Has anyone actually bought one of those Line6 PODs yet and actually received it and actually used it? If so.....let us know your impressions! Thanks, ERIC
I heard one, it really was something. You know what "digital modelling" sounds like? Crap. Is it close to the real thing? Yeah, maybe it's close, it still sounds fake and processed. With one of these, you can record synthesized trash direct into the board while emulating fake guitar cabs. What a convenience............
Ericb <er...@sover.net> wrote in article <ericb-2112982233300...@usr0a58.burl.sover.net>...
> Has anyone actually bought one of those Line6 PODs yet and actually > received it and actually used it? If so.....let us know your impressions! > Thanks, ERIC
In article <01be2d5e$cfe01ee0$704b4c0c@default>, "BK" <bka...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> I heard one, it really was something. You know what "digital modelling" > sounds like? Crap. Is it close to the real thing? Yeah, maybe it's close, > it still sounds fake and processed. With one of these, you can record > synthesized trash direct into the board while emulating fake guitar cabs. > What a convenience............
Cool, I was looking for a way to record synthesized trash late at night without waking the kids! ERIC
Interesting I can't find them around here anywhere let alone test one yet. But, they were released on the 7th of Dec. so it has to be somewhere. Where did you hear it? Under what conditions have you tested it? And, what were you using for a recording device? Also, just so I understand if I have a member of the tube police ... are there any digital based amps etc. you have any liking to, or does it have to be tubes or nothing?
How did it compare to other recording procedures for guitar? Most I have heard (CD's for example - to me) are generally pretty processed and/or do not have the 3 dimensional "live" feel of the tube amp as it doesn't really translate well into recording anyway.
>I heard one, it really was something. You know what "digital modelling" >sounds like? Crap. Is it close to the real thing? Yeah, maybe it's close, >it still sounds fake and processed. With one of these, you can record >synthesized trash direct into the board while emulating fake guitar cabs. >What a convenience............
>Ericb <er...@sover.net> wrote in article ><ericb-2112982233300...@usr0a58.burl.sover.net>... >> Has anyone actually bought one of those Line6 PODs yet and actually >> received it and actually used it? If so.....let us know your impressions! >> Thanks, ERIC
> I heard one, it really was something. You know what "digital modelling" > sounds like? Crap. Is it close to the real thing? Yeah, maybe it's close, > it still sounds fake and processed. With one of these, you can record > synthesized trash direct into the board while emulating fake guitar cabs. > What a convenience............
Oh, here we go. A hit from the mensa'a or the E.C.C. (enlarged cranium club) What if I said, "Absolutely unheard of! " CDs? "What rubbish!" Maybe we should start a never ending flame string discussing sampling rates, FFTs, DACs,Digital Filters,Slew Rate,word-clock jitter,cross-talk and blah. Sure, I use cd's out of convenience and necessity. I also still lift a tone arm. There's merit to both. A tube definately moves the final transducer.-(What did you expect) All discussion concerning this topic is also (IMO) redundant. The audio spectrum is analog-not finite numbers. Falling for the mass marketing scheme? As a plus, maybe "your" favorite player is on the ad. I don't need another "toy" and I'm quite content being antiquated.. Digital amps/processors are lifeless and fake. If you save your money, and wait another 6 mos. the next "glorified zzzzoom box" is right around the corner. BTW, DAC (CDs) is somewhat different from ADC (POD). Hence, your little comment isn't quite relative to the topic.... Also, who really cares what I think. I don't care if you care. And none of it matters anyway. I hope you have a nice day. I will try.
Melissa and Bill <gilchr...@gatecom.com> wrote in article <367F909C.71621...@gatecom.com>...
> > I heard one, it really was something. You know what "digital modelling" > > sounds like? Crap. Is it close to the real thing? Yeah, maybe it's close, > > it still sounds fake and processed. With one of these, you can record > > synthesized trash direct into the board while emulating fake guitar cabs. > > What a convenience............
