Stereo Parallel Loop: better pedals or a Small mixer?

[marpa94]

Mixer vs blender

Dear friend @ TGP,
My name is Paolo from Italy and
I'm new to the forum.

Despite i'm a nice guitar player , i'm not so good at the configuration of the devices.

My goal would be, white playing the same guitar, splitting the signal and run in "parallel" :
The clean dry signal ;
A 100% wet signal;
An Od dry.

Everything in Stereo mode.

Now the point, is better to use a Blender pedal like Xotic Stereo Xblender or something like Wounded Paw Blender or maybe using a Small Footprint Mixer?

I don't use Any amp.

Thank u guys, i appreciate your answer and help.

Ciaoooooo

 

[marpa94]

My idea is using My gear like this:

Guitar---signal splitted in 3---
1) clean mono dry signal------->into?
2) Zoom ms70CDR 100% wet stereo signal------>into?
3)zoom ms100bt mono Overdrive signal----->into?

Thanks

 

[AdamSH89]

Brother, I am in the exact same predicament you are in haha. I've tried to run a blended signal, with a pedal like the x-blender, buy I ran into latency and phasing issues. I'd have 100%wet reverb to blend into my dry signal, and even with 0 decay, there was still a noticeable latency on the reverb. It would come in "late".

Currently, I'm thinking about ruining a signal in true parallel where I have a 100% wet signal going left, and 100% dry signal going right and getting a mixer, but I'm still not sure if that will cause a phasing issue.

If anyone else has any experience with this, I would be interested in any insight given.

Also, marpa94: welcome to TGP! Greetings from Nashville, TN, USA!

 

[hydroquebec]

Yeah, great topic.

I've used an LS2 to successfully split the mono signal into parallel without phasing or latency issues, but haven't tried any stereo blenders, like the X-otic.

For stereo, I use a Rane SM26s splitter/mixer or the stereo FX loop inside of my Eleven Rack. No phasing or latency issues on either of those.

Man, the Zoom pedals are soooo great in parallel.

 

[marpa94]

Yeah, great topic.

I've used an LS2 to successfully split the mono signal into parallel without phasing or latency issues, but haven't tried any stereo blenders, like the X-otic.

For stereo, I use a Rane SM26s splitter/mixer or the stereo FX loop inside of my Eleven Rack. No phasing or latency issues on either of those.

Man, the Zoom pedals are soooo great in parallel.

Ciao HYdro,
thanks for the reply.....(u've already answer me in a zoom topic,i've appreciate so much)
you suggested to try the Xotic Xblender Stereo, but as ADAMSH89 said, there still phase or latency...

i think it's a great topic too, because once i've found the macig of Parallel Looping
i'll never leave it,but it seems that in this neverending big forum , there are only few people using it........

unfortunately both Rane & 11 Rack are out of my budget, for stereo loop,
and Boss ls for ambient guitar, which a play mainly, is not my goal.

Using maybe 2 Boss LS could be the solution, but since the "footprint" in not abig problem for me,
i was considering a small mixer with at least 1 Stereo Channel for the Zoom Cdr,1 mono channel for my clean signal and 1 mono Channel for my Od signal.
I'll mix the signals all togheter or excluding them by my needs, i don't play live.

Do u think that also with a mixer i'm going to fall in latency or phase problems.

Thanx in advance
Ciao

 

[hydroquebec]

Using maybe 2 Boss LS could be the solution, but since the "footprint" in not abig problem for me,

Well, this is very interesting! You could split the signal and send each side to two LS2s. One LS2 is the left and one LS2 is the right. That might actually work!

i was considering a small mixer with at least 1 Stereo Channel for the Zoom Cdr,1 mono channel for my clean signal and 1 mono Channel for my Od signal.
I'll mix the signals all togheter or excluding them by my needs, i don't play live.

This is the thing about mixers that always confuses me. It seems that in order to use a mixer, you need some way to split your signal to go to the channels. This is why I use a Rane SM26S. I use two channels to send my split signal to 2 devices and the remaining four channels to mix them back together in stereo. Perhaps somebody here like @AnalogKid85 could chime in for advice on this. This is a question that I never go to ask him.

Do u think that also with a mixer i'm going to fall in latency or phase problems.

Phase issues usually happen when your signal exists on more than one sound channel, so as long as the parallel mixed device is 100% wet, this should not occur. Perhaps @AdamSH89 can talk to us about his setup and why this occurred? I am also curious about the latency, because this has never been an issue for me. I would like more education in this area.

Congratulations on your search. I am sure it will yield very good results, especially with these Zoom pedals.

 

[quilsaw]

This is the thing about mixers that always confuses me. It seems that in order to use a mixer, you need some way to split your signal to go to the channels. This is why I use a Rane SM26S. I use two channels to send my split signal to 2 devices and the remaining four channels to mix them back together in stereo.

HydroQ -

I'm also a big fan of the SM26 (and have two) that I use specifically for signal splitting duties...works great. In order to compress my rig, I may eventually also use it (or my spare) as a mixer to put it all back together again. But, for now, I'm using a small mixer to blend it all, with the benefit of using the aux/fx sends for global effects and/or looper duties. I keep intending to get an SM82 for that, as it has an FX send, but haven't done that as yet. A mixer can sort of work on the signal splitting, but only within the limits of a (typical) single fx send/return. Aux sends, having no return can be input into a spare input channel, but most inexpensive and smaller footprint mixers only have a single send.

