Is the Boss TU-3 tuner a good buffer?

[jackroylee]

I will put it at the first spot of my chain, can it become a good buffer and tuner at the same time?

Thank you!

 

[Marrrty]

I think the buffers in the whole Boss line up are pretty acceptable

 

[jackroylee]

Thank you ,but I am still not sure if the TU-3 has a good buffer in it,cause I heard some people say the TU-2's buffer is not good and suck lots of tone.

 

[chervokas]

Thank you ,but I am still not sure if the TU-3 has a good buffer in it,cause I heard some people say the TU-2's buffer is not good and suck lots of tone.

Personally I've never heard a problem with the TU-2 buffer. Never used a TU-3 and I haven't seen a schematic on either.

I don't use the tuner anymore because I found the Turbo Tuner to be a better tuner, and now that I'm using a small board I've gone buffer-less. But I don't think it's even accurate to say a buffer causes "tone suck." That phrase was invented to describe the frequency balance and signal level changes that happen when a hardwire bypass pedal with a low input impedance loads down the guitar. Both true bypass and buffered bypass switching schemes are solutions for tone suck.

Yes, it's true, some buffered bypass schemes might depart from perfect linearity more than others, some might be truely unity gain some might be slightly less than unity gain, and some switching schemes might have something else going on besides buffering -- like some of the Boss pedals that mix wet and dry signals have not only buffers but also pre and de emphasis eq at the front and back of the pedal circuit that might affect tone. And no buffer is going to sound exactly like your direct in tone although some buffers try to develop workaround to replicate an amp front end -- like the valuvlator which has a tube preamp stage ahead of a buffer. So, it's not like all devices used as buffers in guitar signal chains are identical. But like I said, I never heard too much of a problem with a TU-2 buffer nor have I heard much if any difference between any of the commonly available BJT or JFET buffer circuits other than differences that arise from their differing input impedances.

 

[jackroylee]

Personally I've never heard a problem with the TU-2 buffer. Never used a TU-3 and I haven't seen a schematic on either.

I don't use the tuner anymore because I found the Turbo Tuner to be a better tuner, and now that I'm using a small board I've gone buffer-less. But I don't think it's even accurate to say a buffer causes "tone suck." That phrase was invented to describe the frequency balance and signal level changes that happen when a hardwire bypass pedal with a low input impedance loads down the guitar. Both true bypass and buffered bypass switching schemes are solutions for tone suck.

Yes, it's true, some buffered bypass schemes might depart from perfect linearity more than others, some might be truely unity gain some might be slightly less than unity gain, and some switching schemes might have something else going on besides buffering -- like some of the Boss pedals that mix wet and dry signals have not only buffers but also pre and de emphasis eq at the front and back of the pedal circuit that might affect tone. And no buffer is going to sound exactly like your direct in tone although some buffers try to develop workaround to replicate an amp front end -- like the valuvlator which has a tube preamp stage ahead of a buffer. So, it's not like all devices used as buffers in guitar signal chains are identical. But like I said, I never heard too much of a problem with a TU-2 buffer nor have I heard much if any difference between any of the commonly available BJT or JFET buffer circuits other than differences that arise from their differing input impedances.

Thanks alot,buddy

 

[giantrobotswinbig]

I didn't care for the TU-3 buffer because it changed the EQ of my guitar signal, making it thin-soundingbin a way that some of the other buffers I have tried did not. YMMV!

 

[LouRossi]

I didn't care for the TU-3 buffer because it changed the EQ of my guitar signal, making it thin-soundingbin a way that some of the other buffers I have tried did not. YMMV!

same here. returned it and still use the tu-2 but at the end of the chain

 

[jpervin]

...still use the tu-2 but at the end of the chain

Same here. I notice no signal degradation with the TU-2 at the end of the chain.

 

[Soul Man]

same here. returned it and still use the tu-2 but at the end of the chain

So......tuner last instead of first?

What are the benefits of chaining it this way?

 

[tdk8709]

Never tried the 3, but the TU-2 buffer is solid. I noticed no difference in tone between it and the JHS, so I kept the one that covered two bases.

 

[Floyd Eye]

TU2 first in the chain. No tone loss. Last in the chain kinda makes it useless as a buffer.

 

[Waxhead]

hehehehe the TU-2 like many Boss pedals has a poor quality buffer.
The proof of this are the millions of people complaining over the years about it's tone sucking and where to place this dog of a thing to avoid it.
I wouldn't trust a TU-3 either.
Not very accurate or fast & there's about 5 better pedal tuners available these days

 

[chervokas]

hehehehe the TU-2 like many Boss pedals has a poor quality buffer.
The proof of this are the millions of people complaining over the years about it's tone sucking and where to place this dog of a thing to avoid it.
I wouldn't trust a TU-3 either.
Not very accurate or fast & there's about 5 better pedal tuners available these days

What about the millions of people who say they hear no sonic degradation? Neither is proof of anything. Both are just opinions.

 

[tdk8709]

hehehehe the TU-2 like many Boss pedals has a poor quality buffer.
The proof of this are the millions of people complaining over the years about it's tone sucking and where to place this dog of a thing to avoid it.
I wouldn't trust a TU-3 either.
Not very accurate or fast & there's about 5 better pedal tuners available these days

The proof is all the people complaining about it? Groups of people complain about almost every pedal on the market. That only proves that a particular group of people don't like it for whatever their reason is.

 

[chervokas]

The proof is all the people complaining about it? Groups of people complain about almost every pedal on the market. That only proves that a particular group of people don't like it for whatever their reason is.

Right, you want any kind of empirical proof you kinda need to look for waveform distortions by comparing the input and output signals on a 'scope or something.

 

[semi-hollowbody]

My tuner (tu-3) is in a looper...never in the chain unless I need to tune up

I have had the tu3 and my old tu2 in the beginning, the end, the middle of the chain...as long as they werent in the tuner out of my volume pedal, these boss pedals never sucked tone...at the beginning they did exactly what a buffer should do imo...boss has solid buffers in their pedals

 

[Jesus freak]

My TU-3 sounds fine.

 

[tdk8709]

Some people just have it in their heads that all boss pedals cause "time suck" and this effects what they allow their ears to hear. It is compounded by the excellent marketing of dedicated buffer manufacturers.

 

[Chiba]

hehehehe the TU-2 like many Boss pedals has a poor quality buffer.
The proof of this are the millions of people complaining over the years about it's tone sucking and where to place this dog of a thing to avoid it.

I've been using a TU-2 for *years* and never had a single problem or issue with its buffer. For a long time it was the only tuner I trusted enough to use in the studio.

You know what they say, opinions are like assholes.

 

[guitarslinger21]

The TU-3 has a perfectly acceptable buffer, and it's designed to be used early in the chain.

Why on Earth would one want to use it later in the chain? Wouldn't the harmonic content, delay, and modulation of the other pedals affect one's tuning? Also, in my experience, a buffer at the end of the chain is much less necessary than a buffer at the beginning of the chain.