Source Audio C4 Modular Synth Pedal

sosomething

Member
Messages
2,682
I tried messing with C4 and my reflex last night, I’d suggest not using the 1/4” out as it won’t give you the full range of expression. When I used the 1/8” jack it worked flawlessly for me.

I would make sure that you are up to date, make sure Neuro desktop is 0.6.61 and c4 is fw 1.13. If that’s not it, I’d suggest starting a ticket in the support section of the source audio website and we can go from there.
Neuro and C4 firmware both up to date.

I was using the 1/8" jack at first. With the packaged TRRS, the pedal operated as a tri-pole. All the way heel and all the way toe both resulted in 100 on the parameter, with the sweep happening in that tiny range I explained before.

Oddly.... and this is especially strange.....

The expression pedal works flawlessly with everything else. I'm using it with a Boss DD-500 and a Keeley Super Mod Workstation and it does exactly what it should with both.

EDIT:

OK, I think I've sorted it out. I was trying to use the 1/8" output and the 1/4" output on the same side of the expression pedal at the same time (1/8" to the C4 and the 1/4" to my Boss ES-8 for routing Exp control to other pedals).

I can now tell you, unequivocally, that does not work. At least not with my device. The second you plug anything into the 1/4" TRS jack next to the 1/8" jack, the calibration for the 1/8" goes bonkers. It can't track accurately, at heel position any parameter it's mapped to in Neuro jumps all over the place, the sweep shrinks to a tiny portion of the pedal action, etc. Pull that 1/4" back out, and it's all good again.

Using the 1/4" output on the opposite side of the pedal doesn't have the same problem.
 
Last edited:

sumpe

Member
Messages
264
I am very satisfied with C4 but think that all the ideas inside its small box would have shine with a larger format and more computing power as Ventris and Nemesis.
i agree - it makes further integration/gear really a plus to take advantage of all it does
i almost do not see it as a pedal alone but as: C4 + a neuro hub or a Disaster Area thingy + Computer. I would have really liked to see a Ventris/Nemesis Size box with midi and expression control integrated - sure there are not enough knobs to control everything it does, but maybe if those knobs could be assignable per preset, then you got loads "at your feet"
 

rsmith601

Vendor
Messages
6,188
i agree - it makes further integration/gear really a plus to take advantage of all it does
i almost do not see it as a pedal alone but as: C4 + a neuro hub or a Disaster Area thingy + Computer. I would have really liked to see a Ventris/Nemesis Size box with midi and expression control integrated - sure there are not enough knobs to control everything it does, but maybe if those knobs could be assignable per preset, then you got loads "at your feet"
I have played around with the SY-300. It is not easy to use. It is also $700. I have played around with the FI. It needs a computer for many things and it is like $500. I made the decision to create a $240 pedal with a computer-based editor, sharing presets, etc. that is high quality (for a pedal), given that there are hundreds of parameters. Had I gone the big pedal route, the risk of getting the R&D back was way too high. I could not take that risk.
 
Messages
256
I have played around with the SY-300. It is not easy to use. It is also $700. I have played around with the FI. It needs a computer for many things and it is like $500. I made the decision to create a $240 pedal with a computer-based editor, sharing presets, etc. that is high quality (for a pedal), given that there are hundreds of parameters. Had I gone the big pedal route, the risk of getting the R&D back was way too high. I could not take that risk.
We are just users ;) , not pedal builders. Time is not to lament, the thing is here.
But now that SA has created the C4/Spectrum, we can help improving them, little by little (a thought to the Hub integration).

Related to this, I am now spending long periods on desktop editor under Windows, each pedal owning one Windows driver. for its USB connection.
There is a little change that could bring clarity to usage of the desktop part : for the One Series pedals, I remarked that the older pedals firmware does not register their drivers with as many details as the recent ones.
When I go in Windows 10 ->Parameters -> Bluetooth and other peripherals devices, I can see this list :
One Series Nemesis Delay
One Series Ventris Reverb
Soleman MIDI Foot controller
Soundblox Hub v1
Source Audio C4 Synth

and after there is several times the same name
Source Audio One Series ( x6)

It would be nice to normalize this and be able to differentiate each pedal as
One Series Distortion (for Lady,King,After)
One Series Modulation (for Gemini, Lunar, Mercury)
One Series vertigo

I hope that my description is clear enough.
This is not simply an aesthetically request, actually some crashes occur under desktop editor and on these crashes, one series drivers are often impacted and no more work. Using different names would ease the understanding of the problem and avoid losing time in inspecting everything to determinate which pedal is in 'uncertain status'.

