The Sushi Box FX Secret Society

[JohnnyBottom]

MASSIVE YMMV warning on the following:

I think they are quite different. I purchased the HWUA which Nate graciously swapped for an HW Elementary after I felt that the UA didn’t totally fit with my rig the way I wanted. They both have excellent punch and really make your sound kind of jump out of the speakers a bit more than without them on.

I like the Elementary just because I think it gives a cool tone-shaping flavor that I guess I just like? I use it pretty much always-on at the front of my chain. It definitely isn’t as “transparent” in the way it affects the tone as much as the UA is. The lows get nice and big without getting muddy and the highs have some nice clarity to them. I think the thing I like least on the Elementary is that you have to live with the mids as they are. So while I really like how my bass sounds, I’ve been worried that it’s been a little too scoopy for an in the band mix after adding in the Elementary, even with the mids pretty much all the way up. Hard to say though since I’m not usually out front. I recently compensated by a slight bump in the 250-300hz range in an EQ block on my Quad Cortex right after the pedal and it seems to help. One thing I think is a bit odd is I would have expected the Elementary to be louder. I don’t know if it’s an issue with my unit or what, but I keep the gain low ish (9 o’clock) to stay cleanish but then I find I have to pump the master almost all the way up to get the level I need. When I’m using it as a guitar preamp into a power amp (which it’s also really great for), the master pretty much has to be all the way up or it feels like it’s lacking.

I think the main reason why the UA didn’t work in my rig as much was that it almost had too much low end for me that was a bit hard to get away from. I really liked how open sounding it was with the tone stack bypassed, but then I didn’t have control over the lows to clean it up in the way I needed. With the tonestack in it was nice that I could whack away some of the lows (honestly it still had enough low end for me with the lows almost all the way off), but I felt in some ways it felt a little choked down with the tonestack in. Overall I liked what it was doing, but it kind of muddied up my sound a bit much when run with my full rig — though it sounded pretty sweet with amp modeling into powered monitors at my desk. I did like that it didn’t steal as much of the mids away, and the TSBP switch is pretty awesome. But it didn’t give the same character that the Elementary does. Unfortunately I didn’t get a chance to gig on it like I wanted to before swapping out for the Elementary and I kind of regret that but needed to make a decision.

In regards to dirt, and I think this is uncommon opinion, I actually don’t love the way either of the two breakup *for bass* — hence why I liked both of them early in the chain so I could cook them a little bit on the master but not drive them much further by clicking my OD pedals on. I’ve seen many people say they like just the opposite, so YMMV. I did like how both of them break up with guitar, and I may have even liked the UA for guitar more than I like the Elementary for guitar when used as an OD/effect. I never tried the UA as a full-bore preamp with guitar like I have with the elementary but as a boost/drive effect it was pretty wicked.

Lately I’ve been thinking about picking up an SMD UA because I did still quite like it the longer I played with it and I’m wondering if the SMD version may trim away just enough of that “too much big-ness” I was experiencing with my HWUA. If I end up pulling the trigger on that I’ll report my findings, but I’m also considering a MORE since I seem to like my sushi on the clean side and it may just serve a better purpose at the front of my chain like I’m currently using the Elementary. I’m just worried it’ll be too transparent to be worth it based on what I’ve read?

If you have any more questions we can talk it out here or you can DM me. Happy to help. I did actually film a video playing the UA with multiple different types of basses, but the whole working full time with 2 little boys life kind of stopped me cold in regards to editing/putting it up on the YouTubes.

Good info...to add I put a 5751 in the ua and was able to a/b it since I had 2, and noticed a 'cleaner' bass with the 5751...imho

 

[CH Design]

MASSIVE YMMV warning on the following:

I think they are quite different. I purchased the HWUA which Nate graciously swapped for an HW Elementary after I felt that the UA didn’t totally fit with my rig the way I wanted. They both have excellent punch and really make your sound kind of jump out of the speakers a bit more than without them on.

