Respond to This

Processors vs. Pedals

Can someone please tell me why I would want to buy separate pedals over a processor? I need all the effects, which would be like 200 pedals, when I could buy a processor that supposedly has all of them plus a drum machine etc....There has to be a drawback to buying the processor. Can someone please clear this up for me?
Responses  [ Pages: 1 · 2 ]
Respond to this

Re: Processors vs. Pedals

12/19/2003 11:26 PM

John Anderton (1034) wrote:

The drawback is that a dedicated pedal usually can give you a more specific sound. Plus, if all you want is a single effect, spending up to a few hundred on a processor is a waste. If you really expect to use 7-8 or more effects in a given day, a processor is better for you.

Respond to this

Re: Processors vs. Pedals

12/20/2003 1:31 AM

Rex Jones (12455) wrote:

Brandon,
I have both.
If the processor goes out you loose everything.
If a pedal goes out you loose the pedal.
The truth is most of the time I use any of it is when I'm messing around at home.
When I play out it's usually right into the amp,
With a foot switch for clean/ distort.
I think the pedals will be a better investment in the future !
Audition them all :-)
Uncle Rex



Respond to this

Re: Processors vs. Pedals

12/20/2003 11:04 AM

Carl Phillips (11977) wrote:

If the processor goes out you loose everything.
If a pedal goes out you loose the pedal.


This is by far the best point in this thread.

I have smoked a processor on stage and it ain't pretty. It's also why I prefer pedals.

Carl

Respond to this

Re: Processors vs. Pedals

12/20/2003 2:07 AM

John Anderton (1034) wrote:

Plus, you know, I don't use too many effects myself, and programing a processor can be rather complicated on the fly, just for the 2-3 effects might actually use.

Respond to this

Re: Processors vs. Pedals

12/20/2003 4:15 AM

Randy Evans (6450) wrote:

There is a difference when you really listen to the 2 side by side. All the processors I have ever used, need tweaks to get "The" good sound. You have to go in and change parameters, many will sound fake or not very good, but a good sound can be wrenched from them with a little work. A pedal is a one trick pony...which usually is a great trick (except for distortion boxes)...Little adjustment still gives a great sound. Now the price of a good pedal is the same as say an RP-50 or RP-100. I use my RP constantly in the PC, for goofing off and for fun, when I am serious...I grab a pedal. Pedals are consistent in every situation, volume, amp or guitar. The processor box will need a little or a lot of messing with to get the same sounds as the situation changes. I think the best way is to have both!! I have a Delay, Tubescreamer and Chorus pedals for gigs, RP for my PC. The other consideration is the pedals can be adjusted on the fly with many more options and sounds. My RP has a load of parameters, but not the same as a pedal!!

Respond to this

Re: Processors vs. Pedals

12/20/2003 10:53 AM

Don Brozz (271) wrote:

I prefer pedals, good ones like Boss, etc. Processors tend to "color" or "mask" the guitars true tone, and they tend to sound "transistorized". (Just my opinion)



Respond to this

Re: Processors vs. Pedals

12/20/2003 9:29 PM

Inactive Member wrote:

If you take a top-of-the-line pedal like Boss and compare it to a budget multi-efx, it's no wonder that the pedal wins. If you take good - not that cheap - pedals, compare them to good - and expensive - multi-efx (like the unfortunately no longer produced Roland GP 100). You'll find that the processors are in no area worse than the pedals (i.e. no more sound coloring or transistorization), but they're harder to use and program.



Respond to this

Re: Processors vs. Pedals

12/22/2003 10:39 AM

Bob Zave (1540) wrote:

Now here's a huge factor a lot of people miss in comparing pedals to processors! Take a low end processor (ie RP50) and compare it to a high end (or at least good quality) pedal.... bad comparison.

Respond to this

Re: Processors vs. Pedals

12/20/2003 11:35 AM

Robert De Groot (4781) wrote:

Brandon: It really depends on your personal preference more than anything else. I prefer the processor over a bunch of pedals. I use a digitech RP2000, and also have a much better one, the GSP2101. With these processors, I can preprogram just about anything I want, and get the sound I want with a tap of the foot. But others would rather use just a few pedals, perhaps an equalizer, or maybe just the amp and it's own overdrive. You can get plenty of reviews right here at wholenote under Resources, then click equipment, then effects. I guess the main problem with using a processor is that if it goes out during a performance and you have no backup, you will be lost. One problem with my RP2000 is that I can't get the wah to work without really stomping hard on the thing, so I use a crybaby between the processor and the amp.

Jason

Respond to this

Re: Processors vs. Pedals

12/20/2003 3:46 PM

Inactive Member wrote:

I've had both. What i didn't like about my processor is that I could only use a total of 3 effects at the same time: a delay, chorus/modulation and somethign else, maybe a distorted channel. Pedals give you a lot more flexibility in that manner- you aren't limited by what is programmed into the processor, just by what you can depress with your feet. Also, this wasn't a very high quality processor so it killed my tone.

More Responses  [ Pages: 1 · 2 ]