Other Equipment

Why is it pedalboards…

26

Vince, which Tim? I always listen to you, man.

I have to note, though, that if you turn the guitar around with the strings against your belly, the cable will still be coming out at the right (if it's a top-mounted jack, be sure to use a right-angle plug or you'll poke a hole in yourself), so it'll still go into the right-side jack on your first pedal, no worries. (Unless you also turn the pedal upside down [unless you also rotate it 180°] - but in any case giving you a much larger surface area to stomp.)

27

"Even when going wireless, I can find a cable to trip over."

Frank that is gold.

28

Vince, which Tim? I always listen to you, man.

I have to note, though, that if you turn the guitar around with the strings against your belly, the cable will still be coming out at the right (if it's a top-mounted jack, be sure to use a right-angle plug or you'll poke a hole in yourself), so it'll still go into the right-side jack on your first pedal, no worries. (Unless you also turn the pedal upside down [unless you also rotate it 180°] - but in any case giving you a much larger surface area to stomp.)

– Proteus

My smarty pants idea is that we play the guitar the wrong way round. Fiddly fretboard dexterity should be left to the master hand...commonly the right hand. And this is due to days of yore when the medieval guitar heroes plucked their lutes like Richie Blackmore. Maybe. Just wondered what you thought o wise wizard? Always like your epistles

29

"footiculate"

Love it. And agree! Most-stepped-on pedals in front, lesser-used pedals in back, regardless of signal flow. And this can make for some stupid wiring. My "solo boost" pedal, which is a clean boost for VOLUME boost, not gain boost, is last in my chain... but used alot, so it has to go on the front of my board. It's inconvenient making it convenient.

And don't even get me started on running effects loop cables to and from the board.... what a PITA.... but the delays (and for me, reverb and tremolo as well), DO sound better in the loop...

30

Fiddly fretboard dexterity should be left to the master hand...commonly the right hand. And this is due to days of yore when the medieval guitar heroes plucked their lutes like Richie Blackmore. Maybe. Just wondered what you thought o wise wizard? Always like your epistles

Y'know, I don't know about that. I've thought about it too - more often when I was a youthful lad trying to learn piano and guitar overlappingly. (Started piano at 7, banjo at 10, guitar at 11.) I had a lazy/retarded left hand on piano (still do), and thought the left-hand dexterity I was developing on guitar might eventually help there (it hasn't).

I always wonder what fretboard wizardry was like 200-300, even 100 years ago. Was it always the left hand that led off the bedazzlement, or was right-hand technique sometimes more the focus? Both, of course, ultimately - as much in classical or Chetpickin' as in shredmetal. But flamenco has furious right hand. And what about lutes? Aren't zithers and dulcimers more right-handy? Mandolins in European technique arguably have fancier right hand moves than left-hand.

So maybe it didn't always seem as obvious that the left hand should be most dextrous.

But then you think about the violin family - where clearly the left fingers seem to get the really brutal workout. (Not that bowing is easy - I've never managed to get an acceptable tone off a fiddle string - but I think that's more hand/wrist/arched fingers working in concert than it is individual finger dexterity. Until you get to pizzicato, and then yon poor fiddler is just as exercised as Tommy Emmanuel, but on a tinier more critical scale length, and working with his arms in the air and a plank jammed into his neck.)

Maybe it's six of one and half-a-dozen of the other. Both hands equally critical.


Funny you ask about Ritchie and his lutes. RB was (and I guess still is) a major influence on me, at least throughout the DP era. I barely followed him into Rainbow. I was always aware he'd done this Blackmore's Night medieval thang...but it wasn't rock & roll and where was going to be the fun of one of Ritchie's idiosyncratic swooping twisted roller-coaster rides of a lead on an acoustic instrument? So I hadn't listened to any of it.

But I got Google-curious earlier this year, read about Candice and his musical efforts, their relationship, etc. More I read, the more interesting it got to me - the whole story. Listened to a bunch of the albums and I'm a fan now.

Not rabidly so - as "medieval" music, I think it's a bit clichéd and limited - but sincerely so anyway. It's charming, listenable, endearing somehow. And much as I wanted to dismiss Candice Night as an aging English rocker's too-young money-grubbing star-struck low-talent model squeeze...I just can't. They've been together for decades, she can really sing, appears to be not just beautiful but a solid, soulful deep-down sweetheart. Can't help but be glad they have what seems a magical life dressing up Renaissance and playing that music at castles and Renfests around the world. Seems like they both hit the jackpot, and good on'em.

Anyway, Ritchie and lutes, yep. It's almost like he's living the life described in one of my favorite (but obscure) early Deep Purple songs, "The Shield". From interviews, it seems he always wanted to get back to the pre-industrial past, and was never really happy in rock & roll anyway.

31

don't even get me started on running effects loop cables to and from the board.... what a PITA.

Yeah. I'm with you 100%. Just what I want to do is fangle with another pair of 20' cables and maintain a separate effects chain for that. (Immeasurably worse with a stereo rig.)

I've done it, but never again. I'll keep 'em all in front of the amp(s), thanky.

32

"Even when going wireless, I can find a cable to trip over."

Frank that is gold.

– Geoff_Vane

I've seen actors trip on a piece of tape. I stepped on a cable at work, my foot rolled on it, and when it caught, I wound up breaking a bone in my foot. Old and brittle. Fun.

