Results 1 to 23 of 23

Thread: Raw or processed signal, your preference

  1. #1
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Yorktown, VA
    Posts
    227

    Raw or processed signal, your preference

    Lately I've been using less and less effects and going for more of a pure raw signal. Guitar-amp-play. I do still usually use a touch of delay and occasionally some clean boost/overdrive, but other than that, nothing. I'm getting into letting the guitar and amp be themselves. Wondered if anyone else has gone this route too, moved away from overpopulated pedal boards and overdone signal processing and effects and just appreciate the pure sound of the instrument?

  2. #2
    Forum Member cooltone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Duluth, MN. Birthplace of Bobby Zimmerman
    Posts
    2,557

    Re: Raw or processed signal, your preference

    I started playing semi-professionally in the early '80's, by the mid '80's many players were using rack gear and relied heavily on that processed sound.
    Because of sheer economics, I played straight into my Bassman RI with a TS-9 for boost and a wah for color. I simply couldn't afford to buy rack gear.
    Surprisingly, I had many occasions where guitarists from other bands would ask me where my rack was...they were impressed with the tones I was getting. When I would tell them I plugged straight in, they often appeared dumbfounded!
    I had no reason to change it.
    "If you're cool, you don't know nothin' about it. It just is...or you ain't." - Keith Richards

  3. #3
    Forum Member dez's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    new jersey
    Posts
    685

    Re: Raw or processed signal, your preference

    Less pedals=less to carry and set up.

  4. #4
    Forum Member curtisstetka's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Boyertown PA
    Posts
    5,050

    Re: Raw or processed signal, your preference

    I typically practice at home plugged straight into the amp. I must admit I do love pedals and would own many, many more if economically feasible.

    That said, I keep things simple with the pedals I do have. I don't care for the over-processed sound of the 80s so much. I use two different drive pedals, chorus, and wah. That's about it.

    But stomping on a pedal and changing the whole character of your sound can be awfully fun and inspiring to play with as long as it doesn't take over.
    s'all goof.

  5. #5
    Forum Member Kap'n's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Where phony hippies meet
    Posts
    19,769

    Re: Raw or processed signal, your preference

    I can perform 99% of what I do with a guitar, dirtbox and amp.

    For a bit of variety, I use a board with the band:

    DejaVibe 2, Direct Drive, TU-2, delay, reverb, Tremolo, Bad Bob Boost.
    Several guitars in different colors
    Things to make them fuzzy
    Things to make them louder
    orange picks

  6. #6
    Forum Member Don's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Massachusetts
    Posts
    11,288

    Re: Raw or processed signal, your preference

    I usually plug straight in, but I love my Rotospere, wah and '69 pedal.
    I'd like a great delay and a DejaVibe as well.

  7. #7
    Forum Member chuckocaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    spanish for lard.
    Posts
    8,605

    Re: Raw or processed signal, your preference

    my effects use goes in cycles. i never would say that i ver sound "processed", but i get what you're saying. for the past year or so i've been playing basically with a comp and a ts. depending on what band i'm playing with (there are three) i'll either throw on another drive pedal and a wah (my classic rock band), change out the ts for a modded ds1 and add a rotary speaker (the tailights). or on my stuff just leave it simple with the comp/ts combo. but lately i've been thinking a nice delay and a fuzz would do nice sitting on my board for my stuff.
    "don't worry, i'm a professional!"

  8. #8
    Forum Member grito's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    The toasty hell known as Aridzona...
    Posts
    1,708

    Re: Raw or processed signal, your preference

    After going overboard in the late 80's, I keep just the ones I need: delay, chorus, two flavors of OD, and a wah. Half the time though, those pedals are off.
    "Power don't come from a badge or a gun. Power comes from lying. Lying big and gettin' the whole damn world to play along with you. Once you've got everybody agreeing with what they know in their hearts ain't true, you've got 'em by the balls."
    Senator Roark - Sin City

  9. #9
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Baltimore Ontario
    Posts
    1,575

    Re: Raw or processed signal, your preference

    Every player worth his salt, should have the basics, which are in my book are mandatory for versatility. An OD, a good fuzz, a wah, and a vibe/chorus, and a delay. And of course a tuner!!

    CT.

