FX "always on"

[themartin]

Hi there again,

i'm wondering how to leave my FX on all the time. I'm building this FX board and i'll be switching it through DPDT.

Here's what i want "always on" :
- Whammy WH-1
- Boss CE-2
- MRX Phase 90 script
- Boss LS-2 line selector

Thanks again for your time and help.

The Martin

[zerohero]

im a little confused on what exactly you are building. is it a true bypass switch that will bypass your whole pedal board? or one switch for each effect. either way. if you wanted you effects always on and you had a bypass switch you can just keep the effect engaged whether or not you are bypassing it, no mods necessary.. clarify if i didnt understanf what it is you wanted.


Jose

[mattpocket]

Yeah, please clarify... Give us an example of what you want...

[HeimBrent]

He is building a box with alot of A/B-switches where every switch switches between the effect and bypassing it. Like a switchstrip.

Something like this.

[themartin]

Hi there,

to clarify things up, all the FX will be bypassed at the output of each effect circuits by one side of the DPDT the other side being used for a light indicator

No true-bypass here.

Thanks.

Martin

[themartin]

any help would be welcome....

[mattpocket]

You need an FX loop selector. Do a search, there's plenty of these hanging around. Search for true bypass box.

[themartin]

That doesn't help.

I don't need any FX loop or true by-pass. I don't want any of that in my gtr rig.

I simply want to solder all my cabling from pedal-to-pedal, solder the DC power and bypass the output of each FX from a DPDT foot switch so that way from my gtr to the amp it will be the same impedance with or without FX in the chain. All is buffered by Pete Cornish LD-1 or LD-2.

Thanks

[Barcode80]

you can't cut the power to bypass a circuit. that will also kill your signal in a non-true bypass pedal.

[shredgd]

themartin, what do you mean with "bypass at the output"?

If you mean you just want to act on the output side of each effect, I'm afraid your idea would either cause a paralleling of the dry and the effected sound (if you're running your signal both through the pedals and directly to the amp), which is generally no good, or cause your sound to shut off each time you think you are bypassing the effect...

[themartin]

Buffered bypass, that's what i'm doing.

[themartin]

Just want to add that what most people think about true bypass is IMO wrong. TB doesn't always solve problems, but it does create some.

It all comes down to impedance. What if you're using 5 pedals all TB and for a song you wish to have all 5 pedals "in"............that does change your impedance, cable length and at the end your tone.

If an FX processor has a bad design then you want to use true bypass...........but on the other hand you create another problem : different cable length.

If an FX is well design and used at maximum level you shouldn't have any trouble going through it and : same cable length and impedance with whatever FX you're using.

If you guys want to learn something : seach for Pete Cornish's design.

The Martin

[Mark Hammer]

We've been through all that "Cornish stuff" already.  Some of what he has to say is spot on, and some is a little narrow in its perspective.  I do agree with both you and he that TB is not always the answer to one's pedalboard prayers.  I think for most folks, it is simply easier to implement than electronic switching.

As to how much attention needs to be paid to buffering after the first cable from guitar to pedal, assuming the first pedal has a buffered input and output always on duty, well I think there we're beginning to broach on the point of diminishing returns.  Cornish's point about how a 25ft cable, followed by a bunch of TB pedals, followed by another 25ft cable is issentially the same thing as one continuous 50ft cable between guitar and amp is absolutely correct.  Assuming at least one "waystation" between guitar and amp, though, the first cable is buffered enough to do little or no harm, and the second cable is similarly buffered.  If you play pristine clean all the time, and what you have between guitar and amp is, say, a compressor, clean booster, EQ, acoustic simulator or exciter pedal, phaser, chorus, and delay and/or reverb, all with tons of bandwidth, then maybe you might want to pay attention to additional buffering along the way.  But if you're talking humbucker and distortion as part of that equation, then I have serious reservations about whether any additional buffering would have any audible effect that would stand up to  double-/blind A-B testing.

It bears keeping in mind at all times, though, that the vast majority of "big name" commercial pedals are designed around the core assumption that the manufacturer has absolutely no idea if you have any other pedals in the signal path.  As such, their products almost invariably contain an input and output buffer that remain on and in the signal path at all times.  When they truly ARE the one and only pedal, that's a good thing.  The TB "industry" emerged, however, partly out of the sonic consequences of stringing 6 or 8 pedals in series that all contained input and output buffering, as well as the sonic consequences of using SPDT switching like many of the "vintage" pedals did.  The former tends to add a bit of hiss and manufacturing cost, as well as occasionally a slight bit of tone erosion, and the latter added tone-sucking.  Neither are desirable, especially in an increasingly digital environment that makes all such tonal crimes audible, and is less forgiving in many ways than traditional tape environments.  Simply put, the expectations are higher, and since the limits of connecting cable seem to have not been surpassed (i.e., I don't see any 3pf/ft guitar cable out there, or wholesale move to fibre-optic input/output), the emphasis has been placed on switching and buffering.

