… and now, my thoughts as to the question of the hour, “How does the Hydra compare to the Flint?” Before answering let me share the methodology of this exercise. To start, the Flint was taken off the board and the Hyrdra was given more than a full week of focused use and exploration. The Flint was then added back to the board, side-by-side with the Hyrda, where all settings were explored and various combinations thereof. Focus was placed as to the controls and, how easy it was to switch between settings and make adjustments. My conclusion as of now? The Hydra easily keeps stride with the Flint and, as to which one is the right choice for the user may simply come down to preferences and priorities.

I found the quality of the reverbs and primary control mechanics to be on par. The Hyrda felt like it had a bit more range, especially with the secondary/bonus control per algorithm. In the larger spaces to be dialed in on the Hall/Room settings respectively, I found there to be more discernible differences in comparison to the other reverb voices. The Hall on the Strymon is a bit softer space (the walls sort of disappear as they virtually move farther out) while the largest rooms on the Hydra sound more cathedral like with crisper reflections as the waves bounce off.

With respect to the tremolo/modulations, the Flint focuses mostly on period-specific flavors of tremolo providing some rich and unique characteristics in each – the Hydra offers more diversity by providing the Vibrato. Each offers the level boost to make up any perceived volume reductions due to the nature of the effect. I do like how the Flint has a dedicated switch for a quicker selection between tremolo types.

As we get to the topic of function and design, it is here where we will see some of the benefits of the coming to the market many years later as the Hydra offers some additional utility functions and controls, specifically: the stereo tremolo can be set to pan between channels and, the stereo outputs for the reverb can be set between either a wet/dry or traditional left/right configuration. The most obvious distinctions are with physical layout — the Hydra is housed in a normal-sized enclosure with side inputs and the Flint is a bit wider with top inputs. Depending on the cables used, any space saved may be negligible.

As I look down at the board, I have a hard time – at least at right now — seeing these as anything but equals, each having just one or two unique strengths they bring to the table and, very honestly, I would have a hard time choosing between the two; this, after owning the Flint for many years. For those interested, here is my review of the Flint from a few years back: NDP: The Strymon Flint | Reverb & Tremolo.

As I tend to take residency in my low-gain overdrive section more often than not, my curiosity with such pedals led me on a meandering exploration of the many great options that today’s marketplace has to offer and, while the focus here may be skewed towards low gain, the ability to reach into high gain territory is always a welcomed feature.

Pedals featured in this post (as pictured above):

• Barber Compact Direct Drive v.4 (British Voice Inspired),
• Benson Preamp (Preamp section from the Benson Monarch, influenced by the Marshall JTM 45)
• JHS Charlie Brown v.4 (JTM45 AIAB),
• Buffalo FX TD-X (Tubeless clone of BK Butler Tube Driver)
• Barber Gain Changer (American Voice Inspired – Not Pictured Above)

Pedals NOT discussed specifically in this post but, certainly in the realm of discussion:

• Thorpy Peacekeaper (link here to a NPD Review I posted): a great option with a lot of versatility but no longer in my possession
• Future Considerations: Greer Lightspeed, PettyJohn Chime MKII, and Boss Blues Driver Waza, Origin Effects Revival Drive.

​[The purpose of this post]

There are plenty of YouTube demos to include some great compare & contrast videos for all to enjoy and hear these pedals in action. My intent in sharing this particular post is to focus more on the control mechanics and provided voice offerings, similarity and differences of the characteristics thereof, to identify strengths and breadth of options; this, to address such questions like: ‘Which one best fits my needs & wants?’ or, ‘Which one might work best with my setup?’
[Compare & Contrast]

The five pedals in this compare and contrast share great similarities in some respects and, in others, are quite different. All excel in providing low-gain/cusp of breakup tones. Some observations:

