A more compact Cortex puts a universe of sounds and tone creation potential at your feet, at a price that’s a fraction of bigger floor modelers.
Fast, easy capture process. Easy to navigate top-level functions. Captures can sound very accurate. Extensive online community creates a trove of downloadable models.
No onboard screen means you rely on a smartphone or tablet for deep navigation. Getting closest possible amp captures via miking can take a lot of trial and error.
$549
Neural DSP Nano Cortex
neuraldsp.com
The complexities and capabilities of modelers like Neural DSP’s Cortex series demand certain tradeoffs. For starters, a powerful modeler can’t be the size of a postage stamp, at least if you intend to adjust many parameters and source numerous presets in real time on a stage. Neural’s newNano Cortex pushes back at the boundaries of that compromise. It's not much wider than two MXR pedals side by side. The $549 price tag, which is just about a third of the price of the Nano’s more capable big brother,the Quad Cortex, makes it an appealing proposition too.
Taken at Face Value
The Nano Cortex is a streamlined piece of hardware. An array of five push buttons enables signal capture and navigation of banks and effects. Two rotary bypass footswitches also move through presets and effects blocks, and six knobs (with LED surrounds that display levels) govern gain, output level, EQ, and wet/dry effects blend. The big omission here is, of course, a screen that displays signal effects chains and preset names. That job, if you choose to use the Nano in that fashion, falls to the Cortex Cloud app and a smartphone or tablet, meaning you’ll need two pieces of hardware on hand to make the most of the Nano’s potential. You can use the Nano in performance without a phone or tablet. But you’ll need to have a photographic memory of what presets are made up of what amps and effects, which gets extra tricky if you use wildly divergent sounds designed to work at vastly different output levels.
Many sounds from the Nano Cortex are fantastic. Many of the factory presets—particularly those dressed up with a little gain, will probably fool listeners in a blind test when those sounds are situated in a mix, and can be fairly classified as authentic in most cases. Like any modeler, the accuracy of modeled tones doesn’t mean that dynamic interactions with those same models will feel the same way, especially if you use feedback and the overtones and harmonics generated via amp proximity in your expression. For guitarists that don’t integrate these methods into their playing, the Nano’s sounds will be more than satisfactory stand-ins for their analog equivalents.
A Captive Audience
Modelers love the convenience of capture technology—the ability to clone the characteristics of many amps and pedals in your collection, which you can then take on the road, to a gig, or practice in a compact floor unit. It’s a very appealing and practical idea, particularly if you’re playing anywhere where parking in front of the venue isn’t a given. Neural’s capture method is fast and easy. To capture an amp’s personality, you mike an amp (or send the signal via a load box) to the Nano Cortex, run a signal from the Nano to your amp, press capture, listen for the test signals and kick back for five minutes while the unit does its thing. The process is fundamentally easy. And it enables you to stuff an approximation of your favorite amp, or 10, in the pocket of a gig bag. It’s also what makes the tone library crowd sourced by the constantly growing and dedicated Cortex artist and user community so extensive.
“Nano Cortex’s capture process is fundamentally easy. And it enables you to stuff an approximation of your favorite amp, or ten, in the pocket of a gig bag.”
But while you can conceivably nail the sound of your amp, or pedal, to the letter in five minutes, achieving the best possible approximation can take many tries—particularly if you use the amp-miking method. Though I got close, I never quite hit the bullseye in my attempts. The same mic placement, amp settings, and audio interface all sounded more expansive and livelier when tracked live than via a capture. Would I love to have close-but-not-quite approximations of my favorite three different amps on a fly date? You bet—especially if I could situate a few key, favorite pedals on a small pedalboard with the Nano.
The Verdict
Though there is no shortage of serviceable sounds built into the Nano Cortex, the real action will, for many, be the abundance of captures and sounds created via the larger Cortex community. This is no bad thing—especially if you have the time to cruise and create these sounds at leisure. There’s no reason that any of these sounds can’t become solid foundations for core live tones. But time spent exploring an extensive online library of captures or creating them is time not spent creating songs. So, for many players, Nano Cortex will be a better bet for home recording than for performance or in a deadline-driven studio situation. This is made doubly true for the lack of the onboard editing interface and the Nano Cortex reliance on a smartphone or tablet for deeper editing. Adding a second piece of gear compounds the risks inherent in an already complex technology.
