Jump to content

Talk:Effects unit/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Cleanup?

My opinion is that this article needs some cleanup... It just doesn't seem like an encyclopedia entry. I'll go ahead and add the tag, feel free to dispute this.--Hector 20:33, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Any sugestions at the moment? Martijn Hoekstra 15:08, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

A more streamlinesd introduction paragraph (we can include much of that information within the actual article), along with a bit of copy editing and organization for the remainder of the article. --Hector 16:37, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Guitar Effects Box

Today's effects boxes are usually digital. This means that they run with a CPU and software. And that means that they can be implemented in software in an ordinary PC. This has already been done and the software is called Guitar Effects Box. I think someone should mention this software in the article, don't you?

>How about the links section at the bottom?

Merge

I'd like to propose a merge of these two articles, as I see that they almostly duplicate each other. Basically, they have a same structure:

  • Some general info on effecting
  • "Effects pedal / units consists of..." and "functions like..." - all the same for both subjects
  • Usage, construction, form factor info - they may be different, but "effect units" gives more general info, these should be merged to create a fuller vision of form factors and usage patterns (i.e. rack units, pedal units, virtual (digital) units, other units, various types of routing, etc)
  • Types of effects with probable examples (in both articles these lists should be re-worked and tidied up - as for my taste) - the main body of the article - and they are wildly duplicating each other - should be the one.
  • External links, references, notable mentions, etc - should be also merged / structured if needed.

"Effects pedal" include one more section, that, IMO, doesn't have anything to have with "effects pedal" - it's a trailing section about pedals on other instruments. IMHO, this section should be moved to a separate article, or, preferably, several separate articles (sustain pedal, expression pedal, etc). --GreyCat 06:23, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree that these articles should be merged. All "form factors" should be discussed:
  • Pedals
  • 19-inch rack mounted effects and ½ rack effects
  • Table-top stuff, like Pods
  • Software
--Trweiss 19:03, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I disagree, an effect UNIT can be for a anything in the strict sense of the term, plus the fact in the guitar world its widely accepted that if you say "pedal" you only mean an effects pedal and an effects unit being seen as more of a rack effects unit. Also it may be easier for people to find purely as effects pedal.

How then do you propose to eliminate the considerable redundant information? What do you mean that an effect unit "can be for ... anything"? Can't a pedal be any kind of effect? (PS: It's good form to sign your post with --~~~~.) --Trweiss 00:19, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
We're not trying to list or make a catalog of all pedals possible — it would be pretty naive to plan such amount of work. We want to: 1) list pedal types; 2) list some of the most popular pedals that are frequently cited, have a "signature" sound and are popular basis for further designs. I strongly believe it *is* possible to make a good "effects pedal" section in "effect units" article. So far, we have 2 votes "for", 1 "against" %) I propose to wait for about a week and then do the merge --GreyCat 05:24, 19 January 2006 (UTC)


I think ^^^ means that an effect unit rack can really be used for any instrument, including the voice. It can be used over pre-recorded material (with a rack, or digitally with an audio program), but a stompbox is specific, used "at-the-moment", and designed for guitars in particular. I'm generally against the idea of a merge also, but I won't say that it isn't possible to successfully merge 'em together.
In against-the-idea, guitarists in particular though, may be looking for info just on stompboxes, after all. I imagine that you guys want to merge the article in a way where the effects themselves are explained just once in their own section, but when it comes to stompboxes, they can apply differently to guitar in:
- common usage and technique (as opposed to other varied instruments where the effect may just be "applied" to get the effect... but certain effects in guitar help last sustaining of a note, achieving heavier rhythms w/ palm mute, etc)
- and history (as in that the stompbox article refers to what decades and styles these effects are used often in for guitar, in contrast to the use with other instruments).
Of course, its perfectly possible to get that information within, but with the way I'm imagining the article to look, it may be a pain to scroll up and down to read upon the description of the effect, and then how it specifically applies to guitar in another article.
I think both articles could be cleaned up so as to apply to each other better though, but I don't think merging is too necessary. It is, after all, going to end up somewhat redundant between links anyway, as we have all the effects in their own specific articles too (which is important of course, due to the kind of things an effect unit/pedal article probably shouldn't be covering, like the technical process in achieving such effects).
Of course, again, it can be done successfully too, but I think someone might eventually make it redundant again within the article. But I could be wrong... it's very hard to tell without seeing it firsthand.
So if it must be done, I suggest making the article in the Effects Unit first, and leaving the Effects Pedal section alone for awhile, until the Units section looks satisfactory... and if it doesn't we can just revert. Also, I would very much like to keep the Effects Pedal "Usage" section - the information there has been helpful to me, so it probabaly will to others as well. -- Shadowolf 20:58, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
I'd oppose a complete merge, but not violently. I think a refactor is a good idea. If the merge is done properly, I think there will need to be a section on effects pedals that will be large enough to warrant an article of its own, and we'll just be splitting it out again.
IMO it would be helpful to have a fairly detailed article at effects unit, and another at effects pedal which should be more of an overview of only the effects commonly used as self-contained pedal units, and also describe the history of the stomp box in general. It's complicated a little by the relatively recent availability of digital pedal units containing the equivalent of several 19" racks of effects or several roadcases of stomp boxes, but I think it can be done. Both articles should link to each other and to more detailed articles on specific effects.
But it can work either way. A refactor is overdue, that's the more important task, and there's also a lot of information still to add. Andrewa 16:38, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
I agree as long as its done with care. Martijn Hoekstra 18:42, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm opposed because many peopple will want to just read about stompboxes, while "effects unit" covers pretty much anything that does does anything to any audio signal, like those vocal pitch-correctors. They're not the same thing. If they're merged though, do it in the manner suggested by trweiss. --Howdybob 17:16, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Oppose - I would rather see this merged into guitar effects. We need an Internal Effects article to deal with rack effects, studio effects, and effects that're built into amps; and an External or Outboard Effects article to deal with stompboxes and other effects that end up on a musician's pedalboard. --Dulcimerist 20:08, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Broaden this page?

