Henriksen Bud Six - Using the same pedalboard for both channel loops?

[Woody Sound]

Would this work? Two stereo outs (ring-tip) from the bud, connected to two mono Y cords connected to the pedals.

[sgosnell]

How is the guitar going to be connected?

[Woody Sound]

How is the guitar going to be connected?

Right into the 2 regular guitar inputs on the amp (ch1 & ch2). My rudimentary diagram is for the 2 dedicated efx loops (1 for ch1, 1 for ch2). Two guitars. I want to use both guitars/channels with the same pedalboard.

[ccroft]

Seems like it's worth a shot. Have you tried contacting Henrikson? I would think they've been around this race-track before, and might have the sure-fire answer.

(...it does seem a bit odd to design a 2 channel amp with separated loops unless they have an elegant work around. hard to believe they expect you to carry 2 boards)

[Woody Sound]

Seems like it's worth a shot. Have you tried contacting Henrikson?

Yeah I did, their contact page is acting a bit wonky, unless it’s my Mac/browser. Will try again on Mon.

[pauln]

Two guitars. I want to use both guitars/channels with the same pedalboard.

Not sure what you want:
- want to have two guitars connected each to its own channel and played one at a time
- want to have two guitars connected each to its own channel and both played at the same time

Your drawing suggests to me that with both channel volumes up both channels' pedal signals will be shared with the other; output from the pedal board splits to become the two returns for the two channel's FX loops:

- plugging one guitar into either channel will cause pedal board sound returned to both channels at the same time
- plugging in both guitars and only playing one of them will cause pedal board sound returned to both channels at the same time
- plugging in both guitars and having both being played will cause pedal board sound returned to both channels at the same time

All these share both channels' pedal signals as FX-returns to each other.

Having the two sends connect together may be problematic because those two signals are getting the same combined return signal; a slight difference between the two channels (gain, EQ, reverb) may cause phase anomalies (kind of seasick sound, worse with effects)...?

[Woody Sound]

(...it does seem a bit odd to design a 2 channel amp with separated loops unless they have an elegant work around. hard to believe they expect you to carry 2 boards)

Right. My Pearce had three loops. Two dedicated and one master. Now that's versatility.

[Woody Sound]

Not sure what you want:

- want to have two guitars connected each to its own channel and played one at a time

Yes, as above. Only one guitar/channel at a time, switching back and forth. The Bud has no channel switching, so I will be using the two guitars' vol controls to turn them on and off.

Thanks very much for your help.

[David B]

If you're content to use the same EQ/settings for both guitars, just get a simple AB input switch pedal (here's one for just £35 AB Switch Pedal – True Bypass - Bright Onion Pedals ) that way you can toggle between the two guitars, into the one input.

[sgosnell]

This seems to be the logical solution. Far less cumbersome and open to multiple failures than the proposed diagram. AB switches are almost failproof and idiotproof. Few things are really failproof, and nothing is idiotproof, but AB switches are about as close is you can come. I built one myself, using a cheap enclosure from ebay and a push-push switch, later a toggle switch because without a light it's hard to know what output is selected. With a toggle I can see where it's set. Commercial switches come with lights, but I'm too lazy and too cheap to install them.

[pauln]

Yes, as above. Only one guitar/channel at a time, switching back and forth. The Bud has no channel switching, so I will be using the two guitars' vol controls to turn them on and off.

Thanks very much for your help.

"...one guitar/channel at a time, switching back and forth."

It would not be one channel at a time, always both. The pedal board signal would be returned to each of the two channels' FX loop inputs, both channels' amps would play, even if you turned the volume of the guitar on the other channel all the way down, even if you turned that other channel's preamp volume all the way down; that other channel would have signal from the FX return... with shared returns, both channels play despite what you do upstream.

You might look at something like the Radial Engineering BigShot

The two loops are designed to hold pedals, but other things can be done:
- switch between amp channels
- "backwards" to switch between instruments
- switchable duplicate signal
- switchable independent ground lifts

The one I use is the old version pictured,
The current version has LED indicators!

[Woody Sound]

I've used a couple of Radial products, they are excellent. I shoul have said that the situation is steel string alternating with nylon string, completely different eq settings for eech.

[ccroft]

...The pedal board signal would be returned to each of the two channels' FX loop inputs, both channels' amps would play...

Nice diagnoses there Paul. I didn't see that. It does assume both channels share a power amp. Is that the case for Henriksen?

It looks like the Bud is a '2 amps in one' kind of thing, with a separate effect loop for each. There is a gain & volume control for each channel. There is no master volume that controls both from what I see. Do they share a power stage or is that separate too? If separate I guess he could kill the volume on the channel not in use.