33

Totally sad Wabash. I hope you recovered.

I agree with Vince. The guitar has been invented wrong. When I held guitars for the first time, I always held them the other way around. Fretting seems far more difficult than pluckeroni. But my pluckeroni is about as bad as my fretting. Since I'm right handed, the right hand seems more of the hand suited for actions that require deep thoughts (try to focus this story on guitar playing and nothing else). Picking seems more of an automation task which I would like to leave to my lesser hand. But I'm probably so bad at playing guitar that I'm totally wrong. It was quite a disappointment when I found out how I was supposed to fret with left.

34

If one is playing high level finger style it may be an advantage to have the dominant hand performing those complex movements.

There may be a similar discussion for keyboard players, especially for classical music, where dexterity and digital independence are critical.

35

As a left-hander, playing guitar the regular way always made more sense. Of course, I also learned to play before McCartney and Hendrix were around. There are no left-handed pianos, saxophones, or tubas. I don't know why guitar players have to make a big deal out of it. Most of us play with both hands.

37

BTW, this is my pedalboard:

– Billy Zoom

Looks backwards

38

My first pedal.

Also, another in the which-side-is-in, which-side-is-out data set; "Instrument" here is on the left, "Amp" on the right. Pedal well precedes the late 60s Fender Blender, also so configured. First Arbiter Fuzz Faces had input on the left, as did Selmer wah, Vox wah (I think) and Shin Ei pedal.

Earliest Big Muffs I find have moved the input to the right.

Maybe the connectivity thinking of the pedaling herd changed somewhere in the late 60s?

39

Calling Dr Bill.

My 602 has been functionally useless for some years, since original pot gave up ghost. Replacement pot is wrong taper, AND doesn't stay in place: rocks loose, cocks sideways, no pedalum.

Do YOU have the proper parts? I'd like it to work again.

40

Yeah, EQ position could certainly vary depending on purpose. In this case, it's just a last-stop tweak.

Each of the gainboostdirts has its own subtle eq profile, each claims to want to "see" the pure signal from the guitar (though obviously they can't all get their wish) - and I've paid attention to their order for gain stacking. (The pedal selection and sequence is experimental at the moment, subject to change when I see how they work live.)

So I specifically did NOT want to change the EQ going in to any of those pedals, toying with the profiles they each carefully (or at least expensively) try to maintain. When I know them better, and/or want to drive or starve particular freqs in them, maybe an eq before.

A compressor follows the gainers (an experiment for me, as I usually put comps first); this compressor also has an eq "slope" control which rarely varies from flat, but when employed is done purposefully - usually to tune a specific guitar's response.

Next Tavo's Mystery Brain, which is not only delay with modulation, but incorporates his Atomic Brain Space Echo preamp. And wouldn't you know it, it imparts an eq bump (which has been useful on my bigger board earlier in the chain, and which I haven't figured out yet in its later position here). But I want the delay where it is (certainly not before gainers - and it's pointless before compression), and I don't know how much I'll be using its preamp in this application. But if I DO use it, again I don't want to impose my own arbitrary EQ before it.

So then comes the EQ, just before the Flint Reverb/Trem. (And it could just as easily follow it.)

With that as background, in this case I intend this EQ (the lowly Boss EQ7) strictly as a "post" EQ, a final problem solver or shaper, like I'd use EQ on the channel of a mixer. Not as an effect or as drive in any way, just as a final tweak to make the guitar sound sit better. Depending on the guitar or the room or the amp, maybe to roll off lows, or to bump a particular range. I don't expect to even use it much.

At least here in my music room, with the amp I'm currently using. What will happen anywhere else, I don't know. But I rarely use extreme EQ in any context, and more often cut than boost. Just slight touches to fine-tune. If I need more help than that from an EQ pedal, I'm either in a horrible room or need to address other issues.

I can't imagine a situation where I'd have to boost the highs. I'm not losing treble anywhere; all tree gaindirt pedals AND the comp AND the Tavobox can add highs if needed.

(As well, of course, as can an amp. But I'm using this pedalboard with the Quilter Microblock with its one-knob "Tri-Q," a clever EQ profiler that isn't as simple as cutting or boosting any one frequency. I'm still figuring it out too. The problem, if it is one, is that this tiny amp through the 1-12 Neo speaker cab Powdog built sounds great to me on ANY setting.)

But yeah - I can see having EQ in any position on the board where it might be needed for a particular purpose. (Like always kicking it in right before a particular gain pedal to push certain frequencies, or in the effects loop of a Tim pedal so it always came on to shape its profile.)

– Proteus

If you want to append the upper mids coloring of the classic RE-301, then you need to turn the bass control ALL the way to the left and you need to flip the internal dB switch to the up position this will pull down a bit of gain and some of the presence at the top of that "bump" spectrum.

41

The only source for DeArmond volume pots is another DeArmond volume pedal. You can buy one of the ugly sheet metal ones cheap. The pots are the same. They were Allen Bradley J types, but with a custom taper.

42

Thanks, BZ. Is that the 1602?

43

Well BZ and Paul Pigat are both lefties playing righthanded guitars and thus excel. This proves the theory: guitars are built the other way around.

44

Nils Lofgren is another example you can cite in support of that theory.


Register Sign in to join the conversation