Again, I'm not disputing whether your request is useful for somebody.  However it may be overkill for your context.

[shredgd]

Buffered bypass, that's what i'm doing.

So, why not simply take those 4 pedals and connect them with short cables in a pedalboard?...

[Ben N]

Just want to add that what most people think about true bypass is IMO wrong. TB doesn't always solve problems, but it does create some.

It all comes down to impedance. What if you're using 5 pedals all TB and for a song you wish to have all 5 pedals "in"............that does change your impedance, cable length and at the end your tone.

If an FX processor has a bad design then you want to use true bypass...........but on the other hand you create another problem : different cable length.

If an FX is well design and used at maximum level you shouldn't have any trouble going through it and : same cable length and impedance with whatever FX you're using.

If you guys want to learn something : seach for Pete Cornish's design.

The Martin

You seem to be a bit star-struck with Pete Cornish--a case of a little bit of knowledge being a dangerous thing, perhaps? However, you don't seem to have fully digested his point, or enough knowledge to understand it.

Of course having five pedals "in" changes your tone--isn't that what they are there for? "Impedance" is very important, but it is about relationships, not numbers in isolation.

What you are proposing is essentially the same as having an old-fashioned SPDT MXR-style bypass on each effect, with the inputs always connected to your chain, and the switch on the outputs selecting between the effect and bypass. This will not have the effect of evening out your impedances, unless you have a very high impedance buffer on the front of each effect. That is because you are essentially making all of the effect inputs parallel paths to ground whenever they are bypassed. So, even assuming your effects are "well designed", which I assume you mean having high Z-in and low Z-out, four those high input imedances of, say 500k ohms in parallel are going to be showing your guitar an input Z of ~125k ohs--not so good. Even if each pedal has 1M input Z, the resulting total is still 200k, which will noticeably load down your pickups, UNLESS there is a very low output-Z buffer at the frot of your pedalboard. Having input and output buffers on all of your pedals (the Boss approach) means (theoreticaly, anyway) that every pedal and your amp will always see the same preceding output-Z and the same following input-Z. But that comes with a price, too, in terms of cumulative added noise and distortion.

As Mark already explained, the cable length thing only matters if you have a bunch of true byass pedals and no always-on buffer. Whenever there is any buffer or "on" effect pedal in the chain, that breaks the length in two.

Good on you for thinking "out-of-the-box". Now hook that attitude up with a little knowledge ad you'll be going places. Start here:
http://www.muzique.com/lab/imp.htm
and here:
http://www.geofex.com/Article_Folders/impednc.htm

Ben

[ADR]

http://www.muzique.com/lab/truebypass.htm

[themartin]

So i guess with all that thing going you guys seems to not be able to help me.

Beleve me, i have tried a cornish board and after that became a customer for some LD-2 and LD-1. Pete did helpme a lot with my rig. I need help figure out how to save myself from sending Pete all my rig and save..............18 000$, That's what he wanted to build my rig to my needs.

I guess i'll look else where for my needs since this seems to be a "true-bypass" forum.

So from my Gibsons through my EP-4 Echoplex then to my Tonemaster..........nothing will be true-bypass. Last week in fron of an SSL / Air 6 studio rig, we did A/B test my rig from my guitar to amp and from the guitar through my system (120' canare / mogami cabling)............almost no difference. But for the minimum lost in tone i gain maximum FX processing...........without TB the way i need it to work.

So thanks anyway for trying to help me.

So long.........

Martin

[ADR]

I think the problem with the responses that you are getting is that your question is somewhat ambiguous.

i.e. wanting to have effects 'always on.'

What you are describing later on without output only switching is a classic tone sucker scenario, but then you go on to say how truebypass is in error, etc etc.

Plenty of people here use both true bypass and buffered electronic bypass with great deal of success. Myself included. In fact, I built myself a tillman cable preamp after wanting soemthing like the cornish mini-line driver. I use some true bypass, and commercial fet-switching pedals after it, and I can use longer cable lengths, and my tone has never been better. I would certainly never dole out big cash to integrate stuff I can build myself.

But if the recommendation to go do some technical reading is not a satisfactory response, well, c'est la vie.

So i guess with all that thing going you guys seems to not be able to help me.

[Mark Hammer]

I agree with ADR.  You will find much help here, but the best help starts with a clear question.  I thought I understood what you wanted, but apparently I didn't.  Let's try again.

Are you looking for a switch that carries the audio signal itself, or something that actuates an electronic switch?

[Ben N]

Troll?