I sent BK a note asking for details, but they have not been forth coming. I don't much about the recording stuff, pretty new to it, but it makes one wonder if he knows less than I.
>> I heard one, it really was something. You know what "digital modelling" >> sounds like? Crap. Is it close to the real thing? Yeah, maybe it's close, >> it still sounds fake and processed. With one of these, you can record >> synthesized trash direct into the board while emulating fake guitar cabs. >> What a convenience............
So you never answered my question. Have you tried it? Sounds from this post like a dismissal before attempting any recoding with it at all. I don't have a problem with somene not liking something, even for the resons you provided. But, the inference is that there is something wrong with the person who does want to try it, or the technology.
I am VERY intested intersted in what the detractors have to say. This give me some useful data to work with while making decisions. I can get the postive ad stuff.
So ... again ... have you tried it? What recording devices were you using? How did the ster. outpu work for you? What about hte tone did you find to your disliking compared to general recorded guitar materaial? Did you try a mic through the "tube preamp" simulator from something (vocals, acoustic, anything?).
Help me out here. Don't just put out a "I don't like it therefore it sucks" post.
Dale
In article <01be2db9$b1edbd60$LocalHost@default>, "BK" <Bka...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Oh, here we go. A hit from the mensa'a or the E.C.C. (enlarged cranium > club) What if I said, "Absolutely unheard of! " CDs? "What rubbish!" Maybe > we should start a never ending flame string discussing sampling rates, > FFTs, DACs,Digital Filters,Slew Rate,word-clock jitter,cross-talk and blah. > Sure, I use cd's out of convenience and necessity. I also still lift a tone > arm. There's merit to both. A tube definately moves the final > transducer.-(What did you expect) All discussion concerning this topic is > also (IMO) redundant. > The audio spectrum is analog-not finite numbers. Falling for the mass > marketing scheme? As a plus, maybe "your" favorite player is on the ad. I > don't need another "toy" and I'm quite content being antiquated.. Digital > amps/processors are lifeless and fake. If you save your money, and wait > another 6 mos. the next "glorified zzzzoom box" is right around the corner. > BTW, DAC (CDs) is somewhat different from ADC (POD). Hence, your little > comment isn't quite relative to the topic.... > Also, who really cares what I think. I don't care if you care. And none of > it matters anyway. I hope you have a nice day. I will try.
> Melissa and Bill <gilchr...@gatecom.com> wrote in article > <367F909C.71621...@gatecom.com>... > > BK wrote:
> > > I heard one, it really was something. You know what "digital modelling" > > > sounds like? Crap. Is it close to the real thing? Yeah, maybe it's > close, > > > it still sounds fake and processed. With one of these, you can record > > > synthesized trash direct into the board while emulating fake guitar > cabs. > > > What a convenience............
> > Do you use CD's?
> > Bill
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
So you never answered my question. Have you tried it? Sounds from this post like a dismissal before attempting any recoding with it at all. I don't have a problem with somene not liking something, even for the resons you provided. But, the inference is that there is something wrong with the person who does want to try it, or the technology.
I am VERY intested intersted in what the detractors have to say. This give me some useful data to work with while making decisions. I can get the postive ad stuff.
So ... again ... have you tried it? What recording devices were you using? How did the ster. outpu work for you? What about hte tone did you find to your disliking compared to general recorded guitar materaial? Did you try a mic through the "tube preamp" simulator from something (vocals, acoustic, anything?).
Help me out here. Don't just put out a "I don't like it therefore it sucks" post.
