A thickening, not-chorusy chorus. Suggestions?

[nevada]

That Deluxe Electric Mistress clone is very attractive. I think I'm interested in that.

[friendship]

Yeah same. Thanks for the recommendation! Time to pinch the ass of all pennies I encounter.

[friendship]

In a related mater, does anyone know a good clone of the Electric Mistress? EHX's noise and reliability problems make me nervous about getting the real thing, but I need that god damn sound.

I had the newer Stereo Electric Mistress and absolutely loved it. No QC problems on that one that I've heard about, and I didn't hear any noise on it at all.

Oh yeah? I had heard bad things about it, but you never know when people are just being reactionary because it's new-and-improved (re: a violation of the Geneva Convention to guitarists).

[bigchiefbc]

In a related mater, does anyone know a good clone of the Electric Mistress? EHX's noise and reliability problems make me nervous about getting the real thing, but I need that god damn sound.

I had the newer Stereo Electric Mistress and absolutely loved it. No QC problems on that one that I've heard about, and I didn't hear any noise on it at all.

Oh yeah? I had heard bad things about it, but you never know when people are just being reactionary because it's new-and-improved (re: a violation of the Geneva Convention to guitarists).

I find that the worship of 70s era EHX and the hatred of all newer EHX versions of the same damned circuit are seldom based on actual sonic differences and more based on faulty memories and bullshit ideas like "mojo"

[friendship]

In a related mater, does anyone know a good clone of the Electric Mistress? EHX's noise and reliability problems make me nervous about getting the real thing, but I need that god damn sound.

I had the newer Stereo Electric Mistress and absolutely loved it. No QC problems on that one that I've heard about, and I didn't hear any noise on it at all.

Oh yeah? I had heard bad things about it, but you never know when people are just being reactionary because it's new-and-improved (re: a violation of the Geneva Convention to guitarists).

I find that the worship of 70s era EHX and the hatred of all newer EHX versions of the same damned circuit are seldom based on actual sonic differences and more based on faulty memories and bullshit ideas like "mojo"

Respect. When i was a teenager, Russian Muffs were dirt cheap and plentiful and everyone pined for the original NYC one. As soon as those were reissued, however, suddenly the Russian Muffs were the best things ever. I can't take that kind of shit seriously. It's especially funny to me that the word mojo is used to describe this, because what's being invoked really is magical thinking, wherein an object is valuable for intangible reasons (i.e. superficial at best, nonexistent at worst).

Anyway to the point, is it close enough to the same circuit? I notice the control layouts are different, does the Stereo still have the filter matrix setting? Tell me more, friend!

[bigchiefbc]

In a related mater, does anyone know a good clone of the Electric Mistress? EHX's noise and reliability problems make me nervous about getting the real thing, but I need that god damn sound.

I had the newer Stereo Electric Mistress and absolutely loved it. No QC problems on that one that I've heard about, and I didn't hear any noise on it at all.

Oh yeah? I had heard bad things about it, but you never know when people are just being reactionary because it's new-and-improved (re: a violation of the Geneva Convention to guitarists).

I find that the worship of 70s era EHX and the hatred of all newer EHX versions of the same damned circuit are seldom based on actual sonic differences and more based on faulty memories and bullshit ideas like "mojo"

Respect. When i was a teenager, Russian Muffs were dirt cheap and plentiful and everyone pined for the original NYC one. As soon as those were reissued, however, suddenly the Russian Muffs were the best things ever. I can't take that kind of shit seriously. It's especially funny to me that the word mojo is used to describe this, because what's being invoked really is magical thinking, wherein an object is valuable for intangible reasons (i.e. superficial at best, nonexistent at worst).

Anyway to the point, is it close enough to the same circuit? I notice the control layouts are different, does the Stereo still have the filter matrix setting? Tell me more, friend!

Yes, the SEM still has the filter matrix, I used it all the time. When the rate knob is below 11:00 or so, it disables the LFO and that knob controls the frequency of the filter matrix. It's most prominent when the Flanger Depth knob is most of the way up. And then when you turn the rate knob above 11:00 or so, the LFO kicks in and it starts sweeping. It's a pretty cool pedal.

