Talk:DigiTech Whammy

message: Can't find any information on this guy and band. Also 2 lists of notable musicians? Why? 93.185.141.171 (talk) 06:04, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Colin Drake of Pinhead Larry

message: Does anyone know if the Bass Whammy 2 even existed? I can't find any pictures of it online, and the only evidence of it ever existing is here.. 
--Daisy-berkowitz 01:09, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Bass Whammy 2

message: How could The Edge use the WH-1 Whammy in 1991 when it wasn't manufactured until 1992? --Steerpike 16:23, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not actually sure when the Whammy was first manufactured... Mightve been the late 80s... Daisy-berkowitz 12:55, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Correct years? 

message: hasn't anyone realized that this article has no focus whatsoever on what the pedal actually does, or how it works? this list is alright... interesting, and it could grow (someday) into a separate article of "musicians who (have) use(d) the whammy pedal" something like it.
BUT someone should think of a text that explains that the pedal has pitch-shift that is controlled by a rocker pedal, only with a proper encyclopedic text...
cheers, 201.56.111.40 13:10, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: -I realised you're right, so I've tried to explain how the pedal works by comparing it to a wah pedal, which hopefully should give people who know nothing about the pedal a picture in their mind of how the rocking of the pedal directly affects the sound, in real time. I also removed the song info for Omar Rodriguez; those specific examples are not whammy. The intro to Roulette Dares is a ring modulator with an LFO and the harmony part on viscera eyes is an overdubbed guitar. I think most of the harmonies on amputechture will be overdubs, the whammy has a tendency to sound more "robotic". I can't prove it for sure, but neither can it be proved the other way. I couldn't think of a specific example when he uses it on an album, but he is a noted user of one live. If you have comments about my edit, please leave them here to discuss, thank you! Olliemilne 18:20, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  what does it do? 

message: The lists of notable musicians for each pedal need some sort of control. A while ago it was just full of red links, which means that the artist or band in question are clearly not famous enough to have a wiki article made about them. In this case I think "notable" should mean that the artist or band in question has a wikipedia article on them. I always get the feeling that these red links and bands noone has ever heard of were added by the band in question or some fan, or something. So if you have someone a bit more obscure to add, make sure either the user of the pedal or the band they're from has a wikipedia article. Otherwise we may as well just put that I use one, or that local band from down the street. Thanks, if you have any comments on this let me know here. Olliemilne 12:21, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think if we keep the list to just those musicians for which decent citations can be provided we'll have a reasonably useful list.  I just removed a bunch of uncited musicians from the list; in some cases their WP articles make the claim of Digitech Whammy use, but there are no citations for that use on those pages.  So, citations are badly needed all over.  Doctormatt 16:58, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  This section got a bit out of control again. I think what should be done is the just have a general list of notable users of ANY whammy model, not for each specific model that was made. People have multiple entries because its too big to check if someone is already on the list and well meaning people keep adding them because they can't find them amongst the mess. Also as said above, we should probably stick the people we can cite, which will mean the most famous of users will probably be the only people on this list. But that's good, this pedal isn't as rare or exciting as people seem to think it is. Problem is finding the time to cite all these people, and the inevitable flood of people who want it layed out how it is now instead. Any comments anybody? Olliemilne (talk) 07:11, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Notable Musicians" 

message: The creator of this article mispelled it. Sorry to be such a pain and pick out the small mistakes, but it bothers me, ha. Anyway, I'm new and don't know how to or if you can change the title to fix this, and if not, I guess I'll just have to get over it. CheezerRox (forgot his old password so here he is) (talk) 01:40, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Digi'''T'''ech, not Digi'''t'''ech. 

message: This article mentions a pedal from 1991 as being 'most sought after', and links to an ebay page which shows some people seeking it, but isn't this sort of like original research, and not even very good research (could you find more sought after items on ebay? who knows... and is ebay representative of what everyone is seeking? not really. it just shows some people really want the pedal). Thoughts? Luminifer (talk) 15:13, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Most sought after

message: I agree that this article is missing many key facts.  Yes, listing users and examples of songs that use it is nice, but why a digital whammy rather than a mechanical whammy bar on the guitar?  I have never used this particular pedal mentioned but have used similar pedals so I would add as examples that it would be used in cases where the guitar does not conventionally have a mechanical whammy bar (such as a Gisbon Les Paul) and even when using a guitar that has a mechanical whammy (such as Fender Stratocaster), that using them tends to put the instrument out of tune quickly where the effect pedal does not have that consequence due to its not affecting the string tension of the instrument.  Also explain the limitation such as that they only work effectively when playing single notes and not chords (at least on the ones that I have played) due to how the pedal uses a mixer to combine the incomming signal from the instrument with a modulator reference controlled by the pedal therefore multiple notes that make an in-tune chord quickly becomes a dis-arrayed mess when this effect is used (again, on similar effects that I have used like Boss ME-70).  I am hoping that someone with experience using this particular effect pedal can shed some light on these topics.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.31.184.166 (talk) 16:42, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is it used for ? 

message: I have reverted the article to include the actual functions of the different units.  No reason was given on the talk page-  surely saying what is actually does is the most important part of the article.  It's true that it needs to be rephrased from a long list of functions, and I'll do that soon, to make it more concise.  But deleting them entirely is pointless, and get's nowhere.  Wikipedia is not paper.  The article is too wordy.  Merciless cutting is not the answer  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Veggieburgerfish (talk • contribs) 01:05, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Functions- notability 

message: Is that really notable? For any given pedal, there's dozens of companies and thousands of DIYers who do mods. The section needs either expanded (To include all companies that do mods and a list of the most popular mods for home modification) or deleted. Dizzizz (talk) 18:28, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mods section 

message: "The Whammy DT; the fifth edition (released in 2011), is the first Whammy model to use polyphonic pitch shifting".  What exactly does this mean?  I have an original Whammy and use it for polyphonic soloing (E.g. If you play major or minor thirds you can build up major or minor 7th chords by using the 5th harmony setting) so I don't quite see what the added polyphony is doing. --Deke42 (talk) 12:39, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Polyphony