Design lessons from guitar pedals | Hacker News Reader

Design lessons from guitar pedals

uxdesign.cc

147 pointswilliamsmj127 comments

> This makes sense, right? Guitar pedals are, after all, a technology that you are supposed to step on. And not in some gentle, delicate manner!

I remember getting a guitar pedal for Christmas when I was like 16 or so. My dad did not believe me that you were supposed to step on them, and was angry at me for mistreating his gift, lol. I showed him footage of real bands doing that and he told me "Yeah and Hendrix used to light his guitar on fire on stage, but you're not doing that either." He thought it was a stage trick.

A well made pedal does feel great though. I still have a Boss pedal from 1988 that works with no repairs. Wish all of them were that durable, the DL4 is notable for having connections come apart internally after about a year. Easy fix, but sucks if it happens on stage.

Point #3 is a big deal, especially being easily readable on stage in no light or lights in your face. I have the Lillian Phaser pictured in #5 and had to put tape over the blue LEDs because they are so bright they blind you when you look down. This isn't an issue specific to the Lillian either. From what I understand, blue LEDs are much brighter than the rest, and most designers don't take any steps to dim them.

Uh, I'm not anything with regards to music (and sometimes, I guess, I'm a cranky dad) but isn't it kind of obvious that you're not going to be using your hands to manipulate something, if you're playing guitar at the same time? Also, the product is called a _pedal_, isn't that kind of a clue-stick?

Not to talk down you dad, obviously, but it seems like such a strange thing to not "get". :( I guess I'm sorry for your sake, that you didn't get to enjoy the gift fully.

it is an interesting phenomenon that people can have such strong opinions about things they have no interest in actually learning about.

reminds me of when I was planning my first gaming PC build as a teenager. my dad kept going on about how "it's great that you're planning something that can run all these games, but have you made sure it will be able to run ms word for school?" I tried to explain many times that 3D games require (by a large margin) a superset of the resources needed to run word, but all he heard was that I didn't care much about school.

They're even called foot pedals, so the hint is in there twice.

I have definitely broken a couple by stepping on them a bit aggressively in my youth, but that's all part of the rock and roll process.

Yes, for example the FAB line is probably the anti-stomp box. They're mostly plastic, so you would definitely break them after a few good gigs.

Some wah pedals are notorious for breaking down from even "standard" use. Especially the kind that have a plastic "zip tie" mechanism.

> They're even called foot pedals

Which is actually weird and redundant, since foot operation is literally the definition of "pedal." Foot operation is the defining and only characteristic of a pedal. It's even plainly obvious in the etymology of the word.

See also: “advance warning” “past experience”

Some of the foot pedals have LCD display.

Some foot pedals are digital, some are analog, and some are hybrids. Likewise some LCD displays are run by analog circuits. Simple LCD screens are nearly always analog. Advanced LCD screens are nearly always digital. But even then, there is a lot of overlap.

So there is a whole lot of overlapping variation on this subject alone.

It was a joke. OP complained about the name "foot pedals", so I used "LCD display" which is also redundant. I'm sorry and I'll avoid the urge next time.

I mean at least your example is something that isn't plainly obvious from the widely-known definitions of words. The pedal example is literally someone being upset about using a pedal as a pedal.

Not judging the original commenters Dad, but I had parents like this, and quite honestly there is only one word to describe it and it's ignorance, close-mindedness, or whatever you want to call it. My therapist is quite happy that such a things existed, in my case. LOL.

On the box it usually doesn't call it a pedal, just something like Boss DS-1 distortion.

Don't worry I stomped on it while jamming with a band. But at home it was on the desk :p

    if you're playing guitar at the same time?

Pretty common for folks on stage to reach down and futz with them manually between the songs, or even during the songs. That happens all the time. How else are you going to adjust the knobs on the dials?

You know that songs aren't 100% uninterrupted consecutive guitar notes right? lol

So, parent poster's dad's mistake is a little more understandable than you're giving him credit for.

In fact, if you're not watching the guitarists closely, you might not even notice them stomping on the pedals. You might only notice them bending over to fiddle with the pedals manually.

It's not common to adjust dials, especially during songs. Between songs is less rare but still uncommon. A significant number of bands do have a rhythm guitar that's going almost non-stop.

I take a picture of every pedal board I see at every concert I go to, so I'm actively looking for this stuff. Some people even tape the dials so they aren't bumped during shows.

I wonder how his dad thinks a wah wah pedal is supposed to be used? :-)

With one's forehead! ...have I been doing it wrong? Whatever, happy to have sacrificed those brain cells to rock and roll.

