ilovefuzz.com

D.o.S. wrote:

jrfox92 wrote:I really hope they're actually working on re-releasing the XP series.
I know there's been a few rumors, but I want something concrete, dammit!

Well you just got a "some day" from one of the Digitech Boiz himself, so...

I should clarify that my personal opinions should not be taken as indications about what's actually being developed. 'Someday' just means I really really really really REALLY want to make it happen.

I still think it's funny that Digitech built the quintessential ILF pedal nearly a decade before ILF existed.
You guys definitely have to release an XP-1000/all. They'd probably end up being sold out 99% of the time just because of all the ILFers out there.

I would definitely get a digitech xp-all reissue, if the price was right, and sit it next to my Timebender and be basically content on pedals forever.

anyone gone w/ two mono reverbs after something else stereo / a splitter instead of one stereo?
i'm going to be running to two separate amps, maybe that's a better way to go anyway...

if so what've you chosen to use?

HighDeaf1080p wrote:I don't want to hijack, but when recording a stereo effect like this, would you take your two outputs, and pan them hard right and hard left,

Yep. Can adjust if the mix calls for it but that's the normal process

I use a dual mono reverb setup; after a stereo Ibanez TC10 chorus it's Ghost Echo on left amp, IE Nimbus on right (main) amp. I like it because it gives the reverb more complexity/versatility, and with the Nimbus' controls I can have one amp completely wet, or have a delay on the right side plus turn up the Ghost so there's this hazy ping-pong-ish slapback effect. I'm actually thinking about adding a third amp and 'verb... go full 3D.

pd~ wrote:

D.o.S. wrote:

jrfox92 wrote:I really hope they're actually working on re-releasing the XP series.
I know there's been a few rumors, but I want something concrete, dammit!

Well you just got a "some day" from one of the Digitech Boiz himself, so...

I should clarify that my personal opinions should not be taken as indications about what's actually being developed. 'Someday' just means I really really really really REALLY want to make it happen.

My personal opinions, on the other hand, are absolutely an indication of what's actually being developed, so I look forward to the five Death Metals daisychained into an XP-400 to be launched in Q3.

So it has been spoken so it shall be.

space6oy wrote:anyone gone w/ two mono reverbs after something else stereo / a splitter instead of one stereo?
i'm going to be running to two separate amps, maybe that's a better way to go anyway...
if so what've you chosen to use?

i play with a wide split amp setup. i usually go through several reverbs (in mono, though some are stereo) and then use a chorus pedal to split the signal. i don't think using a stereo reverb (in my situation) is necessary, as the sound washes and moves because of the spread and the different tones of the amps. lately i've been using a dispatch master, ghost disaster, blue sky, rv-5, and rv-6, often all at the same time. i think any reverb will do--i've never met one i didn't like. here is an example:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pM0r_vDaSwQ[/youtube]

Also, before looking at any stereo unit, check does it sum the signal coming in or is it true stereo?

There's a lot of summed units out there.

It doesn't mean they won't sound good, just that if you feed it stereo, it gets summed to mono before getting hit with a stereo verb algo.

Which makes me sad, it ruins all if the Nemesis ping pong goodness.

rfurtkamp wrote:Also, before looking at any stereo unit, check does it sum the signal coming in or is it true stereo?

There's a lot of summed units out there.

It doesn't mean they won't sound good, just that if you feed it stereo, it gets summed to mono before getting hit with a stereo verb algo.

thanks for the heads up on this.

HighDeaf1080p wrote:I don't want to hijack, but when recording a stereo effect like this, would you take your two outputs, and pan them hard right and hard left, or do they have phase cancellation that takes care of that, so you leave them both unpanned at center?

You'd still have to pan them hard left and right (or soft left and right). Each channel of the reverb only outputs a mono track, so having both unpanned at center will just result in two slightly different versions of the same thing getting stacked in the center.

if you're going for a *normal* reverb sound, I really like the old tube Trex Room-Mates. the v1's have a great plate setting. they won't do crazy washes though if you want extreme reverb fx. I like neunaber for that stuff.

also, if your amps have multiple inputs and channels (e.g., fenders) you can get some nice results by running the reverb in parallel with the dry signal. e.g., guitar > channel 1 > parallel dry guitar (either via a splitter or running a line out of the second jack on a fender channel) > reverb (100% wet) > channel 2. If you're running stereo (or dual mono) you can run the second reverb signal to the other amp. if you want to take it a step farther, with two fenders you can divide your signal among the four channels into dry, delay (wet-only), reverb L (wet only), reverb R (wet only).

i find having a dry only channel gives you better control of the overall mix and keeps you from getting buried in the wash.