| Author |
 Topic  |
|
zentropa
Gold Member
USA
837 Posts |
 Posted - 07/19/2008 : 18:54:13
|
the TS808/TS9 definitely have a bit of a difference than the SD-1, but overall it's similar.
tube screamers just have a bit more bite to em and a bit more boost behind em, although they have less gain. a lot of that is op amp related.
out of my SD-1's, they all had the same general sound, but the fullness of the sound was much stronger on the older pedals. the tone remained the same, but seemed like the low end response was stronger on all of the older pedals. newer ones had stronger treble bite but felt like a lot of their components were more hifi making the frequency ceiling/floor on them more apparent. that being said, there's situations where i feel a newer SD-1 is better suited than an older one.
the MD-2 didn't make my consider list because it failed in a few categories. it failed the noise gate test (as do many boss pedals with knobs shaped like that) in that played quietly or with the drive set low, it has artificial decay and acts like a noise gate on low signal strength. it also failed the low end crunch test at moderate volumes (waiting room, by fugazi)... it would fart badly on any setting doing a palm muted chord with a doubled 5th.
i believe the MXR D+ is based upon the contemporary fuzz pedals of its time but with more boost. the rat as well. both of those are rather "generic" distortions. i feel the DS-1 was roughly based upon those, but probably closer to the rat.
|
 |
|
|
visserman
Platinum Member
1072 Posts |
Posted - 07/23/2008 : 19:38:26
|
You have covered most of what is related to this subject, and overal your observations are very clear.
Would there be much difference with an early version of a--for example-- BD-2 and a later version? I use this pedal as it is one which is still in production and started its life in the mid 90s.
Most of the discussion around this subject seem to focus on early versions versus later versions like e.g DS-1, SD-1, BF-2 ect.
|
|
|
|
zentropa
Gold Member
USA
837 Posts |
Posted - 07/23/2008 : 20:37:05
|
Visser:
from my experiences (although i've asked about this and the consensus from the electronics gurus have said some of it shouldn't necessarily be happening) but:
1. on average it seems to take 8-15 years to get an "aged" sound from a pedal. wide range, but if you start stepping up in increments of 7-8 years i've found a 2008 vs. 2000 vs. 1993 etc. all MIT all sound different.
2. the more use a pedal sees, the more quickly the "aged" sound seems to develop. i don't use pedals all that much for a continuous amount of time. like 10 minutes at a time maybe 3 times a week. for people using them 2-4 hours a day 6 days a week, their pedals will "break in" faster than mine do. seems like the heavy use pedals age after 7-8 years, whereas the sparsely used pedals like mine take closer to 10-15.
so yah, a 1996 blues driver should sound noticeably different from a 2008 blues driver, but it should still sound like a blues driver. in 2020, the 1996 blues driver should still sound different than the 2008 blues driver, but the 2008 blues driver should sound different from the 2020 blues driver... at least that's my theory on it. i can usually guess the year of a pedal based upon how it sounds.
the really deceptive ones are the pedals that are in very good or very bad condition externally as this usually (but not always) implies their amount of use. |
|
|
|
visserman
Platinum Member
1072 Posts |
Posted - 07/24/2008 : 11:15:41
|
Very informative post Zentro,
So components will change anyway due to time and usage.
Thanks for that conclusion!!
|
|
|
|
zentropa
Gold Member
USA
837 Posts |
Posted - 07/24/2008 : 16:37:25
|
heh no problem.
i've noticed a lot of differences but i can't seem to make conclusions as these aren't ceteris paribus experiments... too many variables.
i have noticed ACA versions of a pedal vs. PSA versions of a pedal even if they were manufactured in the same spots sound a bit different... but then again ACA versions are all a touch older. just seems like the PSA versions have more "oomph" behind em, even if the ACA are getting full power.
this in turn led me to some other questions. aside from a pedal like the OD-1 that switched from 14 pin to 8 pin op amps, why did some of the other pedals have that many board revisions? easier to manufacture them with the revised layout? sound quality issues?
