Pros and Cons of multiple pedals in a single enclosure

[jfrabat]

Hi, guys.

As an experiment, I decided to make a "multieffect" pedal (I use quotes because it is really 6 different boards, 4 independent and a mother and daughter board for the fifth pedal) so that I can just keep a set of pedals in the practice room (a friend's house, where I already keep my main amp).  In my case, I also have my pedal board (which has more effects), but I was wondering why there are not many single enclosure multi pedals out there.

As a reference, here is mine:



From left to right: Screechy Cat Overdrive, Vulcan Rat Creation, LPB-1 Booster, Little Angel Chorus, and Sea Urchin Delay with Taptation Tap Tempo.

Of course, I still got this:



That one has the first 4 pedals from above, plus a Slow Loris (red; ran out of clear waterslide decals, but it will get one soon), EA Tremolo (same sticker issue!) Deep Blue Delay and a Ditto Looper (obviously that one is purchased), but the idea is to leave that one at home and for gigs, and just use the single box one for practice (less stuff lo lug around and have to connect when I get there).

I digress...  My main question is, what do you think are the pros and the cons of building many pedals in a single enclosure?

In my opinion, the downside is that once built, it is hard to change out pedals, but it is also very easy to transport, connect and use.  Also on the downside (in this case) because the enclosure is not smooth, it is hard to put any decals on it.

[Mark Hammer]

One needs to distinguish between self-built multi-FX and commercial ones.  As far as commercial ones are concerned, the challenge is that users/customers have to like the versions of each type of effect one has included.  If they like your compressor and fuzz but hate your phaser or chorus (or vice versa), they're not going to buy your multi-FX.

At one time (actually multiple false starts) manufacturers toyed with modular multi-FX systems, such that the user could select the particular combination and order of effects they wanted.  But unfortunately, on every occasion, the manufacturer only produced ONE version of any given effect category, and nobody's was compatible with anybody else's.  So if you liked system X, but preferred System Y's overdrive, you could not use Y stuff with X.  Chalk up another marketing failure.

In the case of DIY stuff, there is a similar, though not quite as drastic, problem/challenge.  If someone can build pretty much whatever they want, then it becomes a bit of a challenge to settle on whatever combination you want.  And given just how many fuzzes some of us seem to go through here, planning out some sort of larger chassis that will accommodate the next thing that captures your attention is a bit of a moving target.

I'm currently finishing up a multi-FX for myself that is built into the shallower Hammond sloped-front chassis that came with the PAiA Phlanger I bought from a guy in the tech shop of the university hospital  I was working at in 1978.  It now houses a Phase 90 with some extra bells and whistles, an EA tremolo, a Small Stone chorus (with extra bells and whistles, and a Rebote 2.5, also tricked out.   I have 2 normalized (i.e., only there if you want/use it) external loops between effects, and am working on an envelope-controlled speed module that can be assigned to either the phaser or tremolo.  The loops mean I can stick other stuff in the sequence, including alternate versions of the very effects they are inserted before or after.

But enough about me.  You do nice neat work.  Kudos.

[Redvers]

I think the age we live in is a factor. Back in the day it would have made sense to rehouse a few Danos or whatever but now most pedals are solid. I have a failed project using one of those enclosures you have. Man it was hard to drill.

[Fancy Lime]

Hi Felipe,

I have been toying with the idea of a "multi effect" in that sense before but always got stuck in the early planning phase because it alway got way more complicated than I wanted it to be. The main reason for me to prefer individual pedals is that it is much more flexible. Replace the delay, reverse the order of tremolo and fuzz... anything goes. To incorporate even the most essential parts of this flexibility into a "multi effect" gets out of hand real fast. So I would argue that from the "tinkerers perspective", which applies to most people who build their own effects, I guess, individual pedals are often to be preferred. If, on the other hand, you build something for a touring musician who has a fixed setup (s)he has been using for years and is unlikely to modify regularly, the "multi effect" can have advantages in terms of total size, less fail-prone connectors and so on. That being said, double or even triple effects like a tremolo+reverb, booster+overdrive or wah+ringmod+fuzz can make sense and a lot of fun. Like, a LOT! So I guess the pros and cons of the "multiple pedals in single enclosure" concept are highly subjective. But I'm guessing you were asking for everyones two cents, not the one and only ultimate answer, so there you go

Cheers,
Andy

[jfrabat]

I have a failed project using one of those enclosures you have. Man it was hard to drill.

