Dormant block in parallel makes it sound different...

L

Loquenau

Power User
Even though the block is off, it seems it's doubling the sound. It's definitely louder. I'm kind of hooked on it.
 
You know that blocks can either pass trough or mute when they are off?
If it's set to pass thru then it's normal you here something.
 
To be specific, I mean this kind of situation.

pi5hl.png
 
Yup, that's a parallel path and if you don't have the bypass set to one of the mute options, that will double the signal heading down the chain, giving you more output, which, as noted, we usually perceive as sounding better. It's not doing anything to the tone except making it louder.
 
But if I match the apparent volume of each patch, the one with the dormant block still sounds thicker and more lively.
 
javajunkie said:
Yep, and we have a tendency to perceive louder as better.
Click to expand...

Ding! (With the 'in parallel' comment.)

If it works for you, go for it. Keep in mind louder means you hear different things. IN GENERAL, I find that patches sound less nasal, highs come out more prominent, and the 'feel' is better when its' stoopid loud. You don't need it, but if you really think it makes a sonic difference in your patches, then it does! No right or wrong.
 
Rex said:
What's downstream from your bypassed block?
Click to expand...

Reverb, active, also in parallel.


What I'm getting at is it seems to be doubling the sound. I didn't think it would do that. Also, setting the bypass to mute effect doesn't seem to sound the same as it not being there.

It's just interesting. Listening back to a recorder of each, though, it might be better to not have it in there.
 
Loquenau said:
Reverb, active, also in parallel.


What I'm getting at is it seems to be doubling the sound. I didn't think it would do that. Also, setting the bypass to mute effect doesn't seem to sound the same as it not being there.

It's just interesting. Listening back to a recorder of each, though, it might be better to not have it in there.
Click to expand...

MUTE FX IN and MUTE FX OUT are not the same as MUTE. Either MUTE FX option leaves the dry which is what is causing your doubling. Check page 117 of the manual. There may not be a "right" or "wrong", but you've got to know the rules to break them. I think you'll benefit from a solid understanding of how all the bypass modes work.
 
stevieray said:
MUTE FX IN and MUTE FX OUT are not the same as MUTE. Either MUTE FX option leaves the dry which is what is causing your doubling.
Click to expand...
^^^ This.

If the block is in parallel and you're running one of the "MUTE FX..." options, you have to set that block's Mix to 100 percent; otherwise, you'll get more of your dry signal bleeding through, and that'll make it louder.
 
Last edited:
It was originally set to 'thru'. I had this memory of others' patches I'd tried with blocks in a similar configuration where 'mute out' stopped any signal. I have a handle on things now. Doing some new testing to see whether I'm going to keep things as they are....
 
This is weeird. If I put a parallel shunt, it's kind of deader. If I put in a filter (deactivated of course), it's in-between that and using a chorus block. I swear these sound different.

Also, no matter what kind of eq-ing and stuff I do, I cannot get close to the same sound as with the parallel chorus block. There's just this fatness to it.

But listening back to it, I think without sounds cleaner.



 
Last edited:
Any differences are not due to shunts. Shunts just pass audio signal, nothing more. what goes in, comes out. Splitting the signal the mixing them back together doubles the signal.

With parallel chorus you are able to control the dry and wet signals separately instead of reducing one while increasing the other (mix parameter). Under some conditions this can achieve different results from the mix parameter.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom