#1
I made these 2 yesterday for fun-






both are the same design, both sound identical, both will last forever unless thrown into a volcano.

however, would you buy one over the other for the way it looks inside?


similar to this, same pedal, same sounds, different construction-






does the internal construction of a pedal influence your decision to buy a pedal?
mojostompboxes.com
#2
I wouldnt care.

I dont look inside my pedals.

Perv.

1977 Burny FLG70
2004 EBMM JP6
2016 SE Holcolmb
#3
I would always choose the neater one if the price is the same just because alot of people want neat so if I sell it later the neater one might sell quicker or sell for a bit more or something. Personally, I don't care much as long as its not a trainwreck or something. Performance is what matters.
Ibanez SIR27
Pod HD500x

RIP:
Mesa Boogie Roadster 2x12 combo
Cmatmods analog chorus, phaser, tremoglo, signa drive, butah, and deeelay
walrus Audio Descent
#5
Just as someone said above, a cleaner pedal is always preferred. But personally, when it comes to purchasing a pedal, I'll plug it in and play it. I usually don't open the back and peer inside.
2005 MIA Fender Telecaster
Dunlop Hendrix Wah Sig.
Ibanez T-808
Fulltone OCD
Big Muff Pi w/Tone Wicker
Fulltone Mini DejaVibe
EHX Holy Grail Reverb
Catalinbread Sagrado Poblano Boost
50W Kustom Defender
#8
as long as it has a reputation for reliability then i don't care
[Cool Post-N00b of the Pedalboard Thread]
Guitars:Fender Am. Standard Telecaster, Gibson SG
Amp:Fender Blues Jr.
Pedals:EQD Dream Crusher->Polytune->PH-1r->Fulldrive 2->Barber LTD->Catalinbread DLS->CE-3->Strymon El Capistan->EQD Ghost Echo
#9
what happens if you play the messy ones near a 412?

wont that damage it?

1977 Burny FLG70
2004 EBMM JP6
2016 SE Holcolmb
#10
Price is a major influence on my opinion of that subject. Kind of like Rob said, if a pedal is expensive, I expect it to be built with the utmost attention to detail and quality. If a $300 pedal is a rat's nest inside then I'd feel like I was getting ripped off, why else would a pedal that costs $30 to make cost $300 if not for the fact that a lot of labor went in to making it neat and at least look nice.

Obviously if I bought a $50 pedal then my expectations would be much lower. However, I've bought plenty of "cheap" pedals, that looked much nicer than some of the $200+ pedals I've seen.
#11
can't say i'm really qualified to judge build based on the guts. sure you can see messy or neat but the parts may or may not be great i dunno. i lok for a decent casing and pots that seem well fixed but that's about it past the sound of course.
#12
quality is way overrated.


if it usually works i'm good with that.
I wondered why the frisbee was getting bigger, then it hit me.
#13
I look at a pedal like I look at a car. You wouldn't buy a brand new BMW M5 if the interior was a mess; tears in the leather, parts not assembled correctly, wires hanging out from underneath the dash. Sure it still looks great on the outside, and it still drives and performs great, but if you pay for something at that kind of a price you would expect it to be in top shape, inside and out.
#14
Quote by chip46
I look at a pedal like I look at a car. You wouldn't buy a brand new BMW M5 if the interior was a mess; tears in the leather, parts not assembled correctly, wires hanging out from underneath the dash. Sure it still looks great on the outside, and it still drives and performs great, but if you pay for something at that kind of a price you would expect it to be in top shape, inside and out.


how often do you sit inside a pedal.
mojostompboxes.com
#16
I bought a behringer pedal because I liked the sound...
But you're talking like, built stuff.
In this case, as long no leads can end up touching, i'm fine with it!
I'm up for building you a pedal.
(Or modding nearly anything moddable)
(PM Me.)
#17
If it were someone like me who doesn't have experience in building pedals, I'd be concerned from a structural point of view.

Would it break if I was travelling with it because it's not mounted on a PCB screwed into the box? What if something falls out while playing? It doesn't look very sturdy, etc, etc.

I know it's probably not the case, and I'm sure it's not, but someone who's inexperienced might look at that and say "Hmm, doesn't look very sturdy, looks like it'll break easier. I'll just buy a Boss instead, they're strong."

Quote by SimplyBen
That's the advantage of being such a distance from Yianni. I can continue to live my life without fear of stumbling upon his dark terror.


