• 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.

Source Audio Bass Envelope Filter - Downsides???

#21
If you mean blend of clean and wet, yes indeed. There is even a mix of clean and wet with the low end preserved. (aka low retain) This is on the Pro model.

By the way, Jarad (and others) make clear, factual and thoughtful notes which are a great example of why Talk Bass is so good!
 
#22
Jared Lash said:
To me, digital filters (and phasers) are almost TOO clean sounding and precise. Again, that's not a bad thing but they don't have the artifacts or funky decays that you get with analog pedals. And when you DO have artifacts they are of a very different variety than analog pedals - choppy and (for lack of a better word) digital. And the triggering is noticeably different. I have a bit of trouble explaining it but when you hit an analog filter hard enough to trigger but not open all the way it is different than that same situation with a digital filter.
Click to expand...

Ok...I'm starting to better understand your statement. But I don't necessarily agree with it. Currently, I have 5 different analog filters on my pedal board, and each of them reacts so differently to my playing, there would be no way for me to compare the "artifacts" of each. Then throw in the BEF PRO, which again reacts completely different.

For me, envelope filters are like an new musical instrument, I have learn to play them because each are so different. No other effects pedal will generate such wide difference of opinions. Filters are definitely pedals that you need to try out with your bass and your amp.....and never thru headphones. Some filters sound awesome in headphones but doesn't translate it well out of your speaker cab.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hoyt
#23
jbednarski said:
There are some amazing sound clips posted for the "synth-ier" tones that you can get from this pedal but again, I found them difficult to replicate even using the exact combo of pedals specified and getting settings advice from Source Audio. I know that they'll be a ton of comments about this but this was my personal experience. But then again, I sent back a Xerograph because I found it wasn't to my liking too, so my tastes tend to run counter to the masses.
Click to expand...

"Synthy" is what I'm after. I can only go by the online clips I've heard. I'm currently kind of an "effects observer". But I would say I LOVE the sound(s) of the Xerograph, especially when paired with the Iron Ether.

I also love that the Source BEF Pro has SO many features, parameter variations and presets (I wish there were more than six). I have to say it does sound different than most analog filters I've heard.

But this thread has really laid out the gospel of filters: They're all different, there's something out there for everyone, and none can "do it all".

I would like to hear more from those who've incorporated the BEF Pro into the classic octave/filter/fuzz synth recipe. Are you using the Soundblox Multi Wave Distortion? Six presets? What kind of music? Does the BEF combine well with other stompboxes? Do you find it easy to adjust on the fly?

Thanks. This is a great thread.
 
#25
scottfeldstein said:
I'm still on the fence between the SA (non-pro) and the MXR unit. Subscribed.
Click to expand...
No contest for me- the SA is just far more useful than the MXR, which is pretty one-trick-pony-ish from my experience. Something about bandpass just seems that there is really only a small range of settings that work with a given bass and rig.

I've been happy with the SA BEF (non-Pro) version. It's one of those pedals that can sound a bit underwhelming solo, but it's been shining on the bandstand. It actually has me questioning about my Haz MuTron now as it can do the sound I use that pedal for pretty well, and some other cool sounds too. Now I'm actually regretting a bit not getting the Pro model, although the size issue would be tough for me on my crummy old pedal board right now.
 
#26
I eventually went with the MXR. It's a one trick pony, but man what a trick. I think it has a better "standard" funk EV sound than anything you could dial in on the SA. The SA, however, has oodles more things you can do with it--including getting some of those delicious synthy sounds. I guess that was the sacrifice. I chose one, great EV sound over many great synthy sounds.
 
#27
I just got the BEF Pro.

I've only been able to play with it for about three hours. It took like 2 months of 3-5 gigs a week to get my MWBDP's presets to where they are awesome, so this isn't a complaint or anything, but:

In a general sense how do you adjust the input sensitivity of the BEF pro? On most filters, there's a sensitivity knob, which pretty much adjusts how hard the bass hits the filter. On the BEF pro, through manipulation of the q (backpage), mix, and freq controls, I can kind of approximate different sensitivities, but I can tell that the bass is still hitting the filter just as hard (or soft). Am I missing something? (other than having to turn my bass' volume down or having to step on a boost before I step on the filter?)
 
#28
Fro 20 said:
I just got the BEF Pro.

