Source Audio wishlist

[Adrian Cho]

I know there are many Source Audio fans out there. I am one of them. I have the Aftershock, C4, and EQ2 and would happily spend more money on more SA gear if I could fit more on my board, which I can't. In theory the Atlas would be no-brainer for me since I have three separate compressors on my board but I prefer having all the dials and metering for those. However when it comes to all the other SA boxes, and that would include things like the Ultrawave, not to mention alot of their more specific effects pedals, I really wish:

• You could just get these as smaller boxes without any dials or toggles. It would save space and save on manufacturing costs. Since I'm controlling these purely by MIDI anyway, all those external controls are just a complete waste of space. With the exception of the EQ2's display and encoder knob, I don't ever even look at or touch my SA pedals and actually all but the EQ2 are mounted 180 deg upside-down near the top of my board. Probably the only thing I never look at is the LED to confirm they are engaged or bypassed after controlling them through MIDI.
• Figure out how to cut down on the number of connectors. Having to deliver audio, power, connections to the Neuro Hub, and USB to every single pedal is a real drag, especially with the stupid mini USB (I know this has been discussed separately). It really sucks that despite having the Neuro Hub, you still need to have USB connections to each pedal for all the possible editing options.

Overall I think Source Audio are doing such creative awesome stuff and the guts in each box and the supporting software are great but improvements in the form factor would make them so much easier to incorporate into many setups and could reduce costs for everyone.

My dream Source Audio box, that I would totally buy, would be a single larger box with a good set of their most popular offerings (let's say especially the ones that most bass players care about) plus the Neuro Hub plus a USB hub and power delivery to everything. So basically just a clean box with:

• All the inputs and outputs for each module
• A single USB connection
• A single power connection
• A single set of MIDI connections
• Pretty much no dials or toggles. I know the EQ2 requires more user interface than the others but the rest of their offerings (I'm excluding the delay & reverb products) don't need any of the physical controls if you are only controlling them by MIDI anyway.

If I had the time, it's almost tempting to rip open all my Source Audio pedals and pull out the boards and install them into a custom-3D-printed box that achieves something close to the above.

To me, this would be a much more attractive offering than the completely digital multi-FX offerings that it seems like almost every big company is now putting out now even though I know those solutions offer a ton of flexibility with being to reroute things, etc. I know that separately all the SA boxes are digital anyway, but despite being a pretty digital, technical guy (software developer), I really hate having to menu-dive through a digital UI for everything not to mention other downsides. Even small, singular boxes like the HX One (tried one and returned it) are not for me but an all-in-one SA box with the right form factor and clean design, that would be a dream box for me and I think would be a unique offering in an increasingly crowded market of multi-FX clones.

 

[sunbeast]

I regularly see people longing for an SA multi-effect unit on just about any bass or guitar forum. Not only would it require far less cables and separate editors, etc but would also cut down on latency significantly since a whole line of digital pedals means your signal has to go through AD then DA conversion at every pedal vs a multi where you only have a single AD/DA conversion (unless you have and use an FX loop in the multi). Their modular Neuro ecosystem is interesting and pretty unique, but hard to compete with all the current big players in the multi-effect world these days as far as ease of use and features compared to a modular SA setup where you can't move effects around with the turn of a knob and have to edit each device independently. I don't find the computer editors for my HX Stomp, Boss SY1000 or Eventide H90 any more complicated to use than the Neuro editor personally, and the H90 can be edited through Bluetooth which is a big plus IMO.

The Source Audio sound engines are unique and killer, and I'd imagine in a well-featured multi they could crush the more generic sound engines that many of the popular multi-FX units have though I suspect the amount of processing power that alot of the modern SA pedals require would also mean a pretty powerful and pricey processor(s) onboard like the Quad-Cortex, Kemper, or Anagram (or risk the very limiting implementation of something like the Eventide H90, where you can only run two algorithms at once). It would certainly be a pricey gamble to bring something like that to market these days! I wonder if they'd consider licensing algorithms to devices like the Anagram, which is a model that is opening up their platform to outside developers and seemingly has pretty powerful processing capabilities.

 

[Adrian Cho]

@sunbeast, I agree jumping in like that, the way so many other companies have, would be a pricey gamble. That's why my proposal would be to mostly keep things as they are and just improve the form factor and reduce the need to have so many separate additional pieces (Neuro Hub, USB hub, etc.) and connectors. You're right that with the separate boxes there is a lot of AD conversion but still, I believe that latency is tiny in comparison to the actual sound processing/modeling time.

