Soldano on Digital Modeling Amps
Kent Pearson
I've tried several of the modeling amps (Line 6, Rocktron, Digitech) and I
do admit they sound cool. But after plugging into my friend's Vox AC-30, I
found that the real thing was more present. Are you utilizing any modeling
technology at Soldano, and what's your opinion of modeling?
Billy
Plano, TX
Michael Soldano:
"Are you kidding? Modeling technology at Soldano? It'd have to be a sub-zero
eternity in hell, Billy, before I'd even THINK about using it! Why would I
want to model an amp when I already make the REAL thing? Without going into
a huge rant here, let me just say that I'm WAY sick and tired of the whole
digital "revolution" in music. Sound is analog, the human ear is an analog
"device", guitars are analog, and so are real guitar amps. I feel the
coolest sounding effects are analog. I prefer analog recording to digital,
and I prefer vinyl to CDs - so it should be no surprise to you that I'm no
fan of modeling technology. In fact, at the risk of offending a couple of
good friends of mine that work at Line 6, I think digital modeling sucks.
You wanted my opinion, there it is.
And while much of my opinion is based on personal taste and aesthetics, the
one fact that supports my opinion more than any others is the fact that
playing these things just doesn't feel right. By that I mean that the
modeled "amp" doesn't react to what you're doing on the guitar the same way
the real amp does. The high-gain amp model sounds like a high-gain amp
(harmonic distortion, tone color, etc.), but it doesn't feedback or have the
same sensitivity as a real high-gain amp - because it doesn't have any gain!
It's digital - it can't clip like an analog amp. It's all smoke and mirrors!
You can model the sound, but gain is gain, and without it the interaction
between your hands on the strings, the guitar's pickup(s), and speaker(s)
all changes - as you already experienced with your friend's AC-30.
In closing on this topic, and to be fair to all of the very talented
engineers who have sweated countless hours to develop these modeling
products, I will say this: I'm pretty impressed at how good some of the
modeled sounds sound on tape and/or CD. And I guess if you're recording in
the digital realm, maybe that's all as good it needs to be. But when I'm
playing, or listening live, nothing beats the real thing!"
Taken from http://www.musicianshotline.com/q_a.htm
- KP
Stefan Markowitz
Kent Pearson schrieb in Nachricht ...
---snip---
Kent, have you checked out the Yamaha DG amps?
I´m not saying that they would be better than the "real thing",
but for me they work much better than an attenuated
tube amp.
---your quoting of Mike Soldano---
>The high-gain amp model sounds like a high-gain amp
>(harmonic distortion, tone color, etc.), but it doesn't feedback or have
the
>same sensitivity as a real high-gain amp - because it doesn't have any
gain!
>It's digital - it can't clip like an analog amp. It's all smoke and
mirrors!
This is completely bullshit. I can achieve very nice feedback with my
DG amp and it responds very good to picking strength and/or guitar
volume pot.
It is even suitable for playing "Lights Out" :-)
Stefan
CompUser
> Michael Soldano: <comparing modeling amps to tube ("real") amps>
>
> the real amp does. The high-gain amp model sounds like a high-gain amp
> (harmonic distortion, tone color, etc.), but it doesn't feedback or have
the
> same sensitivity as a real high-gain amp - because it doesn't have any
gain!
> It's digital - it can't clip like an analog amp.
Ed Guidry commented in the thread on diodes that some people seem to
confuse gain with distortion. This would appear to be a perfect example.
If an amp "doesn't have any gain", then it's not an amp, no?
Steve
Kent Pearson
On 23-Nov-2000, "Stefan Markowitz" <S.Mar...@dontspam.gmx.de> wrote:
> Kent, have you checked out the Yamaha DG amps?
> I´m not saying that they would be better than the "real thing",
> but for me they work much better than an attenuated
> tube amp.
>
No, I haven't Stefan.