also... dud factor... i've read a lot of places that have talked about people buying 5-10 different tube screamers back in the day trying to get 1-2 "good ones." i've noticed that out of the dozen SD-1's or so that i've had, there's been like 4 that were really sweet, 2 that were really bad, and 6 that were so so. on other pedals nearly all of them have been identical. the CS-2 is the only other pedal i've owned that was across that board as much as that.
heh. it gets weird. these aren't really questions i need to have answers for, just some random observations.
|
Edited by - zentropa on 07/24/2008 16:39:45 |
|
|
|
Laurie
Double Platinum Member
Canada
4854 Posts |
Posted - 07/24/2008 : 16:58:16
|
quote:
Originally posted by zentropa
why did some of the other pedals have that many board revisions? easier to manufacture them with the revised layout? sound quality issues?
My guess if it follows the normal electronics manufacturing process is "incremental cost optimisations".
|
|
|
|
visserman
Platinum Member
1072 Posts |
Posted - 07/24/2008 : 18:26:49
|
zentro,
Off course, no hard answers as such more observations, but usefull nonethesuch.
It can get insane to find that pedal which does sound "right" I guess having all this knowledge here does not help because it may make you wonder: "Does my pedal sound good"?
I have heard about that idea with the Tubescreamers as well, could that not be something of the past when manufacturing was depend on more variations?
|
|
|
|
zentropa
Gold Member
USA
837 Posts |
Posted - 07/25/2008 : 08:34:59
|
laurie:
makes me wonder why there haven't been any revisions since the mid-80's though... unless they hit the lower bounds of cheapness heh.
visser:
the variances seem to change by pedal. with something like the SD-1 i've found they range from being able to generate a full on fuzz sound down to where the drive was so mild that with the gain maxed it sounded like my fuzzier SD-1's set to like 9 o'clock. seems like as a whole the taiwan ones have a less rounded low end. mid-80's seems to have the most crunch.
i've also had DS-1's that sounded way tube-like and others that were plain fizzy and they were from similar years.
i know the cause is probably component variance... but on occasion it seems like it's a larger factor than that. |
|
|
|
Laurie
Double Platinum Member
Canada
4854 Posts |
Posted - 07/25/2008 : 13:40:29
|
quote:
Originally posted by zentropa
laurie:
makes me wonder why there haven't been any revisions since the mid-80's though... unless they hit the lower bounds of cheapness heh.
Maybe. Or it could be that the components go out of general manufacture so the has to design change (e.g. the 14 pin quad opamp in the early OD-1's).
Possibly what happened is that Boss got big enough in the 80's that their suppliers bottomed out the prices and kept the parts "current".
|
|
|
|
zentropa
Gold Member
USA
837 Posts |
Posted - 07/25/2008 : 19:48:19
|
interesting update to all of this.
i finally got my marshalls set back up last weekend after being stored during the flood repairs.
i finally found a use for my MIJ DS-2.
seems like through every other amp i used it to it sounded pretty godawful (this was like 8 amps).
through the marshall "clean" channels w/ gain at 12 o'clock on the amp the DS-2 chunked up very well without being overly harsh or fizzy. seems like the natural amp drive balanced out the DS-2's lack of low end and the slight low-mid scoop in its circuit balanced off with the low sludge and avoided mud.
|
|
|
|
visserman
Platinum Member
1072 Posts |
Posted - 07/27/2008 : 15:08:41
|
Hmmmm,
About the variations what about this ieda?
# When Roland moved to Taiwan, machines being used for productions where getting more and more precise, computers being used as tools etc. etc. Overal components become more consistent as a result pedals started to sound cleaner and clearer and more similar in sound.
No need to make revisions any more because the pedals sound the way people like them.
When certain chips have run out they used other ones, but their sound does not really effect the final sound of the pedal.
I think overal there is a trend of the sound being quite consistent.
A DS-1 from now still sounds very similar to one of the first ones, same goes for all the other pedals.
