• 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.

SOUNDING "HUGE" IN A "SOFT" TRIO

kiripunk

kiripunk

Mar 30, 2012
481
485
38
Naples (ITALY)
www.facebook.com
#1
Hi there. I started my "career" in a 4 piece band, the lead had just left (he was a friend of mine so he let me in before leaving on his own). At the time, the other guitar guy (my best man) had to figure out how to go back and forth from chords to lead parts, but that was an easy task to him since we played Pop Punk/Californian Punk Rock. On the other hand I had just picked up an instrument, so helping in the sound spectrum was not that calculated on my part. I mean, the only thing I knew it was how to rock hard. But that did not mean "sounding huge". When we stopped I managed to expand my horizons (musically speaking) and I got appealed by lots of trios. Some of them being famous for their fine use of FXs. It was just recently, when a FBpal of mine asked to help him in his "experimental band", that I was forced to enter the FXWorld. Now, thinking about to go back to a 4 piece rock situation that "Hard Rock" sounding guys like Royal Blood (or even Lemmy for his use of distortions) came to mind. I would like to sound huge when needed, without having to carry on heavy gears (think about Placebo's bass player. His pedal board is huge) so I thought about "splitting" the sound in two. Clean and dirt. I also wanted to be able to use the dirt part of the pedal board as a dedicated guitar pedal board (if someone asked me to play guitar in other projects) or even take them apart on the fly (eg: by linking the two loops on the right side of the picture below). NOW THE QUESTION IS: with all the gear that I own, did I make any "technical" mistake? Your knowledge is very much needed. THANKS in advance.

69766201_500607457422736_9117999425178828800_n.jpg
 
Last edited:
#2
That makes by head spin, but a possible additional/alternative idea... Adding in some octave up at the start of the chain (maybe with some mild modulation of your choice), with drive after it can fill a lot of space, as it gets you in the ballpark of a double course eight string, enough that you could get away with it under a lead part. Think about how huge the bass sounds in Kings X and Cheap Trick, and how full things sounds for just being a power trio...
 
  • Like
Reactions: kiripunk
#3
millahh said:
That makes by head spin, but a possible additional/alternative idea... Adding in some octave up at the start of the chain (maybe with some mild modulation of your choice), with drive after it can fill a lot of space, as it gets you in the ballpark of a double course eight string, enough that you could get away with it under a lead part.
Click to expand...
In a YouTube video by the guy behind JHS pedals about "stacking pedals" he suggested something like a POG with a Fuzz after it. Is that similar to what you suggested? Besides, he was doing it on guitar.
 
#4
kiripunk said:
In a YouTube video by the guy behind JHS pedals about "stacking pedals" he suggested something like a POG with a Fuzz after it. Is that similar to what you suggested? Besides, he was doing it on guitar.
Click to expand...

Similar concept, but to a different end.

If I go POG (or Sub 'n' Up) followed by light chorus or phaser, followed by a little drive (both to mask the ping of the digital octave, and because drive makes everything better), I can get a passable Pearl Jam (Jeremy, Why Go) or Kings X (Dogman).
 
  • Like
Reactions: kiripunk
#7
IMG_20190825_151506918.jpg

This is a current evolution of my trio board all effects are in the LS loop sending to the Zoom then to the TC Spark mini and Southampton Ictaneo to my monitor. I am using the TRex Quint machine as Octaver harmonizer to add Octave up, down and a fifth up for power chords and filling. Then to the EHX Mel9 to add Orchestra, Strings, Horns, Woodwinds for softer sections. The TC Sub N Up is using the Broken Tron for the spooky organ flute sounds for chords and I use that sound for some solos. The Fuzzrocious BDPG is a very good saturated drive. Digitech BSW for filters [will be replaced soon by the C4]. Hardwire CM10 Overdrive [will be replaced soon by the SA Aftershock]. Zoom B2 is my main processor for now for modulation, amp sims, reverb and delay. I swap that for an AdrenaLinnIII for guitar gigs. The Ictaneo and Spark are the final output because I have been using an Alto TSL15 for my stage monitor in place of an amp.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: BrentSimons
#11
From a tech specs point of view, should I put a buffer before any loop pedal chain? I mean, in the scheme I posted there is just one buffer (right after a buffered tuner) and just two more buffered pedals. Could that be a possible reason for why I felt something was missing when playing in that experimental band? Way too True Bypassed pedals?
 
#12
kiripunk said:
From a tech specs point of view, should I put a buffer before any loop pedal chain? I mean, in the scheme I posted there is just one buffer (right after a buffered tuner) and just two more buffered pedals. Could that be a possible reason for why I felt something was missing when playing in that experimental band? Way too True Bypassed pedals?
Click to expand...
The NS2 has a buffer and the comp if it is always on is also a buffer so the addition of any buffers is redundant. You are just adding cable and voltage drain, unless your buffer provides another function, hard to tell w/o specifics.
 
#16
Technical-wise....

That sub octave pedal for the guitar is pretty late in-chain. It's gonna have a hard time tracking with dirt or modulation! Personally I'd move it to in front of the NS-2's send (so, D 0.5 haha) if you plan to use it with any distortion, or to M 0.5 if always clean. And I personally REALLY like the sound of octave going into dirt, which can go from "rich" to "synth blast" very readily.





In case you're bored and wanna keep reading haha....

If you wanna get even more out of the pitch FX in the bass rig... instead of a guitar amp send/return loop, a dedicated bypass looper channel between Pitch Shifter and Amp Simulation (OR: does the Amp Simulation have a send/return??) could open up some killer possibilities.


But then again... it sounds like you'd be fine with going WITHOUT Octave Up, Pitch Shifter, and Amp Simulation for guitar-only work. If so.... thought about going with three pedalboards? Each could be light and small.

1) the biggest. Bass input ---> chain INCLUDING A/B-Y ---> thru chain to Amp Sim. 8-9 pedals, chunky but smaller than my bass board. And if you wanted Mod pedals available to bass, include loop into board #3

2) NS-2 {with S/R: 4-5 pedals} , ---> guitar amp OR --->....

3) Mod pedals (3 if I had my way, Sub Octave going to board #2)


It'd be worth testing to see if the pedals on #3 are daisy-chain power friendly. If so, a splitter coming out of a juicy PSU on board #2 could power it.



Whew... this is a lot of kit. But more importantly... does this make a lick of sense? As in did I read the diagram correctly?
 
  • Like
Reactions: kiripunk
#17
Real Soon said:
did I read the diagram correctly?
Click to expand...
Well, I think you did read it right, & now I'm having second thoughts on having a Pitch shifter just to simulate a distorted guitar when on bass. My initial way to go was meant to be: clean bass to upper octaver, from that to a pitch shifter (to add the 5ths) and then an amp simulation to give it some "realness" to the simulated sound.

The 3 pedal boards thing would be nice if I had to be in 3 bands like a quartet with me on bass, a trio with me on bass still, and another one with me on rhythmic guitar, so there would be no need for an up octaver+pitch shifter.
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back