Boss OC-5 Octave!!!!

[stewblack]

2 hours ago, bassfan said:

Arrived this morning. Being gigged tonight. 
 

 

Great board

[bassfan]

7 hours ago, stewblack said:

Great board

Thanks Stew. Still got the Helix tucked away just incase I need it. 

[Quatschmacher]

One in stock here:

https://www.bonnersmusic.co.uk/products/boss-oc-5-polyphonic-octave-guitar-bass-effects-pedal

[Noisyjon]

Thanks @Quatschmacher

 

I'm hoping I've snagged one elsewhere and very much have my fingers crossed here.

Just awaiting the shipping confirmation now! 

[Quatschmacher]

Used one here for those looking:

 

[bumnote]

Sold subject to usual

[Bagman]

so the Boss OC-5 is "better" than the OC-2

 

fair call? 

[Al Krow]

Given a choice of those two, I'd go for an OC-5.

In fact, I did!

[Kev]

1 hour ago, Bagman said:

so the Boss OC-5 is "better" than the OC-2

 

fair call? 

If you have them side by side, you'll notice the difference, goes beyond just tone, but in isolation?  I'd be surprised if anyone could identify one over the other.  OC-5 is a better choice all round.

[Bagman]

I think it's a good upgrade - well done Boss - I still have a lot of trialing to do 

 

I'm keeping the old OC-2 as well though 

[thisisswanbon]

I enjoyed the tone of the one I briefly had - but the ever so slight latency of it put me off in the end.  It just didn't have the same feel as my Octabvre mini or OC2s I've previously played through...

[Bagman]

4 hours ago, thisisswanbon said:

I enjoyed the tone of the one I briefly had - but the ever so slight latency of it put me off in the end.  It just didn't have the same feel as my Octabvre mini or OC2s I've previously played through...

Guitarist I was playing with on Wednesday evening said " something changed in the attack of notes"

[pantherairsoft]

19 hours ago, thisisswanbon said:

I enjoyed the tone of the one I briefly had - but the ever so slight latency of it put me off in the end.  It just didn't have the same feel as my Octabvre mini or OC2s I've previously played through...

I find this in the modern/poly mode, but not in vintage. In fact, if anything, in vintage mode I find is even more immediate than my OC2.

[thisisswanbon]

On 12/09/2025 at 20:59, Bagman said:

Guitarist I was playing with on Wednesday evening said " something changed in the attack of notes"

I'm guessing this wasn't a good change?

 

On 13/09/2025 at 11:33, pantherairsoft said:

I find this in the modern/poly mode, but not in vintage. In fact, if anything, in vintage mode I find is even more immediate than my OC2.

Really? I'm glad to hear the OC5 works for you, as it does for alot of other players - but I'm surprised it's more immediate, as with it being a digital pedal there's expected processing time that would normally result in some kind of latency (which admittedly was my experience). 

[pantherairsoft]

25 minutes ago, thisisswanbon said:

I'm guessing this wasn't a good change?

 

Really? I'm glad to hear the OC5 works for you, as it does for alot of other players - but I'm surprised it's more immediate, as with it being a digital pedal there's expected processing time that would normally result in some kind of latency (which admittedly was my experience). 

I’ve used digital pedals with a touch of latency, sure, but it’s certainly not a ‘norm’ in my experience. I find most modern digital kit has no discernible latency (note ‘most’). The OC5, in my set up at least, has absolutely no sign of it. I’d think it was an OC2.

 

To be fair, even in poly mode, the latency is barely noticeable. Only really when the filter is rolled back to its ‘lowest’ processing stage. I had a similar latency blip with the Eventide Pitchfactor’s octave when a heavy filter is applied. 
 

I can’t think of any other digital pedals I own that have any sign of latency at all, though admittedly all the digital stuff I own is fairly modern (no more than a couple of years since design).

[Bagman]

5 hours ago, thisisswanbon said:

I'm guessing this wasn't a good change?

 

Really? I'm glad to hear the OC5 works for you, as it does for alot of other players - but I'm surprised it's more immediate, as with it being a digital pedal there's expected processing time that would normally result in some kind of latency (which admittedly was my experience). 

Listening to it again tomorrow night 

I can't see it being an issue 

 

I virtually never use an Octave live band anyway 

 

[Kev]

Can attest the vintage mode has no perceptible latency.  The poly mode does a little as i recall, but i never used that.

