Sascha Franck
Rock Star
- Messages
- 6,027
It's not exactly what I'm "after", but rather some sort of mix between observations and my own experience, resulting in certain "this could be done better without re-inventing the wheel or costing a fortune"s.
I mentioned most of it already, but here we go:
First off, there's two things that I think are just less than ideal hardware design.
The switches are too close to each other. Now, while I didn't see the device myself so far, I entered its dimensions on pedalplayground and compared to the HX Stomp. The switches of the latter are sort of as tight together as it could get. Any smaller and you're running into troubles to operate the inner switches (I already ran into some mal-operations stepping onto two switches simutaneously accidentally on the Stomp). The Dimehead is pretty much comparable in size but crams 4 switches into the same area where the Stomp has just three. That's just too close for proper operation on a busy live stage. And fwiw, this obsewrvation/conclusion is shared by quite some other folks as well.
Then there's the main tonestack pots. On any programmable device, it's just no good idea to use standard pots rather than endless encoders and some parameter readout (ideally via LED rings, but display-readouts would likely be fine as well). With standard pots you're inevitably running into parameter jumps or need to deal with some "soft takeover" function (which, from all I know, is not implemented in the Dimehead). Neither of those is a good solution and it defenitely doesn't matter that both Boss (with their ME 90) and NSDP (just to name two) are also going for that approach.
Similar things could be said for the operation of other parameters. One single parameter knob simply isn't great when adjusting plenty of parameters.
And while the amount of parameters accessible has been pretty limited at first, with additional FX being added, heck, even with a second NAM slot, you'll find yourself hopping between parameters a lot and the entire hardware design isn't doing that justice.
Without changing anything else, just considering the points mentioned, so far my recommendation would be:
1) Make the thing larger or reduce the switches to 3 and allow the user to connect 2 (or maybe even 4) external switches/pedals).
2) Come up with a decent navigation and editing system. Ideally a touchscreen to select (and perhaps move) things, 5 endless encoders to adjust. A touchscreen is not mandatory, though, for a rather simple unit such as this an arrow L/R/up/down based system would possibly be absolutely sufficient. 5 encoders would however be mandatory. Having just 3 on the Stomp IMO is one of its absolutely biggest shortcomings. If you want a role model for that kinda design, look no further than the GT-1000 Core, it's almost perfect regarding all the mentioned issues.
Fwiw: 5 encoders: Gain, bass, mids, treble, volume - hence exactly what you usually need to adjust a NAM block.
IMO if all these had been covered with the first version, it might already have sold some more units. I don't think it would've been all that much more expensive to produce, either. I once looked up HX replacement encoders and they're pretty cheap. Without the click function (which isn't really a must-have), they could be much more robust for the same money.
Fwiw: A monochrome display is absolutely fine in my book, no need to waste money here.
---
Now, depending on where you'd want to take such a device, there's some other things. Some are lacking in comparison with other units, some may deserve more love.
Just coming to my mind, in no particular order:
- Onboard audio interface. That's pretty much a standard these days and it can come in very, very handy. Doesn't need to be the lowest latency thing ever, any cheap chip would do. Heck, Line 6's onboard interfaces are sort of the worst in their class and yet they can be used just fine. In a perfect world, the device could also be USB bus-powered (should be possible given the current power requirements).
- An editor. Depending on how well the device is designed, an editor isn't all that mandatory, but in case you have it mounted on a larger scale pedalboard that you can't easily lift up, an editor is most welcomed.
- Stereo operation. No idea how the thing works internally, so this might add quite some cost as it'd require additional CPU juice, but at these fantastic technical values along with an option to load long IRs for reverbs, mono-only operation is wasting some potential. Now, personally, I usually play strictly mono, but if I were to come up with any kind of setup suitable for wild and wet ambient dreams, I'd absolutely love an option to load some crazy IRs and have them processed stereo.
- External control ins (already mentioned briefly above). Could reduce the amount of on-unit switches and could as well allow for realtime control of whatever parameters. Especially in case all you want is some simple parameter control through a pedal, MIDI only is a bad solution as expression pedals with MIDI out are quite expensive. Adding a MIDI pedal with expression ins is a pretty convoluted approach just for that task.
- MIDI thru. No explanation required.
- More FX. Not going into any details because my personal needs are extremely modest here. However, in addition to the typical suspects (modulations, delays, reverbs), I'd defenitely like to see some EQs.
- Improved NAM block. Look at the one in Two Notes' Genome. It's most excellent IMO, allowing you to get the most out of a capture. Along with such an improved block, there should be block presets (so the rest of your patch could stay intact).
- Global blocks. I am requesting this from each and every modeling device. Because every modeling device should have it. Tell a loaded block to be a global one and have any adjustments made within that block valid for all patches using that block. Take the GT-1000 as a role model. The Kemper's parameter lock function is serving sort of similar purposes, too, but the GT-1000 has it sort of perfect, from all I know (will buy one when I'm back from a tour in 4 weeks, so I'll finally be able to share details, there's very little only information about that kickass feature).
---
I could possibly write all day long, but it'd likely go wasted, so I rather don't.
However, as you can see, there's some things that, while requiring a new hardware revision, would defenitely not break the bank. And then there's some other things that only needed new software (some of that new software however required some new hardware to work properly).
Last edited:
