Some thoughts on effects pedal design and manufacture, at large

[Thecomedian]

There's a limit on what happens to sound good musically, though. Anything can be done with electronic gear to process a signal in some form or other, but that doesn't mean the end result will be pleasing. I kind of view the question like "why haven't we added synth and noise-makers to non-electric string, wind, and percussion instruments?". I think practically everything people have done up to now is the limit of what can be done. If there's any effect that needs two different pedals to achieve, people buy those two and off they go.

Taking note from amplifiers and their evolution over time, what can be done is the rebuilding of basic circuits to make them function more similarly irrespective of user equipment variables, and perform exactly like a user wants. Think of a Fuzz Face which doesn't mind any kind of guitar plugged into it, nor has it's intended sound messed up by any pedals in front or behind it or the amplifier itself. I guess that would come down to transforming any input signal with some processing circuit into what appears to be a weak voltage source with a 5-8k impedance or some such, and then doing the same on the output to dynamically change impedance or voltage values if direct FF circuit output to a non-ideal amp or next effect pedal would ruin the effect the user is trying to achieve with FF in the first place. I've read a lot of times that people have been turned off by FF because, using it with the wrong equipment, it didn't sound good. An active pickup system or a "bad" amp, for example.

The other area of growth or infinite wiggle room is combining multiple FX in one box with unique bandwidth differences. That's what those programmable pedals are all about anyway, but even with programming there is a limit to what the user can do with it. It's more crapshoot territory than anything. Becoming a boutique pedal maker is practically like gambling or the lottery. There's no assurance that what you build will be picked up, because there's the herd mentality, the hipsterism of "I have a pedal noone else has", and then the preconceived notions of people as to what sounds good and what doesn't, word of mouth, and all before people actually use your pedal and decide they personally like the "tone", which is another subjective area.

Multiple FX + unique tone stack is something that can never be solved by a single person or company, because the variables of "tone" are infinite, with filtering and equalizing, etc.

Beyond all that, there's also the box it comes in. The Voss water bottle that's made of glass went through over 100 designs by some guy that worked for Calvin Klein before it was finalized. A simple water bottle took 100 sketches to make the form.

Engineers typically aren't marketers, because they want to sell a product based on it's functionality rather than it's personality.

http://search.dilbert.com/comic/Engineer%20Marketing

[duck_arse]

a dollar late and a day short, again, but that never stops me .....

fubar, sol, snafu et al: "figjam", goes on your business cards, fcuk I'm good, just ask me.

I was told by my nephew just recently that his bandmates loved all the pedals I gave him for test, and they'd buy them all, except they had no external power jacks.

[amptramp]

There's a limit on what happens to sound good musically, though. Anything can be done with electronic gear to process a signal in some form or other, but that doesn't mean the end result will be pleasing. I kind of view the question like "why haven't we added synth and noise-makers to non-electric string, wind, and percussion instruments?". I think practically everything people have done up to now is the limit of what can be done. If there's any effect that needs two different pedals to achieve, people buy those two and off they go.

Engineers typically aren't marketers, because they want to sell a product based on it's functionality rather than it's personality.

Some of the changes that were predicted for 2014 in the thread I referenced do not have much to do with the actual sound.  We need a better power source than a wall-wart or a 9V battery for each effect.  A rechargeable pedal with no power connected during use would be a worthwhile selling feature.  Non-contact chargers used for electric toothbrushes would be interesting - no external power or charging jack necessary and jacks are usually what get beat up over time.

Using a flanged-lid box so you could bolt the pedal to the pedalboard is just a part number change in the Hammond catalog, but it would go a long way towards theft-proofing a pedal.  Even though we have working musicians on this forum who have had pedals stolen, no one seems to do this.

I have a couple of sandblasting guns and a 15-gallon compressor, so I think for some purposes, sandblasting is preferable to chemical etching on an enclosure.  The stencil could be rubber or cardboard and it could be reusable.  Anyone thinking about that other than me?

I see a distinction between pedals you could tour with and pedals for a studio environment only.  A studio pedal may have all the functionality and variability to make any sound.  A ruggedized pedal with some of the controls changed to presets so changes don't accidentally happen would be better for a touring musician.  He already has a signature sound when he is on tour.  He doesn't need a lot of adjustability.

None of these changes affect the sound of a pedal - just its usability for the working musician.  If I was in charge of a pedal-building house, that is where I would focus the design efforts.  BTW has anyone noticed the latest set of ads from Apple?  They already have a tuner and may have complete stompbox capability in a phone, so this may eventually be the competition.  "We've gone about as far as we can go" is a line from the musical "Oklahoma" where they rhapsodize over seven-storey buildings and indoor plumbing.  It sounds like we are at that stage with stompboxes right now - and everyone knows, we could go further.

[Digital Larry]

To top it all off, the most difficult thing facing us is writing/arranging a good song that would make its point whether played on kazoo, toaster and garage door springs or the most awesome equipment available.  Since I usually lack that skill and I'm no good at covers, I'll try to see whether I can tweak my effects.

Actually I mostly play acoustic guitar and ukulele for my own amusement so it's not as bad as I'm pretending.
============================================================================
Oh one of my favorite acronyms is PIDOOMA, referring to the strategy for estimating tasks one has never done before.

[Thecomedian]

There's a limit on what happens to sound good musically, though. Anything can be done with electronic gear to process a signal in some form or other, but that doesn't mean the end result will be pleasing. I kind of view the question like "why haven't we added synth and noise-makers to non-electric string, wind, and percussion instruments?". I think practically everything people have done up to now is the limit of what can be done. If there's any effect that needs two different pedals to achieve, people buy those two and off they go.

Engineers typically aren't marketers, because they want to sell a product based on it's functionality rather than it's personality.

Some of the changes that were predicted for 2014 in the thread I referenced do not have much to do with the actual sound.  We need a better power source than a wall-wart or a 9V battery for each effect.  A rechargeable pedal with no power connected during use would be a worthwhile selling feature.  Non-contact chargers used for electric toothbrushes would be interesting - no external power or charging jack necessary and jacks are usually what get beat up over time.

Using a flanged-lid box so you could bolt the pedal to the pedalboard is just a part number change in the Hammond catalog, but it would go a long way towards theft-proofing a pedal.  Even though we have working musicians on this forum who have had pedals stolen, no one seems to do this.

I have a couple of sandblasting guns and a 15-gallon compressor, so I think for some purposes, sandblasting is preferable to chemical etching on an enclosure.  The stencil could be rubber or cardboard and it could be reusable.  Anyone thinking about that other than me?

I see a distinction between pedals you could tour with and pedals for a studio environment only.  A studio pedal may have all the functionality and variability to make any sound.  A ruggedized pedal with some of the controls changed to presets so changes don't accidentally happen would be better for a touring musician.  He already has a signature sound when he is on tour.  He doesn't need a lot of adjustability.

None of these changes affect the sound of a pedal - just its usability for the working musician.  If I was in charge of a pedal-building house, that is where I would focus the design efforts.  BTW has anyone noticed the latest set of ads from Apple?  They already have a tuner and may have complete stompbox capability in a phone, so this may eventually be the competition.  "We've gone about as far as we can go" is a line from the musical "Oklahoma" where they rhapsodize over seven-storey buildings and indoor plumbing.  It sounds like we are at that stage with stompboxes right now - and everyone knows, we could go further.

Fair points. The tone of many prior posts seemed to suggest audio changes or innovations more to me.