[rustywire]

In a related mater, does anyone know a good clone of the Electric Mistress? EHX's noise and reliability problems make me nervous about getting the real thing, but I need that god damn sound.

I had the newer Stereo Electric Mistress and absolutely loved it. No QC problems on that one that I've heard about, and I didn't hear any noise on it at all.

Oh yeah? I had heard bad things about it, but you never know when people are just being reactionary because it's new-and-improved (re: a violation of the Geneva Convention to guitarists).

I find that the worship of 70s era EHX and the hatred of all newer EHX versions of the same damned circuit are seldom based on actual sonic differences and more based on faulty memories and bullshit ideas like "mojo"

Respect. When i was a teenager, Russian Muffs were dirt cheap and plentiful and everyone pined for the original NYC one. As soon as those were reissued, however, suddenly the Russian Muffs were the best things ever. I can't take that kind of shit seriously. It's especially funny to me that the word mojo is used to describe this, because what's being invoked really is magical thinking, wherein an object is valuable for intangible reasons (i.e. superficial at best, nonexistent at worst).

Anyway to the point, is it close enough to the same circuit? I notice the control layouts are different, does the Stereo still have the filter matrix setting? Tell me more, friend!

OK fellas...that's just like, your opinion man-dude.jpg.
But honestly, I hope more people adopt it so I can score killer deals in hunting for the vintage gems I adore.

Just out of curiosity, which 70s/80s EHX pedals have you guys owned & compared to the reissues that lead you to this conclusion?

I'm obviously biased here, using a variety of vintage pieces I cherish like chirren.
So excuse me while I indulge in discussing the legacy that helped make them possible, all wound up from them football games.


Pre-bankruptcy EHX are known for variation between pedals assembled within hours of each other. This isn't hocus-pocus or belief.
The 70s/80s pedals weren't above defect and lemons, but they have well documented variety in sound.
Sometimes a 1974 Muff (Ram's Head) has usable settings across all 3 knob sweeps in your main guitar rig, but adding a 2nd 1974 Ram's Head Muff sounds unusable in the same rig, somehow meshes perfectly with your bass rig.
Is such a scenario impossible to conceive if it has not been observed firsthand? The gear in question doesn't necessarily have to be *vintage* to experience this phenomena.
Just because 2 circuits have the same schematic on paper doesn't mean they will sound identical when built.

Using different raw materials yields different results. This is a fact and well documented.

If you're skeptical, I encourage you to search for the Bell Labs and Western Electric reports from the early 20th century, readily found in PDF disseminated around the internet.
Big bucks were spent studying electromagnetism and its applications for audio equipment and military contracts. Wire, capacitors, pots, switches, transistors, transformers and diodes have their own physical characteristics dependent on the raw materials that were used. Alloys, impurities, insulation etc are dynamic variables.
Everything from component choice to layout and enclosure have inherent potential to influence the end result. Matching values through different combinations can change everything you love or hate. This becomes more apparent in circuits with fewer components, as each part makes up a bigger end-share.

Handmade products are unique by design...but all tangible products are technically unique as matter cannot occupy 2 spots at once.
If it's analog, there's deviation, which ranges from glaring to imperceivable.
When following a rigid design formula (as applied in mass production, now the M.O. of EHX) the room for deviation is greatly reduced. This method is by design. Obviously enough consumers prioritize the old Howard Johnson steak model of uniformity to keep EHX so successful and popular. For a while I resented the direction the company has taken, because I value experimentation. But I guess what EHX is doing is just another form of experimentation, so I can dig it. Even while preferring the old stuff, I've wanted a Superego for a year now. But they're much easier to come by than the "originals" so it keeps falling in priority.

