Live performance - have analogue effects pedals had their day?

[BigRedX]

@dave_bass5 Have you tried the Helix or it's recent "spin-offs"?

The days of single parameter access for multi-effects is long gone for all but the most budget of devices.

IME the reason most people need to fiddle with the parameters on their effects in a live environment is because they have got them wrong in the first place. If the device is programmable your effects settings are right every time you recall the relevant patch for the song.

Edited June 20, 2018 by BigRedX

[Al Krow]

On 19/06/2018 at 17:38, BigRedX said:

IME the reason most people need to fiddle with the parameters on their effects in a live environment is because they have got them wrong in the first place. If the device is programmable your effects settings are right every time you recall the relevant patch for the song.

^^ This! 

If you're aiming to be a high end function band then you can't afford to be leaving your audience on the dance floor 'hanging' 30 seconds to a minute between every song. It's really this point alone that has got me rethinking the subject - which is driven by live work flow and ties into programme-ability and presets. I'm definitely starting to think that something like @HazBeen's board in the OP is the future for this sort of live work.

The difference between the superb song flow / lack of 'dead air time' when our dep guitarist came in recently and had every song set up sequentially (on his full fat Helix) so that he could scroll through the set list with a patch per song vs our long standing guitarist faffing about adjusting his analogue pedal board between songs was a complete revelation. I noticed big time at the gig. The rest of the band noticed pretty quickly when they looked back at the footage. We're just gonna need to tell our long standing guitarist that messing about with pedals is something he can do in his own time and not in the band's time during a function set!

I completely accept song flow is less of an issue when we play pubs or for original bands where the crowd are there for the 'music' and not for the 'party'. 

I also totally get that digital pedals aren't 'up there' with the best of every analogue pedal (they're getting closer, for sure). If that makes a difference to us as bass players that's good reason enough to stick to analogue even if 99% of the audience won't care in the slightest about the nuances of bass tone between an analogue and digital effect. But NOT if it's going to kill the party vibe in a function band setting. Time and place; tools for the job.

Edited June 22, 2018 by Al Krow

[uk_lefty]

My solution is to not faff about with the pedals! Set them at rehearsal for on/ off at the gig. Or, like my last gig, if in doubt just keep a clean tone.

[Rich]

My Line 6 Bass Pod XT Live does everything I could want for live work. If I was to replace it with anything, it'd be a Helix or similar. I can't see me ever going back to individual stomps. So for me, yes they've pretty much had their day.

[dave_bass5]

4 hours ago, BigRedX said:

@dave_bass5 Have you tried the Helix or it's recent "spin-offs"?

The days of single parameter access for multi-effects is long gone for all but the most budget of devices.

IME the reason most people need to fiddle with the parameters on their effects in a live environment is because they have got them wrong in the first place. If the device is programmable your effects settings are right every time you recall the relevant patch for the song.

and what if you want a different tone, or have just got the FX and are still looking for the 'right' tone? What if you find (for example) a filter sweep is way too deep on that boomy hollow stage and needs backing off, or the room is so bright your carefully set up distortion sound is way to bright. Just leave it?

The Helix doesn't look like it has a lot of real time control, especially if you are trying to balance 2 or 3 effects at the same time. Even the Zoom B3n seems to have more. I have no experience of the Helix, im just going by the photo in this thread.

A 'live' situation doesn't just mean during a gig, it can easily cover sound checks and even setting up. I hate seeing musicians bending down and fiddling with things, especially during songs, but if something is wrong with the tone during the gig then i just find it easier to have real time control of everything so i dont take longer than needed. In over 800 function gigs over the past 15 years believe me when i say i have never kept anyone waiting between songs.

What is the difference between 'getting it wrong' and trying to get it right? By that i mean how can you get it right without turning the knobs until it is right?  The way a lot on here go through pedals could show that maybe more tweaking is needed. Of course then there are those with pedal boards so large they spend all night doing a River Dance impression.

 

 

[Skol303]

16 hours ago, WinterMute said:

I have to disagree, I hear the difference and it matters to me, why else would we spend so long and so much money finding the right bass/amp/cab/effects/case/tea...?

