Crowella
Commercial User
The nano one won't be going on sale (I did as a mini project) but the current Animated is. Same thing!
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.
Someone cracked the Animato
- Thread starter father of fires
- Start date
Crowella
Commercial User
I've opted not for top mount audio jacks because it drastically changes the construction and layout, especially regarding the controls, although I'm not opposed to top jacks, they do make sense.
I did however keep the power jack up there. Does make construction a little bit longer (like, we're talking a minute or two longer) but the convenience is worth it.
I did however keep the power jack up there. Does make construction a little bit longer (like, we're talking a minute or two longer) but the convenience is worth it.
I've noticed that a lot of boutique pedals (Chase Bliss, Iron Ether etc) which are top loading layouts tend to favour slightly larger enclosures than the usual 1590b.
Crowella
Commercial User
That's for exactly this reason. Having the extra depth allows you to mount the jacks up top and usually on another board, which in turn will even allow room for a power jack mounted to that board, saving assembly time and buying a ton of room, which benefits builders a lot.
You ever wondered why a lot of pedals have power jacks on the side? It's because it's really, really easy to add a power jack to the same board as the bypass switch and jacks, because the vertical room is already offered. It makes assembly (usually by machine) easier. I ran a poll on my Facebook page and people (including myself) really don't like the side power jacks, especially when it comes to making a pedalboard.
At the current moment, I use a 1590B and they don't offer much vertical room, in fact it's just slightly off being able to place a power jack directly onto the main board (despite my attempts). To accommodate the jacks and switch, you have to either sacrifice the physical space inside to make it work effectively or just use a ton of wires, but I really dislike working with wires, to the point I'm using Molex branded connectors between boards from now on to make my life easier (plus looks slick).
In my case, the power jack at the top requires my boards to have a cut in it to permit it and that even means reorienting the top two pots to clear it. The change to SMD at least allows me to gain more board room as I don't have to worry about grounding issues with the pots and possible shorts.
It sounds excessive, but I went through all my notes from my old studies in engineering and then discussed these design considerations with an engineer (medical field, same principles of design apply). We even looked at a large range of manufacturers methods (ie, basically every pedal I own) and worked out the most efficient way to build yet provide the best quality and end user ease.
And to think, this is just about the position of parts.
That's for exactly this reason. Having the extra depth allows you to mount the jacks up top and usually on another board, which in turn will even allow room for a power jack mounted to that board, saving assembly time and buying a ton of room, which benefits builders a lot.
You ever wondered why a lot of pedals have power jacks on the side? It's because it's really, really easy to add a power jack to the same board as the bypass switch and jacks, because the vertical room is already offered. It makes assembly (usually by machine) easier. I ran a poll on my Facebook page and people (including myself) really don't like the side power jacks, especially when it comes to making a pedalboard.
At the current moment, I use a 1590B and they don't offer much vertical room, in fact it's just slightly off being able to place a power jack directly onto the main board (despite my attempts). To accommodate the jacks and switch, you have to either sacrifice the physical space inside to make it work effectively or just use a ton of wires, but I really dislike working with wires, to the point I'm using Molex branded connectors between boards from now on to make my life easier (plus looks slick).
In my case, the power jack at the top requires my boards to have a cut in it to permit it and that even means reorienting the top two pots to clear it. The change to SMD at least allows me to gain more board room as I don't have to worry about grounding issues with the pots and possible shorts.
It sounds excessive, but I went through all my notes from my old studies in engineering and then discussed these design considerations with an engineer (medical field, same principles of design apply). We even looked at a large range of manufacturers methods (ie, basically every pedal I own) and worked out the most efficient way to build yet provide the best quality and end user ease.
And to think, this is just about the position of parts.
That's some good points. I'm squarely in the "prefer top jack and power camp" but I admit building pedals is easier with side mounted jacks and power. There will be complaints and if that stops someone from buying then they weren't really interested in what you have to offer. You can't make everyone happy.
I've recently been laying out some pedals with side jacks and power and I felt gross at first but opening up real-estate on the board was quite freeing.
Good luck. These look great!
That's for exactly this reason. Having the extra depth allows you to mount the jacks up top and usually on another board, which in turn will even allow room for a power jack mounted to that board, saving assembly time and buying a ton of room, which benefits builders a lot.