  10. #10
    Forum Member Kap'n's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Where phony hippies meet
    Posts
    19,769

    Re: Raw or processed signal, your preference

    Quote Originally Posted by CocoTone
    Every player worth his salt, should have the basics, which are in my book are mandatory for versatility. An OD, a good fuzz, a wah, and a vibe/chorus, and a delay. And of course a tuner!!

    CT.
    I guess Roy Buchanan just wasn't worth his salt. :hee

    Or BB, Freddy or Albert King.

    and so on.
    Several guitars in different colors
    Things to make them fuzzy
    Things to make them louder
    orange picks

  11. #11
    Forum Member Rickenjangle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Posts
    6,131

    Re: Raw or processed signal, your preference

    Quote Originally Posted by CocoTone
    Every player worth his salt, should have the basics, which are in my book are mandatory for versatility. An OD, a good fuzz, a wah, and a vibe/chorus, and a delay. And of course a tuner!!
    CT.
    I've owned wahs in the past, and found I just don't use them...they're a BPIA to turn on and they're heavy and I just don't like them. I use a Reverend DT II and a TS9, sometimes a Univibe, right into my amps 'cause I like it to be simpler. Sure, I use effects more in the studio, but for live, I find that simpler is most definitely better.

    "I'm gonna find myself a girl
    that can show me what laughter means
    And we'll fill in the missing colors
    In each other's paint-by-number dreams..."

  12. #12
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Baltimore Ontario
    Posts
    1,575

    Re: Raw or processed signal, your preference

    Quote Originally Posted by Kap'n
    I guess Roy Buchanan just wasn't worth his salt. :hee

    Or BB, Freddy or Albert King.

    and so on.
    You know what I mean. Besides, their effects are handled thru the PA.I can blow just as well with just a cord between me and the amp too.


    CT.

  13. #13
    Forum Member dez's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    new jersey
    Posts
    685

    Re: Raw or processed signal, your preference

    What effects?

  14. #14
    Forum Member dez's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    new jersey
    Posts
    685

    Re: Raw or processed signal, your preference

    Last night at a rehearsal I used an OD for the first time in probably a year (as a boost for leads). It was no fun. The notes sustained and all but even sloppy playing sounded smooth. I use a mildly dirty sound anyway so I'm not Mr. Clean, but it's more fun and more challenging to make things sound good without the crutch.

    Granted, at gigs where one plays at low volumes, an OD is great (I just get a decent setting and leave it on all the time and work the guitar's volume for thise kinds of gigs) and in the studio anything goes to make a good recording.

    At gigs though, the less carried, the less to worry about, the more fun I have.

  15. #15
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    44

    Re: Raw or processed signal, your preference

    Most of my playing is straight to the amp but I do use the 2nd channel OD sometimes, I am just starting a new band and some of the covers we do need OD or Fuzz, I have a Zoom 505 II a 535Q wah a Boss OD-2, A home built OD (different sound) and a compressor pre amp that I use as a solo boost.
    I probably use the amps OD the most and the wah coz we do 5 Hendrix covers.

  16. #16
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    14

    Re: Raw or processed signal, your preference

    I use a Loop-Master true bypass box and get the best of both worlds.

    When I want to use misc. effects, I bring them into the signal path. When I want to go straight to the amp, I take the effects completely out of the path.

  17. #17
    Forum Member Tele-Bob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Connecticut
    Posts
    6,691

    Re: Raw or processed signal, your preference

    I think we're all missing the point here. If tonal nervana was this amazing, clean sound with all the sustain and complex harmonics one could imagine or aspire too, there wouldn't be the diversity in music that we now enjoy. If you're playing music that requires the ultimate, unfettered sound, then go for what is appropriate. But sometimes ya just gotta roll up your sleeves and get dirty to get the job done. Part of being an accomplished player is knowing when to get dirty and when to clean it up. If you don't do that, chances are you will find yourself in a straight, narrow alley way of music which is now dictated to you by the sound you've chosen to persue and refine. To me, that's "tonal prison" no matter how good you think your sound is.
    If you're bored, you're not groovin'.