It probably doesn't matter now, but all LED's have a resistor connected to them so they don't just burn out. You can desolder it and put a different one in. Since it isn't a critical piece, you can touch contact a few different ones until you get the level of dimness you want.

I wonder why there just isn't a variable resistor on the side or something for that purpose like all of the other knobs on the things? Or an off/on knob that doubles as a brightness control. Could even be tactile with 5 positions or something.

I'd consider that to be over-engineering. It would make sense for someone who sometimes wants it bright, sometimes doesn't. But that's pretty rare. You either see that it is engaged, or not. Laser brightness is easy to tame by using a stronger resistor. It doesn't even cost more to do that.

This seems more like a jogged memory than anything relevant to link.

One can say that stomp boxes follow UNIX philosophy. They do one thing and can be connected ("piped") to make complex sounds. For example, if you want distortion, with some modulation (say, some phaser) and a little bit of a delay, you could build a pedalboard ("pipeline") with those three units plugged one into another:

  guitar | distortion | phaser | delay | amp

BTW. in real life, as - by some weird convention - most of pedals have input in right side and output on the left, it looks like that:

  amp                                        guitar
   ^            .-- phaser <--.                 |
   |            |             |                 |
   `-- delay <--,             `-- distortion <--'

Re the weird convention: When you're a right handed guitarist and you're facing towards your pedals, the lead comes out of your guitar going to the right.

That's irrelevant if your pedals are in an FX loop, but if they're actually between the guitar and the amp, it makes perfect sense to avoid having your guitar lead trail across or catch under your stompboxes.

That's exactly right.

Not a weird convention at all.

But is the UNIX philosophy true bypass?

I think “true bypass” is systemd. It sounds like it’s better, but isn’t always. And the kids love it in their “boutique” distros. :)

> One can say that stomp boxes follow UNIX philosophy.

I suppose it's the other way around as nix is much newer technology. :)

This is a neat way to look at it.

Having said that, an effects loop is essentially the unix tee commmand in action, if you could manually enable/disable the tee command without breaking the pipe.

> Physical UIs can be more intuitive and usable than screens

A thousand times this.

Not related to guitars, but I do a lot of off-roading and the multimedia system is only controlled by the big screen. In bumpy roads it's a trial and error operation to skip a song. Give me my previous/next physical buttons back.

This is exactly why I bought a Mazda after loving my previous Subaru to death. Between when I bought my Forester and when I went to replace it, Subaru had gone all in on touch screen interfaces. Meanwhile, Mazda had declared they would never, citing studies they increase road hazard more than drinking alcohol.

It just seems so insane to me that cars are even allowed to have touch screens. The last thing I want to do is to be forced to take my eyes away from the road in order to push a button on my dashboard. I'll never buy a vehicle with a touch screen.

Plus its like the worst touchscreen tech imaginable. Cars if they are going to have a touchscreen, should have that 15 year old blackberry storm touch screen tech with faux button haptics.

My old portable CD player had perfected this skipping thing. Didn't even need user input.

>> Physical UIs can be more intuitive and usable than screens

> A thousand times this.

A million times this, also for safety concerns.

The folks at Space-X are not idiots, and they put shiny touch screens in the Crew Dragon spacecraft also for the press to "ooooh! Look at that, ...just like our cellphones!", but all important controls are also behind real physical buttons and joysticks. A touch screen looks amazing and so futuristic, until the moment something hits it in the wrong spot and they lose all instrumentation and controls in one shot. For important stuff I'll always take traditional rugged controls over touch screens.

> A touch screen looks amazing and so futuristic

Not true. If you examine sci-fi movies from the 1960s onwards, you'll learn that the most futuristic-looking interfaces have the most buttons and physical affordances. Touchscreens were never regarded as futuristic, and thus rarely depicted in sci-fi.

I remember seeing touch screens in sci-fi when the touchscreen is a large table or when the touchscreen is being projected into air.

That could be because filmmakers didn't know about their existence. SciFi predicts a lot but also borrows from current knowledge; for example, we've seen black holes depicted in different ways according to the knowledge of the time of the writing/filming. Also, for many years before touch screens became reality the only known direct interaction with a screen was like a light pen, whose operation was slow and clumsy (can't "push" more than a "button" at the same time, wires, etc) which could have discouraged the idea suggesting to wait until the idea of operating screens directly using hands was conceived and became popular; probably in ST TNG LCARS interface.

https://www.cygnus-x1.net/links/lcars/epics/TNG-S4/S4E3/TNG-...