Still, the number of available presets is considerable, and players with gigs that require spanning multiple styles in a night will have so much to work with here if they manage without a screen and trust their phone. In terms of achieving sheer processing power in a small size, the Nano Cortex is tough to beat. And for those that savor the experience of creating and sourcing a huge library of sounds in a unit with the footprint of a sandwich, thrills and big-time dividends await.
How the Irish guitar virtuoso got a unique tone with a factory-stock Strat.
Hello and welcome back to Mod Garage. In this column, we’ll take a closer look at the very unique sound of the famous Rory Gallagher Stratocaster and discuss why it sounded so outstandingly good.
Unless you are living in a cave, you should know who Rory Gallagher was and will recognize his beaten-up Fender Stratocaster, which is a symbol of pure rock ’n’ roll. The story goes that Rory bought this used 1961 sunburst Stratocaster in 1963 for £100 in Cork, Ireland, in a shop named Crowley’s Music Store. Allegedly, this was the first Stratocaster ever to reach Ireland. The guitar’s previous owner ordered a red Stratocaster from the U.S., but a sunburst came instead. After using the guitar for around half a year, the red one arrived. The sunburst was exchanged and put on sale, and Gallagher soon found it. True or not, the story is simply priceless.
When Rory bought this Strat, it was absolutely factory stock, which was typical for this time. It stayed that way for a long time and became a piece of musical history in the hands of Rory. Nearly all of the sunburst lacquer was naturally removed over the years by Gallagher’s acidic sweat, so today the guitar is almost completely stripped down to the bare wood, giving it its iconic look.
The first mods done to this guitar happened around the mid-70s, when two of the pickups were damaged and had to be replaced. Later on, some other parts like the pickguard and pickup covers had to be replaced, and in his later career he did start to use different pickups. The standard 3-way pickup-selector switch was replaced with a more modern 5-way switch, and the controls were rewired for master volume and master tone with the middle tone pot disconnected.
What was the secret behind Rory’s unmistakable Stratocaster tone, which he had from the start? First and foremost, and without any doubts, you all know the saying: Tone comes from the fingers! When such outstanding playing chops meet a great instrument, the result is marvelous.
Having said that … Rory’s pickups did play a large role in his sound. The standard Stratocaster pickups Fender used at the time had staggered magnets with beveled edges. There is complex physics behind it, but in basic terms, these pickups sound fatter, sweeter, and with more overtones. The beveled edges greatly influence the magnetic field, which causes them to sound so different. This has to do with the pickup’s unique aperture or “magnetic window.” These were hand-beveled edges, and it was generally assumed that this was done to disguise the rough and uneven surface left by the sand casting. But this can’t be the reason because doing such handiwork takes a lot of time and care to get right, and Leo Fender wasn’t known for spending time on such unnecessary things in his building processes. (Later, Fender stopped beveling and the sound of the pickups changed because of this.)
In 2016, Seymour Duncan explained the tone of beveled pickups to Guitar.com: “The bevel causes the magnetic field to shoot out a little around the bevel area, but it results in a tapering of the field above that point. So, if you could, imagine the magnetic field shaped like the flame of a candle or a teardrop.” That’s an excellent metaphor that hits the nail on the head.
“Depending on the employee working the sanding machine, the edges are more or less beveled from pickup to pickup—one of the reasons why vintage Strats sound so different from guitar to guitar.”
But why did Fender originally do hand beveling and why did they stop later on? Were his choices based on tone? I don’t think so. I think the answer must be seen in the historical context of the time.
The alnico 5 material used for the magnets was brand-new and very expensive at that time. It was also very porous, and many magnets crumbled while using a hammer to drive them into the pickup, which was the usual procedure in the Fender factory. So, Fender started hand beveling the magnets on one side, which minimized the risk of destroying the magnet during the hammering process. It was an accident that this created such great tone. Depending on the employee working the sanding machine, the edges are more or less beveled from pickup to pickup—one of the reasons why vintage Strats sound so different from guitar to guitar.