• Build Quality is Excellent on All. The Charlie Brown (CB for short)and the Compact Direct Drive are, in what I would consider, more normal sized enclosures. The TD-X and Benson are a bit larger in size and, specific to the Benson, presented in an horizontal configuration. Extra points go to the JHS Charlie Brown for its fun, colorful and yet, simple design.
• The Benson Preamp, Charlie Brown, and Direct Drive all share the JMT45/Bluesbreaker circuit as a foundation, either in part or full. As such, one can dial-in (almost but never quite there) similar voices on all three pedals. Switching back and forth, there were times when I felt that the pedals were indistinguishable in voice and response and yet, to an OCD level of attention, one could certainly find differences to the feel and EQ structure.
• Specific to the the Charlie Brown and Benson, the CB provides a touch more ‘hands on’ control over the EQ/voice and manipulation thereof while the Benson forgoes a [MID] control by offering a [HIGH] and enhanced [BASS] control. To get these two pedals in the same ballpark, I keep the [MIDDLE] Control of the Charlie Brown just past Noon (~2pm) on the dial, adjust the [BASS] accordingly to match the Benson, and keep the [Treble] between 1~3pm. Whether the Benson is set for the the British or more American flavor (via the that enhanced [BASS] control I mentioned), the Charlie Brown keeps pace.
• As for the Barber Compact Direct Drive, while it provides just the Hi Cut control via the [Tone] knob (to note: always important to read the manual), the left toggle switch allows one to select 3 different EQ options that adjust the prominence of mids, bass, and/or provide a more flat voice. The Gain Changer is very similar but with a more traditional Tone knob. In this respect, these pedals cover a lot of ground with concerns to their EQ settings. Example: With the Direct Drive set on the low gain setting and, with the EQ switch set in the middle (mid focused), keeping the [Tone] control around 3pm give-or-take, the Barber can match many of the Marshall-esque voices of the other two pedals. It is only the lack of a dedicated BASS dial/control that introduces any sort of perceived limitation in comparison to the granular control provided by the other two pedals and YET, the reality, as I have come to find, is that the EQ offerings in the switch pretty much nail the most desired settings that I would have dialed in on the CB or Benson anyway. Additionally, the Barber Pedals have a few other aces up their sleeve to include a wide variety of Gain/Voice options that, something like the Charlie Brown does not offer.
• The voices offered by the Charlie Brown, Benson, Direct Drive, due to their inspirations, are very much in the same ballpark, at times rather indistinguishable but, as to feel and response (compression vs. more open), there are very subtle differences due to some nuanced differences in the circuit design/approach. This became more evident to me when observing how differently the pedals interacted with other drives/effects that followed after in the chain to include the amp itself. Example: With all three pedals being dialed in to the same approximate voice on one amp, if I was to then switch to another amp or drive pedal after (think: stacking), with nothing else having changed, I found their response/sound was slightly different in comparison than before — perhaps again, due to their circuit design and how those tones interact with things later-on down the chain. This isn’t drastic by any means but something worth noting.
• The Charlie Brown has the least amount of gain available really keeping true to its low-gain roots, hence why there is an Angry Charlie available for those who want more. The Barber Pedals, TD-X, and Benson can easily adventure into hi-gain settings.
• The Benson Preamp, when compared to the Charlie Brown, has just a bit more presence in its core voice characteristics. This can provide a touch more note articulation in certain settings but, as the Charlie Brown has the [High] control, the net difference is almost negligible.

[… and now for something a bit different, the Buffalo FX TD-X]

• The Buffalo FX TD-X is a Tubeless/9V Normal clone of the infamous Butler Tube Driver. It has far less mids than the other pedals but can go from boost/cusp-of-breakup drive to fuzz territory with ease. In keeping to the theme of this discussion, the [Gain] setting almost never passes 9pm for my intended use. To compare/contrast to the other pedals:
  • Due to lack of Mid Control on either pedal, the Benson (stronger mids) and the TD-X (more neutral/scooped) share little in common with concerns to voice. They both provide more gain on tap than the Charlie Brown.
  • Because the mids are adjustable on the Charlie Brown and the Barber Direct Drive, both can dial in very similar (never exact) voices/effect as the TD-X in the low gain settings. The Charlie Brown (with MIDDLE set around 11pm) has the slight advantage of having the [BASS] control to better match EQ settings depending but, is limited in its range of Gain/Drive while the Barber Direct Drive (with EQ switch set to the far left) can more than keep up with the TD-X in this respect. With the gain cranked, the TD-X maintains a smoothness throughout. The Barber in contrast has a bit more bite and growl. The point to be made here is that the Direct Drive and Charlie Brown can cover many of the root characteristics of the JMT45 circuit and/or Tube Driver vibes and yet, there is just always something special and different about the TD-X.
  • As the Gain Changer is a bit more mid scooped in nature and, much like the CB and Direct Drive, I was able to dial-in some very approximate tones to the TD-X but never quite get all the way there. Beyond the slight nuances of EQ/Voicing, there is this smoothness and tube-like saturation that the TD-X brings to the table. Like the Direct Drive, the Gain Changer can match the Gain levels of the TD-X and, I would suggest, to tryout on both pedals, leaving the gain switch set to the high setting and then dial back the [Gain] controlled with the knob to desired levels. In these settings, I found the breakup characteristics to match a bit better while introducing a bit of chewiness.
  • As Buffalo FX is no longer in existence, the Charlie Brown, Direct Drive, and Gain Changer might be nice alternatives for those looking to have a similar effect. Probably more so, and as recommended by Gilmourish.com for this purpose, check out: the Wampler Plexi-Drive and the Boss BD-2w.