[Sibob]

 

On 10/09/2025 at 12:16, Bagman said:

so the Boss OC-5 is "better" than the OC-2

 

fair call? 

I think it depends what you need, the OC5 has a lot more options of course, but the ‘vintage’ mode is never going to be ‘better’ than the OC2. It’s an excellent approximation of it though, so if you have use for all the other guff, the OC5 is great. If you literally just want a  -1 and/or -2 octave and that’s it, get an OC2 (if we’re just discussing those two).

 

Always ignore the OC3 🤣

 

Si

Edited September 20 by Sibob

[pantherairsoft]

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 end the additional artefacts in the sound.

 

Tone - When solo'd and studying them sounds hard, the OC2 has a 'tiny' bit more breakup on the lower notes/E string when you dig in. It's so minor that I have to check over and over. 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 OD, it's just clipping and don't 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. Literally identical on the A-C strings (I play a 5, strung E-C). 

 

Active vs Passive - comabred 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.

 

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 breakout in the sound on the E string.

After a few hours of this questionable 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 ever 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. 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 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 becuase 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.

 

[pete.young]

54 minutes ago, pantherairsoft said:

The rest of poly mode is, IMO, very meh, but that one trick is a nice addition.
 

 

For bass I agree, but it's very useful to beef up an acoustic guitar in conjunction with the  range control set to about 11 oclock, so you can thumb-pick bass lines on the bottom two strings.

 

Thanks for a great review, very informative.

[thisisswanbon]

Excellent review... they've certainly done well with the OC-5.  I definitely remember there being a difference in the immediacy of my Octabvre Mini and the OC-5 (I was really rooting for the OC-5 aswell).

 

Based on your review I may pick one up and give it another go...

[Bagman]

I'm keeping both the OC-2 and OC-5 

 

I see some believe there's a difference between MIJ and MIT, prices certainly reflect that 

 

 

[Kev]

2 hours ago, pantherairsoft said:

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 end the additional artefacts in the sound.

 

Tone - When solo'd and studying them sounds hard, the OC2 has a 'tiny' bit more breakup on the lower notes/E string when you dig in. It's so minor that I have to check over and over. 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 OD, it's just clipping and don't 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. Literally identical on the A-C strings (I play a 5, strung E-C). 

 

Active vs Passive - comabred 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.

 

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 breakout in the sound on the E string.

After a few hours of this questionable 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 ever 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. 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 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 becuase 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.

 

 

Nice write up, your experience tallies with my own.

 

When I AB'd them, I was using a Japanese "Octaver" pedal, and the results were mostly the same.  In headphones, I did hear a slight tonal difference between the two, but never anything anyone would pick up on without them being side by side, and certainly not through a loudspeaker/in a mix.

 

Anyone using an OC-2 because it sounds better is kidding themselves.  Don't get me wrong, using an old Japanese OC-2 is definitely cooler (I bought another one after I sold the OC-5 years ago!), but that's all it is.

[pantherairsoft]

1 hour ago, pete.young said:

 

For bass I agree, but it's very useful to beef up an acoustic guitar in conjunction with the  range control set to about 11 oclock, so you can thumb-pick bass lines on the bottom two strings.

 

Thanks for a great review, very informative.

 

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

 

58 minutes ago, Bagman said:

I'm keeping both the OC-2 and OC-5 

 

I see some believe there's a difference between MIJ and MIT, prices certainly reflect that 

 

 

 

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

 

13 minutes ago, Kev said:

 

Nice write up, your experience tallies with my own.

 

When I AB'd them, I was using a Japanese "Octaver" pedal, and the results were mostly the same.  In headphones, I did hear a slight tonal difference between the two, but never anything anyone would pick up on without them being side by side, and certainly not through a loudspeaker/in a mix.

 

Anyone using an OC-2 because it sounds better is kidding themselves.  Don't get me wrong, using an old Japanese OC-2 is definitely cooler (I bought another one after I sold the OC-5 years ago!), but that's all it is.

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.

[pantherairsoft]

1 hour ago, thisisswanbon said:

Excellent review... they've certainly done well with the OC-5.  I definitely remember there being a difference in the immediacy of my Octabvre Mini and the OC-5 (I was really rooting for the OC-5 aswell).

 

Based on your review I may pick one up and give it another go...

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!