Fuzz, auto z and change of tone

[brettchinery]

Hi - looking for some help - let's say you want a very basic sound of an amp with an arbitrator fuzz for lead.

 

Firstly, I would choose & set up the amp with a cleanish sound for rhythm I like and then add in the fuzz pedal at the front of the chain as you would do in real life - once you have the settings done, you save the patch with the fuzz status off to kick in with a footswitch.

 

The issue I have is that that sound changes when you return back to that patch - your sound without the fuzz on has changed as I think the auto z input now suddenly kicks in and then changes your sound from how you first programmed it with a different z response - it is quieter and has far less treble in it

 

Am I doing something wrong or is the auto z not responding until you save the patch and return to it???

 

I really hope I have explained myself clearly and you might be able to help

 

Many thanks in advance

Hi - I really need your help setting up a patch - let's say you want a very basic sound of an amp with an arbitrator fuzz for lead. Firstly, I set up the amp with a cleanish sound for rhythm I like and then add in the fuzz pedal at the front of the chain as you would do in real life - once you have the settings done, you save the patch with the fuzz off to kick in with a footswitch. The issue I have is that that sound changes when you return back to that patch - your sound without the fuzz has changed as I think the auto z input now suddenly kicks in and then changes your sound from how you programmed it - it is quieter and has less treble Am I doing something wrong or is the auto z not responding until you save the patch and return to it??? I really hope I have explained myself clearly and you might be able to help Many thanks in advance

[phil_m]

The way the Auto setting on the Input Z works is that it changes the input impedance based on the first block in your chain. The input impedance will be set to match that block whether it's on or bypassed. If you want the lower impedance to only be that when the fuzz pedal is on, you could set the impedance to be tied to a controller, either that same footswitch or a snapshot controller, and have the impedance be lowered only when the fuzz in on.

[brettchinery]

The way the Auto setting on the Input Z works is that it changes the input impedance based on the first block in your chain. The input impedance will be set to match that block whether it's on or bypassed. If you want the lower impedance to only be that when the fuzz pedal is on, you could set the impedance to be tied to a controller, either that same footswitch or a snapshot controller, and have the impedance be lowered only when the fuzz in on.

Thanks and all fair points - the one thing that I dont understand is that when you insert the fuzz pedal, the auto z doesn't seem to immediately detect it (the tone doesn't change) and only seems to change once you save the patch and then reload the patch into the chain

[victorcastro1]

Thanks and all fair points - the one thing that I dont understand is that when you insert the fuzz pedal, the auto z doesn't seem to immediately detect it (the tone doesn't change) and only seems to change once you save the patch and then reload the patch into the chain

It's a bug. If you move the block it will correct the input impedance, if you change the Auto setting to a fixed one and back to the auto setting it will correct it. The way the Auto setting works, that is, by setting the impedance based on the first block on the signal chain - being on or off, while not a bug, it's pretty useless. 

 

The way the Auto setting on the Input Z works is that it changes the input impedance based on the first block in your chain. The input impedance will be set to match that block whether it's on or bypassed. If you want the lower impedance to only be that when the fuzz pedal is on, you could set the impedance to be tied to a controller, either that same footswitch or a snapshot controller, and have the impedance be lowered only when the fuzz in on.

 

It's been discussed at length in other forums and this work around only work in certain cases. Auto setting should track first "active" block, or at the very least there should be a setting that did that. The way the auto setting works right now is very close to useless. 

[PeterHamm]

The way the Auto setting on the Input Z works is that it changes the input impedance based on the first block in your chain. The input impedance will be set to match that block whether it's on or bypassed. If you want the lower impedance to only be that when the fuzz pedal is on, you could set the impedance to be tied to a controller, either that same footswitch or a snapshot controller, and have the impedance be lowered only when the fuzz in on.

 

This is the best solution, bug or no bug.

[FlyingsCool]

It's a bug. If you move the block it will correct the input impedance, if you change the Auto setting to a fixed one and back to the auto setting it will correct it. The way the Auto setting works, that is, by setting the impedance based on the first block on the signal chain - being on or off, while not a bug, it's pretty useless. 

 

 

It's been discussed at length in other forums and this work around only work in certain cases. Auto setting should track first "active" block, or at the very least there should be a setting that did that. The way the auto setting works right now is very close to useless. 

 

I don't understand how it's useless.  They had a choice, act like a real pedal board or not?  They chose to act like a real pedal board would, which, I happen to agree with (I realize you don't).

 

Now, let's assume they didn't, now the impedance changes to whatever block is next that is turned on?

 

I dunno, it seems to me that could cause some artifacts as it's switching the impedance.  I really think it's better that it stay constant. 

 

You could argue "Well, if they were 'true bypass' pedals they wouldn't act like that".  Were the pedals they modeled 'true bypass'?  No.

 

Remember, this is only the action of Impedance set to "Auto".  It stays put if you set it to something else. Or you could use the method described above.

 

Just my half a cent....

