ilovefuzz.com

what say you?

Most likely not...and for the cost to make it it might still be cheaper to buy it form EHX.

bronzetalon wrote:Most likely not...and for the cost to make it it might still be cheaper to buy it form EHX.

+1. EHX is usually worth the price tag.

guess ill start looking for one!, thanks.


next question, POG or POG2?

SpaceFlunky wrote:guess ill start looking for one!, thanks.


next question, POG or POG2?

POG2, because MicroPOG is not true bypass and won't work before a fuzz.
I sold mine because of that. Don't know if POG2 is better but it's true bypass from what I heard.

I wish some builder here, create an improve version of the MicroPOG.

sylnau wrote:

SpaceFlunky wrote:guess ill start looking for one!, thanks.


next question, POG or POG2?

POG2, because MicroPOG is not true bypass and won't work before a fuzz.
I sold mine because of that. Don't know if POG2 is better but it's true bypass from what I heard.

I wish some builder here, create an improve version of the MicroPOG.

You can have a Micro Pog true bypassed with a 4PDT switch.

There's also just the having the Micro Pog after your fuzz.

I can confidently say, a builder here is never going to release an improved version of the Micro Pog, there's some high power digital stuff going on in there.
Closest I can think of is the Z.Cat Pedals but that wont track chords like a Pog.

The Pog 2 is most likely better at tracking and a better sound but from demos I always preffered the rawer tone of the originals

what about POG2 or big box POG?

bronzetalon wrote:Most likely not...and for the cost to make it it might still be cheaper to buy it form EHX.

Boutique POG would be like $2000

SpaceFlunky wrote:what about POG2 or big box POG?

I've owned both - the big box POG had something uniquely aggressive about its octave up... I can't quite describe it... something a little "rawer" or "clankier" than the POG2, but the POG2 has so much more tonal control, and control over attack, detune, overall Q, what parameters get assigned to what signal (for example, you can control attack delay on your effected signal AND/OR clean signal with the POG2 if you want) - I'd never go back to the big box, personally.

The octave down is very good... but I'm I the only one who find that the octave up sound like a cheap keyboard?

sylnau wrote:The octave down is very good... but I'm I the only one who find that the octave up sound like a cheap keyboard?

octave up will almost always sound more "cheesy" or "fake" or "lofi". its just how it goes. in order to playback the same 'waveform' twice as fast (octave up) on a digital system with a fixed sampling rate, it just drops every other sample, or possibly averages every 2 samples then plays back the average just once. Either way, you lose some definition of the shape of the wave, making it sound less natural. Octave down you have to invent some new samples, so it maybe distorted a bit too but you dont get rid of any of the original information per se and usually sounds much more like the original sound.

there could be other reasons as well.

Scruffie wrote:I can confidently say, a builder here is never going to release an improved version of the Micro Pog, there's some high power digital stuff going on in there.
Closest I can think of is the Z.Cat Pedals but that wont track chords like a Pog.

is it a misconception that anything like this is 'tracking' chords? what if the trick is to run an algorithm that doesn't rely on tracking at all, that way anything played in is transposed, whether its a chord, a note, a dog, a cat, pink noise etc. i made an arpegiator that, ill admit does not play as smoothly as these demos sound, but it works about as well on chords as anything else due to such a design premise. there may be some further tricks you can pull, assuming you only want octaves as well. not sure if its how the big boys do it but from my farting around it seems like a plausible solution.

All the pog does is an FFT and from that you can "figure out" the notes being played. Then the pog just harmonises it's pitch shifted sound with your guitars. Sounds simple but you need a fast micro/ or dsp, some $$$ and a lot of brains to pull it off.

so it takes the fft and what? takes the inverse fft at 1/2 or double indexes?

do you have some evidence thats what they use and it inst just some more elaborate whammy scheme? (continuously mixing circular buffers)

multi_s wrote:so it takes the fft and what? takes the inverse fft at 1/2 or double indexes?

do you have some evidence thats what they use and it inst just some more elaborate whammy scheme? (continuously mixing circular buffers)

As to what it does with the fft, I have no idea, and probably it's not made public. I'm not completely certain it's fft as well though, but the guts seem to point to it with the ic they're using.

But i just googled fft and pog and there's a few interesting sites..
http://valhalladsp.wordpress.com/2009/05/20/electronic-music-tech-hero-david-cockerell/
http://www.kvraudio.com/forum/printview.php?t=208046&start=0

cool thanks.