As for attenuated amps, I'm beginning to get the idea that most people who
speak badly about them use them in a very different way than I do. Maybe I
should explain this in a different thread? For now, suffice it to say that I
don't use them for home practice. Nor do I use the maximum settings.
Basically, I find that one or two notches of attenuation (-3db to -6db) is
sufficient to transform a loud amp from something that's painful to a loud
amp that's enjoyable to listen to on a live stage. -6db is my average
setting. If I'm playing in a very low volume situation, I'll switch to the
third setting, -9db. I NEVER stay there for long. When things are cooking,
I'll move it up to -3db, just one setting short of full out. If I'm playing
with guys that don't understand how to play with dynamics, the attenuation
comes off entirely. At the -3db and -6db settings, I can hear no adverse
effect in the sound quality, nor does the amp's response suffer.
Now on the other end of the scale, the soak still has settings of -12db,
-15db, -19db, -25db and -32db. I don't use those settings, except for test
purposes at home when I may want to see what the amp's doing full out, say
if I'm having a problem I want to track down. An example would be when I
had problems with an intermittant speaker cab at loud stage volumes, but at
the time I didn't know if it was the head or the speakers.
So, that's how I use mine - much to my satisfaction, with never a problem.
Now if someone can hear any real degradation of the sound, at the volumes I
play with a 100 watt Marshall and with those attenuation settings, your ears
are much more finely tuned than mine. Yeah, there is a difference. The
difference is it doesn't hurt people's ears. Nor is it as noisy as a
fuzzbox on the floor.
> ---your quoting of Mike Soldano---
> >The high-gain amp model sounds like a high-gain amp
> >(harmonic distortion, tone color, etc.), but it doesn't feedback or have
> the
> >same sensitivity as a real high-gain amp - because it doesn't have any
> gain!
> >It's digital - it can't clip like an analog amp. It's all smoke and
> mirrors!
>
> This is completely bullshit. I can achieve very nice feedback with my
> DG amp and it responds very good to picking strength and/or guitar
> volume pot.
> It is even suitable for playing "Lights Out" :-)
>
This is the sort of thing I want hear. I'm looking to hear both sides of
this modeling thing. Unfortunately, I don't think we're hearing enough "pro
modeling" from enough "pro musicians". The general concensus seems to
still be that they are no good live. I do have my own reservations, based
on the fact that the sounds aren't achieved realistically. For example, if
you're playing in front of a double stack of Marshalls at a volume that
makes your pants legs flap and your hair point forward, you're gonna get a
certain sound and play a certain way. But if you get that sound at low
volumes, with nothing having to work . . . I don't know, it just doesn't
seem right somehow.
Now, I have a friend who has a private recording studio. He writes and
records his songs for Taxi, and he has a guitar player he likes to play with
for his sessions who uses a Johnson Millenium. I've heard some of the
tracks. Quite honestly, some of the guitar sounds were VERY impressive - on
tape at least. Then there were others that sounded ALL wrong. Knowing how
and when to use certain models appears to be a new issue that a player has
to learn, or it could sound ridiculous and not real at all.
This modeling thing is still new. Too new for me to jump in on. It's like
when Simmons drums first came out . . . things have come a long way since
then, and they've got a long way to go if modeling is gonna stick around (I
think). I'm still checking out the reviews. Honestly, I don't feel brave
enough to take the plunge yet - I like my rig too much anyway. Attenuator
and all.
- KP
Stefan Markowitz
Kent Pearson schrieb in Nachricht ...
---snip---
>So, that's how I use mine - much to my satisfaction, with never a problem.
>Now if someone can hear any real degradation of the sound, at the volumes I
>play with a 100 watt Marshall and with those attenuation settings, your
ears
>are much more finely tuned than mine. Yeah, there is a difference. The
>difference is it doesn't hurt people's ears. Nor is it as noisy as a
>fuzzbox on the floor.
Your settings (one ot two notches) sound reasonable to me. You know, I
never intended to achieve a "bedroom" level with an attenuator.
