Horse Through The Trees - Went all in w/PRS pedals on Sunday

[andy474x]

Been looking for a chance to use the Wind Through The Trees flanger live, and it happened yesterday at church. While I was at it, I went whole... horse, and put the Horsemeat on the board, too. It worked really well! Had a song that needed some modulation, and the WTTT provided in an excellent way. I'm not a big flanger guy, so to me, part of the beauty of this pedal is that much of its range is actually quite subtle - of course, it can be set to be very prominent, too, but it wasn't hard to keep it from being overbearing. The other beautiful part of its subtlety is that the dual flangers can be set to avoid the cheesy pure sine wave oscillation of a single flanger. I used the settings below, which was basically a 1:2 ratio of LFO 1 to LFO 2, with a slight emphasis to LFO 2 in the mix. The flanger popped nicely on the lead part I played in the intro and adding the Horsemeat for gain and cut, as well as the strummed triad in the chorus, but disappeared nicely during the palm muted verse parts.

The Tumnus Deluxe is also new to the board... I've had the mini version for several years now, and love it as a boost, but wanted some more flexibility. The active tone controls really open it up, and I used it as my main gain stage all set yesterday, always on into the Custom 50 set dead clean. Not something I would do with the mini version.

 

[László]

Very cool!

I'm gonna need a bigger boat.

 

[bodia]

Love it!

 

[DreamTheaterRules]

Been looking for a chance to use the Wind Through The Trees flanger live, and it happened yesterday at church. While I was at it, I went whole... horse, and put the Horsemeat on the board, too. It worked really well! Had a song that needed some modulation, and the WTTT provided in an excellent way. I'm not a big flanger guy, so to me, part of the beauty of this pedal is that much of its range is actually quite subtle - of course, it can be set to be very prominent, too, but it wasn't hard to keep it from being overbearing. The other beautiful part of its subtlety is that the dual flangers can be set to avoid the cheesy pure sine wave oscillation of a single flanger. I used the settings below, which was basically a 1:2 ratio of LFO 1 to LFO 2, with a slight emphasis to LFO 2 in the mix. The flanger popped nicely on the lead part I played in the intro and adding the Horsemeat for gain and cut, as well as the strummed triad in the chorus, but disappeared nicely during the palm muted verse parts.

The Tumnus Deluxe is also new to the board... I've had the mini version for several years now, and love it as a boost, but wanted some more flexibility. The active tone controls really open it up, and I used it as my main gain stage all set yesterday, always on into the Custom 50 set dead clean. Not something I would do with the mini version.

I realize the deluxe version has more tonal range, but do you find it less transparent than the mini Tumnus?

 

[DISTORT6]

 

[Alnus Rubra]

See I read that to the tune of Christopher Cross

 

[andy474x]

I realize the deluxe version has more tonal range, but do you find it less transparent than the mini Tumnus?

I suppose it depends on what you mean by transparent, but I think the Deluxe is actually more transparent (in the way that I think about it) because I can dial the midrange back and bring the bass up slightly to compensate for the low cut and mid hump that the mini version has. If I want to, that is - I guess the point of this kind of pedal is usually to have the low cut and mid hump. The highs/chime also don't seem to be as rolled off on the Deluxe, but I haven't A/B'd them against each other to really see exactly.

 

[László]

I suppose it depends on what you mean by transparent, but I think the Deluxe is actually more transparent (in the way that I think about it) because I can dial the midrange back and bring the bass up slightly to compensate for the low cut and mid hump that the mini version has. If I want to, that is - I guess the point of this kind of pedal is usually to have the low cut and mid hump. The highs/chime also don't seem to be as rolled off on the Deluxe, but I haven't A/B'd them against each other to really see exactly.

Just my two cents, here:

To the extent that the pedals sport different controls that affect the amplitude of various frequencies, I'm not sure an A/B really reveals much.

The Klon is transparent because it preserves the clean tone with the clean boost side, and blends the overdrive circuit with it as you bring it up. It's almost like having the clean tone and the gain tone on two separate channels of a console: blend to taste.

Most pedals don't do this, all of the signal goes through the gain control.

The real question with a Klon style pedal is, how much clean/transparent signal do you want to blend in? That's up to the setting of the gain control. You're always getting as much clean tone - thereby transparency - as you want to leave in when you turn the gain knob. It's really a brilliant idea.

The Deluxe should be able to achieve the same transparency. If you turn up a frequency band and thereby increase its amplitude, you'd probably want to dial back the gain or vice-versa, anyway, thereby keeping the relative balance between the volumes of transparent/clean and dirty.

Even with the tone controls set for no gain, as you turn up gain the mids and low mids increase just by virtue of clipping. So again, the blend is the important choice.

I'm not sure I'm explaining this as well as can be done, hopefully the gist of it comes through.

