ilovefuzz.com

jrfox92 wrote:Ah, found it.
viewtopic.php?f=149&t=47574&hilit=glitch&start=195

Also, FWIW, for $180 I'd take a chance on this, morals be damned.

Pretty hard to lean on the morals anyway. Cooper FX is criticizing the dude and at the end of the sentence says he did the same thing

To be fair though the Generation Loss is a much better looking pedal

whoismarykelly wrote:Pretty hard to lean on the morals anyway. Cooper FX is criticizing the dude and at the end of the sentence says he did the same thing

To be fair though the Generation Loss is a much better looking pedal

IIRC, Teej got permission.
I think whoever originally made the Greenwood patch actually helped him with coding the GenLoss, too (I'm not spending half an hour searching for a source on this, though ).
Also, it was never used as a selling point.
That mode was generally unknown until maybe a year or two later.

whoismarykelly wrote:Sonic Crayon ... AntiNautilus

The True King of Gear

Also, I like this demo but don't see this doing anything that a Charlie Foxtrot can't do?

yes but i never claimed to have made it, never marketed the pedal as having that mode (in fact for a a few months asked people not to mention it as I didnt want others to think it would be a permanent feature), and I never put it on the future releases.

the only reason it was on that first batch of gen loss was cause I had made a mistake on the pcb and hooked the internal compression switch up to the wrong fv1. Instead of leaving the second program slot empty I decided to put one from the forums on there that was fun to play with.

edit after seeing jrfox's post:

no permission, its just on the forums, and that stuff is free game. I would never sell anything I pulled from the forums. and no I didnt get anyone to code the gen loss programs

oscillofuzz wrote:

whoismarykelly wrote:Sonic Crayon ... AntiNautilus

The True King of Gear

Also, I like this demo but don't see this doing anything that a Charlie Foxtrot can't do?

The CF always feels much more rhythmic and electronic to me although you can set all the knobs to random and then the rhythm goes away. It has a different tone to it than any of the other glitch pedals on the market. Its also much easier to set it up for consistent results if you're writing a glitch part you want to be repeatable.

whoismarykelly wrote:Its also much easier to set it up for consistent results if you're writing a glitch part you want to be repeatable.

D'you mean the CF or the Feral/Mini Glitch? My experience with the CF is that it indeed can do reproducable sounds quite well(on the contrary to the Possessed for example). The only thing I feel the CF is lacking is that it has no hold function on the footswitch like the Bananana Mandala; you have to predetermine the duration of your glitch-out with the knob and then that's that.

oscillofuzz wrote:

whoismarykelly wrote:Its also much easier to set it up for consistent results if you're writing a glitch part you want to be repeatable.

D'you mean the CF or the Feral/Mini Glitch? My experience with the CF is that it indeed can do reproducable sounds quite well(on the contrary to the Possessed for example). The only thing I feel the CF is lacking is that it has no hold function on the footswitch like the Bananana Mandala; you have to predetermine the duration of your glitch-out with the knob and then that's that.

I ordered the Mini Glitch but wont have it till march so Ill report on it then. I use the CF very different from my momentary glitch pedals. Its more like a hybrid sequencer modulation pedal and I write riffs that go with its pulse and rhythm. I would love to see a CF deluxe with tap tempo and a bit more flexibility over how the controls work.

Hello all! Someone mentioned learning about our new pedal on this forum, so I thought I’d take a look. I browse this forum from time to time, and it’s really cool to see our pedal get attention here

I definitely don’t mind any name mangling haha. It’s a pun based on one of Radiohead’s album titles, and I’ll admit that it doesn’t translate well outside of those circles…



As for the code on the pedal,
I want to be clear: the code for the original Feral Glitch pedal was written entirely from scratch, using basic SpinAsm Instructions. I basically just used the PDF’s, Knowledge Base, and Support Forums to teach me the syntax of the FV1, and tried to adapt a program I’d written in Max/MSP. The documentation isn’t as centralized at that provided by Cycling74, but it’s still plenty to teach you how to program an FV1 if you already understand the basics of assembler-based DSP. My original Max program used a button to turn glitching on and off, switching to a new delay time each time the button is pressed, and that's what I emulated in the original Feral Glitch.

Based on its clicky sound, I’m sure the Raptio and Mandala use similar code to the original Feral Glitch simply because of how one programs a looping buffer on the FV1. However, I’ve never played either of those pedals – I’ve only seen videos. I think that it’s similar to accusing someone of copying because they used an op-amp buffer, rather than devising a new type of buffer.