[brettchinery]

The way the Auto setting on the Input Z works is that it changes the input impedance based on the first block in your chain. The input impedance will be set to match that block whether it's on or bypassed. If you want the lower impedance to only be that when the fuzz pedal is on, you could set the impedance to be tied to a controller, either that same footswitch or a snapshot controller, and have the impedance be lowered only when the fuzz in on.

many thanks - sorted it - I am using the same switch to turn the fuzz on & off to now change the z setting - in effect it creates the impression of a a true bypass pedal now - awesome help on here 

[kronda]

many thanks - sorted it - I am using the same switch to turn the fuzz on & off to now change the z setting - in effect it creates the impression of a a true bypass pedal now - awesome help on here 

 

It would actually be very cool if Line 6 added a "True Bypass" parameter to every pedal. That way we'd have perfect control over the impedance propagation thru the pedal chain... If a fuzz would be first in the chain with True Bypass set to true and the preset would have Impedance set to Auto, then switching the fuzz off would mean the impedance would be dictated by the next pedal in the chain. 

[victorcastro1]

The way the Auto setting on the Input Z works is that it changes the input impedance based on the first block in your chain. The input impedance will be set to match that block whether it's on or bypassed. If you want the lower impedance to only be that when the fuzz pedal is on, you could set the impedance to be tied to a controller, either that same footswitch or a snapshot controller, and have the impedance be lowered only when the fuzz in on.

 

This is the best solution, bug or no bug.

 

many thanks - sorted it - I am using the same switch to turn the fuzz on & off to now change the z setting - in effect it creates the impression of a a true bypass pedal now - awesome help on here 

 

 

The input impedance it's part of what makes a circuit sound the way it does. A TS has an input impedance of about 250k, a compressor a 1M. This suggestion does not work if I have a TS into a compressor for example. I could turn the TS on and have the impedance adjusted properly, but once I turned the compressor on, it would change to 1M, which should not happen because the first in line is a TS that has a lower input impedance, making it as fake as furry fish. 

 

 

 

I don't understand how it's useless.  They had a choice, act like a real pedal board or not?  They chose to act like a real pedal board would, which, I happen to agree with (I realize you don't).

 

Now, let's assume they didn't, now the impedance changes to whatever block is next that is turned on?

 

I dunno, it seems to me that could cause some artifacts as it's switching the impedance.  I really think it's better that it stay constant. 

 

You could argue "Well, if they were 'true bypass' pedals they wouldn't act like that".  Were the pedals they modeled 'true bypass'?  No.

 

Remember, this is only the action of Impedance set to "Auto".  It stays put if you set it to something else. Or you could use the method described above.

 

Just my half a cent....

 

It's not reacting like a pedalboard. It doesn't seem to cause any artifacts by changing through assigning a footswitch or through snapshots, I don't know where you you got this idea from. Why it's better to be constant?

 

It's not about being true bypass. Every pedal has an input impedance when it's on, it's part of it and the way it sounds, it has "nothing" to do with bypass. Want to mimic a buffer from a buffered pedal? You have to look to the actual buffer. The input impedance of a buffer is ideally the highest possible, so fix input impedance to 1M. But for the sake of argument, let's say it's about true bypass vs non true bypass. You're arguing that this behavior is the better on and by doing that you're ignoring companies that have made a name by creating rigs that the whole purpose is making the guitar go through a bunch of gear and still sounding like it's plugged straight to the amp. Bob Bradshaw, LA Sound Design, Gig Rig, etc and also ignoring that today the norm from pretty much every pedal is being true bypass makes you think that's what everything thinks is best. Buffers only exist to solve a problem that has no bearing inside a modeler.  

But... It's not about true bypass. A Fuzz Face with the input impedance of 1M does not sound or behave like a Fuzz Face. A Plexi won't sound or behave like a Plexi with the input impedance of 90k. 

[zooey]

It would actually be very cool if Line 6 added a "True Bypass" parameter to every pedal. That way we'd have perfect control over the impedance propagation thru the pedal chain... If a fuzz would be first in the chain with True Bypass set to true and the preset would have Impedance set to Auto, then switching the fuzz off would mean the impedance would be dictated by the next pedal in the chain.

Agree, great idea, put it up on IdeaScale, I'd vote it up.

[victorcastro1]

Agree, great idea, put it up on IdeaScale, I'd vote it up.

Not the same, but makes it each block work as intended. https://line6.ideascale.com/a/idea-v2/862873

[victorcastro1]

Agree, great idea, put it up on IdeaScale, I'd vote it up.

 

 

It would actually be very cool if Line 6 added a "True Bypass" parameter to every pedal. That way we'd have perfect control over the impedance propagation thru the pedal chain... If a fuzz would be first in the chain with True Bypass set to true and the preset would have Impedance set to Auto, then switching the fuzz off would mean the impedance would be dictated by the next pedal in the chain. 

That would make things confusing IMO. A better way for ultimate flexibility would be to make the impedance track the first active block, but at the same time add the input impedance as a parameter for every effect. Some people seem to prefer how the amps react and sound with a 230k input impedance, that would allow it and, if anyone happens to prefer all impedances the same, that would easily be accomplished. 

