Important Questions RE: Dwarfcraft future pedals action!

aen · Post by **aen** » Wed May 18, 2011 4:33 am

Okay! So we're considering quite a few things, in general, shrinking down pedals, changing controls, and getting itty bitty populated PCBs made. The idea here is to speed up production and save dollars.

1. Shrinking pedals/control changes
This idea includes 4 pedals: The Great Destroyer, Hax, Robot Devil, Shiva. These would be placed in smaller enclosures, like the Baby Thundaa.

TGD controls would remain the same,

Hax would be the same EXCEPT the High/Low range switch would be made into a toggle, rather than a stomp.

Shiva would have no stomp switch for the Starve control. It will be "always on" but of course, you can dial the starve all the way up, so there is no starve action.

Robot Devil controls would remain the same, EXCEPT the octave -1/-2 switch would be a toggle rather than a stomp.

These would all change to TOP MOUNTED JACKS.

So reply with your thoughts, these are all just ideas right now. We are certain that we WANT to use prefab/populated PCBs (speed up production!!!!) and I hope that this would allow us to implement top mounted jacks on most pedals.

StevePirates · Post by **StevePirates** » Wed May 18, 2011 4:49 am

As long as these changes don't impact quality, then go for it. If it helps generate sustainable income, then it is a good business decision.

It's not like you can't make the original sized ones for special orders. And frankly, you might be able to charge more for the original specs as special issues.

That being said... make me an Spectacular Aenima with pretty lions!

hotrodperlmutter · Post by **hotrodperlmutter** » Wed May 18, 2011 5:13 am

do not like top mount jacks.

Haze · Post by **Haze** » Wed May 18, 2011 5:36 am

A lot of people will not like the top mounted jacks. Big companies like Boss started out with the compact stomp box and the side mounted jacks have been a standard since really. As far as shrinking i'm down. I sold my ECT because it didn't get the face time it deserved and it took up a lot of space.
I build a TGD in a mxr sized box and its awesomeeee lots of tones but fuck if i can ever get the same one twice. I use it on my bass rig and i don't think i would if it took up any more space because its a really small rig for easy traveling.
/2c

Post by **Mike** » Wed May 18, 2011 7:27 am

I think some people will love top mounted jacks, I'm sure there's a lot of people (the same that do like smaller pedals) that like to butt all their pedals up close next to each other on a PT style board and top mounted jacks means you can also keep all your cabling tidy with that board structure.

If all pedals were top mount you could generate less cabling mess as you'd have a signal and power "channel" above each line of stompboxes. Makes sense to me.

A lot of my stuff is top mounted jacks, people seem to like it *shrug*.

I would say it would be a good idea to keep the old style cases as options for people to buy if they are turned off by your changes - custom shop, "OG Style" or whatever.

timhulio · Post by **timhulio** » Wed May 18, 2011 7:55 am

I reckon you'd speed-up production and improve quality if you used board-mounted pots and side-jacks. The parts count in TGD/Internet/Shiva (I don't know the other pedals) is pretty low, so I'm guessing you spend longer wiring the thing into a box than populating pcbs. Maybe you can get the whole board/pots/switch assembly fabricated in China, then you'd just need to slot it into a box and slap a sticker on the front in the USA.
Freestompboxes has a few great photos of a Goatkeeper mkIII innards- now that's an amazingly well put together pedal. Everything is board-mounted and extremely neat.

vincel · Post by **vincel** » Wed May 18, 2011 8:38 am

Build quality of my Baby Thundaa is top notch, except for the pansy-assed LED which wobbles around and is very exposed -- especially given its proximity to the foot switch. I think the LEDs should be bezel mounted.

George · Post by **George** » Wed May 18, 2011 9:05 am

It seems a shame to lose the extra switch on the Shiva, unless the knob for the starve is a big-ass one like on those foot-turnable starve boxes.