Just some small normalization task to improve usage ?
 
Last edited:

Gibs210

Member
Messages
8,229
Neuro and C4 firmware both up to date.

I was using the 1/8" jack at first. With the packaged TRRS, the pedal operated as a tri-pole. All the way heel and all the way toe both resulted in 100 on the parameter, with the sweep happening in that tiny range I explained before.

Oddly.... and this is especially strange.....

The expression pedal works flawlessly with everything else. I'm using it with a Boss DD-500 and a Keeley Super Mod Workstation and it does exactly what it should with both.
I’d suggest sending in a support ticket on the website, and we can further look into this issue.
 
Messages
7
@benevan, @Christian Surieux and anyone else who cares......great news. Jesse was able to save a complete set of C4 preset parameters to his Hub today. It is NOT a pointer to a preset, it is actually saving all of the knobs and parameters. This means that he has created the Hub firmware and also the C4 pedal firmware that will make this all work. The last step is to update the Neuro Desktop to ensure it can also make it all happen. When that is done, we will need to test it. If there are a few hard core Hub users and C4 users who want to help test. Please send me a PM. Our plan is to roll all of this out publicly in 4 weeks or less. What a relief!! It was worrying me.....
Hey Robert, any updates you can share re: C4 Hub functionality?
 
Messages
737
I have played around with the SY-300. It is not easy to use. It is also $700. I have played around with the FI. It needs a computer for many things and it is like $500. I made the decision to create a $240 pedal with a computer-based editor, sharing presets, etc. that is high quality (for a pedal), given that there are hundreds of parameters. Had I gone the big pedal route, the risk of getting the R&D back was way too high. I could not take that risk.
I don’t think I could more strongly disagree with those that are still saying the C4 should be in a Ventris/Nemesis format. And that’s coming from someone who, at the start of this thread, advocated FOR it being that way...
To me, there are WAY too many parameters for a reasonable amount of surface knobs and alt functions and sub menus are just such a hassle. The One Series enclosure is so pedalboard friendly for what’s under the hood and, honestly, I never use the surface knobs at all... just the bypass switch and the DA micro.
I could see the argument for more processing horsepower for a few more goodies but, for all that this thing does, how amazingly well it does it and at the price point..... Why would I want to pay significantly more for a larger pedal with a, most likely, confusing UI?
 

Adamixoye

Member
Messages
194
On comparing the SY-300 vs. the FI vs. SA in general* I can't say I agree with some of the things that have been said on this page. For one, the SY-300 interface is actually pretty great, IMO, my biggest problem with it was really understanding the parameters and the creation of synth sounds and how everything fit together. Occasionally, as with any large menu-driven system, I didn't know where things were. But I could say the same things about the FI software and the Neuro desktop for my Nemesis and Aftershock (insofar as I don't have my mind wrapped around all of those parameters). But the navigability of the SY-300 interface itself I really have no complaints with.

I think a pretty good case can be made for the C4 as the best value but it's kind of selective to say you "need" the computer and an interface for the FI but downplay those things with the C4. The extra gear required to fully unlock these devices (not counting a computer or mobile device) flattens but does not equalize the cost difference. That is: the SY-300 requires no extra gear, the FI requires a potentially cheap USB-MIDI adapter, and the C4 requires a Hub/micro.ghost/etc. The C4 still winds up being the cheapest but the difference is not $240 vs. $500 (the FI is also a bit less than this depending on the exchange rate and duties/fees).





*I own the Nemesis/Aftershock/Reflex/Hub/HH3 and formerly owned the Manta/Bass OFD; I'm planning on the C4 but putting it off until later this year for...reasons.
 

rsmith601

Vendor
Messages
6,188
On comparing the SY-300 vs. the FI vs. SA in general* I can't say I agree with some of the things that have been said on this page. For one, the SY-300 interface is actually pretty great, IMO, my biggest problem with it was really understanding the parameters and the creation of synth sounds and how everything fit together. Occasionally, as with any large menu-driven system, I didn't know where things were. But I could say the same things about the FI software and the Neuro desktop for my Nemesis and Aftershock (insofar as I don't have my mind wrapped around all of those parameters). But the navigability of the SY-300 interface itself I really have no complaints with.

I think a pretty good case can be made for the C4 as the best value but it's kind of selective to say you "need" the computer and an interface for the FI but downplay those things with the C4. The extra gear required to fully unlock these devices (not counting a computer or mobile device) flattens but does not equalize the cost difference. That is: the SY-300 requires no extra gear, the FI requires a potentially cheap USB-MIDI adapter, and the C4 requires a Hub/micro.ghost/etc. The C4 still winds up being the cheapest but the difference is not $240 vs. $500 (the FI is also a bit less than this depending on the exchange rate and duties/fees).