 

[DreamTheaterRules]

I suppose it depends on what you mean by transparent,

I refer to transparent in the way the stereo equipment community does. Clarity... the ability to clearly hear every little change anywhere else in the chain. Not flat frequency response, as you can boost and cut and change frequency response without affecting transparency. USUALLY, more circuitry means a less transparent circuit, and that is why I asked. It's a catch 22... more controls means more flexibility and more tunability to get what you want out of a pedal, but usually means the circuit is not as transparent.

A transparent device would show audible differences in changing a cable, switching guitars, slight tweaks to the tone and volume knobs on the guitar, pickup positions are much more clearly different from each other, etc.

 

[László]

Not flat frequency response, as you can boost and cut and change frequency response without affecting transparency.

I understand what you mean, and what you say is has merit, but given your reference to high fidelity contexts, I'm going to quibble a little:

1. In the 'straight wire with gain' sense, any boost or cut in frequency response by definition distorts/colors the signal. Distortion isn't only defined as overdrive, it's deviation of the output of a piece of gear from the input.

2. Except for linear phase circuits, any tone control use affects phase and smears the signal. So there's another distortion of the signal.

3. Since the Klon circuit can be dialed in to increase or reduce transparency as per my post above, and since potentiometer tolerances can deviate from spec by as much as 20%, especially the inexpensive ones used on pedals, you can't simply set them to the same knob position and say, "OK, they're physically matched." Because they are probably not matched due to tolerance variation.

4. So many things affect perception, from the factor of ear fatigue and how our brains perceive audio signals differently on any given day (literally in many cases due to the glucose our brains run on varying by time of day and what we eat), to these tolerance variations, to the room you're listening in with its modes and anomalies, that precisely matching the levels and amount of gain, and all the other factors make a true A/B comparison very difficult without a lot of measurement stuff.

5. Just as with controls, diodes and other parts that grind the signal also vary in tolerances. One pedal can be different sounding from another of the same model for that reason alone.

To my way of thinking, A/B comparisons can be good to get rough ideas of things, but they aren't foolproof.

Partly, I think you have to live with something for a while to determine the answer to many of these questions, and really get a feel for what it does/doesn't do. Then the question is, why does it matter if you're happy with what you're getting?

So here's my thinking:

Maybe some other model sounds better to you, maybe not; given all the variables I've become convinced that If you're living with a piece of gear and think it sounds like what you want, you're good to go.

Sounds to me like Andy is good to go.

 

[aristotle]

I understand what you mean, and what you say is has merit, but given your reference to high fidelity contexts, I'm going to quibble a little:

1. In the 'straight wire with gain' sense, any boost or cut in frequency response by definition distorts/colors the signal. Distortion isn't only defined as overdrive, it's deviation of the output of a piece of gear from the input.

2. Except for linear phase circuits, any tone control use affects phase and smears the signal. So there's another distortion of the signal.

3. Since the Klon circuit can be dialed in to increase or reduce transparency as per my post above, and since potentiometer tolerances can deviate from spec by as much as 20%, especially the inexpensive ones used on pedals, you can't simply set them to the same knob position and say, "OK, they're physically matched." Because they are probably not matched due to tolerance variation.

4. So many things affect perception, from the factor of ear fatigue and how our brains perceive audio signals differently on any given day (literally in many cases due to the glucose our brains run on varying by time of day and what we eat), to these tolerance variations, to the room you're listening in with its modes and anomalies, that precisely matching the levels and amount of gain, and all the other factors make a true A/B comparison very difficult without a lot of measurement stuff.

5. Just as with controls, diodes and other parts that grind the signal also vary in tolerances. One pedal can be different sounding from another of the same model for that reason alone.

To my way of thinking, A/B comparisons can be good to get rough ideas of things, but they aren't foolproof.

Partly, I think you have to live with something for a while to determine the answer to many of these questions, and really get a feel for what it does/doesn't do. Then the question is, why does it matter if you're happy with what you're getting?

So here's my thinking:

Maybe some other model sounds better to you, maybe not; given all the variables I've become convinced that If you're living with a piece of gear and think it sounds like what you want, you're good to go.

Sounds to me like Andy is good to go.

Interesting. I've always considered the word "transparent" as sort of meaningless when applied to most gear. From pickups to loudspeaker, there isn't much that I'd describe as "transparent" in the chain. I guess I can get behind describing a clean boost as transparent, but the whole reason you typically want a clean boost is to drive a front end closer to saturation, which isn't a very transparenty sort of thing.

But I dig your definition. It's "transparent" if it allows you to control how "transparent" it is...I guess..

For me, things like reverb and flange don't really lend themselves to talk of transparency. If I were forced to describe something as "transparent", I consider an overdrive pedal to be transparent in the context of a particular amplifier if the amp retains its essential character with the pedal on. A Horsemeat into my HDRX20 could be considered transparent because I still feel like I'm playing through the HDRX20. My OCD on the other hand is transparent with other amps, but not the HDRX20 since it feels like a different amp when it's engaged.