Dale
In article <01be2db9$b1edbd60$LocalHost@default>, "BK" <Bka...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Oh, here we go. A hit from the mensa'a or the E.C.C. (enlarged cranium > club) What if I said, "Absolutely unheard of! " CDs? "What rubbish!" Maybe > we should start a never ending flame string discussing sampling rates, > FFTs, DACs,Digital Filters,Slew Rate,word-clock jitter,cross-talk and blah. > Sure, I use cd's out of convenience and necessity. I also still lift a tone > arm. There's merit to both. A tube definately moves the final > transducer.-(What did you expect) All discussion concerning this topic is > also (IMO) redundant. > The audio spectrum is analog-not finite numbers. Falling for the mass > marketing scheme? As a plus, maybe "your" favorite player is on the ad. I > don't need another "toy" and I'm quite content being antiquated.. Digital > amps/processors are lifeless and fake. If you save your money, and wait > another 6 mos. the next "glorified zzzzoom box" is right around the corner. > BTW, DAC (CDs) is somewhat different from ADC (POD). Hence, your little > comment isn't quite relative to the topic.... > Also, who really cares what I think. I don't care if you care. And none of > it matters anyway. I hope you have a nice day. I will try.
> Melissa and Bill <gilchr...@gatecom.com> wrote in article > <367F909C.71621...@gatecom.com>... > > BK wrote:
> > > I heard one, it really was something. You know what "digital modelling" > > > sounds like? Crap. Is it close to the real thing? Yeah, maybe it's > close, > > > it still sounds fake and processed. With one of these, you can record > > > synthesized trash direct into the board while emulating fake guitar > cabs. > > > What a convenience............
> > Do you use CD's?
> > Bill
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
YOu have the Lexicon recording amp as I recall. What are your thoughts (in general language please I only have a doctorate) of this type of recording. Its plus and minus elements. Especially given the cost ($300) to say a Tascam Porta 02 type of cassette recording device.
TIA Dale
In article <75okr9$...@dfw-ixnews6.ix.netcom.com>, "Andrew P. Mullhaupt" <amull...@nospam.ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> BK wrote in message <01be2db9$b1edbd60$LocalHost@default>... > >Oh, here we go. > >The audio spectrum is analog-not finite numbers.
> OK, there you went.
> Later, > Andrew Mullhaupt
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
In article <75ovrj$tf...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, pietr...@ezo.net wrote: > Andrew:
> YOu have the Lexicon recording amp as I recall. What are your thoughts (in > general language please I only have a doctorate) of this type of recording. > Its plus and minus elements. Especially given the cost ($300) to say a Tascam > Porta 02 type of cassette recording device.
> TIA > Dale
Dale, the Lexicon and POD aren't too similar. The Lexicon is a recording amp so you can get power tube distortion on tape, and the Line6 POD is similar to the Line6 digital modeling amps in that it emulates a large variety of amps and their sonic characteristics and also features fx for direct recording. The Lexicon costs about 900.00, and the POD costs about 300.00......Since I asked the original question here and got no answers from anyone who's tried one, probably they haven't hit the streets yet, as I know a lot of people who ordered them months ago and they might even have been backordered before they were released....ERIC
pietr...@ezo.net wrote in message <75ovrj$tf...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>... >Andrew:
>YOu have the Lexicon recording amp as I recall. What are your thoughts (in >general language please I only have a doctorate)
Last I looked you were an Assistant Professor at Kent State University, which, if you were a mathematician, would be "on beyond only a doctorate" by a significant margin. In your math department, you have some real big shots like Richard Varga, people who knocked off big problems like Per Enflo, and nontrivial people in fields of particular interest to me like Lothar Reichel, and that's just the people who I know about off the top of my head. It's a quite respectable department.
> of this type of recording.
The Lexicon Signature 284 "Direct Source and Recording Amplifier" is basically a superflexible low power Class A head. There is nothing digital about it, nor does it record anything.
>Its plus and minus elements. Especially given the cost ($300) to say a Tascam >Porta 02 type of cassette recording device.
There is essentially little meaningful comparison between the two devices. I have an old Tascam Syncassette 234 which is a four track rack mount double-speed cassette recorder with dBx noise reduction capability, and that is a higher quality unit than the Porta 02, even though it is much older. I always opt in favor of my Roland VS-1680 instead of the Tascam 234; it's far more flexible, 16 tracks, and sonically far better than the Tascam.
