Vintage non-Mutron envelope filters - DOD and Maxon/Ibanez

[moon-bass]

I admit it - I'm a envelope filter junky. I Recently bought a few vintage-y envelope filters (planning to do a shoot out), but it got me going down a rabbit hole. I even found a Line 6 Otto filter (built like a tank and SOOOOOO much bass, btw).

I've seen quite a few DOD filters (up until recently i didn't give them much of a thought) - the FX25, FX25B (an FX25 with a blend), the 440 (the vintage model and the reissue - which are not the same), the Wah filter 545 and 545-A ... I know some of these use optocouplers/optical based and some use VCAs/OTAs, but can't find much info on which uses what and any other differences.

From what I understand the FX25 & FX25B both use OTAs. The vintage 440 is optical and uses an LED. The new 440's (I think) use VCAs, and from what I understand they aren't nearly as nice as either of the older vintage models.

I have heard (but can't confirm) that the 545 uses optocouplers.

The vintage 440's are WAY overpriced (IMO) because the guitarist from Radiohead plays thru one.

Then the Ibanez/Maxons - the AFL, the AF-01, the AF-201, and the AF-9. I'm pretty sure they are all extremely similar - the ones that I have sound identical. Again, this is from what I understand, they all use optocouplers, and they are all pretty much Mutron clones in smaller boxes (with the exception of the AFL, which is a Mutron clone that lacks the HPF, which is immaterial for bass).

I have an AFL, and I have a 201 on loan. I used to have an AF-9 (I recently bought one, but it was DOA unfortunately) and I'm looking to pick up another one. I've never tried the AF-01.

To me, the AFL and AF-201 sound identical. The AF-9 that I had was really good, but I didn't have anything to compare it to at the time.

So, reaching out to the experts here - what are the (other) differences amongst the models? I have my own ideas as to which ones are worthwhile to try, but I'm interested in other's thoughts and opinions.

Also - are there other hidden gems and/or ones to avoid? I don't get the fuss over the vintage MXR, for instance, sounds thin and weak on bass to me.

TIA!

 

[Bob_Ross]

subbed

 

[bassbrad]

Careful there as envelope filters can become an obsession and it is certainly one of mine.

EHX Dr Q was my first envelope filter of a long line of those I have tried and owned many over the years. Dr Q is a simple envelope follower with a low pass option.

EHX Bass Balls is still my favorite defect it's dual sweeping envelopes passing sounds a bit like a flanger as the two filters rub and pass each other and it has a unique fuzz circuit. When tinkeres got inside they discovered 2 internal trim pots these are usually set at the factory according to some secret alchemy. Some did modifications with external controls for the two internal adjustments this really changes the possibilities from a simple pedal. The Mooer Sweeper is a compact version that has the 2 internal sweep controls as options,. Rocktron offered several versions in a similar effect like the Heart Attack and Reaction.

Seamoon Funk Machine is another classic circuit that has recently been revised with a bit more control. I briefly played thru one decades ago and always wanted one of my own. It is an odd beast and totally unique.

Invalid Link Removed is an interesting vintage inspired design that is very versatile that includes a selectable drive circuit; sounds great on bass and anything else.

DOD and Digitech have done several interesting filters like the FX25, FX25B, 440 and the Bass Synth Wah.

I often turn to a Zoom multi effect for creating envelope and synth tones and as there is a good selection nof various tones and a very usable control set. Then there are the more recent monster devices like the Source Audio Spectrum & C4 Synth as well as the Panda Future Impact that offers some unique often exotic options for envelope effects. Honorable mention goes to the Source Audio Artifakt that hasn an excellent ladder filter that offers unique sounds and feels.

 

[moon-bass]

Careful there as envelope filters can become an obsession and it is certainly one of mine.

What do you mean by "can be?" lol. Yeah, I've always been a filter fan, but lately it's been a bit ... more. Like I need to try every single one of them.

EHX Bass Balls is still my favorite

I had an old school Bass Balls many, many years ago. I think my brother might have it. I'm honestly not sure whatever happene to it.

I often turn to a Zoom multi effect for creating envelope and synth tones and as there is a good selection nof various tones and a very usable control set.