The only thing that I considered totally unique for a pedal about the original Feral Glitch was my implementation of a controlled-random buffer size (well, that and my method of switching between latching and momentary function in the code itself, rather than in the hardware).

After I’d learned to program the FV1, I will admit that I took a look at the workings of slacker’s “greenwood” code. But to be honest, I’d already encountered the random technique that it uses, and disliked the results when I tried it. It generates a “random” number by amplifying the input – this was originally frank’s idea. Since that number is always based on the input – your playing – so you get inconsistent results based on what you use it with. It may make it extra random, but it also means that it won’t work properly with some inputs. (Tbh, I’m not sure why slacker didn’t use the unused right input to feed the random instead, since that would give a more consistent result. But I didn't like the results from that either...)

I devised my own technique – based on experiments in Max/MSP – for generating suitable values for controlling the buffer, one independent of the input. That’s why I felt comfortable calling it “unique”. (And no, it isn’t frank OR jack's LFSR programs.)



Personally, I try to be pretty careful about the ethics of the gear I use, avoiding JHS (like the plague since the Hyp*rion), Synthrotek, Danelectro, Malekko, stuff made by WMI, Samick, or Cort for other brands, etc...
As such, I think it’s very fair to question whether similar FV1 effects use the same code.
However, in designing the Feral Glitch, I took the time to learn the syntax of SpinAsm, and built my own programs from the ground up based on my work in Max/MSP.

I hope that this clears things up, and I'll be happy to answer any questions!

-David

thekingofgear wrote:
I definitely don’t mind any name mangling haha.

Are you sure about that?

How well it does it handle low bass tunings and large amounts of gain/volume boost at the input? Also gated signals?

BoatRich wrote:How well it does it handle low bass tunings and large amounts of gain/volume boost at the input? Also gated signals?

^^^^^^^^^ This, I went through both a Raptio and a Possesed because they all couldn't handle my low end.

thekingofgear wrote:As for the code on the pedal,
I want to be clear: the code for the original Feral Glitch pedal was written entirely from scratch, using basic SpinAsm Instructions.

Nice to hear from the horse's mouth.

Chankgeez wrote:

thekingofgear wrote:
I definitely don’t mind any name mangling haha.

Are you sure about that?

As long as the mangling is accurate to the speaker's intentions, and it effectively communicates, where's the harm? hahaha

Inconuucl wrote:

BoatRich wrote:How well it does it handle low bass tunings and large amounts of gain/volume boost at the input? Also gated signals?

^^^^^^^^^ This, I went through both a Raptio and a Possesed because they all couldn't handle my low end.

The effect itself shouldn't clip with normal playing, even if you play hard, and that's true for bass-heavy or treble-heavy instruments. However, hitting the input with between 9db and 12db of boost, especially when you play multiple notes at once, can result in clipping. The effect clips consistently when I hit it with a Dr Scientist The Elements set for maximum boost (the loudest it'll go without any distortion from the effect itself), but that clips most things. And of course, you can get some very cool sounds by forcing it to clip. But for "optimal" performance, I'd recommend sticking it before your dirt pedals.

It works well with a guitar tuned to C-standard, and even sounds good with bass guitar, although as with any "looper" it can get muddy if you try layering stuff on the low strings. Overall, there's good retention of bass content. I get a consistently flat response down to E2, or ~80Hz, but there is some roll-off of sub-bass on notes lower than that. It's not a heavy high-pass on the subs or anything – they're still present, just a little quieter than in the original signal. Overall, I think this helps prevent muddy-ness, which is why I had a high-pass filter for the effected signal on the original Feral Glitch pedal. Also, when the effect clips, it compresses and loses a lot of low-end.

Haven't been able to test it with any gated playing. Are there some common interaction issues with gated signals?

jrfox92 wrote:

thekingofgear wrote:As for the code on the pedal,
I want to be clear: the code for the original Feral Glitch pedal was written entirely from scratch, using basic SpinAsm Instructions.

Nice to hear from the horse's mouth.

I've installed a small signal pad on the front end of FV1 pedals in the past because they would clip raggedly on hard transients. But usually with a stutter effect I want it to be as jarring as possible.

Man ..this would pair so nicely with me possessed/revolvers, great work!