Here you can see the normal, non-beveled magnets of a Stratocaster pickup:
Photo courtesy of Leosounds (https://leosounds.de)
And here is a faithful recreation of the beveled magnets in Gallagher’s Stratocaster:
Photo courtesy of Leosounds (https://leosounds.de)
Gallagher’s pickup set has a very pronounced bevel. The Fender worker who produced these certainly also created some more sets like this.
The influence of the bevel on a pickup’s tone is huge. To give a better idea, here are some magnetic visualizations that my dear friend Bernd C. Meiser from the German BSM company made for me. Bernd sadly died on July 30, 2024, after fighting against cancer for two years. It won’t get loud anymore without him.
Here you can see the common magnetic spread-out of a non-beveled Strat pickup:
Drawing courtesy Singlecoil (https://singlecoil.com) in memory of Bernd C. Meiser
And here is the same with a beveled Strat pickup:
Drawing courtesy Singlecoil (https://singlecoil.com) in memory of Bernd C. Meiser
You can clearly see the difference of the magnetic spread-out and the much wider aperture these beveled magnets provide, causing the different tone.
So where is the mod for this column? I’m sorry to disappoint you, but it’s not possible to change the magnets on a standard Stratocaster pickup without destroying the pickup. And there is no way to retroactively put a bevel on the magnets of your pickup with the magnets installed. The only way to convert your Strat to beveled pickups is to install a new pickup set with beveled magnets. Fender ’57/’62 pickups feature beveled edges, as do many offerings from other pickup companies.
Next time, we will have a look at the mid-boost and scoop mod from Dan Torres, so stay tuned!
Until then ... keep on modding!
Saxophonist Charlie “Bird” Parker’s challenging version of a 12-bar blues is one of his most enduring contributions. Learn how to navigate these tricky changes by combining bebop and blues.
Chops: Intermediate
Theory: Intermediate
Lesson Overview:
• Use IIm–V7 progressions to add interest to a blues progression.
• Combine the blues scale with Mixolydian and Dorian to create swinging phrases.
• Increase your rhythmic awareness by using triplets and syncopation.
Click here to download a printable PDF of this lesson's notation.
A big part of the bebop spirit was learning how to navigate through seemingly unrelated chords at speedy tempos. Saxophonist Charlie “Bird” Parker was a pioneer in the bebop movement and he combined his love of the burgeoning style with a deep appreciation for the blues. It’s easy to look at bebop in 2017 and think of it as a complicated and overly intellectual genre, but adding in a blues sensibility can make the changes a bit more approachable.
When looking at a traditional I–IV–V blues, there’s not all that much harmonic information to outline, so bop players like Parker would add chord substitutions. His composition “Blues for Alice” is an example of what’s become known as “Bird Blues.” The changes Parker used on this tune of become so accepted that other composers have written contrafacts—a different melody written on the same changes.
To fully digest these changes, it makes sense to examine the progression in small chunks and see how it relates to the traditional blues form. First, let’s look at the “Bird” changes below. (Remember, in jazz circles a triangle means a major 7 chord and a dash means minor 7 chord.)
When looking at a traditional 12-bar blues in F, the first four measures are usually an F7 (I) moving to a Bb7 (IV) in measure 5. In this version, Parker works backwards from the IV chord with a series of IIm-V7 moves that descend in whole-steps. Measures 4 and 3 are “major” IIm–V7s, but the second measure uses a “minor” version with a half-diminished chord for the IIm. Finally, Parker changed the chord in the first measure from a dominant 7 to a major 7 to place us squarely in the key of F. (It also helps with voice-leading across the first four measures.)
YouTube It
Saxophonist Charlie “Bird” Parker was the figurehead of the bebop era. Listen to his relaxed, swinging take on “Blues for Alice,” which is one of his most popular compositions.
Ex. 1 demonstrates one way to navigate the first four measures. Let’s break that down a bit. I stick entirely within the F major scale (F–G–A–Bb–C–D–E) for the first measure. Easy enough. In the second measure, for the sake of simplicity, I am just implying A7 through both chords. The first two beats outline A7 (A–C#–E–G) and the remaining notes are plucked from the A Super Locrian scale (A–Bb–C–Db–Eb–F–G).