Even though I'm very much a software guy, and I am constantly looking at, and admiring, what devices like the QC and Anagram offer, I could never envisage using one for important gigs for the same reason I would never use an iPad for reading music. I have a lot of musical colleagues who will use an iPad for gigs where they have to read, and although I am willing to do that for certain kinds of gigs where you can fake it if the device or app crashes, there's no way I would ever do it for important gigs.

Maybe eventually my perspective will change but in the same way, I don't think I could ever rely solely one of these QC or Anagram-like devices that is so complicated from a computing and software perspective. These devices, just like iPads, have been known to crash or freeze and if it's the only device you are using, you are totally screwed so I hope if SA did try to do the multi-FX thing they wouldn't just go completely digital like everyone else has. That said, what keeps me with SA is definitely the programmability and the ability to easily access community presets but the current way in which everything is packaged and connected does not scale well if you are trying to go to four or five or more of their offerings.

 

[sunbeast]

@sunbeast, I agree jumping in like that, the way so many other companies have, would be a pricey gamble. That's why my proposal would be to mostly keep things as they are and just improve the form factor and reduce the need to have so many separate additional pieces (Neuro Hub, USB hub, etc.) and connectors. You're right that with the separate boxes there is a lot of AD conversion but still, I believe that latency is tiny in comparison to the actual sound processing/modeling time.

Even though I'm very much a software guy, and I am constantly looking at, and admiring, what devices like the QC and Anagram offer, I could never envisage using one for important gigs for the same reason I would never use an iPad for reading music. I have a lot of musical colleagues who will use an iPad for gigs where they have to read, and although I am willing to do that for certain kinds of gigs where you can fake it if the device or app crashes, there's no way I would ever do it for important gigs.

Maybe eventually my perspective will change but in the same way, I don't think I could ever rely solely one of these QC or Anagram-like devices that is so complicated from a computing and software perspective. These devices, just like iPads, have been known to crash or freeze and if it's the only device you are using, you are totally screwed so I hope if SA did try to do the multi-FX thing they wouldn't just go completely digital like everyone else has. That said, what keeps me with SA is definitely the programmability and the ability to easily access community presets but the current way in which everything is packaged and connected does not scale well if you are trying to go to four or five or more of their offerings.

You are right that AD/DA conversion in itself is fairly minimal, but when stacked multiple times on top of other processing latency it definitely adds up. I do like the idea of combining high-quality analog (like the SA Zio preamp/DI) and digital processing in a single unit, something I don't see a whole lot of out there.

I guess I don't really see a functional middle ground between their current modular ecosystem and a full-featured multi-effect? By putting a bunch of their effects into a single box as you suggested you aren't really saving much room or points of failure compared to the separate pedals- ultimately the solution you seek seems to me to have to be a digital interface to eliminate all the cables and complexities.

To me having several separate pedals and associated cables, jacks, and footswitches adds many more failure points on a gig than a single multi, and I haven't heard of consistent issues with any of the current high-end multis freezing up as you suggest- and there are ton of professional musicians relying on the mentioned flagship units at this point, which wouldn't be the case if they weren't tour reliable. I've personally had many more issues with my C4 and the Neuro app crashing or disconnecting than I've had from all of my multis put together. I think if any of these pedal sounds is of utmost importance at a gig then a backup solution is important regardless of what you are using.

 

[Adrian Cho]

To me having several separate pedals and associated cables, jacks, and footswitches adds many more failure points on a gig than a single multi, and I haven't heard of consistent issues with any of the current high-end multis freezing up as you suggest- and there are ton of professional musicians relying on the mentioned flagship units at this point, which wouldn't be the case if they weren't tour reliable.

At least for me, while everything digital or mechanical can fail, I see very little risk once everything is connected and I never touch a footswitch on any of my effects pedals (although the switch is indeed being remotely toggled all the time). It's not just that failure risk that I dislike but all the menu-diving not to mention the eventual reality that at some point if it's software/firmware, eventually this stuff will be no longer supported or upgraded.

But maybe I will eventually change my mind. The many offerings out there are certainly very attractive and give you a ton of flexibility and as with everything there's always pros and cons.

 

[WaldoNova]

I'll take a whack at a SA wishlist.

