Buffer pedals. You NEED one.

  • Thread starter Thread starter psychodave
  • Start date Start date
These were left (along with other little gems) in the back of a combo after a horse trade dealyo. As far as buffers go, is this Mesa stuff worth hooking up? I'll have to make room on the pedal board if it's worth it. These have been sitting in the closet for a bit.

1000001140.jpg
 
Yep. I realized long ago with my 72 Marshall, that somehow by keeping the SD1 on my board, unused, it sounded much better than when I pulled it out. Like night and day better.
Yes, yes. I went all ‘true bypass’ on my board cause that was the thing to do. Then I wondered why my tone sucked. Added a buffer back in and it came back to life.
 
well that would be interesting ...... shit .... now I'm going to measure the resistance of all my cables ..... that could be a neat little experiment ....
It’s not just the resistance. You’ll need to measure the per meter loss in amplitude due to series inductance and parasitic capacitance. It actually is a lot harder than you think to attenuate over frequency exactly like a long guitar cable.
 
Last edited:
I keep an SD-1 on my board.

If your loops are passive, you should run into a buffer immediately after the send of the loop before going into your first pedal. If your loops are active, you don’t need a buffer immediately after send but may need one before a long return cable.

I want to grab a Boss NS1X for the loop for noise suppression. As others said I do like the sound of boss buffers which are JFET based.
 
Highly doubt Hendrix was a tone geek like we are. It just wasn’t his focus. I mean, of course he cared about his sound, but no way he was worried about buffers, impedance, cable length, etc. A dimed plexi is a thing to behold but it’s not exactly refined or sophisticated.
 
Most of us are already using buffers, even if they're not labelled as such. Unless a pedal/device is true bypass, it's acting as a buffer. Your dedicated buffer pedal is only helping up to the point of the next buffered device in your chain, but sometimes that's all you need.

Whether a dedicated buffer is needed almost requires looking at each cable and component in the signal chain. I look at each device's output impedance, and then the input impedance of what it's going into. You typically want low Z going into high Z, but how much that even matters depends somewhat on the length of cable between the two.

One of the most important places for a buffer is coming right out of the guitar, before going over a cable to your pedals or amp. No matter what other devices you have in the chain, they almost certainly have a better output impedance than your passive pickups. That's part of why I'm a huge proponent for digital wireless (or active pickups, if that's your thing). Some people don't like the sound of digital wireless, but what they're hearing is what their guitar really sounds like without the load and loss induced by passive pickups over their instrument cable.
 
Last edited:
Most of us are already using buffers, even if they're not labelled as such. Whether a dedicated buffer is needed almost requires looking at each cable and component in the signal chain. I look at each device's output impedance, and then the input impedance of what it's going into. You typically want low Z going into high Z, but how much that even matters depends somewhat on the length of cable between the two.

Unless a pedal/device is true bypass, it's acting as a buffer. Your dedicated buffer pedal is only helping up to the point of the next buffered device in your chain, but sometimes that's all you need.

One of the most important places for a buffer is coming right out of the guitar, before going over a cable to your pedals or amp. No matter what other devices you have in the chain, they almost certainly have a better output impedance than your passive pickups. That's part of why I'm a huge proponent for digital wireless (or active pickups, if that's your thing). Some people don't like the sound of digital wireless, but what they're hearing is what their guitar really sounds like without the load and loss induced by passive pickups over their instrument cable.
Dude, seriously? You're suggesting that active pups are better at revealing what your guitar sounds like? So, how is it then, that an LP with EMGs sounds EXACTLY like a cheap LTD 100 also with EMGs? I will concede that the LP will have more low end, but still............

I always say, if I want every guitar I have to sound the same, I'll load them up with EMGs......
 
Dude, seriously? You're suggesting that active pups are better at revealing what your guitar sounds like?
Nope, I never said that about active pickups. They're great for people who like them, but they're not my thing. For people who like them, they do a great job of eliminating the need for a buffer at that point in the signal chain.

Have you seen the video of the corrugated Strat loaded with Strat pickups? Even passive pickups have a sameness when loaded in different guitars. I agree it's worse with active pickups though, which is part of why I don't care for them.
 
Last edited:
I can’t take is voice either. Something about it is very off putting to me

Yeah it's a really specific kind of voice that doesn't appeal to everybody. I always thought his vocal influences were the old blues masters who also sounded like that which would explain why he sang that way.

Funny enough Jimi Hendrix is one of the few artists where I can almost never appreciate his songs as he played them, just because they were recorded so primitively and so usually sounded so bad. But as soon as some other great musician plays them these days and you can really hear what's going on, I immediately understand how brilliant they really were.
 
He sounds a bit out of tune here too even, but nonetheless he was brilliant. I rank him easily as the best electric guitarist ever, but a lot of those points go to creativity, writing, style and genre development, not just chops.

 
I'm currently using the Fryette Valvulator I tube buffer/power supply on my small pedal board. I run my guitar>Fryette tube buffer/power supply>Boss MS effects processor input>MS3 Loop 3 send>amp input>amp send>MS3 Loop 3 return>MS 3 mono output>amp return. I noticed that the specs of the Boss MS-3 is 1 Mohm, so I might reroute the Valvualtor I tube buffer to the amp return instead.
Boss MS-3v3.jpg
 
No matter what other devices you have in the chain, they almost certainly have a better output impedance than your passive pickups. That's part of why I'm a huge proponent for digital wireless (or active pickups, if that's your thing). Some people don't like the sound of digital wireless, but what they're hearing is what their guitar really sounds like without the load and loss induced by passive pickups over their instrument cable.
Dude, you can’t be serious. The ultra miniature discrete circuitry components stuffed into active pups and wireless units are not exactly known for their stellar audio properties. A passive pickup with no additional circuitry of its own, coupled with a dedicated high quality buffer (with components chosen for better tonal properties, rather than size restrictions) sounds far more natural and revealing than those active systems you mentioned.
 
I've heard people say that wireless sounds better than cable. Is this true or is it a function of what's being discussed here?
 
I've heard people say that wireless sounds better than cable. Is this true or is it a function of what's being discussed here?


there are people that believe that, i know angus used a certain receiver that he said helped his tone.
 
I’ve got one at the beginning of the pedalboard, and one at the end of the chain.
IMG-4909.jpg
 
I've heard people say that wireless sounds better than cable. Is this true or is it a function of what's being discussed here?

I think some people like the color they impart. I think that's different than what's being discussed here, unless you're talking about how much the receiver loads the signal at its output.

I can't remember who else besides Angus, but I see to remember reading of others who stayed with those old wireless units because of the color they added, or perhaps there was a bit of a boost. I think one of them had a modern version made that still maintained the color of the old ones. Drawing a blank on the names right now though. Maybe that was Angus too.
 
Last edited:
I think some people like the color they impart. I think that's different than what's being discussed here, unless you're talking about how much the receiver loads the signal from the receiver's output.

I can't remember who else besides Angus, but I see to remember reading of others who stayed with those old wireless units because of the color they added, or perhaps there was a bit of a boost. I think one of them had a modern version made that still maintained the color of the old ones. Drawing a blank on the names right now though. Maybe that was Angus too.
it was his Schaffer Wireless Towers as they called them ..... I build a pedal based off of this ....
 
 
Back
Top