Surely effects units are used in post production as much as, if not more than on instruments specifically. I'm trying to pull together the field of sound recording, with coordinated editing - see the added template. I suggest that this page should be given a more general introduction. If it gets too big, then a separate page can always be created called 'musical effects' or 'instrument effects units' with the emphasis on players. --Lindosland 15:51, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

They are also used in video post-production of course, which should get a mention here. --Lindosland 15:51, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Mistake to merge

I think it would be a mistake to merged effects pedal into are effects unit. Stompboxes come in many unique flavours and have a history, and even a folklore of their (what happened to the rest of this text? --Hector 17:38, 23 July 2006 (UTC))

I'm strongly against a complete merge. Stompbox users have a very different mentality, approach, and usage paradigm than recording engineers or synth people using rack effects processors. Stompboxes are very much about packaging and usage and vibe. With stompboxes returning with a vengeance after the guitar rackmount era of the 90s, this is the worst time to eliminate a dedicated and self-sufficient stompbox page. Stompboxes have colloquial names distinguishing them and their packaging-usage from rack gear. Stompboxes are centered around distortion stages and guitar. Amptone.com; MichaelSHoffman 20:51, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Leave alone

I think you should certainly mention pedals, though I believe they have enough information to warrant a seperate article, linked from this page --Mbatterham 23:55, 23 July 2006 (UTC)


I would also vote against merger. As a recording engineer and instructor I find that the current article is to instrument based. I have two points to make:

1) Technically stomp boxes are connected serially. Racked effects units would be used in parrallel. In other words, effects units are additive effects.

2) Applications: Stomp boxes (effects pedals)are used mainly as performance tools during concerts, etc. Effects Units are used during post production. An article on Effects Units could contain information about use including situations in sound design (for film and tv), music recording and mixing, and forensic audio.

In conclusion, while the current article has good information; I find it a bit vague. It probably suffers from the attempt to merge it with effects pedals.

This is my first wiki post, pardon any lapses in netiquette. --andrewssonic


Pedal Mods

There should be some info about pedal modifications. There are several websites that offer a service where you mail your pedal in and they'll mod it for a fee, or you can purchase an already modified pedal. The most popular modded pedal is the BOSS DS-1. Modding often involves replacing an entire circuit with another one that costs about $70, the red LED is always replaced with a different color.

Hottie Mods

Analogman

--Jivesucka 15:51, 23 July 2006 (UTC)


Perhaps an entire section shouldn't be created. Just include a few links of interest (along with some sites that are of assistance to DIY guys, like diystompoxes.com) at the bottom of the page with a new header and small description. --Hector 17:40, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Proposal: Break out Guitar-dedicated articles

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Distortion#Proposed_Article_Titles_and_Changes

The refactoring is in-progress. MichaelSHoffman 03:45, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

The refactoring is done. MichaelSHoffman 08:46, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


more on a merge / or a possible rename

Across the "effects unit", "effects pedal" and "guitar effects" pages, there appears to be a lot of redundant content. I see above that people are arguing against merging "unit" and "pedal," but could we perhaps retitle "effects unit" to be multi-effects unit, or "rack effects (unit)? I feel that 'unit' is somewhat vague, and if we agreed to just write about rack effects, or multieffects units, and said as much, it might be more clear. A distinction would have to be made between rack and floor multieffects units. -dialectric User:Dialectric

I agree with you. Effects pedals should be one separate article; which could deal with the small, external boxes which guitars, basses, etc. make use of on stage. Rack effects and studio effects should be another separate article; which could deal with the internal or built-in effects that often aren't portable, and are generally only used in the studio. Perhaps the two articles could be desginated as Internal Effects and External Effects. Internal effects which are built into amps, or rackmount effects units that are mounted into an amp would then be classified with the studio effects; while the external effects boxes on a musician's pedalboard would all be classified together in their own article. --Dulcimerist 20:02, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Pedal vs. Unit

There needs to be a distinction between the two; one is very specific, one is very general.

