# Talk to me about pedal switchers!



## Powdered Toast Man (Apr 6, 2006)

Ok, so I'm trying to learn about pedal switchers. I've currently got a Pedaltrain Classic 2 and I'm upgrading to the Novo 32. I'm running about 10 or 11 pedals in my chain (the reason for the board upgrade is I've got a vocal pedal and a wireless and I'd like to have it all on one platform/power source). I have been thinking that with the extra board space it might be time to get into a pedal switching system. 

So who has one? What do you like about it? Would you recommend it? 

I've noticed in my research that they really seem to run the gamut in terms of price. I won't need midi control as I don't have any big pedals that support it.


----------



## player99 (Sep 5, 2019)

Gigrig 3 is a good one.

I would want to be able to put the pedals in any order. Patch 1 have the wah before the fuzz, patch 2 wah after fuzz etc. That will require relays and adds a level of difficulty to design and manufacturing.

The Boss ES8 will do this, but online when I was looking into switchers like you are a number of guys said it sucked tone, and they moved up to one of the better ones and noticed a big difference in tone, for what that's worth as anecdotal info.

RJM Mastermind PCB/10 is another one worth looking into.

There is one more I can't remember. But I think there are 3 top units. But they are pricey.

Then cables. Lots and lots of cables. I hate the George L style solderless cables. They always fail. I watched a vid of the guy from Gigrig (Daniel from That Pedal Show) doing a video on how to make solderless cables properly, and after he did everything correctly, it still failed. They suck. But the George L cable itself is really good. Very low capacitance, around 19. Mogami cables can be at 58-108. The lower the number the less high end is rolled off. I would solder cables with George L cable and maybe those square ends.


----------



## Grab n Go (May 1, 2013)

I run a Boss MS-3 with a medium sized board. I can't speak for the Boss ES-8, but I imagine it uses similar components, with similar build quality (which is solid in my opinion).

For this particular board, the MS-3 was the right solution. Lots of routing options and effects and I don't find it sucks tone at all.

The MS-3 can toggle between patch and manual mode. Manual mode gives you a whole other layer of control within a patch. The whole thing can get pretty deep before even getting into MIDI.

Not having to tap dance is fantastic. And not having to stomp on the back row makes life so much easier. So is an expression pedal. It's great being able to subtly control the amount of dirt or change effects parameters on the fly.


----------



## player99 (Sep 5, 2019)

I would definitely get midi, even though now you don't have any pedals that will take advantage of it. I have a Strymon Timeline delay and it would be amazing to have it switch presets. I also have an eq with 4 patches and it would be good to switch them as well.


----------



## Midnight Rider (Apr 2, 2015)

I also recommend looking at 'The GigRig' products. Either the G2 or G3.
I have the original GigRig Pro 14 and absolutely love it,... no more tap dancing for effects. The possibilities are near endless to how you can configure your board.
GigRig: Switching - The GigRig USA

For the fee of $14.00 GigRig will set you up with a power supply schematic. Just give them a list of your pedals and they will do the rest.








I currently have the GigRig power supply system which works great but am in the process re-arranging my pedalboard,... again, lol. I'll be using a 'Yankee' power supply this time as I have read very positive reviews on their products.








Yankee Power Supply: Yankee – Professional power supplies for guitar effects









Sure beats the good ol' days.


----------



## player99 (Sep 5, 2019)

Midnight Rider said:


> I also recommend looking at 'The GigRig' products. Either the G2 or G3.
> I have the original GigRig Pro 14 and absolutely love it,... no more tap dancing for effects. The possibilities are near endless to how you can configure your board.
> GigRig: Switching - The GigRig USA
> 
> ...


Are you able to set the pedal order however you want it?


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

I made myself a couple of dual loop-selector pedals with an order-flipper switch for those occasions when both loops are in use. Does as much as I need. I have a pretty big pile of pedals, both commercial and DIY, but honestly how many does a person need on a board? Usually, if someone has a ton of pedals, they have them in a rolling rack cabinet and a roadie does the switching on cue.