I like the Elementary just because I think it gives a cool tone-shaping flavor that I guess I just like? I use it pretty much always-on at the front of my chain. It definitely isn’t as “transparent” in the way it affects the tone as much as the UA is. The lows get nice and big without getting muddy and the highs have some nice clarity to them. I think the thing I like least on the Elementary is that you have to live with the mids as they are. So while I really like how my bass sounds, I’ve been worried that it’s been a little too scoopy for an in the band mix after adding in the Elementary, even with the mids pretty much all the way up. Hard to say though since I’m not usually out front. I recently compensated by a slight bump in the 250-300hz range in an EQ block on my Quad Cortex right after the pedal and it seems to help. One thing I think is a bit odd is I would have expected the Elementary to be louder. I don’t know if it’s an issue with my unit or what, but I keep the gain low ish (9 o’clock) to stay cleanish but then I find I have to pump the master almost all the way up to get the level I need. When I’m using it as a guitar preamp into a power amp (which it’s also really great for), the master pretty much has to be all the way up or it feels like it’s lacking.

I think the main reason why the UA didn’t work in my rig as much was that it almost had too much low end for me that was a bit hard to get away from. I really liked how open sounding it was with the tone stack bypassed, but then I didn’t have control over the lows to clean it up in the way I needed. With the tonestack in it was nice that I could whack away some of the lows (honestly it still had enough low end for me with the lows almost all the way off), but I felt in some ways it felt a little choked down with the tonestack in. Overall I liked what it was doing, but it kind of muddied up my sound a bit much when run with my full rig — though it sounded pretty sweet with amp modeling into powered monitors at my desk. I did like that it didn’t steal as much of the mids away, and the TSBP switch is pretty awesome. But it didn’t give the same character that the Elementary does. Unfortunately I didn’t get a chance to gig on it like I wanted to before swapping out for the Elementary and I kind of regret that but needed to make a decision.

Excellent post and timing. I had been discussing the differences between the Elementary and UA earlier today with someone.

As for the overall output on the Elementary, I believe Nathan hardwired in a set amount of attenuation to a level he felt appropriate. A lot of his other pedals (the UA included) have an adjustable trim pot on the board that the user can set. It sounds like your UA likely had that trim pot set high.

On my Elementary, I find I can get the gain up to noon and just be on the clean side of any breakup. If that doesn't work for you, you can try swapping out the stock 12AX7 for a 12AT7. When I had a 12AT7 in mine, I could almost dime the gain and not hear much breakup.

Lastly, don't be afraid to max out the mids. There is an inherent mid scoop in the Hiwatt tone stack, even with the mids maxed out. I run my with bass at noon, mids at 3:00 and treble at 9:00. I don't hear much of a scoop with my setup.

 

[sloppy_phil]

It's a piece of cake, I actually changed the design of the tube daughter board where the LEDs are installed to make them easier to change out.

1. Remove power. I don't care how comfortable you are with circuits, always always always remove power before working on my pedals.
2. Open back plate
3. Remove the existing LED. There are a number of ways to do this, my two favorites are: (1) stick the soldering iron between the two LED legs so it heats up both at the same time and slide it out; (2) cut both legs with wire cutters and remove the leftover bits one at a time.
4. Clean out the solder from the holes (as best you can). I've had good luck with "impact-assisted solder removal", i.e. heat up the solder and quickly whack the pedal on a firm surface, the solder flies out the bottom. If you do it that way make sure you clean up the solder so it doesn't short somewhere else.
5. Slide the new LED in. There's a '+' on the board next to the pad where the Anode (positive side, longer of the 2 legs) will go in. Slide it down until the LED is sitting where you want it to, then solder it in and snip off the excess length of the legs.

I can get pictures sometime if it would help, it's something I do every now and then.

Thank you, my good man. That sounds doable for sure. I have a soldering iron, and while no expert, can use it with a level of basic competence. This definitely sounds like something I could do, should I work up the gumption to make it happen!