But if you want a low cost multitrack recorder there are a large number of good choices. Digital units will be much more cost effective than analog. People who subscribe to the idea that digital recording is inherently heinous probably don't have a really good handle on recording techniques like microphone selection and placement, when to and when not to ride faders, judicious application of effects, what is a good room and how to place sources in it, etc.
This is not to say that there is _no difference at all_ between the quality of analog and digital recording, but modern high quality digital stuff really doesn't have a lot to apologize for.
pietr...@ezo.net wrote in message <75pkl1$f5...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>... >Andrew:
> I am sorry my message wasn't very clear. I was asking you to compare the >POD to the Lexicon. Especially the pros and cons of each and how they would >interface with something like a porta 02.
Sorry, I can't. I haven't played a POD. The Lexicon is very recording friendly, and would work well with the Tascam.
I _can_ say that digital computation _can in principle_ really, actually do everything that people claim it can. But as I have expressed before, I have limited confidence that the people doing these computations in the amp simulation business. Eventually, the digital stuff will win out, but I haven't heard it done yet.
>What of the smaller portable devices do you perfer for recording to cassette? >I have only really found the Tascam POrta 02 and the Fostex X-14 at the lower >end and the reviews I have found of the Tascam has consistenly been better.
In my experience, Tascam is generally better than Fostex for low end recording gear.
Those little Fostex monitors with the subwoofer are pretty decent for what they are, though.
pietr...@ezo.net wrote in message <75pkp4$f6...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>... >I have not spent much time looking at the Lexicon, but I was under the >impression it direct capabilities and cab emulation of some type. No?
The Lexicon does 10" and 12" speaker emulation, and has other direct capabilities.
Thanks! That is what I was wondering about to a great extent. But, I was wondering if you had any thoughts on what would happen when the Line 6 approach to modeling went direct. Are there things that are likely to take place that we should be on the look out for? I hope we all get a chance to hear the POD soon. I understand your lack of confidence in the programmers. I am also certain there is a cost factor that playas a role in the level of the processors and the like that are used. I also agree that the modeling amps I have heard so far do not perfectly match the tube technology. I agree that modeling will win out for the larger market in time. The Line 6 was the only one of those I messed with (Johnson, Sans Amp, Tech 21) that was good enough for me at this point. But, I would guess the others are not far behind! And, if one company can do it then the race is on ... just like in the other aspects of electronics. I remember, while my father was working at IBM and hearing about the PC ... and the "advancements" that came after in the in next 15 years. Now look what happens every year.
>pietr...@ezo.net wrote in message <75pkl1$f5...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>... >>Andrew:
>> I am sorry my message wasn't very clear. I was asking you to compare >the >>POD to the Lexicon. Especially the pros and cons of each and how they >would >>interface with something like a porta 02.
>Sorry, I can't. I haven't played a POD. The Lexicon is very recording >friendly, and would work well with the Tascam.
>I _can_ say that digital computation _can in principle_ really, actually do >everything that people claim it can. But as I have expressed before, I have >limited confidence that the people doing these computations in the amp >simulation business. Eventually, the digital stuff will win out, but I >haven't heard it done yet.
>>What of the smaller portable devices do you perfer for recording to >cassette? >>I have only really found the Tascam POrta 02 and the Fostex X-14 at the >lower >>end and the reviews I have found of the Tascam has consistenly been better.
>In my experience, Tascam is generally better than Fostex for low end >recording gear.
>Those little Fostex monitors with the subwoofer are pretty decent for what >they are, though.
I am sorry my message wasn't very clear. I was asking you to compare the POD to the Lexicon. Especially the pros and cons of each and how they would interface with something like a porta 02.
What of the smaller portable devices do you perfer for recording to cassette? I have only really found the Tascam POrta 02 and the Fostex X-14 at the lower end and the reviews I have found of the Tascam has consistenly been better. SI there something else in the under $200 new range I am missing?
TIA:
Dale
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
> In article <75ovrj$tf...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, pietr...@ezo.net wrote:
> > Andrew:
> > YOu have the Lexicon recording amp as I recall. What are your thoughts (in > > general language please I only have a doctorate) of this type of recording. > > Its plus and minus elements. Especially given the cost ($300) to say a Tascam > > Porta 02 type of cassette recording device.