Perhaps Effects Pedals (stomp-boxes) can be a branch of Effects Processors/Units, next to other branches like Multi-Effects Processors? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.202.217.237 (talk) 05:05, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

No merge

I'm taking the merge tag out; it's been there for a half year with no results. Discussions about merging have gone on for two years with no consensus. Over at Effects pedal, they're not even talking about it, and they don't have a merge tag up. Looks like it's time to nail the lid down on this one. Binksternet (talk) 20:45, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Merger proposal

I am re-igniting this. We absolutely do not need separate pages for bass effects, guitar effects, effects pedal, and effects unit. I have read the objections and they make no sense from a Wikipedia policy perspective or from the perspective of someone who knows about this subject. I build effects for a living, as well as being a musician who plays several instruments, so I know what I'm talking about here. The bass effects article is just a duplication of the guitar effects article, but with the word "bass" tacked onto the beginning of everything. The fact of the matter is that, while there are effects designed with specific instruments in mind, any instrument can be played into any effects unit. Many, many bass players used guitar effects when no bass-specific effects existed, and continue to do so even now that bass effects do exist. The difference between bass and guitar versions is commonly a couple of capacitor swaps. They are not substantially different from a technological, musicological, or usage standpoint.

With regard to form factors:

There is no rule that rack effects are used in parallel, that pedals are in series, etc. Such conventions may exist but they do not differentiate the effects themselves in any physical way. Pedals can and are run in parallel, and racks in series. While some physical differences exist, like line level vs. instrument level, these differences do not make them an entirely different thing.

I suggest that the article contain sections on:

-effects types (overdrives, fuzz, waveshaping, chorus, etc...) -form factors (rackmount, pedals, tabletop) -instruments that most commonly use effects and which are most commonly used together

Conical Johnson (talk) 04:20, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I performed all of the mergers since there was no opposition for nearly a month. Almost all of the content on effects pedal, guitar effects, and bass effects was a complete duplicate of this page. Any content from any of those pages that wasn't already covered either in this article or in main articles for individual effects was added here. Conical Johnson (talk) 02:09, 8 October 2009 (UTC)


References!

There has been a considerable amount of work done on this article lately, but none of it has been in adding references. Please do not continue to add content from your own personal knowledge. Instead, those of you who have time to work heavily on this article, please get some refs. This will never be a good article when all the content is original research. Having a refimprove tag on a page for 2 years without improvement is really bad. Conical Johnson (talk) 18:45, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Defretter

I made a change to the explanation of a defretter, and I thought I'd explain to prevent edit warring. Firstly, I cleared up the part about harmonics to make it more concrete. There is no portamento in a defretter, because this would be physically impossible. To do this, the effect would have to know the next note you are going to play before you play it, or it would have to delay the output a significant portion of a second, which would make the effect unplayable in real time. No defretter effect does this. It's merely a VCF and VCA controlled by an ADSR, using the instrument's envelope as a trigger. The effect only changes filtering and volume, not pitch. Conical Johnson (talk) 04:21, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Go Easy on the Techie-Speak

Remember, you're writing this for people who don't already know what effects units are. You're not posting to gearslutz. Keep it simple. Try to write in English and not Gearweigan.--Atlantictire (talk) 22:42, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

History of Effects would help

I'd suggest a History of Effects Units section.

I came hoping for a timeline of the invention and use of various effects. "When did distortion pedals appear?" etc. That kind of user-friendly info might be helpful to lead into the more technical details that are included.

Some of the pages linked to (Distortion (music)) have such historical information on specific effects. It would be nice to have an historical overview covering the various effects all in one place.