Dave · Post by **Dave** » Wed May 18, 2011 9:10 am

If you need to bring costs down to keep it going as a viable business then do so. I think as long as you can keep the build integrity good with different parts and retain the signature tonez its all good. Although it might not be as aesthetically pleasing to my mind I can see that top mounted jacks would make a lot of sense.

lorez · Post by **lorez** » Wed May 18, 2011 10:13 am

i wouldn't mind the smaller pedals and as others have said you can offer the full size ones as either special editions or deluxe models.

johnnyseven · Post by **johnnyseven** » Wed May 18, 2011 10:29 am

I personally prefer smaller pedals as space is limited on my pedal board. I also like top mounted jacks as, as Mike said, it means I can position my pedals closer to each other, the power jack also needs to be on as well. However I can live with side mounted jacks as pedals can be positioned offest top each other on my board.

Post by **Mike** » Wed May 18, 2011 10:32 am

Getting two audio jacks and a DC of any decent quality onto the top surface of a Hammond B box (Saltbooster) is impossible.

The top face is 60x30mm. Two audio jacks is doable, done it before on Hurb's Saltbooster, but not DC also.

It's possible on the top face of a BB box (like I use on the Fuzz Face, because it's more like 95x34mm)

sp3k · Post by **sp3k** » Wed May 18, 2011 11:10 am

I'm all in favor for top mounted jacks and smaller enclosures. When i had a shiva i only used the starve to make noise messing around with the knobs, so for me a footswitch wasn't needed.
You've already made the tiny terror that looked awesome, but i think having the two versions available could be a better idea. Or maybe just have the old ones has custom orders or something.

johnnyseven · Post by **johnnyseven** » Wed May 18, 2011 3:06 pm

Mike wrote:Getting two audio jacks and a DC of any decent quality onto the top surface of a Hammond B box (Saltbooster) is impossible.

The top face is 60x30mm. Two audio jacks is doable, done it before on Hurb's Saltbooster, but not DC also.

It's possible on the top face of a BB box (like I use on the Fuzz Face, because it's more like 95x34mm)

I was thinking of a Rat as an example, didn't realise that it wasn't doable in terms of the size of the box you mentioned. In which case in my opinion as a pedal buyer/user it would be better for the Dwarfcraft pedals to have side mounted jacks with a side mounted DC jack as putting the input/output jacks on the top and the DC on the side would remove the ability to position pedals directly side by side, although they would be able to be closer than if all the jacks were on the sides.

Bacchus · Post by **Bacchus** » Wed May 18, 2011 3:22 pm

I'm not too fussy about where the jacks are. I think that there's enough variation in the market that there are no real standards, Most people will have pedals that are a mix of side and top mounted jacks and they make it work for them. Someone mentioned Boss pedals. I don't think anyone will be put off buying your pedals because they don't match up nicely alongside their Blues Driver and DS-2. I think if you're into more adventurous fuzzes your more inclined to work out a way of getting your board to work for you and put in that bit of effort.

I suppose I've basically just said that designers ought not to worry about design and instead let the customer worry about how to make things workable, and that probably isn't good advice at all.

I would miss the extra switch on the Shiva but only because I like more switches rather than less. I think things should be easily switchable when I'm playing if possible. I would miss the switch more than I would miss the few inches of space on a board.

sp3k wrote:When i had a shiva i only used the starve to make noise messing around with the knobs, so for me a footswitch wasn't needed.

See, I love the Shiva for thick aggressive fuzz, then glitchy mayhem when I want to solo. I like being able to switch between that with the starve switch. I suppose you could always have two Shivas on your board and switch between them...

sp3k · Post by **sp3k** » Wed May 18, 2011 4:48 pm

BacchusPaul wrote:
sp3k wrote:When i had a shiva i only used the starve to make noise messing around with the knobs, so for me a footswitch wasn't needed.
See, I love the Shiva for thick aggressive fuzz, then glitchy mayhem when I want to solo. I like being able to switch between that with the starve switch. I suppose you could always have two Shivas on your board and switch between them...

Actually, now that i think about it, i agree with you. I prefer more having more footswitches then having smaller pedals. The shiva didn't get along very well with my hot rod, that's probably the reason i didn't use that switch for anything other then noise. Than and the fact that i suck at messing around with amp pots, i'm can't seam to like the same setting two jams in a row, that's the reason i'm really thinking about getting a dual terror.

grandnoise · Post by **grandnoise** » Fri May 20, 2011 7:10 pm

IMO I'm more about footswitches then toggle switches, and I also love big pedals but I do agree maybe doing bix box versions as custom is a better idea.