No digital system modelled, synthesised, convoluted etc. sounds as good the real thing, I use Universal Audio plug-ins because they are the best sounding in the market to my ears, but I'd still take your hand off if you offered me an 1176 or an LA2A in good nick.

Each to their own, I'll use what sounds good to me, but I most definitely can tell the difference.

Absolutely. My point, albeit badly made, is that I'd wager most people can't tell the difference between digital and analog. You can. I like to think I can too. But we're in a minority. If you put a UA plug-in up against its analog counterpart, only the keenest of ears would hear a noticeable difference; fewer still if they weren't told to notice the difference at all.

And I say this as someone who's an analog evangelist. I own analog gear and would choose it over digital every single time. It sounds better quicker; but with patience I can get my digital tools to sounds nearly as good most of the time. Outside the studio in the context of, say, a pub gig... the difference is IMO negligible with hefty diminishing returns.

That said, there are certainly some applications where digital still has a long way to go in terms of truly emulating analog: compression being one and summing being another. Reverb? Always digital for me. EQ? I use analog for colour and digital for surgical. But that's another topic...  

[jazzyvee]

I prefer analogue however, I don't use effects on bass at all but the guitarist side of me does. I have always preferred the analogue effects. Not because they do their sound changing job better than digital but because the natural tone of the guitar is less compromised when the pedal is on or bypassed/off than with digital.

 I have found if I plug direct into my amp with nothing in between, that gives me the best sound and is what I do mostly, if I plug into an analogue pedal with it off, then there is sometimes a slight change the tone of my guitar and I guess that is less with a true bypass pedal. However, Digital effects to me seem to remove a lot of the tone out of an instrument especially bottom and lower mids and seem to accentuate the highs and hence sound thin.

When I was touring the band leader wanted lots of effects on the guitar as it was Indian/reggae fusion so after trying a few multi effects pedals I settled on a boss unit first and after a day trying it out at home and at rehearsal i hated it and swapped for a Line 6 XT-Pro which was marginally better. Unfortunately both of them stripped the life out of my guitar tone and when I called both companies for advice on why that was I was told that even with everything off the signal still goes through the ADDA converter and if you want to keep your natural tone you need to programme it back in using the EQ settings!!! In the end i got an AB line switcher and only switched in the digital unit when I needed those effects and kept it out of the loop most of the time. I appreciate there may have been a huge improvement in the technology now as the two guitarists in my main band use Boss muiti effects units and swear by them but there is still a big difference between their natural guitar sounds and the sound through the pedal with it off. They are both good players and the pedals are part of their sound and it works for them. 

If I end up using pedals on bass it will be analogue unless the digital technology has improved massively. Either way I think I would prefer to have some kind of blender so I can always have the dry signal and add as much or as little of the effects to it rather than have the whole bass signal with the effect on. 

LONG LIVE ANALOGUE!

Edited June 20, 2018 by jazzyvee

[Al Krow]

13 minutes ago, Skol303 said:

That said, there are certainly some applications where digital still has a long way to go in terms of truly emulating analog: compression being one...

Wasn't me guv, honest, who brought the "C" word up...😂

Interested you think this though as some of my BC buddies are pretty happy with the compression they get from something as basic as the Zoom multis and I imagine the Helix will be a further step up. If what you are saying is right, I should definitely hold on to my analog Cali. But...

From the feedback from lots of BC users the TC Spectracomp is one of the most highly regarded / loved / best value for money compressors. Is the TC Spectracomp digital or analog? I'd assumed from the fact that it has TonePrints, it's purely digital (combined with an un-digitised dry signal from the bass). If the Spectracomp is digital, is your statement that "digital still has a long way to go in terms of truly emulating analog: compression being one..." still correct?

 

[Skol303]

9 minutes ago, jazzyvee said:

LONG LIVE ANALOGUE!

Amen.

I’m slowly making the switch to analog at a time when most people are going the other way, which does mean there are bargains to be had if you’re patient enough to hunt for them.

I like that my analog gear - if well maintained - will still be usable long after I’m gone, just as it was nearly a century ago, when my digital gear will no longer be compatible with anything outside of a museum.

But I also embrace digital audio gear and am a firm believer that the future isn’t analog or digital, it’s hybrid. Best of both worlds.

