FX loop

[hipbluescat]

Hi

I have a D'lite and I am wondering what FX loop you think works best with this amp.

1. Iron FX board or
2. passive loop with a Kleinulator
3. passive loop with a Dumulator

What would you suggest ?

I intend to use a effects rack with this amp.

[bluesfendermanblues]

I would definetely go for a parallel loop, in order for the signal not to be ruined through the digital effects converters etc.

I'm not sure wether the Dumbuator og Kleinulator offers parallel operation ?? If not I would turn to Kevin O'Conners (The Ultimate Tone I - aka TUT I) loop designs, which are similar in their design, but for sure parallel. Just my 0.02 Euro.

[Structo]

I put the Ironsounds loop on mine.
Works great!
But I don't have anything else to compare it to.

It has a true bypass button switch as well as a 6 db pad switch.
I run an echo and delay through mine and it sounds great.

I heard you can upgrade the chip that it comes with as the one it ships with is fairly low quality. Can't remember the details of which one to get though.

[greiswig]

I have the Ironsounds in my D'Lite and installed an O'Connor series/parallel loop in my Bad Cat. I will likely be pulling the Ironsounds and putting in another O'Connor-style loop in my D'Lite, or else putting in a parallel capable Dumbleator in there. The Ironsound unit is pretty good, but I think it takes too big of a bite out of the sound compared to the TUT design by O'Connor, and I don't like running serial.

[phalanges]

I built the public file parallel/series version Kleinulator that I found on the Brown Note forum. Works fine in parallel with the Intellifex.

[Structo]

I didn't know the Ironsounds loop was serial.
Hmmmm

[greiswig]

I didn't know the Ironsounds loop was serial.
Hmmmm

If you have it and use it with a delay, how could you not know it was serial?

Serial means that you have to mix wet/dry at the delay unit, so all the signal ends up going through that circuitry, including A/D and D/A. Running parallel means that you'd run the delay unit full wet, and your dry signal is relatively unchanged. You'd think with today's good quality A/D converters this wouldn't matter much, especially with relatively low bandwidth signal like guitar. But I think there might be compression or limiting in a lot of these units as well, or at least nasty artifacts of clipping even before the FX unit registers as clipping. Being able to run parallel just sounds better, to my ears.

[greiswig]

I didn't know the Ironsounds loop was serial.
Hmmmm

If you have it and use it with a delay, how could you not know it was serial?

Serial means that you have to mix wet/dry at the delay unit, so all the signal ends up going through that circuitry, including A/D and D/A. Running parallel means that you'd run the delay unit full wet, and your dry signal is relatively unchanged. You'd think with today's good quality A/D converters this wouldn't matter much, especially with relatively low bandwidth signal like guitar. But I think there might be compression or limiting in a lot of these units as well, or at least nasty artifacts of clipping even before the FX unit registers as clipping. Being able to run parallel just sounds better, to my ears.

[Max]

I didn't know the Ironsounds loop was serial.
Hmmmm

If you have it and use it with a delay, how could you not know it was serial?

Serial means that you have to mix wet/dry at the delay unit, so all the signal ends up going through that circuitry, including A/D and D/A. Running parallel means that you'd run the delay unit full wet, and your dry signal is relatively unchanged. You'd think with today's good quality A/D converters this wouldn't matter much, especially with relatively low bandwidth signal like guitar. But I think there might be compression or limiting in a lot of these units as well, or at least nasty artifacts of clipping even before the FX unit registers as clipping. Being able to run parallel just sounds better, to my ears.

Hi Greiswig,

as you know, Dumble (as far as I know) never offered a "parallel" Dumblelator. Do you think, he did so, because the "parallel just sounds better" effect only appears, when you use clones of Dumble amps together with clones of Dumblelators and not when you use his original devices, or do you think, Alexander Dumble just did not know how to do a parallel Dumblelator?

Best regards

Max

[bluesfendermanblues]

General comment:
That's the sad old song.......
If Dumble didn't do it, we shouldn't it???

And If Dumble hasn't designed it, it's no good.

Well, just listen to Heistl, Funk, Ayan, Glaswerk, Dogears or other fine builders amps and you'll find very good sounds and interesting builds.