Yet their colleagues at Tesla did the opposite and put everything on the tablet

> Give me my previous/next physical buttons back.

That's not a guarantee of anything.

For example, the BOSS Katana line of digital amplifiers has physical knobs. Of course, the knobs are digital rotary encoders. But do they have a display like most? No. So you have no idea of what you dialed in at a glance. It's easier to connect your phone through the USB port to the amplifier and manipulate everything through the app. It's appalling.

It starts with guitar pedals, but once you get into eurorack synth modules, the UX is completely fascinating. Counter to the article's emphasis on obvious a clear functions, some of them are as mystifying as your first encounter with a unix command line, but once you get them going, holy crap. The depth of information you get from a synth is (literaly) infinite compared to what you get from text or images on a screen.

what depth of information are you talking about? the synth outputs sound. It might have a small screen. there may be knobs with number scales. but overall you aren't taking a ton of information out of a synth.

I don’t know what exactly the OP means by depth of information, but modular synthesis is a lot richer than what you describe.

You may be pulling in signals from bananas (literally), driving them through a dozen modules with three times as many patch cables and using them to drive a video signal and a few stepper motors alongside your audio out.

And you’re doing it with a lot of bespoke little modules made in small batches, sometimes with faults, and almost always capable of things that were neither envisioned or documented by their original designer.

It’s a whole different world than guitar pedals or even a single big commercial synth (which is what your description sounds like).

I know what modular synths are, I just don't consider them to be good design, or to offer 'depth' of information when you have to trace wires from module to module to figure out what things are doing. The mod matrix on a microfreak or polybrute are great design that summarize many ideas in a small space. Modular is the opposite of good design - its a totally custom system that you have to have built to understand what the heck is going on.

If you like synthesizers, I’d strongly suggest checking out one of the synths op talked about. They’re an immense amount of fun and are closer to an IDE than say, a Juno-106.

The kind of synth's GP is talking about generally have no screen, dozens to hundreds of knobs and sliders, and dozens to hundreds of audio inputs and outputs for routing the signal.

I know what modular synths are. I think they're absolute disasters in terms of interface. A modular synth is not what I would call a good interface to learn design from.

So, I have a very nice synth made by AMS, the Hydrasynth.

It's not a modular synth, but quite the opposite... it's a digital synth which is more like a computer than, say, a minimoog.

It has a great UI and much of what it does it shows you very well.

Still, it has a massive modulation matrix, in which the 5 LFOs and the 5 Envelopes can be sent about anywhere, often controlling the 3 oscillators or the 2 filters.

And in order to actually see the 10 or so setting for each of those 10 modulators going to the myriad of places that they could go (and noting that you can route the oscilators themselves to various points) you have to have both some willingness to dive around the small menus or some knowledge of how the patch was created.

That's nicely facilitated by the UI which has a lot of nice buttons for quickly selecting element, but still.

By contrast, you can look at your modular synth and see the physical connections which reveal the routing of the patch. While there are all kinds of things that can hide the complexity such as normalized connections within devices or devices that have their own micro-controllers doing who knows what, the network of wires is, itself, quite a lot of information.

and yet from a design perspective the hydrasynth is a much better ui, not requiring you to trace tens of wires from module to module to figure out what the heck is going on from non standardized module to non standardized module.

a modular synth is like a totally custom rig that nobody but you can understand, because you built it. It's bad ui from step 1.

It really depends, right?

For playing a gig, the Hydrasynth is a far better UI.

But in general, all these rigs are very specific to their users. I've brought the HS to a lot of traditional jams where keyboard players are.

Most folks can't come up and perform on my hydrasynth, either, unless I show them which 3 knobs to play with for a specific patch.

Each patch is "like a totally custom rig that nobody but you can understand, because you built it".

Anyhow, the question is how much information is displayed at a glance, not "quality of the UI", and your original comment ignores a lot of that information. I'm sorry if pointing that out didn't feel nice to you so you decided to move the goalpost.

>Anyhow, the question is how much information is displayed at a glance, not "quality of the UI", and your original comment ignores a lot of that information. I'm sorry if pointing that out didn't feel nice to you so you decided to move the goalpost.

I don't think modular synths do a good job conveying lots of information since I have to trace wires across multiple components to try to figure out what is modulated by what. That information is not available 'at a glance'.

They're highly configurable and thus flexible in what they're capable of, but I don't think they convey information well at all.

the synth outputs sound. Synths are complex beasts. Modular synth are a both "sound" and control voltages. The control voltage turn on or off a filter or oscillator etc. But you can also reverse the order so you "listen" to the control voltage that is controlled by the "sound". It basically an analog computer

Modular synths are very similar to analog computers. You can even patch an analog computer into the modular synth

If you have never seen a modular synth in action I urge you to check out lookmumnocomputer on youtube.

