And just checked the Atlas manual: as long as you only use the Channel 2 compressor, or link the two channels, you should be able to use Output 2 as well when using Mono In -> Stereo Out. So there is hope
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.
Source Audio Sorcerers Society (S.A.S.S) Part 3
- Thread starter gregmon79
- Start date
Thanks for your effort. Might be a solution, or just give in and buy some straight pedal couplers.And just checked the Atlas manual: as long as you only use the Channel 2 compressor, or link the two channels, you should be able to use Output 2 as well when using Mono In -> Stereo Out. So there is hope
As you see I have a Neuro Hub but haven’t really used it. Do I get access to all pedals connected through that or do I still need 4 micro usb to connect to the Neuro desktop on my computer?
I was able to find boxes of those on eBay for pretty cheap a few years ago. Ended up being about $1 per coupler IIRC.
You get access to the pedals settings, but not their presets. The Neuro Hub stores it's own presets. It can be a bit awkward, which is why some of us have wired up both the Neuro Hub and the individual pedals if you want to manage individual pedal presets as well.
Last edited:
- May 16, 2007
- 3,395
- 4,869
- Disclosures
- Volunteer developer/beta tester with Source Audio, Morningstar Engineering & MORTRIX
The Rockboard flat patch cables might just about fit there. You can double them over so the backs of the plugs of a single cable touch each other when connecting two adjacent pedals. Check their Flax MIDI cables two or their flat MIDI cables.
Doing some calliper measurements and a few photos to explain:
Minimum distance between Source Audio pedals is using the metal connecters.
20mm between the sides of the two Pedal's shell or 11mm between the jack bezels:
Or in a Stereo context. These work well because the side walls of the Source Audio pedals are flat and vertical, unlike say a Hammond enclosure which is tapered:
Next best are the Warwick Rockboard flat patch cables. 25mm between the sides of the pedal shells or 16mm between the jack bezels:
If you Stagger the pedals, you get 16mm between the shell sidewalls and 9mm between the bezels:
However, your pedals are vertically staggered by 9mm.
If you connecting Source Audio pedals with 5 pin Din midi cables, using the Rockboard Flat Midi Cables and Patch cables is currently the most space efficient. As seen between my EQ2 and Collider, 25mm between the casing walls or 16mm between the jack bezels:
I hope this helps!
Minimum distance between Source Audio pedals is using the metal connecters.
20mm between the sides of the two Pedal's shell or 11mm between the jack bezels:
Or in a Stereo context. These work well because the side walls of the Source Audio pedals are flat and vertical, unlike say a Hammond enclosure which is tapered:
Next best are the Warwick Rockboard flat patch cables. 25mm between the sides of the pedal shells or 16mm between the jack bezels:
If you Stagger the pedals, you get 16mm between the shell sidewalls and 9mm between the bezels:
However, your pedals are vertically staggered by 9mm.
If you connecting Source Audio pedals with 5 pin Din midi cables, using the Rockboard Flat Midi Cables and Patch cables is currently the most space efficient. As seen between my EQ2 and Collider, 25mm between the casing walls or 16mm between the jack bezels:
I hope this helps!
Now THIS is the content we all come here to see!!!
FWIW I'd say "best" is subjective. I'm all about the low profile patch cable grind, but I also cannot stand it when I see all these boards on IG and such with pedals basically on top of one another. Give me some breathing room, dmmit! I don't have the biggest feet in the world, but they're certainly clumsy as hell, gotta leave a little board space between the pedals to each kick is deliberate.
Use 2 mono connectors.
SA pedals have their 2 in/out channels on separate jacks.
Even with the metal inter-connects, which I don't recommend on any other pedal shape other than Source Audio, the 20mm spacing between pedals provides 90mm between stomp buttons. Which is further apart than the 4 on the Soleman or Boss ES-5. I think the reason the MC-6 is so popular is the physical size of the array and the 2x3 stompers are about as close together as is workable via footsies. Any closer and you really have to use your fingers instead, which kind of defeats the purpose.Now THIS is the content we all come here to see!!!
FWIW I'd say "best" is subjective. I'm all about the low profile patch cable grind, but I also cannot stand it when I see all these boards on IG and such with pedals basically on top of one another. Give me some breathing room, dmmit! I don't have the biggest feet in the world, but they're certainly clumsy as hell, gotta leave a little board space between the pedals to each kick is deliberate.
My board was designed around a specific set of pedals back in 2017. Thankfully, Source Audio pedals (which have been multiplying on my board) conform to a really useful common size when tessellated. It's all like Tetris but with cabling right?
Since 2017, my board has grown in complexity, especially being fully Stereo and fully Midi integrated. However, it's probably the most easy to use since I abandoned the matrix loop switcher function on my Boss ES-5. It has massively reduced my cabling complexity and probably halved my signal path. It now means that I had to think where I was likely to need a pedal in relations to the next pedal. I've needed a few more pedals with this approach, but it's way simpler to use.