I have noticed a similar trend with guitars: Fenders from the 60s and 70s do have more variation in feel and sound, you get towards mid 80s and they get more consitent in feel and sound. Why? Perhaps again the machines and productiontechniques? I know, with guitars there is more vartion than with pedals so I have to be careful with this generalisation, but as a rule of thumb it is true.
Us being freaks here, we may get carried away with checking sounds of similar pedals to see how consistent they are ect. but for the general public the sound has not changed all that much.
What I find with the BF-2 is that my Sept. 1980 one is great for vibrato sounds, a later version is less good with this application, but the overal flanging sounds good on both pedals.
To get clean chorus sound, the later version is better at this application, maybe because the pedal is overal cleaner and has less bottom end----very likely!!
Zen: You and your Marshalls, what kind of speakers are you using? I find that celestionspeakers do like most of the Boss dist. overdrives.
As you, I do like the sound of the DS-2 through Marshalls, even though my amps may be much smaller than yours [ but the clean sound of those Lead 12s and Reverb 12s is pretty much the same as those of Marshall Superlead, Superbass, JMP and the Marshalls from the 80s].
Try the same pedal and guitar through a different amp/speaker and sometimes you may find you get very different results. Frustrating? No, I think it helps you to see which basic set-ups will be good for particular sounds so when it comes to getting those sounds you know how to get there quickly, and you can just concentrate on the part of making music instead of worry about your sound. All common sense eh?
|
|
|
|
zentropa
Gold Member
USA
837 Posts |
Posted - 07/27/2008 : 17:52:02
|
one of my marshalls has G70's. the other has vintage 30's.
it's just odd because i HATED the DS-2 until i tried it there hehe. i thought it sounded like an amp with a blown speaker.
your theories on production is probably true.
as for production consistency, i agree the overall tone has held up okay, but the dynamics and the level boosts, etc. are the things that seem to have struggled over time.
|
|
|
|
kidcheesyriffs
Copper Member
USA
24 Posts |
Posted - 07/28/2008 : 19:55:51
|
Zen - Thanks for the reviews. As usual, kick a$$.  |
|
|
|
visserman
Platinum Member
1072 Posts |
Posted - 07/28/2008 : 19:59:37
|
I think I my Marshalls have G10s, 2 of them have similar speaker, vut both amps sound different. Most people would dislike them, because they are not good at giving you a clean sound. Also those two amps have no bottomend at all--most Marshalls lack bottomend--. I use two other ones, one being a bassamp [a bass12 from same series] and the other one is again a Reverb 12 but this time with a replaced Silverseries speaker. Now the amp with the Silverseries speaker sound good on its own, does have more volume ect. ect. but no overal character. Those silverseries speakers are budget vintage celestions I believe.
Anyway none of this I realised, just got these amps over the last 8 years or so, but up until two years ago I started to see what they could do and how special they are in a way.
Sometimes I use all four at the same time, and they give me the idea that you are using a small stack, but just more portable and flexable.
That is enough of me talking about those amps, because anyone here believes they have killer-gear.
Don't you sometimes wish we could have some kind of Bossmeeting, a convention for a weekend where each of us could demonstrate their gear, talk about its strengths and weaknesses, do some jamming and enjoy the whole event.
Maybe one day we may get there, who knows eh?
|
|
|
|
zentropa
Gold Member
USA
837 Posts |
Posted - 07/29/2008 : 08:21:29
|
hehe. a convention would be cool but unless it was in minneapolis i'd need a rich benefactor to pay my way as i'm way too in debt to afford to go anywhere or do anything heh.
it's odd with marshalls and low end.
depends a lot on the model and tube config. pentode marshalls tend to have pretty decent low end. i think part of it is mixed with the cab designs. i've found the open back combos to preserve a lot more full bottom end (albeit less focused low punch) than stacks.
i actually play my JCM900 with the bass set to like 3 when i'm using a guitar w/ super D's or my SG's.
more to the pedal wars:
i still can't f'n figure out boss FZ series pedals... they just sound pewptastic to me in nearly every situation. |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
the pedal wars...