[BigRedX]

11 hours ago, dave_bass5 said:

and what if you want a different tone, or have just got the FX and are still looking for the 'right' tone? What if you find (for example) a filter sweep is way too deep on that boomy hollow stage and needs backing off, or the room is so bright your carefully set up distortion sound is way to bright. Just leave it?

The Helix doesn't look like it has a lot of real time control, especially if you are trying to balance 2 or 3 effects at the same time. Even the Zoom B3n seems to have more. I have no experience of the Helix, im just going by the photo in this thread.

A 'live' situation doesn't just mean during a gig, it can easily cover sound checks and even setting up. I hate seeing musicians bending down and fiddling with things, especially during songs, but if something is wrong with the tone during the gig then i just find it easier to have real time control of everything so i dont take longer than needed. In over 800 function gigs over the past 15 years believe me when i say i have never kept anyone waiting between songs.

What is the difference between 'getting it wrong' and trying to get it right? By that i mean how can you get it right without turning the knobs until it is right?  The way a lot on here go through pedals could show that maybe more tweaking is needed. Of course then there are those with pedal boards so large they spend all night doing a River Dance impression.

If I need a different tone, I just pick the appropriate patch on my Helix. Job Done.

Also I would never take any new device (or even a new bass) to a gig (or even a rehearsal) until I was familiar enough with it for me not to be spending all my time fiddling between songs. The first time I used my Helix at rehearsal I had the spend maybe a minute after each song adjusting some of the effects parameters from what I thought would work at home to what I could tell I needed once I'd used them in the band context. At the second rehearsal I still had a little bit of work to do on the more complex and exacting tones. By the fourth rehearsal I had all the patches sorted and programmed in the correct order for the set.

With all my sounds being set up before I play I don't really need any real-time control. There's one expression pedal built-in (and connections for adding two more) which can be assigned to any parameter(s) I want. There's a tap-tempo switch which will synchronise any effects that require it. Everything else is done by setting up my patches before hand.

And in 30 years of using programmable effects I've never been in a situation where I've needed to tweak my settings for an unfamiliar environment. I set up my bass rig, switch on, and there is my sound ready to play. Leaving aside the fact that EQ is not the right tool for correcting room problems (it can fix the problem in one place in the room - usually where you are standing - and probably make it worse in 2 others out in the audience, and you can make a bigger different most of the time by moving the direction your bass rig is pointing in), the Helix has a global EQ setting which could be used to tailor the overall sound for a particularly problematic environment. For the vast majority of my gigs what the audience hears of my bass is through the PA (which is why I've dumped my amp and cabs in favour of a powered FRFR cab) and as long as I can hear myself and a reasonable mix of the other instruments on stage, I'm happy.

Chasing your tone at a pub gig, or when you have less than 30 minutes to set up and sound check the whole band who are sandwiched into the tiny bit of stage left over after the big-name headliners have set up all their gear, is for bands who aren't going to be asked back to play/support again. I want to be set up and ready to play with the minimum amount of fuss, and the Helix lets me do that.

[Skol303]

28 minutes ago, Al Krow said:

Wasn't me guv, honest, who brought the "C" word up...😂

 

Haha! I did think of you Al as I was typing the word 'compression'

To clarify, digital compression can certainly go a great job of it. I have some superb digital compressors (albeit plug-ins rather than stomp boxes) that I don't hesitate to use.

In fact, when I want the compressor to be 'transparent' (i.e. have minimal imprint on the tone) then digital is sometimes the better option: digital generally does 'clean' very well by its nature. However, when I want to impart some colour then I nearly always opt for analog - and I think the musicality of a good, analog compressor set right is very difficult to emulate digitally. At least I've never quite managed it myself with plug-ins.

All that said, it does depend a lot on what price point we're talking about. Up to a few hundred quid, I'd argue (from my own experience) that the difference between analog and digital compressors is negligible. Just choose whatever product you find is easiest or most convenient to use. Once you get above £1000 or so, the difference between analog and digital compressors is stark.

I'm lucky to have access to a friend's studio, which features several high-end compressors, and they literally blow my plug-ins out of the water. But these aren't the sort of units you'd ever want to lug around to gigs.

