Parallel FX-Loop... Anyone?

[Damage Inc.]

Can anybody tell me what a Parallel FX-Loop does?
I'm only familliar with the Series Loop and I don't want to have any differences or problems with my pedals/effects
since I'm switching from an amp with a series loop to an amp with a parallel loop.

- Damage Inc.

 

[aleclee]

Re: Parallel FX-Loop... Anyone?

A parallel loop mixes the "dry" signal with the effected signal.

The "parallel" comes from having the dry signal in parallel with the effects where in series, all the dry signal goes through the FX.

 

[Damage Inc.]

Re: Parallel FX-Loop... Anyone?

A parallel loop mixes the "dry" signal with the effected signal.

The "parallel" comes from having the dry signal in parallel with the effects where in series, all the dry signal goes through the FX.

Yeah I know that, but I mean
is it's function different or the sound or something?

- Damage Inc.

 

[aleclee]

Re: Parallel FX-Loop... Anyone?

Yeah I know that, but I mean
is it's function different or the sound or something?

- Damage Inc.

Well, it means that you need to run your FX all "wet" and use the loop's mix control to set the intensity of the effect. Parallel loops don't work so well for FX such as EQ, OD, and compression where you don't want the dry signal to pass through.

 

[RGN]

Re: Parallel FX-Loop... Anyone?

Parallel is far superior if you want the true sound of your head to come through without getting altered by the effects processor (which almost always happens in a serial loop). You get an actual dry signal mixed with a processed signal. Like aleclee said, you need to set your effects unit to wet only... this is called "dry kill" on TC ELectronics units. I use a G-Force in a parallel loop.

Positives, GREAT for delay, harmonizer stuff, chorus, flange, phase and reverb, does not alter your dry sound at all, doesn't require a lot of tweaking to get equal volume levels between patches. No changes in volume when changing effects.

Negatives, not good for EQ, compression, or noise gate. Effects are subtle and not "in your face".

 

[Damage Inc.]

Re: Parallel FX-Loop... Anyone?


That's screwy.....
But the thing is there's no ammount of wet knob on the amp, there's only a volume knob for the loop or is it that knob?
And another thing I don't use any multi-fx processors, just all seperated pedals like compressor, EQ, noise gate, delays, modulations, reverb that I all wanted to put in the loop cause that's probably best.
But I just found out it's a parallel loop so yeah I was counting on a series loop.
BTW it's the Randall VMax I was going to buy.
Isn't there maybe a way to to have it built into a series loop if the parallel loop really doesn't work for those pedals?

- Damage Inc.

 

[RGN]

Re: Parallel FX-Loop... Anyone?

That's screwy.....
But the thing is there's no ammount of wet knob on the amp, there's only a volume knob for the loop or is it that knob?
And another thing I don't use any multi-fx processors, just all seperated pedals like compressor, EQ, noise gate, delays, modulations, reverb that I all wanted to put in the loop cause that's probably best.
But I just found out it's a parallel loop so yeah I was counting on a series loop.
BTW it's the Randall VMax I was going to buy.
Isn't there maybe a way to to have it built into a series loop if the parallel loop really doesn't work for those pedals?

- Damage Inc.

The volume is the mix between wet and dry. Is this an ENGL? If you put the volume at 100% it is going to act like a serial loop. I'd put the delay and reverb in the loop (if it worked OK, those loops are really designed for a rack unit) and use the others (EQ, cpmpressor) in front of the guitar. Hope that helps!

 

[ratherdashing]

Re: Parallel FX-Loop... Anyone?

That's screwy.....
But the thing is there's no ammount of wet knob on the amp, there's only a volume knob for the loop or is it that knob?

That's probably it. I don't know why they would call it a "volume" knob. On most amps they would call it "mix" or "blend" or something like that. All the way down is 100% dry, and all the way up is 100% wet.

And another thing I don't use any multi-fx processors, just all seperated pedals like compressor, EQ, noise gate, delays, modulations, reverb that I all wanted to put in the loop cause that's probably best.
But I just found out it's a parallel loop so yeah I was counting on a series loop.

Put your noise gate and compressor between the guitar and the amp. Everything else can go in the loop. Compressors and noise gates generally aren't meant to go in an effects loop - they should be in front of the amp. You may also have better luck putting your EQ in front too.