I've only been able to play with it for about three hours. It took like 2 months of 3-5 gigs a week to get my MWBDP's presets to where they are awesome, so this isn't a complaint or anything, but:

In a general sense how do you adjust the input sensitivity of the BEF pro? On most filters, there's a sensitivity knob, which pretty much adjusts how hard the bass hits the filter. On the BEF pro, through manipulation of the q (backpage), mix, and freq controls, I can kind of approximate different sensitivities, but I can tell that the bass is still hitting the filter just as hard (or soft). Am I missing something? (other than having to turn my bass' volume down or having to step on a boost before I step on the filter?)
Click to expand...
I am finding this to be the absolute biggest difference between the BEF and analog filters myself. Adjustments to the frequency, range, and velocity all interact to effectively alter "sensitivity", but it's a non-linear control of that familiar parameter to be sure. Also how the BEF interacts with OD/fuzz before/after it seems different than my analog filters. I'm wondering if there is some sort of gain averaging on the input and it sort of adjusts to the higher gain of fuzz/od placed before it. Not better or worse, just different.
 
#29
HolmeBass said:
I am finding this to be the absolute biggest difference between the BEF and analog filters myself. Adjustments to the frequency, range, and velocity all interact to effectively alter "sensitivity", but it's a non-linear control of that familiar parameter to be sure. Also how the BEF interacts with OD/fuzz before/after it seems different than my analog filters. I'm wondering if there is some sort of gain averaging on the input and it sort of adjusts to the higher gain of fuzz/od placed before it. Not better or worse, just different.
Click to expand...

This gives me some reservations about buying one. My last post was prompted in part by someone on another thread saying he couldn't fully utilize the presets when using outboard fuzzes and whatnot. I'm paraphrasing, but I think that was the gist of it.

Of course to some extent, all links in the signal chain affect each other. But your question/comment about the sensitivity is a good one.
 
#35
Bob C said:
This gives me some reservations about buying one. My last post was prompted in part by someone on another thread saying he couldn't fully utilize the presets when using outboard fuzzes and whatnot. I'm paraphrasing, but I think that was the gist of it.

Of course to some extent, all links in the signal chain affect each other. But your question/comment about the sensitivity is a good one.
Click to expand...

I am going to ask Bob Chidlaw to respond to this question!
 
#36
Here you go, a detailed description of why the BEF Pro does not have nor need an input sensitivity control knob from Bob Chidlaw:

"Many analog envelope-following pedals have an input trim control (aka sensitivity). A commonly used envelope detector circuit will require that the signal be well over one diode-drop (.6 v) for proper operation. With a 9 v supply, one can only have swings of 4.5 v around the center, and less because the signal cannot get to close to the supply voltages, giving a maximum value of, say, 3.5 v. That’s not that much range for the signal to fit into, necessitating the input trim control.

With our digital processing, we can do something better. With no thresholding issues on our envelope detector, we could do all the adjustments with the SWEEP control; a quiet input signal would require turning up the SWEEP further. But then one has the problem of finding just the right place in the wide range of the SWEEP control

So what we do is to run what is essentially a compressor in front of the envelope detector (the audio signal that is processed through the moving filter is not compressed). This compressor has extremely long time constants, so it doesn’t even begin to follow individual notes, but rather just adjusts itself to the average peak level. Thus the envelope detector output tends to always have the same value for its output regardless of what the level from the instrument is. The SWEEP knob can stay in the same position, even as you swap basses with rather different output levels.

A disadvantage of this if that if you have not played a note for several minutes, and then play, that first note will have maximum gain in front of the detector, and the envelope output will be full scale. So the first note after a very long silence will be a bit of a zinger, filter-sweep-wise, but the compressor rapidly adjusts, and following notes should be fine.

We feel this automatic adjustment makes the pedal easy to just plug in and play, without a lot of twiddly knob turning."
 
#37
HolmeBass said:
I am finding this to be the absolute biggest difference between the BEF and analog filters myself. Adjustments to the frequency, range, and velocity all interact to effectively alter "sensitivity", but it's a non-linear control of that familiar parameter to be sure. Also how the BEF interacts with OD/fuzz before/after it seems different than my analog filters. I'm wondering if there is some sort of gain averaging on the input and it sort of adjusts to the higher gain of fuzz/od placed before it. Not better or worse, just different.
Click to expand...

There is indeed slow automatic gain adjustment as noted above. Good catch!
 
#39
Bob C said:
rsmith601,

Thanks you for the explination. I want you to know how much I appreciate Source Audio's commitment to making a good procuct and helping customers get the most out of it.
Click to expand...

You and the TB community are always welcome! (fine to call me Roger)

Just heard the new spring reverb in Bob's lab. No fake metalic harshness at all.
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back