ilovefuzz.com

LOL!

Yea most of EQD stuff is pretty standard anymore. I'm not impressed.

Maybe if they started naming pedals after annoying remembrances of years past I'd reconsider.

aholidayatthesea wrote:I forget where I saw it, but there was some thread where someone was criticizing a pedal company for using FV1 but not using its full potential, like with the bitQuest. I think it was Alexander Pedals. The guy responded and gave love to Ryan, but said that for most people it makes more sense to have a dedicated delay, or a dedicated modulation, etc, instead of cramming a ton of different effects into one pedal. So it's a deliberate choice on their parts.

I hope it wasn't him because he's put out like three different four knob, three-way toggle FV-1 delays in the same size enclosure.

Oh I just reread that and realized it was confusing. Someone was critizing Alexander Pedals and Alexander Pedals responded to the criticism.

Yeah, I understood that. If his point was that people wouldn't like different effects in the same pedal, why did he release three separate delays with three delay modes (9 delay modes in total), when he would have jammed 8 of them into one pedal? In short: Use the chip's full potential, like the BitQuest or the Particle (and the Context?).

They posted a 60-second clip of it a few days ago.

I think it sounds pretty great.

I like their whole vibe. They seem like genuinely nice guys, and I usually run Coffee & Riffs as background music while I'm working. Haven't really bonded with their verbs, but I also kind of hated the verb on the bitquest, which has been mentioned in this thread a couple times as what their pedals should be. Seems like a weird comparison to make given business and commerce and stuff.

I look at OBNE as an entry into a different pedal scene, which seems oddly fitting given Brady having spent so much time with Brand New in the mid-2000's.

weebles wrote: I also kind of hated the verb on the bitquest, which has been mentioned in this thread a couple times as what their pedals should be. Seems like a weird comparison to make given business and commerce and stuff.

They're being compared because they use the same chip. The difference being that they only use three of the eight ports compared to the BitQuest (and Particle/Context), which use all eight. Add six parameters compared to four, a dirty mode, top mounted jacks and expression control, and you start seeing why I personally wouldn't want to buy OBNE/Alexander. The bang for your buck ratio is waaaay off. The sound, being a subjective preference, is irrelevant to the discussion.

If someone was to swap the FV-1 chips between the different pedals, would they sound the same?
If someone was to rip the code from the chips of different OBNE and Alexander and Keeley pedals and load the different algorithms onto a single chip and stick it in a BitQuest, would that work?

As there's not just a chip inside the pedal, I doubt that it would. The BitQuest is jam-packed with components. My F.13, not so much.

UglyCasanova wrote:

weebles wrote: I also kind of hated the verb on the bitquest, which has been mentioned in this thread a couple times as what their pedals should be. Seems like a weird comparison to make given business and commerce and stuff.

They're being compared because they use the same chip. The difference being that they only use three of the eight ports compared to the BitQuest (and Particle/Context), which use all eight. Add six parameters compared to four, a dirty mode, top mounted jacks and expression control, and you start seeing why I personally wouldn't want to buy OBNE/Alexander. The bang for your buck ratio is waaaay off. The sound, being a subjective preference, is irrelevant to the discussion.

I will say that the frustrating other side of that coin is that I sooooooo wish the effects within the Bitquest were switchable. But, I mean... that'd be like having your cake, eating it too, and a free back rub from Ryan.

Also I played the F13 last week and it was good as fuck. I need one of those rill bad.

oldangelmidnight wrote:If someone was to swap the FV-1 chips between the different pedals, would they sound the same?
If someone was to rip the code from the chips of different OBNE and Alexander and Keeley pedals and load the different algorithms onto a single chip and stick it in a BitQuest, would that work?

if you could extract the hex file on the eeprom and decompile it then you could absolutely put it in any of the pedals. the surrounding circuitry would be different (different buffers, bitquest has an eq section i believe) but the core of the pedal would be the same.

edit - its not the spin chip that would need to be swapped, its the eeproms. same idea behind the digitech xp-all mods. same hardware but different code

That is interesting!!^^^ Thanks for the info, Teej!

popvulture wrote:

UglyCasanova wrote:

weebles wrote: I also kind of hated the verb on the bitquest, which has been mentioned in this thread a couple times as what their pedals should be. Seems like a weird comparison to make given business and commerce and stuff.

They're being compared because they use the same chip. The difference being that they only use three of the eight ports compared to the BitQuest (and Particle/Context), which use all eight. Add six parameters compared to four, a dirty mode, top mounted jacks and expression control, and you start seeing why I personally wouldn't want to buy OBNE/Alexander. The bang for your buck ratio is waaaay off. The sound, being a subjective preference, is irrelevant to the discussion.

I will say that the frustrating other side of that coin is that I sooooooo wish the effects within the Bitquest were switchable. But, I mean... that'd be like having your cake, eating it too, and a free back rub from Ryan.

Also I played the F13 last week and it was good as fuck. I need one of those rill bad.

Yes, the F.13 sounds good and I'm glad Disarm D'arcy gave me one. My point isn't that the pedals don't sound good, but if I were to buy one myself I would feel a little bit cheated knowing that I paid so much for so little (when compared to the price of pedals that utilize the full potential of the FV-1 chip). I know these algorithms take time to make and that you would like to be paid for your work, but when Ryan is able to make eight great patches and include all those other features, I can't as a customer justify the price they ask for using less than half of the chip's potential.

Fair enough.

weebles wrote:Fair enough.

Totally!

wfs1234 wrote:

Obulus wrote:

Chankgeez wrote:Yas!

voerking wrote:
i have no idea why i typed that out.

You typed that out so I didn't have to.

Yup, likewise, kinda want a Procession though

Same

Same, not even chirping in for comedic effect, just.... Same.