Click here for Ex. 1
I’m using a similar concept in Ex. 2, working with the F major scale in the first measure and thinking A7 in the second. I’m using the D melodic minor scale (D–E–F–G–A–B–C#) over the third measure while targeting the 3 of Cm7 (Eb) on the downbeat of the fourth measure. To create an altered sound over the F7b9, I use a Gbdim7 arpeggio (Gb–A–C–Eb) to nail the b9 (Gb).
Click here for Ex. 2
This next example (Ex. 3) takes cues from great piano players so it requires some quick position shifting. The first shift happens in the first measure, where we move from 5th position up to 8th on the “and” of beat 2. In the second measure, we imply an A7b9 sound using a Bbdim7 (Bb–C–E–G) arpeggio that touches on the #9 (C) and b9 (Bb).
In the second and third measures of this example, we’re basically using the same concept. Because D Dorian (D–E–F–G–A–B–C) and G Mixolydian (G–A–B–C–D–E–F) contain the same notes, we’re simply adding some chromatic passing tones that help the chord tones line up on strong beats. Move the whole concept down a whole-step (to C Dorian/F Mixolydian) for the next measure.
Click here for Ex. 3
The next section of a blues in F might look something like: Bb7–Bb7–F7–F7. Or, if you think of a traditional jazz-blues progression, it might be Bb7–Bdim7–F7–D7. Looking ahead, Parker wanted to target the Gm7 in measure 9. What’s the best way to lead into that chord? Simply add a IIm–V before it. Parker used backcycling to create a series of descending IIm-V7 progressions that connect the Bb7 in measure 5 to the Gm7 in measure 9. Rather ingenious, huh?
While these chords are easy enough to play with basic chord forms, it’s much trickier to solo through them in an authentic way.
Ex. 4 uses the Bb Mixolydian scale (Bb–C–D–Eb–F–G–Ab) over the Bb7 before moving to Eb Mixolydian (Eb–F–G–Ab–Bb–C–Db) for Bm7–Eb7. In the third measure, we move to A minor pentatonic (A–C–D–E–G) before coasting through an Abm7 arpeggio (Ab–Cb–Eb–Gb) for the last measure.
Click here for Ex. 4
The next lick (Ex. 5) demonstrates how you can use simple melodies to navigate this chord progression. The first measure is a simple lick based on the Bb7 chord, then we create a melody just using the F major scale—it’s all about landing on the Gm7 chord at the right time.
Click here for Ex. 5
Our final example over this section (Ex. 6) is just as loose with the chords, but makes sure to hit them as they land. The first measure uses the Bb major pentatonic scale (Bb–C–D–F–G) before using some outside notes that resolve to the root of the Am7 chord. At this point you should be seeing that a big part of the bebop genre is based on rhythm. The mixture of triplets and heavy syncopation is an essential part of the sound.
Click here for Ex. 6
The final section of a blues in F usually goes: C7–Bb7–F7–C7, but that’s too basic for beboppers. In Bird blues, we use a two-measure IIm-V7 progression before increasing the harmonic rhythm with F7–D7–Gm7–C7. In Roman numerals, this translates to I7–VI7–IIm7–V7.
I find the best way to play over this section is to remember you’re playing a blues, so some blues scale ideas might not be a bad idea, as shown in Ex. 7. We’ve even included some slight bends!
Click here for Ex. 7
This final example (Ex. 8) feels like another melody rather than something clever. Remember, we’re playing music, and often the best music is the type that your audience can sing along to. So don’t be afraid to hold off and play something melodic.
Click here for Ex. 8
Lastly, here’s a short backing track to help you practice these ideas, and then come up with some of your own. Keep listening and copying and before long you’ll be soaring like Bird!
Less-corpulent, Big Muff-style tones that cut in many colors.
Unique, less-bossy take on the Big Muff sound that trades excess fat for articulation. Nice build at a nice price.
Some Big Muff heads may miss the bass and silky smooth edges.
$149
Evil Eye FX Warg
evileyefx.com
Membership in the Cult of Big Muff is an endless source of good times. Archaeologically minded circuit-tracers can explore many versions and mutations. Tone obsessives can argue the merits of fizzier or fatter tone signatures. The Ace Tone FM-3 is one of the less famous branches on the Big Muff evolutionary tree, but one that every true Big Muff devotee should know. It came out around 1971 and it was among the first in a line of often-imaginative Japanese takes on the circuit.
