|
|
Post by strat80hm on May 7, 2022 18:21:02 GMT -5
I cannot seem to understand why my simple idea does not work, can anyone help? - I need to pass the signal out of the JamMan Looper pedal via a passive Volume pedal so that i can turn the Looper s output up and down. - ALL THE WHILE retaining the direct signal from my guitar always ON. - This setup will be useful to add dynamic to loop-based live performances - and in the heat of the performance, greatly facilitate clean endings (turning the Looper down with the Volume pedal instead of double-clicking on the Looper s footswitch) => what i get is not what i expected! - both direct Guitar s signal AND Looper s signal are affected by the passive Volume pedal! - So I lose my guitar signal whenever i turn down the looper s signal! What did i do wrong?? ![]()  |
|
|
|
Post by Yogi B on May 7, 2022 22:51:17 GMT -5
What exactly is the top box? I'm guessing since you didn't report feedback it isn't just a passive splitter. So either: it is an active splitter, just lacking a buffer between the return & the output; or it is (as the word "insert" suggests to me) just a series loop that disconnects the direct input-to-output route whenever something is plugged into one (or both) of the send/return jack sockets.
If it's the former, you could try adding a buffer after the volume pedal.
If it's the latter then you'll need something more advanced, more like the other option — though you might be able to 'build' something similar from a chain of pedals: (a minimum of) two buffers and two simple passive Y-splitters.
(By the way, "buffer" could also mean any pedal with buffered bypass, not necessarily a dedicated buffer. And, as always when trying to mix paths in parallel, phase can be a pain.)
|
|
|
|
Post by strat80hm on May 7, 2022 23:58:32 GMT -5
Thanks for input Yogi B!
Yes, that is correct: i am trying to mix two signals in parallel - is this even easily doable?
Actually the "box" above is a sketch to explain my out-of-box routing (ultimately i d love to build that "volume-controlled FX-loop" inside that passive Volume pedal
- I am trying to find a working circuit using cables and jacks
- it is all passive, i m just trying to split and then "reunite" both signals (the direct-from-guitar and the loop-pedal s output)
- although obviously it is not working!
From what you re saying (2 Y-splitters), my tentative idea might be just naive, right?
|
|
|
|
Post by strat80hm on May 8, 2022 3:15:16 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by strat80hm on May 8, 2022 3:42:05 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by thetragichero on May 8, 2022 7:16:50 GMT -5
drawing in original post would be a parallel loop if pictured as drawn and would definitely be served by some sort of mix control
as yogi mentioned, you almost certainly have a series loop where all 'ins' go through the send and receive loop before going out
most likely the only (albeit unsatisfying) solution is controlling the level of what goes into the loop (either at the guitar volume control or by picking dynamics or setting individual levels on each box or probably a combination of all three) for this pedal
i feel your pain, these days i'm mainly a one man band with drum machine and bass vi into a stereo looping setup. getting volumes right so that it doesn't end up a garbled mess is a struggle. maybe a looper that would allow an expression pedal to adjust the loop output level (if such a thing exists... if not i suppose if you're intrepid/brave/foolish enough you could potentially make an existing pedal have loop level be externally adjustable from an expression pedal)
mind if i move this thread out of guitar wiring sub board and into the effects section?
|
|
|
|
Post by strat80hm on May 8, 2022 11:03:03 GMT -5
Hey Tragichero - i guess we re on similar boat indeed - how alive are your live performances?
Definitely using dynamic when recording loops, but would love a master-volume!
I m gonna try to build a parallel FX loop circuit and see how that could work
I m experimentating with a basic serie FX loop too, that could help
I am using Foot Control Expression Knob on the LoopPedal volume knob (wingmanfx.com)- but not very easy for quick mute on the fly
And yes, you can move the thread to wherever it fits, thanks!
|
|
|
|
Post by thetragichero on May 8, 2022 11:48:17 GMT -5
haven't had the space (currently staying with family until we find a house so even the low volume recording i was doing yesterday brought protests) so i haven't gotten the chance to practice with full stereo rig in several months so I've been playing mono (and not able to use the aby switch that bypasses half my board when i need either cleaner tones out for laying down basslines). board definitely needs to be dialed in depending on the amp I'm using otherwise levels get wonky
|
|
|
|
Post by sumgai on May 8, 2022 12:09:33 GMT -5
All passive? The it's rather obvious, and exactly why Yogi said "buffer" and trag said "mix control".
The point being, even if the two signal paths are completely separate and remain parallel, the fact that both of them are combined without any kind of separation at the point where the Insert meets the Output, that says that the wiper on the Volume pedal will take all of the signal to ground - no matter if it came to that point by way of the 'direct' path, or through the looper pedal, it's still going to go from that wiper to the ground connection on the Vol pot.