That might be a way to help the article seem less "techie" without reducing content. Hope that's a positive suggestion.Accordion Noir (talk) 05:51, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

This is an idea. It looks like there might be some history that could be trimmed out of the section on intended user.--Atlantictire (talk) 08:23, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Moving Tremolo and Noise Gate

A tremolo would belong in the frequency/pitch section BECAUSE IT IS A MODULATION EFFECT.

http://www.gibson.com/en-us/Lifestyle/ProductSpotlight/GearAndInstruments/vibrato-tremolo-octave-divider/

http://www.bosscorp.co.jp/products/en/p_compactpedals.html

http://www.bossus.com/gear/productlist.php?ParentId=256

http://www.bossus.com/gear/subcategories.php?ParentId=247

http://www.jimdunlop.com/products/electronics/mxr

http://www.musiciansfriend.com/navigation/modulation-chorus-flanging-phasing-tremolo-guitar-effects-pedals?N=100001+338516

I'm coming around to your modulation category. We've just got to figure out what that category is, besides stuff that goes between your distortion pedal and your delay pedal.
The classifications are a good thing to re-open for debate.
The current classifications are based on properties of waveforms (or at least they're attempting to be!). What you're proposing is changing the categories so that they're based more on where stompboxes are placed in a signal chain... hence that rather broad "modulation" category touted by pedal manufacturers. I think that would be fine if this were solely an article on stompboxes but it's on effects and effects units more broadly, so to me the attempt at waveform classifications makes sense.
You may have a point about moving noise gate, as it's an expander that dramatically reduces volume when a signal falls below a specified threshold. As such, it might be better classed with compressors and other volume effects.
Do we really want to continue to call distortion effects "tone"? What/whose definition of tone are we using? If you wanna say electric guitarists', then aren't these more or less all tone effects in the sense that electric guitarists have a very broad definition of tone that encompasses timbre AND pitch?
Pure tremolo is by definition a rapid variation in volume, so it's where it should be. Thank god: an easy one.
I'm not at all sure about a lot of what's in the pitch category. Ok, pitch shifter/harmonizer I get, vibrato I get, chorus I get... but phaser and flanger I'm less sure of.
What do you think of the filter vs pitch categories?--Atlantictire (talk) 14:09, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
None of those pedal links are very high quality. What is needed is a book on the subject, probably a recording or musician's handbook. Binksternet (talk) 14:57, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
The Gibson link is an excerpt from Dave Hunter's excellent Guitar Effect Pedals: The Practical Handbook, which is cited several times in the article. Whathitz, you may want to look into getting a copy of that. I see Hunter's point about wanting to class tremolo with modulation, but he also says you can class it with volume (which he prefers not to talk about, though, b/c volume pedals are boring).--Atlantictire (talk) 15:45, 29 April 2011 (UTC)


...did you even check the links? They're INDUSTRY STANDARD BRANDS, those categorizations aren't "touted".

Open up a thread on TGP or acapella and tell people a tremolo belongs in the same category as a compressor or a clean boost, you'll be mocked.

What difference would it make if I get a physical copy of that book? This so called discussion is done over the internet anyway. Ever heard of Google Books?

"Frequency" effects (MODULATION) includes chorus, flanger, phase shifter (rotary speakers and uni-vibes), ring modulator, vibrato AND tremolo. The latter three are more closely related than the first three. If you would like to separate pitch and frequency, it would make sense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Whathitz (talk • contribs) 16:16, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

A noise gate is placed in tone, in this case tone means to add distortion, which is NOT what a noise gate is supposed to do. Noise gates even out your signal WITHOUT altering your tone so no hissing or hum would pass through. I propose this one be moved to "other effects". —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|Whathitz (talk) 08:49, 29 April 2011 (UTC)]] comment added by Whathitz (talk • contribs) 08:41, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Calm down. Nobody's saying they're not going to end up agreeing with you. We're just trying to get our facts straight. And I recommended Hunter because he's a fun read.
Binksternet is correct. Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources
I've got two very good sources that say a noise gate is an expander, and should be classed with units that adjust the dynamic range of a signal:Modern Recording Techniques and Audio Production Worktext: Concepts, Techniques, and Equipment
I'm coming around to your modulation category, but first we have to figure out what it is in terms of what modulation effects do to the audio signal. "Modulation effects are the stuff that go between your distortion pedal and delay pedal" doesn't cut it. If it turns out to be too vague a category, we may not be able to use it.--Atlantictire (talk) 16:49, 29 April 2011 (UTC)


A tremolo is a modulation of volume level. I hope that's good enough. Whathitz (talk) 10:34, 30 April 2011 (UTC)


Modulation is split into three types: amplitude (volume), frequency (pitch) and phase. Whathitz (talk) 10:34, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Ok. I guess I want you to give me an explanation in terms of what happens to the audio signal for why tremelo should be classified as a modulation effect and not a dynamics effect--since the signal parameter affected by tremolo is amplitude. I know it seems like I'm giving you a hard time, but this is really important. Fair warning: "because they sell them with the other modulation effects at Guitar World" won't cut it.--Atlantictire (talk) 21:59, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Well a tremolo is an amplitude modulation, so the function basically means it's a modulating volume...I guess in a way you can say it's both a volume and a modulation effect. Device wise, it'll be closer to modulation. Function of effect itself is volume, that you are correct. BUT the title of this page we're discussing is EFFECTS UNIT, that means we're talking about the devices (stomp boxes, racks, you name it). Whathitz (talk) 10:34, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

