| Author |
 Topic  |
|
|
starr36
Platinum Member
Canada
1172 Posts |
 Posted - 02/22/2006 : 04:49:51
|
Has anyone compared the HF-2 and the BF-2 (both MIJ please).
Can someone explain to me what the HF-2 does and contrast the two for us - why was HF-2 so short lived? |
|
|
pawnshop_trash
Gold Member
USA
603 Posts |
Posted - 02/22/2006 : 17:46:34
|
| the HF-2 flanges only the higher frequencies, letting the lower frequencies pass through unchanged, and the effect is more subtle than the BF-2. I do not know what the cutoff frequency is, though. IMHO, the HF-2 is better for distorted rhythm guitar, unless you really want the flanging to be in your face. |
 |
|
|
starr36
Platinum Member
Canada
1172 Posts |
Posted - 02/22/2006 : 19:43:08
|
quote:
Originally posted by pawnshop_trash
the HF-2 flanges only the higher frequencies, letting the lower frequencies pass through unchanged, and the effect is more subtle than the BF-2. I do not know what the cutoff frequency is, though. IMHO, the HF-2 is better for distorted rhythm guitar, unless you really want the flanging to be in your face.
But can you tell me what it SOUNDS LIKE or is there anywhere a signature guitar player that uses it so one can hear what this gizmo does? |
|
|
|
pawnshop_trash
Gold Member
USA
603 Posts |
Posted - 02/22/2006 : 20:43:08
|
| can't think of any HF-2 users offhand... Eddie Van Halen didn't use a Boss flanger for the intro to "Unchained", but I'm pretty sure a BF-2 would be closer to that sound than a HF-2. |
|
|
|
corncake
Copper Member
USA
7 Posts |
Posted - 03/19/2006 : 15:14:41
|
| Jake E. Lee used the HF-2. |
|
|
|
StratoSphere
Double Platinum Member
Canada
2232 Posts |
Posted - 03/19/2006 : 22:08:12
|
i never understood why they called the HF-2 "Hi Band" i find it flanges the lows just as much as the highs with or without distortions. the HF2 is definately more subtle though.
i prefer the bf2 for clean sounds, and the hf2 for dirty rhythym and lead. |
|
|
|
Heart and Soul
Silver Member
USA
369 Posts |
Posted - 03/22/2006 : 19:34:12
|
| I was thinking about getting an HF-2...Which one would suit shoegazing better?...Sounds like the HF-2 would work... |
|
|
|
Dingus
Silver Member
USA
472 Posts |
Posted - 03/22/2006 : 20:23:40
|
| for Shoegazing it is a must to get some Reverse Reverb. |
|
|
|
Heart and Soul
Silver Member
USA
369 Posts |
Posted - 03/23/2006 : 04:33:57
|
Very true...I've got the Digitech Digiverb and it's basically always set to reverse...I like it and it was pretty cheap so it works out...
Seems like the flanging on MBV is pretty subtle sometimes thats why I was wondering about the HF-2...
peace |
|
|
|
bosshog
Silver Member
Canada
493 Posts |
Posted - 05/26/2006 : 17:36:50
|
| Anyone else want to comment on the HF-2? I just bought one. I think the subtler Flanger tone is more warm...An in your face Flanger tone is just horrible....much like a processed Flanger tone. |
|
|
|
controlfreak
Silver Member
Ireland
337 Posts |
Posted - 05/29/2006 : 10:34:58
|
^^ i'm with you on that. i have an old BF-2 and never really found a sound i could use from it until i found a sweet spot where it gives a watery chorus sound.
i got the hi-band flanger then and was amazed by how good it sounds with overdrive or dist. really adds another dimension to distorted passages without giving you that 80's metal whoosh.
it's still a damn good flanger, it's just more usable for everyday applications.
i'd love if boss brought out a hi-band phaser! |
|
|
| |
Topic |
|
HF-2 vs BF-2 MIJ shootout
