PepperPig,
Thanks for confirming that. I thought I was going mad!
Paul
“Funky Slap Back” - dedicated to Mark Warren, London, UK (Seaman - 2015).
Rockin’ out on the MULTIMOOG with MXR DELAY set to produce a SLAP BACK FX.
The SPEED is so fast that it sounds almost like double-tracking/chorus!
Performed in 1 x pass with exception to the INTRO and ENDING (which use a slightly different PATCH), and the PORTAMENTO FX (midway point OVERDUB) which uses a very LONG DELAY (time).
'Twas a bugger to try and play! 
It is uploaded to both You Tube and PicoSong:
Cheers,
Paul
Hello,
Here is an example of the artifacts on the MultiMoog with the MXR CC DELAY pedal.
I play a few notes in three different registers without the MXR, and then the same pattern again (more or less) with the MXR turned ON. The HIGHER I play, the MORE the artifacts become present.
I watched a couple of You Tube videos (of guitarists) and they both raved about how pure and clean the MXR delay FEEDBACK’s were (ie the reproduction tone was unaffected).
I uploaded the demo to PicoSound:
Much appreciated,
Paul
Just looked up the MXR carbon copy it’s just a simple up to 600ms delay - any Cubase Artist ones will be far better. monodelay, pingpong delay, StereoDelay - just type “delay” in the same searchbox you used before. If you want to make it sound a bit more analog just insert Magneto ahead of the delay to “soften” the sound a but. Quadrafuzz V2 also has its own built in delay so you can emulate old tapedelays. All of these are available in Cubase Artist.
If you want a pure artifact free delay the standard Cubase ones will give you exactly that. VST Amp rack also has delay pedals available.
PepperPig,
Yes that’s right, up to 600ms on the MXR.
Just seems to be an issue in the HIGH END on the MOOG. It is fine on my RHODES piano.
I will have a nose for the others (above) you kindly recommend.
So in other words, you think the CUBASE FX will produce much better results (than the MXR).
Much appreciated,
Paul
So it sounds like you are struggling with the difference between line and instrument level on your outboard gear. Here is a quicky explanation.
http://www.ovnilab.com/articles/linelevel.shtml
Keep in mind that your Carbon Copy is designed to work with low/instrument output devices (guitar) and that your Moog is an EXTREMELY hi output/line level device. What you typically need to do is really dial the moog output way down then feed the output of the carbon copy into a pre-amp/amp to get it back up to line level. Your Rhodes works because it has an instrument out.
When you describe the “high end” problem, it’s hard to tell if you are getting that due to clipping, or because of the normal frequency range of the carbon copy (again it’s made for a guitar). A Rhodes, even though it has a higher register than a guitar, is already greatly reduced high frequency content. Your Moog is sending tremendously more high frequency information at a much higher level.
Hi PepperPig,
Well I found the BOX but there is no MANUAL. I keep, and look after, all of my musical properties but it would seem strange that it came with no documentation at all?! Though maybe it did (I bought it a couple of years ago).
I watched some more demonstration You Tube videos on it this morning and it appears (unbeknown to me!) that if you open up the device, there are (what people call) ‘trimming pots’ with which you can modify how the TOP END FREQ’s react (or words to that effect). Though hardly anyone discusses this and it is only mentioned in passing. Nobody has demonstrated this and in all instances owners have RETAINED all settings as per FACTORY default. But this would mean changing the inner-settings each time I use it on my MOOG and on my RHODES.
Thanks a lot,
Paul
Thank you JMC,
I really appreciate you joining in the thread.
I will have a good read later.
But quickly just off the top of my head:
Ok, so the MOOG is still HIGH LEVEL even when I come out of the LO OUTPUT (-10dB). Incidentally, the VOLUME SLIDER on the MOOG was (in all recordings) set to FULL (ie 9/10).
Well if you mean the CUBASE FADERS running into the RED, then no. So no DIGITAL CLIPPING.
Sure, the MOOG produces far more COMPLEX an output than RHODES or GUITAR. However, if I ran the RHODES thru a (say) RING MODULATOR, and then into the MXR DELAY, then would I have the same kind of issue again (because of the complex FREQ’s) although of course this would not be as a result of LINE LEVEL.
Many thanks,
Paul
JMC,
Do you think a PREAMP would solve the issue and are they expensive please?
Ta,
Paul
hah! I wish I could give you a yes/no answer to either question.
Preamps cost from $40 to $40,000 …
The answer to “will it solve the problem”, maybe sometimes. 
Basically, different pedals and different output/input combinations work well or don’t work well. You never know until you try.