----------



## Otis double U (Jul 19, 2017)

player99 said:


> I would solder cables with George L cable and maybe those square ends.


Make sure to really measure close if you use sp 400/500 square plugs, they are bigger than you think and won’t work with a boss style switcher or similar with jacks that close together. They make straight ends that will work but you lose the space savings of 90 degree jacks.


----------



## terminalvertigo (Jun 12, 2010)

player99 said:


> Are you able to set the pedal order however you want it?


Yes, you can reorder pedals.


----------



## isoneedacoffee (Oct 31, 2014)

I think the type of pedal switcher you use should really fit in with how you want to play. So think carefully about it. I'm also a vocalist with a dedicate pedal for voice n the pedalboard. Since, I sing at the same time, I want to keep things pretty simple and accessible.

Some of the suggestions above seem fabulous to me but seem to require either lots of programming, memorization of loops . . . or both. I really require spontaneity and little memorization. So this has been my experience:

I started with a Boss LS-2 and that's a deceivingly simple one yet can be a bit of a swiss army knife. It worked well for me, running two loops. These two loops were essentially dirt vs modulation/delays/reverbs. The problem is that one can;t change the LS2's functionality midsong, which is sometimes nice. Enter the next looper...

I recently upgraded to an EHX Switchblade Pro. Like the Boss LS2 it runs two loops, but it's more advanced and only slightly larger.
You can run your signal bypassing the looper entirely.
You can run either loop A or B with or without the dry signal blended in (your choice how much)
You can run A and B in parallel with a simple switch on the top
You can run A into B in series, or B into A using the third footswitch.
It lets you have the option of hearing trails as you switch from A to B (or vice versa).

The buffers in the EHX are also really nice.

I can;t see how I would never need more than three "paths" that the Switchblade offers. The pedals before the Switchblade are my tuner, wah and treble booster. After the switchblade I have a delay pedal. So, within my dirt "path", I choose my OD/Fuzz from multiple options., and I can boost it if I want with a treble booster that comes before the looper, use wah, and have a delay after it. From there I can go to cleans with modulation, or go in series at a lock of a button. It's quite simple really.


----------



## Midnight Rider (Apr 2, 2015)

player99 said:


> Are you able to set the pedal order however you want it?


Yes, the following is from my GigRig Pro 14 user manual. It will give you a quick insight to the capabilities of this unit. It is really just scratching the surface to how you can use it so I have attached the manual PDF if you want to go deeper into the full possibilities. You can now buy this particular model used for a very decent price but if you want the newer digital version look over the PDF manuals I attached in my previous post. I am confident in stating that this will be the last switcher you will need to purchase as it covers all the bases as you will discover.























































Hooooonk!!!🚛


----------



## Powdered Toast Man (Apr 6, 2006)

I thank you all for your expertise!

I ended up purchasing the GigRig G2 that Terminalvertigo had for sale in the Classifieds!

In the end I'd narrowed it down and was thinking I was set on the Boss ES-8. But after knowing the GigRig G2 was available here I watched some videos and I think it's going to be much more compatible with my style. I detest having to sit and click through menus and banks to edit patches. The G2 looks so simple to operate and edit. In the end that is what swayed my decision.

The other thing that kind of annoyed me is there's TONS of used ES-8's on Reverb... if you're shipping inside the USA. No one will ship here. The idea of paying $1100 plus tax when there's dozens of them across the border for less than $700 was irritating.


----------



## Midnight Rider (Apr 2, 2015)

Powdered Toast Man said:


> I thank you all for your expertise!
> 
> I ended up purchasing the GigRig G2 that Terminalvertigo had for sale in the Classifieds!
> 
> ...


Congrats!,... great choice.No more tap dancing,... just one stomp and you're effectively where you need to be. You won't regret it.


