|
|
Guitar Discussions -> Wife provides valuable tone critique
There are 15 messages in this thread.
You are currently looking at messages 1 to 10.
|
Wife provides valuable tone critique - The Interceptor - 6-:20 -0-09-20
|
|
In an earlier post I described how I was struggling to come to terms with
the discovery that my Distortion Factory (DF-7) pedal sounds better in
overdrive mode (via the Tube Screamer setting) than my Visual Sounds Jeckyll
& Hyde does (via the Jeckyll side).
I previously compared my DF-7 distortion tone to that from the J&H and asked
my 6 year old son for his opinion. He favoured the J&H, as did I.
I decided to put the overdrive to the test and asked my wife for her
opinion. She clearly favoured the DF-7 and used a description that
suggested that the DF-7 was provided a more "fuller" tone. I agree, and
find that the J&H still sounds a bit too mid-humpy. I'm not a fan of the
mid-hump.
So now the pedal layout has the DF-7 for overdrive and the J&H for
distortion. It doesn't seem right to have a digital pedal for overdrive,
but I guess if it sounds right, then it is right?
(The other parts of the tone are a Gibson Les Paul Studio plus a Fender Hot
Rod Deluxe.)
Brett
|
|
|
|
Re: Wife provides valuable tone critique - Arlowe - 6-:20 -0-09-20
|
|
The Interceptor used his keyboard to write :
> In an earlier post I described how I was struggling to come to terms with the
> discovery that my Distortion Factory (DF-7) pedal sounds better in overdrive
> mode (via the Tube Screamer setting) than my Visual Sounds Jeckyll & Hyde
> does (via the Jeckyll side).
>
> I previously compared my DF-7 distortion tone to that from the J&H and asked
> my 6 year old son for his opinion. He favoured the J&H, as did I.
>
> I decided to put the overdrive to the test and asked my wife for her opinion.
> She clearly favoured the DF-7 and used a description that suggested that the
> DF-7 was provided a more "fuller" tone. I agree, and find that the J&H still
> sounds a bit too mid-humpy. I'm not a fan of the mid-hump.
>
> So now the pedal layout has the DF-7 for overdrive and the J&H for
> distortion. It doesn't seem right to have a digital pedal for overdrive, but
> I guess if it sounds right, then it is right?
>
> (The other parts of the tone are a Gibson Les Paul Studio plus a Fender Hot
> Rod Deluxe.)
>
> Brett
Listen to the boss...
don't forget to say;
"thank you dear"
or else :)
My missus thinks my best tone comes from the amp set in the O-F-F
position.
|
|
|
|
Re: Wife provides valuable tone critique - VampX - 6-:21 -0-09-20
|
|
On 2009-06-21 13:29:21 +1000, Arlowe <bare.arsed@gmail.com> said:
> Listen to the boss...
> don't forget to say;
> "thank you dear"
That's coz we know shit.
--
VeronicaX
-------------------------------
Frack!
|
|
|
|
Re: Wife provides valuable tone critique - Twibil - 6-:21 -0-09-20
|
|
On Jun 20, 9:49=A0pm, VampX <veroni...@vampx.dot.net> wrote:
>
> > Listen to the boss...
> > don't forget to say;
> > "thank you dear"
>
> That's coz we know shit.
Bringing a whole new meaning to the term "scat singing".
|
|
|
|
Re: Wife provides valuable tone critique - =?ISO-8859-1?Q?=22*=7C=7C=5C=5CM=5C=5C=AE/M/=7C=7C*_=22?= - 6-:21 -0-09-20
|
|
Arlowe wrote:
> The Interceptor used his keyboard to write :
>> In an earlier post I described how I was struggling to come to terms
>> with the discovery that my Distortion Factory (DF-7) pedal sounds
>> better in overdrive mode (via the Tube Screamer setting) than my
>> Visual Sounds Jeckyll & Hyde does (via the Jeckyll side).
>>
>> I previously compared my DF-7 distortion tone to that from the J&H and
>> asked my 6 year old son for his opinion. He favoured the J&H, as did I.
>>
>> I decided to put the overdrive to the test and asked my wife for her
>> opinion. She clearly favoured the DF-7 and used a description that
>> suggested that the DF-7 was provided a more "fuller" tone. I agree,
>> and find that the J&H still sounds a bit too mid-humpy. I'm not a fan
>> of the mid-hump.
