ilovefuzz.com

So lately I've been using a Behringer Micromix in the chain, feeding the stereo outs from a few pedals into it so I can control the levels of the secondary signals. This is a lot of fun but there ends up being a lot of noise if I crank the volumes on the mixer up too far - and by "too far" I mean "just about where I want them." Can anyone recommend a still-cheap improvement over the Behringer? Or should I just get some kind of a noise gate and stick it after the mixer?

What are your levels going into the Micromix like? It's possible you might need to adjust the gain staging so that you have a stronger signal going into the mixer's inputs, thereby requiring less level on that unit.

friendship wrote:What are your levels going into the Micromix like? It's possible you might need to adjust the gain staging so that you have a stronger signal going into the mixer's inputs, thereby requiring less level on that unit.

That is an excellent question that I didn't even ask myself. It's entirely possible that they are too low to begin with. I'll check that tonight - thank you!

The other important question is how many inputs do you need. Mono or stereo. Do you need other features like eq, etc?

DRodriguez wrote:The other important question is how many inputs do you need. Mono or stereo. Do you need other features like eq, etc?

Ah, "need." Right now the 4 inputs/single mono out is working OK - it's taking the "extra" outs from 4 pedals and routing them to one input on an RC3, while the "main" outs all go into the other channel. I don't really need EQ other than level controls, I don't think. Stereo would be of interest but not necessary - basically this little Behringer is doing what I need it to do, and I'm just wondering if there's anything "better" that is still relatively affordable. If that makes sense.

That's interesting. Are you talking about running your stereo pedals' B or Right channel into the MIcromix to sum them and then sending those out to your RC3? Just curious about the big-picture setup you're running.

friendship wrote:That's interesting. Are you talking about running your stereo pedals' B or Right channel into the MIcromix to sum them and then sending those out to your RC3? Just curious about the big-picture setup you're running.

Yes, that's what I'm doing. The chain is more or less this (* = stereo pedals [though the DD5 is panning, not stereo, but close enough]):

GTR>Rat>Mel9 wet>Starlight Flanger>Phase 90>Stereo Turbo Chorus*>Muff>DD3>Stereo Analog Delay*>DD5*>Canyon>Phase 99*>RC3, and then the RC3 splits off to my Ampeg on one side and my Boss Katana on the other. The Micromix is between the Phase 99 and has all the stereo outs going into one side of the RC3. Does that make sense?

It's not a whole bunch different from how I was doing it before I got the mixer, except then both outs of the Phase 99 just went into both outs of the RC3. Which sounded good, but I lost the panning of the DD5, which led me to start experimenting with the mixer. (I'm also thinking about picking up a noise suppressor of some kind to put after the Phase 99, which is kind of noisy, but that's a whole different issue). And before I got the 99, I was just running the stereo outs into one side of the RC3 and the main line into the other.

I don't know if I'm even going about this in a way that makes any kind of sense. It seems to more or less work, though I'm open to other suggestions.

I should maybe also add that I am considering graduating from bi-amping to TRI-amping, where I run the looper to two amps and then have a third amp for the lead signal. Or something. That's probably a) crazy and b) a separate thread...

It makes sense if you want to boost or cut those effects' Right/B channel independently from one another, though if I'm understanding correctly, you aren't able to do that on the Left/A channel. If your main motivation for including the mixer was keeping the ping-pong of the DD-5, I think a simpler solution would be to ditch the mixer and just place the DD-5 after the Phase 99's stereo outputs, just before the RC3. You can always adjust the levels or wet/dry of the stereo effects from the pedals themselves, though you lose out on balancing their signal's levels in parallel.

One thing people do with triple amp setups is a wet/dry/wet configuration. In this scenario, your stereo effects L/R channels are split to the two "wet" amps, and your center amp gets the dry mono signal.

friendship wrote:It makes sense if you want to boost or cut those effects' Right/B channel independently from one another, though if I'm understanding correctly, you aren't able to do that on the Left/A channel. If your main motivation for including the mixer was keeping the ping-pong of the DD-5, I think a simpler solution would be to ditch the mixer and just place the DD-5 after the Phase 99's stereo outputs, just before the RC3. You can always adjust the levels or wet/dry of the stereo effects from the pedals themselves, though you lose out on balancing their signal's levels in parallel.

Jeez, I didn't even think of that - splitting the outs of the 99 into the DD5>RC3 on one side, and direct to the RC3 on the other. That might work - I had never really thought about tweaking the stereo levels in parallel until I got the mixer running. One thing, though, is that I DO like having the 99 last, to swirl it all up (I've got the 90 earlier in the chain, to delay the phase).

One thing people do with triple amp setups is a wet/dry/wet configuration. In this scenario, your stereo effects L/R channels are split to the two "wet" amps, and your center amp gets the dry mono signal.

This might be a silly question, but what kind of a box would I need to achieve such a split?

Errant Tiger wrote:
Jeez, I didn't even think of that - splitting the outs of the 99 into the DD5>RC3 on one side, and direct to the RC3 on the other. That might work - I had never really thought about tweaking the stereo levels in parallel until I got the mixer running. One thing, though, is that I DO like having the 99 last, to swirl it all up (I've got the 90 earlier in the chain, to delay the phase).

Yeah, that's the point at which there has to be a compromise, because running the DD-5 to any mono input or stereo input that sums internally is going to cancel the ping pong tournament. I don't know if they exist, but a phaser with stereo inputs could solve that dilemma.

This might be a silly question, but what kind of a box would I need to achieve such a split?

Any active/buffered instrument-level splitter would work. You run one of its outputs either straight to your dry amp (or whatever effects you want to go just to that one amp), and run another of its outputs into your stereo effects which then split out to the two wet amps. You can really go wild with signal flow here, experimenting with what effects you want to go where. It's up to your imagination at that point!

friendship wrote: Any active/buffered instrument-level splitter would work. You run one of its outputs either straight to your dry amp (or whatever effects you want to go just to that one amp), and run another of its outputs into your stereo effects which then split out to the two wet amps. You can really go wild with signal flow here, experimenting with what effects you want to go where. It's up to your imagination at that point!

Oh, that makes much more sense than what I was imagining, which would have been to split the signal at the end of the chain, which was where I was getting confused. Last time I borrowed an ABY box I ended up very strongly preferring to run things in series rather than parallel, so I stopped working with it. But I've been thinking an LS-2 might be a fun thing to play with, for situations like this... not to mention the idea of keeping all my current FX in the wet amp chains, and then getting NEW FX for the "dry" chain...

Thanks so much for talking this through with me - I get overwhelmed very easily by all this stuff. This helps!

No problem, let me know how it develops!

friendship wrote:
Yeah, that's the point at which there has to be a compromise, because running the DD-5 to any mono input or stereo input that sums internally is going to cancel the ping pong tournament. I don't know if they exist, but a phaser with stereo inputs could solve that dilemma

Or add a second phaser, one on each dd5 output

What good is a pedalboard if you can't put three Phase 90s on it, I always say.