----------



## Granny Gremlin (Jun 3, 2016)

Contrarian position here. And before I start I will present the caveat that pedalboard controllers do have their place and uses; if you have a lot of pedals that you always use in certain groups with little overlap between groups and you may need to switch the order of those pedals (in terms of which group comes first, not within a group - can't do that). For me I simplify this to a single question: do I ever need to engage multiple pedals at once, in the middle of a song (vs in between songs)? The answer has been: nope (there was this one time, on one song where that was something I thought would be handy.... engaging a DIY copy of a vintage device that dropped volume noticably so wanted to turn a boost on at the same time.... was just gonna make a little boost pedal with an FX loop for that, but then found another way to go and didn't even bother).

I think they are a bad idea. You are just getting more points of failure and an extra mile of cabling (there better be a few buffers in there). That goes double for the fancier more fully featured ones. It is high cost (not just the controller - all that extra cabling and now the need for more pedalboard real estate) and just encourages GAS.

You are now tied (at a given gig/jam - you can change when you have time) to using your pedals in specific groups (sure, of as little as 1 pedal, but if you only have 1 pedal on each loop why bother with the controller in the first place? Just to have all the switches at the front vs reaching back to a third row or even worse, 2nd tier? There are better solutions for that problem). This means that you can't use dirt pedal A with loop B, sans the rest of the pedals in loop A (unless you manually bypass them all.... defeating the main purpose of the controller). This creates the need (potentially) for some degree of redundancy (i.e. not necessarily the same dirt pedal in multiple loops, but more dirt pedals than you would otherwise need; same for other things eg delay.... I mean I have more than 1 dirt and delay on my board anyway, but even more so.... and if I used a controller I'd need a second chorus (one in a clean loop and one in a dirty loop, like if not even a 3rd).

With all that in mind it makes most sense for a touring pro where the redundancy (of pedals) is a good idea anyway, and the convenience/revenue justifies the cost (unless like @mhammer said, you have a roadie doing it for you stage left - it is way more common than some may think... also lame as F).

For the vast majority of people, having fewer pedals, in a single row, is a much better idea - cheaper, simpler, more reliable, and much less chance of tone suck. And by few, that can still be plenty - I have a min of 9 and up to 11 on the board at any time.

/contrarian.

Carry on as ya were.


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

If a pedal is electronically-switched, one has the option of doing this:




This allows you to use short patch cords between pedals for the audio path (rather than longer cables from pedal to switcher for audio routing/bypassing), and run unshielded wires (that are NOT carrying audio, and are slender and can be any length you want without compromising sound) to a bank of momentary switches up front. I tried to get people interested in this when I was at NAMM, but no takers. I'm sorry I missed my chance then to approach the president of Boss with the idea. If he would have taken that ball and run with it, I'm sure others would have followed.


----------



## Powdered Toast Man (Apr 6, 2006)

Granny Gremlin said:


> Contrarian position here. And before I start I will present the caveat that pedalboard controllers do have their place and uses; if you have a lot of pedals that you always use in certain groups with little overlap between groups and you may need to switch the order of those pedals (in terms of which group comes first, not within a group - can't do that). For me I simplify this to a single question: do I ever need to engage multiple pedals at once, in the middle of a song (vs in between songs)? The answer has been: nope (there was this one time, on one song where that was something I thought would be handy.... engaging a DIY copy of a vintage device that dropped volume noticably so wanted to turn a boost on at the same time.... was just gonna make a little boost pedal with an FX loop for that, but then found another way to go and didn't even bother).
> 
> I think they are a bad idea. You are just getting more points of failure and an extra mile of cabling (there better be a few buffers in there). That goes double for the fancier more fully featured ones. It is high cost (not just the controller - all that extra cabling and now the need for more pedalboard real estate) and just encourages GAS.
> 
> ...


That's your opinion and I respect that. A couple years ago I would have agreed with you. I normally could do a gig with 3 or 4 pedals total. But... in the last couple years I've gotten involved in a cover band that spans multiple decades of music. I AM running into spots where I'm having to turn off 3 pedals and turn on 2 others at the same time during the song. There's a few songs where I'm getting caught missing cues because I'm busy tapdancing on my board trying to click off and on effects in the 1 or 2 count I have to do it in. 

For my needs, the ability to be able to program patches for the songs in my setlist and have those ready at the click of a button is something that's going to make my life a lot easier. 

If I were a hobbyist playing only at home, or if I was doing open jams for the purpose of writing and recording, then a switcher might not be a good use of funds, no.


----------



## Granny Gremlin (Jun 3, 2016)

And that's all I'm sayin. Rock on.


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

The circumstance you describe is precisely why some players choose to use things like Fractal, Kemper, Helix, and similar multi-FX units. An entire set of pedal selections, settings, and orders, can be embedded in one switch-press.

Of course the pivot point is whether the *version *of a particular effect that a given multi-FX provides nails the sound of a given *individual* pedal, as far as the user is concerned. There, it's a matter of individual taste, although some might say that if the sound involves some combination of effects, and is embedded in an entire band, no one will notice the difference in nuance other than the player themselves.


----------



## Powdered Toast Man (Apr 6, 2006)

mhammer said:


> The circumstance you describe is precisely why some players choose to use things like Fractal, Kemper, Helix, and similar multi-FX units. An entire set of pedal selections, settings, and orders, can be embedded in one switch-press.
> 
> Of course the pivot point is whether the *version *of a particular effect that a given multi-FX provides nails the sound of a given *individual* pedal, as far as the user is concerned. There, it's a matter of individual taste, although some might say that if the sound involves some combination of effects, and is embedded in an entire band, no one will notice the difference in nuance other than the player themselves.


Yep. It totally depends on the player too. My co-guitarist in my one band LOVES all things digital. He can sit there for hours playing around with menus and settings for muti effects and building patches. 

I on the other hand cannot stand that stuff. My overdrive has one knob. I like stuff with as few controls as possible. If you give me unlimited tone shaping capability then I become paralyzed with indecision. 

So that being said, this venture into switching is done reluctantly on my part. And I believe I've chosen a switcher that plays more to my disposition. There's no LED screens, there's no app, no computer interface. I was watching a video last night of someone demoing the ES-8 computer app and I was like, oh god kill me. The GigRig looks simple and intuitive.


----------



## isoneedacoffee (Oct 31, 2014)

mhammer said:


> The circumstance you describe is precisely why some players choose to use things like Fractal, Kemper, Helix, and similar multi-FX units. An entire set of pedal selections, settings, and orders, can be embedded in one switch-press.


That's actually pretty much how I run things with my EHX Swtchblade Pro. I have one of the loops reserved exclusively for my Zoom G3X that I use for modulation, weird, longer, delays,reverb, etc. I can program patches for the Zoom which on its own can have 6 "pedals" ready to go in any sequence I choose. I have also created patches for spontaneous improvisation, where I can engage the Zoom loop and then choose very easily which "pedals" I want engaged or not. Despite its age, the Zoom G3X is wonderful for this ease of use. I then have my dirt loop with my fuzzes and main OD. It's very simple for me to go back and forth between dirt and clean, with or without modulations/delays/etc. 

I could never see a scenario where I would absolutely need, for example, a Muff then a fuzzface then a tondebender then a superfuzz _in the same song_... and a Memory Man, an Echorec and a digital delay... _in the same song as well_. But even if I wanted to do that (and I had all those pedals), it just takes one more tap each time for me. But 99.99% of the time, my setup is super easy and efficient.

When I see such switching systems I think exactly of the scenario of a roadie doing switching off-stage. Also, such systems make even a pedalboard like David Gilmour's look simple . . .and Gilmour could take you to the moon and beyond. So, if I was in the audience and saw such a huge, complicated, pedalbard I would want to be taken to the ends of the galaxy. But, if it's just top 40 stuff and/or tame, non-experimental music, what's really the point?


----------



## Grab n Go (May 1, 2013)

mhammer said:


> The circumstance you describe is precisely why some players choose to use things like Fractal, Kemper, Helix, and similar multi-FX units. An entire set of pedal selections, settings, and orders, can be embedded in one switch-press.
> 
> Of course the pivot point is whether the *version *of a particular effect that a given multi-FX provides nails the sound of a given *individual* pedal, as far as the user is concerned. There, it's a matter of individual taste, although some might say that if the sound involves some combination of effects, and is embedded in an entire band, no one will notice the difference in nuance other than the player themselves.


And some are a hybrid, like the Helix HX FX or Boss MS-3. They have enough effects loops for those few "must-have" effects that aren't already built in. I'm picky about dirt pedals, but not as picky about time-based, pitch or modulation effects for guitar.



Powdered Toast Man said:


> I was watching a video last night of someone demoing the ES-8 computer app and I was like, oh god kill me.


Ha, ha! I hear you. To be honest, I don't find the MS-3 too bad, but I don't enjoy tweaking. Definitely a "set and forget" thing. But once I set it up to my liking, it responds quickly and intuitively.


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

You both allude, albeit indirectly, to something I've been saying for a while, namely that _digital_ does pretty much every other category of effect decently enough for most tastes, but when it comes to dirt, most players still prefer analog. I imagine we'll reach that "last mile" one day...eventually. But for the time being, a thoughtful multi-FX will cover all the other bases, and provide some means for including analog dirt pedals into the mix.


----------



## Powdered Toast Man (Apr 6, 2006)

Well... I overlooked one aspect: Cables. The same patch cables I have on my board will basically be rendered useless (wrong lengths, wrong plugs). So with 10 available loops, that's 2 cables per loop (send and return) so minimum 20 cables. And they need to be straight plug on one end and angle plug on the other. So that means making my own custom cables. And I do not want solderless. There's way way way too much evidence that they're unreliable for live players.

I priced out the supplies to make all my own soldered patch cords and... well the price is not insignificant. Just something to think about if you're planning to go this route.


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

And that's one more reason why I like the remote-switching capabilities of e-switched pedals. It only requires one cable from the pedal to the switcher. Here's a switch bank I made (from a Marshall amp footswitch unit). Six momentary soft-touch switches, connected to 6 mini phone jacks. I arranged the switches, and their heights, so that the two in "the back" could be reached easily and precisely, but still combined with any other adjacent switch, such that the state of more than one pedal could be changed with a single foot-press. And because of the wiring and use of small jacks, any pedal can be assigned to whatever footswitch you want without changing the actual order of the pedals, only the possibilities and conveniences for switching them on/off.

Admittedly, not THAT sophisticated, and certainly no presets or anything of that nature, but it permits a lot of possibilities for a small investment of money and wire. Again, NO audio is going to it, so the audio path can be kept as short as one's pedalboard allows.


----------



## Granny Gremlin (Jun 3, 2016)

That's a good idea. The only problems are that it is only good for Boss and most Digital pedals (Strymon etc) that use momentaries, and it requires (sure simple) modification to the pedals. Nothing hard true bypass will work and that excludes a lot of stuff. A lot of very popular stuff.

Like you said, great idea for Boss to incorporate into their pedalboard products but realistically, how many people out there use only Boss pedals? Do you think Boss will start to include a jack on all new pedals for this (or that Strymon would) - what about people who already have all the Boss pedals they want (it's "I'm going to have to buy The White Album again" all over again)? Same reason their first pedalboards from the 80s/90s didn't last long; at least the current BCB-60 looks like it can accommodate other pedal brands and larger footprint pedals.


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

You're quite correct about the limited application to some brands. I'll just note that the use of a simple momentary ground connection to engage/bypass is also used by DOD, Yamaha, and likely some others. At the same time, I'll note that *not all companies* that use a soft-touch momentary switch for electronic bypass do so in the exact same way. Where Boss, et al., use a momentary connection to ground, looking through my files, I see that Rocktek, Pearl, Danelectro, and probably some others, use a momentary connection to +9V, which complicates matters considerably if one wants to use a single hub to switch pedals from different companies. One also has to be sufficiently informed to know which ones can be combined with which other ones.

I'm in a favorable position with regard to that aspect. Not so many others are. And, even if a miracle happened, and all those companies agreed on a standard, for making use of a remote switching option, what does one do about the existing pedals that don't employ the agreed-on system?

So, not as simple as I make it out to be.


----------



## Paul Running (Apr 12, 2020)

mhammer said:


> what does one do about the existing pedals that don't employ the agreed-on system?


----------



## Hammerhands (Dec 19, 2016)

A pedal switcher that you can switch remotely, like the Hex. I don't think the Hex switches the order.

I like that switchers take unused pedals out of the loop.

I bought an ES-5 mostly to use the MIDI controller features. Now I want to put my pedals on a table and I could use another ES-5.


----------



## player99 (Sep 5, 2019)

I'd like a pedal switcher because many times I have messed around with my pedals and come up with a really cool sound. But I never get that same setting again. I know that I'd still need to adjust the pedals, but to be able to save that combo would be ideal.


----------



## player99 (Sep 5, 2019)

Another plus for the switcher is if you have a cable go bad it's really easy to find the bad cable compared to the conventional board.


----------



## player99 (Sep 5, 2019)

And you only go through the cables and pedals that you are using, so the wiring can be clearer less pedals in the patch equals less wire.


----------



## AJ6stringsting (Mar 12, 2006)

Midnight Rider said:


> Yes, the following is from my GigRig Pro 14 user manual. It will give you a quick insight to the capabilities of this unit. It is really just scratching the surface to how you can use it so I have attached the manual PDF if you want to go deeper into the full possibilities. You can now buy this particular model used for a very decent price but if you want the newer digital version look over the PDF manuals I attached in my previous post. I am confident in stating that this will be the last switcher you will need to purchase as it covers all the bases as you will discover.
> View attachment 401229
> View attachment 401230
> 
> ...


Back in the 1980's, Raxxes and Access, were the best effects looper you could get.
Today, that kind of technology is made by numerous companies.
I had a basic pedalboard in my home town, I hooked with some professional bands that had money to burn for gear.
Now, it's great that prices have gone down and now I can own top MIDI gear that I couldn't afford back then.


----------



## Granny Gremlin (Jun 3, 2016)

player99 said:


> And you only go through the cables and pedals that you are using, so the wiring can be clearer less pedals in the patch equals less wire.


This is not necessarily true. Sure if only 1 of, what 4-8, loops is on that is a lower number of cables in use, but, instead of X x 6" cables, you have 2 x 3' cables because it's a longer run to the switcher (and then a couple 6" between the pedals in that loop), then it can be more especially to the loop of pedals farthest away from the switcher on a big board - depends how you lay it out (also could be less, ). Add to that the internal traces of the switcher itself (this can vary from barely any, point to point just switches and jacks to more fully featured, and therefore complex PCB with yards of signal path - that still all counts, this is especially bad if it is a plastic vs metal housing). So it all depends on the setup.

What you definitely have is extra jacks and switches, which are always a failure concern.

Anyway, it's not a huge issue, the point is that it's not a clear advantage as stated.

I am the luddite here, so this comes as no surprise, that I would sacrifice advanced features (setting saves, advanced loop order switching etc) to have a simpler pedalboard controller that I would feel is more robust and reliable - just some jacks, wire, switches, LEDs and maybe relays (can still have some loop order switching) in a tough enclosure. Something that is easy to troubleshoot and fix/replace those stomps that are taking a beating being used so often.

The one advantage I will give to pedal controllers, since we're on topic of robustness and failure, is that they really save wear and tear on your pedals' switches (they do have a limited lifespan) - you're litterally not stomping on them anymore. This is especially relevant if you have vintage or expensive pedals you would like to keep all original (vs replacing the switch at some point) .... so if you get one, get one that is tough - proper switches none of those cheap mini PCB mount ones (sometimes now SMD even) with a cap/actuator on top that makes it look like a normal heavy duty stomp. Like the switches on a Line 6 DL4 (which go all the dang time or cause other problems due to stress on the board):










You are obviously more likely to find these on PCB based things, especially things on the lower end that try to have deluxe features anyway. This is the 1 unit that you are gonna be stomping all the time - make sure it can take it.