As with so many things in the world of guitars and gear, much of this is a matter of taste and, how a certain pedal/effect plays with the rest of one’s setup. As stated in many of my reviews, I gravitate toward pedals that offer great flexibility and adaptability to whatever I might throw at them; this, to keep in a budget and the reality that I don’t have endless amount of space on my board to have a pedal of every flavor. Given a baseline and comparable quality of both effect voice and physical build, the most appropriate question is most likely ‘What option might best fit my board and find a solid match to my needs and wants?’

The last few weeks have been great fun and, at times neurotic, in jumping back and forth to better understand the personality of these pedals and, as to how they work for me and, fit/adapt with the rest of the rig. I really have a hard time choosing a favorite because each brings something unique to the table. I welcome everyone to chime in as to their thoughts, observations, and insights. Certainly, if I shared some incorrect information, please chime in as to the circuits and their inspiration, please chime in. Also — I have my board setup with the pedals as pictured above so if there are any specific questions , please feel free to ask and I will try to answer as best possible (this, to include the Barber Gain Changer).

If one ever so desired to embark on a challenge of epic portions but with little reward, to meander on the brink of madness … Congratulations, look no further, you’ve come to the right place. The task is really quite simple: compare and contrast the Chase Tone Secret Preamp & Catalinbread Epoch Boost, two pedals based on the same circuit; that of the fabled preamp found within the Echoplex EP-3. For those who like to live dangerously, feel free to add the ClinchFX EP-PRE to this mix (thankfully for my sanity, I did not have one at my disposal).

A very important note before venturing any further: There are countless threads and discussions, here and across the web, fueled with great passion and a touch of fanaticism, to include the insightful participation of their very proud designers (and rightfully so), as to the the level of authenticity of these circuits in comparison to that of the EP-3’s preamp. To this very point, and in writing this review, I just want to be clear that, beyond the cool backstory, I have little interest as to which one is most authentic. As I’ve never owned or played through an EP-3, my focus is on the intended use and resulting effect/end-tone of the circuit within my rig. Authentic or not, it needs to sound good, fulfill a meaningful purpose, and play nicely with the rest of my gear.

[Overall Impressions First]

Why wait to the end to share my conclusions from this exercise? Fantastic pedals of solid build quality and effect, I truly like them both and, as I only have space for one, I’m having a hard time choosing which one stays. More Similar than they are different, choosing between these pedals is like having to decide if one prefers Milk Chocolate or Dark Chocolate -or- Vanilla & French Vanilla. Beyond the inclusion of some bonus toppings (think: features), these pedals start off with the same core flavor, mixed with slightly different ingredients, resulting in very nuanced differences of tone (specifically: different parts of the EQ spectrum are emphasized.) Hoping this all makes sense for those still following along.

Based on hours of A/B testing (details of which provided below), the Chase Tone Secret Preamp (Dark mode) provides a more prominent representation of upper-mids and a dash more high-end, culminating in a tone that feels a bit more punchy and articulate (some users describe this as ‘having bite’). The Epoch Boost, by comparison, emphasizes the lower-mids in the spectrum while leaving the upper-mid to higher frequencies a bit more neutral, thus providing a more flat/mellow vibe with a touch of smokiness (read: smoothness). Important to highlight: the Secret Preamp does offer two additional EQ options , Bright and Mid, which I will discuss a bit later in this review. When either pedal is used on its own (no drive pedals or such), the difference, while discernable, is negligible. When combined with a drive pedal, and dependent on the voicing /EQ thereof, said differences become much more prevalent (Example: the Secret Preamp will punch the mids with added strength while the Epoch Boost adds a bit more growl.) Both are great and have their useful purposes — it really boils down to one’s taste and preferred flavor.