  18. #18
    Forum Member Kap'n's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Where phony hippies meet
    Posts
    19,769

    Re: Raw or processed signal, your preference

    Quote Originally Posted by Tele-Bob
    IIf tonal nervana was this amazing, clean sound with all the sustain and complex harmonics one could imagine or aspire too, there wouldn't be the diversity in music that we now enjoy.... To me, that's "tonal prison" no matter how good you think your sound is.
    Just imagine if EC never progressed beyond some folks tonal nirvana, and made records for the past 30 years that all sounded like Disraeli Gears.

    People would think of him in the same way most folks think about AC/DC.:hee
    Several guitars in different colors
    Things to make them fuzzy
    Things to make them louder
    orange picks

  19. #19

    Re: Raw or processed signal, your preference

    My preference is raw. I use a delay, auto wah, wah and a FD2, but I'm not opposed to good playing through a wall of processors. Many of my favorite Jazz guitarists use a lot of processing, then go into a boutique amp! Soctt Henderson, Al Dimeola, John Scofield, John McLaughlin, Larry Coryell, for examples of some heavily processed guitarists. But, being a Blues player at heart, less is more for me.
    Fuzz is proof God love us and wants us to be happy. - Franklin
    http://www.frankdenigris.com

  20. #20
    TFF Stage Crew
    Moderator
    pc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Posts
    7,522

    Re: Raw or processed signal, your preference

    I second that comment tbb. I love those guitarists you mention too, and add Mike Stern as my all-time favorite, and his tone is always awash in stereo chorus/detune, digital delay and reverb.

    For a long time I liked the same thing on stage. Tonal nirvana for me was standing between my two amps rigged in stereo with my TC-electronic chorus spliting the signal.

    In the last two years I've definitely gravitated toward less-processed tone. I only use one amp and don't even have a chorus on my board, although unlike some who preach the gospel of guitar-cord-amp, you'd have to pry my Fulldrive II and analog delay out of my cold, dead fingers.

  21. #21
    Forum Member hi-watt357's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Atlanta, GA
    Posts
    465

    Re: Raw or processed signal, your preference

    In the last band I was in, I had somewhere around 10 stompboxes in front of me at every show. But...5 or 6 of them were distortions or overdrives of various types...different distortions for different songs, etc., and the others (delays, phaser, tremolo, wah, flange, etc.) were only for accents or solos here and there. I've never even owned a chorus pedal or any effect that I'd use during an entire song...except distortion. My basic tone was really a Les Paul through a Fender Twin using a Boss DS-1 for distortion. It was close to a raw signal in that my tone didn't sound "processed" (no chorus or delay on all the time), but technically, I used a distortion box 99% of the time, so...it wasn't a true "raw" signal.

    However, after quitting that band and getting my HiWatt retubed and biased...I have a new affinity for plugging straight in with no effects. If I gigged with it, I'd probably still maybe want an OD for a solo boost, but it would depend on what kind of band it is. I also have a Peavey Classic 50 with 4 10's that I plug straight into as well. It's channel switching, so I don't know if that counts as 100% "raw", but oh well.

    Effects are fun and have their place, and I've never been one to run them all the time except for distortion, but it's all up to the player. My guitar idol, Bob Elsey, has an old rack-mount Ibanez Delay unit, that he always plays through, and it works for him...you know?

    But I guess in the end, I prefer raw signal vs. processed.

    Sorry...I'm rambling...it's the pain meds from my surgery last week. :dead
    "I got Jackie Onassis in my pants." - The Dictators

    - Scott.

  22. #22
    Forum Member Tele-Bob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Connecticut
    Posts
    6,691

    Re: Raw or processed signal, your preference

    "My preference is raw. I use a delay, auto wah, wah and a FD2"

    tbb, ya know I love ya man but, how is a delay, auto wah, wah and a FD2 "raw"? Unless I misunderstand your post.
    If you're bored, you're not groovin'.

  23. #23

    Re: Raw or processed signal, your preference

    Quote Originally Posted by Tele-Bob
    "My preference is raw. I use a delay, auto wah, wah and a FD2"

    tbb, ya know I love ya man but, how is a delay, auto wah, wah and a FD2 "raw"? Unless I misunderstand your post.
    D'oh!

    That should read "My preference is raw. But I use a delay, auto wah, wah and a FD2"
    Fuzz is proof God love us and wants us to be happy. - Franklin
    http://www.frankdenigris.com

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •