pantherairsoft

Sold Tom a pedal, great comms, quick payment, and super friendly. Couldn't ask for more!

Don't stop now... I have loads more toys up for grabs! Thanks!

Using the term ‘OC2’ more than 10 times in one post seems to be good for getting ‘likes’… that’s gotta be some form of SEO at work, right! This is MASSIVELY off topic (sorry everyone!), but this is my actual fav TED talk of all time… I first saw this when I was studying for my hypnotherapy diploma, and it’s as great today as it was back then…

I wonder if this was more about the Octabvre Mini than the OC5? That said, I consider the OC5 to be as immediate as an OC2, and I'm not sure how the Octabvre could be more immediate than immediate? Maybe you had a dodgy OC5? Maybe something about that pedal is that they are not all related equal and there is some kind of odd latency that some have and others don't? Maybe it's not latency and the Octabvre has a sharper attack than the OC2/OC5 that makes the OC's smoother attack 'feel' latent? I don't know enough about electronics to really comment, nor have I used the Mini (I played an original Octabvre, but it was ages ago and I don't recall much more than the fact is sounded like an OC2), but I think it's worth another go, especially if you have access to an OC2 to compare with. If you ever find yourself near Derby, you are more than welcome to come and do the blind test here!

My guitarist friend who took part in this 'experiment' uses an OC5 for guitar, exclusively in poly mode, and loves it. I don't play guitar, and so my comments are exclusively about bass. It certainly sounds good in the way he uses it on the inferior stringed instrument I used to own two MIJ versions (Octaver and Octave), that I used for years, long before the OC5 came out. I also had one of them (Octave) modded by Max at sfx to increase the gain (not in the same way as my current one) as the drop in volume did my head in, but I can't vouch for it in the context of comparison with the OC5 (but can vs the other OC2, see below). That said, I'd be mightily surprised if there was enough or a difference that anyone could notice in a mix/not under a microscope. It makes sense that the MIJ ones fetch more, as they are an older version of a sought after pedal and 'originals' in most walks of life seem to hold greater value. Anyone paying more for a MIJ because it's 'better' in any way that can be measured is almost certainly mistaken As I mentioned above, I used to own an Octave and Octaver MIJ and only ever compared them to each other (and an OC3, but let's not go there!). I couldn't hear any difference back then in the rehearsal room or live (though I never did the kind of analysis I did here) - if there was a tonal difference, it was minor and only something you'd hear in a recording or if you really wanted to. The Octaver was fetching more money as it was the OG so I sold that and kept (and modded) the other. That was sold on years ago before I recently picked up this MIT. I agree totally with your closing statement. The OC2 sound has serious mojo, and using it because it sounds great is a no brainer... but only in the same was as using an OC5. If you don't own either, unless you're a collector, there is zero reason to own an OC2 over an OC5 IMO.

I was reminded of this thread and thought I'd do an experiment over the last few days. A side by side of the OC2 and OC5, focusing on the -1 octave solo'd (does anyone use any other part of this pedal!), both at home via a small combo, and in the rehearsal room with a powerful rig, and both solo'd and in a mix. To start, I should point out that my OC2 has the -2 octave disconnected, which boosts the output volume to the pedal. Side by side with an unmodded version, there is zero tonal shift to my ear, but importantly this makes the -1 octave volume absolutely identical to the OC5, overcoming the usual volume dip these pedals suffer. Having them at the same volume really helped this experiment. I should also note that this is a made in Taiwan OC2, that needs the ACA adapter (12v, which is then knocked down to 9v in the pedal) - Note on this at the end. Also note that the OC5 was set to Bass and Vintage modes (which replicates the OC2). I'd like to give special mention to the fact that in poly mode, with the -1 octave solo'd and the Range knob set to 'lowest', the OC5 is a useful tool for some sub frequencies if you play it as though it was a mono octave pedal still, for those who don't want to destroy the building with a Dod Meatbox. The rest of poly mode is, IMO, very meh, but that one trick is a nice addition. So, the comparison... Here is what I did. 1. Side by side solo'd at home via Markbass MicroMark combo - focused on tone and noticeable latency. 2. As above, but into multi effects - OD, fuzz, envelope filter etc. to test how they played with other pedals. 3. Both of the above steps in the studio via a Markbass SD800 and Schroeder 1212L (LOUD). First without the tweeter, then with the tweeter dialled up - solo'd with three other musicians forced to close their eyes, listen and give me feedback. One of them was a drummer, so you can disregard their thoughts 4. As per the previous step, but in the context of a track with drums and keys/synths. 5. Absolutely everything above, in both active and passive mode on my bass. Here are my/our findings.... Latency - Absolutely no difference at all. In fact, I sat and played a few lines with my eyes closed and had others change the pedals so I didn't know which was which... and feeling wise I couldn't tell them apart (again, remembering that I am talking only about vintage mode on the OC2... in poly mode, yes, I can feel the latency). Tracking - Identical. I've seen lots of folk say the OC5 tracks better, but under a microscope and with clean playing, there is no difference at all. If the OC5 does track better, then my playing style doesn't allow me to highlight it. Both track down to an A on the E string without too much issue, and can track lower if you're very careful and don't mind the additional artefacts in the sound. Tone - When solo'd and studying the sounds very closely, the OC2 has a 'tiny' bit more breakup on the lower notes/E string when you dig in. It's so minor that I had to check over and over to be sure I was hearing it. Aside that, neither I, nor the other folk could tell a difference between the two, with a focus on my playing style, I was able to circumvent that extra breakup. Also note that without the tweeter on the cab, this difference was inaudible. I should note that it's not a pretty overdrive, it's just digital clipping and not something I'd ever 'want' to replicate. Now we're talking ears, not a frequency analyser - and that's what matters - what we all hear. I like to think I have decent ears (former mastering engineer), but I am in no way an authority. To me, however, it was impossible to tell them apart aside that very close study Literally identical on the A-C strings (I play a 5, strung E-C). Active vs Passive - compared to each other, the OC2 and OC5 sound and respond identically to the passive setting. In active mode, the very slight breakup we mentioned about the OC2 on the low E kicks in with a slightly softer playing. I play soft any way, so I had to force it to make this happen. I usually use the bass in active mode and nothing about this test would make me want to change it. In fact, I'd say the active output form the bass actually helps the tracking of both pedals a bit. With other pedals - The response and combining of them with other pedals was identical, it even made noticing the OC2 tiny low end breakup impossible when it was run into any kind of drive, filter etc. The feedback above was unanimous from all (only I can comment on latency), no one could hear a difference at all and in fact, I'm the only person claiming there was a touch more breakup in the sound on the E string. After a few hours of this questionably pointless experiment, here are my pros for both... OC5 Easy to find at a reasonable price. Nails the OC2 sound with zero latency. Has other options, even though you'll likely never use them, but maybe for that one song. Still under warranty if you have an issue. OC2 People think you're cool because you use an OC2. Extra bonus test - I also tried running the OC2 at 9v, even though it needs 12 via a power supply (these ACA ones still use a 9v battery or can run on a 9v if you daisy chain it from another pedal, which is odd). I did this because I know many people out there do this without realising that the ACA version needed 12v and have come to voltage starve their pedal for many years. Aside the dimmer LED and drop in volume, which many folk thought was just the way the OC2 was, this introduces much more noise and breakup into the tone. Being honest, it's still totally usable, and for anyone that accidentally got used to using an ACA OC2 this way, the difference in tone between that and an OC5 is quite notable (and wouldn’t surprise me if this was the cause of some claims of the two being audibly different!). While the voltage starved OC2 doesn't sound great to me, it does 'add something' which is very artificial, which I can see people liking it in its own right. That is, of course, not the point of this comparison though. So, which one stays on my board? The OC5, but only because it's easier to replace if someone spills beer on it. I could happy pop either on there and no one would know the difference. Thanks for coming to my TED talk.

I’m a moderate fan overall, but I really like it when they step down the pace a bit, like this track.

Did a pedal trade with Ian. Hassle free, great comms, very happy!

I have used this pedal a lot. A few things to consider. 1. Firstly, as above, there is a mic trimmer inside - this should be set to 50/50 as standard and should give you unity volume. Worth checking it’s not been altered, might be worth a tweak. It’s not a volume pot though, so might not help. 2. The vast majority of chorus pedals don’t have a volume control IME and aim to give a unity volume. However, they do add higher harmonic content, which appears louder to the ears and those are accentuated massively by other incoming harmonic content - so if you run your drive or boost into, expect the chorus tones to jump in volume. On a clean bass this shouldn’t happen. 3. What are your compressor settings? Not impossible, but if you take the compressor out of the chain (or turn it off), do you experience the same volume issues? 4. Are you using a tweeter on your cab? This will add to the higher harmonic content from the chorus, and turning down the tweeter might balance it out for you. 5. What power supply are you feeding it. It can run on 12v to get more headroom, but this might also give you more output (I’ve never tired anything other than 9v). If you are on 12v consider trying it on 9v. If on 9v, consider trying it with a battery, purely to rule out that the power supply is the issue. I expect it isn’t, but it’s worth testing everything. Ive never experienced a volume jump with the unichorus that wasn’t caused by something else pushing it too hard. Of course, if there is a massive gain boost or something that is really considerable, it ‘could’ be faulty, but I think you’d know it if that was the case.

