Embers vs Faded Embers

Do you prefer pedals with lots of options, lots of tweakability? Or do you prefer smaller boxes with fewer things?

That's the question behind this video. I wanted to play Embers and Faded Embers side by side and actually compare them properly, rather than just talking about the differences on paper.

The two pedals

Embers is the full version. It's got Gain, Volume, a Body control that blends in clean low end, a Treble Cut, and a Bias control, plus a second footswitch that brings in the fuller, classic fuzz voice of whatever you've dialled in. It's also got a built in pickup simulator, so it can sit anywhere on a pedalboard without losing its feel.

Faded Embers is the stripped back version. Same identity, fewer controls. Just Gain and Volume, plus a Bias toggle with two positions, one more open and stable, the other more compressed and characterful.

So when would you reach for the pedal with more to dial in, and when would the simpler one make more sense?

The guitar

I used my Telecaster for this one, a parts caster build that started life as a Harley Benton. Basswood body, maple neck, rosewood board as far as I remember. I painted it blue when I first got it, then oversprayed it black once it picked up a few dings, so there's still a bit of that two colour thing going on if you look closely.

I've swapped out most of the hardware over the years. Ben Fletcher pickups, his dynosonic in the neck and a staggered pole piece, hotter pickup in the bridge to balance things out, plus brass saddles, a bone nut and new tuners. Upgraded the electronics too. I'm really happy with it, though I do think one day I'll swap the body for something a bit more Fender-y. Playing Pete's lovely Golden Era Guitars Telecaster recently definitely planted that idea.

I used to play my Gretsch as my main guitar, but after lockdown, doing more electric playing and singing together at church, I found the Tele sat out of the way of my vocals a lot better. The Gretsch lived in a similar space to my voice and felt a bit muddier in that context, whereas the Tele is more scooped.

Starting with Faded Embers

I went into Faded Embers first, since it doesn't have a pickup simulator. Like most vintage style fuzzes, it wants to go first in the chain. Volume and gain up, bias toggle over to the left.

One thing worth knowing, as you move into the more starved, compressed bias setting, the output volume drops a bit. So on that gated, biasy side it actually makes more sense to run the volume higher. On the more open bias setting, it sits nicely with the volume somewhere more moderate, which leaves you room to push it as a boost if you want.

This is the kind of fuzz I can't help but throw riffs at. And winding the gain back, I really like it as that slightly broken, affected, usable tone. Feels like that's very much the trend at the moment, sounds that sit right on the edge of falling apart, and I'm into that.

Then trying to match it on Embers

Next I tried to land on a similar sound using Embers. I left Treble Cut and Body off for now, set the bias low towards the more starved end, and put the gain around the middle.

Embers has a wider bias range than Faded Embers, and even with similar settings, the gain runs hotter overall. The circuit is genuinely different inside, so the comparison only goes so far. Gain at the same knob position on each pedal won't give you the same result, it's just a different circuit. Embers also has that pickup simulator built in along with Body and Treble Cut, so there's a lot more shaping available.

With Body all the way down you lose some low end, but bringing it back in restores some of that clean, unfuzzed low end underneath, which is a nice option to have.

Flicking to the other bias setting and pushing gain up gets into more classic fuzz territory. With gain maxed, that's where the second footswitch comes in, bringing in the fuller silicon fuzz voice on top. The advantage with Embers is that wherever you land your high gain sound, you can always bring the gain knob back down afterwards and get a low gain tone using the same basic settings.

Textures and how interactive it is

Bringing the gain down on Embers gets you into a textured, blown out preamp sound, like running straight into an old analog desk. On the other bias setting, that same low gain sound works really nicely pushed into more gain, almost gating up an overdrive sound. It keeps the identity of the overdrive but adds that gated character on top. Some really nice low, preampy textures hiding in there.

Pushing the bias all the way up smooths out a lot of that spitty character, which opens up a different use, more like a textured boost by bringing in extra low end through Body.

Honestly, Embers is a very interactive pedal. Change the bias or gain and you'll often want to go back and adjust Body and Treble Cut too. With gain and bias both low, you get a lot of that filtered, woofy low end coming through, so it's really about balancing gain against bias rather than setting them separately. Want that really low bias sound? You'll need to push gain up to compensate. Want more low end in there? The bias usually needs to sit a bit higher. Everything talks to everything else.

If I'm honest, sitting most things around 12 o'clock is probably my favourite spot on Embers.

So which one

If I just wanted a fuzz effect, quick and simple, I'd reach for Faded Embers. Flick the switch and you've got three things to kneel down and adjust, and that's it.

If I had the pedalboard space and wanted access to a wider range of tones, from that low gain fuzz feel through to preampy, edge of breakup territory, I'd go for Embers.

Thanks for reading and watching. If you liked the video, please like and subscribe, I just passed 100 subscribers, which I'm really pleased about, but there are still loads of people watching who aren't subscribed yet, so it genuinely helps.

And if you liked the sound of either pedal, head over to the shop, I've got some in stock at the moment.