Evil Eye Warg Fuzz - MAIN by premierguitar
Listen to Evil Eye Warg Fuzz - MAIN by premierguitar #np on #SoundCloudEvil Eye’s Warg Fuzz marks another generation in this evolution. It uses the FM-3 as a design foundation and inspiration, and shares many of its tone characteristics. It’s most overtly a buzzier, less bass-hefty take on the V1 “Triangle” Big Muff, which serves as the FM-3 design’s launch pad. But the Warg also adds a midrange boost switch that makes the pedal better suited to mixes and environments where a little extra presence serves the musical setting.
Close Cousins
If you look at schematics for a V1 Big Muff and an Ace Tone FM-3 (minus its largely superfluous “boost” circuit) side by side, you’ll see a near-mirror image. But the small differences are significant. On the Ace Tone and Evil Eye Warg, the volume pot is positioned before the output gain stage rather than after, as it is on a Big Muff. A few filter and feedback capacitor values are smaller than those on the Big Muff, and there are a few extra resistors and an extra capacitor. Those changes aside, the two circuits would be hard to differentiate at a glance. But as we’ll hear, the audible differences are often profound.
Though Evil Eye was careful to replicate the Ace Tone circuit as closely as possible, the company added a second path for reshaping the output in the form of the “scooped and flat” toggle. Big Muffs are generally pretty scooped in the midrange, which is one of the breed’s distinguishing qualities, no matter the version. But that doesn’t keep newer manufacturers, like EarthQuaker and Stomp Under Foot, to name a few, from building Big Muff clones that add a midrange boost. Here, a variable boost knob is replaced by the flat-switch setting, which still offers ample tone reshaping utility.
“In a band mix, there’s more contrast with a burly bass.”
Build quality on the Philadelphia-made Warg is very nice. The circuit board is tidy, arranged along four rows of components that make the circuit relatively easy to trace. Input and output jacks as well as the footswitch are mounted to the chassis rather than the circuit board. The footswitch is a soft-relay unit. The pedal also looks bitchin’ (though the namesake wolf beast on the enclosure looks a little slender for a mythical, massive Warg). Given the careful, high-quality execution, the $149 street price is an especially good value.
Less Woof in This Wolf
Situating the Warg alongside any Big Muff makes the sonic family resemblance very clear. For comparison, I used a Sovtek Big Muff as well as really nice Ram’s Head and Triangle Big Muff clones. And while the Triangle is very clearly the closest cousin, in an audible sense, in the mid-scooped setting, the Warg shares a powerful, thick, high-gain profile and feel with all three Big Muff types. Where it’s most pronouncedly different is in its relatively light bottom end. For Big Muff hounds that savor the unique, bassy Big Muff ballast, the difference will probably sound pretty stark. But there’s lots of upside to the Warg’s less fat and sprawling profile. In a band mix, there’s more contrast with a burly bass. It will inhabit a much more individual space in a mix, too, which can open up mixing and arrangement options once you’ve laid down your tracks. And for this Big Muff fan, the less-bass-forward profile meant I could coax thick, grindy tones that were a touch more evocative of mid-to-late-’60s fuzz tonalities and felt less shackled to fat stoner-rock templates or late-Gilmour butter-sustain cliches without sacrificing a Big Muff’s sense of wide-spectrum chord aggression.
In the flat frequency mode, I found that the closest sonic likeness to the Warg was an EarthQuaker Hoof with an enhanced mids setting. The EQD probably offered more range on the traditional, bassy side of the Big Muff spectrum. But almost none of the pedals I tested against the Warg could match the Evil Eye’s high-mid clarity in chording situations and melodic leads.
The Verdict
Ascertaining how the very apparent, but sometimes subtle, differences between Big Muff types and the Evil Eye Warg fit your tone ideals and musical needs will probably take a shootout of your own. But if, like me, you’re a Big Muff user that sometimes wearies of that pedal’s smooth, fat, bluster, Evil Eye’s alternative is attractive and intriguing. It’s a great study in how different the basic Big Muff architecture can sound. And at just less than $150, you don’t have to feel too scared about taking a chance on this very interesting fuzz