Isn't there maybe a way to to have it built into a series loop if the parallel loop really doesn't work for those pedals?

You don't need to do this, nor would you want to. By turning that "volume" all the way up, you basically have a serial loop.

Anyway, experiment with your setup until it works for you. There isn't really one "perfect" way to do it.

 

[Damage Inc.]

Re: Parallel FX-Loop... Anyone?


Okay, yeah well I don't have anything to try out with, cause I still have to buy the amp.
But I'm saving up money for a long time to finally buy the Randall VMax.
It seems the only amp that fits for me and also my budget.
But one person sais: "If you put the volume at 100% it is going to act like a serial loop."
And another person sais: By turning that "volume" all the way up, you basically have a parallel loop.
So what is it? :laugh2:
And why would they only put a parallel loop in if it wouldn't work right for all your pedals...

- Damage Inc.

 

[ratherdashing]

Re: Parallel FX-Loop... Anyone?

Oops, I meant to say "serial" :smack:. Post has been edited. Sorry!

The pedal suggestions have nothing to do with the fact it's a parallel loop. I would recommend that for any effects loop.

Generally, you should put your gain-based effects (OD,distortion,compressor,EQ,noise gate) between your amp and your guitar. This is because you want these effects to be applied before the amp's tone enters the picture. Timing and phasing effects (chorus,reverb,flanger,phaser,delay, etc.) work well in a loop, because they aren't changing the tone of the amp - they are simply phasing it or echoing it.

I know that's not a great explanation, but it is something guitarists have known for years: gain-based effects go in front, everything else goes in the loop.

Like I said though, when you get the amp experiment with your setup and see what works for you. Good luck!

 

[Damage Inc.]

Re: Parallel FX-Loop... Anyone?

Oops, I meant to say "serial" :smack:. Post has been edited. Sorry!

The pedal suggestions have nothing to do with the fact it's a parallel loop. I would recommend that for any effects loop.

Generally, you should put your gain-based effects (OD,distortion,compressor,EQ,noise gate) between your amp and your guitar. This is because you want these effects to be applied before the amp's tone enters the picture. Timing and phasing effects (chorus,reverb,flanger,phaser,delay, etc.) work well in a loop, because they aren't changing the tone of the amp - they are simply phasing it or echoing it.

I know that's not a great explanation, but it is something guitarists have known for years: gain-based effects go in front, everything else goes in the loop.

Like I said though, when you get the amp experiment with your setup and see what works for you. Good luck!

Ah okay, but I will use the amps distortion so yeah.
I got it about the delays and modulations and stuff, I'm more worried about the EQ, compressor, noise gate.
Okay probably the compressor and gate in the front.
But since the graphic equalizer of the amp is really IN the amp, why shouldn't the graphic EQ PEDAL be in the middle of the amp?
Cause it's really to control the amps tone so isn't it supposed to be as good as IN the amp?
Plus I've heard everywhere that the EQ should be in the loop well ofcourse when you're talking about a series loop.
But I just don't want this loop to cut on my effects or anything, that's all.
Why are they making everything so difficult, not just like 'button on, delay on, button off, delay off' and no crap .

- Damage Inc.

 

[RGN]

Re: Parallel FX-Loop... Anyone?

You would never use an EQ in a parallel loop. Think about it, you'd have a dry signal without EQ and a wet signal with EQ. So, you'd get a weird effect of having two very similar signals playing at the same time. Uck!!!! Delay, is much different, you get a dry signal and then wet delayed signal... that is perfect. You need to delay and/or modulate the dry signal in a parallel loop.

 

[ratherdashing]

Re: Parallel FX-Loop... Anyone?

The EQ will probably be fine in the loop if you really must put it there. Most players I know use their EQ pedal for a mid boost when soloing, and they put it in front of the amp.

It doesn't have to be complicated if you don't want it to be. You could chain up all your pedals in front of the amp, and forget about the loop entirely. It probably won't sound quite as good, but less cables is always nice

 

[ratherdashing]

Re: Parallel FX-Loop... Anyone?

After reading RGN's latest post, I realized that what I just said only applies if you are going to have the effects loop set 100% wet. If not, do as RGN says.