> > TIA > > Dale
> Dale, the Lexicon and POD aren't too similar. The Lexicon is a recording > amp so you can get power tube distortion on tape, and the Line6 POD is > similar to the Line6 digital modeling amps in that it emulates a large > variety of amps and their sonic characteristics and also features fx for > direct recording. The Lexicon costs about 900.00, and the POD costs about > 300.00......Since I asked the original question here and got no answers > from anyone who's tried one, probably they haven't hit the streets yet, as > I know a lot of people who ordered them months ago and they might even > have been backordered before they were released....ERIC
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
"Andrew P. Mullhaupt" <amull...@nospam.ix.netcom.com> wrote: []
[] BK wrote in message <01be2db9$b1edbd60$LocalHost@default>...
[] >Oh, here we go. [] >The audio spectrum is analog-not finite numbers. [] [] OK, there you went.
Besides, that comment is irrelevant. We've all been over the "what does digital due to stored analog audio", but issue with the Pod is the emulation through DSP processing of something that didn't exist in the first place. This is NOT analogous to how music sounds on a CD at all.
---- "In the midst of winter, I finally learned there was within me an invincible summer." - Albert Camus .............................................................. Remove X's from my email address above to reply Xchris...@microsoft.comX -- Seattle, WA. [These opinions are personal views only and only my personal views]
> "Andrew P. Mullhaupt" <amull...@nospam.ix.netcom.com> wrote: > [] > [] BK wrote in message <01be2db9$b1edbd60$LocalHost@default>... > [] >Oh, here we go. > [] >The audio spectrum is analog-not finite numbers. > [] > [] OK, there you went.
> Besides, that comment is irrelevant. We've all been over the "what > does digital due to stored analog audio", but issue with the Pod is > the emulation through DSP processing of something that didn't exist in > the first place. This is NOT analogous to how music sounds on a CD at > all.
True, sort of.
The best explanation I've heard, provided by Andrew on this very group, is that the people necessary to implement a really good POD-type device using DSP are busy making more money building the perfect cell phone or other more lucrative projects, rather than building MI gear.
There is a belief on the part of many that digital simulation will never reach that level. I don't know that to be either true nor false. I lean toward false.
The descriptions Andrew gave of the signal modeling, such that I understood them, led me to beleieve it's just gonna take many man-hours to do it.
Besides, even if you did build it, would it really be able to compete against the cost ( around $1000 ) of a really nice tube amp in the quantities likely for MI sales?
At current cost levels, the real thing makes more sense for now.
> ---- > "In the midst of winter, I finally learned there was within me an > invincible summer." - Albert Camus > .............................................................. > Remove X's from my email address above to reply > Xchris...@microsoft.comX -- Seattle, WA. > [These opinions are personal views only and only my personal views]
Les Cargill wrote in message <368086D3.2...@worldnet.att.net>...
>Besides, even if you did build it, would it really be able to >compete against the cost ( around $1000 ) of a really nice tube amp >in the quantities likely for MI sales?
Easily. You'll even get to Cybermonk's daring $200 estimate.
And at some point, we'll all be talking about software plug-ins for general purpose computers we use for all sorts of things.
I just wanted to mention that the GP 100 and the VG-8 by Roland have been in use in studios for at least 3 years. I've seen many photographs of session guys racks with a GP 100 in them and have read accounts of sessions where the modelers were successfully used. We've probably all heard modeling on Cd's, soundtracks, commercials etc for a few years and not realized it. Some of the session guys say it's a lifesaver if you're under the gun timewise and need a great tone quickly. Several name guitarists use the VG-8 in the studio and on stage. Just pointing out that the POD is not revolutionary. Evolutionary maybe. We'll see.