Very hn, he makes lots himself, he resurrects old machines to the extent that he has a museum to keep it all in!

https://youtube.com/c/LOOKMUMNOCOMPUTER

Don't forget the most common pedal-controlled electric (and now electronic) appliance, the sewing machine! In that case, the speed control pedal was a natural development from earlier machines powered by treadles and bicycle-like pedals. There's a parallel in flexible-shaft rotary tools (basically high-end Dremels), which also require simultaneous continuous speed control while both hands are occupied with the work being done. The lack of this requirement is probably why the other machines that were pedal-powered prior to electrification--grinders, saws, (dental) drills, and lathes--did not retain pedal controls.

Other "edge-case" pedals:

- various vehicles

- foot-operated computer mice, for accessibility (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Footmouse)

- elsewhere in music: piano, timpani, kick drum, and harp; organs (and rare pianos) with pedal keyboards (in etymological contrast to manual keyboards)

Also, motor-driven pottery wheel, and old school transcription machines, where the pedal controls the rate and direction of audio playback

Bach didn't like the piano when it was first introduced. He was used to organs and harpsichord, where keys are kind of on or off. A piano is velocity sensitive and play style is quite different. He went on to work with piano developers to make the piano a better instrument.

I really don't like articles like these. The author takes a cute analogy and turns it into guiding principals.

> Physical UIs can be more intuitive and usable than screens

Physical UIs also don't need to help the user navigate digital content. Hugely different to physical content.

> When tech is rugged, it’s a joy to use

It is? I would say that when tech accomplishes its job of connecting the user with the purpose of the tool (in an easy way) - then it's a joy to use. Ruggedness can be a boon here, sure.

Personally, as a musician, I've never been on stage and given preference to knobs & dials - I've given it to the sound and what I want the audience to experience with my playing or a song - not the joy of me stomping something.

Bit of a rant, sorry about that. But these sorts of "full of content, but no message" articles bug me.

Honestly, modern UX is frequently so stupid that, apparently, articles this simple are necessary.

Lookin' at you, Tesla touchscreen.

The Tesla touchscreen + 2 steering wheel jog dialy encoder things is the best car interface I've used, having owned ~35 different cars of various makes and classes over the years. Model years ranging from 1962 to 2021.

My advice to make peace with the Tesla screen: Embrace the car for what it is.

Fewer moving parts not just in the drivetrain, but as a philosophy.

Why clutter up physical and mental space with a control you'll use once a year?

Embrace "automatic" for things like climate and wipers.

Embrace picking something to listen to when you set off, and leaving it there.

Embrace the (at least if you have a 3 or Y) highly tactile steering wheel buttons.

You can fiddle with the volume and track selection from the steering wheel, and on the right side the voice works just fine for things like changing the temperature, or making a phone call. On many trips you may never touch that screen while the car is in motion.

Has the word 'embrace' become a euphemism for surrendering control?

"Make peace."

No. No no no no no, a million times no.

We do not "make peace" with the objects we buy, because what that means is "surrender autonomy to the company."

We do whatever the hell we want with the objects we buy, limited by law, true safety, and decency, not by what serves the company.

Stop encouraging being a sheep.

"Physical UIs also don't need to help the user navigate digital content. Hugely different to physical content."

Consider the Beat Buddy pedal (automated drum accompaniment pedal) which can play lots of digital content via user commands. Yes the foot commands are limited ("add a fill", "splash sound", "next phrase", "end song"), and so are the dials ("choose playlist", "change tempo"). However, the proper stomping really helps if you want to add an extra solo or just chill with a beat while you tell a story.

"When we spoke, he told me how deeply he admires the interface design of musical equipment like guitar pedals."

Keyboardist here, so I cannot say much about guitar pedals, but I very much agree in general. Of course there is a ton of bad UI design also, but I think well designed musical instruments beat the best designs in other areas.

For example: I have a modern digital stage piano. It's a computer with several gigs of RAM an yet the whole manual is like eight pages. This is the complete manual, not some quick start guide.

While it's no DAW it's not simple either, you can do a lot with it and still my child uses it without ever looking in the manual.

One UX issue that I've seen on most stage pianos is that while there are direct physical controls for most of the commonly used functionality due to lack of display and some menu system configuring “uncommon” things (like MIDI) leads to totally undiscoverable configuration modes, multi button chords and what not that you have to read the manual to find out.