>>
>> So now the pedal layout has the DF-7 for overdrive and the J&H for
>> distortion. It doesn't seem right to have a digital pedal for
>> overdrive, but I guess if it sounds right, then it is right?
>>
>> (The other parts of the tone are a Gibson Les Paul Studio plus a
>> Fender Hot Rod Deluxe.)
>>
>> Brett
>
> Listen to the boss...
> don't forget to say;
> "thank you dear"
>
> or else :)
>
> My missus thinks my best tone comes from the amp set in the O-F-F position.
>
>
Damn you! This post didn't include ME! ME! All Meeeeeee..... Wut wut? Is
that a chubb I feel coming on? Why YESSSSSS! Me...whack....whackk...
lube....ahhhhhh- I think I'll finger my asshole while I'm pumping myself
offfffff- But what's missing? ME! That's what! Oh Baby! Spur---
|
|
|
|
Re: Wife provides valuable tone critique - Squier - 6-:21 -0-09-20
|
|
> The Interceptor <thisemail@willnotwork.com> wrote:
> In an earlier post I described how I was struggling to come to terms with
> the discovery that my Distortion Factory (DF-7) pedal sounds better in
> overdrive mode (via the Tube Screamer setting) than my Visual Sounds Jeckyll
> & Hyde does (via the Jeckyll side).
>
> I previously compared my DF-7 distortion tone to that from the J&H and asked
> my 6 year old son for his opinion. He favoured the J&H, as did I.
>
> I decided to put the overdrive to the test and asked my wife for her
> opinion. She clearly favoured the DF-7 and used a description that
> suggested that the DF-7 was provided a more "fuller" tone. I agree, and
> find that the J&H still sounds a bit too mid-humpy. I'm not a fan of the
> mid-hump.
>
> So now the pedal layout has the DF-7 for overdrive and the J&H for
> distortion. It doesn't seem right to have a digital pedal for overdrive,
> but I guess if it sounds right, then it is right?
>
> (The other parts of the tone are a Gibson Les Paul Studio plus a Fender Hot
> Rod Deluxe.)
>
> Brett
>
>
hey - whatever works better. doesn't really matter.
a pedal that can pop the mids though might work better
for some lead cut. (imho) but for rhythms that full tone
probably works perfect from the digital pedal.
-----------------------------------------------------------
An aside rant going way OT:
I think eventually it will go all digital - at least for
the everyday working type rigs. It's not there yet and
personally I think the analog pedals/effects and tube amps
still rule when it comes to great tones - but that Line 6 stuff
(et. al) is slowly but surely sounding better. I think the real
problem with all that is ultimately it all has to go through
a basic electro-mechanical thing called a speaker.
That to me is the limitation with the digital modeling stuff - the speaker.
Unless you have some box
that can rotate in/out different speakers then a plasti-cone
modeling speaker
can never model all those amps or tones (ok most aren't really
made of plastic - but they have enough doping on them they might
as well be).
Doesn't matter if the digital modeling electronics can nail
the tones of various amps and effects - if you feed it all
through a single type of speaker attempting to sound like all those
cabs - it will never sound right. You really do need a cart
full of speakers from 25 watt Greenies to 30 watt G12H to 80 watt CL-80's
to Jensen C12N's and alnicos.. and JBL's.. and EV12's.. and old Fanes..
and the list is long and varied. Without those speakers - forget it.
So somehow the (to me) the hurdle will be to build
some sort of speaker design that doesn't rely on cones
that can actually model the various speakers correctly
that came with the classic amps. I think it's absurd that
they come up with all these digital modeling stuff and in the
end it still comes down to output to old fashion paper cones pushing air.
Might as well just use a tube amp and some analog pedals
and wait until they get speaker design sorted out. (not sure
if they'll ever really do better than cones and folded horns
for guitar stuff). I know someone (bass player) that has this old Cerwin-Vega
speaker cab that actually has a folded horn (that's what he calls it)
along with regular cone
speakers in the cab. Huge sounding thing. The horn port
just looks like an open rectangle in the baffle.
ah. I'm back from small gig (wedding in afternoon and then onto
my other band for Sat. night local club. One hour set.) Go ahead
and laugh - the wedding band thing actually pays. Great part time job for me.