You ever wondered why a lot of pedals have power jacks on the side? It's because it's really, really easy to add a power jack to the same board as the bypass switch and jacks, because the vertical room is already offered. It makes assembly (usually by machine) easier. I ran a poll on my Facebook page and people (including myself) really don't like the side power jacks, especially when it comes to making a pedalboard.
At the current moment, I use a 1590B and they don't offer much vertical room, in fact it's just slightly off being able to place a power jack directly onto the main board (despite my attempts). To accommodate the jacks and switch, you have to either sacrifice the physical space inside to make it work effectively or just use a ton of wires, but I really dislike working with wires, to the point I'm using Molex branded connectors between boards from now on to make my life easier (plus looks slick).
In my case, the power jack at the top requires my boards to have a cut in it to permit it and that even means reorienting the top two pots to clear it. The change to SMD at least allows me to gain more board room as I don't have to worry about grounding issues with the pots and possible shorts.
It sounds excessive, but I went through all my notes from my old studies in engineering and then discussed these design considerations with an engineer (medical field, same principles of design apply). We even looked at a large range of manufacturers methods (ie, basically every pedal I own) and worked out the most efficient way to build yet provide the best quality and end user ease.
And to think, this is just about the position of parts.
That's some really interesting insight into the decisions you have to make as a builder. Thanks for posting, it's something I'll keep in mind in the future as a buyer (I've wondered in the past what the reason was for top jack vs side jack, now I have a much better understanding).
Also good info... but I don't necessarily agree with the thought that if side jacks stop someone from buying then that means they weren't really interested in what the seller is offering. When it comes to OD, Fuzz, Distortion, we're fortunate to have a LOT of choices. Many of these choices are quite similar to each other, with there being varying degrees of pros and cons. In the past jack placement didn't factor into my purchasing decision, but it is starting to as I have less space on my board. I could be really interested in a pedal, but if there is something similar (which these days there are), one has side jacks and one has top jacks, I'm going to pick the one with the top jacks.
For the record, I have a pedal from both of you (Animated and the MBD-1), both are on my board, and I don't see myself getting rid of either.
Great response but it also highlights my point. With so many options in the dirt realm if the location of the jacks is a deterrent then the pedal itself did not do enough to distinguish itself as more than a commodity.
Ideas don't sell as much as perceived value. If someone buys into your idea they'll excuse some logistical issues. If someone just wants to fill an empty spot on the board then value becomes the bigger component.
My favorite pedals are almost all side jack despite my preferences. It took me a while to figure out why. I love ideas above all else. I ended buying a bigger board to suite.
Pedal Train Nano will only go so far!
You nailed it with the statement "With so many options in the dirt realm if the location of the jacks is a deterrent then the pedal itself did not do enough to distinguish itself as more than a commodity." You're absolutely right, many dirt pedals are very similar to others and aren't distinguishing themselves. Great point.
Crowella
Commercial User
It in itself probably wouldn't ever stop a sale, that's a very real point and it isn't a make or break deal for really anyone because I am doubtful people will actually make a conscious decision to buy/not buy based on that alone but in my case, the decision to put it there was more based on feedback for ease of use, in the same way that a dash layout in a car isn't a feature, just laid out in what they believe is intuitive design.
A good UI/UX is something that a user never needs to comment on. If you get comments saying something they don't like, it's still something. It's minor and a very contentious subject but there are more significant things that should stand out before that. You can't please everyone anyway.
Precisely this. Most people will work around minor things like this.
It in itself probably wouldn't ever stop a sale, that's a very real point and it isn't a make or break deal for really anyone because I am doubtful people will actually make a conscious decision to buy/not buy based on that alone but in my case, the decision to put it there was more based on feedback for ease of use, in the same way that a dash layout in a car isn't a feature, just laid out in what they believe is intuitive design.
A good UI/UX is something that a user never needs to comment on. If you get comments saying something they don't like, it's still something. It's minor and a very contentious subject but there are more significant things that should stand out before that. You can't please everyone anyway.
Precisely this. Most people will work around minor things like this.
