No POD Posts yet?
Ericb
received it and actually used it? If so.....let us know your impressions!
Thanks, ERIC
BK
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-21129...@usr0a58.burl.sover.net>...
Ericb
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
pietrzak
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.
Dale
BK <Cone....@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:01be2d5e$cfe01ee0$704b4c0c@default...
>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............
>
Melissa and Bill
>
> 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
BK
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 <gilc...@gatecom.com> wrote in article
<367F909C...@gatecom.com>...
pietrzak
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.
Dale
Melissa and Bill <gilc...@gatecom.com> wrote in message
news:367F909C...@gatecom.com...
Andrew P. Mullhaupt
BK wrote in message <01be2db9$b1edbd60$LocalHost@default>...
>Oh, here we go.
>The audio spectrum is analog-not finite numbers.
OK, there you went.
Later,
Andrew Mullhaupt
piet...@ezo.net
like a dismissal before attempting any recoding with it at all. I don't have
a problem with somene not liking something, even for the resons you provided.
But, the inference is that there is something wrong with the person who does
want to try it, or the technology.
I am VERY intested intersted in what the detractors have to say. This give
me some useful data to work with while making decisions. I can get the
postive ad stuff.
So ... again ... have you tried it? What recording devices were you using?
How did the ster. outpu work for you? What about hte tone did you find to
your disliking compared to general recorded guitar materaial? Did you try a
mic through the "tube preamp" simulator from something (vocals, acoustic,
anything?).
Help me out here. Don't just put out a "I don't like it therefore it sucks"
post.
Dale
In article <01be2db9$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 <gilc...@gatecom.com> wrote in article
> <367F909C...@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
piet...@ezo.net
piet...@ezo.net
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 ($300) to say a Tascam
Porta 02 type of cassette recording device.
TIA
Dale
In article <75okr9$c...@dfw-ixnews6.ix.netcom.com>,
"Andrew P. Mullhaupt" <amul...@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 ==----------
Ericb
> 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 ($300) to say a Tascam
> Porta 02 type of cassette recording device.
>
> TIA
> Dale
>
Dale, the Lexicon and POD aren't too similar. The Lexicon is a recording
amp so you can get power tube distortion on tape, and the Line6 POD is
similar to the Line6 digital modeling amps in that it emulates a large
variety of amps and their sonic characteristics and also features fx for
direct recording. The Lexicon costs about 900.00, and the POD costs about
300.00......Since I asked the original question here and got no answers
from anyone who's tried one, probably they haven't hit the streets yet, as
I know a lot of people who ordered them months ago and they might even
have been backordered before they were released....ERIC
Andrew P. Mullhaupt
piet...@ezo.net wrote in message <75ovrj$tfr$1...@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 ($300) to say a
Tascam
>Porta 02 type of cassette recording device.
There is essentially little meaningful comparison between the two devices. I
have an old Tascam Syncassette 234 which is a four track rack mount
double-speed cassette recorder with dBx noise reduction capability, and that
is a higher quality unit than the Porta 02, even though it is much older. I
always opt in favor of my Roland VS-1680 instead of the Tascam 234; it's far
more flexible, 16 tracks, and sonically far better than the Tascam.
But if you want a low cost multitrack recorder there are a large number of
good choices. Digital units will be much more cost effective than analog.
People who subscribe to the idea that digital recording is inherently
heinous probably don't have a really good handle on recording techniques
like microphone selection and placement, when to and when not to ride
faders, judicious application of effects, what is a good room and how to
place sources in it, etc.
This is not to say that there is _no difference at all_ between the quality
of analog and digital recording, but modern high quality digital stuff
really doesn't have a lot to apologize for.
Later,
Andrew Mullhaupt
Andrew P. Mullhaupt
piet...@ezo.net wrote in message <75pkl1$f5a$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>Andrew:
>
> I am sorry my message wasn't very clear. I was asking you to compare
the
>POD to the Lexicon. Especially the pros and cons of each and how they
would
>interface with something like a porta 02.
Sorry, I can't. I haven't played a POD. The Lexicon is very recording
friendly, and would work well with the Tascam.
I _can_ say that digital computation _can in principle_ really, actually do
everything that people claim it can. But as I have expressed before, I have
limited confidence that the people doing these computations in the amp
simulation business. Eventually, the digital stuff will win out, but I
haven't heard it done yet.
