• 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.

New Damnation Audio MBD(3) pedal

#3
No experience (yet) with the 3, but it's funny to see the player in the first video utilize it the same way I use my 1/2.
Clean set for unity, highs achieved via the distortion side.

I've actually recommended this approach for those not getting along with the circuit a few times on TB.

The "bi-amp" approach seems to always get me the best experience with the MBD.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Maxi Funkl and Zbysek
#4
dedpool1052 said:
No experience (yet) with the 3, but it's funny to see the player in the first video utilize it the same way I use my 1/2.
Clean set for unity, highs achieved via the distortion side.

I've actually recommended this approach for those not getting along with the circuit a few times on TB.

The "bi-amp" approach seems to always get me the best experience with the MBD.
Click to expand...
I don't have experience with the MBD, but when it comes to blending dirt, I tend to prefer just slightly under unity for the clean. I think that it has to do with the voicing of the distortion, though.

The reason I have to prefer under unity is that since the distorted signal is adding more signal, having the clean signal at unity while also having the distorted signal at a high enough volume to be heard in the mix tends to result in far too much signal when compared to the bypassed tone. Backing off the cleans just a tiny bit lets me get a volume balance between bypassed, effected, and dirt signal that works in a mix.

I suspect the exception to this would be a situation where the dirty signal is already lacking in mids or lows. Most of my dirt boxes are pretty full range, and so having the sum low end from both the dirty and the clean would be a bit much.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Maxi Funkl and Zbysek
#5
jdjk7 said:
I don't have experience with the MBD, but when it comes to blending dirt, I tend to prefer just slightly under unity for the clean. I think that it has to do with the voicing of the distortion, though.

The reason I have to prefer under unity is that since the distorted signal is adding more signal, having the clean signal at unity while also having the distorted signal at a high enough volume to be heard in the mix tends to result in far too much signal when compared to the bypassed tone. Backing off the cleans just a tiny bit lets me get a volume balance between bypassed, effected, and dirt signal that works in a mix.

I suspect the exception to this would be a situation where the dirty signal is already lacking in mids or lows. Most of my dirt boxes are pretty full range, and so having the sum low end from both the dirty and the clean would be a bit much.
Click to expand...

I agree with you except for cases where the blending is done via crossover. In that case, there are (almost) no shared frequencies and the clean (low-passed) signal needs to be at unity...
 
#6
Zbysek said:
I agree with you except for cases where the blending is done via crossover. In that case, there are (almost) no shared frequencies and the clean (low-passed) signal needs to be at unity...
Click to expand...

It really depends on the design. In most crossovers frequencies on either side of the crossover point are attenuated. They aren't completely eliminated. There may be a wide band of shared frequencies or it can be narrow but its very difficult to achieve a brick wall frequency cutoff and that isn't necessarily desirable.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Maxi Funkl and Zbysek
#7
Zbysek said:
I agree with you except for cases where the blending is done via crossover. In that case, there are (almost) no shared frequencies and the clean (low-passed) signal needs to be at unity...
Click to expand...
It's not just about shared frequencies, because it's about the perceived loudness of the dirty and clean signals, and the total sum of those signals-- that's a combination of all frequencies, not just shared ones. I tend to find that if I leave my clean signal at unity, when I go to set my desired balance of dirty signal, it ends up being louder than I want it. If I make just the dirty signal quieter, I don't hear as much of it in relation to the clean as I want. So, I reduce the clean, just slightly... usually I only reduce it by about 10%. (I could just avoid this step and turn my amp down, but... why?)

For example, this is the problem I had for a long time setting my Doom 2 fuzz. It is very easy to get an unsatisfactory sound out of that pedal because of using too much clean signal, because it's just a bottomless pit of low end. Once I started figuring out I could turn the clean down and turn the fuzz up, it started mixing better in a band.

My comment about shared frequencies only has to do with the relationship between the desired balance of frequencies (low end) and the desired volume.
 
  • Like
Reactions: stenomattia, Driven Crane, Maxi Funkl and 2 others
#8
jdjk7 said:
I don't have experience with the MBD, but when it comes to blending dirt, I tend to prefer just slightly under unity for the clean. I think that it has to do with the voicing of the distortion, though.

The reason I have to prefer under unity is that since the distorted signal is adding more signal, having the clean signal at unity while also having the distorted signal at a high enough volume to be heard in the mix tends to result in far too much signal when compared to the bypassed tone. Backing off the cleans just a tiny bit lets me get a volume balance between bypassed, effected, and dirt signal that works in a mix.

I suspect the exception to this would be a situation where the dirty signal is already lacking in mids or lows. Most of my dirt boxes are pretty full range, and so having the sum low end from both the dirty and the clean would be a bit much.
Click to expand...

That's essentially what blends like the contour and low passing accomplishes. Well thought out designs like the MBD's feature set allows you to balance the cleans or lows without being too much, while maintaining clarity and keeping the fundamental. Common practice and useful with different styles and genres, mixes, etc
 
  • Like
Reactions: Zbysek
#10
jdjk7 said:
For example, this is the problem I had for a long time setting my Doom 2 fuzz. It is very easy to get an unsatisfactory sound out of that pedal because of using too much clean signal, because it's just a bottomless pit of low end. Once I started figuring out I could turn the clean down and turn the fuzz up, it started mixing better in a band.
Click to expand...

Which position did you set the bass/clean switch?
 
#15
Pedals2.jpg

I've gone through a few looking for what I hear in my head. Deep growl without top-end fuzz.
The MBD is staying for now and the EHX Soul Food gets honorable mention.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BrentSimons and Zbysek

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back