Using VH4S Parallel Efx Loop with Multiple Pedals

So I have a dilemma. I really really want my pure Diezel tone, cause it sounds soooooo good in its purity, but I also want all of my effects. With my effects(i.e. multiple pedals) in the serial effects loop I inevitably lose the Diezel tone sparkle, no matter how good my pedal converters and cables, not that its the worst sound in the world, but its just not as good. On the other hand, in Parallel Loops one has to worry about the signal being 100 percent wet at the end of the chain to avoid nasty phasing. Previously I just had one pedal in the chain(timeline) and it wasn't a problem, I put it in killdry mode and naturally it sounded REDIC! But now I added a few to the line up (Big Sky, and H9 max) and obviously having them all in killdry won't work, and/or having the last pedal in the chain killdry only works when its effect is engaged, which I may not want engaged all the time, etc.. Do any of you fine specimens out there have a solution that doesn't involve buying an entire separate rig?

I had a sporadic thought of splitting the parallel out into 3 signals, run those signals into each of my 3 pedals, run their stereo outs into a 6 channel mixer, mix the levels together, use the mixers left right out back into Parallel effects return. A LOT of cabling, and more than likely some signal loss in the signal splitting, but since its just the effects, that may be passable. This solution would definitely be cheaper than an extra rig. Is there precedence for this? Is there a good way/device to split a signal 3 ways without significant signal loss? Anyone have any other ideas? Thanks!

Nick

Get a voodoo labs GCX and run the effect loop into that, then stick the pedals each in their own loop on the GCX - you can then use midi to switch the loops that the pedals are on in or out to as you like with little of no tone degradation when they are not in the loop. I know those you are truly anal about their tone upgrade the buffer in the GCX (Friedman does this for example) but I've never seen the need to

RJM also do an equivalent product but I've not used theirs - any of the rack, effect or mini-effect gizmos would work for you too.

Hope that helps!

Thanks webrthomson, actually thats a good idea. I do as a matter of fact have a gcx lying around, that at one point i tried using with my rig, but experienced tone loss(thermodynamics!! ahhh!!! you can't win), but I may give it another run since I'd be using it strictly for the effects loop this time around. Thanks for reminding me ! Can you tell me a little bit more about replacing the buffer? And/or where to find information about that? Thanks.

Nick

revivethevivid":19a1jc96 said:

Thanks webrthomson, actually thats a good idea. I do as a matter of fact have a gcx lying around, that at one point i tried using with my rig, but experienced tone loss(thermodynamics!! ahhh!!! you can't win), but I may give it another run since I'd be using it strictly for the effects loop this time around. Thanks for reminding me ! Can you tell me a little bit more about replacing the buffer? And/or where to find information about that? Thanks.

Nick

Click to expand...

Send Dave Friedman an email and he can tell you what he does to the buffer, costs etc. I know that he does this upgrade as a matter of course on the GCX's he uses - I've never bothered as I don't think it's an issue, but when recommending gear to someone I think its always best to point out any short comings that it has

I ended up settling on the serial effects loop, with no gcx, and added a visual sound pure tone buffer before pedals. The eventide h9 I set to true bypass/relays(didn't like their buffer) and the two strymons(timeline and big sky) I have set to buffered so I can keep my effects trails when switching presets, which is VERY IMPORTANT, and one of the reasons the GCX option didn't work. The strymon buffers do change the tone, but it has the strymon sound thats not altogether a bad thing, and the total signal quality loss is quite minimal. My budget hasn't allotted me to try the parallel effects loop, split into 3 pedals, into sub mixer option yet, but I have a feeling that will for the most part get the best results for what I'm going for.

Another option is getting a nice multi effects unit(like the axe fx) and running that in the parallel, so its one unit, but within that unit there are many effects routing options, yet a 100 percent wet signal coming out…plus it has its own external efx loop where I could insert my timeline(I loooove that pedal!!), or any other pedal…

Until then the serial efx loop is working.

Just FYI's, cheers!

Nick

Alright, bought a 6 channel mixer, along with a signal splitter. Set up is as follows:

Guitar -> volume pedal -> Diezel In -> parallel efx out -> Galaxy JIB S 4-way Splitter ->

signal splitter out 1 -> timeline -> L R out -> yamaha channel 1,2
signal splitter out 2 -> big sky -> L R out -> yamaha channel 3,4
signal splitter out 3 -> H9 -> L R out -> yamaha channel 5, 6

yamaha stereo mix out -> insert return parallel efx on Diezel

Results: Definitely sounds better than having the effects in serial loop . I have successfully bought my way back to pure diesel, although still not a 100 percent, which I have a question about, but I'll post on new topic thread. Sounds really juicy. The only disadvantage is the inability to run the effects in a chain(i.e. h9 ->timeline->big sky) so I lose some effects options, as well as never being able to have a fully 100 percent wet effect signal. But small price to pay for more Diezel . I attached photo of a rough draft set up, still need to clean it all up, its a hot mess of cables right now, but one thing at a time.

I'm using a D-Moll with one H9 at the moment and am wondering about using the Parallel loop instead of the Serial Loop. This thread has been very useful. If i add another H9 to the loop i would probably buy a Suhr Mini Mix 2.