>What of the smaller portable devices do you perfer for recording to
cassette?
>I have only really found the Tascam POrta 02 and the Fostex X-14 at the
lower
>end and the reviews I have found of the Tascam has consistenly been better.
In my experience, Tascam is generally better than Fostex for low end
recording gear.
Those little Fostex monitors with the subwoofer are pretty decent for what
they are, though.
Later,
Andrew Mullhaupt
Andrew P. Mullhaupt
piet...@ezo.net wrote in message <75pkp4$f67$1...@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.
Later,
Andrew Mullhaupt
pietrzak
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.
TIA
Dale
Andrew P. Mullhaupt <amul...@nospam.ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:75pnrj$6...@dfw-ixnews6.ix.netcom.com...
piet...@ezo.net
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 $200 new range I am missing?
TIA:
Dale
piet...@ezo.net
impression it direct capabilities and cab emulation of some type. No?
Dale
In article <ericb-22129...@usr0a55.burl.sover.net>,
er...@sover.net (Ericb) wrote:
> In article <75ovrj$tfr$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, piet...@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 ($300) to say a
Tascam
> > Porta 02 type of cassette recording device.
> >
> > TIA
> > Dale
> >
>
> Dale, the Lexicon and POD aren't too similar. The Lexicon is a recording
> amp so you can get power tube distortion on tape, and the Line6 POD is
> similar to the Line6 digital modeling amps in that it emulates a large
> variety of amps and their sonic characteristics and also features fx for
> direct recording. The Lexicon costs about 900.00, and the POD costs about
> 300.00......Since I asked the original question here and got no answers
> from anyone who's tried one, probably they haven't hit the streets yet, as
> I know a lot of people who ordered them months ago and they might even
> have been backordered before they were released....ERIC
>
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
Not A Speck Of Cereal
[]
[] BK wrote in message <01be2db9$b1edbd60$LocalHost@default>...
[] >Oh, here we go.
[] >The audio spectrum is analog-not finite numbers.
[]
[] OK, there you went.
Besides, that comment is irrelevant. We've all been over the "what
does digital due to stored analog audio", but issue with the Pod is
the emulation through DSP processing of something that didn't exist in
the first place. This is NOT analogous to how music sounds on a CD at
all.
----
"In the midst of winter, I finally learned there was within me an
invincible summer." - Albert Camus
..............................................................
Remove X's from my email address above to reply
Xchr...@microsoft.comX -- Seattle, WA.
[These opinions are personal views only and only my personal views]
Les Cargill
>
> "Andrew P. Mullhaupt" <amul...@nospam.ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> []
> [] BK wrote in message <01be2db9$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
> Xchr...@microsoft.comX -- Seattle, WA.
> [These opinions are personal views only and only my personal views]
--
X-No-Archive: yes
Les Cargill - lcar...@worldnet.att.net
Andrew P. Mullhaupt
Les Cargill wrote in message <368086...@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 $200 estimate.
And at some point, we'll all be talking about software plug-ins for general
purpose computers we use for all sorts of things.
Later,
Andrew Mullhaupt
steve...@my-dejanews.com
use in studios for at least 3 years. I've seen many photographs of session
guys racks with a GP 100 in them and have read accounts of sessions where the
modelers were successfully used. We've probably all heard modeling on Cd's,
soundtracks, commercials etc for a few years and not realized it. Some of the
session guys say it's a lifesaver if you're under the gun timewise and need a
great tone quickly. Several name guitarists use the VG-8 in the studio and on
stage. Just pointing out that the POD is not revolutionary. Evolutionary
maybe. We'll see.
I have a GP 100, a Line 6 AX2, a Mesa Studio Preamp, Marshall 30th Anniversary
combo, a Fender Super, a Peavey Classic 30, an early 50's tweed Champ-among
other things. They all have their places in recording and live playing.
In article <368086...@worldnet.att.net>,
Les Cargill <lcar...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> Not A Speck Of Cereal wrote:
> >
> > "Andrew P. Mullhaupt" <amul...@nospam.ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> > []
> > [] BK wrote in message <01be2db9$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
> > Xchr...@microsoft.comX -- Seattle, WA.
> > [These opinions are personal views only and only my personal views]
>
> --
> X-No-Archive: yes
>
> Les Cargill - lcar...@worldnet.att.net
>
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
Cybermonk
>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