The fastest way to "fix" this issue is to simply pull a Gibson, and reverse the wiring on pot - the wiper receives the incoming signal from the looper, and the output comes off of the 'hot' terminal of that pot. In this way, the load on the 'direct' signal remains fixed, and thus the volume level of that direct signal should also remain constant.
There may be undesired tonal effects of such a circuit, but it gets you in the ball park of what you're asking for. If it sounds wrong, then the above suggestions are the only way you can go. And while you're describing it all as passive, you do already have power going to the looper, right? Well, building the vol pedal into the same box as the looper wouid mean that power is available, right there in the same enclosure, so a simple powered buffer would not be a problem. (The implied problem with a passive Mix control being the loss of overall volume. Which then begs for two buffers, or at least a summing amplifier stage. Which brings us right back to powered something....)
HTH
sumgai
|
|
|
|
Post by Yogi B on May 8, 2022 12:46:49 GMT -5
The fastest way to "fix" this issue is to simply pull a Gibson, and reverse the wiring on pot - the wiper receives the incoming signal from the looper, and the output comes off of the 'hot' terminal of that pot. In this way, the load on the 'direct' signal remains fixed, and thus the volume level of that direct signal should also remain constant. In addition to that, it's a pretty safe bet that the wiring of a passive volume pedal is nothing more than in the below image — so, no need to grab a soldering iron, just reverse the input & output cables. That is, have the looper's output going into the volume pedal's output and take the actual output (that's being mixed with the direct signal) from the volume pedal's input. |
|
|
|
Post by ashcatlt on May 8, 2022 13:24:03 GMT -5
That is, have the looper's output going into the volume pedal's output and take the actual output (that's being mixed with the direct signal) from the volume pedal's input. Yep. Literally just plug it in backwards. |
|
|
|
Post by strat80hm on May 8, 2022 18:49:59 GMT -5
You guys are geniuses!
It works just by reversing the cables!!!
To sum it up:
- to split the signal, I use the Right+Left outputs of a Line 6 Echo Park (mono to stereo). It is turned off, though there s more likely some permanent buffer in there.
- to re-unite the signal, I made a basic passive home-made Y cable (2 jacks mono => 1 jack mono)
- Side R goes through Looper => Volume Pedal Output => Volume Pedal Input => Y cable R
- Side L goes straight from Line 6 EchoPark L output => Y cable L
- the Y cable goes through Boss Tuner TU2 (that i used as a mute to protect speakers while trying different routings). Probably another permanent buffer in there too.
It works flawlessly:
- heel down = guitar only
- heel up = guitar + looper signal
- and i can adjust volume of the loop as needed while the direct guitar s volume remains constant all the way
I cant believe it was that simple!
Now i need to integrate that Y cable inside the Volume Pedal and i am all set
Thank you again GuitarNutz!!
|
|
|
|
Post by strat80hm on May 8, 2022 18:53:49 GMT -5
haven't had the space (currently staying with family until we find a house so even the low volume recording i was doing yesterday brought protests) so i haven't gotten the chance to practice with full stereo rig in several months so I've been playing mono (and not able to use the aby switch that bypasses half my board when i need either cleaner tones out for laying down basslines). board definitely needs to be dialed in depending on the amp I'm using otherwise levels get wonky Uneasy i hear you - for moments like that, i use a Yamaha silent guitar and headset. Have you tried? |
|
|
|
Post by strat80hm on May 8, 2022 19:00:54 GMT -5
All passive? The it's rather obvious, and exactly why Yogi said "buffer" and trag said "mix control". The point being, even if the two signal paths are completely separate and remain parallel, the fact that both of them are combined without any kind of separation at the point where the Insert meets the Output, that says that the wiper on the Volume pedal will take all of the signal to ground - no matter if it came to that point by way of the 'direct' path, or through the looper pedal, it's still going to go from that wiper to the ground connection on the Vol pot. The fastest way to "fix" this issue is to simply pull a Gibson, and reverse the wiring on pot - the wiper receives the incoming signal from the looper, and the output comes off of the 'hot' terminal of that pot. In this way, the load on the 'direct' signal remains fixed, and thus the volume level of that direct signal should also remain constant. There may be undesired tonal effects of such a circuit, but it gets you in the ball park of what you're asking for. If it sounds wrong, then the above suggestions are the only way you can go. And while you're describing it all as passive, you do already have power going to the looper, right? Well, building the vol pedal into the same box as the looper wouid mean that power is available, right there in the same enclosure, so a simple powered buffer would not be a problem. (The implied problem with a passive Mix control being the loss of overall volume. Which then begs for two buffers, or at least a summing amplifier stage. Which brings us right back to powered something....) HTH sumgai Thanks Sumgai - the final version of this future "modded Volume Pedal" into "Parallel FX loop blender" will very likely be an active circuit. That way i could get rid of the Echo Park and Boss Tuner... I have yet to come up with the circuit, but will work on it and make sure i ll submit it to y all! |
