] [Thread Prev
RE: JamMan Delay Mode
There's a pedal made by BOSS called the LS-1 which has several features
for mixing different inputs as
well as a couple of FX inserts. In all quite a few choices ( but only one
at a time )
I was using it as an A/B pedal but recently started
experimenting with the inserts - I connected the guitar to input and an
amp to the output. Using the pedal
I could switch in a cheap microphone stuck in front of the amp and induce
mayhem ( with the help of a
few extreme pedals to boost the guitar signals ) You could also carry out
further experiments like plugging
the output of a radio into it, and spinning the dial - short wave 'deedley
deep deep' noises are great.
Using the mic again you could sing, play flute, tape the dog barking (
play harmonica and tape the dog
howling even ) and when you've exhausted all possibilites switch back to
normal service and play all your
Tomy Iommi solos over it ( or play a real Tony Iommi solo into the mic via
a tape recorder ! )
As the LS-1 has two inserts you can connect another device for temporary
usage ( I stuck a BOSS DD3 in, set
to HOLD mode - play some stuff,press the pedal then manipulte the delay
time knob to send odd noises
to the amp. Now, if like me you have an A/B pedal with one connection to
your main amp and another to
your mixer feeding a looping device and some processors you can send your
all your diddlings into your
But back to the point, Glenn, I'll connect up the jamman and the LS-1 to
see if there's a way around the
problem of cutting input to the JM. Way back, I used to just turn down the
JM's input knob, play, then
turn it up when I want to add more in. Now I use the A/B pedal, so have
the two amp solution I guess.
Yours in experimentation
From: VanEyck [SMTP:firstname.lastname@example.org]
Sent: 31 March 1998 15:53
Subject: Re: JamMan Delay Mode
One way to do this with one pedal is if you have a two input amp
(any Fender, most Marshalls and Hiwatts, Roland JC etc...). Morley and
Ernie Ball make a stereo panning pedal. Pan in one direction, the clean
guitar signal goes into input 1, pan the other way the guitar signal goes
into the Jamman in loop mode and then into input 2. Some amps second
input is made for a low impedence signal which is perfect for the Jamman
anyways. If you can only use one input you could still sum the two
signals back together at the amp with a Y cable if necessary. This way
you can also slowly mix a non looped passage into the delay stream and
On Mon, 30 Mar 1998, Glenn Greenway wrote:
> Hello Eveyone:
> Recently, some great suggestions were posted about the JamMan's delay
> mode and how it is well suited for looping. I tried all the suggestions
> and am very impressed. It seems to me that the most significant
> difference between delay mode and loop mode is that in the former loop
> points can be _repositioned on the fly_ while in the latter once set,
> the JamMan needs to be _'reset'_. Also in delay mode there are 16
> Feedback levels as opposed to the three MIDI fades offered in loop mode.
> Those two differences are WAY substantial! I can't believe how much
> more organicly my loops evolve in delay mode than in loop mode.
> However, there is an equally prominent downside to using delay
> mode...the often stated bypass problem. Everything one plays get added
> to the pot resulting in an unwieldy and blurry mix.
> It has been suggested that a volume pedal, inserted into the effects
> loop might help but with my simple rig (guitar, amp, jamman, digitech
> Control Seven MIDI pedalboard) all that happens is that the guitar
> signal gets turned down before the JamMan and then _you can't hear it_.
> An A/B box is also suggested as an alternative but that sounds rather
> too _binary_ for my taste.
> What is needed is a way to bypass the JamMan in one's effect loop. If
> the signal could be variably split by a volume or MIDI control pedal
> (before the JamMan, effectivley bypassing it)and then remixed after, I
> suspect the JamMan might become _much_ more valuable as an interactive
> musical device. But how? The remixing seems to no problem but what
> kind of 'Splitter Pedals' are available?
> I know that a mixer would solve the bypass problem, but a pedal would be
> better. Are there other alternatives that I haven't considered?
> Thanks again to everyone on the list, what a significantly groovy bunch.
> Viva la Peepers!