 

[CH Design]

@Sushi Box FX
Given that the Fender TMB and Marshall tone stacks are identical in layout (just different values for the components), have you ever thought of, or prototyped, sticking the Marshall tone stack in a UA (with your new mod to make it more bass friendly)?

 

[all_sixes]

Good info...to add I put a 5751 in the ua and was able to a/b it since I had 2, and noticed a 'cleaner' bass with the 5751...imho

Yep -- I picked up an NOS Sovtek 5751 when I had the UA and noticed the same thing. Overall punchier/tighter sounding bass and a bit cleaner. It still was a bit much for me, though.
I've got that same 5751 in the Elementary now.

Excellent post and timing. I had been discussing the differences between the Elementary and UA earlier today with someone.

As for the overall output on the Elementary, I believe Nathan hardwired in a set amount of attenuation to a level he felt appropriate. A lot of his other pedals (the UA included) have an adjustable trim pot on the board that the user can set. It sounds like your UA likely had that trim pot set high.

On my Elementary, I find I can get the gain up to noon and just be on the clean side of any breakup. If that doesn't work for you, you can try swapping out the stock 12AX7 for a 12AT7. When I had a 12AT7 in mine, I could almost dime the gain and not hear much breakup.

Lastly, don't be afraid to max out the mids. There is an inherent mid scoop in the Hiwatt tone stack, even with the mids maxed out. I run my with bass at noon, mids at 3:00 and treble at 9:00. I don't hear much of a scoop with my setup.

Yeah I'm not sure what's up with the output volume. I kinda wish there was a trim pot in this one so I could dial it higher. I didn't fiddle or even look at the trimpot in the UA I had so I can't say how high it was, but it's wherever Nate decided to set it and it didn't seem like too much. I initally A/B'd my UA against my buddies DrW when I was trying to figure out what I wanted to trade the UA for and I definitely see why Nate cut back the output on it (the original DrW was LOUUUUUUD), but at least in my unit it seems like it was cut way back. Like I said, maybe there's something wrong with mine? It certainly would be nicer to have too much than not enough...

My Elementary starts to breakup before noon even with the 5751 in. I think part of this is that I've got my Cali76 Comp before it, which always tends to pull more perceived gain out of things with both guitar and bass, but I've got the output of the comp pretty carefully matched so it's outputting at unity into the rest of my rig instead of boosting. I could try a 12AT7, but I'm also worried that I'll experience even less available volume output as I move towards "cleaner" tubes? Is that how that works? (I definitely could be wrong)
I also tried a JJ 12AU7 That I had in my Black Eye and it seemed to breakup sooner than my particular 5751 and I didn't like the sound as much, so I'm worried I may lose more than just gain range if I start rolling tubes. I guess there's only one way to find out, though. Interestingly enough, I'm able to be much more free with the gain knob when using it for guitar, like I can get well over noon while remaining clean with guitar. I'd wager that's just due to bass requiring more headroom to produce a clean signal though?

Funny -- that's pretty much exactly where I've got my EQ settings on the Elementary for bass! I change it up when I'm using it for guitar, though. When I turn it off and on it's subtle, but I feel like there's more mid popping through when it's off. It's not really bothering me much, but I

I'd say to also keep an eye out for a London Underground, too; that's the UA front end, but with a less bass-forward tone stack. Could be precisely what you'd want out of a UA, if the only issue is too much bass.

Maybe he'd build me a current UA with the different tone stack...... ?