To simplify: it comes down to sharing the same pedal board though the effects loops of two separate amps, each with different guitars. Or something close to that...

[pauln]

Nice diagnoses there Paul. I didn't see that. It does assume both channels share a power amp. Is that the case for Henriksen?

It looks like the Bud is a '2 amps in one' kind of thing, with a separate effect loop for each. There is a gain & volume control for each channel. There is no master volume that controls both from what I see. Do they share a power stage or is that separate too? If separate I guess he could kill the volume on the channel not in use.

To simplify: it comes down to sharing the same pedal board though the effects loops of two separate amps, each with different guitars. Or something close to that...

"If separate I guess he could kill the volume on the channel not in use." That channel's volume control is in its preamp stage and can't turn down what enters after that (FX return) before the power amp or amps.

It does not assume a shared power amp. The only assumption is the location of the FX loop being between the preamp and a power amp. The insertion of the return signals is therefore after the preamp and before the power amp(s). How does killing the volume of the other channel's preamp prevent the shared return from entering that channel?

I'm now about three levels deep into "even if..." here. Shared returns means "even if forever"...

Even if there were separate individual power amps for each channel, since the returns are shared before insertion into the power amps, the same signals presented in those returns would go to both channels' power amps... the preamp volume control can't attenuate the signal from the other channel.

Even if the two channels and two power amps were actually two completely separate amplifiers, with shared returns the unplayed channel's preamp is bypassed (including attenuation) and the power amp is fed directly by the FX return.

[ccroft]

I totally get what you were saying. I don't know that the volume control is in the preamp and that the insertion point is after it. I don't know enough about this amp's design to even talk about it. I should just keep my mouth shut. Easy enough.

[rpjazzguitar]

I imagine this as two y cables.

A takes the two sends and combines them.

B takes the one return and splits it.

Is that much right?

So, the power amps see the same thing no matter what. I don't see any potential for trouble there.

Y Cable A connects the two preamp channels at their output. I don't know if there's anything unhealthy about that. It would be changing what the amp sees coming back at it from the combined sends, if that's meaningful.

If there's no smoke or burning odor, It seems to me that it would work. The signal would be separate in the preamp stage and, thereafter, mono. Both power amps would see the same thing at all times. I don't see why the preamps' controls wouldn't adjust the sound individually, but I could be missing something.

[dconeill]

Don't know how many effects the OP wants to use on each channel.

But might it be easier to have two sets of effects on a single pedalboard, one for channel 1 and one for channel 2? There might be some duplication of effects in the two sets of effects, but the overall setup would be a lot less complicated, and there would be no possible mixing of the signals from the two guitars.

Something like:
Guitar 1 -> channel 1 -> send to pedalboard -> effectA #1, effectB #1, effectC #1, effectD #1 -> return to amp
Guitar 2 -> channel 2 -> send to pedalboard -> effectA #2, effectC #2, effectE #2, effectF #2 -> return to amp

Just to belabor the obvious, in the example there would be two copies of effectA and two copies of effectC on the pedalboard and one each of the rest.

While there's a cost associated with duplicating pedals, it might be less expensive than the cost of a sophisticated signal router/switcher that would take care of the design goal. The router/switchers I looked up were in the mid- to high-3 figures in price.

[omphalopsychos]

Some info on the Bud 6:

- Gain and EQ come before the fx loop.
- Master volume and reverb come after.
(You CAN completely attenuate a signal coming into the fx return using the volume control of that channel).

It's true that your schematic essentially sums the signals to mono and then splits that into two identical copies that are sent back to the amp. If you're ok with the idea of having two identical copies, then there's no point of even splitting them back out to stereo. You could just return the summed mono signal into one channel of the bud with its own master vol and reverb.

Since you are only using one guitar at a time, I don't see a reason to try to sum the signals. Traditionally, someone would just have a switching pedal before the amp so they can select Guitar A or Guitar B. If I understand correctly, you want to split AFTER the preamp stage because you want to use different EQ settings on the amp.

My advice is not to split them back into copies. I can't say for sure, but I agree with others that said that it could cause some anomalies. At least it creates more overhead (making sure the reverb and master volume are set the same). Do this instead. Take the "SEND"s from both channels 1 & 2 and input them to an ABY selector so that only one of them goes to your pedal board. Your pedal board sees a mono signal (from either ch1 or ch2). Send the output of the pedal board ONLY to channel 1. This way you only have to control the master and reverb settings in channel 1 and don't mess with potentially out of phase copies.