Transparent

What does this mean when used in describing effects pedals?

Thanks.

I'd rather wait to hear what others say first...but:

I'd say it has to do with how much of your original guitar tone shines through, and the sheer musicality it imparts as opposed to sterile, "buzzy diode clipping" of say, a bad DOD/Digitech distortion box from the '80s for example. Case in point, both channels of the Blackstone Mosfet Overdrive breaks up so naturally, yet not excessively, so that it could be said to have a rather transparent character reminiscent of a non-master volume amp cranked up a bit.

[/scratches head]

I pretty much agree. I think most people would agree that a transparent effect is one that lets the individual guitar show through. Basically, you play your Tele through the effect (whatever it may be) and you can hear it's your Tele, as opposed to your other Tele or your Strat.

Let's see if I can clarify a little as well, especially since I've used this term to describe a few pedals as of late!

Much of the time I play a clean signal. Meaning my guitar goes through the pedals, which are off, into my amp. I love this sound. It's what I bought my particular guitars for. Each one sounds different, but also sounds like itself... I don't think I'm putting this part clearly, but let's just say I like the way each one sounds for it's individuality and leave it at that.

When I introduce a pedal like an overdrive pedal or a delay pedal, sometimes I want my guitar and amp to still sound like my guitar and amp. Someitmes I add the effect for the effect of changing the sound of my gutiar and amp.

My OCD does this quite well. It makes it sound like I turned my amp up and am now experiencing tube overdrive, but with my guitar and my amp. The guitar signal comes through and it still sounds like whichever guitar I am playing. It adds dirt, but it doesn't change the tone.

My TS-9 Tubescreamer doesn't do this well at all! It colors the tone of my guitar and makes it sound more something... People tell me that's the 'mid hump' so, I guess that's what it is. But it changes the sound of my guitars. It makes my Strat sound less vintagey, almost less chimey (maybe?). It makes my Gretsch sound less clean and bitey. But it does what it's supposed to do, in that it adds a little grit to everything. But it's not a clean grit... Yeah I know, that's a screwy way to put it. I guess I'm saying it doesn't shimmer, but adds dirt. It's nto a bad thing, it's just different (though I don't like it as much as my OCD). It's also nto an extreme degree of change. It's rather subtle. But it's there.

My 70's Pedal (a silicon Fuzz) doesn't stay transparent at fuzzy levels at all. It adds a lot of treble to the fuzzy mix. It makes it 'fuzzy' with the grit (not fizzy though, if that makes any sense). But if I turn my guitar's volume back, the fuzziness leaves and turns a little creamy, then leaves altogether leaving nothing but my guitar signal. At full signal it sounds lo-fi compraed to my OCD. A sound I do use from time to time, but only for certain effect.

I use a Carbon Copy as my delay. I found the DD-3 digital delay I had on my board before really did color the tone of my guitar. It made it more sterile sounding. Not an extreme amount! But just a touch. It made it more trebly with short dealy times (which is what I use my delay for). My Carbon Copy does color the tone, but it's more organic and, to my ears, more transparent than the digital delay was. It still sounds like my gretsch or my Strat or my tele, not processed, like the DD-3 did.


I use all of these pedals for different things. I keep the fuzz and OCD on my board all the time now, I may rotate the TS back in when I rebuild my board and make room for it. I play a lot of cover stuff, so I like having the different flavors available. I never thought I'd have three dirt boxes on my board, but I enjoy them all for diffrent reasons... transparent or through rosey lenses!

Okay...here goes:

Transparent is pretty much a buzzword used by pedal makers, music stores, et al.

I'm not saying that it's a null term, rather that it tends to get thrown around a lot, and also is nondescript or sometimes misleading as to what's actually going on.

A close second (but more abused) buzzword is clarity. Oftentimes, a pedal will be described as having the clarity increased to make the pedal more transparent. It is also typically followed with a phrase along the lines of, "it's like taking a blanket off of your speakers."

The definition/description becomes even more vague when it's compared against another negative buzzword or vague term, like buzzy, fizzy, dark, or thin, to name a few.

