth, and how saw-like it is varies depending on the note you're playing. So in terms of the harmonics generated it's never going to sound quite like a real sawtooth. The Dubterranea does, but, the downside of its approach is that it's more prone to pitch-tracking errors if you don't play really carefully.

People didn't really seem to like the Dubterranea as much as I would've hoped, which is why I've never made more. There were other pitch-tracking pedals in the pipeline too at the time, which I decided to shelve given how that went. It's just a much harder problem to solve than people might appreciate - not just making it track well for my instrument and my playing style, but every instrument and every playing style.

Edit: unrelated but I just noticed I've officially been on Talkbass for 20 years.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: eveilleu, odarellmc, TOGNA and 40 others
#3,679
That's the general consensus every time I hear people talk about octave pedals, especially explaining octave up. It's my favorite type of pedal. I have noticed some though, sub blaster for instance, doesn't track very well, but seem to filter or hide the transition. So it flips back and forth, but you don't mind it as much because it mixes in with the character of the pedal. I'm getting through with COGs T-16 right now, and it's the same way. That thing flops back and forth so much it sounds like clipping, and gives it a nice dirty sound that people like. Sub side of the octabvre is the same sound.

I enjoyed the subt, but I remember only using the octave portion and figured it was a waste to not utilize the whole rig, I've wanted to try the dub but I've heard the same "review"

The FMeron can pull off a clean octave (I guess you call it an octave), especially when going up, and the Divaricator has the one exciter that adds the feature similar to that
 
  • Like
Reactions: droberts444 and theirishpimp
#3,680
Taylor Livingston said:
It's not so much an analog/digital thing - really they just work in different ways. The Subterranea is more of a waveshaper - it takes your signal, turns it into a square wave, and uses that square wave to switch a filter at audio rate to generate the "sawtooth" wave. I'm simplifying of course but that's the idea.

The Dubterranea on the other hand really is tracking the frequency and using that to control actual oscillators. In theory this could be done with all analog tech but I promise it would glitch even more and you'd have to keep retuning it as it warmed up throughout a set.

The downside with the Subterranea's approach is that it isn't a very accurate sawtooth, and how saw-like it is varies depending on the note you're playing. So in terms of the harmonics generated it's never going to sound quite like a real sawtooth. The Dubterranea does, but, the downside of its approach is that it's more prone to pitch-tracking errors if you don't play really carefully.

People didn't really seem to like the Dubterranea as much as I would've hoped, which is why I've never made more. There were other pitch-tracking pedals in the pipeline too at the time, which I decided to shelve given how that went. It's just a much harder problem to solve than people might appreciate - not just making it track well for my instrument and my playing style, but every instrument and every playing style.

Edit: unrelated but I just noticed I've officially been on Talkbass for 20 years.
Click to expand...
That makes me even more bummed that I didn't grab the Dubterrograph when it came out. Does the Dubterranea track like a typical octave pedal, or is it more sensitive to your playing?
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back