This is so true, especially for master keyboards. Mine is a stage piano and it kind of side-steps this issue by having only a very simple MIDI setup. For a piano that is not meant to be the control center of everything else this is ok.

If anyone knows a good master keyboard that has solved this issue satisfactorily, I'm all ears.

I used to think classical musical instruments were the epitome of design because they evolved to their function over hundreds of years.

But then I started trying to learn to play one and began reading about the problems with physical injury that professional musicians persistently face. I realized musical instruments were full of design compromises like everything else.

cries in the strained neck of a violinist

A perfect instrument is physically impossible imo. There is always going to be a compromise because you are playing with fingers and their limited range of motion versus pure thoughts.

As a gigging musician I've found that pedals aren't without their own UI/UX problems. Nearly every pedal has a gain control ... but they can interact in non-linear ways. Tiny changes make a bigger difference when the overall-gain is low, compared a chain with more amplification. When you're plugging into a venue desk (and not going through an on-stage Amp) ... it can be a nightmare trying to figure out what combination of gain settings and pads would work. Worse is that important parts of that are often hidden; pads are usually toggles just hidden on the side. And there's no feedback UX ... I'd love a simple VU meter on a DI or EQ-stage pedal for example (Studio V3 tube amp pedals have this, but it's not common). I have hundreds of photos on my phone of my pedal board memorializing the settings for a particular song, piece, or venue .... because good luck saving state across multiple pedals. Strymon have their own standard for this, but there's not much inter-operable, or you can spend on a multi-thousand dollar multi-effects pedal. Anyway, I could rant for hours about pedal UX.

But yes, way better than my Tesla.

Love when we go back to physical items to get lessons for GUIs.

"The design of everyday things" it's an amazing book to start in this area, specially if you work with something that mix hardware and software like IoT.

Other ux points he didn’t include:

One knob per option, not deep menu diving.

One pedal per function, not one pedal to rule them all.

That's only partly true. There are a lot of foot pedals that emulate the whole chain, and some of them even do speaker emulation. They tend to be at a minimum double-width and often have a wah that also can act as a volume rocker.

But for the standard pedals, you are totally right.

Whole chain emulation + cab impulses are a thing, with digital modellers like Line 6's Helix or Fractal's FM9. I do get the impression you were referring to "analog" pedals, though even those are often more digital than not.

I am by no means a musician. This friend brought me his guitar pedal because he could not fix it (got stuck somehow and he had not read the manual properly, that’s it).

After “fixing” it, he showed me how he used it (I had never seen one in use).

Those are true marvels of UI/UX. It was possibly one of the simplest pedals, but the things you can do with it and just “one” button. Unbelievable.

If you get a chance, drive a car from the 90s, especially a fully mechanical one (mechanical transmission, windows). Once you get adjusted, you'll find that you're almost totally relaxed while driving. There are few controls, and the ones that are there are immediately responsive & tactile.

Modern cars are so numb. Engineers have worked hard to remove all sense of tactile inputs and feedback. My 2000 manual acura I could drive blind. I could feel intimate details of the road surface through the wheel, and exactly what rpm I was at through the pedals and the shifter especially (to a lesser extent the wheel and seat as well because the entire car would vibrate). Put snow tires on and go out in a blizzard and you are in complete control of all things. You feel the minute traction slips, you feel how it feels when it comes back, you feel what its like to hold traction and maintain control versus letting it go. You become a much better driver.

Unfortunately due to some circumstances I am saddled with a 2018 era econobox that feels like its made by fisher price, but should my finances change the first thing I'm doing is buying something old enough to order its own drinks. Peak car was 25 years ago. We had our 35mpg by then and side curtain airbags. We are on the decline. Buy these assets now while they are still under 25 grand or be forever lusting in the decades from now when no sensible car is made anymore and all the decent used stock is going to collector auctions instead of used car lots.

The article doesn't mention this, but in my experience playing live gigs the full pedal stomp (1) is significantly better than dimple button style stomp (2). In fact, for me, it's a dealbreaker if a pedal has a dimple stomp. I'm curious if other ppl feel similarly.

1. https://www.roland.com/RolandComSite/media/uk/images/article...

2. https://delicious-audio.com/wp-content/uploads//2016/01/Iban...

I chose a pedal based on the sound it produces not how it feels to use. I like the feel of the full buttons, but my board doesn't have any. Until now I've never even thought about it. So no, it's not at all a dealbreaker for me. If it were, it would severely limit my choices.

Those mini-pedals pretty much only come with "dimple stomps," as do most wah pedals under the rocker.