And if you have a DL4 - that's a good argument to get a switcher


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

I neglected to point out that the remote-switching setup I described for Boss and similar pedals still leaves the existing swtch functional in the pedals themselves. All my green box does is provide a second parallel switch. So if either the switch in the pedal, the green box, or the connecting cable itself fail, there is an easy backup.


----------



## player99 (Sep 5, 2019)

Granny Gremlin said:


> This is not necessarily true. Sure if only 1 of, what 4-8, loops is on that is a lower number of cables in use, but, instead of X x 6" cables, you have 2 x 3' cables because it's a longer run to the switcher (and then a couple 6" between the pedals in that loop), then it can be more especially to the loop of pedals farthest away from the switcher on a big board - depends how you lay it out (also could be less). Add to that the internal traces of the switcher itself (this can vary from barely any, point to point just switches and jacks to more fully featured,and therefore complex PCB with yards of signal path - that still all counts, this is especially bad if it is a plastic vs metal housing). So it all depends on the setup.
> 
> What you definitely have is extra jacks and switches, which are always a failure concern.
> 
> ...


Actually by breaking the loops into 10 -12 different loops, it would is much easier to diagnose which loop is having issues. From there, it is much easier to find the offending cable in the one loop than trying to find it among all the cables on the whole board. And it might be a bad switch or pedal as well. With the loops I can check each loop individually, find out which one doesn't work properly, and fix it.


----------



## Granny Gremlin (Jun 3, 2016)

player99 said:


> Actually by breaking the loops into 10 -12 different loops, it would is much easier to diagnose which loop is having issues. From there, it is much easier to find the offending cable in the one loop than trying to find it among all the cables on the whole board. And it might be a bad switch or pedal as well. With the loops I can check each loop individually, find out which one doesn't work properly, and fix it.


You're right (obviously that is the case); I think I accidentally quoted the wrong bit there - my point was addressing that it would not necessarily be less cable and therefore less tone suck potential. ... yep, sorry, I quoted post 30 when I meant to be responding to 31:



player99 said:


> And you only go through the cables and pedals that you are using, so the wiring can be clearer less pedals in the patch equals less wire.


vs 



player99 said:


> Another plus for the switcher is if you have a cable go bad it's really easy to find the bad cable compared to the conventional board.


You had 3 one-liners back to back there and I clicked the wrong one when I was scrolling back through to find it. Corrected above for clarity. Sorry about that.


----------



## rtomancini (Dec 26, 2021)

Hi
Have been using the Artec LS3 for a while
Works very well and very versatile.
The AMT GR-4 looks very interesting as well having 4 programmable loops. Would like to try it in the future.


----------



## isoneedacoffee (Oct 31, 2014)

rtomancini said:


> Hi
> Have been using the Artec LS3 for a while
> Works very well and very versatile.


I was curious and took a look. It really seems to be a wonderful unit at a fantastic price.


----------



## troyhead (May 23, 2014)

Powdered Toast Man said:


> I was set on the Boss ES-8. But after knowing the GigRig G2 was available here I watched some videos and I think it's going to be much more compatible with my style. I detest having to sit and click through menus and banks to edit patches. The G2 looks so simple to operate and edit.


That was probably a good choice. I had a Boss ES-5, and while the PC desktop app made programming much easier, it wasn't great. I found myself spending more time fiddling with the controller than playing, so I eventually ditched it.


----------



## Powdered Toast Man (Apr 6, 2006)

troyhead said:


> That was probably a good choice. I had a Boss ES-5, and while the PC desktop app made programming much easier, it wasn't great. I found myself spending more time fiddling with the controller than playing, so I eventually ditched it.


This was my exact worry about the ES-8.


----------