 

[László]

Interesting. I've always considered the word "transparent" as sort of meaningless when applied to most gear. From pickups to loudspeaker, there isn't much that I'd describe as "transparent" in the chain. I guess I can get behind describing a clean boost as transparent, but the whole reason you typically want a clean boost is to drive a front end closer to saturation, which isn't a very transparenty sort of thing.

I agree! What we want from guitar gear (and even sometimes recording gear) is color, non-linearities, etc.

One of my clean boost pedals adds kind of a sparkle - even at unity gain. It sounds like it's very clean and transparent, but if it was, it wouldn't be adding anything at unity gain. It's adding some high frequency content.

If I were forced to describe something as "transparent", I consider an overdrive pedal to be transparent in the context of a particular amplifier if the amp retains its essential character with the pedal on.

I feel the same way.

A Horsemeat into my HDRX20 could be considered transparent because I still feel like I'm playing through the HDRX20. My OCD on the other hand is transparent with other amps, but not the HDRX20 since it feels like a different amp when it's engaged.

You're right on, as far as I'm concerned.

Amps and pedals are somewhat symbiotic (if I may be permitted to misuse a biological term). Each shark/amp seems to have its own set of remoras/pedals and vice-versa.

To my way of thinking, though perhaps to a lesser degree, guitars seem to gel better with certain amps than others. My favorite Two-Rocks (The Onyx Sigs) sounded better to me with single coil guitars (including P-90s) than humbuckers. This isn't to say they sounded bad with humbuckers. It's just that they were magic with single coils.

But I think my HXDA sounds its best with a juicy set of humbuckers. The 57/08s and DGT pickups are my favorites with that amp. Etc., etc.

 

[DreamTheaterRules]

1. In the 'straight wire with gain' sense, any boost or cut in frequency response by definition distorts/colors the signal. Distortion isn't only defined as overdrive, it's deviation of the output of a piece of gear from the input.

I mostly agree with everything you say, but also have small quibles with some of it. Some of it may be semantics to many, but here's my take.

Transparency as a word non-related to this context, has a well defined meaning. If my windshild is a little foggy, what's ahead is not as clear. A little more foggy and it's harder to see still. Completely foggy... well, you get it. Turn on the defogger and in seconds I can very clearly see everything in front of me. Transparent to me, means just that. Details are far more clear and present, Everything in the sonic image is clearly and more defined.

Here's where we may differ. If I take my stereo preamp and listen to the level of transparency it is very clear. My pre-amp actually has switchable tone controls. You want the clearest most transparent sound, you leave them off. But, if you have a recording that's so lacking that tonal corrections are more important, you switch them on. When you do, there is a slight loss of clarity...or transparency. However, from that point, you can adjust the bass and treble as needed but there is no further loss of transparency, only frequency response changes. So, changing the tonal balance and nothing else doesn't change transparency.

Further, transparency in a device or whole signal chain can be and is retained when gain/distortion is added UP TO A POINT. You can add gain and still hear minor changes in pickups, strings, even picks, if your system is transparent. The more gain you add, the more the signal is distorted and the more transparency is lost in certain ways but even under gain, things remain clearer and more transparent IF the amp/pedal or whatever the device in question is was more transparent to start with.

There is no question that the more of anything you add to a signal, the less transparent it becomes. If you start adding reverb, delay, chorus, etc. you will mask the signal. I'm not questioning that at all. But I believe that if you start with more transparency AND use devices that are relatively transparent while they manipulate the signal, you end up with greater overall clarity or transparency.

Again, I think this may be less "disagreeing" and more varying in how we describe things.

And of course, since this post is long already, I'll make it longer. When I was building and modding small amps, I had a Valve Jr head. I replaced less than 10 caps and resistors and made a major difference in the amp. Yes, part of it was shifting the frequency response some, but also one or two caps in particular made it much more transparent. After that, I added an OT and that plus those caps REALLY made the amp much more transparent. Every aspect of the tone was more clear after these changes, even when cranked up and distorted.

 

[Prina]

Pardon me while I geek out but I'm actually pretty inexperienced with these things called pedals and tube amps. My last analog pedal was a Mosrite fuzz pedal over a half century ago and didn't get a tube amp until the Archon a year and a half ago. However, I'm pretty familiar with the math/signal processing ideas and I'm trying to make sense of how the comments from @László and @DreamTheaterRules fit together since my brain & gut tell me they're both correct. But I welcome any corrections where my knowledge is lacking.