I guess what I'm wondering here is what is "modulating" volume... or "modulating" anything for that matter. We're going to have to know what "modulating" does to a wave form in order to create a category for it.--Atlantictire (talk) 11:33, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Noise Gate has been moved to dynamics since it operates on the same principal as an compressor, only it expands the dynamic range of the audio signal in order to produce sounds that are even quieter than what was played. Now I'm going to try to find an audio engineer's explanation for how modulation effects are classed so that we can create that category (hopefully).--Atlantictire (talk) 20:18, 30 April 2011 (UTC)


And if I may add, the section of "pitch/frequency" can't be called that. I pointed out on top that modulation is separated into 3 types (volume, pitch and phase). Calling it "pitch/frequency" doesn't do any justice. Also since you pointed out that "tone" is subjectively a vague term, we ought to rename that section too. By the way, don't you think envelope follower (auto-wah) should be within the "filter" category and linked up to its page?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auto-wah

The wah is placed in there, so I don't see why the former shouldn't be. Whathitz (talk) 21:19, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

The more I investigate the term "modulation" the more it just seems to mean "changing some parameter of the signal". Well, ALL these effects do that. I'm thinking "Modulation" can be a catch all category for effects that change several parameters at once. I still haven't found a good source yet that describes going on with flangers and phasers in terms of what's happening to the signal. I've found one that contradicts the description of phasing in the WP article. JUST BE PATIENT.
Yes, let's change "Tone" to "Distortion"
no, leave envelope follower where it is. there are several types of envelope followers and wah was just mentioned as one example. besides, an envelope follower really has more to do with dynamics.--Atlantictire (talk) 22:09, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Merge proposal

FOH outboard gear at a concert

Propose that Outboard gear be merged with this page. It's a complete duplicate. Outboard and effects units are the exact same thing, only outboard isn't built into instruments. There really only needs to be a sentence maybe explaining the distinction between outboard and effects more generally.--Atlantictire (talk) 20:08, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I tend to agree. Outboard gear, though, also includes non-artistic, non-tone-shaping devices such as automixers, matrixes, intercom stations and loudspeaker management systems. The use of the term in concert touring is very general: anything near the mixing console but not the mixing console. Binksternet (talk) 20:13, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
Oh, I see. Do you think that the Outboard page should continue to exist then, with brief summaries and hatnotes directing readers to the relevant articles? I do imagine there are going to be people who will look up outboard, although there don't seem to be very many. That page only is only getting between 10 and 20 hits per day (with maybe 2 30 hit days per month), as opposed to this page's 400-500 daily hits.--Atlantictire (talk) 03:52, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, keeping the outboard gear page might be best, with clear links to related articles for further detail. Binksternet (talk) 03:56, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

So what do you see as general categories for a page on Outboard gear?

  • effects units
  • live soundmixing equipment: auto mixers (it's not immediately apparent from the article when and where people use these things but I'm guessing live events), intercom stations
  • matrixes, signal processors

Anything else? So as to preserve an eye for jargon, I tend to edit things as I learn about them... so I'm by no means an expert here.

Oh, also: could you tell me everything that Outboard is NOT. Outboard is not:

  • instruments
  • mixing consoles
  • microphones?

Anything else? What about laptops, say if a band is using Ableton Live?--Atlantictire (talk) 06:42, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

--Atlantictire (talk) 04:42, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Defining Modulation

I'm going to look back through the archived talk pages of this article and the pages that were merged with it to try and figure out why there isn't a modulation category. As I've said, I agree with you that "pitch" is pretty lousy, but modulation may not be that much better. I'm also still looking for a book that gives me a good mechanical explanation of what these so-called modulation effects do.--Atlantictire (talk) 22:28, 30 April 2011 (UTC)


Ah ha! It's looking like maybe we can define modulation as effects that create a duplicate signal which is then "modulated" in some way. Thank you, Introducing Reason. So far in this category:


Amplitude (volume), frequency (pitch) and phase (the ones you listed right above belong in this one) should do. I guess even I'm coming to realize that modulation is a vague label. Whathitz (talk) 07:19, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Are you thinking of the knobs on the effects? I don't think we need to create subcategories within modulation because the description of each effects explains which parameter of the duplicate signal is modulated. Also, a clean boost pedal is an amplitude effect, and a EQ knob is pitch/amplitude, but those ain't "modulation" in the sense that, say, BOSS uses the term.--Atlantictire (talk) 12:37, 1 May 2011 (UTC)