As to the resulting effect, both pedals are successful in providing some healthy warmth and fullness with a touch of articulation that, when combined, serve as a final coat of polish to one’s tone. Once engaged, the signal comes to life, providing some enhanced responsiveness and note clarity – Turned off, everything is left feeling a bit lifeless in comparison. As many have shared, these are the types of pedals that one takes for granted until it is turned off and then sorely missed.

[But what exactly does this pedal do?]

For those not as familiar with this particular effect/preamp, there are plenty of sources to get the history and technical information but, to offer a general overview of what it does: The [Volume] and/or [Preamp] controls on the pedals (as pictured below) provide the same exact functionality; from fully CCW to about 11~12pm, it acts as a volume control when engaged. The preamp accentuates varies frequencies sort of like a preset EQ with some slight compression built-in. After one reaches unity on said control and, continues clockwise from there, the circuit starts to boost the signal by several decibels until it reaches about 3pm on the dial. From 3pm until it is fully turned to the right, the decibels drop again to simulate a worn/vintage Exchoplex unit. The practical effect of these control mechanics is that, as one moves the controls from 12pm and moving fully to the right (5pm), the preamp/circuit will emphasize different parts of the EQ spectrum depending (Example: 4pm on the dial is a bit more flat and lighter feeling vs 1pm which is a bit darker and more mid punchy). As mentioned previously, by having this at the end of the chain or, at least after the drives, it acts as a final sort of EQ polish for your tone, while removing some of the potential brittleness distortion can add. In the same respect, it can also help in better packaging your entire signal allowing the delays and reverbs to better sit in the mix.

[About the Testing]

As to making this simple task more complicated than needed, toying with OCD (and no, I am no referring to the pedal), the following are highlights as to the various ways in which these two pedals were compared: side-by-side and switching back and forth, by themselves for an extended time, in the effects loop, before the amp, on two different amps (Tube and SS), with different drive pedals and effects, live playing of different songs/styles, live playing of same songs/styles, and using a looper with a pre-recorded song or phrase. All together, this project lasted for about one full week, taking plenty of breaks to refresh the palate and rest the ears.

[Utility Features]

If there is a more tangible difference between these two pedals, it is found in their unique utility function/features.

For the Chase Tone Secret Preamp, the user is provided a 3-way switch to select different EQ/Voicing Options: Bright (Early EP3), Dark (Late EP3), and a Mid (Hybrid) option — the names pretty much speak for themselves. In conversations with Kyle Chase, he shared that these options allow for the guitar, if so desired, to better stand out in the mix while still deploying the resulting effect. While this is true, I found that the options make the pedal much more flexible/adaptable to a wider variety of gear to include choice of amps, drive pedals, guitars, and pickups. (example: if you have humbucker in the neck position that is already a bit dark/full, using the mid or bright options can provide clarity.)

The Epoch Boost provides a controllable Boost function in addition to the Preamp, the usefulness of which, depends greatly on but, is not limited to, where the pedal is placed in the chain and then considering, how one chooses to use the pedal. As I use these as ALWAYS ON pedals at the very end of the chain, the boost function did not find much use for me but, I certainly see the potential in other use-case scenarios.

Other design notes/difference: The Secret Preamp has top-mounted jacks and the Epoch Boost provides a switchable buffer on the input.

[Misc. and Final Thoughts]

As always, I will return to this thread to share updates, answer questions, or share new insights. Truly, I’m driving myself crazy as to which one will stay on the board for now – most likely keeping the other around for a change of flavor when so needed. Specific to my preferences of taste, I like the base tone/EQ of the Epoch Boost a touch more (that mellow/smooth vibe) yet, don’t really have use for the Boost function. For the Secret Preamp, I find the voice options much more useful as I switch between guitars and various drive pedals but, have to be mindful of accentuating the mids depending.

