ilovefuzz.com

rfurtkamp wrote:I'm not sure how I'd go about it, as my favorite designers are ones I've worked with, and I only do that sporadically.

One dude who's done amazing stuff for me mostly caters to the traditionalists and blooz lawyers, but he gets where I'm coming from and that I'm not afraid to get blood on the floor.

Could care less what an enclosure looks like - I'm reverse marketing in that respect. I see fancy art and aesthetic and think to myself "I bet I'm going to pay $100 too much for this!"

But I could care less if the thing I need is made by Himalayan monks eating fair trade, free range granola or in a sweat shop in hell to be honest. I'll pay a small premium for someone I know who's doing good stuff, but....there's a limit real fast.

I'm sorry I have to say this, but that is not what this exercise is about at all. I am not talking about value vs. function, "fancy art", or who is your favorite and why (it's fine if you mention it). I am trying to get at intent, the perceived sound, and underlying themes of a company (whether or not it is subconcious or not).

I know you like Boss and rack effects. What is the Boss sound? Why do they release the pedals they do outside of marketing? Why do they choose the controls they do and not other ones? Boss is a great example of a company editing down an effect to the 2, 3, 4 or 5 essential controls and locking in a base sound a pedal. What is the Boss sound in your opinion?

As for aesthetics, it does play in as far as what controls the designer thinks are in important. The LAL 88 is a great example. One volume and one adjust with the same size knobs gives both equal value in use. The 6 switches aren't listed as certain functions...they are just six switches. So that says to me that Hirofumi wanted to have the end user experiement instead of looking for the "gate" or the "tone" switch. They all are meant to be experienced in a equal way. DBA also does stuff like this by using three similar pictures of waveforms as "controls" or one giant knob with two little knobs; the end user is going to think that the giant knob is more important to the pedals sound than the little knobs. That new waveform destroyer only has a volume on the outisde. So they are using aesthetics to illustrate their sound.

As far as rack effects go, they do the same thing. Sure some of it is function, some not. Why put some controls on the panel and some hidden in a menu with a rotary.

What is the Lexicon sound? What is the Roland sound? Did Roland and Boss's focus on style and sound change over time? Was this because of function, taste, change in designers, slowly separating company philosophies? Programming and the way Programmers choose to go at sound and create it via code is just as valid in this argument too. You can't argue that Digitech, Boss, Mr. Black, and Sonic Crayon all have the same sound with their code, choice of hardware, and form factor. I want descriptions of what their lines sound like as a whole.

I really don't care about the surrounding circumstances for this exercise...just a concise description of a builder/designer/company's sound.

And we already knew your opinion on all that you mentioned anyway...I actually respect your opinion on corporate-made effects and on the use of racks, rfurtkamp...I wish you would use it more contructively sometimes. It is amazing that you have the experiences so that you can have that knowledge, but not everyone does but getting in stuck with the us vs. them, this is more valid than that can be a very slippery slope and does get old (even if the intentions are good). What works for one doesn't work for everyone.

Thanks.

I will make some contributions to this thread when I've got some time. Interesting thread.

"I know you like Boss and rack effects. What is the Boss sound? Why do they release the pedals they do outside of marketing? Why do they choose the controls they do and not other ones? Boss is a great example of a company editing down an effect to the 2, 3, 4 or 5 essential controls and locking in a base sound a pedal. What is the Boss sound in your opinion?"

Given 30-some years of stuff, I'd have to take it down to the original stuff and then the late 80s and beyond. Original stuff was "anything goes we can shove in a pedal", later was "usable and reliable" in general.

Controls they're choosing are function over form most of the time - realistically the basic adjustable stuff is there, and the rest isn't. The lack of massive mods or circuit rebuilds on most of it highlights the 'this is basically what this does' in a nutshell. The oddities in their line are usually because the pedal only has a few useful sounds (the Dimension stuff coming to mind straightaway), and they're locked in. Most of that can realistically be tied to production costs long before they worried about "do guitarists only want six knobs, or just three?" - if it costs more and doesn't add anything, it's purely pragmatic.

As far as the Lexicon sound, it's that there isn't one. There's so many variations on a theme, but the classic stuff is all time-based. But comparing a PCM42 to a Vortex, or some basic PA reverb...doesn't really end up somewhere meaningful.