Yes I know those are amplitude effects, but I'm specifically talking about the ones categorized under modulation. Whathitz (talk) 18:03, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, amplitude, frequency and phase are really artificial categories for what's going on with the effects in modulation. These effects duplicate the signal, alter it and then mix it back in with the original signal which causes all sorts of strange things to happen to the wave form properties. Also, if we were to create these categories I don't think they'd be that useful because they'd be categories of one--and the description of the effect already tells you what was done to the replicate signal (i.e. chorus added vibrato, flange delayed it, etc.) It just wouldn't be very useful and wouldn't make sense in terms of the complex wave that the device is actually producing.--Atlantictire (talk) 14:12, 1 May 2011 (UTC)


Aite then when you get somewhere or something do tell me about it. Whathitz (talk) 18:04, 1 May 2011 (UTC)


Looks like some things were rearranged? Whathitz (talk) 15:53, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Just made the pictures classier. Been meaning to do that for a while.--Atlantictire (talk) 16:11, 2 May 2011 (UTC)


Umm...nice spectrograms? If I may point out, the "chorus effect" sample sounded more like a mild Uni-Vibe to my ears. When I think chorusing I think Nirvana or The Cure. Whathitz (talk) 16:57, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

That's what came up when I searched for a chorus sample. If you want to make an ogg out of the first 20 seconds of "Come As You Are" be my guest.--Atlantictire (talk) 23:09, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Treble boosters and harmonic exciters?

Should we include them or no, Atlantictire? Btw, how can I become an official administrator/moderator of a Wikipedia page? REPLY SOON! therewillbehotcake (talk) 22:17, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

The Aphex Systems Aural exciter and other Exciter (effect) units should be mentioned here. Treble boosters not so much... they are equalizers. Binksternet (talk) 22:30, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, K. Anything else that ought to be mentioned here? Correct me if I'm wrong, but harmonic exciters seem to function like 2-band parametric equalizers (I have a rack BBE Sonic Maximizer)? therewillbehotcake (talk) 08:17, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

The Sonic Maximizer is not an aural exciter, it shifts group delay using an all-pass filter, affecting the time-of-arrival of low versus high frequencies. Aural exciters work only on high frequencies. Binksternet (talk) 15:35, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Speaking of filters, what are they classified as? therewillbehotcake (talk) 20:05, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Hey am I gonna get a reply? And WTH did Atlantictire go?!? therewillbehotcake (talk) 05:03, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Filters are classed as equalizers. Binksternet (talk) 13:23, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

guitar resonator

The Guitar Resonator is a very obscure effects unit, and therefore not a good representative of the class. I have been a professional musician for a long time, and i've never heard of this thing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.241.5.191 (talk) 19:42, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Changed first pic to pedalboard. Suspect info on the Guitar Resonator is advertising.--Atlantictire (talk) 01:45, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Disagree. Checked latest wikipedia references, its on the marked since 2008. There are many international publications in well-known and representative magazines (such as Recording Magazine USA, Sound On Sound UK, Gitarre & Bass Germany). It is a good representative in this class, because it represents one of the three different basic principles of playing with magnetic string drivers. Xstring (talk) 23:41, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Delete Tributes by musicians section?

There are countless band names, songs and song titles that reference effects, and the exclusion/inclusion of songs at present is pretty arbitrary. This section is basically comprised of whatever band or song anyone who happened to be editing the page thought of at the time... i.e. it's random trivia.

Perhaps in the history section we could simply mention something about how songs have been named after or are about effects and maybe give a few famous examples.--Atlantictire (talk) 19:38, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, that section is a trivia magnet. Only the most prominent examples should be given, such as the first instance or ones that are widely cited as important. As you say, the "famous examples". Binksternet (talk) 20:18, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Once again, you back. Go for it before Wiki blacks out. therewillbehotcake (talk) 18:33, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

If it does stay, it needs to include the most famous "Tribute" - Beck took his Boss RE-20 Space "Echo Delay" Pedal and turmed it into his "Beck - Odelay" album in 1996. Malkmus jokes notwithstanding. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.48.74.187 (talk) 02:27, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

More proposals

I don't see how placing an instrument directly in front of an amplifier to create noise is an effects unit. Whathitz (talk) 16:29, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

An Ebow is an effect unit, and it's used to generate feedback.
http://www.soniccouture.com/en/products/g5-ebow-guitar/
The amplifier-guitar explanation is akin to the reel tape-flanger explanation. I think it's helpful in that it gives a real-world, non-technical example of the sound Ebows create.--Atlantictire (talk) 20:42, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
Hi. I changed the bolding back to what it had been before b/c feedback is the effect and Ebow is the unit. You wouldn't unbold "fuzz" and bold "Big Muff Pi", correct? All Big Muff Pi's are fuzzboxes but not all fuzzboxes are Big Muff Pi's.--Atlantictire (talk) 15:10, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

We ought to highlight EBow instead of audio feedback since this page suggests effects units Whathitz (talk) 16:21, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