[phil_m]

Tracking the input impedance of every block along with the on/off state of each block is quite a bit more data to deal with. The thing with all these little subroutines is they add up and end up making the gap when switching presets longer. Right now the input impedance can be tied to a snapshot controlller, so it's pretty simple for people to set it how they want it.

[kronda]

Not the same, but makes it each block work as intended. https://line6.ideascale.com/a/idea-v2/862873

 

Yes, that's a possible simpler way of enhancing our options. But would have to be switchable - e.g. the current behavior stays as Impedance setting AutoFirst and they could add a new option AutoFirstActive or something. Otherwise current presets using Auto would change sound completely....

 

Agree, great idea, put it up on IdeaScale, I'd vote it up.

 

Here you go: https://line6.ideascale.com/a/idea-v2/907926

 

That would make things confusing IMO. A better way for ultimate flexibility would be to make the impedance track the first active block, but at the same time add the input impedance as a parameter for every effect. Some people seem to prefer how the amps react and sound with a 230k input impedance, that would allow it and, if anyone happens to prefer all impedances the same, that would easily be accomplished. 

 

It's really in evetyone's HO what's more confusing - true/false bypass for each effect or a specific impedance for each effect (if I understand you correctly). 

 

 

Tracking the input impedance of every block along with the on/off state of each block is quite a bit more data to deal with. The thing with all these little subroutines is they add up and end up making the gap when switching presets longer. Right now the input impedance can be tied to a snapshot controlller, so it's pretty simple for people to set it how they want it.

 

Yes, everybody knows the code inside out here :) For me it doesn't seem like a big deal (I'm a programmer, of course) but could be wrong. So let's conclude with "maybe it can be done, maybe it can't, only Line 6 know and they wont tell"?

 

I just don't get it why people make these negative conclusions without knowing the code ("Yes, that's too DSP intensive, forget it"). We're just creating inspiration for Line 6 here, how about letting them be the ones turning it down if it doesn't make sense...? Creates unproductive discussions ("Hey, but my phone's app can do it! It can't be that DSP intensive...") about something (Helix code) that nobody here knows. IMHO, of course. And full respect for everybody's opinion.

[phil_m]

Yes, everybody knows the code inside out here :) For me it doesn't seem like a big deal (I'm a programmer, of course) but could be wrong. So let's conclude with "maybe it can be done, maybe it can't, only Line 6 know and they wont tell"?

 

I just don't get it why people make these negative conclusions without knowing the code ("Yes, that's too DSP intensive, forget it"). We're just creating inspiration for Line 6 here, how about letting them be the ones turning it down if it doesn't make sense...? Creates unproductive discussions ("Hey, but my phone's app can do it! It can't be that DSP intensive...") about something (Helix code) that nobody here knows. IMHO, of course. And full respect for everybody's opinion.

I was pretty much repeating what DI said here: https://www.thegearpage.net/board/index.php?posts/24636213/

[kronda]

I was pretty much repeating what DI said here: https://www.thegearpage.net/board/index.php?posts/24636213/

 

Cool, so it's already been turned down by Line 6. Thanks for the link. If I understand it correctly DI still offered the IdeaScale way of pushing it forward but doesn't seem likely to happen even if it made it to Top 10 requested...

[victorcastro1]

I was pretty much repeating what DI said here: https://www.thegearpage.net/board/index.php?posts/24636213/

If it was not really possible, there would not be the need for the snarky comment "If you'd prefer it to work another way (which is fairly obvious after over 9,000 posts about it ), pimping IdeaScale votes is the only path forward." But you see, some stuff do not need the approval of the majority to be factually wrong. 

 

 

It's really in evetyone's HO what's more confusing - true/false bypass for each effect or a specific impedance for each effect (if I understand you correctly). 

 

Both might be confusing, but for the different reasons. The later I think it's more straight forward, and it adds to the tweakability, making it possible to make any block have whatever input impedance you see fit, the first does not allow it. 

[phil_m]

If it was not really possible, there would not be the need for the snarky comment "If you'd prefer it to work another way (which is fairly obvious after over 9,000 posts about it ), pimping IdeaScale votes is the only path forward." But you see, some stuff do not need the approval of the majority to be factually wrong. 

 

I never said it wasn't possible. I'm just saying there's reasons for it being the way it is. I think they want to be careful about pursuing a feature that makes one group of people happy if it has the potential to cause problems for another group of users. It seems like they're saying that stuff that adds latency to preset switching is a non-starter right now. It doesn't mean it won't ever be done, necessarily. They would just need to come up with another way to do it.

[victorcastro1]

This is the best solution, bug or no bug.

In order to not completely derail the thread, what OP described "is" a bug, it's the auto setting not doing it's job of setting the impedance for the first block in the chain. It doesn't do that in certain cases and it's most definitely a bug. It has nothing to do with the discussion that came after it.