*I own the Nemesis/Aftershock/Reflex/Hub/HH3 and formerly owned the Manta/Bass OFD; I'm planning on the C4 but putting it off until later this year for...reasons.
Put each of these pedals and their editing tools with an inexperienced set of users. Who can create a complex sound first? Given our level on investment into software, it had better be us by a good measure. That was my point.
 
Messages
65
Just thought I would catch-up on this thread..didn't expect there is still the C4-Fi,etc. thing going on. I have both on my board, each has its own strengths and weaknesses,but together...wow. No experience with the 300,wasn't impressed with the bass sounds I heard in demos,sounded good for guitar. I use these pedals exclusively with bass at this time. My observations so far:
The C4 has a variety of filter choices, and two at the same time.The FI has a second but always inverted.
The C4 has more envelope and LFO choices, more options and control over distortion , dual arps, better routing options,polyphonic pitch shift, limited FM , expression control and of course more compact size.
The C4 has great company and community support.
The FI has better "front panel" control with multiple parameters accessible, including global, and all of the internal programs can be called up from the built in footswitches.
The FI can also be used as a midi mono synth module,the C4 only triggers through input pitch detection.
The FI oscillators have more waveform choices across the 4(each can have saw,square,tri or combo of the 3), dedicated saw VCA, pulse modulation, pitch and filter tracking, separate noise generator,foldover distortion, and a multi-band EQ.
This may get me in trouble, but I'm trying to honest. For me at least, the tracking on the FI is more consistent than the C4, program to program, and switching instruments. The C4 input/sensitivity can be very inconsistent and at times unpredictable. I feel the bass sounds I have created are richer and denser on the FI due to the osc structure and EQ.
This is not imply that I haven't got some great and unique sounds out of the C4,I have!
The cost is not as far apart,as the C4 needs an external device to access all programs. Not an issue for me since I already had a hub and a soleman.
The editors are both fairly simple, the SA looks better, but I like the sliders on the FI editor. To unlock the full potential both need a computer( Cell phone with app IS a mobile computer!) The C4 has a lot to offer anyone wanting to add some synth to your sound with a ton of other features.
I enjoy having it on board with the FI. I would have designed both differently.But as a bassist if I was told I could only keep one, it would be the FI.
 
Messages
256
I am still not an experienced user but learning at my own pace, my target is less producing as fast as possible a complex sound but being able to integrate the usage of this sound in a more structured musical composition I am working on. And for this I need stable and powerful software, with less bugs as possible.
Concerning C4, from what I read from SA, it seems that SA software devs are struggling with memory and DSP limitations, that is the reason why I was telling that a larger box (nor necessarily physical size) could have been welcome.
But for sure, integrating more DSP power just as in Ventris or Nemesis would have impacted the price (?) and may not have been market compatible.
The idea now is to compensate the hardware limitation in pedals by using more of the connected PC which runs the desktop editor, its power and resources being free (based on the fact in most cases, it has not been bought just for managing SA pedals).
 

rsmith601

Vendor
Messages
6,188
I am still not an experienced user but learning at my own pace, my target is less producing as fast as possible a complex sound but being able to integrate the usage of this sound in a more structured musical composition I am working on. And for this I need stable and powerful software, with less bugs as possible.
Concerning C4, from what I read from SA, it seems that SA software devs are struggling with memory and DSP limitations, that is the reason why I was telling that a larger box (nor necessarily physical size) could have been welcome.
But for sure, integrating more DSP power just as in Ventris or Nemesis would have impacted the price (?) and may not have been market compatible.
The idea now is to compensate the hardware limitation in pedals by using more of the connected PC which runs the desktop editor, its power and resources being free (based on the fact in most cases, it has not been bought just for managing SA pedals).
The C4 DSP is more powerful than the one in Nemesis.
 

Quatschmacher

Member
Messages
439
Put each of these pedals and their editing tools with an inexperienced set of users. Who can create a complex sound first? Given our level on investment into software, it had better be us by a good measure. That was my point.
Having used all three, I’d say this is definitely true. (And I’m a die-hard FI fan.) Though part of the problem with the FI was the manual’s being impenetrable. My rewritten version of it will hopefully ameliorate that problem somewhat; just finished the first draft last night.
 