How about single pedal offering of the EQ2, Atlas, Nuero hub(the ability to create scenes) in a Soleman-like midi switcher(to navigate said scenes)with a Jensen transformer DI or their Zio pre(maybe even a built-in expression pedal)? Offer the same 5 hub outlets for their specialty pedals (C4, Artifact, Encounter, Collider, Ultrawave, etc).

IMO this would be the ultimate utility pedal!

I'm sure there are many pros and cons for something like this. I can't help but think that the SA guys are super smart and have probably discussed items like this and are either developing something like this or have some very good reasons for not developing it. A guy can dream, right?

 

[Rick Penrose]

I'll take a whack at a SA wishlist.

How about single pedal offering of the EQ2, Atlas, Nuero hub(the ability to create scenes) in a Soleman-like midi switcher(to navigate said scenes)with a Jensen transformer DI or their Zio pre(maybe even a built-in expression pedal)? Offer the same 5 hub outlets for their specialty pedals (C4, Artifact, Encounter, Collider, Ultrawave, etc).

IMO this would be the ultimate utility pedal!

I'm sure there are many pros and cons for something like this. I can't help but think that the SA guys are super smart and have probably discussed items like this and are either developing something like this or have some very good reasons for not developing it. A guy can dream, right?

My SA wish list item has nothing to do with the pedals. It's more with the user documentation. I feel that a lot of the barriers to entry can be solved by taking a more use case driven approach in the SA documentation. For example SA should release a step by step guide on how to replicate the MXR MB301 bass synth patches on the C4. Why do this? It would be simple straight forward instant gratification for buyers of the C4. It would knock the wind out of the complaints that SA pedals are too complex, it would educate and incentivize SA users to explore more, and build more support in the community. I am a huge fan of SA pedals, but they require a decent amount of time to learn and fully take advantage of all of their capabilities. Help users over their learning curve. It couldn't hurt.

 

[WaldoNova]

My SA wish list item has nothing to do with the pedals. It's more with the user documentation. I feel that a lot of the barriers to entry can be solved by taking a more use case driven approach in the SA documentation. For example SA should release a step by step guide on how to replicate the MXR MB301 bass synth patches on the C4. Why do this? It would be simple straight forward in stand gratification for buyer of the C4. It would knock the wind out of the complaints that SA pedals are too complex, it would educate and incentivize SA users to explore more, and build more support in the community. I am a huge fan of SA pedals, but they require a decent amount of time to learn and fully take advantage of all of their capabilities. Help user over their learning curve. It couldn't hurt.

This is a fantastic idea!

 

[sunbeast]

At least for me, while everything digital or mechanical can fail, I see very little risk once everything is connected and I never touch a footswitch on any of my effects pedals (although the switch is indeed being remotely toggled all the time). It's not just that failure risk that I dislike but all the menu-diving not to mention the eventual reality that at some point if it's software/firmware, eventually this stuff will be no longer supported or upgraded.

But maybe I will eventually change my mind. The many offerings out there are certainly very attractive and give you a ton of flexibility and as with everything there's always pros and cons.

I don't see why the preset interface should need to be any different than the individual pedals though, so if you don't need to menu dive with your current SA pedals then you wouldn't need to with a multi either after you had designed your presets (and it seems like being able to load community presets for each of the internal "pedals" should still work just fine). The critique of digital software applies just as much to the existing SA digital pedals unless you are suggesting totally eliminating the software editing entirely and only offering a limited sound pallete (like the MXR Bass Synth or new Aguilar Octamizer Deluxe for example of digital pedals with limited functionality and no software editing)

 

[el murdoque]

I know there are many Source Audio fans out there. I am one of them. I have the Aftershock, C4, and EQ2 and would happily spend more money on more SA gear if I could fit more on my board, which I can't. In theory the Atlas would be no-brainer for me since I have three separate compressors on my board but I prefer having all the dials and metering for those. However when it comes to all the other SA boxes, and that would include things like the Ultrawave, not to mention alot of their more specific effects pedals, I really wish:

• You could just get these as smaller boxes without any dials or toggles. It would save space and save on manufacturing costs. Since I'm controlling these purely by MIDI anyway, all those external controls are just a complete waste of space. With the exception of the EQ2's display and encoder knob, I don't ever even look at or touch my SA pedals and actually all but the EQ2 are mounted 180 deg upside-down near the top of my board. Probably the only thing I never look at is the LED to confirm they are engaged or bypassed after controlling them through MIDI.
• Figure out how to cut down on the number of connectors. Having to deliver audio, power, connections to the Neuro Hub, and USB to every single pedal is a real drag, especially with the stupid mini USB (I know this has been discussed separately). It really sucks that despite having the Neuro Hub, you still need to have USB connections to each pedal for all the possible editing options.