Anyway...TL;DR. Here's the condensed version:

When someone says these things do not make a difference...I assume it's either out of ignorance or an inability to identify and hear subtle change.
But yeah...there are plenty of people who think they can hear what isn't there...and lots of cavalier attitude along the lines of "MORE TUBES = BETTER" "TUBES IN EVERYTHING!" "OLD MEANS THERE IS MOJO" similar platitudes so on and so forth.
I think Mojo can mean true synergy between user and gear. Some pedals have "it" for some users, while others are unable to get anywhere close to recreating and repeating the results. Fools and/or dummies believe in magic boxes, but some boxes sound magical in certain rigs. It's up to you to find them.

[bigchiefbc]

I'm certainly not discounting your experience at all, if the old pedals do it for you, go nuts. But personally, I couldn't stand that sort of variation in a consumer product. When I buy a product, I expect a certain level of consistency between same models so that the reviews I read match the product I get when I buy one. The idea that I could play (for instance) my buddy's Big Muff and it rocks, then I buy my own, made literally days apart in the same office and get a completely different sound makes my face crawl.

As for my own experience, I've played a late 70s version of the BMS, clone theory, electric mistress and polyphase, and found them reasonably close to the newer ones. I'm sure there are subtle differences, but they were too subtle to me.

[rustywire]

Different strokes...
And that's just it. The idea of homogenous gear, playing and sonic conformity makes my flesh crawl.
The goal of consistency (as you define it) seems to be a losing battle in the analog world.
If consistency is your primary concern, then going digital may be your best bet.

Consistency in sound is unappealing to me, unless we're talking about consistently sounding good.
And for me, consistently sounding good means keeping things interesting, ambiguous and unpredictable. But yeah, reliable. Def reliable.

I don't view musical instruments and gear as consumer products, even the cheap stuff. I consider them tools like chisels; art supplies.
It's up to the user to envision and reveal what's inside the proverbial block of limestone.

Variety is the spice of life.

[goroth]

Scruffie made an awesome post somewhere about ehx and parts variation. Will try and find it when not on the mobile phone.

[Deltaphoenix]

Iron Ether Polytope, it's better than EHX by far.

[DarkAxel]

the SEM is digital and that'S obviously a huge difference (that might explain the lack of noise though). To me, it had some cool sounds, but i'd probably not buy it for the traditional Mistress sound

and i absolutely hate the Filter Matrix occupating the lower rate positions... takes a lot of the speed variation away, too much for me

heard good things about the Mooer Electric Lady or whatever it's called... but beware. Mistresses sound very liquid to me and i'm not sure if that's what the OP is after

[friendship]

Variety is the spice of life.

Oh, to be clear on the point I was trying to make: I'm not arguing that variations and differences don't exist in the older pedals. I think the adulation many people attribute to them has lest to do with those real differences and more to do with what's in fashion. Things regarded as terrible become sought-after, and back to terrible, and so on. They aren't suddenly becoming better or worse, it's just, like, PERCEPTION of your MIND.

[zRobertez]

A few pages back but the Sea Machine is really cool. I just didn't super jive with it when I had but I had a feeling if a had one now, a couple years later, I would probably be in love.

[goroth]

Scruffie made an awesome post somewhere about ehx and parts variation. Will try and find it when not on the mobile phone.

Found it.

EHX really isn't as bad as people say component choice wise from what i've seen (which is a lot) they did all use the right values not just 'that'll do' it's just component tolerances were a lot worse back then unless you paid a lot more for parts (this was when the difference was a lot larger than it is today) and EHX has always been about value for musicians... the Small Stone being their big seller back in the day as it offered 4 stage phasing cheaply at a time phasers weren't so cheap to make. If I built 10 big muffs out of cheap Tayda parts today with ceramic caps and carbon comp resistors i'd expect each to still sound different by +/-20% (the tolerance of the caps). If it counted you can be sure they used the right value, on many schematics important values are annotated with specific tolerance values which from any pedal i've seen, they stuck to. I think pretty much any vintage effect suffered from this, only the Japanese companies really had tighter controls for obvious reasons which is when 2 units sounding the same started to come about.

One of the big reasons for different tones is also the amount of redesigns they used to do but in the same boxes with the same names.