As for the OP's quest, needing a three-way split, he could use a mixer, but I believe that he'd need at least a single split, such as the LS2, prior to hitting the mixer, and using the mixer's fx send for his 100% wet path. The mixer, then, would be a very good way to blend everything to taste.

 

[hydroquebec]

I'm also a big fan of the SM26 (and have two) that I use specifically for signal splitting duties...works great. In order to compress my rig, I may eventually also use it (or my spare) as a mixer to put it all back together again. But, for now, I'm using a small mixer to blend it all, with the benefit of using the aux/fx sends for global effects and/or looper duties. I keep intending to get an SM82 for that, as it has an FX send, but haven't done that as yet. A mixer can sort of work on the signal splitting, but only within the limits of a (typical) single fx send/return. Aux sends, having no return can be input into a spare input channel, but most inexpensive and smaller footprint mixers only have a single send.

As for the OP's quest, needing a three-way split, he could use a mixer, but I believe that he'd need at least a single split, such as the LS2, prior to hitting the mixer, and using the mixer's fx send for his 100% wet path. The mixer, then, would be a very good way to blend everything to taste.

Oh, wow, I could kick myself right now. The SEND is the SPLIT. I think I may have realized that once before...getting old.

If not a mixer, that two-LS2 approach might work. The Stereo X-Blender is probably perfect for this (I think it has phase inversion), but that thing is REALLY expensive. I actually wanted one quite a bit before I got the Rane.

I'm still really curious about those phase and latency issues there. I feel like we could be close to solving that.

 

[quilsaw]

Oh, wow, I could kick myself right now. The SEND is the SPLIT. I think I may have realized that once before...getting old.

If not a mixer, that two-LS2 approach might work. The Stereo X-Blender is probably perfect for this (I think it has phase inversion), but that thing is REALLY expensive. I actually wanted one quite a bit before I got the Rane.

I'm still really curious about those phase and latency issues there. I feel like we could be close to solving that.

I know what you mean, I usually have to resort to drawing out signal path stuff (once you go down that rabbit hole ). After examining all of my options - I currently do a three-way split - I too found the SM26 to be the best and most cost-effective solution, but it has helped to put me "all in" on a rack fx approach.

As for phasing, I haven't yet had any issues, but expect to deal with it when running outboard DSP through my laptop...more fun to come.

 

[marpa94]

Hi guys,
Interesting considerations yours, and for what i have understand, a rack like sm has the smallest footprint vs a mixer.
I'll take a look on the web for some gear.....
Any suggestion is higly appreciated

Thanx
From sunny Italy

 

[marpa94]

Hi guys, still doing some research,
Since it is out of my budget the sm rack, i remembered that a friend of that is really into "webcast" has a very small kind of mixer with usb audiointerface,the yamaha ag03, i' m gonna tell uou again that i'm not good at all, unfortunately with tech gear, but i was thinking if that mixer unit could be a solution or even the big brother yamaha ag06.
The price is low and offers a lot on function, maybe using it with only two splitted signals than 3......
I'm really cunfused....
Any help appreciatd

 

[quilsaw]

It doesn't look as if either Yamaha would work for you, since they have no fx or aux sends (the part that would actually split the signal). Plus, they're fairly expensive...way more than I paid for either of my Rane SM26's.

For much less money, you could get something as simple as the Behringer 802, which has a single mono FX send and Stereo returns. That would only allow a single split, but it is cheap.

On the other hand, for the same price as the AG06, I'd probably recommend something like the Mackie ProFX8v2, which has the following useful features: HiZ input (for guitar), external FX inserts on two channels, a single FX send/stereo return, onboard FX and GEQ, and an additional aux send which could be used to provide an additional signal split. With something like that, you could input your guitar directly into the mixer, treat with external FX (using the insert or using the FX send), use on-board FX, and split the signal again using the aux send. Hope that helps.

 

[marpa94]

Thanks quilsaw,
Finally i got the point.....
The rane sm is the way to go: Small Footprint front control panel and back connections instead everything on top like a mixer, splitting signal, mixing them back al together.
Unfortunately here in Italy Rane sm are quite expensive 250 $ used, either on the Bay, with shipping cost.
But i'm patience i'll wait.

Another question for you, as i want to begin recording on my pc in stereo, which is the smallest solution with integrated audio interface,i'm stuck on behringer 502usb and Yamaha ag03, the cost is not quite a big problem.

I really appreciate your kindness.

Happy life.
Paolo

 

[quilsaw]

Ah, well, I almost said above that there's little reason to look at those Yamaha's unless you're looking to use it for an interface. But, again, you'll find that almost all USB mixers available now only have 2-channel (2 in/2 out) capability. Anyway, the Mackie I referenced above, would also do that for you, no problem, but with a bigger footprint, which might be a problem.

For what it's worth, you could opt to blow the whole budget on a decent interface, such as the Focusrite 6i6, which can handle more inputs and outputs, and do all of your signal splitting in your DAW for free! You can also save your budget from multiple Zoom units, possibly, and add all of your effects in the DAW as well, using plugins such as Scuffham's S-Gear, etc. Something to consider...

Good luck.

 

[LazyJay]

Hi- Mark L's at MLC Custom make a stereo blender in rack format.

Not cheap though

 

[marpa94]

Hi still searching,
The cheapest and most interesting for me is the double boss ls.....
Let's see

Ciaoooo