Overall I think Source Audio are doing such creative awesome stuff and the guts in each box and the supporting software are great but improvements in the form factor would make them so much easier to incorporate into many setups and could reduce costs for everyone.

My dream Source Audio box, that I would totally buy, would be a single larger box with a good set of their most popular offerings (let's say especially the ones that most bass players care about) plus the Neuro Hub plus a USB hub and power delivery to everything. So basically just a clean box with:

• All the inputs and outputs for each module
• A single USB connection
• A single power connection
• A single set of MIDI connections
• Pretty much no dials or toggles. I know the EQ2 requires more user interface than the others but the rest of their offerings (I'm excluding the delay & reverb products) don't need any of the physical controls if you are only controlling them by MIDI anyway.

If I had the time, it's almost tempting to rip open all my Source Audio pedals and pull out the boards and install them into a custom-3D-printed box that achieves something close to the above.

To me, this would be a much more attractive offering than the completely digital multi-FX offerings that it seems like almost every big company is now putting out now even though I know those solutions offer a ton of flexibility with being to reroute things, etc. I know that separately all the SA boxes are digital anyway, but despite being a pretty digital, technical guy (software developer), I really hate having to menu-dive through a digital UI for everything not to mention other downsides. Even small, singular boxes like the HX One (tried one and returned it) are not for me but an all-in-one SA box with the right form factor and clean design, that would be a dream box for me and I think would be a unique offering in an increasingly crowded market of multi-FX clones.

I do think the next logical step would be to remove all the redundant and unnecessary D/A and A/D converting that's going on here. You need one input buffer with A/D conversion and one output buffer with D/A conversion and the signal can stay digital while it's in the box. I'd like everything to be capable of stereo, and as an alternative, a mono signal may pass a pedal twice. Flexible routing that allows for matrix switching and one or two FX loops for better pedalboard integration.
A simple display that shows what is going on and three foot switches to recall presets maybe?

Introduce micro tansactions into the fold. You buy the small one with three effects machines or the big one with five. When you set it up, you can choose from all the SA pedals which three/five you want, those are included in the purchase price, but when you want to swap out a machine for another, you can purchase it and have it replace one of your installed ones. Maybe that can be done on the fly, too.

While we're at it,

 

[bassbrad]

We probably all have SA wish lists so no reason not to dream and communicate those ideas. Most of us are not as MIDI dependent or fluent so those enhanced features might not be as appealing. I totally appreciate and use Neuro for exploring and programming sounds so I can recall them on the gig without worry.

My list goes a different direction as I would really love to see the first series of pedals, like the Aftershock, updated to have the on board and memory features of the Artifakt offering more presets (16!), parameter controls and options, along with the 7 "Effect" selector. The C4 would also benefit from this format.

 

[RedHotFuzz]

Hire a kid who does nothing more than create how-to videos and new patches for the community library, including by request (including a video of how he did it).

I'm brand new to pedals and am just now building my first pedalboard, including an Ultrawave Bass and C4 Synth. The biggest challenge to me has been the complete mystery around the capabilities of each of their pedals.

Me: "Ok, I ordered the Ultrawave Bass for distortion. Now which compression pedal do I get?"
TalkBass: "You don't need one. The Ultrawave does studio-grade compression."
Me: "Awesome! Money saved, pedalboard space saved. Now I need a pre-amp."
TalkBass: "You don't need one. The Ultrawave is a great preamp."
Me: "Wow, even better. So which EQ pedal does everyone recommend?"
TalkBass: "You don't need one. The Ultrawave…"

 

[RedHotFuzz]

Introduce micro tansactions into the fold.

BOO THIS MAN! BOOOOOO!!!

 

[LowWay]

It would be great in our dream world, for these pedal units to have digital IO for using 2 or more of them on a pedal board, and allowing the routing to flow back and forth between the units.