My definition of transparent is exactly that - transparent! If the pedal does anything other than mess with the sheer amplitude of the signal, it isn't transparent. By the immutable law of physics, true transparency (in regards to guitar gear) doesn't really exist, and if it did, you probably wouldn't like it.

There are a lot of pedals that don't alter the characteristics of the guitar signal by a large perceivable amount, so these might be included under the transparent umbrella just by the skin of their teeth, IMO.

I tend to default to the terms clean and dirty, which one could argue are just as vague as any other buzzword. I usually hope that clean speaks for itself, but I will try to describe the dirty sounds - edgy, gritty, smooth, and compressed are four of my favorites.

I try not to resort to colors, temperatures, terms that are synonymous with eating, or especially the term sterile. There's too much margin for error, IMO.

Thanks for the replies, guys. All very good explanations.

Being new to effects pedals, I sometimes have trouble understanding terms used. I was thinking that it meant transparent in the signal from the guitar to the amp when the pedal is off. (no loss in signal) :oops:

Thanks for clearing that up. :grin:

Thanks for the replies, guys. All very good explanations.

Being new to effects pedals, I sometimes have trouble understanding terms used. I was thinking that it meant transparent in the signal from the guitar to the amp when the pedal is off. (no loss in signal) :oops:

Thanks for clearing that up. :grin:

Some pedals have what's called true bypass, which means that when it's plugged in but not on, the signal does not at all pass through the pedal's circuitry. It's just cruises on through to the amp. Some people swear by it, some can't really hear a difference, and some just don't care.

Great explanations/definitions of transparency. I appreciate everyone taking the time to answer questions like these. That's why I like this forum.

I try not to resort to colors, temperatures, terms that are synonymous with eating, or especially the term sterile. There's too much margin for error, IMO.

So, if I described my OCD as like a drink of tall cool water with blue ice, but my Tubescreamer as a chocolaty piece of dark brown, tall cake with fudgy icing... that might drive you nuts? :mrgreen:

I know I'm a donkey, but I couldn't resist.... You should have heard me complain about art school when I was younger! LOL

The term "transparent" never made any sense to me when describing OD pedals. If it sounded "transparent", it shouldn't change the sound at all. ;) I believe "natural" is much better adjective to use to describe pedals.

You should have heard me complain about art school when I was younger! LOL

No harm, no foul - I have a "B.S." in Studio art!

I really don't mind most jargon that guitarists use, I just don't like when vendors, stores, et al start throwing out descriptions, and they become buzzwords that end up giving a reference that's akin to a sense other than hearing.

IMO, transparent, clarity, fluid, and "it's like taking a blanket off of the speakers" were all put forth as marketing hooks by folks standing to make money off of them. Another personal peeve phrase of mine is, "this product will make all of your other ones sound broken." If that's the case, it's the last thing I would ever want to buy!

+3 .011

Transparent, I get. Can someone explain "sterile" to me?

One person's transparent is another's sterile.

Usually, the sterile tag gets slapped on digital pedals, because real analog parts have just got to sound better than a little computer in a box, right?

For some folks, there will be no conversion, until every last bucket brigade chip is used up (or similar).

In reality, digital at least has the potential to be more, uh, transparent, since digital clipping results in a total loss of signal. The trick is converting the signal to zeroes and ones, processing them, and then converting them back. All in a day's work for well designed hardware.

Digital delays in particular have come a long way, with analog massaging to soften the repeats, or even add some funky regeneration. You can also do things with DD that are nearly impossible with analog - cleanly sync'ed loops, backwards phrases, tap tempo, multi tempo, stereo pong, and looooong delays, just to mention a few. For this reason, the Line 6 DL4 is in the history books as being a beloved modern delay - and it's embraced by many of the big names.

But I guess that the opposite of sterile would have to be either fertile or contaminated, but I have yet to hear those as pedal terms.:wink:

What ever happened to just saying that it sounds bad, good or great? If you can convey that simple idea, it should be worth it for others to go check it out...

One person's transparent is another's sterile.

[snipped a little for bandwidth]

But I guess that the opposite of sterile would have to be either fertile or contaminated, but I have yet to hear those as pedal terms.:wink:

What ever happened to just saying that it sounds bad, good or great? If you can convey that simple idea, it should be worth it for others to go check it out...