 

[CH Design]

Yep -- My Elementary starts to breakup before noon even with the 5751 in. I think part of this is that I've got my Cali76 Comp before it, which always tends to pull more perceived gain out of things with both guitar and bass, but I've got the output of the comp pretty carefully matched so it's outputting at unity into the rest of my rig instead of boosting. I could try a 12AT7, but I'm also worried that I'll experience even less available volume output as I move towards "cleaner" tubes? Is that how that works? (I definitely could be wrong)
I also tried a JJ 12AU7 That I had in my Black Eye and it seemed to breakup sooner than my particular 5751 and I didn't like the sound as much, so I'm worried I may lose more than just gain range if I start rolling tubes. I guess there's only one way to find out, though. Interestingly enough, I'm able to be much more free with the gain knob when using it for guitar, like I can get well over noon while remaining clean with guitar. I'd wager that's just due to bass requiring more headroom to produce a clean signal though?

That does sound a little odd. Using a lower gain tube will result in an overall weaker signal, but you should be able to crank up the gain to compensate and have more clean headroom before it brakes up. Getting a 12AU7 to beak up at a lower gain setting than a 5751 definitely doesn’t seem right.

FWIW, I run mine after my compressor too.

 

[all_sixes]

That does sound a little odd. Using a lower gain tube will result in an overall weaker signal, but you should be able to crank up the gain to compensate and have more clean headroom before it brakes up. Getting a 12AU7 to beak up at a lower gain setting than a 5751 definitely doesn’t seem right.

FWIW, I run mine after my compressor too.

Interesting -- maybe I need to try different tubes, then... That JJ is brand new but the 5751 is older. Though it doesn't sound like there's anything weird or wrong with either one....

 

[lomo]

Perhaps the JC Emerald might be the alternative you seek, I just received mine and have begun exploring it. It can do a clean & phat with plenty of booty ~ seems to have a touch more tube depth than the UA which really IMO really shines on bass. It also seems to push over very nicely like a Marshall Major with the deep engaged it has punch and grunt.

Any new insights/updates on your JC Emerald journey? I am on the edge of pulling the trigger on another box of sushi . Would you describe it as very different from/ more versatile than the UA? Low mids just as apparent if desired? If it will give me a different flavour/ more variety that can low grunt as effectively as a UA I will likely cave.....

 

[Sushi Box FX]

@Sushi Box FX
Given that the Fender TMB and Marshall tone stacks are identical in layout (just different values for the components), have you ever thought of, or prototyped, sticking the Marshall tone stack in a UA (with your new mod to make it more bass friendly)?

I haven't tried it, but it's certainly possible. It would obviously be a lot easier on a HW build than on modifying an SMD build. Could be interesting to hear how it sounds.

 

[CH Design]

Is the JCE graph with or without the Deep and/or Brite switches engaged?

 

[warptheory]

I haven't tried it, but it's certainly possible. It would obviously be a lot easier on a HW build than on modifying an SMD build. Could be interesting to hear how it sounds.

View attachment 4978313 View attachment 4978314

Interested in either this another way to boost the mids. I have the Dreamcatcher, and love the sound of it, but basically have it set up with both channels to have a similar gain and output, just different EQ. Would love to be able to toggle back and forth between a scooped and slight mid bump. Right now can only get the scooped and flat, which do sound great, just looking for more tonal possibilities. In a live mix, scooped doesn't always play well and can get lost.

 

[lomo]

Those curves make it look to my uneducated eye as though the JC has less of a mid scoop than the UA. Izzat correct?

 

[bassbrad]

Any new insights/updates on your JC Emerald journey? I am on the edge of pulling the trigger on another box of sushi . Would you describe it as very different from/ more versatile than the UA? Low mids just as apparent if desired? If it will give me a different flavour/ more variety that can low grunt as effectively as a UA I will likely cave.....

