family tree(s)

[Kirk A]

Has anyone published (www or bound) a collection of "family trees" for various effect types/classes?

I am attempting to educate myself on those effects that are the consensus "best of the breed" going back to the original discrete analog designs. For instance, in the last month I've looked at phasers, and most indicators point back to early MXR units. I've recently looked at compressors, and there seem to be two camps: Ross (purportedly copied by MXR) and Dan Armstrong. (I just ordered my first new effect, a Juicer.) Looking at flangers, there seem to be strong indicators for both the early a/c MXR and the original EH Electric Mistress, and Hartman is purported to make a great (and sturdy) clone of the original Electric Mistress.

So, while some evaluation is subject to opinion, I would love to understand who/what made the pioneering designs, and those follow-ons that have been accurate exemplary clones, the improved derivatives, and the ones to avoid as well.

Basically I want a guide to the good stuff. I don't expect to build all my own gear, although I do hope to build some simple things soon.

Thanks in advance.

[CynicalMan]

You're not going to like this answer.  

There isn't a consensus. Just in the effect categories you gave, there is far more variety than you talk about. And there isn't an agreement about which ones are good and which are bad. There isn't even agreement over what "good" and "bad" mean when talking about these effects. It's a very subjective matter, and there are instances where different effects of the same class are each useful in their own right. So you can ask for opinions, but don't ask for consensus.

[jafo]

I prefer a more positive view of things -- context and intent matter. Sometimes you want a misbiased, farty, nasty fuzz. Sometimes ugly things are more beautiful than pretty things... and often it's imperfection that elevates the merely pretty into the beautiful.

On a less philosophical and more historical note, a lot of pioneering guitar fx seem to have been adaptations of studio units -- sometimes improved, sometimes not. Not many pro audio guys prefer to use a Boss compressor over an LA2A or an 1176, even if the Boss unit (a CS-3?) is optimized for guitar. Flanging is just a way to do electronically what George Martin did mechanically. The famed SHO and its derivations come from pretty standard '60s consoles.

[Kirk A]

Good point. Context matters. What is "best" for me right now may not be the same as my choices a year from now, but for starters I just want to preserve the tone between me & my MkIV.

When I asked about the family tree, my intent was to "group" -- based upon your collective expertise -- branches of the tree so that I could accelerate my learning, by sampling one member of a group and skipping the remainder. Unless, of course, I really liked the effect and wanted to delve into the details that distinguish it from its close relatives. For instance, compressors: while I chose the Armstrong design first, I may want to back-fill later with a Ross. Which Ross? I don't know yet.

For starters, Santa will deliver Analog Man's Guide to Vintage Effects (http://www.formusiciansonly.com/readmore.html), but I was hoping that the experts here could also point out some additional reference material. Just exploring these possibilities is quite a survey, let alone incorporating those that resonate with me. This will take time. I welcome your feedback along the way.

[artifus]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_unit#History

[ORK]

You`ve been here yet: http://www.effectsdatabase.com/ ?

[nexekho]

I'd like a database of guitar sounds... I'm still not sure what constitutes a "jangly" sound.

[artifus]

I'd like a database of guitar sounds... I'm still not sure what constitutes a "jangly" sound.

12 string rickenbacker byrdsian picking?

[wavley]

I'd like a database of guitar sounds... I'm still not sure what constitutes a "jangly" sound.

Don't start that again!

http://www.diystompboxes.com/smfforum/index.php?topic=79112.0

[StereoKills]

I've always been stymied as to what constitutes a "woody" sound!

[PRR]

Most of the phase-twister techniques were pioneered by Hammond in his organ and Bonham and Fender in guitar amps.

Hammond had dozens of capacitors and a rotary finger sensing their voltages. Marvelous 1930s technology.

The classic vari-center all-pass is Bonham's. US Patent 2988706. He used tubes and varistors instead of JFETs, and the cost prohibited more than a couple stages. Wouldn't fit in a pedal and didn't make sense as a stand-alone, it was built into a combo amp. The JFET implementation is much simpler (and cheaper), but it's all the same to the signal.

Fender used building-rocks: a hi-pass and a lo-pass, bias wobbled to pass more or less of each. Again all tubes. It mostly amounts to the same cake sliced different. Although the patents (2973681 is one) are very pretty, only a few models had it; simple amplitude-modulation was cheaper and made most players happy.

Until very cheap JFETs or BBDs, long shifts were only practical on tape, ala George Martin and others. So much of the "history" is not about concept but about better/cheaper chips.

> what constitutes a "jangly" sound.

Banjo.

> what constitutes a "woody" sound!

Cello.

[joegagan]

and it wasn't until the internet that the technology existed to conceive 'haunting mids'.

[joegagan]

back to a semi- serious answer.

for distortion, i see two basic food groups.

1. maestro FZ1, fuzzface and tonebenders are the roots of group 1. included are designs without feedback resistors, i include all transistor type cascading gain pedals into group 1.

2. opamp based. dist +, tubescreamer, even the rat. i put these into a separate category because of the general evolution that distortion pedals took once opamps became involved.

[Kirk A]

Thanks for the feedback.

While I'd been through the Wiki, the http://www.effectsdatabase.com/  is new to me, so I will explore that. Thank you.