Some additional observations that may be of interest or consideration: I found that the extra bit of articulation provided by the Secret Preamp really brought to life finger picked notes and chords (to include hammer on and pull-offs) while, the smoothness of the Epoch Boost seemed to better suited when interacting with the sharper attacks of a pick; this, certainly just an matter of taste.

When reflecting on the personalities of these pedals — again, both great options — In a best of both worlds scenario, I’m left sort of wishing that the ‘Dark’ mode on the Secret Preamp had just a fraction less emphasis on the mids to then be a bit more in line with the voice/EQ and sense of smoothness of the Epoch Boost; this, while still providing its two other modes as more contrasting options (both in EQ and the articulation they provide). Certainly I admit that I’m splitting hairs and thus, we find ourselves back to where we started, ‘What’s the flavor of choice?’.

Footnote: In all truthfulness and fairness, the differences between these pedals is at best nuanced. If I didn’t have them sitting side-by-side for real-time comparison, it would have been much harder to discern the differences thereof.

For those who have made similar comparisons, to include the ClinchFX EP-PRE, l’d love to hear your thoughts and experience. As shared, let’s place focus on the intended effect, resulting tone, and applicable function of these pedals instead of delving into the debate of which is most authentic to that of the original Echoplex Ep-3 (and it’s preamp) that most have never had the opportunity to play with.

[Final Update | 2/6/21]

After a great deal of back and forth and back again, I decided to keep the Chase Tone Secret Preamp and to part ways with the Epoch Boost. Each pedal was fantastic and brought something a touch unique to the table. If budget and space were of no issue, I would have kept them both. In the end, the different voices of the Chase Tone better addressed my current ‘needs and wants’ than the added boost function of the Epoch Boost. Certainly, there will be those that find the boost feature of greater value. Either way, one will have access to that magic pixie dust this EP3 preamp circuit can provide.

*** As always, a special note of ‘Thanks’ to my friends at ZSTRING MUSIC who help to make reviews/threads like this possible; a music store owned by a musician, for musicians, and gear aficionado like myself. ***

During my explorations of the double-tracking effect, I enjoyed having the Strymon Deco and Keeley 30ms side-by-side, providing the opportunity for some compare and contrast exercises. The following are some quick thoughts:

– Keeley’s included reverb was great, complimenting the ADT effect perfectly. It gives one the feeling that the pedal is a set-and-forget, go-to-grab, pedal to always have with you.
– The 30ms ADT gives some more control of the detuning BUT, hidden dip switches deter one form jumping between settings — I always left it on the default which, probably, is going to be where most people leave it.
– The Abbey Mode –> moderate settings –> touch of reverb ==> Favorite Setting
– The Dimission Mode was cool and had characteristics of a Tri-Chorus —> very 80s sound but could also be subtle.

For both of these pedals, again focus on the subtlety of the effect, they sound great but almost forget they are on —- until you turn them off and are left with just the dry tone. They add a richness/fullness/volume (fill) to the sound.

– Deco’s control mechanics really feel like you are actually manipulating tape machines with concerns to response. Strymon has always mastered this.
– The Deco’s range of effect is ‘Wider’ than the 30ms, spanning from Phaser-esque, to Flanger, to Chorus, to Slapback. I have successfully hit similar sounding effect results to that of my CE-2w, Mooer E-Lady, and Phaser 95; of course, all a touch more subtle on the Deco than its counterparts.
– I favor the ADT setting but like to use lite chorus or flanging as well.
– I like the Tape Saturation Effect on the Deco and found it had more use to me on my board than the Chamber Reverb on the 30ms –> I have the Ventris on the board.

Note: The Keeley adds some more emphasis on higher frequencies in the effect which adds a tad bit of clarity and chime compared to the Deco which remains a bit more neutral. When you add the Saturation side of the Deco to the equation, that does add some articulation to the modulation effect.

A year ago this March, after careful analysis and deliberation, I purchased the Mojo Hand FX Iron Bell – I have no regrets; it’s a fantastic pedal and still remains on my pedalboard. In recently completing a few upgrades and configuration tweaks, my attention was drawn back to the current selection of overdrives and fuzz I had on tap. A quick summary: The Barber Gain Changer serves as the foundation; kept on light-overdrive settings, just at the cusp of break-up, it provides a bit of boost and bite, along with some EQ sculpting capabilities. I use the pedal for classic rock chordal progressions and/or blues-esque leads. The Iron Bell was used, often stacked, to kick things up a notch for soaring rock leads from Gilmour to Santana. On occasion, I would use the Iron Bell for some heavier/alt rhythmic selections but found it less than ideal. While the pedal has endless gain, it remains very controlled – smooth yet articulate (great for leads).