Sushi Box FX JC Emerald v2 on Bass


The Sushi Box FX JC Emerald is another great offering from Sushi Box FX this time based on the ever popular rock amp the Marshall JCM800. This version takes the standard JCM800 and adds a couple of tonal options making it more versatile and user friendly for bass players. My impressions for bass start with the Deep switch engaged. My test bass has a Seymo0ur Duncan Vintage P into the JC Emerald into my Zoom interface monitored through Mackie CRx3 and Koss headphones. Tonal comparison was my first run Underground Accelerator for a baseline. As always YMMV


The gain is very sensitive and quickly goes from clean into saturation and as much overdrive as you can stand, low doses of that are a potent ingredient in a rock player’s arsenal, the gain is also nicely touch sensitive adding authoritative crunch when pushed by plucking deeper. Mid gain crunch into full on overdrive the JCE has very pleasant teeth with no loss of lows and mids that should punch well. Of course higher gain settings do introduce some noise. I might have wished for a little more clean headroom in the beginning. With the Deep engaged the bass is potent and punchy, mids are pronounced and highs are very open in comparison to the UA but not overly so unless the Brite is engaged. There is a lot of output with this pedal so be careful not to overdrive the rest of your signal chain. Compared to the UA the JCEmerald has all the bottom and mids with more open highs, switching back and forth the highs seem dampened on the UA which normally has a very pleasant character for bass. As hoped the Deep adds some of the authority of the venerable Marshall Major 200 watt beast and other Bass versions I have experienced.


If you're looking for a rock bass voice to emulate Lemmy, Chris Squire, Jack Bruce or Noel Redding the JC Emerald has the goods. If looking for a different tone option this also has a different character with the open highs, but be careful with the gain as saturation happens pretty early.



TLDR; Compared to the UA the JCEmerald has all the bottom and mids with more open highs, switching back and forth the highs seem dampened on the UA which normally has a very pleasant character for bass. If you’re looking to Rock the JC Emerald delivers.


Cons; I wished for a little more clean headroom before saturation, IMHO this would make it a lot more versatile and an alternate voice for other styles than rock.

 

[CH Design]

Sushi Box FX JC Emerald v2 on Bass


The Sushi Box FX JC Emerald is another great offering from Sushi Box FX this time based on the ever popular rock amp the Marshall JCM800. This version takes the standard JCM800 and adds a couple of tonal options making it more versatile and user friendly for bass players. My impressions for bass start with the Deep switch engaged. My test bass has a Seymo0ur Duncan Vintage P into the JC Emerald into my Zoom interface monitored through Mackie CRx3 and Koss headphones. Tonal comparison was my first run Underground Accelerator for a baseline. As always YMMV


The gain is very sensitive and quickly goes from clean into saturation and as much overdrive as you can stand, low doses of that are a potent ingredient in a rock player’s arsenal, the gain is also nicely touch sensitive adding authoritative crunch when pushed by plucking deeper. Mid gain crunch into full on overdrive the JCE has very pleasant teeth with no loss of lows and mids that should punch well. Of course higher gain settings do introduce some noise. I might have wished for a little more clean headroom in the beginning. With the Deep engaged the bass is potent and punchy, mids are pronounced and highs are very open in comparison to the UA but not overly so unless the Brite is engaged. There is a lot of output with this pedal so be careful not to overdrive the rest of your signal chain. Compared to the UA the JCEmerald has all the bottom and mids with more open highs, switching back and forth the highs seem dampened on the UA which normally has a very pleasant character for bass. As hoped the Deep adds some of the authority of the venerable Marshall Major 200 watt beast and other Bass versions I have experienced.


If you're looking for a rock bass voice to emulate Lemmy, Chris Squire, Jack Bruce or Noel Redding the JC Emerald has the goods. If looking for a different tone option this also has a different character with the open highs, but be careful with the gain as saturation happens pretty early.



TLDR; Compared to the UA the JCEmerald has all the bottom and mids with more open highs, switching back and forth the highs seem dampened on the UA which normally has a very pleasant character for bass. If you’re looking to Rock the JC Emerald delivers.


Cons; I wished for a little more clean headroom before saturation, IMHO this would make it a lot more versatile and an alternate voice for other styles than rock.

Lower gain tubes may help with more clean headroom.

 

[bassbrad]

Lower gain tubes may help with more clean headroom.

