Forum Replies Created
-
The newer XO and Nano series pedals have a different paint job altogether. Durability is a minor issue now… the new labels can take abuse.
I do agree that the classic style pedal paint jobs were fairly scratch-sensitive… and I’m sure it’s one of the many reasons why they’re being gradually phased out.
There are two I know of.
The Barge Concepts VFB-X is a blend loop/feedback loop pedal which offers expression-pedal-based control in addition to static knob settings. The fun part is, you can control either the blend loop or the feedback loop by an expression pedal.
There’s also the Morley FX Blender, which is a blend loop pedal enclosed in a Morley Wah housing. Basically, the expression pedal is a permanent part of the pedal.
Honestly, these are both a challenge to work with properly in practice, because of changes in gain as you sweep from fully dry to fully wet. You will experience a dip in volume when moving towards 50/50, and an increase in volume when moving away from that point. While I have seen blend knobs on some effect pedals which have been carefully adjusted at various points to maintain a consistent level of volume across the board (without additional knobs), I have yet to see this in a blend loop pedal, much less, one with expression-pedal-based control.
1) To my knowledge, they’re discontinued.
2) It’s a common misconceptions that SMDs are digital. Yes, some are, but most are not. They’re simply tiny versions of their analog counterparts. In the case of the Nano Small Stone, it’s still an all-analog circuit – it simply uses SMDs to save space.
3) I don’t know, actually. Open it up and compare.
4) I disagree… I thought the Nano Small Stone was louder overall. My experience with the original is that it had a “volume drop” because of the way it sweeped. At least to my ears, the Nano has a gain boost to compensate for that “drop.” Other than that, they sounded the same to me when I had both. I’m sure others might disagree.Are you talking about an overhaul in the sense of rehousing/reissuing and discontinuing?
+1 on the DEM. I don’t think it’s too complex for XO – after all, they did get the Micro Synth in an XO chassis, and the original had two dense circuitboards in it!
I don’t know if there’s a need to shrink the Flanger Hoax.
I’d love to see a true Nano or XO version of the Small Clone (the current Nano Clone doesn’t count…)
The Small Stone has already been Nano’d, and it’s here to stay.
I highly disagree about the Clone Theory. I love that pedal, and even though there are a lot of chorus pedals out there, NOTHING sounds like the Clone Theory. I don’t think it’s going anywhere.
The SEM definitely isn’t going anywhere.
The Polychorus is long overdue for an XO transition.
The Polyphase definitely is here to stay. Same with the Worm.
In short, the only changes that should be made, IMO, are really just rehousings in the XO or Nano format. That way, we have more room on our boards for more EHX pedals.
Quote:I personally build most of my effects and just buy a few and by building them I know that there is a difference between using a cheap electrolyte and a philips one, this just to make an example. When I build my effects I choose carefully the right components, if it’s a vintage one I use ceramic cond instead of film ones and carbon composition resistors instead of metal ones, etc..etc.. Now if I’m using a pedal built which SMD (which is super cheap) I can hear it, there is a clear difference, sounds sharp and not very expressive. In fact I think the carbon copy delay is a bad pedal. I know SMD makes it possible to put effects in smaller boxes but I prefer to have less effects and more quality if the sound is so unusable.That has less to do with SMD as a whole, and more to do with the design and manufacturer. A cheaply made and poorly designed pedal is a cheaply made and poorly designed pedal, regardless of whether or not the components are SMD. It just so happens that it’s cheaper to use SMD nowadays for these terrible designs. They are not the cause of said poor quality, however. SMD is the standard for digital devices for a reason.
Being an effects junkie and a bass player, I’ve used a lot of pedals over the past few years. Some of the digital ones I’ve used sound far better than comparable analog ones. I don’t understand the origin of your “unusable sound” belief, nor have I heard this “sharpness” and “lack of expression” you describe. I’ve never heard something that appalling which used SMD (although I’m sure some plenty of terrible SMD-based pedals exist). I can’t say the same about traditional components, but again, it’s all about design and sonic preferences.
The types of parts used and their properties can have some impact on the sound of an effect, but this in no way suggests that SMD is perpetually inferior. If you really do believe that, you may as well throw out most of your electronic equipment, since SMDs are everywhere.