Excusing my ignorance, but what causes the large box configurations when known offerings can have a 1590b version? I get things like the mbd1 which has a lot of controls and ideas .. but mainly speaking of things like a basic muff with just tone, volume and gain. I’m pretty put off from any dirt clone in a large box unless it has specific options and specific sound. Even the Russian muff reissue is in a 1590b now.( edit: and with a small board the change in configuration can mean losing another pedal in the chain too)
Crowella
Commercial User
Talking traditionally here (like 30-40 years ago, pre-internet), it was usually a factor of parts you could get your hand on and cost. It was a lot harder to obtain the standard sizes we have today so you would make do. Something like the the original big muff not only needed room for a substantially larger board and parts, it also needed space for open faced jacks, a battery and wires. What is easy enough to compress into a 1590A (really mini) now, wasn't exactly easy then when there wasn't a widespread use of power jacks, not to mention construction methods often involved hand soldering onto some perfboard or hand stenciled, single sided PCB.
Given that we also need to put it in an enclosure/case, it was often cheaper to use an enclosure that was easily available and at the time and I wouldn't be surprised if older manufacturers decided to see what the places nearest to them offered. Maybe the local metal worker in your town produces a few hundred sheet metal cases for industrial panels. Use them. This is also why many older era pedals have even more variance between the same pedal, sometimes a part will have changed merely because it was no longer available or something popped up that's cheaper and easier.
Speaking today, a reason you would use a larger than necessary enclosure will be along similar lines. Perhaps you stumbled across a metric ton of larger enclosures for basically free. Maybe you are saving money and making all pedals a standard size so something like your simple booster doesn't cost more because you want to shrink it. Perhaps a design is hand wired and needs more room. You can even make a larger one purely for presence sake to look the most noticeable on a board (I'd bet on that happening tbh).
The Hammond series is pretty much standard now because it's easily obtainable and is a "fits most purpose" kind of size. I would argue it's not the perfect size, but it satisfies basically every demand you could ask from it.
Physical hardware and controls are typically what cost the most in all these scenarios so they normally have the most sacrificed. It's no wonder why some manufactures like Darkglass, (Hi Doug!) will use CNC machined enclosures. The B3K uses a custom case that's slightly larger width than a 1590B to accommodate controls, mounts for use of actuators instead of bulky switches (neat!), the holes are all cast/pre-drilled with additional holes so you can drop quite a few different circuits in there and just stick on a custom plate over the top. Voila!
Last edited:
- Feb 16, 2008
- 21,240
- 23,633
- Disclosures
- John K Custom Basses
sometimes there's no need for a large enclosure other than the manufacturer was going for a certain 'look'. my original systech overdrive that i bought in the mid 70's is a huge pedal but i built a clone of it (for myself) but added treble and bass controls to make it more bass 'friendly' and was able to fit it all in a 1590B with all top jacks, and even with a relayed true bypass:
I realize we've gotten a bit off topic with the questions about why certain pedals are the size they are, top jack versus side jack, etc.... but boy this has been really educational and cool to read! Thanks @Crowella @father of fires @johnk_10 !
Although I loved the voice of my Crowella animated, but I could never get the blend levels right. There just wasn't enough volume on the clean side to bring back the low end punch. I sold mine for that reason. It was either suffer a volume drop when I engaged the pedal or pump up the blend towards the dirty side to regain volume and lose my low end. Nothing I did with the internal trim pots helped either. So I hope this is addressed in future runs. Here is the thread where I brought it up. And again, for those who think I am denigrating this pedal, I love the voice of it and was very dissapointed it didn't work for my setup.
Crowella Animated question
Crowella Animated question
Crowella
Commercial User
Interesting... The clean blend should virtually be at unity when on dry and there is plenty of volume on tap with the distortion end. This doesn't sound right, however I can understand that you might prefer to have more available or blend each individually. I will consider it for later revisions.
Crowella
Commercial User
Bit of a bump, not only because I will be having some more ready in about 2 weeks time (even if one board today had a board manufacture fault, bleh), but rather a customer of mine actually went out and got the Animato Forte and has had some interesting results with it. He sent me the manual that came with it.
Having a look, I think the Forte has split the dual gang distortion pot into two sections, or to some similar effect. Not only that, the switch has some more of a description. I might not have noticed this, but maybe this has something to do with changing the input impedance of the first stage.
I'm probably going to grab my hands on one soon to have a look.
Having a look, I think the Forte has split the dual gang distortion pot into two sections, or to some similar effect. Not only that, the switch has some more of a description. I might not have noticed this, but maybe this has something to do with changing the input impedance of the first stage.
I'm probably going to grab my hands on one soon to have a look.