The Search Candidates

In trying to find a pedal that would compliment the Gain Changer and Iron Bell, my search immediately returned to a few of the pedals that I had originally considered a year ago. The three top choices that came to mind: the Vick Audio Ram’s Head 73, Mojo Hand FX Colossus, and the Blackout Effectors’ Musket. As is common with most of my gear searches, I place a greater importance on (but not limiting my choice to) the flexibility/versatility of the pedal; it’s ability to play nicely with the other components of my setup as well as having a great range of effect. With this perspective, the Musket entered the decision process as the top contender. That being shared, I did have some concern that there would be a bit too much overlap between the Iron Bell and Musket as they share similar design approach; that being a modified Muff circuit with mid boost capabilities. I’ll address this with a bit more detail below but I am happy to report that each of these pedals has their own unique personality.

Before continuing on, and for others on a similar search, let me share these two invaluable resources, along with a sincere thanks for the work and effort of their respective authors:

GILMOURISH.COM (check out the Big Muff Buyers Guide and Review) – by Bjørn Riis

&

The Big Muff ∏ Page – (check out the Vintage Big Muff Clones Page here) by @Kit Rae

Enter: The Blackout Effectors’ Musket

As Kit Rae shares in his review, the Blackout Effectors Musket is essentially a “Sovtek Bubble Font Green/Black Russian Big Muff circuit with an Electro-Harmonix LPB-1 booster circuit in the front”. A key to this pairing, and something that sets it apart from the Iron Bell is that the user is given full control of the mix between these two circuits allowing the pedal to provide the characteristics of a traditional Muff if so desired. In comparison (or similarity in some respects) to the Musket, and as Bjorn points out in his review, the Iron Bell is very much like a combination of the classic Big Muff and Tube Driver. With respects to my concerns about overlap shared above, these two pedals indeed cover a lot of the same territory BUT, they have more than enough uniqueness with respects to their voice characteristics and effect capabilities to warrant side-by-side placement on my pedalboard.

The ‘voice’ of the Iron Bell has an emphasized ‘nasalness’/mid-based eq bias as a foundation with the user given the ability to adjust to the intensity of the mids from light to heavy. The Bass Frequencies are dialed back a bit compared to other Muff pedals which tends to highlight the stronger mid presence. It has endless gain on tap but the resulting sound is always well controlled which, when combined with the sustain, provides both the articulation and smoothness for lead work.

The Musket’s voice, in contrast, originates down deep from the diaphragm, picking up some raspiness in the throat on the way up, resulting in a much fuller presentation of EQ spectrum. The [Focus] control, depending on some of the other settings, allows the Bass frequencies feeding into the Muff circuit to be ‘tightened’ up a bit – turned fully counter clock-wise, the pedal has a very BOOMING voice. Like the Iron Bell, the pedal has endless gain on tap, which can be further boosted by the ‘pre’ boost control. Where the Iron Bell keeps its composure (the prima virtuoso), the Musket let’s itself have a bit more fun (crazy hair guy); a personality trait which works great for the likes of Smashing Pumpkins, White Stripes, or The Black Keys. A key component that speaks to my emphasized importance on flexibility and versatility, with its three additional controls on top, the user is provided full control over the modified section of the circuit allowing one to run the Musket as a pure Soviet-Style Muff and/or, when dialing different combinations of the ‘Pre’ – ‘Mids’ and ‘Focus’ settings, allowing the pedal to cover a wide range of effect, from overdrive to distortion. There have been times these past few days that I hear the inspirations of classic Van Halen riffs from the Musket. It is through these additional controls that the I have been able to get the Musket to sound and respond very much like the Iron Bell. With both on the board however, I can leave the Musket wide open and the Iron Bell lead focused.

As with all my reviews, I will come back to add and edit as my time and experience with the pedal grows. Over the past few days since its arrival, it has secured a spot on my pedalboard, complimenting my Iron Bell, serving in the role that addresses more of the chordal/rhythmic needs on my setlist.