11, I see where you're coming from and agree with 99.9% of what you're saying. Marketing speak is ridiculous. I know I did marketing for good long while (and still do for my own business).

But my question becomes then, if I like my OCD and I say it is a great pedal, how would I describe what is great to me? If someone says can you compare the Bad Monkey to the OCD, do I say, I like one, but don't like the other? :mrgreen:

I can post examples here, once I get a decent microphone, but until then... I agree you with you 100% that marketing hype from a pedal dealer or builder is about as worthless as me in an orchestra, but give me some good words I can try to incorporate into my vocab when reviewing toys. :grin:

Transparent = ????

How about: The waveform of the signal as passed through the components becomes unaltered with regard to the proportion of highs, mids and lows when measured by my aural measuring fixtures (my ears) :mrgreen:

LOL, I love these discussions! Guess I'm too philosophical! I should go play some now.

But my question becomes then, if I like my OCD and I say it is a great pedal, how would I describe what is great to me? If someone says can you compare the Bad Monkey to the OCD, do I say, I like one, but don't like the other? :mrgreen:

I understand, and at the end of the day, how we choose to describe things is really a personal call.

I just don't like when my perception gets clouded, personally.

When I think that something sounds good, I typically try to give a recorded standard of something as an example. Still not universal by any means, but it will typically give the person who's querying tonal specifics a sort of ballpark measure. I might say that it's dirty and overdriven like the rhythm part in Brown Sugar, has edgy characteristics like Elliot Randall's leads in Reelin in the Years, or is a nice mix of clean and dirty, with lots of harmonic overtones like Angus' intro chords on Walk All Over You. If it differs from the recording, I try to give aural details that make sense, like it's more percussive, doesn't have quite the same top end, there's less dynamic range, etc.

When I think that something sounds bad, I typically refer to my reactions on how it came up short. Things like it just wasn't very inspiring to play through my rig, there just didn't seem to be enough top end detail to my liking, I couldn't dial out enough bass to get a good tonal balance, or simply that it didn't do as good of a job as a certain mass produced pedal that most folks are somewhat familiar with.

None of it's out of bounds, though. It's more up to the person asking to provide more details if words like lush, creamy, glassy, brown sound, fluid, sheen, sparkle, etc. aren't hitting the target.

What does this mean when used in describing effects pedals?

Thanks.

Very little ;)

I understand, and at the end of the day, how we choose to describe things is really a personal call.

I just don't like when my perception gets clouded, personally.

When I think that something sounds good, I typically try to give a recorded standard of something as an example. Still not universal by any means, but it will typically give the person who's querying tonal specifics a sort of ballpark measure. I might say that it's dirty and overdriven like the rhythm part in Brown Sugar, has edgy characteristics like Elliot Randall's leads in Reelin in the Years, or is a nice mix of clean and dirty, with lots of harmonic overtones like Angus' intro chords on Walk All Over You. If it differs from the recording, I try to give aural details that make sense, like it's more percussive, doesn't have quite the same top end, there's less dynamic range, etc.

When I think that something sounds bad, I typically refer to my reactions on how it came up short. Things like it just wasn't very inspiring to play through my rig, there just didn't seem to be enough top end detail to my liking, I couldn't dial out enough bass to get a good tonal balance, or simply that it didn't do as good of a job as a certain mass produced pedal that most folks are somewhat familiar with.

None of it's out of bounds, though. It's more up to the person asking to provide more details if words like lush, creamy, glassy, brown sound, fluid, sheen, sparkle, etc. aren't hitting the target.

I like your examples reference. I think that's a very good way to go about it!

I agree there are some words that I probably use which are ambiguous at best... They make sense to me when I type them. I think I'm going to try and adopt some of your example methodology into my own descriptions.

However, I still think my OCD is transparent to my guitar tone! :shock: LOL


Have fun y'all,

Transparent?
I would say a Metal master or DOD American Metal pedal do not fit in as Transparent or any distortion pedal for that fact.
To me Metal Pedals fall way below the word Transparent.
http://www.tdpri.com/telephoto/data/500/JAMES-B.jpg

I would think sterile is another term that opposes transparent. If a pedal changes your tone by taking away some warmth, that's what I would call sterile.