I'm not spending all my time tapping through pages of midi, trying to pre-create likely patches that I'll need and then ordering them in a typical play list. I use my Midi control as a master load out. I then use the 6 easy load patches on my SA devices as Swap outs to the master load out. I also dial in my most used knobs on my SA pedals (where I can), again to make my use case scenario as simple as possible.
I actually like the fact that most of my SA pedals don't have a menu / digital segment display. I find the controls on the larger units perfect for Delays and Reverbs. The controls on the smaller pedals are great too, however, I think they often need the extended control options. The output volume controls is a feature that needs to be easily accessible on all SA pedals. This is to stop a cascading increase of gain across an entire pedal board. I really like the read ahead unity gain feature of the Atlas, it stops my latter pedals from being over whelmed.
Here's a fun question for the EQ2 users of this Thread.
I have my EQ2 set up to run Stereo IN/OUT with channel 1 EQing the bass and Channel 2 after the Aftershock to sculpt some of the drives and keep a strong low end fundamental. I'll be matching those tones on the Ultrawave when I have some more free time after the next few months of gigs.
SO, I am in the process of trying to match my basses output levels to compensate for pickup output. They vary a tad but I would like to have at least the Volume under control prior to hitting the rest of the chain.
My question is this: Would it be better to adjust the 'output volume' or 'input trim' to match volume levels between basses?
For Reference my Current chain is this Tuner->EQ2 (Ch1)->Comp->C4->Spectrum->Aftershock
->EQ2 (Ch2)->Ultrawave->Chorus->Collider->Preamp/DI
My thinking is that I start with my loudest bass and then use the Output volume to match levels from bass to bass and eventually guitar to guitar as I work on making this a pretty good hybrid rig (these One Series pedals are incredible for that application) I'm probably overthinking this but Id like to maintain the same consistent power hitting the compressor.
I have my EQ2 set up to run Stereo IN/OUT with channel 1 EQing the bass and Channel 2 after the Aftershock to sculpt some of the drives and keep a strong low end fundamental. I'll be matching those tones on the Ultrawave when I have some more free time after the next few months of gigs.
SO, I am in the process of trying to match my basses output levels to compensate for pickup output. They vary a tad but I would like to have at least the Volume under control prior to hitting the rest of the chain.
My question is this: Would it be better to adjust the 'output volume' or 'input trim' to match volume levels between basses?
For Reference my Current chain is this Tuner->EQ2 (Ch1)->Comp->C4->Spectrum->Aftershock
->EQ2 (Ch2)->Ultrawave->Chorus->Collider->Preamp/DI
My thinking is that I start with my loudest bass and then use the Output volume to match levels from bass to bass and eventually guitar to guitar as I work on making this a pretty good hybrid rig (these One Series pedals are incredible for that application) I'm probably overthinking this but Id like to maintain the same consistent power hitting the compressor.
SA had a bunch of these for sale on Reverb last I checked. They had TS and TRS couplers. They worked great, the idea being ch1 got TS and all of the signal Ch2 was TRS and was for passing Neuro presets through the chain without having to plug each pedal in.
I bought a bunch when I had a different board set up but the negative aspect of these in particular was that there was still too much space compared to two pancake connectors.
I understand that it's subjective, but I'm running with an Aftershock, Gemini, and newly acquired C4. My question is, should I place the Gemini after the C4? Aftershock, C4, Gemini? I'm going to place my compressor at the end. Thoughts? Here is a pic, still finishing wiring, and my Tonehammer will replace the Paradriver.
Attachments
Last edited:
I'd be inclined to put the C4 first, so it would track better and leave open the possibility of distorting it with the Aftershock.
same. C4 first.
If you also use it as an octave down you’d want it to track clean. You can also send spectrum presets to it so having it first would allow the envelope to be first as well.
I would place them C4>Comp>Aftershock>Gemini.
I tend to like the option of compressing my C4 output as an audio effect than as an input into my C4. The tracking of a C4 is excellent and doesn't tend to need pre-compression.
I tend to like the option of compressing my C4 output as an audio effect than as an input into my C4. The tracking of a C4 is excellent and doesn't tend to need pre-compression.
My current (ever-changing) signal path is:
Bass>accountant (set for a dirty boost)>SVD>C4(i/o 1)>Underground Accelerator>MBD2> true bypass loop switch w/ C4 i/o 2 in it.
This gives me options for drive and filter/phaser positions. I've got a light drive in front of the C4, and two additional degrees of drive that can be before or after the C4. I have duplicates of several presets that route clean signal thru i/o 1, and filter, phaser, or octave thru i/o 2.
Edited to add: Omnicomp>2020s>RFE are end-of-chain (for now)
