Are There Any 'New' Effects?

[stewblack]

2 hours ago, pineweasel said:

What about the EHX Freeze? I'd never seen anything like it when my guitarist mate got one a few years ago.

Good point

[ahpook]

On 25/04/2021 at 14:56, stewblack said:

Hey, I would love one of these, is uit buildable for someone with your skills?

Fuzzdog make a kit called the Dirt Dessert which is a version of the Prunes and Custard.

 

[Quatschmacher]

Multiband distortion was a new thing when Source Audio introduced it with their Soundblox 2 Multiwave Distortion pedals. Pretty sure that was after bit crushers. 

[itu]

Dear @Quatschmacher: Craig Anderton made the Quadrafuzz already in 1980.

https://craiganderton.org/multiband-signal-processing/

http://ironether.com/wp-content/uploads/QF2-manual-RevB.pdf

https://dpw.se/product/mog-d1-4-band-distortion/

[ahpook]

Flange used to need analogue tape, and then boffins squished that into a pedal

Now we're got, say, multiband distortion in a box, when it would have taken maybe different amps and mics and pedals to create that.

So whilst I don't think there are any really new effects, the technology is allowing a people to squeeze a whole studio into something the size of a few fag packets and that's where new sounds are coming from.

Edited April 28, 2021 by ahpook

[Quatschmacher]

4 hours ago, itu said:

Dear @Quatschmacher: Craig Anderton made the Quadrafuzz already in 1980.

https://craiganderton.org/multiband-signal-processing/

http://ironether.com/wp-content/uploads/QF2-manual-RevB.pdf

https://dpw.se/product/mog-d1-4-band-distortion/

Aha, now you mention it, I believe SA reference his work. 

[BadHands]

There are definitely new pedals being designed and made, all revolving around DSP. Meris and Hologram Electronics are two companies I can point to. 

They use effects like "Spectral blur" or "Digital stutter", and adding them to delayed notes, or the whole signal. It's effects that have been used by people like Aphex Twin since the late 90s, but are now on offer for us to use live, in whatever context we choose.

[Downunderwonder]

I see the @stewblack WTB for P&C is now ''sorted''. Do tell!

[stewblack]

29 minutes ago, Downunderwonder said:

I see the @stewblack WTB for P&C is now ''sorted''. Do tell!

I have had one built for me  - a clone to be entirely precise - by a rather wonderful Basschatter. 

It's not with me  yet... 

[akabane]

I just find it really jarring and disappointing (but hey, music hardware has to keep churning money)  that in an age where  we can fit incredibly powerful chips into a wristwatch,  our big-donkey digital fx are still stuck in the '90s in terms of audio technology, and every year new FX HARDWARE BOXES come out, which is ridicolous. It's time to get rid of shitty DSP processors and advance a bit there. But then half of the guitar and bass players wouldn't know what to blame for sounding like crap nor where to throw money at, hmm...choices, choices

[itu]

8 hours ago, akabane said:

...in an age where  we can fit incredibly powerful chips into a wristwatch, our big-donkey digital fx are still stuck in the '90s in terms of audio technology...

I partly agree. Development costs and testing, too. Most of the effects we use nowadays are from the 1970's or '80's, as we can see from this thread. A serious processor and a case and some hardware around the box. Yes, why not. But again this gets back to development and testing. It is far more easy to test just few effects and check their reliability, than some PlethoraX5 type of thing. The price tag tells it, too.

An ultra capable unit would still lack adjustments, or would be big, or the usability could be really complex (although it is true most of us do some adjustments very seldom). I could see a monitor connector (or at least a USB) in an FX unit, just like there is one in a modern digital mixer. That way the adjustments would be reasonably easy, and those few pots could be addressed to the parameters needed. Serious set up takes time and the computer/tablet/phone UI is usually better than a pedal. After all basic adjustments the big screen is needed rarely. I think this path is seen with modern units, like tce and its Toneprint, Eventide, Source Audio, and alike.

[akabane]

9 hours ago, itu said:

I partly agree. Development costs and testing, too. Most of the effects we use nowadays are from the 1970's or '80's, as we can see from this thread. A serious processor and a case and some hardware around the box. Yes, why not. But again this gets back to development and testing. It is far more easy to test just few effects and check their reliability, than some PlethoraX5 type of thing. The price tag tells it, too.

