ilovefuzz.com

The following is purely speculative...

I think with a reverb, having a left and right audio path doesn't matter too much because it's not an effect you'd be panning between two amps. And I doubt people whose this would want a dry out. Really, who wants a dry signal?

As for the stereo ins and outs, I think the effect loop and stereo outs would cover pretty much the same ground. I think people use stereo ins for a signal they had previously split, run through two different effect chains and then are recombining in the stereo ins to have both chains effected independently. With a stereo out RRR with an effect loop you could send your signal in, have it effected in the loop, and send that out output A, and then have the signal effected, but not put through the effect loop and send it through output B. Or something like that.

Soooo...that's a yes or no?

for me it's stereo in & stereo out. keep the L&R signals separate.

backwhenIwascool wrote:Soooo...that's a yes or no?

Reverb's the first thing in my chain...

So that's a "I think this might be an easier to build alternative for people who want stereo ins, but it doesn't apply to me because I don't run in stereo and if I did I would need a stereo trem."

futuresailors wrote:

backwhenIwascool wrote:Soooo...that's a yes or no?

Reverb's the first thing in my chain...

So that's a "I think this might be an easier to build alternative for people who want stereo ins, but it doesn't apply to me because I don't run in stereo and if I did I would need a stereo trem."

Demeter makes a stereo Tremulator! It's pretty sweet.

futuresailors wrote: and if I did I would need a stereo trem."

you hear that ryan... for the tremolo thread.

oinkbanana wrote:

futuresailors wrote: and if I did I would need a stereo trem."

you hear that ryan... for the tremolo thread.

Haha, yeah! *falls off chair*

So guys, would we agree that having two inputs and two outputs and a true stereo signal path with separate left and right channels is more for a studio kinda use or setup? Say for processing true stereo audio or instruments? Is it maybe something that 99.9% of guitar players just aren't gonna use or need? Unlike maybe a simpler second output for the simpler kind of stereo rig that most guitar players would use?

Just spit-ballin', pondering the big mysteries of life here... let's throw this out here, maybe the true stereo dual in and out idea should be saved for a rack mount studio RRR? Maybe this RRRv2 would be more guitar oriented and suited to more players if it was mono in, dual output, small box, effect loop, buffered bypass option?

Count me in. Yes.

Ps: Ryan, what do you think of my wet/dry fx loop option?

I'm only new here, but after reading this thread, I have found many people to have some kick-ass, mother-fudgin ideas - and they're all expressed with etiquette (is that the right grammar?) and with manners.


Personally, however, I can't see how having stereo would be that useful since most musicians using stereo rigs (myself included) only utilize one of the amps as the wet signal and the other as the dry, particularly regarding reverb, as it can become overwhelming otherwise. But then again, I'm maybe slightly more minimalistic than others here - says him with two / three amps.

I think that the effects loop idea is pretty spiffing. But again, reverb is reverb, sticking all manner of pedals to alter the reverberations seems like it's going too far away from the fact that it's a reverb pedal. And there is also the new addition, as I'm aware, of modulation. Really, what use would an effects loop have if modulation is already provided? I know some people had ideas regarding that, but I'm a bit confused with most of them. That's my fault, really. lol

I can't really add anything more than that, other than that I'd much prefer the larger box, since it feels more like the mother-of-all reverb pedals - that is what I gather it to be. Nothing else on the market comes close, not that I know of. It would also allow other features like buffered/true bypass, which, if done right, would be far more useful than, say, it is on my Malekko 616. But we won't go into that.

I did notice an absolutely awesome idea come from Ryan: he says that an internal switch could be provided for BOTH signals (left and right), and that they can be desiginated accordingly. That would allow for some epic atosmphere...

...Say, for instance, your distorted amp has the buffered bypass - where it doesn't matter if there is a slight "suck" of high-end - and the clean amp has an immediate cut-off point of the trails, courtesy of true-bypass. Playing some big-assed chords with both amps playing at the same time, with reverb on both, switching off the distorted amp to slow the pace of the song down with the clean amp, all while the trails of the reverb are self-oscillating (just an idea) over the distorted amp. I mean, very few people would use that, but it sounds epic to me.

Why not have a primary and secondary input?
Mono AND stereo application can be accommodated using this scheme.
Switched jacks make short-work of these tasks.

Four inputs: R-IN, L-IN, R-OUT, L-OUT
L-IN performs as primary input and as such and feeds both right and left reverb paths unless R-IN is in use.
If R-IN is being used, L-IN is switched such that signal is only sent to the left reverb path. R-IN sends signal to the right reverb path in this instance.
A simple summing/mix amplifier and switched outputs ensure one-in-one-out, one-in-two-out and two-in-two-out operation is fault-free and fool-proof.
Even two-in-one-out can be accomplished easily.

Just an idea...

do what jack says.

oinkbanana wrote:do what jack says.

No offense, but I don't see what you guys think is the solution there? There's no problem with routing the signals in and out, that's not the issue here... and that wouldn't solve what the dilemma really is. Interfacing the ins and outs isn't the issue, the circuit doesn't care if there's one or two signals going through it.

The problem is I want to use the small box, stereo in and out means stereo effect loops (8 jacks right there), means double routing for the buffered bypass option (big pain, 2xdpdt toggles), and means a way more complicated mix control (vactrols for dual channel control rather than a single pot). Those are the issues with stereo, not feeding it through the circuit.

I think the easy answer for those wanting/needing dual inputs is dual RRRv2's.

Definitely stick with non-true stereo with one signal path
I'm all for cramming every single feature possible into a pedal, but lets be realistic
Rarely have I seen guitarists with a true stereo setup
Stereos cool and sounds great, but I've never wanted to go through the trouble of moving from mono
Every board I've seen a PN-2 on is running in mono
Too much $$ and effort for a feature only a few people would use
end

Ryan wrote:No offense, but I don't see what you guys think is the solution there? There's no problem with routing the signals in and out, that's not the issue here... and that wouldn't solve what the dilemma really is. Interfacing the ins and outs isn't the issue, the circuit doesn't care if there's one or two signals going through it.

The problem is I want to use the small box, stereo in and out means stereo effect loops (8 jacks right there), means double routing for the buffered bypass option (big pain, 2xdpdt toggles), and means a way more complicated mix control (vactrols for dual channel control rather than a single pot). Those are the issues with stereo, not feeding it through the circuit.

Yeah, eight jacks is just not practical in a small enclosure, let alone the required user interface and control circuitry for such a complex design!!
I am easily excited with all this development talk. Please excuse me if I overstepped a boundary.