Roland has always been after the mass market, they're economy of scale to a point where there's no other realistic choice. If anything, their change has been market driven - as the market started chasing only wanting classic sounds en masse, that's what they've done as well. When it wanted new fresh weird, they got it - but those days were three decades ago or more.

That said, there's really no central theme on most of these long-term companies or even on some of the boutique guys - it's 'what sells to their market' as the dividing force, I'm not sure that trying to intepret more than that ends up in meaningful places. Sometimes when I see boutique noisemakers with nebulous descriptions and dials, it seems to be because the maker doesn't know what to call it either!

I'm pleased to see you couldn't sum up my opinion concisely if you knew it, FWIW.

rfurtkamp wrote:"I know you like Boss and rack effects. What is the Boss sound? Why do they release the pedals they do outside of marketing? Why do they choose the controls they do and not other ones? Boss is a great example of a company editing down an effect to the 2, 3, 4 or 5 essential controls and locking in a base sound a pedal. What is the Boss sound in your opinion?"

Given 30-some years of stuff, I'd have to take it down to the original stuff and then the late 80s and beyond. Original stuff was "anything goes we can shove in a pedal", later was "usable and reliable" in general.

Controls they're choosing are function over form most of the time - realistically the basic adjustable stuff is there, and the rest isn't. The lack of massive mods or circuit rebuilds on most of it highlights the 'this is basically what this does' in a nutshell. The oddities in their line are usually because the pedal only has a few useful sounds (the Dimension stuff coming to mind straightaway), and they're locked in. Most of that can realistically be tied to production costs long before they worried about "do guitarists only want six knobs, or just three?" - if it costs more and doesn't add anything, it's purely pragmatic.

As far as the Lexicon sound, it's that there isn't one. There's so many variations on a theme, but the classic stuff is all time-based. But comparing a PCM42 to a Vortex, or some basic PA reverb...doesn't really end up somewhere meaningful.

Roland has always been after the mass market, they're economy of scale to a point where there's no other realistic choice. If anything, their change has been market driven - as the market started chasing only wanting classic sounds en masse, that's what they've done as well. When it wanted new fresh weird, they got it - but those days were three decades ago or more.

That said, there's really no central theme on most of these long-term companies or even on some of the boutique guys - it's 'what sells to their market' as the dividing force, I'm not sure that trying to intepret more than that ends up in meaningful places. Sometimes when I see boutique noisemakers with nebulous descriptions and dials, it seems to be because the maker doesn't know what to call it either!

I'm pleased to see you couldn't sum up my opinion concisely if you knew it, FWIW.

This is good criticism of a company's philosphy and leads to what their failures and success where via equipment. It may help to describe "moutains and valleys" in the market with the larger manufacturers and why sometimes they loose focus on their market. The Lexicon comments are very interesting.

That is all I am looking for and your original comment wasn't really delving into the topic is all. I'm just glad that you gave an opinion beyond one that just's purely user side.

I'm not about putting words in people's mouth or assuming I know their views. That is why I asked. FWIW.

Other thing is the assumption on the rack stuff is usually off, especially on the classic era stuff.

It's extreme form meets function - the knobs are there on a Quadraverb (versus the LCD control stuff) because the I/O circuits are analog. Each pot controls something not part of the digital circuit IIRC.

Lexicon's later stuff is all about 'how many units can we put in this single drilled rack enclosure' - see Alex, Vortex, etc.

We didn't see rack units with functional controls with thought until the limited resurgence of the early 2000s with bigger LCD displays and manufacturers chasing people scared of menus became a real thing.

rfurtkamp wrote:Other thing is the assumption on the rack stuff is usually off, especially on the classic era stuff.

My assumption of the general public assumption?

I don't really think I have any assumption about them other than they are racks (which was a form factor I didn't like lugging around...even though we did for a while in the mid-2000s)

Seppuku FX: 70's fuzzes and dying and/or intoxicated robots. Very sensitive to dynamic playing and is interested in how input effects the circuitry. With very few exceptions (like the Digitizer), the pedals seem to ask for you to experiment with what you put in front of them to a bigger extent than most other pedals I've played.

lordgalvar wrote:

rfurtkamp wrote:Other thing is the assumption on the rack stuff is usually off, especially on the classic era stuff.

My assumption of the general public assumption?

I don't really think I have any assumption about them other than they are racks (which was a form factor I didn't like lugging around...even though we did for a while in the mid-2000s)

"Sure some of it is function, some not. Why put some controls on the panel and some hidden in a menu with a rotary."