Quatschmacher

Member
Messages
439
The FI has a second but always inverted.
Not quite accurate. The second filter on the FI is bandpass. It runs in parallel using the same envelope as the main filter. Its cutoff is offset from that of the main filter by 1-24 semitones, depending on the slider position. However, with the new flexi controllers, it’s possible to modulate the second filter’s cutoff separately by inverting the envelope or using a different source (noise envelope, LFO or whatever).

The C4 has more envelope and LFO choices,
As regards envelopes, that’s not true. The C4 has a set of preset shapes (fixed sustain level) with variable attack/decay. FI (in the forthcoming update) has full independent ADSR envelopes on the filter and the VCA so is way more flexible.

As regards LFOs, C4 has more choices at present but keep your eyes peeled.

I’m certainly not trying to knock the C4 here at all. I love it and it’s here to stay. I’m just trying to offer a fair comparison of the things you mentioned.
 

sosomething

Member
Messages
2,682
I have played around with the SY-300. It is not easy to use. It is also $700. I have played around with the FI. It needs a computer for many things and it is like $500. I made the decision to create a $240 pedal with a computer-based editor, sharing presets, etc. that is high quality (for a pedal), given that there are hundreds of parameters. Had I gone the big pedal route, the risk of getting the R&D back was way too high. I could not take that risk.
Since you're here in this thread and I have the opportunity, I should tell you that prior to buying a C4, I had purchased and used the SY-300 for about a week, which was returned to Sweetwater after hearing demos online of the C4.

You're correct, the SY-300 is not intuitive to use. All the extra buttons and stuff does make it possible to build sounds and presets on the unit itself, but it involves a tremendous amount of menu diving. And yes, the thing tracks polyphonically without latency. That's cool.

But it sounds like ass.

There might not be latency in the polyphonic tracking of the SY-300, but there are crazy artifacts everywhere. It never sounds "clean." It never sounds fat. It sounds cold and lifeless, and the artifacts that are the byproduct of its super-fast tracking result in a bizarre (and not great-sounding) chorusing effect that can't be dialed out or gated. The sine wave is an almost unusable nightmare in that thing. I realized it would never be capable of that fat Moog bass sound, and while the polyphony was cool, the artifacts from tracking that many notes made it very difficult to build nice-sounding pads.

I am MUCH happier with the sounds of the C4. It might be trickier to build sounds due to the form factor, but the quality and clarity of the sounds far, far, far surpasses the SY-300, and that's what's important to me. I can actually get those fat analog sounds with it. EASILY. I mean they're RIGHT THERE. And the intelligent harmonizing is fantastic. I don't need latency-free polyphony if I can have latency-free 4-voice intelligent harmonies based on a key and mode with two independent sequencers running along with my dry sound. I mean come on. It almost doesn't make sense that this thing is available at this price.

Once my DA DMC.micro comes in (maybe this week? Come on guys!) I'll be able to control MIDI parameters and PCs with my switcher/MIDI controller with my feet. I'll probably never physically touch the C4 and it will just be the "brain" behind the synth sounds in what I'm doing with my band. And that's perfect for me. The form factor of the SY-300 actually becomes a liability if you have a good MIDI device because it's freaking massive. It was eating like 30% of my 34" Temple board.

Anyway, I just wanted to confirm for other readers of this thread something you have politely been alluding to. You can't say the SY-300 sounds like ****, but it's obvious you know that it does and you know your C4 kicks its butt. Well, I can say it, and am.

Have a great day.
 
Messages
65
Not quite accurate. The second filter on the FI is bandpass. It runs in parallel using the same envelope as the main filter. Its cutoff is offset from that of the main filter by 1-24 semitones, depending on the slider position. However, with the new flexi controllers, it’s possible to modulate the second filter’s cutoff separately by inverting the envelope or using a different source (noise envelope, LFO or whatever).

As regards envelopes, that’s not true. The C4 has a set of preset shapes (fixed sustain level) with variable attack/decay. FI (in the forthcoming update) has full independent ADSR envelopes on the filter and the VCA so is way more flexible.

As regards LFOs, C4 has more choices at present but keep your eyes peeled.

I’m certainly not trying to knock the C4 here at all. I love it and it’s here to stay. I’m just trying to offer a fair comparison of the things you mentioned.
Quatschmacher's comments are spot on. Sorry, senior moment for me ,wrong term for 2nd envelope,offset is correct. And since there was discussion of inexperienced users,I should have included the word "preset" before envelope in the C4,my bad for not clarifing it.
Been trying to locate updates on the FI 3.0, not much out there,Link?
 




Trending Topics

Top