Anyways. I really don't drink - but I do swill caffeinated beverages.
So I'm wired up and typed out way too much again.
You had the choice to read all this or click to something else.
Don't complain or flame. No one made ya read all this.
And yeah - I have been there in person and have seen
many bands use the floor pod thing direct out and it
always sounds like crap playing live. I am sure some
people have success with it - and I do know it can sound
good for recording and at basement band practice levels -
but it never really cuts it live. (imho).
The only thing it does is save hauling around some gear.
Why compromise the tones because you can't at least carry
a small tube amp and mic it up. Floor pods et al. are pooh pooh
for live band club stuff (go ahead and tell me no - I'll listen
to your story - but I won't believe it).
ok. now I'm done.
|
|
|
|
Re: Wife provides valuable tone critique - Jim - 6-:21 -0-09-20
|
|
RichL wrote:
> Squier <squier@strats.net> wrote:
>>> The Interceptor <thisemail@willnotwork.com> wrote:
>>> In an earlier post I described how I was struggling to come to terms
>>> with the discovery that my Distortion Factory (DF-7) pedal sounds
>>> better in overdrive mode (via the Tube Screamer setting) than my
>>> Visual Sounds Jeckyll & Hyde does (via the Jeckyll side).
>>>
>>> I previously compared my DF-7 distortion tone to that from the J&H
>>> and asked my 6 year old son for his opinion. He favoured the J&H,
>>> as did I.
>>>
>>> I decided to put the overdrive to the test and asked my wife for her
>>> opinion. She clearly favoured the DF-7 and used a description that
>>> suggested that the DF-7 was provided a more "fuller" tone. I agree,
>>> and find that the J&H still sounds a bit too mid-humpy. I'm not a
>>> fan of the mid-hump.
>>>
>>> So now the pedal layout has the DF-7 for overdrive and the J&H for
>>> distortion. It doesn't seem right to have a digital pedal for
>>> overdrive, but I guess if it sounds right, then it is right?
>>>
>>> (The other parts of the tone are a Gibson Les Paul Studio plus a
>>> Fender Hot Rod Deluxe.)
>>>
>>> Brett
>>>
>>>
>> hey - whatever works better. doesn't really matter.
>> a pedal that can pop the mids though might work better
>> for some lead cut. (imho) but for rhythms that full tone
>> probably works perfect from the digital pedal.
>>
>> -----------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> An aside rant going way OT:
>>
>> I think eventually it will go all digital - at least for
>> the everyday working type rigs. It's not there yet and
>> personally I think the analog pedals/effects and tube amps
>> still rule when it comes to great tones - but that Line 6 stuff
>> (et. al) is slowly but surely sounding better.
I owned the DF7. I still own the Line 6 DM7. The Line 6 stuff sounds
better, but I don't love the interface.
>> I think the real
>> problem with all that is ultimately it all has to go through
>> a basic electro-mechanical thing called a speaker.
>>
>> That to me is the limitation with the digital modeling stuff - the
>> speaker.
My opinion is that the speaker is only doing its job, and lets you hear
the limitations of the digital gear. And don't get me wrong, a lot of
the problem is the design of the gear. It's not necessarily "bad"
BECAUSE it's digital, so much as it's bad digital. DTS audio sounds
pretty good.
Unless you have some box
>> that can rotate in/out different speakers then a plasti-cone
>> modeling speaker
>> can never model all those amps or tones (ok most aren't really
>> made of plastic - but they have enough doping on them they might
>> as well be).
Best case for a digital setup is a "perfect speaker" with flat response.
They you do the modeling in the digital realm, NOT with a bunch of
speakers. You need to model not only the driver, but also the cab and
the driver arrangement.
>>
>> Doesn't matter if the digital modeling electronics can nail
>> the tones of various amps and effects - if you feed it all
>> through a single type of speaker attempting to sound like all those
>> cabs - it will never sound right. You really do need a cart
>> full of speakers from 25 watt Greenies to 30 watt G12H to 80 watt
>> CL-80's
>> to Jensen C12N's and alnicos.. and JBL's.. and EV12's.. and old
>> Fanes..
>> and the list is long and varied. Without those speakers - forget it.
>>
>> So somehow the (to me) the hurdle will be to build
>> some sort of speaker design that doesn't rely on cones
>> that can actually model the various speakers correctly
>> that came with the classic amps. I think it's absurd that
>> they come up with all these digital modeling stuff and in the
>> end it still comes down to output to old fashion paper cones pushing
>> air.
>>
>> Might as well just use a tube amp and some analog pedals
>> and wait until they get speaker design sorted out.
There haven't been that many innovations in speaker design, and I don't
expect more soon.
Think about it. Model in the digital, use a reference speaker.
For example, guys using one of those line 6 floor boards direct to PA.
They could run a Mackie SRM 450 or two. They have fairly flat response.
If the Line 6 is doing its job, you don't need to be concerned about
tweeters and whether the woofer sounds like a guitar speaker. It
shouldn't have to! That's what the modeler is for!
(not sure
>> if they'll ever really do better than cones and folded horns
>> for guitar stuff). I know someone (bass player) that has this old
>> Cerwin-Vega speaker cab that actually has a folded horn (that's what
>> he calls it)
>> along with regular cone
>> speakers in the cab. Huge sounding thing. The horn port
>> just looks like an open rectangle in the baffle.
>>
>> ah. I'm back from small gig (wedding in afternoon and then onto
>> my other band for Sat. night local club. One hour set.) Go ahead
>> and laugh - the wedding band thing actually pays. Great part time
>> job for me. Anyways. I really don't drink - but I do swill
>> caffeinated beverages.
Just finished a double espresso myself.
>> So I'm wired up and typed out way too much again.
>> You had the choice to read all this or click to something else.
>> Don't complain or flame. No one made ya read all this.
>>
>> And yeah - I have been there in person and have seen
>> many bands use the floor pod thing direct out and it
>> always sounds like crap playing live. I am sure some
>> people have success with it - and I do know it can sound
>> good for recording and at basement band practice levels -
>> but it never really cuts it live. (imho).
I share that opinion.
IN FACT, getting back to the subject line of this thread... It was a
few years ago, first Line 6 generation. But wife and I were at a club
with a live band. After the first set, she asks me why the guitar
sounds like a TOY. I tell her to look for his amp. She can't find it.
I explain the Pod thing to her.
Ya know what she did? She went and told the guitar player that he needs
a real amp! I couldn't believe it. She said that he responded that the
Pod does a bunch of amps, and he didn't have to carry them around.
>>
>> The only thing it does is save hauling around some gear.
>> Why compromise the tones because you can't at least carry
>> a small tube amp and mic it up. Floor pods et al. are pooh pooh
>> for live band club stuff (go ahead and tell me no - I'll listen
>> to your story - but I won't believe it).
>>
>> ok. now I'm done.
>
> Respectfully disagree. I think you're thinking is limited by the fact
> that you're envisioning *guitar amp* speakers. Admittedly, each of
> these has its limitations in terms of use with modelers.
>
> It seems to me that the ideal that should be envisioned in this context
> involves *hi-fi* speakers. That is to say, speakers whose frequency
> response is as flat as possible. Let the modeler bear the load of
> emulating actual guitar speakers as much as possible.
Okay, I just realized that I jumped in late in the thread, and posted
pretty much what you just said. But because I'm lazy, I'll leave it as-is.
>
> Personally, I'm a tube amp kind of guy and it's unlikely that I'd go the
> modeling route in my lifetime.
SAME HERE.
> But if I envision the direction of the
> future, I see a modeling preamp powering a really high-power hi-fi-style
> power amp (*flat* frequency response with *tons* of headroom) into a
> hi-fi speaker cab (again, flat frequency response with tons of
> headroom). Keep all nonlinearities out of the power amp/speaker system,
> just make them effectively a *colorless* mechanism to take the output of
> the modeler and amplify it and convert it to sound as faithfully as
> possible.
Yup, the SRM 450 type setup. But guitarists are reluctant to LOOK like
that. I know that there's some sore of "power reactor" ("atomic?" not
sure about the name) setup intended for guitar use.
It makes sense. Sell the modeling guitarist his choice of a 1x12, 2x12
or 4x12 that looks like a guitar cab, but has FLAT response and a SS
power amp.
He won't stand out like a sore thumb, like using an SRM 450. And the
modeling stuff will be able to do its job, instead of being colored by a
guitar speaker.
|
|
|
|
Re: Wife provides valuable tone critique - Squier - 6-:21 -0-09-20
|
|
> Jim <jim@askmebeforeyousend.com> wrote:
> RichL wrote:
> > Squier <squier@strats.net> wrote:
> >>> The Interceptor <thisemail@willnotwork.com> wrote:
> >>> In an earlier post I described how I was struggling to come to terms
> >>> with the discovery that my Distortion Factory (DF-7) pedal sounds
> >>> better in overdrive mode (via the Tube Screamer setting) than my
> >>> Visual Sounds Jeckyll & Hyde does (via the Jeckyll side).
> >>>
> >>> I previously compared my DF-7 distortion tone to that from the J&H
> >>> and asked my 6 year old son for his opinion. He favoured the J&H,
> >>> as did I.
> >>>
> >>> I decided to put the overdrive to the test and asked my wife for her
> >>> opinion. She clearly favoured the DF-7 and used a description that
> >>> suggested that the DF-7 was provided a more "fuller" tone. I agree,
> >>> and find that the J&H still sounds a bit too mid-humpy. I'm not a
> >>> fan of the mid-hump.
> >>>
> >>> So now the pedal layout has the DF-7 for overdrive and the J&H for
> >>> distortion. It doesn't seem right to have a digital pedal for
> >>> overdrive, but I guess if it sounds right, then it is right?
> >>>
> >>> (The other parts of the tone are a Gibson Les Paul Studio plus a
> >>> Fender Hot Rod Deluxe.)
> >>>
> >>> Brett
> >>>
> >>>
> >> hey - whatever works better. doesn't really matter.
> >> a pedal that can pop the mids though might work better
> >> for some lead cut. (imho) but for rhythms that full tone
> >> probably works perfect from the digital pedal.
> >>
> >> -----------------------------------------------------------
> >>
> >> An aside rant going way OT:
> >>
> >> I think eventually it will go all digital - at least for
> >> the everyday working type rigs. It's not there yet and
> >> personally I think the analog pedals/effects and tube amps
> >> still rule when it comes to great tones - but that Line 6 stuff
> >> (et. al) is slowly but surely sounding better.
>
> I owned the DF7. I still own the Line 6 DM7. The Line 6 stuff sounds
> better, but I don't love the interface.
>
>
> >> I think the real
> >> problem with all that is ultimately it all has to go through
> >> a basic electro-mechanical thing called a speaker.
> >>
> >> That to me is the limitation with the digital modeling stuff - the
> >> speaker.
>
> My opinion is that the speaker is only doing its job, and lets you hear
> the limitations of the digital gear. And don't get me wrong, a lot of
> the problem is the design of the gear. It's not necessarily "bad"
> BECAUSE it's digital, so much as it's bad digital. DTS audio sounds
> pretty good.
>
>
>
>
> Unless you have some box
> >> that can rotate in/out different speakers then a plasti-cone
> >> modeling speaker
> >> can never model all those amps or tones (ok most aren't really
> >> made of plastic - but they have enough doping on them they might
> >> as well be).
>
>
> Best case for a digital setup is a "perfect speaker" with flat response.
> They you do the modeling in the digital realm, NOT with a bunch of
> speakers. You need to model not only the driver, but also the cab and
> the driver arrangement.
>
>
> >>
> >> Doesn't matter if the digital modeling electronics can nail
> >> the tones of various amps and effects - if you feed it all
> >> through a single type of speaker attempting to sound like all those
> >> cabs - it will never sound right. You really do need a cart
> >> full of speakers from 25 watt Greenies to 30 watt G12H to 80 watt
> >> CL-80's
> >> to Jensen C12N's and alnicos.. and JBL's.. and EV12's.. and old
> >> Fanes..
> >> and the list is long and varied. Without those speakers - forget it.
> >>
> >> So somehow the (to me) the hurdle will be to build
> >> some sort of speaker design that doesn't rely on cones
> >> that can actually model the various speakers correctly
> >> that came with the classic amps. I think it's absurd that
> >> they come up with all these digital modeling stuff and in the
> >> end it still comes down to output to old fashion paper cones pushing
> >> air.
> >>
> >> Might as well just use a tube amp and some analog pedals
> >> and wait until they get speaker design sorted out.
>
> There haven't been that many innovations in speaker design, and I don't
> expect more soon.
>
> Think about it. Model in the digital, use a reference speaker.
>
> For example, guys using one of those line 6 floor boards direct to PA.
> They could run a Mackie SRM 450 or two. They have fairly flat response.
> If the Line 6 is doing its job, you don't need to be concerned about
> tweeters and whether the woofer sounds like a guitar speaker. It
> shouldn't have to! That's what the modeler is for!
>
>
>
> (not sure
> >> if they'll ever really do better than cones and folded horns
> >> for guitar stuff). I know someone (bass player) that has this old
> >> Cerwin-Vega speaker cab that actually has a folded horn (that's what
> >> he calls it)
> >> along with regular cone
> >> speakers in the cab. Huge sounding thing. The horn port
> >> just looks like an open rectangle in the baffle.
> >>
> >> ah. I'm back from small gig (wedding in afternoon and then onto
> >> my other band for Sat. night local club. One hour set.) Go ahead
> >> and laugh - the wedding band thing actually pays. Great part time
> >> job for me. Anyways. I really don't drink - but I do swill
> >> caffeinated beverages.
>
> Just finished a double espresso myself.
>
>
> >> So I'm wired up and typed out way too much again.
> >> You had the choice to read all this or click to something else.
> >> Don't complain or flame. No one made ya read all this.
> >>
> >> And yeah - I have been there in person and have seen
> >> many bands use the floor pod thing direct out and it
> >> always sounds like crap playing live. I am sure some
> >> people have success with it - and I do know it can sound
> >> good for recording and at basement band practice levels -
> >> but it never really cuts it live. (imho).
>
> I share that opinion.
>
> IN FACT, getting back to the subject line of this thread... It was a
> few years ago, first Line 6 generation. But wife and I were at a club
> with a live band. After the first set, she asks me why the guitar
> sounds like a TOY. I tell her to look for his amp. She can't find it.
> I explain the Pod thing to her.
>
> Ya know what she did? She went and told the guitar player that he needs
> a real amp! I couldn't believe it. She said that he responded that the
> Pod does a bunch of amps, and he didn't have to carry them around.
>
>
> >>
> >> The only thing it does is save hauling around some gear.
> >> Why compromise the tones because you can't at least carry
> >> a small tube amp and mic it up. Floor pods et al. are pooh pooh
> >> for live band club stuff (go ahead and tell me no - I'll listen
> >> to your story - but I won't believe it).
> >>
> >> ok. now I'm done.
> >
> > Respectfully disagree. I think you're thinking is limited by the fact
> > that you're envisioning *guitar amp* speakers. Admittedly, each of
> > these has its limitations in terms of use with modelers.
> >
> > It seems to me that the ideal that should be envisioned in this context
> > involves *hi-fi* speakers. That is to say, speakers whose frequency
> > response is as flat as possible. Let the modeler bear the load of
> > emulating actual guitar speakers as much as possible.
>
> Okay, I just realized that I jumped in late in the thread, and posted
> pretty much what you just said. But because I'm lazy, I'll leave it as-is.
>
> >
> > Personally, I'm a tube amp kind of guy and it's unlikely that I'd go the
> > modeling route in my lifetime.
>
> SAME HERE.
>
>
> > But if I envision the direction of the
> > future, I see a modeling preamp powering a really high-power hi-fi-style
> > power amp (*flat* frequency response with *tons* of headroom) into a
> > hi-fi speaker cab (again, flat frequency response with tons of
> > headroom). Keep all nonlinearities out of the power amp/speaker system,
> > just make them effectively a *colorless* mechanism to take the output of
> > the modeler and amplify it and convert it to sound as faithfully as
> > possible.
>
> Yup, the SRM 450 type setup. But guitarists are reluctant to LOOK like
> that. I know that there's some sore of "power reactor" ("atomic?" not
> sure about the name) setup intended for guitar use.
>
> It makes sense. Sell the modeling guitarist his choice of a 1x12, 2x12
> or 4x12 that looks like a guitar cab, but has FLAT response and a SS
> power amp.
>
> He won't stand out like a sore thumb, like using an SRM 450. And the
> modeling stuff will be able to do its job, instead of being colored by a
> guitar speaker.
kinda reply to both Jim and RichL -
yeah I never thought about it that way
(using Hi-Fi 20hz-20khz exacting flat response type of speakers that
have very little distortion characteristics, frequency humps/dips etc).
And to Jim - yeah - the 'rig' is a physical thing so prolly to ween
people into digital rigs they would almost have to make
cabs.. amps.. etc.. the same size as being used today. (although
stripping away a few pounds/Kg's of weight wouldn't hurt).
Those 2x12 combo tube amps all weigh a ton (well ok.. close to a ton).
And props to Jim's wife - you go girl! can't have guitarists playing with toys
out there - get a real amp! good one! and you know what - she's right!
Ah well - it still amazes me that after 50+ years of guitar amps that
the best sounding ones always seem to be tube amps driving those paper cones.
dinosaurs still roam the stages and basements of many good bands.
they aren't extinct yet.
Who knows - maybe it really doesn't get any better than that (??)
Time will tell (and I realize that the total expenditure for
digital guitar modeling research isn't in the same ballpark as research
for penile disfunction, hair growth remedies, sending a probe to mars
or creating yet another bad sitcom for TV).
|
|
|
|
Re: Wife provides valuable tone critique - Dr. Zontar - 6-:22 -0-09-20
|
|
Here's my 2 cents - although I've been a supporter of modeling for a
while, I think you're still better off with real speakers that were
designed for guitar. I tried my Pod XT Live through the PA, and didn't
like it. It sounded like playing a recording of an electric guitar
through a stereo, rather than a live guitar and amp.
The best results I got were from turning off all the speaker and mic
modeling, and running the output into a tube power amp and guitar cab.
Sure, this added the personality of the 4x12 cab to everything. But it
still sounded better than direct. If I used a Fender Twin model, it
sounded like a Twin through a 4x12 cab (not a bad tone at all). Plus,
I got all the advantages of using a "real" amp - stage volume,
controlled feedback, etc.
I think the Line 6 Spider Valve is a step in the right direction - a
modeling preamp with a tube power section and guitar speaker. Why not
mix technologies? You may not be able to sound like you're switching
between various cabs, but so what? No one listening at a gig is going
to notice. Save the speaker modeling for the studio, where you can
hear the difference.
BTW, I don't use the amp models on the POD anymore. I have a couple of
amp heads now that I really like, and I don't need dozens of different
sounds anymore. But I still use the XT Live for effects. And who
knows, I may record with it again.
- Rich
|
|
|
|
Re: Wife provides valuable tone critique - Meat Plow - 6-:22 -0-09-20
|
|
On Mon, 22 Jun 2009 09:49:11 -0700 (PDT), "Dr. Zontar"
<drzontar@yahoo.com>wrote:
>Here's my 2 cents - although I've been a supporter of modeling for a
>while, I think you're still better off with real speakers that were
>designed for guitar. I tried my Pod XT Live through the PA, and didn't
>like it. It sounded like playing a recording of an electric guitar
>through a stereo, rather than a live guitar and amp.
>
>The best results I got were from turning off all the speaker and mic
>modeling, and running the output into a tube power amp and guitar cab.
>Sure, this added the personality of the 4x12 cab to everything. But it
>still sounded better than direct. If I used a Fender Twin model, it
>sounded like a Twin through a 4x12 cab (not a bad tone at all). Plus,
>I got all the advantages of using a "real" amp - stage volume,
>controlled feedback, etc.
>
>I think the Line 6 Spider Valve is a step in the right direction - a
>modeling preamp with a tube power section and guitar speaker. Why not
>mix technologies? You may not be able to sound like you're switching
>between various cabs, but so what? No one listening at a gig is going
>to notice. Save the speaker modeling for the studio, where you can
>hear the difference.
>
>BTW, I don't use the amp models on the POD anymore. I have a couple of
>amp heads now that I really like, and I don't need dozens of different
>sounds anymore. But I still use the XT Live for effects. And who
>knows, I may record with it again.
>
>- Rich
I'm not a big fan of amp modeling/COSM unless its in the studio.
It can be effective in a limited number of scenarios when you're using
direct into a SS amp. I think that is the original intent.
|
|
|
|
|
|