Does anyone know a mod for tubescreamers to make them more "transparent" or "natural"? I want more of my original tone to come out while still added the overdrive to it. My tubescreamer is either going to have to be moded or replaced because it doesn't sound really anything like the original tone that goes into it. I might try a Digitech bad monkey from the suggestions of many TDP'ers, or I might try to save up and get a fulltone fulldrive. I've read they are supposed to be close to the tubescreamer in gain, but much more, how would you say, transparent?

A mod for an overdrive or distortion pedal to make it more transparent is very simple, and please excuse my simplicity, but just turn down the gain. More volume and less grit.

Heck, if it was me I'd just unplug the pedal, turn the amp up and use the volume control on my guitar.

Transparent is a guitar and an amp. There is nothing more transparent than that as far as I know.

Bob

That is not simplicity for my set up. That is irrelevant. I have clean tones that I need to get at the same volume as overdriven tones because some song call for a clean lead ride. Turning the amp up to get overdrive would, first make the amp to loud at most gigs, and second, would make the volume of clean a lot quieter than the overdriven tone. I didn't ask for someone to come up with a change to be made to my setup. I simply asked if anyone knew of a mod that would help keep more of my original tone when using a TS9. I also have a different boss pedal for higher gain distortion. I set it up with the amount of drive I want, but set the level on it to still be the same volume as my clean tone. Otherwise the sound man would hate me for having so many volume fluctuations.

That is not simplicity for my set up. That is irrelevant. I have clean tones that I need to get at the same volume as overdriven tones because some song call for a clean lead ride. Turning the amp up to get overdrive would, first make the amp to loud at most gigs, and second, would make the volume of clean a lot quieter than the overdriven tone. I didn't ask for someone to come up with a change to be made to my setup. I simply asked if anyone knew of a mod that would help keep more of my original tone when using a TS9. I also have a different boss pedal for higher gain distortion. I set it up with the amount of drive I want, but set the level on it to still be the same volume as my clean tone. Otherwise the sound man would hate me for having so many volume fluctuations.

I hear you, but the "less gain" suggestion may still be worth a go. Your Tube Screamer should also have a level knob. Just back off the gain some and make up for the volume loss with the level knob, and see where that gets you. It may be that the tiny bit of pedal grit (with "extra" tone, but less than before) plus the grit from more actual volume hitting the amp will give you what you want.

I don't have the gain set high on the tube screamer. I use it for a slight gain. The drive is usually set around 10 o'clock. It doesn't matter where the gain is set, it still colors the tone quite a bit.

Hmmm. Maybe not mods, but...

I may be wrong here, but I think it's fair to say that the boosted midrange frequencies really define so much of the color (or shall I say colorization?) that is inherent to the TS circuit, even if the gain is set fairly low. Simple gain issue aside, to me a more objectively "transparent" version would be dictated by flatter midrange response with the option of a generally boosted sound complemented by a natural, fairly mild amp-like breakup on tamer settings...

Crap, I think I just described an OD-3. :shock:

I have two suggestions for you. I have two pedals that kind of fit the bill that I believe that you are looking for.

Maxon OD-9 with Analogman Silver Mod: This is basically a TS-9/808 type pedal that has been modified to have less mid-range (still some there) hump and slightly less drive. I believe Mike can modify your TS9 to have this mod (see Analogman website and look up silver mod). I like the Maxon pedal because it has atrue un-buffered bypass.

Analogman King of Tone v.4: This a very transparent pedal that is stock as a clean boast and OD (reconfigurable in a variety of ways with dip switches) that has very little EQ coloration to the Guitar + Amp tone. One of my favorite pedals. They are way over priced these days (ebay) and their is a 2 year waiting list.

So if you already own a TS9, you might consider the Analogman Silver mod.

Best,

Bob

I'll lok into the Analogman mod to see what the cost and turn around time is on that. I don't have anything to take the place of the ts9 right now while it gets modded by Analogman, but I'll see if a friend can't lend me something if I go that route.

Is the od3 simular in drive caracteristics without coloring so much as the ts9?