Yes, Dumble has made fine amps for Ford and Carlton, and he founded a fine tradition of great 6v6 like sounds at bedroom level, but time hasn't stood still in the DIY or more professionel circles either.

About serial loops
Why does Robben Ford use the highest studio quality equipment in the seriale Dumble loop ?? Even though the effects part of the signal is only 10% of the total sound? Because a serial loop sucks with timebased effects. Its fine for a compressor, which should be in serial mode.

Check out Kevin O'conner The Ultimate Tone I, page 7-11 fig. 7-16 "the best all-tube loop" that will fry any Dumblator IMHO.

[heisthl]

One thing to keep in mind about all things tube for guitar, sometimes what sounds best is not the best design; otherwise. we would all be using HiFi gear to amplify our guitars. Personally I love the sound of the Dumbleator because of what it adds to the sound. IMHO any D style amp sounds better with one than without and what it adds is not possible with a parallel unit even if you flip the speaker phase. YMMV

[Aurora]

Being at the "design" ( read: bewildered ) stage of a possible Dumble, could someone clarify a few thing for an old audiophool, but strictly a guitar newb?
Serial/parallel I understand, but wet/dry ????

[LooseChange]

Wet = All effect.
Dry = No effect.

I have built and use a Parallel effects loop. They are based on the TUT design. The parallel loop is a great feature and extremely useful. It's like a reverb mix knob from your amp changed to an effects mix.

I do understand Dogears explanation that the Dumbulator makes every Dumble sound better. IMO that's why HAD designed it.

[dogears]

I have extensive experience with the TUT loop and the Dumbleator. You have a point about A/d converting devices in a serial loop, however, in my 6 amps (1 has a version of the TUT loop), my favorite tones are with the ones that use the "real" Dumbleator. And furthermore, the TC2290 that Robben bases his tones on is an all analog signal path that internally mixes the signal in parallel. Let's not leave that out!! The effect itself is a parallel mixer in a way. What I use is the Sound Sculpture Switchblade to parallel mix with my Dumbleator. Here is a pic of my rack. The patches with just TC2290 use all serial mode and when I use the Eventide it is either serial or parallel depending on patch. I can also series mix the TC and simultaneously mix in the Eventide in parallel!

[img902]http://www.scottlernermusic.com/images/RackNew.jpg[/img]

Yes, Dumble has made fine amps for Ford and Carlton, and he founded a fine tradition of great 6v6 like sounds at bedroom level, but time hasn't stood still in the DIY or more professionel circles either.

About serial loops
Why does Robben Ford use the highest studio quality equipment in the seriale Dumble loop ?? Even though the effects part of the signal is only 10% of the total sound? Because a serial loop sucks with timebased effects. Its fine for a compressor, which should be in serial mode.

Check out Kevin O'conner The Ultimate Tone I, page 7-11 fig. 7-16 "the best all-tube loop" that will fry any Dumblator IMHO.

[greiswig]

Hi Greiswig,

as you know, Dumble (as far as I know) never offered a "parallel" Dumblelator. Do you think, he did so, because the "parallel just sounds better" effect only appears, when you use clones of Dumble amps together with clones of Dumblelators and not when you use his original devices, or do you think, Alexander Dumble just did not know how to do a parallel Dumblelator?

Best regards

Max

Max, nope...if anyone was capable of designing a parallel loop, it was HAD. He had his reasons, I'm sure. But there are a lot of FX types that I wouldn't want to run serial.

This is a great discussion! Scott and others who have tried the real-deal Dumbleators prefer them. I haven't ever tried one (anybody in PDX wanna let me hear one?), so I don't know what it does to the signal. O'Connor's goal with his FX loop was transparency, as far as I know. At least part of the D'lator's mojo seems to come from cable capacitance tapering off highs...which should be simulatable with capacitors. Other than that, I don't know what the D'lator does to signal: does it goose the return signal considerably so it hits the PI harder? Is there distortion or harmonic addition taking place inside the D'lator tube?

One other thing I like about O'Connor's loop: you can build it into the amp, as it does not require additional transformers, a rack, etc. I've heard here that people who tried to do that with a D'lator were not as happy with it, but once again I have no idea why.

But for the OP, I think it's fair to say that a serial loop will require you to figure out how to do mixing externally from the amp, and you may not dig what the coloration does to the whole signal unless it's a really top-notch FX unit.