An ultra capable unit would still lack adjustments, or would be big, or the usability could be really complex (although it is true most of us do some adjustments very seldom). I could see a monitor connector (or at least a USB) in an FX unit, just like there is one in a modern digital mixer. That way the adjustments would be reasonably easy, and those few pots could be addressed to the parameters needed. Serious set up takes time and the computer/tablet/phone UI is usually better than a pedal. After all basic adjustments the big screen is needed rarely. I think this path is seen with modern units, like tce and its Toneprint, Eventide, Source Audio, and alike.

I agree, but you're talking like the pedal makers can't take the development cost of an actual modern product, which is why I really hate the pedal market. They don't care because everyone keeps buying the same pedals from 15 years ago in a new (sometimes) shell!

Companies don't develop in series, but in parallel. Along with the yearly pedal rehash, they could spend some of the budget to advance the industry a bit and if they started the process 5 years ago, trust  you me, we would now have an actually good digital, usable, non-crippled pedal, that can do things expected in 2020. I guess I'm just waiting for the line of old gits "only twists me one nob" to stop fueling the market, so perhaps some incentives will come through lol

[itu]

4 hours ago, akabane said:

Companies don't develop in series, but in parallel. Along with the yearly pedal rehash, they could spend some of the budget to advance the industry a bit and if they started the process 5 years ago...

Again, I partly agree. If there's a project of 18 months, you may get the money to it. If there is something substantially bigger, 3 years is really, really long development time for any project. I did never get any money to a longer project while working in an internationally known electronics company. Neither did my colleagues. Usually the schedule was shorter, like 10 - 15 months. Research needs those resources which produce serious daily income. Guess who wins?

Longer term development is like taking small steps at a time. If the product would be a world class invention, that everybody would buy, sure that would receive lots of money. But how would you be able to say, that this is it? From the famous crystal ball? Source Audio made the best possible volume pedal so far, the Reflex ( https://www.sourceaudio.net/reflex-expression-controller.html ). The production was short lived. Practically impossible to find one.

How about their ring that can control pedal parametrics ( https://www.sourceaudio.net/hot-hand.html )? Is everybody using it? I do not know how poor income these units produced, but I think that these were really good inventions.

The main question behind all development work is how to predict the future? If you know what will interest people, you can get the top management and marketing behind you. But Goddess Fortuna is hard on us mortals.

[stewblack]

I suspect the reason digital multi effects come out 'incomplete' is as @itu suggests. Better get it out, ASAP, then release bug fixes, firmware updates as and when. 

The customer is effectively buying an unfinished product then gives the company kudos for updating it! 

 

[adamg67]

I think I'm with @akabane on this. Given what's possible, a lot of effects pedals could just use a common platform with programmable DSP and the actual effect would just be software. Source Audio's One series look a bit like this, but are proprietary (although hacking a one series would be fun). With pedals like that you can have basic controls on the pedal and more complicated setup, presets and stuff like that gets done via another device (tablet, pc etc). Individual devices can be synced using a midi pedal so you can have presets across multiple pedals. It's all doable. Maybe it will get here eventually. Maybe it will grow from something like raspberry pi pedals instead of coming from hardware manufacturers.

[itu]

2 hours ago, adamg67 said:

Given what's possible, a lot of effects pedals could just use a common platform with programmable DSP and the actual effect would just be software.

Then you need to check Line6 who had a pedal platform with programmable unit. They only sold it in the States. No success. Yes, I sourced the stereo unit. The group of programmers was small enough not to be interesting enough, so no commercial success. Price was reasonable and there was a forum where people changed ideas and code. Fail. No commercial success.

Tell you a story of custom slalom skis:

A European ski company started a custom program, where you could get any graphics to your skis you want. Delivery time: 2 weeks only, minimal xtra cost (like £20 or similar).

"Do you want these?"

"Yes, please!"

"When shall you buy them?"

"Well... I have been saving for the ultimate holiday in Alps for three years. I have good boots, I shall consider the investment near the holiday."

What happens then? The customer goes to the shop one week before the "ultimate holiday" and buys the set looks and feels good at the shop.

The company representative said to me that they have tried this service twice with exactly similar results.

When you have a product or a service, it has to meet customer needs and habits. Otherwise it will just fail. My idea of an ultimate idea may be good for me (I think?) but if I am the only customer, no go. Risk to put £100k to a complete waste drives the top management decisions. Been there, seen too much.