In my case, not so much.  The mechanical part is easy because I have a small shop (complete with drill press) on my garage for working on my Jeep.  I am still debating whether to use a Sharpie to write everything down; the thing that's keeping me back is that as soon as I write the first letter, I am committed and there is no going back!  With a waterslide decal, you can always take it out before it dries, but with a Sharpie, mistakes are permanent!

Anyway, all good points!  Lets hear more!

[thermionix]

with a Sharpie, mistakes are permanent!

Naw, you can always buff it off with Maquire's cleaner wax.  A matte finish becomes a glossy finish though.

[amptramp]

The benefits of multi-effects units:

1. Fewer cords to connect: a guitar input, an output to the amp and a power supply cord and no patch cords between effects.
2. More reliability with fewer jacks and plugs.
3. No pedalboard needed.
4. You can design proper impedance matching without having to use buffer and follower stages in each effect.
5. You only need RF suppression at the input and maybe at the output to keep signals from radiating within the enclosure.
6. Better bass response and reliability because there is less electronics and fewer capacitors in series with the signal.
7. You may have better grounding and a reduction in noise.
8. Easier to carry.
9. Less likely to get stolen.
10. Less overall work with fewer parts.


The problems with multi-effects units:

1. You are stuck with the order of the effects unless you have input/output switching included.
2. You have to like all of the implementations of the various effects.
3. The size usually goes beyond what you can get in cast aluminum enclosures.
4. May be more difficult troubleshooting of some symptoms with everything in one unit.
5. More difficult to change from one effect implementation to another.
6. No way to add a new effect in the middle of an effect chain.

[stallik]

Problem 6 can be resolved by including a single jack send/return between each effect.
Buggers up advantage 2 though

[Rob Strand]

I wouldn't put the Tone Hammer and the Engineers Thumb together, nor any of Rat variants with the Big Cheese.

[Steben]

I think the spectrum between benefits and drawbacks is getting thin, when putting SAME type of effect together.
A classic theoretical multiFX would be somehting like comp - dist - mod - delay/reverb. In other words a fixed rig. this brings the pros and cons....

If we combine different fuzzes a box or different delays and reverbs.... chances are much higher you won't need to combine them, givning most of the benefits without many cons.

[roseblood11]

If one of the foot switches breaks during a gig, you'll have to take your complete multi fx out of the signal chain...

[amptramp]

If one of the foot switches breaks during a gig, you'll have to take your complete multi fx out of the signal chain...

This is true but if you have a spare for each pedal as an individual effect, you could put the same or less effort into a spare multi-effects pedal and get the same overall level of reliability and redundancy.  But since jacks and plugs are the most common offenders, the reliability of a multi-effects pedal should be a lot higher.

You may have room in a multi-effects pedal for switching that does not depend on 3PDT switches.  Boss has been using their own toggling flip-flop alternative for years and it allows for the use of a momentary SPST NO switch.  The company that has built 8 million pedals just might be right.

[roseblood11]

The main problem remains: If one switch fails and stays in the "on" position or kills the signal completely, the whole unit is worthless.

And your "analog multi-fx" is still a bunch of pedals in a row. You can't change the order, can't put effects in parallel... You still have to do tap dancing because there aren't presets. You still don't have your time-based pedals synced...
Analog effects with a digital control unit would be way better. Actually, that was the beginning of the development of commercial multi-fx. Boss released the SCC-700 system in 1982:
http://www.kitrae.net/music/Images_Secret_Music_Page/scc700.jpg
Later, they realized that digital parameter control was even better and released the ME-5. Most effects are analog (except delay and reverb), but digitally controlled.

I still use the ME-5 for overdrive, eq, compression and sometimes delay and chorus/flanger. And it's the midi controller for my G-Major 2.
This setup is much more capable than any analog super-duper pedal board, and I paid around 200€ for both units (used).