That doesn't make any sense. We don't highlight the names of specific products anywhere else in the the article. Distortion and pitch are effects categories, not units. Feedback is the category anen.wikipedia.orgbow go under that category.--Atlantictire (talk) 17:27, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
I feel like I was very diplomatic with you re:tremelo and vibrato. Technically, distortion, fuzz, overdrive and pitch shifting involve "modulation" in the the way we have defined it. I'd appreciate a reason for this change other than "because".--Atlantictire (talk) 17:34, 11 May 2011 (UTC)


OK I see your point regarding EBow. This one is probably my last proposed change: microphone preamp to just preamplifier? It will seem broader and more "neutral" to me, kind of like how you pointed out envelope follower should just be left that way instead of changing it to envelope filter. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preamp Whathitz (talk) 18:53, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

That's fine.--Atlantictire (talk) 20:18, 11 May 2011 (UTC)


I don't know what to put for the description under "dynamics". Mind helping me out with the change? Whathitz (talk) 10:30, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Do you mean you don't know what to put under "Preamplifier"? I can't see anything wrong with the description of "dynamics".--Atlantictire (talk) 10:52, 12 May 2011 (UTC)


Ya under preamplifier. Mind helping me out? Whathitz (talk) 11:36, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Sure. I'll need to do a little research to find new sources and make sure what I say is accurate.--Atlantictire (talk) 16:31, 12 May 2011 (UTC)


Clean boost should be shortened to boost, because not all boost pedals are "clean" nor marketed with the clean label...and loopers are time-based? I rearranged some of the listed effects in their respective categories, found Deluxy Memory Man listed under chorus -_- seems like someone's trying to advert EHX products...gotta watch out for this guy! Also, me heads spinning from consistently rereading the article. Whathitz (talk) 17:31, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Delux Memory Man can be used for chorus, but I think so long as the mighty Small Clone is listed it's fine to take it out. Yes, loopers are time-based. You're recording something and then playing it back at after a time delay.--Atlantictire (talk) 17:58, 13 May 2011 (UTC)


And samplers? KAOSS PAD? Whathitz (talk) 20:23, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Samplers are considered musical instruments, not effects: Sampler (musical instrument)--Atlantictire (talk) 05:14, 14 May 2011 (UTC)


So how goes the preamp? Whathitz (talk) 13:25, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

I went ahead and deleted preamp b/c it's really a device that prepares signals to travel through effects chains and not an effect in itself. Everything I read says this.--Atlantictire (talk) 13:46, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
Also, added "clean boost" b/c it's called that often enough.--Atlantictire (talk) 13:49, 14 May 2011 (UTC)


Heh yea, well I too was beginning to wonder whether preamps should be categorized under effects unit. So I guess this is it for now? Whathitz (talk) 16:34, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

I hope so.--Atlantictire (talk) 18:02, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't want to step on anyone's toes here, but there's an odd sentence at the end of the opening paragraph on form factors. The sentence states "Form factors are a part of a studio or musician's outboard gear." A form factor is a characteristic of an effects unit, just like weight/color/design/price/size. As such the current sentence is like saying "Weight is part of a studio or musician's outboard gear": it doesn't really make sense, certainly in the context of the paragraph. The original wording "Effects units are part of a studio or musician's outboard gear" does make sense, and as such I think the wording should be reverted. The change to the current wording was made at 03:15 22 September 2010. Bcasavan (talk) 08:52, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Photo Overkill

IMHO, some of the photos that have recently been added are poor quality and/or redundant. They've created a lot of empty white space that fragments the article unnecessarily. If no one objects I'd like to delete some of them.--Atlantictire (talk) 23:59, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

needs some editing

Someone do the adding and sorting for these two sections :P

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_unit#Boutique_pedals

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Guitar_effects_manufacturing_companies

And long time no hear from you Atlantictire ;)

therewillbehotcake (talk) 15:26, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Return of Gearweigan

Its seems the creep of Gearweigan back into the article has begun:

"In simplest terms, Distortion was caused by pushing the biasing voltage AC swing higher than the maximum power the amp itself could provide".

Sorry, but those aren't simple terms. Only someone versed in electronics geekery will be able to parse "biasing voltage AC swing higher". This is an encyclopedia article, meaning it is intended as a first introduction to this topic. A lot of work was put into editing the Gearweigan out of the article, so let's not put it back in.

We're also moving from simple and concise to circuitous and verbose:

"Distortion effects generally mean both soft and hard clipping, and distortion is caused by perfectly flattened peaks due to saturation or cutoff inside a transistor based unit that does not attempt to smooth the clipping of peaks, will be called a distortion pedal, as the transistor responds to changes in voltage quicker than a tube can, while overdrive pedals, usually consisting of transistor based "Overdrive" pedals exist, in which an attempt at emulating "Tube-like Distortion" is made through extensive electronics and IC design, will retain their typical sine wave form, but will be compressed such that there is less difference between the RMS and the peak of a wave. Overdrive units created with transistors, much like tube amps, produce "clean" sounds at quieter volumes and distorted "warm" sounds at louder volumes, compared to the "harsh" or "gritty" sound of simple transistor distortion."

