MFX design rant - why can't manufacturers get the basics right for gigging?

Voxman

Taking it as read that MFX units have to sound decent and offer a reasonable usable choice of effects, amp and cab models, with good connectivity, what amazes me is the lack of thought in either the design of practical functionality and/or the penny pinching policy by manufacturers that ruins an otherwise decent MFX unit and demotes it to more of a toy instead of being gig suitable. 

Whilst less important for home/studio recording use, for on stage use there are certain function fundamentals that for me an MFX unit must have.  I make enough of a fool of myself on stage - I don't need my MFX unit to make me look even worse!:

Patch-naming:  It is completely pointless to offer a 128 patch storage if you cannot name patches so that these are easy to identify on stage.  Who can remember 128 patches from their number? The Vox TLEX fails here.

Fast, simple single foot button switching:  To switch between pre-set and stomp mode, within 1-2 secs.  On stage you need to move quickly, with confidence, and avoid tap-dancing.  A protracted process such as the Zoom G5 makes it unuseable for gigging.  A 'press two buttons simultaneously' approach as per the Vox TLEX is clumsy, particular if like me you have smaller feet.  I tested the TLEX and repeatedly found that the switching was awkward and I need several tries to hit both button just right.  The TC Nova is another example of an otherwise good quality unit that is overly complex with a clumsy switching system.  

Display: A bright readable display of a decent size so that you can see it clearly on a dimly lit stage or in bright sunshine, and be able to read whilst standing over it, without having to bend down.

Tuner: Must be accurate and clearly displayed with simple single button access in either patch pre-set mode or stomp mode.  Gimmicky excessive light shows as in the Vox TLEX is off-putting.  The Pod HD displays and text are small.  

Intuitive functionality: You should be able to deduce at least the basic unit operation without having to read a long (and often badly written or badly translated) manual.  

Easy Tweakability: Having to scroll through menus via up/down buttons is fine at home, but no good on stage. You need simple on/off buttons and rotary knobs to engage/disengage effects, amp models, cab models or tweak basic functions - you don't need 'deep-edit' facilities on stage, but you do need fast easy access to the basics such as volume, tone, tap delay, mod speed, reverb/delay type etc. 

Even with the ruggedly made Boss GT3 and GT6, I had to add two latching switches to be able to move around easily.  I don't know if the latest Boss GT100 remedies this, but if not they need to do so. The Vox TLLE and TLSE are good robust working tools for stage use, the TLST and TLEX are veritable toys by comparison.  The Zoom G5 sounds really good but its switching is awful (not sure about its tuner access), ditto the TC Nova system. 

Why do manufacturers concentrate so much on unnecessary 'bells and whistles' but fail to address fundamental gig usability issues that loses them core customers on an otherwise decent unit.  Do they just not bother to test their designs with real gigging guitarists?  

One other gripe - some MFX units (eg Vox TLST/EX) come with mains 'wall warts' that have very flimsy wires that bend and break easily and are just not sufficiently robust for gigging. Units such as the TC Nova are way more robust with a built in transformer and direct 'kettle' cable.  The Vox TLLE/SE have external heavy duty transformers and cables with a 5-pin DIN connector to the unit which although bulkier are very solid and reliable. I know this ups the cost of units, but in my view this is something they shouldn't stint on where their MFX is targeted at gigging and not just home players.    

I find it very frustrating that there are some very nice sounding MFX units out there but that just aren't properly designed for gigging. My word of caution to anyone buying an MFX unit is to thoroughly check it out first to ensure its fit for what you need.  And for gigging players in particular, I strongly recommend you spend time checking the units basic functionality, build quality and ease of use in a gigging situation first before worrying about how how many amp models or effects it has.  

End of rant! 

not_the_dj

Good rant!

digitalscream

I can't really disagree with anything.

I do, however, have a feeling that @Drew_fx might have something to add to this...

monquixote

If I could give you 2 wisdoms I would. 

I think the GT-100 gets the closest I've seen to practical gigability. It's built like a tank and has lots of switches you can configure all over the place depending on how you want to use it. 

It's very nice to program and it even has a good tuner.

It is absolutely massive and glitches on tap tempo and the amp models are shit (though I these aren't needed for live use), but aside from that it's the closest thing I've seen to something I'd want to use.

If Zoom update the G3 to have MIDI or proper patch switching I'll have one on my board in a heartbeat. The Nova seems like it's from a past era and TC really need to update it now.

impmann

Voxman said:

Why do manufacturers concentrate so much on unnecessary 'bells and whistles' but fail to address fundamental gig usability issues that loses them core customers on an otherwise decent unit.  Do they just not bother to test their designs with real gigging guitarists?  

Because everything has to have "added value" these days. Market forces etc.

I'm with you - I'd like to see a gig-worthy, KNOBS ONLY (no fucking drop downs, menus or other "parameters" that I couldn't give a fuck about), solidly made, SIMPLE, good sounding unit. No wall-warts with soppy little dc sockets that go intermittent. Proper switches that don't die or worse still, go intermittent. A tuner I can see on stage. And not silly expensive. 

That's why I realised in about 1995 that multi-effects units were Satan's arse gravy and I wouldn't ever use one again. I've stuck by that (by and large - I have tried a couple of times since) and I don't feel I've missed out...