If I take my stereo preamp and listen to the level of transparency it is very clear. My pre-amp actually has switchable tone controls. You want the clearest most transparent sound, you leave them off. But, if you have a recording that's so lacking that tonal corrections are more important, you switch them on. When you do, there is a slight loss of clarity...or transparency. However, from that point, you can adjust the bass and treble as needed but there is no further loss of transparency, only frequency response changes. So, changing the tonal balance and nothing else doesn't change transparency.

Agreed. For stereo gear/accurate monitors, transparency is all about a non-distorted signal in a room with good acoustics. It's easy to tell when you're listening to a great listening environment because you hear detail in music, sense the soundstage, place the instruments and at best feel like you're in the room.

When the frequency response of a monitor is off, the signal is distorted and it just doesn't sound right. However, if that's the only thing that's wrong then it may be correctable since it's a 'linear' type of distortion, as opposed to harmonic or inter-modular distortion where new frequencies are added. My recent example was digging out my old $100 pair of Presonus Eris 3.5 monitors that I didn't really bond with and were superseded with a Genelec 8010a pair which I love. Both were fed from a rackmount United Audio Apollo. Another thread on this forum prompted me to unbox the Presonus's and measure them with a reference mic & Room Eq Wizard in a near field setting. They were then corrected with the recommended multi-band parametric filter settings. With those corrections I was amazed by how good, and how close to the Genelecs, they sounded at moderate listening levels in the transparency and clarity.

What we want from guitar gear (and even sometimes recording gear) is color, non-linearities, etc.

One of my clean boost pedals adds kind of a sparkle - even at unity gain. It sounds like it's very clean and transparent, but if it was, it wouldn't be adding anything at unity gain. It's adding some high frequency content.

Amps and pedals are somewhat symbiotic (if I may be permitted to misuse a biological term). Each shark/amp seems to have its own set of remoras/pedals and vice-versa.

Agreed. Unlike with stereo gear / accurate monitoring, guitar pedals, amps & cabs are designed to add distortion. If not they would sound dry, sterile & boring. It seems to be about getting the type of distortion that sounds good, resulting from the entire signal chain from guitar to speakers for live sound and with mics + other equipment for recording.
The sharks/remoras analogy makes sense if the type of frequency content and harmonic & inter-modular distortion in a pedal plays well with the types that the amp is adding. Makes sense why a fairly clean Fender will sound good with lots of different pedals versus the compatibility of a high gain monster.

To my way of thinking, though perhaps to a lesser degree, guitars seem to gel better with certain amps than others. My favorite Two-Rocks (The Onyx Sigs) sounded better to me with single coil guitars (including P-90s) than humbuckers. This isn't to say they sounded bad with humbuckers. It's just that they were magic with single coils.

And why bright Marshalls sound great with 'buckers. And why Plexis sound good with power chords by adding a inter-modular distortion.

 

[László]

Again, I think this may be less "disagreeing" and more varying in how we describe things.

I think that's exactly right. I don't disagree with a single word of your post.

 

[László]

When the frequency response of a monitor is off, the signal is distorted and it just doesn't sound right. However, if that's the only thing that's wrong then it may be correctable since it's a 'linear' type of distortion, as opposed to harmonic or inter-modular distortion where new frequencies are added.

Basically, I agree, though 'linear' probably isn't the right term.

My recent example was digging out my old $100 pair of Presonus Eris 3.5 monitors that I didn't really bond with and were superseded with a Genelec 8010a pair which I love. Both were fed from a rackmount United Audio Apollo. Another thread on this forum prompted me to unbox the Presonus's and measure them with a reference mic & Room Eq Wizard in a near field setting. They were then corrected with the recommended multi-band parametric filter settings. With those corrections I was amazed by how good, and how close to the Genelecs, they sounded at moderate listening levels in the transparency and clarity.

The Genelecs will have lower IM and harmonic distortion in the power amps and the drivers, so you're starting out on a different plane. If you're cutting offending frequencies, you're good. If frequencies are boosted, the amplifier can be working significantly harder, depending on the amplitude of the boost; this will increase its distortion and reduce its headroom.

The same speakers driven with 200 watts will usually sound clearer than with 100 watts, because it's the peaks/transients when we think about headroom, not continuous volume levels. As long as the drivers can take the power without breaking up more, having more power on tap will always sound better if the amps are both high quality.

The speaker cones and sometimes crossovers will also have more distortion with a boost than a cut.

Our ears often perceive noticeable high frequencies as 'clarity'. That may, or may not, be so. But in the context of a room with reflections and so on, that may not matter all that much if the frequency responses are corrected to be similar.

The sharks/remoras analogy makes sense if the type of frequency content and harmonic & inter-modular distortion in a pedal plays well with the types that the amp is adding. Makes sense why a fairly clean Fender will sound good with lots of different pedals versus the compatibility of a high gain monster.

I don't think the type of distortion matters as much as the frequencies involved, though certain types of distortion will exhibit different 'textures' (my choice of words, not scientific).

Great post, though!