So in short: for a gigging bass player, digital compression is absolutely fine and the Helix products that I've toyed with sound great in that regard (I'm not familiar with the TC Spectracomp so can't comment on that). What matters most is the user's knowledge in setting up the compressor correctly. That knowledge is priceless but it does take time and patience to acquire... and I'm still very much working on it myself!

Edited June 20, 2018 by Skol303

[WinterMute]

32 minutes ago, Al Krow said:

From the feedback from lots of BC users the TC Spectracomp is one of the most highly regarded / loved / best value for money compressors. Is the TC Spectracomp digital or analog? I'd assumed from the fact that it has TonePrints, it's purely digital (combined with an un-digitised dry signal from the bass). If the Spectracomp is digital, is your statement that "digital still has a long way to go in terms of truly emulating analog: compression being one..." still correct?

 

I'm mixing an album currently with UAD2 plugins emulating some of the best analogue gear on the market, with a little patience the result I'm getting is perfectly acceptable, given that I'm not able to afford a Rupert Neve Designs 5088 60v console and a rack of vintage eq's and compressors... Still, I like the result, but then I know what I'm doing and have the experience to back it up.

I used to use the PodXT pro, and a lot of guys commented that they didn't like it's sound until they heard what I was getting out of it, fact is that multi-fx units like the Helix need a deal of understanding, not least about gain staging and signal chain construction, and the standard patches aren't always very good...

Easy to use, good sounding comps are always going to be popular because a lot of people don't actually know what a compressor is doing to their signal, I'd love a Shelford for my bass, but it's overkill, the limiter in my Phil Jone flight-case works just fine with one knob.

Edited June 20, 2018 by WinterMute
spelling

[WinterMute]

22 minutes ago, Skol303 said:

But I also embrace digital audio gear and am a firm believer that the future isn’t analog or digital, it’s hybrid. Best of both worlds.

My studio: In the box digital all running through a class A summing mixer and a Rupert Neve designed Amek comp/lim. All the flexibility and power of digital and some lush analogue width and depth.

[BigRedX]

My "standard" Helix patch started off with nothing. I took memory 01A and cleared all the modules out of it, and then added what I wanted one module at a time, experimenting with the different types of modules for each effect and their parameters, until I had a sound for each effect that I liked. Then I started combining the individual effects together experimenting with the order and tweaking the individual effect parameters to compensate for how the different effects worked together in a patch. 

Pretty much how I would have done with a set of individual analogue pedals.

[WinterMute]

1 minute ago, BigRedX said:

My "standard" Helix patch started off with nothing. I took memory 01A and cleared all the modules out of it, and then added what I wanted one module at a time, experimenting with the different types of modules for each effect and their parameters, until I had a sound for each effect that I liked. Then I started combining the individual effects together experimenting with the order and tweaking the individual effect parameters to compensate for how the different effects worked together in a patch. 

Pretty much how I would have done with a set of individual analogue pedals.

Best way to deal with multi-fx, one stage at a time and keep an eye on the levels.

[Al Krow]

54 minutes ago, jazzyvee said:

I prefer analogue however, I don't use effects on bass at all but the guitarist side of me does. I have always preferred the analogue effects. Not because they do their sound changing job better than digital but because the natural tone of the guitar is less compromised when the pedal is on or bypassed/off than with digital.

 I have found if I plug direct into my amp with nothing in between, that gives me the best sound and is what I do mostly, if I plug into an analogue pedal with it off, then there is sometimes a slight change the tone of my guitar and I guess that is less with a true bypass pedal. However, Digital effects to me seem to remove a lot of the tone out of an instrument especially bottom and lower mids and seem to accentuate the highs and hence sound thin.

If I end up using pedals on bass it will be analogue unless the digital technology has improved massively. Either way I think I would prefer to have some kind of blender so I can always have the dry signal and add as much or as little of the effects to it rather than have the whole bass signal with the effect on. 

LONG LIVE ANALOGUE!

I think that's a very fair point in terms of analogue being more 'natural' (and also having lower 'latency') than digital. The 'natural' tone point is not a dissimilar to passive vs active bass debate. I'm guessing that you prefer passive basses also? 

Having the ability to keep a true clean blend in any pedal, I agree, is a good thing. I presume that achieving a minimum overall 'clean' blend across your entire pedal chain could be achieved using a line selector such as the Boss LS-2?