:banana:

 

[Damage Inc.]

Re: Parallel FX-Loop... Anyone?


Ah, so with a parallel loop you actually HEAR TWO signals (the dry and effected one)?
But that would be weird cause most of the time the meaning of putting an effect on is to totally change your dry effect : S .

And btw, I use the EQ mostly to get different standard distortion sounds.
For example one with less mid, one with more mid, one with more treble or one with extra low etc.
It's really about the sound of the amp, of a distortion sound (also clean tho).
I'm going to put one standard sound in the amp, and make more different sounds with the EQ and I guess it shouldn't be the signal that comes from the guitar that should be changed but in the amps 'outcome'.
Like it should me MADE by the amp not made by the guitar (you know if you would put it in front of the amp it's like the equalized signal is coming from the guitar).

- Damage Inc.

 

[ratherdashing]

Re: Parallel FX-Loop... Anyone?

Ah, so with a parallel loop you actually HEAR TWO signals (the dry and effected one)?

Correct.

But that would be weird cause most of the time the meaning of putting an effect on is to totally change your dry effect : S .

Not necessarily. Remember how I said there are effects that should be put in front of the amp, and others that should be in the loop? The type of effect you put in the loop (chorus, delay, reverb, etc.) should have both wet and dry components in the sound. A delay pedal, for example, outputs the original sound (dry signal), plus one or more echoes of that sound (wet signal). The output of the pedal is a mixture of those two sounds. Most effects have a control on them that lets you adjuts the balance between the dry and wet signals, usually a "level", or "mix" knob. This works on the same principle as the loop's "volume" knob on your amp.

What you would do with your parallel effects loop is set all your pedals in the loop to 100% wet, then use the loop volume to adjust the mix between dry and wet signals.

And btw, I use the EQ mostly to get different standard distortion sounds.
For example one with less mid, one with more mid, one with more treble or one with extra low etc.
It's really about the sound of the amp, of a distortion sound (also clean tho).
I'm going to put one standard sound in the amp, and make more different sounds with the EQ and I guess it shouldn't be the signal that comes from the guitar that should be changed but in the amps 'outcome'.
Like it should me MADE by the amp not made by the guitar (you know if you would put it in front of the amp it's like the equalized signal is coming from the guitar).

- Damage Inc.

That may make sense to you now, but when you try the EQ with your new amp, I'm sure you will decide it sounds better in front. It doesn't matter though: whatever you think sounds best is what you should do.

 

[fenderiarhs]

Re: Parallel FX-Loop... Anyone?

Question:in a parallel effects loop but with the amps effect mix set at 100% i should use on my rack effect direct IN or direct OUT?????

 

[RGN]

Re: Parallel FX-Loop... Anyone?

Question:in a parallel effects loop but with the amps effect mix set at 100% i should use on my rack effect direct IN or direct OUT?????

Sorry, I totally do not understand your question dude......

 

[benjaturner]

Re: Parallel FX-Loop... Anyone?

Hello everyone, I read this thread with interest as my amp has both a series loop and parrallel loop. I've ended up not using the parrellel because I run a volume pedal through the loop and I want to be able to kill my sound. Does this sound like a good idea to other forum users? I'd never really thought about using both before but I can't see a reason not to. Then I could run delays and modulation through the parrallel loop and the volume pedal exclusively through the series loop, or even infront with EQ, compression and O/D's. Any thoughts please, you guys really seem to know your loops, lol.

 

[Damage Inc.]

Re: Parallel FX-Loop... Anyone?

Hello everyone, I read this thread with interest as my amp has both a series loop and parrallel loop. I've ended up not using the parrellel because I run a volume pedal through the loop and I want to be able to kill my sound. Does this sound like a good idea to other forum users? I'd never really thought about using both before but I can't see a reason not to. Then I could run delays and modulation through the parrallel loop and the volume pedal exclusively through the series loop, or even infront with EQ, compression and O/D's. Any thoughts please, you guys really seem to know your loops, lol.

Well, I'd say you put your volume first right from your guitar to the volume pedal.
Cause it's like using the pedal instead of your guitar's volume knob.
Or am I wrong or totally not answering your question : P .

- Damage Inc.