Support
Looper's Delight
|
Support |
|
|
Goddess wrote: > *laughing* -Am I the only one who doesn't give > a load of dingo's > kidneys what type of volume pedal I use?! Nope. i'd like to point out that robert fripp used the same volume pedal for like 25 years, because he liked the throw of it. it also happened to be the cheapest volume pedal he could find at the time (or was that his fuzz box ...?). point being, he didn't care either. he picked it because it felt good, not because of it's impact on his tone. i myself used a Rolls volume pedal for years because it was cheap and i already had it. i recently fell into a loaned Yamaha MFC with 4 FC7 pedals which i'm using via MIDI to control my volumes now. i gave the Rolls to the shoegazer band i'm recording right now. they don't have any money, and like having the volume pedal. life is good. --- dgoat <dgoat@quik.com> wrote: > If you (in the general sense) don't care about > true-bypass on all of > your effects pedals, then your signal is probably so > degraded that a > passive volume pedal SUCKING out your tone probably > won't be noticed. what is this thing called "tone-suck"? i've heard alot of guitarists use this term on effects forums and whatnot, but no one bothers to explain the phenomenon quantitavely. is it a subjective term like "phat", or an objective term like "punchy"? FWIW the volume pedal on my Hammond organ (of which there is no equal in feel except maybe the Ernie Ball and the Yamaha FC7) doesn't completely choke the signal at the bottom, has 34 distinct steps (it's a stepped R/C network), and has a completely different EQ curve at the top (flat) than the bottom (bassy). it's quite freakish as a pure volume pedal but it kicks ass musically. happy l00ping, stg/erwill ------------------------------------------------- This mail sent through IMP: http://horde.org/imp/