 

[Adrian Cho]

I don't see why the preset interface should need to be any different than the individual pedals though, so if you don't need to menu dive with your current SA pedals then you wouldn't need to with a multi either after you had designed your presets (and it seems like being able to load community presets for each of the internal "pedals" should still work just fine). The critique of digital software applies just as much to the existing SA digital pedals unless you are suggesting totally eliminating the software editing entirely and only offering a limited sound pallete (like the MXR Bass Synth or new Aguilar Octamizer Deluxe for example of digital pedals with limited functionality and no software editing)

I'm probably in the minority but I just want clean boxes with the sounds and let me do all editing and recalling of presets remotely either through a computer or app and through MIDI. I know a lot of people want it the other way around as I see people constantly saying they don't want to have to use a computer to do SA preset editing.

As someone involved daily in software design, I find it irritating that all these companies try to force fit all these editing flows into these tiny displays with poorly designed user interfaces. In a similar way, I'm one of those people who hates doing things from my phone especially if it involves any kind of editing. I know some people live on their phones but if I start editing anything on a phone, regardless of the app or service, I invariably get frustrated and just go finish or restart it on a device with a decent display and input controls because I can usually get it done so much faster and easier. A decent cost for some of these devices is the display plus all the coding work to implement the UI which, at least for me, is a waste that just makes the device bigger and more expensive. I rarely ever need to edit things and if I do, I'm usually hooked up to a computer anyway.

As for recalling presets, again I realize I may be in the minority as not everyone is using MIDI but for me, all the footswitches and dials and switches are just wasting space, especially in the case of the SA pedals where you are clearly limited (e.g. you can only recall a small number of presets through the pedal itself but you can access any of 128 presets through MIDI).

But I get it. It's probably easier to sell all-in-one devices than modules that you integrate into a larger system (pedalboard) and most companies just keep copying others in this regard. It would be nice to see someone forge a different path.

Another possibility is that you offer the clean boxes like I describe and then you have an optional connectable module with all the controls, displays, etc. That would be cool especially if you could get multiple sound modules and a single control module that controls them all.

 

[WaldoNova]

I do think the next logical step would be to remove all the redundant and unnecessary D/A and A/D converting that's going on here. You need one input buffer with A/D conversion and one output buffer with D/A conversion and the signal can stay digital while it's in the box. I'd like everything to be capable of stereo, and as an alternative, a mono signal may pass a pedal twice. Flexible routing that allows for matrix switching and one or two FX loops for better pedalboard integration.
A simple display that shows what is going on and three foot switches to recall presets maybe?

Introduce micro tansactions into the fold. You buy the small one with three effects machines or the big one with five. When you set it up, you can choose from all the SA pedals which three/five you want, those are included in the purchase price, but when you want to swap out a machine for another, you can purchase it and have it replace one of your installed ones. Maybe that can be done on the fly, too.

While we're at it,

I've thought of this as well.

I'm not a big fan of turning pedals into a subscription service but it seems inevitable, doesn't it?

I'm very curious to see what Source Audio does next. They could seriously make a run at the QC, Anagram, Helix and all the others offering a great sounding multi.

 

[benevan]

Regarding some of the AD/DA comments, Source Audio has previously stated that their next generation of pedals will include SPDIF digital on the 1/4" in/outs, thus allowing digital audio between pedals, eliminating the need for AD/DA conversion.

 

[RedHotFuzz]

Regarding some of the AD/DA comments, Source Audio has previously stated that their next generation of pedals will include SPDIF digital on the 1/4" in/outs, thus allowing digital audio between pedals, eliminating the need for AD/DA conversion.

Great, but when???

 

[Adrian Cho]

Not SA specific but somewhat related to the topic and the features of programmability and community sharing:

 

[bassbrad]

Hire a kid who does nothing more than create how-to videos and new patches for the community library, including by request (including a video of how he did it).

I'm brand new to pedals and am just now building my first pedalboard, including an Ultrawave Bass and C4 Synth. The biggest challenge to me has been the complete mystery around the capabilities of each of their pedals.

Me: "Ok, I ordered the Ultrawave Bass for distortion. Now which compression pedal do I get?"
TalkBass: "You don't need one. The Ultrawave does studio-grade compression."
Me: "Awesome! Money saved, pedalboard space saved. Now I need a pre-amp."
TalkBass: "You don't need one. The Ultrawave is a great preamp."
Me: "Wow, even better. So which EQ pedal does everyone recommend?"
TalkBass: "You don't need one. The Ultrawave…"

I was only trying to be helpful.

Not a kid either, except at heart. I've been into effects longer than you have been alive, maybe even your parents.