Your -10 pad setting should have let the Moog at least attempt to work well with the Carbon Copy. Didn’t know that the Mutli had that output to be honest.
I think you misunderstand what I was saying about the frequency thing. the CC was designed to work within the frequency domain of a guitar. A Rhodes has very similar frequency content to a guitar. A Moog does not … not even close. Analog gear is especially subject to this type of design. You really make it to work with a specific input level and frequency range. Digital is much more forgiving on that front. One of the reasons EchoPlexs were/are so sought after for keyboards is because the builtin pre-amp makes it a chameleon for dealing with both input and output levels (also the pre sounds awesome all by itself if you like that smooth rolloff sound some pres have).
However, the Moog should work well with a BBG delay, so I’m assuming you have level problems more the frequency problems. But, it’s something to consider. Also, using mismatched gear sometimes creates odd effects that you can actually use. It’s a total crap shoot.
I don’t know the delays that are included with your version of Cubase, but what you are trying to achieve with the CC is band reduction and degradation on each repeat. Plus it has modulation, which allows you to create subtle chorusing, or crazy detuned echos. I think you should have one with modulation, but I don’t know if you have one with an analog mode that replicates BBG.
Hi JMC,
Yep, it has a HI (+12dB) and LO (-10dB). The LO produces only about half the artifacts of the HI. Why do you call it a “pad” please?
Just to check, are you referring to the MULTI or the MXR CC here please?
On my very first UPLOAD (“East Quay Float”), I did not use the MXR at all (just a tiny amount of CUBASE REVERB). Fellow member Lukas criticised it (I wanted feedback so this was not unwelcomed!), but to me it sounded not too bad, and way CLEANER than the following UPLOADS (with MXR).
PepperPig kindly recommends both MAGNENTO and QUADRAFUZZ (which I have yet to try out).
Yes, the MXR CC has a a MOD switch which adds a little quasi-CHORUSING to REGENERATED signal (but not the ORIGINAL tone).
Could you please explain this sentence a little more:
Best,
Paul
I was referring to the CC when I said that analog gear is subject to design choices. So, when someone designs a guitar pedal, the types of filtering that occurs and circuit configuration will be voiced for a guitar. As I’ve said before, even though it is counter intuitive, a Rhodes or Wurly are actually voiced very similar to a guitar and seem to work well with guitar pedals.
A bucket brigade circuit loses frequency content and resolution on each echo. So the longer it goes, the less like the original sound the echo is.
Sorry I missed answering this in my other reply. Technically, the output is probably not a pad … I just refer generically to leveling switches that provide reduction in level as a pad. Probably because most pre-amps I’ve used have a level reduction switch labeled pad. The point is that you have a way to provide an attenuated signal to the pedal that is more in line with the level it wants. I think of that as padding the signal for possibly bad reasons.
Putting to one side the line/output/(expected)guitar signal level issues I really don;t think going to all this trouble is going to be worth it. As I said wearlier there are plenty of delays even with Cubase Artist - you can also download Steinberg’s vintage tape emulation delay free (Karlette) http://www.steinberg.net/en/support/unsupported_products/vst_classics_vol_2.html
If you’re new to all this then trying to confuse yourself with outboard effects is pointless - particularly as delays are one of the effects where, IMHO, the type you use doesn’t make that much of a difference - it’s how you use it that counts.
JMC,
Ok, thanks a lot.
And also mechanically both are constructed around having PICK UP’s.
Cheers,
Paul
JMC,
Oh ok I see. So like, as you say, a derivative of the word padding.
Ta,
Paul
Hi PepperPig,
Well I am going to try feeding the MULTI into the MXR with it’s VOLUME set as LOW as I can get it. It is certainly worth a shot at least.
Oh wow, I never knew that you could obtain such downloads for FREE on the Steinberg site! Cheers.
Mmm, ok. I guess I am trying to gather whether, very generally speaking, which one is BEST in the hardware vs. software debate. Though have spent three or so days messing with the MXR, I am getting more comfortable with getting the DELAY FX I want from it. Just a shame I/we have had to wade thru all this other nonsense in the mean time. Also, I am getting a feel for what WORKING METHOD best suits me.
I found the MAGENTO and QUADRAFUZZ:
Many thanks,
Paul
by the way, i would trust your ears, unless you want some signature modulation aka soundtoys echoboy or ohmboys, most delays will do and if it sounds good… you know ;]
Hi Lukas,
Cheers.
I am going to continue experimenting with the MXR CC because it does not seem to cause any issues (as far as my ears can tell [and I spent a great deal of time running comparisons]) in the MIDDLE and LOW registers. However, I will take a look at the VST FX options within CUBASE ARTIST.
Best,
Paul