The Geiger Counter is way more wild, as it’s basically a bitcrusher smashed into a super high gain distortion. The GC can do traditional SRR sounds etc, but that’s much easier on the pro. If you want classic SRR sounds, I’d go with the Frantabit. If you want more chaos and harsh industrial tones, I’d go GC. Overall, I think the GC Pro is one of my fav pedals of all time. It’s bonkers. Worth noting that the regular GC, however, does not have a mix (the pro does), and so a good portion of tones in the original will be lacking low end (as is normal for bitcrushing), with no option to blend the lows back in without a mixer pedal. With my playing this afternoon with the Super Frantabit, in degrade mode, the SSR is far more subtle than I remember it being (and more so than any other bitcrushers I own). I need to play with it more this week.

I owned a first run of Frantabit, but later sold it on when I was in dire need of cash. Other crushers I owned and sold: an old huge Bugbrand Bug Crusher, WMD Geiger Counter and the Civilian Issue version. I also spent a lot of time with the Ottobit Jnr. It sounds fantastic, but there was an unavoidable volume spike when engaging it, which ultimately led to me not purchasing it. I currently own: Super Frantabit WMD Geiger Counter Pro Red Panda Bitmap 2 Frederick/Bugbrand Bug Crusher Dr Scientist BitQuest The most versatile is the Bitmap 2 IMO. The Geiger Counter Pro is incredible if you want to mix distortion and other sonic chaos in. The Frederick Bugcrusher is a great way to get no-frills sample rate reduction though as long as you don’t want expression control etc.

No, not so many of them around! I’ve wanted to try one for ages and the opportunity arose. I have A LOT of bitcrushers though, so I’ve promised myself, it either blows my mind, or I sell it on after I’ve had a good play. We shall see! UPDATE - It didn't really do it for me in the way I had hoped, and so, it's up for sale!

Yummy!

I’d be leaving more ‘haha’ reactions here, but… Apparently ‘Grand Master’ ain’t all it’s cracked up to be!

No one is putting a tattoo gun anywhere near my Basingstoke!

Rumour has it that only by reaching the final rank on Basschat can a bassist reach their true potential. It is said that until they reached rank 14, Victor Wooten couldn’t slap and Bootsy had no idea what funk was. It is said that until they reached the rank of Grand Master on Basschat, Justin Chancellor couldn’t play in 7/4 and Flea was merely a Bell Pepper. Since April 22, 2009, I have dreamt of this moment. Finally, it is my time to ascend to the ranks of bass greatness. I’ll see you on the other side… It is time to play the bass and stop spending so much time on an internet forum

And another belter landing on the playlist straight after…

Since the day this track came out, it’s never left regular rotation on my playlist.

Small pedalboard. I’m disappointed… the guy calls himself a pro and he has a pedalboard that can still be carried by one person. Pathetic!

I’d post this in the Repairs & Technical forum - the folk that frequent it are likely to offer some solutions and it’s more likely to get noticed and addressed there.

I had a custom Roscoe LG with a Pau Ferro board. I picked it over Rosewood as I thought the colour and subtle grain was gorgeous. Performance wise, I didn’t find much in it next to rosewood boards that I had on similar instruments, but personally, I found the colour of it more pleasing to look at.

Yamaha RBX5 A2. I love lightweight basses, and I thought the light up knobs would look the part in my live electronica band… but it just sounded really lacking in both lows and mids and I could never get it to sit right in the mix, not matter I did with amp EQ. Add to that a few rough fret edges and the plastic-like coating get a bit sticky when the sweat and beer started flowing… overall, it wasn’t good. Bonus mention to the Warwick Rockbass Vampyre. I didn’t buy it, but I did win it in a competition… played it twice and had to sell it. It felt bloody horrid to hold, and even worse when you tried to sit down with it.