My board has quite a mix of each format. Of course the Klon Klone has a dimple, but I like Boss pedals for their durability. Those switches are actually cheap plastic, but the part you stomp on limits you from crushing it.

I'm surprised the author didn't discuss actual electronics. Early BOSS pedals in the 80's were wonders of analog design. Check out the schematics of the chorus, flanger, and phaser. They are delightful to study:

https://elektrotanya.com/PREVIEWS/63463243/23432455/boss/bos...

https://www.hobby-hour.com/electronics/s/boss-bf2-flanger.ph...

There's a reason why the ratio of analog to digital designers is about 1:1000.

Thanks for the links! The Boss BF-2 is my all-time favorite modulation pedal, my brother got one new in the late '80s and I somehow ended up with it for the last 25 years. It's one of the few modulation pedals that sounds great on bass without a clean signal blend, and it has 2 or 3 trimpots on the board that take it in weirder directions.

For the non-music-technical if you've ever listened to The Cure or Prince you've definitely heard a Boss BF-2 Flanger in action. :-)

> When I’m driving, I do not want to have to glance at a screen to figure out how to turn down the damn air conditioning.

This is my #1 complaint about modern cars. It's like the designers don't know about the epidemic of distracted driving.

I think it's worthwhile to note if you never played with guitar pedals; they do something that really should be ubiquitous in computers; you can easily re-arrange them into different combinations to create different sounds. The basic idea is doing something that is technically/electronically, "high engineering" (problem solving with constraints) in a playful, simple way.

It's really neat to see kids thinking things out loud like, "I wish there was to apply an envelope filter and an echo to this thing I am building but it's not sound..." In education courses.

The interface is good, only because nobody has no ads / attention economy shit in the chain. Without that anti-pattern incentive we can wax lyrical about the joys of using something. Joy of use is still the objective.

When a company like eight-sleep decides to make pedals, there will be an app with a subscription, and 'content' and extra features for a fee, like 'adjust volume'. You'll get multiple emails every week with a breakdown of your 'pedal data' and suggestions for improving it - 'buy this accessory button!'. Bla.. I hate the internet.

I mean software instruments aren’t far from this. You can’t download the demo until you give them email. You try to download it, but it’s not actually an installer. It’s an installer installer where you have to check which of their 20 crappy products you want to install. And even though you clicked the link to download the demo, it asks you for a registration code. It’s fucking infuriating. I’ve stopped even downloading them because I’m done creating new internet accounts for every damn thing. And don’t get me started on having them lock up your DAW while they “contact the server” for updates and registration checks.

On the other side, I’m selling all of my guitar pedals and going fully digital with plugins. I believe the future of guitar effects is digital. Some reasons why:

• Pedals are expensive, plug-ins are much cheaper in comparison. Often, you can get a collection of pedal and even amp plugin effects for less than a quarter of the price of a single amp or pedal. • Once you have a certain number pedals, connecting them is a huge mess of cables. • If something in your sound chain is failing, good luck at finding what it is. Could be any of the cables or pedals. • Want to swap one pedal for another? Well, it may be not that easy, as there is no standard, input, output and power may be on a different position, forcing you to re-cable large parts of your board. • If you want to experiment with more complex signal processing like multiple paths , frequency splitting, etc. Again it’s a huge mess of cables and super expensive. • Technology has advanced to a point where plug-ins sound as good as the real equipment, you can even use them live, as more and more people and bands are doing everyday.

So, in summary, as much as I love the design and feel of real pedals, they are no match for the possibilities that the digital realm offers for a fraction of the price, space and headaches.

You just need a computer and an interface or something like the Line-6 Helix or the Kemper Profiler and the world is yours.

I'm a musician, but not a music tech expert. However, most professional guitarists/bassists I know who play larger venues are using an effects rack, not a board of pedals (or maybe a pedal or two to switch effects). This has waxed and wanted in popularity since the 80s, but my anecdotal evidence is that pedal rigs are less common than ever. I agree about the rugged design, though--I still use a chorus pedal from the late 80s, and it's nigh indestructible.

Some effects are better on rack. For example, delay doesn't immediately cut off when you switch it off.

But you're right. A lot of modern guitar players use racks - even Tony Iommi from Black Sabbath does these days. Pretty much the only stomp box you're most likely to see on the floor even with rack users, is an overdrive.

Without any data except watching countless youtube videos, the only place I see racks is for big stadium acts (U2 and the like) where it's a huge production and a lot of different tones need to be changed out. But by and large, I otherwise see a ton of pedal rigs for even well-known professionals, indie bands, and of course non-pros.