As an aside - to your last point, I'm glad I started my pedal journey the other way around with a 'value' digital multifx (the Zoom B3n in my case). This allowed me to get a basic feel for what each type of effect was doing before splashing out an equivalent amount per effect on dedicated pedals (whether analogue or digital) for those effects that were going to be regular features in my sound.

[EBS_freak]

Digital vs Analogue. Meh, good and bad for both. Considering a lot of stuff that is coming out of studios now is largely in the box mixing, done with digital plugins, you'll be hard pushed to say that digital can't keep up with analogue... and if it is, the labels don't seem too fussed by it.

[EliasMooseblaster]

2 hours ago, Skol303 said:

That said, there are certainly some applications where digital still has a long way to go in terms of truly emulating analog: compression being one and summing being another. Reverb? Always digital for me. EQ? I use analog for colour and digital for surgical. But that's another topic...  

As a confirmed analogue luddite (playing my passive basses through all-valve amps with passive tone stacks), I had a big plate of humble pie recently when I helped my friend record a song at her friend's studio, and the drums were the only thing I played that went anywhere near a mic. Bass and guitar went straight into the desk, and I had to admit that the plugins this chap had sounded really good!

However, the song in question was J-rock, a long way from the blues-rock I'm normally accustomed to. So your point about analogue compression got me thinking: how close are digital modellers to replicating the sensitivity of a Tube Screamer?

[Skol303]

1 hour ago, WinterMute said:

My studio: In the box digital all running through a class A summing mixer and a Rupert Neve designed Amek comp/lim. All the flexibility and power of digital and some lush analogue width and depth.

Very cool. And not just the Star Wars Lego 

This is exactly the sort of set up I'm edging towards, one piece at a time.

[CameronJ]

4 minutes ago, Skol303 said:

Very cool. And not just the Star Wars Lego 

Lest we forget the piggy bank!

[Rich]

13 hours ago, dave_bass5 said:

and what if you want a different tone, or have just got the FX and are still looking for the 'right' tone? What if you find (for example) a filter sweep is way too deep on that boomy hollow stage and needs backing off, or the room is so bright your carefully set up distortion sound is way to bright. Just leave it?

The way I see it, by the time my tone has made its way through the PA or fought for its place in the backline alongside the guitars/keys/drums/etc, the only fecker who's going to notice my overly deep filter sweep or bright distortion is me. Live sound is always a compromise really.

[Rich]

1 hour ago, BigRedX said:

My "standard" Helix patch started off with nothing. I took memory 01A and cleared all the modules out of it, and then added what I wanted one module at a time, experimenting with the different types of modules for each effect and their parameters, until I had a sound for each effect that I liked. Then I started combining the individual effects together experimenting with the order and tweaking the individual effect parameters to compensate for how the different effects worked together in a patch. 

Pretty much how I would have done with a set of individual analogue pedals.

And that's exactly how I approach my XT Live too. Patch 1A is a total bypass with no FX or EQ or models and the output volume set to the same level as a plain lead. Everything else is based on this.

[Skol303]

5 minutes ago, EliasMooseblaster said:

So your point about analogue compression got me thinking: how close are digital modellers to replicating the sensitivity of a Tube Screamer?

Good question... as a guess I'd say "close enough" (to satisfy most ears), but as you mention the 'Screamer is a classic pedal with its own subtle nuances. Most listeners wouldn't notice; but some would. Whether that's worth using one vs. a cheaper digital clone is a decision only you can make.

But generally speaking, overdrive/distortion and saturation is one area where digital can make a very convincing job of it. Unless you're spending £1500 or whatever on something like a Thermionic Culture Vulture, in which case those valves and all-analog signal chain really do come into their own (but for the record, I don't own a Culture Vulture! Despite me writing to Santa for several years now...).

[Skol303]

5 minutes ago, Rich said:

Live sound is always a compromise really.

Absolutely this ^

[SpondonBassed]

44 minutes ago, Skol303 said:

for the record, I don't own a Culture Vulture! Despite me writing to Santa for several years now...

And there I was thinking that a Culture Vulture was a large chicken with an insatiable appetite for yoghurt!

You live and learn.