Quote by Toppscore
NakedInTheRain aka "Naked with shriveled pencil sized bacon In The Rain"
#18
Quote by chip46
I look at a pedal like I look at a car. You wouldn't buy a brand new BMW M5 if the interior was a mess; tears in the leather, parts not assembled correctly, wires hanging out from underneath the dash. Sure it still looks great on the outside, and it still drives and performs great, but if you pay for something at that kind of a price you would expect it to be in top shape, inside and out.



I like this analogy.


Those cheap $30 - $50 pedals usually have a nice build quality, but when you mass produce them, or outsource, you look for ways to make every thing easy as possible to build.
Board mounted everything. No wires makes for a tidy and easy to assemble inside.
Not that that is the best way, but it works well.

If I pay $30 for a pedal, I don't really care is its a mess inside.
If I pay $300+ for a pedal, It should look like it was assembled by NASA.

Its called attention to detail.

If the builder didn't take much care in the final assembly, and its appearance, then how can I trust them to take any care in selection of components?
Last edited by CodeMonk at Oct 26, 2011,
#20
Hell yeah it matters. It may not influence my first purchase because I haven't seen inside it yet but once I buy something the first thing I do, almost before I even plug it in, is to have a look inside. If I don't like what I see I will never buy from that company again. They only get one chance.
Gilchrist custom
Yamaha SBG500
Telecasters
Randall RM100 & RM20
Marshall JTM45 clone
Marshall JCM900 4102 (modded)
Marshall 18W clone
Fender 5F1 Champ clone
Atomic Amplifire
Marshall 1960A
Boss GT-100


Cathbard Amplification
My band
#22
We just had to suck it and see, 311. The JCM900 is a classic case in point. It took quite a while for their true nature to filter through the muso community because it was all word of mouth. If it had been released today the outrage would have been almost instantaneous thanks to the net. Information moved a lot slower then. A lot of people bought the JCM900 and thought "why is it so fizzy?" and didn't work out why until it was time to replace the power tubes and rebias it. They slid out the chassis and were all " It says Valve Amp on the outside - wtf are all those opamps in there for? That aint no valve amp!!" Today, the interwebs would be full of within weeks of release.
Gilchrist custom
Yamaha SBG500
Telecasters
Randall RM100 & RM20
Marshall JTM45 clone
Marshall JCM900 4102 (modded)
Marshall 18W clone
Fender 5F1 Champ clone
Atomic Amplifire
Marshall 1960A
Boss GT-100


Cathbard Amplification
My band
#23
Quote by Tom 1.0
I wouldnt care.

I dont look inside my pedals.

Perv.


The next "pedal" I'm going to get a Vox valvetonix tone lab ST (front end of the amp I use now) I'm going to get some new gear and dig some out of the storage bin.

Signal chain will be something like this

Vox tonelab ST
JCA22H into a JCA12S 1x12 might get all crazy and get 2x12 cab

I only reason I'd open the tonelab is to change the tube.

I won't bore you with the collection of cheap mass produced pedals. I own and will be testing to see if I like how the sound with the JCA22
Gear
Jackson DK2
Ibanez RGR320EX
Guild X82 Nova
Godin Seagull S6

Vox V847
Vox VT40+ / VFS5 VT


Quote by FatalGear41

Right now, there are six and a half billion people on earth who don't care what kind of tubes you have in your amplifier
#24
Yes, because it indicates the level of care that the builder put into it. If it's looks like some shit he cobbled together in an afternoon, it probably is and I don't trust it. I want all of my pedals to look like this on the inside.










E-peen:
Rhodes Gemini
Fryette Ultra Lead
Peavey 6505
THD Flexi 50

Gibson R0 Prototype
EBMM JP13 Rosewood
Fender CS Mary Kaye

WTLT

(512) Audio Engineering - Custom Pedal Builds, Mods and Repairs
#26
Only pics I have of the Himmel are either after I tore it apart or out of focus.

E-peen:
Rhodes Gemini
Fryette Ultra Lead
Peavey 6505
THD Flexi 50

Gibson R0 Prototype
EBMM JP13 Rosewood
Fender CS Mary Kaye

WTLT

(512) Audio Engineering - Custom Pedal Builds, Mods and Repairs
#27
oh this tgp thread had my favorite pedal i've seen in a while...

this guy. love this guy

Prs se Holcomb is the answer
#28
Quote by Cathbard
We just had to suck it and see, 311. The JCM900 is a classic case in point. It took quite a while for their true nature to filter through the muso community because it was all word of mouth. If it had been released today the outrage would have been almost instantaneous thanks to the net. Information moved a lot slower then. A lot of people bought the JCM900 and thought "why is it so fizzy?" and didn't work out why until it was time to replace the power tubes and rebias it. They slid out the chassis and were all " It says Valve Amp on the outside - wtf are all those opamps in there for? That aint no valve amp!!" Today, the interwebs would be full of within weeks of release.

I see. Kinda like the Blackstar HT series of amps. Boom - gut shots and discussion were rampant pretty quickly. Wait, aren't they designed buy the same set of guys who designed the 900? Why would they purposely go through that twice? Is it because they think it sounds better? Is it cheaper to produce that way? Are tubes fragile? I mean WTF.


somewhat off-topic fella's but still relative
#29
this thread was fun until matt showed up and corked it all up.

I wondered why the frisbee was getting bigger, then it hit me.
#30
I don't mind how it looks inside as long as it's strong and holds out well. I'm more concerned about the exterior looks and actual sound. Then again I'm no technician so I probably have a different stance to someone who opens up their pedals and inspects build quality.
West Ham United
#31
Quote by 311ZOSOVHJH
I see. Kinda like the Blackstar HT series of amps. Boom - gut shots and discussion were rampant pretty quickly. Wait, aren't they designed buy the same set of guys who designed the 900? Why would they purposely go through that twice? Is it because they think it sounds better? Is it cheaper to produce that way? Are tubes fragile? I mean WTF.


somewhat off-topic fella's but still relative

Exactly. And you can see what the customer base demanded by what Marshall did to rectify things. They sold a lot of 900's but the outcry eventually reached beyond a few to the wider world enough that they released the SL/X to try to win people back. And how did they do it? Pulled out all that crap in the front end that the Blackstar boys had made and replaced it with a 12AX7. It really looks like a rush job too. They didn't change the master volume section and didn't even try to make a two channel preamp. Looking at the schematic I get this image of Jim Marshall standing there yelling, "just make it sound good and get it out there. So they only get switchable master volumes? GET IT OUT THERE, I LOOK LIKE AN IDIOT HERE!!!!!! And by the way, you lot over there are sacked. Go make that crap in your own factory"
Marshall moved further away with their next attempt. It's actually interesting to have the schematics for 2203 to DSL in front of you. You can see the progression. Further and further down the SS preamp path and then suddenly it was all gone and all that was left was a few switching transistors and the FX loop.
Gilchrist custom
Yamaha SBG500
Telecasters
Randall RM100 & RM20
Marshall JTM45 clone
Marshall JCM900 4102 (modded)
Marshall 18W clone
Fender 5F1 Champ clone
Atomic Amplifire
Marshall 1960A
Boss GT-100


Cathbard Amplification
My band
#32
I wouldn't buy a pedal that wasn't at least on perfboard
1978 Peavey T-40 -> Ampeg Micro-VR - > Ampeg SVT210AV + Ampeg SVT-15E
#33
Quote by CJ Noble
I wouldn't buy a pedal that wasn't at least on perfboard

You don't like point to point? Why's that?
Gilchrist custom
Yamaha SBG500
Telecasters
Randall RM100 & RM20
Marshall JTM45 clone
Marshall JCM900 4102 (modded)
Marshall 18W clone
Fender 5F1 Champ clone
Atomic Amplifire
Marshall 1960A
Boss GT-100


Cathbard Amplification
My band
#34
How much I pay shapes my expectations. If I buy something cheap, such as Danelectro, then I expect less, since they're cheaply mass produced, but if I'm buying something for a few hundred dollars or paying for a custom job, then yes I expect neatness and a tidy build. It might not have any bearing on the sound, but it just reflects on how much the builder cares.
#35
Quote by mmolteratx
Yes, because it indicates the level of care that the builder put into it. If it's looks like some shit he cobbled together in an afternoon, it probably is and I don't trust it. I want all of my pedals to look like this on the inside.

*sex pics*


This. Big time this.


But on the other hand, I'm also one for form over function. So I guess one could say that as long as it is neat for the sake of easy access for repairs/mods, not a shit load of jumpers except for where they are needed (i.e., to pots and switches and stuff), and it just shows that the builder takes pride in his work and isn't just in it to make a quick buck.
Gibson Les Paul Studio
Highway One Telecaster
Dean Evo
Mesa F-50
Laney GH50L
Vox AC30 C2
Ampeg V2
pedals