Answered that directly above. There's a lot of non-digi-controlled parts of those early units.

That was refering to specific philosphopies of companies and design choices of certain effects; of course not all racks are the same or digital. There are mechanical (tape machines), analog, and digital. It was just a generalized question. Some companies also go with digital control of analog components.

I'm pleased to see that I have offered a complex way to look at musical equipment that challenges some generalized perceptions of companies and creates debate.

Seppuku is an interesting one UC. I can't quite centralize my thoughts on Rhys's stuff yet.

Until now, I have never had an opportunity to judge on more pedals of the same builder I think... Now with the pedals I have in stock, I can
I can certainly see certain "patterns" of thinking with certain builders. The aesthetic itself is also an important thing, but not always very consistent one.

Devi Ever pedals are sort a statement based on being pretty straightforward in both graphic and sound design. They do their thing, this is the look, the controls are simple, it can sound fucked up. Deal with it.

Fuzzhugger seems all about pretty graphic designs and being easy to dial in at first, then getting deeper and unveiling the world of sounds hidden. They can be described as tweakable, but also simple to get sounding really good at the same time. And the look is incredibly inspiring, which for me is quite important.

SS/BS, especially the graphic line I have, are sort of slick and sharp looking, but you immediately feel like there's more underneath. Like that bad dude you see in your neighborhood who looks rough, but can surprise you in various ways and is actually a really good guy. They make you feel like you have some serious tools on your hand and they might be some of the most versatile pedals I've ever played - and once you spend some time with them, you know you can rely on them. Just like a great piece of hardware no offense meant

Industrialectric is even more tool-like. It's like a project, an old guitar you bought at a thrift store or an old house you want to renovate. At first they're confusing and a bit unfriendly, but until you know it, you've spent hours having fun and accepting their quirks and making them work. Scratch that about the guitar and the house - they're actually a lot like my girlfriend

oh and I have owned Dr.Sci Elements, Tremolessence and Frazz (also played a BitQuest for a while) and those are sort of liiiiike... Some crazy artifact toys made by a genius but mad scientist for his kids. When you look at them, you don't know what to expect at all and they always feel like an adventure

Amazing reviews that capture some real character across the lines of effects. I really thank you for joining in the conversation because you've got a really unique situation to be able to see this from a big picture. Some great, descriptive metaphors in there that really illustrate some unique things about some diverse companies.

Thanks DarkAxel!

Acid Age/Earthbound Audio: Pedals designed to feel heavy as much as sound it. The dude who builds them has a really solid grasp on what frequencies hit you in the chest most it seems, all of his circuits feel geared towards producing sludge.

Seppuku FX

• via experiences with Repeater (2 different ones), Kompakt Kassette (2 different ones), Mind Warp, IC Water (1-knob), DLFO, Memory Loss (2 Versions), Octave Drone, DPM-2
  
  It is like listening/watching to the prototyping process through circuit bending and releasing version of the process as separate entities. The sounds are chirpy, saturated, randomized, bent and sometimes oddly standardized...but varied by whim of design and skill. It is like forcing some common part to do something uncommon as far as it can be pushed with a fluid, conantly-in-flux building model (even risking the reliability of the equipment). The warped graphics, varied knobs, unlisted controls, and one-off variations lead my thoughts to broken common equipment. It's almost like a electronic representation of psychedelic...like if somebody only took into account the ideas of psychedelic but not the function (I think that kind of makes sense).

lordgalvar wrote:Seppuku FX

• It is like listening/watching to the prototyping process through circuit bending and releasing version of the process as separate entities. The sounds are chirpy, saturated, randomized, bent and sometimes oddly standardized...but varied by whim of design and skill. It is like forcing some common part to do something uncommon as far as it can be pushed with a fluid, conantly-in-flux building model (even risking the reliability of the equipment). The warped graphics, varied knobs, unlisted controls, and one-off variations lead my thoughts to broken common equipment.

Couple this with my input comment (+70's fuzz sounds) and you've basically covered it. Very well put!

Also, I miss Rhys again after reading that.

Oh yea! I meant to put that 70's fuzz thing in there some how! That's why this is a group effort haha! Thanks UC!

Actually just saw your edit. I think you are spot on! haha. I also forgot to reference the dynamics!

Seppuku is a tough one...because chaos is every where with that stuff.