Drew_TNBD

Basically agree with everyone here. Would also double Monquixote in that I think the Boss GT-100 is the closest to the ideal that I've seen. Still not quite there, but very close.

Things I would like to see:

- Big tuner display
- Either none or very few menus
- Direct access to parameters
- Instantaneous patch switching
- Midi programability (ability to prevent a specific preset from outputting a program change for instance)
- Freely assignable FX slots, so you're not limited to just one delay, one reverb, etc.. etc..
- A single switch to go between preset mode and manual mode
- Global tap tempo that does not change when you switch between presets
- A musically meaningful set of parameters for the effects, so you're not diving too deep, but can still make tweaks to the algorithm
- Proper switches that are silent but feel good under your foot
- Delays that don't go pitchy or glitchy when tapping in the tempo

siraxeman

Boss me old as the hills but still great today although missing a tuner and some fx some might want. .. But that and a couple of stomps and most would have enough to gig with.

Boss gt100 sounds like it fits the bill just fine as do is predecessors.

fatherjack

My gripe about them relates as much to patch tweaking/rehearsal as gigging:

I'd like the section with all the 'edit' functions removable so it could be attached to a mic stand.  Keep the patch switching part at floor level, but put all the other parameters within easy reach.

SNAKEBITE

I am guessing here that these items are based at the "bedroom guitarists".

Not knocking bedroom guitarists, as that is basically what I am now!

I have always preferred individual pedals, but that is just my opinion, as I have found it a lot easier.

It is a shame that these items are not thought out more, or it seems as though they are not thought out. I wonder how they are tested in "real life"?

ICBM

I would add that the Boss ME-50 was a major annoyance for me. I liked the range of effects, and I liked the sound of most of them, I liked that it could go to a guitar amp and a DI at the same time - I never thought of it as a full-on solution, but it should have been handy for small gigs.

But there was one huge flaw… the 'manual' mode did not give you manual control over whatever patch was currently set, it switched to a single alternative patch which always corresponded to the current knob settings. So there was no way of presetting several different FX setups for different songs and then using it like a set of those pedals - you could only have rigid presets or one set of manual 'pedals'.

I owned two of them (one of them twice!) before I finally gave up trying to work around it. I now have a Zoom G3, which doesn't sound as good and has a different set of annoyances…

Speaking of getting things right, doesn't this belong in FX? :-P

impmann

The other thing with the ME50 was you couldn't have proper bypass. I tried the one I was lent in a true bypass looper and the difference in tonality it added even when all the effects were off was HUGE. 

I don't buy into the True Bypass BS of some, but if I stick something in bypass, I don't want it to fuck up my sound... sadly the ME50 did. 

monquixote

@ICBM you should give the GT-100 a go. 

You can switch to manual mode quite easily and also you can do hybrid manual mode quite well. 

By default you get one control button in patch mode. 

Turn off the looper and you get one more

Assign something to pressing the patch you are already on and you get another.

Turn off the bank switches and you get 2 more for a total of 5. 

These can either be turning stuff on and off or tap tempo, solo mode etc.

ICBM

monquixote said:

@ICBM you should give the GT-100 a go.

I have thought about it, but it's quite big and that's one of the things I wanted to avoid - the ME-50 was at the upper end of the size range really, and the G3 (mine is the small non-pedal version) is really much more convenient.

If I'm going to go to something as big as the GT-100 I might as well take my analogue pedalboard…

monquixote

Yeah you are right it is frigging massive. 

That's the major concern with the one I've got. I need to fot some other bits on the board as well which makes it almost impractically large.

Drew_TNBD

I think if you can make the GT-100 do everything you need, then it really isn't that big at all. Smaller than the equivalent singles board you'd need to get everything it does.

Voxman

Sorry guys I thought I put this in the fx section but obviously hit the guitar section accidentally.

not_the_dj

Voxman said:

Sorry guys I thought I put this in the fx section but obviously hit the guitar section accidentally.

Edit the first post with the cog icon and you can move it.

Lev

fatherjack said:

My gripe about them relates as much to patch tweaking/rehearsal as gigging:

I'd like the section with all the 'edit' functions removable so it could be attached to a mic stand.  Keep the patch switching part at floor level, but put all the other parameters within easy reach.

If you have an iphone/touch/pad the Line6 Amplifi FX thing tries to solve that problem.

digitalscream

I'd just like to say...the Zoom G9.2tt gets most things mentioned here right. So much so that I'm very tempted to get another one...the only annoyance for me is that you can't have multiple delays.

This could be rose-tinted glasses, mind, 'cos I haven't had one in years.

ICBM

Drew_fx said:

I think if you can make the GT-100 do everything you need, then it really isn't that big at all. Smaller than the equivalent singles board you'd need to get everything it does.

I agree, but the most important thing I need is that it must be smaller and more portable than my full-on pedalboard .

The idea of having a multi-FX for me is not to have access to everything all at once - it's to be able to pre-program snapshots of a rig with no more than about 2 or 3 effects available in any one song, but different combinations of those available during the course of a set. So actually the G3 is close to perfect... it does have some annoyances, like not being able to send an emulated signal from the XLR at the same time as a non-emulated one to the 1/4" output, and the tuner engaging the middle effect for half a second before it switches to tuner - and others - and I still don't think it sounds as good as the Boss stuff… but it will do for now.

IanSavage

The Yamaha DG Stomp ticked a lot of the boxes that're coming up here. Just sayin', like