We're probably right now at a high point of pedal usage and new releases, thanks to super-engaging YouTubers like That Pedal Show, Andertons, Andy Martin, J Leonard J, Pete Thorn, and the list just goes on.

I have thoroughly enjoyed using various pedals for playing music, and as others here, I’ve also rocked out with modular synths. But I have to say that pedals (and other musical equipment) can be very frustrating because their UIs are very obtuse. You can directly turn a knob to change the effect, but you often have no idea what exactly they’re changing.

It turns out that chorus, flangers, and phasers are all variations on a short delay whose time is controlled by an LFO. So you can change the average length of the delay and you can also change the amplitude of the LFO. There’s often a parameter labeled either “depth” or “amount” and it’s not clear whether you’re changing delay time, LFO amplitude, both, or something else. Worse, some try to have descriptive names that may not make any sense. A friend’s guitar DSP unit had a parameter just called “balls” for the amount of distortion. Turning it up made it sound more like AC/DC. No idea what it was actually controlling.

So yeah, direct feedback of physical UI is great, but if you don’t know what you’re controlling, it can be very frustrating to try and make it do something specific.

[Edit] Also, those pedals that are just a switch I find much less satisfying to use and harder to hit right.

Sometimes pedal UIs are obtuse because a single knob will control multiple parameters under the hood and there isn't a succinct way to describe it's effect that will fit on the pedal. In that case you'll need to read the manual.

And then sometimes manufacturers give common parameters colorful names that illustrate the musical effect while not being 100% accurate. For example, a fuzz pedal I own has a "pinch" knob which functions like a gate, even though it's not technically a gate. Again, read the manual if it's not obvious.

As for your example of a flanger or phaser, those tend to have a handful of common parameters that you'll encounter across all variations (delay time, feedback, depth, rate, and dry/wet). For anyone who has experience with these devices they will already know that (by convention) depth controls LFO amplitude and rate controls LFO frequency. If you don't know this then it's very likely that you're new to the world of audio effects and simply need to (once again) read the manual.

There's only so much information that you can put on the face of a guitar pedal.

Hopefully someday when mobile phones stop being such woo woo disruptive technology status symbols, they will be made out of metal and have buttons. Touchscreens 'have' buttons as long as it isn't raining, extremely cold, and you're not wearing gloves.

I recently had a go at TIG welding aluminium. This is regarded as pretty tricky for two reasons

1) The oxide on aluminium melts at a much higher temperature than the aluminium. A specialist AC welder helps 'clean' the surface. 2) Aluminium is a very good thermal conductor. Enough heat to start welding is far too much once you are a little way down your weld and your pool of molten metal will get ever larger until you burn through. One hand is controlling the torch, one hand is holding the filler. Therefore it is common to use a foot pedal to control the current. More to start, and backing off once you are running. It works pretty well once you get it all coordinated, but is daunting to start off with.

screens are just cost saving devices, knobs and buttons are always much better to use

Using your whole body to control things, yes!

My grandmother (whose occupation in the 1950 census is listed as "mangle operator" at a laundry) had a great big "ironer" in our kitchen, which I think was like [1].

I know that it was operated partially with the knees, although I can't really see the levers on this photo. She'd move her legs to make it do things.

Ironing a shirt was real fast with that thing.

[1] https://www.ebay.com/itm/144611617506?hash=item21ab862ae2:g:...

In the world of keyboards. a similar example would be stage keyboards, like the Nord Stage or the Yamaha YC.

Those are usually built like a tank to withstand stage "abuse", and the interface is mostly "one knob per function", as opposed to workstations (like the Korg Kronos or the Roland Fantom) where you have a lot of menu diving to do (the equivalent of workstations in the guitar world would be one of those fancy digital multi-effects like the Line 6 Helix or the Boss GT)

Guitar pedals have shit ui. They may be bullet proof, but try and recreate an exact sound using a series of pedals now switch that sound for the next song now switch mid song for the bridge. Each time you would spend at least a minute. Sure you can kick on an overdrive or delay or maybe tap dance to a few sounds, but really this setup sucks, one reason digital modelers that don’t sound as good are popular.

I think those limitations also lead to a lot of creativity. Good music is often made under severe constraint.

I agree, it can be a boon to creativity, but it’s precisely because the UI is bad (limited).

I recently acquired a Quad Cortex, and the rugged rotary stomp knobs combined with the 7" in display is awesome. The ML in that thing is sweet too. It's definitely a feat worth mentioning.

The UI is fantastic once you figure out that the pedals are to be wired exactly backwards, with input on the right side, output on the left.