|
|
|
Post by strat80hm on May 8, 2022 19:02:13 GMT -5
The fastest way to "fix" this issue is to simply pull a Gibson, and reverse the wiring on pot - the wiper receives the incoming signal from the looper, and the output comes off of the 'hot' terminal of that pot. In this way, the load on the 'direct' signal remains fixed, and thus the volume level of that direct signal should also remain constant. In addition to that, it's a pretty safe bet that the wiring of a passive volume pedal is nothing more than in the below image — so, no need to grab a soldering iron, just reverse the input & output cables. That is, have the looper's output going into the volume pedal's output and take the actual output (that's being mixed with the direct signal) from the volume pedal's input. Basic yet effective observation - Thanks YogiB! |
|
|
|
Post by strat80hm on May 21, 2022 0:27:33 GMT -5
Why could be the the reason that this "reverse the in/out" trick doesnt work any more? I finally took the time to make a proper Y cable (1 jack mono => 2 jacks mono) and put it my circuit, using the reverse trick But now, the volume pedal again affect both signals equally (direct guitar AND looper) In my Y cable, all the three Hot and three Ground are connected. Any idea what mistake i could have made? Thank you in advance if you have a clue! The fastest way to "fix" this issue is to simply pull a Gibson, and reverse the wiring on pot - the wiper receives the incoming signal from the looper, and the output comes off of the 'hot' terminal of that pot. In this way, the load on the 'direct' signal remains fixed, and thus the volume level of that direct signal should also remain constant. In addition to that, it's a pretty safe bet that the wiring of a passive volume pedal is nothing more than in the below image — so, no need to grab a soldering iron, just reverse the input & output cables. That is, have the looper's output going into the volume pedal's output and take the actual output (that's being mixed with the direct signal) from the volume pedal's input. |
|
|
|
Post by ashcatlt on May 21, 2022 12:38:01 GMT -5
Did you take the stereo pedal out of the system? I feel like the active split in that was important to this working at all.
Edit to underline: There is NO actually acceptable full passive solution here. You really want a buffer before the split for guitar tone purposes. You really want a buffer on each side of the split. You’d like to have a buffer after V pedal so it’s outZ matches the dry side. You need mixing resistors to isolate the sources from each other and keep the buffers from fighting to the death (they won’t actually hurt each other). You want an active mixing stage after that. The mixing resistors will drop voltage, so you’ll want makeup gain somewhere along the line. In my mind, proper gain staging says get that as early as possible which is probably at the buffer before the split, assuming that doesn’t distort the looper.
|
|
|
|
Post by strat80hm on May 22, 2022 21:19:41 GMT -5
Did you take the stereo pedal out of the system? I feel like the active split in that was important to this working at all. Edit to underline: There is NO actually acceptable full passive solution here. You really want a buffer before the split for guitar tone purposes. You really want a buffer on each side of the split. You’d like to have a buffer after V pedal so it’s outZ matches the dry side. You need mixing resistors to isolate the sources from each other and keep the buffers from fighting to the death (they won’t actually hurt each other). You want an active mixing stage after that. The mixing resistors will drop voltage, so you’ll want makeup gain somewhere along the line. In my mind, proper gain staging says get that as early as possible which is probably at the buffer before the split, assuming that doesn’t distort the looper. Thank you for your time and knowledgeable input Ashcatlt! It is working again now! Wish i had fixed this before my gig last night (each time i used the Volume Pedal, i lost both the looper AND the guitar!... but well, the singer and percussion player made up for it haha) Today no gig so I finally have been able to do some testings: 1 - bypassing the "input buffer" (Line 6 Echo) - passively splitting the signal (Y cable) It s working! 2 - bypassing the "output buffer" (Tuner) - passively going straight from Volume Pedal=> Amp It s working too, no sound difference apparently, no audible phase issue.. 3 - bypassing both "input + output buffer" (all passive using 2 Y cables) It s working too! no sound difference, no audible phase issue.. Conclusion: to my surprise, it looks like a passive "parallel-signals volume-controlled-FX-Loop" is possible! HOWEVER i like your explanation of the process you describe and would like to implement an ACTIVE solution. - that d mean having a FX Loop installed inside the Volume Pedal enclosure - IN and OUT through the Looper QUESTION: are there any specific compact-DIY-cost-effective buffer-circuits that you d recommend in that regards? Here i found: guitarnuts2.proboards.com/thread/3150On YT: (if it has not be made obvious enough, i do not know much at all in electronic..) Thanks in advance for your help! |
|