I recently picked up a B6 but haven't had much time to mess with it.

he more recent monster devices like the Source Audio Spectrum & C4 Synth as well as the Panda Future Impact

I've owned all three of those at one point or another - I sold them because I was constantly going down rat holes lol.

 

[Feral Feline]

...I have heard (but can't confirm) that the 545 uses optocouplers.
...
...
Also - are there other hidden gems and/or ones to avoid? I don't get the fuss over the vintage MXR, for instance, sounds thin and weak on bass to me.

TIA!

The 545 is optical-based according to the schematics I have. Haven't built it yet, but it's in the queue.

Re "hidden gems and or ones to avoid" — your goals/needs/wants/gear/ears are not mine, so I may very well find some circuit to be the perfect underrated gem because it's what I like and works for me — but you may LOATH it. The only way to find out what to avoid is to try it.

In another unrelated effects area, for example: from the time I first heard it I had great distaste for the Rat. Then 20+ years later I finally gave the Rat another chance — works very well for me now, and I wished I'd kept an open mind and tried it sooner.

The 545 is pretty obscure, not as well documented as say the 440, and so there aren't a lot of review/clips/vids of the 545 — but I heard Bill Laswell used one (some tracks attributed mistakenly/or-not to the FX25), so I must try the 545 for myself and see if it works for me.

Good hunting!

 

[bassbrad]

What do you mean by "can be?" lol. Yeah, I've always been a filter fan, but lately it's been a bit ... more. Like I need to try every single one of them.


I had an old school Bass Balls many, many years ago. I think my brother might have it. I'm honestly not sure whatever happene to it.

I recently picked up a B6 but haven't had much time to mess with it.

I've owned all three of those at one point or another - I sold them because I was constantly going down rat holes lol.

I like going down rat holes and creating different sounds, that inspires musical and groove ideas for me. But I have always been a fan of electronic and synth based music and always looks for ways to get those sounds with my bass.

 

[moon-bass]

The 545 is optical-based according to the schematics I have. Haven't built it yet, but it's in the queue.

Re "hidden gems and or ones to avoid" — your goals/needs/wants/gear/ears are not mine, so I may very well find some circuit to be the perfect underrated gem because it's what I like and works for me — but you may LOATH it. The only way to find out what to avoid is to try it.

In another unrelated effects area, for example: from the time I first heard it I had great distaste for the Rat. Then 20+ years later I finally gave the Rat another chance — works very well for me now, and I wished I'd kept an open mind and tried it sooner.

The 545 is pretty obscure, not as well documented as say the 440, and so there aren't a lot of review/clips/vids of the 545 — but I heard Bill Laswell used one (some tracks attributed mistakenly/or-not to the FX25), so I must try the 545 for myself and see if it works for me.

Good hunting!

Thanks for the info! Yeah, I think a 545 is next on my list. And I have no idea what the difference between the 545 and the 545-A is ...other than maybe the color.

 

[moon-bass]

I like going down rat holes and creating different sounds, that inspires musical and groove ideas for me. But I have always been a fan of electronic and synth based music and always looks for ways to get those sounds with my bass.

I go thru phases - sometimes I love diving into rat holes, finding new sounds, etc. And sometimes i just like a good old fashioned knob twist!

My day job is related to IT/computers. and I'm thinking that the fact that I stare at a computer screen all day has something to do with it ..

 

[woodyng2]

I've only owned 2 EV pedals in my life. The first was an original Mutron 3 I found in the early '80s at a garage sale for $50.
(Fairly big money at the time, kept it for a decade and sold it for 6 times that amount).
A few years back, I found a used EBS here on TB. While it's not nearly as greasy and nasty sounding as the Musitronics pedal,
it has some great quackery hiding in the (many) settings.

 

[colicab]

excellent write-up

FX25B (an FX25 with a blend)

but this is false - FX25 + B are two different circuits

 

[moon-bass]

but this is false - FX25 + B are two different circuits

Well then that's a part of my question what are the differences in the circuits?

It's funny - DOD literally says this is the FX25 with a blend ... of course, they say the new 440 is a "faithful" recreation of the old one lol.

Edit: There is also the DODGFX25 EXTREME lol. No idea what makes it so extreme. I read on an earlier post that someone has owned "all five versions" of the FX25 but didn't elaborate. Some say the earlier versions of the FX25 don't sound like the later versions. Some say the exact oppisite (they sound the same). I mean, how does one even KNOW which ones are the earlier versions?

​

 

[Teryup]

My understanding (and it may be wrong, I haven't seen a circuit diagram for the FX25B posted anywhere) is that the circuit is basically the same between the two, but some of the component values are changed so the two don't respond quite the same way.

 

[Feral Feline]

Thanks for the info! Yeah, I think a 545 is next on my list. And I have no idea what the difference between the 545 and the 545-A is ...other than maybe the color.

545 vs 545-A
NO idea.

Been a while since I searched for the difference, and just now having a quick snoop came up with nothing new.

The only 545-A schematics I've found were just the same 545 schematic that's floated around for ages.
They both share the same control-set : SENSITIVITY ATTACK PEAK.

Way back when I found one reference to a "RANGE", but have never seen either rendition of the DOD Wah-Filter with a control labelled such. The "RANGE" reference was in getting the Bill Laswell dub-setting. Speaking of which...

For the Bill Laswell thing, whatever filter you use (FX25/545/other) set SENSITIVITY as low as it'll go, the filter will lock onto the highs only leaving the big dubby bass. Also try setting the SENSITIVITY to only partially trigger when you dig in really hard.

A boost into a filter is a good thing, as is having a comp/limiter afterward the filter.


As for old vs new 440... old is optical, new is not (as already noted by others). There's more than one way to fab a filter to sound similar if not the same — whether DOD nailed the sound of the old with newer tech is subjective. I have not compared the two back to back.


It would be good to find the nitty-gritty differences between all these circuits.

 

[moon-bass]

545 vs 545-A
NO idea.

Been a while since I searched for the difference, and just now having a quick snoop came up with nothing new.

The only 545-A schematics I've found were just the same 545 schematic that's floated around for ages.
They both share the same control-set : SENSITIVITY ATTACK PEAK.

Way back when I found one reference to a "RANGE", but have never seen either rendition of the DOD Wah-Filter with a control labelled such. The "RANGE" reference was in getting the Bill Laswell dub-setting. Speaking of which...

For the Bill Laswell thing, whatever filter you use (FX25/545/other) set SENSITIVITY as low as it'll go, the filter will lock onto the highs only leaving the big dubby bass. Also try setting the SENSITIVITY to only partially trigger when you dig in really hard.

A boost into a filter is a good thing, as is having a comp/limiter afterward the filter.


As for old vs new 440... old is optical, new is not (as already noted by others). There's more than one way to fab a filter to sound similar if not the same — whether DOD nailed the sound of the old with newer tech is subjective. I have not compared the two back to back.


It would be good to find the nitty-gritty differences between all these circuits.

Yeah, I picked up a few older filters with the intention of just comparing them to my Mutron/Tru-Tron, and now I'm genuinely curious about all the differences (or lack thereof). I'll probably pull the backs off of the ones that I have and take some pics of the insides, and I'm really tempted to pick up quite a few more with the hopes that I can sell them when I'm done.

I've easily tried 20-30 or so filters in my time, and I was kinda settled on my favorites. Never really gave the older DOD much of a thought - most of my experience with them was "back in the day" with cheap sounding delay pedals. I happened upon them online, and just went down a rat hole.

I'm planning on doing a shoot out, and I figure the more the merrier.

 

[Bob_Ross]

For the Bill Laswell thing, whatever filter you use (FX25/545/other) set SENSITIVITY as low as it'll go, the filter will lock onto the highs only leaving the big dubby bass. Also try setting the SENSITIVITY to only partially trigger when you dig in really hard.

And if you have an envelope-controlled filter with both a Sensitivity and a Peak control -- like the Ibanez/Maxon AF-9, or the original Musitronics Mu-tron III -- set both of those controls as low as they'll go. Unless the signal hitting the input is ridiculously high, this will ensure that nothing triggers the filter to open up, essentially rendering it like a fixed Low-Pass Filter (...which, if you have one, is another way to get the deep dubby Laswell-esque bass sound).

 

[sloppy_phil]

I'll second what @bassbrad said about the Seamoon. It's a really unique sounding filter, nothing quite does what it does. There's a real percussiveness to its attack which I haven't heard from any other envelope filter. The sound is super cool, and funky as hell. It also does the same rub-a-dub deep reggae trick as the DOD. I have to admit, though, that the new/updated pedal has some really odd quirks to it which still make it hard to use in a practical way outside of recording. There is a wet/dry blend knob, but no matter the setting, the pedal is always slightly below unity gain when turned on. There is a "volume" knob, but it only controls the volume for the wet side of the blend, it's not a master volume control. This would normally be fine, but the envelope filter side pulls way too much low end out of the signal to work as a bassist in a band context. So you can have a sufficiently loud signal, but only if the bottom drops out completely!

I really wish that wet/dry was just a separate volume control for the clean signal, so you'd have independent clean and filter volume knobs, as you see on pedals like the MXR BEF or Iron Ether XD. YMMV of course, but having control over both signals and being able to set the blend to taste has always been crucial to making filters work in live settings for me. Anyways, it's such a cool pedal, but it just didn't work out, so I ended up selling it to a sax player (Randy Brecker loved the OG Funk Machine).

 

[moon-bass]

I'll second what @bassbrad said about the Seamoon. It's a really unique sounding filter, nothing quite does what it does. There's a real percussiveness to its attack which I haven't heard from any other envelope filter. The sound is super cool, and funky as hell. It also does the same rub-a-dub deep reggae trick as the DOD. I have to admit, though, that the new/updated pedal has some really odd quirks to it which still make it hard to use in a practical way outside of recording. There is a wet/dry blend knob, but no matter the setting, the pedal is always slightly below unity gain when turned on. There is a "volume" knob, but it only controls the volume for the wet side of the blend, it's not a master volume control. This would normally be fine, but the envelope filter side pulls way too much low end out of the signal to work as a bassist in a band context. So you can have a sufficiently loud signal, but only if the bottom drops out completely!

I really wish that wet/dry was just a separate volume control for the clean signal, so you'd have independent clean and filter volume knobs, as you see on pedals like the MXR BEF or Iron Ether XD. YMMV of course, but having control over both signals and being able to set the blend to taste has always been crucial to making filters work in live settings for me. Anyways, it's such a cool pedal, but it just didn't work out, so I ended up selling it to a sax player (Randy Brecker loved the OG Funk Machine).

Hmmm, that's interesting, thanks for the info. I've never been overly fond of blend controls on filters, but then again I've never really thought I needed one, and I've never noticed issues with the bass. I'm wondering how the re-issue is vs. the older one. Either way, I think it's gonna go on my list.

I have a few blender pedals that I might use to address the issue ...

 

[Maxi Funkl]

I go thru phases - sometimes I love diving into rat holes, finding new sounds, etc. And sometimes i just like a good old fashioned knob twist!

My day job is related to IT/computers. and I'm thinking that the fact that I stare at a computer screen all day has something to do with it ..

It certainly does for me i have enough screen time already.

 

[sunbeast]

I had an FX25 years ago that I picked up cheap specifically to do that Bill Laswell dub thing (even though I found out later he used a different pedal). It was great at that, but the filter topology is a pretty peaky bandpass that got really thin when it swept so I didn't find it all that useful for more typical envelope filtering (unless you only took advantage of a tiny bit of sweep which could be pretty tweaky to dial in). Apparently Flea used one on a song or two so it developed some reputation on bass but there are dozens of better alternatives these days for bass IMO apart from that somewhat niche dub use (maybe less niche these days than when I had it!). I'd love to have one again as I'd make more use of that dub filter setting these days- when you do the same dub trick with a typical low-pass filter it can be too tubby/indistinct sometimes but that FX25 bandpass worked really well for this when stuck at the lowest frequency. There is an easy mod that can be done to an FX25 to switch the filter from band-pass to a low-pass, which may well make the normal sweep more useful. I never tried an FX25B.

I briefly tried one of the reissue DOD 440s you mention and found it totally worthless for bass personally.

 

[spufman]

As far as the Maxons, I have an old AF-01 and a teens AF-9. They really don't sound alike and I very much prefer the AF-01. It is raunchy and fun. It did take a back seat when I got a Grease Juicer (v2), which does that raunchy thing and more, but the old Maxon is still great imo.

I have a bunch of filters but my other top favorites are a v2 Xerograph Dlx and a v1 Prometheus.