This signal flow is only backwards if you're left-handed (like a lot of the world).

If you're right-handed, imagine you just plugged in your guitar and then tossed the cable off to one side. You probably just chucked it to the right, away from the plug. Now look down at your pedalboard, right in front of you. The signal flow probably starts most naturally on the right side, near where you just tossed your cable.

It’s always backwards, unless in your culture schematics are written right to left - no idea if rtl folks also write schematics right to left, but I suspect they might.

And negative on the center terminal of the power supply plug.

Those easily-detached non-locking barrel jacks for power are definitely the weak point of guitar pedal design.

Always double check this, there are still some exceptions.

The worst one on the bandstand is the 12 V supply for keyboards, which are center-positive.

I opened up one effects pedal once, and an electrolytic capacitor had completely blown its top off, and the contents were spewed throughout the enclosure.

I have a 9V AC adapter (yes, as in AC output) for an older Digitech multi-effects.

Every other piece of gear I own is 9V DC, and that's something that is easy to miss.

Yup, the AC adapter, followed by opposing half-wave rectifiers, was a convenient way to get positive and negative DC supplies from a single adapter. I've used those in the lab for making gadgets, usually with a huge warning label.

Not hard to do considering many pedals have a label for input and output

> Guitar pedals are aesthetically gorgeous.

The writer lost me here. Sure, some have beautiful artwork. But pedals themselves are perhaps the ugliest contraptions I have laid my eyes on. Just look at the form of BOSS pedals. As always, there are a few exceptions. But in general, guitar pedals are an eyesore. To make matters worse, musicians put them on pedalboards in all sorts of kitsch arrangements. When you couple that with the pathological American dislike of feet and everything associated with feet, you end up with an object only worthy of contempt.

I get where you're coming from, but I think you're expecting too much from the "form" part of design, when guitar pedals are basically pushed entirely towards "function". There's obviously a spectrum (Walrus Audio, Earthquaker Devics for two that manage good function and good form), but BOSS pedals are beautiful to me in just how easy they are to use - that big ol' flap covering the switch makes it to where I have to try _really_ hard to not turn the pedal on when I stomp on it. And that's the primary thing I want to do with a pedal - turn it off and on. BOSS's pedals actually very literally are laid out in proportion to how I use them - the dials get maybe 20-25% of the enclosure's usable space, while the rest is dedicated to making it easy to do the thing I care about. It might be brutalist and basically entirely function over form, but there's beauty in just how usable it is.

I just want to say you missed Chase Bliss when mentioning good function and good form. Especially their Automotone series pedals (e.g. CXM1978 and their preamp). I find all of their pedals aesthetically pleasing and easy to use (with some bit of mystery akin to Eurorack like another commenter mentioned)

What is this part about a "pathological American dislike of everything associated with feet"?

I've lived here my whole life and never heard of this.

Recent developments in certain sub-sections of internet media definitely point to the exact opposite, in fact.

No, that's just a small niche. Shaming barefoot people is now a national pastime. Especially in airplanes and offices.

What on earth since when o_o

Here's one example:

https://borntolivebarefoot.org/hate-sites-promote-shaming-of...

And here's one person's experience:

https://www.reddit.com/r/barefoot/comments/vnnbpz/cover_your...

Yeah because for the type of people who feel the need to ventillate their foot in the middle of the day in the workplace or in an airplane do not exactly have odorless sweat. When was foot odor tolerated? The 1800s?

It's 2022. Most people use deodorant.

On their feet?!

Zappa: https://youtu.be/HrmtAQvmfN8

What's so bad about Boss pedals. I _love_ how they look. Their retro-futuristic vibe (it's genuine vibe, they haven't changed since 80s).

I also love Boss pedals, so many pedals now are the same rectangular box in one of two common sizes. At least the Boss ones are unique!

Also wondering what parent means...IMO the Boss form factor is by far the best of any mass market pedals from the '80s. Indestructible footswitch the width of the pedal, thumbscrew for battery compartment access, easy to AC power, large text/high-contrast color schemes & LEDs easy to read on dark stages, (some but not all) knobs big enough to twiddle with your feet.

In comparison - DOD had terrible footswitches and detachable (read: instantly lost) battery covers, and their jacks always came loose if you just looked at them; MXRs from that era typically had non-true bypass switches, no external power jack or quick battery access; the little square Ibanez/Maxon footswitch was harder to hit; and while Electro-Harmonix stuff is/was cool and strange, the build quality was always a crapshoot.

Boss pedals are functional masterpieces, but that doesn't make them aesthetically beautiful. They're ugly as sin. Just like work boots.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com