ilovefuzz.com

I've been bit by the Strymon bug, gonna start saving pennies for a Bluesky, but I can't find any clips and was curious if any of you fuzz fiends could tell me how she handles nasty fuzz, pre or post reverb, cuz I likes em both. I'll probably end up getting one no matter what people say, like I said I'm sick, but it'd be cool to know. Thanks in advance you ragamuffins.

Well for me verb is always last in my chain but when I had one it handled fuzz just fine. Even though I harp on it but I just found the Wet to be a better sounding reverb overall...the Blue Sky is seriously cool though.

bronzetalon wrote:Well for me verb is always last in my chain but when I had one it handled fuzz just fine. Even though I harp on it but I just found the Wet to be a better sounding reverb overall...the Blue Sky is seriously cool though.

How would you compare the Stereo Wet to the original Wet?
I know the main difference is that the stereo one is stereo but is the tone knob a useful addition?

MEC wrote:

bronzetalon wrote:Well for me verb is always last in my chain but when I had one it handled fuzz just fine. Even though I harp on it but I just found the Wet to be a better sounding reverb overall...the Blue Sky is seriously cool though.

How would you compare the Stereo Wet to the original Wet?
I know the main difference is that the stereo one is stereo but is the tone knob a useful addition?

To me the original wet didn't need a tone knob. But being able to control the depth via expression is nice. Also the stereo wet can be updated to have less modulation and you can even load the chroma chorus software on it to try it out. Unless buying used I think the stereo wet is a no brainer if you are going used then go for a older one unless you think you might need more flexibility in the future.

Thanks. I liked the original too but I would have liked it more if I could made it a touch darker sounding.
If I decide to get another it'll be the stereo version, it's seems like it would easily be worth the extra $30.