Printable Version of Topic

Click here to view this topic in its original format

GMC Forum _ GEAR & PRODUCTION _ Case Against True Bypass

Posted by: Kuba Szafran Nov 30 2008, 12:09 PM

Quite interesting and I thought I'd share this with you:

http://www.petecornish.co.uk/case_against_true_bypass.html

Posted by: kjutte Nov 30 2008, 12:47 PM

QUOTE (Kuba Szafran @ Nov 30 2008, 12:09 PM) *
Quite interesting and I thought I'd share this with you:

http://www.petecornish.co.uk/case_against_true_bypass.html


Thanks, I thought there was a direct connection when the switch was off.

Posted by: tommyboy Nov 30 2008, 04:35 PM

QUOTE (kjutte @ Nov 30 2008, 05:47 AM) *
Thanks, I thought there was a direct connection when the switch was off.


There is but in the article the guys saying will all the pedals off, because of all of the connecting cords on a large pedal board it would be equivalent to running a cable between your guitar and amp upwards of 60 feet or more. Thus causing a loss of signal.

tommyboy

Posted by: inertia Nov 30 2008, 05:00 PM

Andy Timmons only uses true bypass pedals, that's good enough for me...I'm sure there are reasonable arguments for buffers but the people that argue for them probably have 30 pedals on their board or don't have tone comparable to Andy

Posted by: Ivan Milenkovic Nov 30 2008, 05:57 PM

This guys has a good point, but rarely people will use more than 10 pedals on stage. I experience signal degradation with 4 pedals, but this is not audible when playing with the band, and even for me it is pretty hard to spot it, unless I can do straight A/B tests with 2 amps and A/B box. So this is not a real concern, and there are ways of solving this problem by using special preamp devices in the FX chain that replenish the sound. I'm not an expert for a huge pedalboards, do don't really know how tech people exaclty solve the issue, but this guy is right when he says that every stomp box should be inspected before used in order to see how well it suits in the pedal chain.
Also another good solution is to get a high end multiFX unit that is digital but quiet, and sends out strong signal. ALthough the sound will be a bit synthetic to someone who is used to hearing analog devices, most people won't notice the difference, and some prefer this kind of sound so every options has it's pros&cons. In reality whatever suits the player best he should use it.

Posted by: Ajmurrell Dec 5 2008, 01:09 PM

Pete Cornish is quite the elitist of pedal makers though! He created Gilmours entire effects rack for the Wall tour, and I believe is currently working on an all tube effects range for David.

I guess it makes sense what he says considering these pedals are designed for guys like Gilmour, who probably do have more than 10 pedals and a hell of a lot of cable!

You just have to look at the prices these pedals reach, want to order a Fuzz/OD? That'll be £720.10 please!


Posted by: Bogdan Radovic Dec 5 2008, 04:54 PM

Hmm I never though true bypass is bullet proof , but its much better than regular buffered pedals...I can experience on my bass a hearable signal loss in my small pedal chain (wah+dist+envelope+chorus)..Though non of the pedals I use have truebypass..Signal loss if definitly a concern on more high end standards gigs and recording and I guess there are number of ways techs deal with it onstage,..

Posted by: FrankW Dec 6 2008, 07:07 PM

QUOTE (inertia @ Nov 30 2008, 05:00 PM) *
Andy Timmons only uses true bypass pedals, that's good enough for me...I'm sure there are reasonable arguments for buffers but the people that argue for them probably have 30 pedals on their board or don't have tone comparable to Andy


I agree. Any pedal I buy from now on will have a true bypass feature. I am not one that requires so many pedals as to warrant even looking at the article. I want Andy Timmons' tone! smile.gif

Powered by Invision Power Board (http://www.invisionboard.com)
© Invision Power Services (http://www.invisionpower.com)