I have a GP 100, a Line 6 AX2, a Mesa Studio Preamp, Marshall 30th Anniversary combo, a Fender Super, a Peavey Classic 30, an early 50's tweed Champ-among other things. They all have their places in recording and live playing.
In article <368086D3.2...@worldnet.att.net>, Les Cargill <lcarg...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> > "Andrew P. Mullhaupt" <amull...@nospam.ix.netcom.com> wrote: > > [] > > [] BK wrote in message <01be2db9$b1edbd60$LocalHost@default>... > > [] >Oh, here we go. > > [] >The audio spectrum is analog-not finite numbers. > > [] > > [] OK, there you went.
> > Besides, that comment is irrelevant. We've all been over the "what > > does digital due to stored analog audio", but issue with the Pod is > > the emulation through DSP processing of something that didn't exist in > > the first place. This is NOT analogous to how music sounds on a CD at > > all.
> True, sort of.
> The best explanation I've heard, provided by Andrew on this > very group, is that the people necessary to implement > a really good POD-type device using DSP are busy making > more money building the perfect cell phone or other more lucrative > projects, rather than building MI gear.
> There is a belief on the part of many that digital simulation will > never reach that level. I don't know that to be either true nor false. > I lean toward false.
> The descriptions Andrew gave of the signal modeling, such that > I understood them, led me to beleieve it's just gonna take > many man-hours to do it.
> Besides, even if you did build it, would it really be able to > compete against the cost ( around $1000 ) of a really nice tube amp > in the quantities likely for MI sales?
> At current cost levels, the real thing makes more sense for now.
> > ---- > > "In the midst of winter, I finally learned there was within me an > > invincible summer." - Albert Camus > > .............................................................. > > Remove X's from my email address above to reply > > Xchris...@microsoft.comX -- Seattle, WA. > > [These opinions are personal views only and only my personal views]
>the GP 100 and the VG-8 by Roland have been in >use in studios for at least 3 years. I've seen many photographs of session >guys racks with a GP 100 in them and have read accounts of sessions where the >modelers were successfully used. We've probably all heard modeling on Cd's, >soundtracks, commercials etc for a few years and not realized it.
I have realized that there is a lot of mediocre, dynamically flat Tone out there in such forms. Just because studio guitarists use certain gear doesn't mean that gear achieves and upholds a high standard for tube tone.
>Some of the >session guys say it's a lifesaver if you're under the gun timewise and need a >great tone quickly.
It is debatable whether these types of processors produce "great" tone; a good amp set up right can produce an even greater tone. When does "great" mean "greatest" and when does it mean "good enough", "not entirely bad", or "second-rate"?
>Several name guitarists use the VG-8 in the studio and on >stage. Just pointing out that the POD is not revolutionary. Evolutionary >maybe. We'll see. >I have a GP 100, a Line 6 AX2, a Mesa Studio Preamp, Marshall 30th Anniversary >combo, a Fender Super, a Peavey Classic 30, an early 50's tweed Champ-among >other things. They all have their places in recording and live playing.
The POD is the same ballpark as the VG-8. Like preamp tubes, first there is a wave of enthusiasm, then a plateau as people realize the goods, the promises, *still* aren't being delivered. The main progress the modelling concept has given is clarifying the goal -- convenient access to *specific, classic* amp sounds. Then these products use distortion voicing and EQ to try to mimic the voicing of the amps. They succeed at that, but fail to capture the dynamic response and breakup character of the power tubes and output transformer interacting with the speaker.
Modelling is in its infancy, as we have only just decided what we are specifically attempting to do. The designers will have to try ten times harder, to address the power-stage dynamic response; my solution is that for the next 5 years, the way to go is to combine the programmable voicing of today's modelling amps with an actual, low-wattage, tube power amp, such as the Signature 284 circuit (supporting a miked speaker as well as a dummy load and cab-sim filter). That's the only way to combine today's common guitar-processing technologies to yield the desired sonic result.
________________________________ http://www.cybtrans.com/guitar -- Amp Tone and Effects Placement, coverage of all products and techniques for quiet cranked-amp tone