My bear paws ain't going nowhere inside any of my working effects, that is how they stay working. Also I used to work with a repair guru that joked to people about letting letting the magic smoke out.

 

[CH Design]

Those curves make it look to my uneducated, I as though the JC has less of a mid scope than the UA. Izzat correct?

It would appear that way.

Interested in either this another way to boost the mids. I have the Dreamcatcher, and love the sound of it, but basically have it set up with both channels to have a similar gain and output, just different EQ. Would love to be able to toggle back and forth between a scooped and slight mid bump. Right now can only get the scooped and flat, which do sound great, just looking for more tonal possibilities. In a live mix, scooped doesn't always play well and can get lost.

This wouldn't boost the mids. It should just cut them less than a UA.

My bear paws ain't going nowhere inside any of my working effects, that is how they stay working. Also I used to work with a repair guru that joked to people about letting letting the magic smoke out.

Well, the other way would be to start with a UA and use the JCE tonestack. Fewer gain stages would also give you more clean headroom.

@Sushi Box FX given that you're already stretched to the max, but seem to really enjoy out of the box ideas that aren't too difficult to pull off, would a HW UA with your new JCE tonestack prototype be feasible? Would you be able to hardwire in the Deep switch on and Brite switch off positions?

 

[Sushi Box FX]

@Sushi Box FX given that you're already stretched to the max, but seem to really enjoy out of the box ideas that aren't too difficult to pull off, would a HW UA with your new JCE tonestack prototype be feasible? Would you be able to hardwire in the Deep switch on and Brite switch off positions?

It would not be difficult and would not require any modification to the HWUA circuit board, it would all be component changes. The Brite switch in JCE doesn't affect the tonestack at all, so that's already taken care of, and hardwiring in the deep option would be simple enough.

The tricky thing is that I'm low on HWUA boards right now, I'm waiting on an order of them so I can finish a couple builds and a handful of repairs.

 

[Sushi Box FX]

Interested in either this another way to boost the mids. I have the Dreamcatcher, and love the sound of it, but basically have it set up with both channels to have a similar gain and output, just different EQ. Would love to be able to toggle back and forth between a scooped and slight mid bump. Right now can only get the scooped and flat, which do sound great, just looking for more tonal possibilities. In a live mix, scooped doesn't always play well and can get lost.

You're never going to get a mid boost with a Fender/Marshall/Vox tonestack, it's not capable of it. Treble and Bass are boost only, Mids are cut only. The slope of the Marshall stack does have a less dramatic scoop than Fender though.

 

[bassbrad]

It would appear that way.



This wouldn't boost the mids. It should just cut them less than a UA.



Well, the other way would be to start with a UA and use the JCE tonestack. Fewer gain stages would also give you more clean headroom.

@Sushi Box FX given that you're already stretched to the max, but seem to really enjoy out of the box ideas that aren't too difficult to pull off, would a HW UA with your new JCE tonestack prototype be feasible? Would you be able to hardwire in the Deep switch on and Brite switch off positions?

It would not be difficult and would not require any modification to the HWUA circuit board, it would all be component changes. The Brite switch in JCE doesn't affect the tonestack at all, so that's already taken care of, and hardwiring in the deep option would be simple enough.

The tricky thing is that I'm low on HWUA boards right now, I'm waiting on an order of them so I can finish a couple builds and a handful of repairs.

I wonder of some of the richness & openness of the JCE comes from the added stages of tube juice and thinks that simply changing the tone stack on a UA would not have the same result. Might it be easier to change the gain profile on the JCE either with a pad or slight revision.

 

[lomo]

Sushi Box FX JC Emerald v2 on Bass
Cons; I wished for a little more clean headroom before saturation
View attachment 4978419

1ST: THANKS FOR THAT!!!

It sounds as though off the shelf it's a lot dirtier than I usually enjoy...which makes the hamster in my head ask whether switching 1 of the tubes to a lower gain option (12au7?)
would preserve the character but allow for more clean runway?? Sushi Box FX