It's going to take me a while to make sense of this. --Atlantictire (talk) 00:12, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Section edited for concision and grammar. Jargon eliminated.--Atlantictire (talk) 20:09, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

boss gt-8

I have an issue to my boss gt-8 whymyeen displayulti auto eding on scrwe Andyguzm (talk) 15:00, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Effects unit. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:03, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Effects unit. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:42, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Videos of effect pedals

Hello, I've uploaded several videos of effect pedals (vibrato, octaver, tremolo, delay...) on Commons : https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Videos_of_effect_pedals. They could really add to the article (or on the dedicated effect article), feel free to add them! Skimel (talk) 22:05, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

overreach? & gaps

Some content needs to be deeply rewritten, or maybe removed entirely, for instance

Davies would famously doctor the speakers of his amp by slitting them with a razor blade to achieve a grittier guitar sound on the 1964 song "You Really Got Me".

For this to remain, somehow either "slashed speaker cone" needs to be explained in the context of "electronic effect," or the article name needs to be changed. cut

In standard WP fashion, there's casual use of unfounded superlatives, implied and explicit. The article makes it sound like Davies was "the first." But there's Link Wray:

Link used a 1953 Premier 71 Amp. The 71 has a 12" Jensen Field-Coil speaker and 2 - 3" Jensens. He poked holes in the small speakers to emulate the distortion he'd get when he'd crank the amp at gigs.

(post to a Gear Page forum thread — sorry, best I could do on short notice)

This all reminds me of Marty Robbins's recording of "Don't Worry" (1961). Wikipedia recountings vary slightly:

session guitarist Grady Martin accidentally created the electric guitar "fuzz" effect – his six-string bass was run through a faulty channel in a mixing console.
Session guitarist Grady Martin, using a faulty channel in the mixing-desk for his six-string bass, created a distorted sound. Although Martin did not like the sound, Robbins' producer left the guitar track as it was.

I'd heard another version, years ago (though the above is more believable for "Don't Worry"). Some early combo amps put the electronics at the bottom of the case, so as not to make the box top-heavy. Problem is, musicians had a habit of tossing cords and stuff into the back of the case, and occasionally breaking a tube. So manufacturers (like Fender) mounted the amplifier unit upside-down inside the top of the case. But this too created an occasional problem, because moving the amp between venues could jiggle a tube loose due to gravity. Supposedly, in some amp models, if one tube had slipped down just enough to create a fault at a pin or two, the "fuzz" sound happened.

The History section launches with unfounded overreach, for instance

The original stand-alone units were not especially in-demand as many effects came built into amplifiers. … By the 1950s, tremolo, vibrato and reverb were available as built-in effects on many guitar amplifiers.

Let me lay out some immediate problems:

  • define "many"
  • then ascribe that claim to a credible source
  • make a list of all the commercially distributed 1950s amplifiers that had built-in tremolo AND vibrato
  • in the mid-'70s, my first pedal was a Univox fuzz; my second was an E-H LPB-1 input overdriver; my third was a Univox wah. None of these was "built in" to a significant number of amps, in ANY era.

My conceit is that a certain amount of fanboy arm-waving should be tolerated in articles such as this, but least of all when claiming to lay out an at-all-credible history.
Weeb Dingle (talk) 16:15, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

One more thing:

This is yet another WP article that slings the term true bypass without making any proper attempt to define it, much less to explain why it's supposedly "a good thing" let alone why it's apprently so revolutionary/difficult to achieve. In Effect unit, the reader is turfed out to a section of DI unit that doesn't actually exist ("Active DI units"), having apparently been renamed; I fixed this. And FWIW I removed the claim that "true bypass" is some sort of rare thing confined to pricey boutique pedals.

That article defines "true bypass" as

when the signal goes straight from the input jack to the output jack with no circuitry involved and no loading of the source impedance.

which treads close to jargony, and in any case does little to clearly explain the term in the context of effects units.

A bit further down in Effects unit, the concept is described as

the effect's circuitry is no longer in the signal path

which is a good start but needs to be fleshed out. As the term now appears all over the Earth when discussing effects units, the present article is an ideal place to create a section specifically to discuss the concept, its rise in significance, and how/why it is achieved.

I've heard that some recent wah designs intentionally avoid true bypass. Perhaps this should be explored here.
Weeb Dingle (talk) 16:42, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Effects_unit/Archive_1&oldid=1029288026"