But one of my favourite sounds, which is a high distorted lead sound
(smooth and singing with punch and dynamics) suffers when using
an attenuator. I惴 sure that that punch is resulting from interaction
between speaker and output stage, an attenuator would hinder that.
I惴 talking about driving the output stage to the point where it really
begins to saturate. If you are using some reverb, you惻l see the point
where the reverb suddenly seems to be exaggerated (when turning
up the master) - at that point you know that it is the output stage
which does the magic. The result is midrange boost and
compressed and _expanded_ dynamics. The compression
is not much different to preamp distortion, but the expansion
happens when picking a note very hard (I don愒 know if this
is primarily due to power supply sag or due to some other
effects like bias shift). To say it with plain words: The attack
has more punch.
IMO this gets lost when using an attenuator.
This is my personal experience, I know a player who
sounds great with attenuator. But it does not work for me.
> This is the sort of thing I want hear. I'm looking to hear both sides of
> this modeling thing. Unfortunately, I don't think we're hearing enough
"pro
> modeling" from enough "pro musicians". The general concensus seems to
> still be that they are no good live.
Maybe I could show you how a DG100 sounds live, I惻l tape my
tomorrow愀 gig (no, I惴 not a "pro musician"). Though, listening to
a recording is not the same as playing an amp by yourself.
> I do have my own reservations, based
> on the fact that the sounds aren't achieved realistically. For example,
if
> you're playing in front of a double stack of Marshalls at a volume that
> makes your pants legs flap and your hair point forward, you're gonna get a
> certain sound and play a certain way. But if you get that sound at low
> volumes, with nothing having to work . . . I don't know, it just doesn't
> seem right somehow.
Hehehe, if you play in front of a double stack of Marshalls at that
volume, you would have no need to think about anything else.
>This modeling thing is still new. Too new for me to jump in on. It's like
>when Simmons drums first came out . . . things have come a long way since
>then, and they've got a long way to go if modeling is gonna stick around (I
>think). I'm still checking out the reviews. Honestly, I don't feel brave
>enough to take the plunge yet - I like my rig too much anyway. Attenuator
>and all.
You got to check it out to have an opinion.
Cheers,
Stefan
Kent Pearson
On 23-Nov-2000, "Stefan Markowitz" <S.Mar...@dontspam.gmx.de> wrote:
> one of my favourite sounds, which is a high distorted lead sound
> (smooth and singing with punch and dynamics)
<snip> Also one of MY favorite sounds
> I惴 sure that that punch is resulting from interaction
> between speaker and output stage, an attenuator would hinder that.
> I惴 talking about driving the output stage to the point where it really
> begins to saturate. If you are using some reverb, you惻l see the point
> where the reverb suddenly seems to be exaggerated (when turning
> up the master) - at that point you know that it is the output stage
> which does the magic. The result is midrange boost and
> compressed and _expanded_ dynamics. The compression
> is not much different to preamp distortion, but the expansion
> happens when picking a note very hard (I don愒 know if this
> is primarily due to power supply sag or due to some other
> effects like bias shift). To say it with plain words: The attack
> has more punch.
> IMO this gets lost when using an attenuator.
> This is my personal experience, I know a player who
> sounds great with attenuator. But it does not work for me.
I think the reason I'm still able to get that is because I'm still driving
the amp and speakers with some volume. My general rule of thumb is "soft
rhythm, loud lead" - with exceptions, of course. I'm not a soft player.
I'm also not an overly loud player, compared to some. But I can tell you,
when I'm playing my Epiphone or Guild semi-solidbody guitars and I have to
position myself and ride the volume pedal to keep the feedback down because
the body of the guitar has turned into a sonic vibrator, that amp IS humming
- attenuator an all. It's just that if I DIDN'T use it - and the way I
play, the style I play - people's ears would be bleeding. I'm not into
hurting anybody with my guitar, including myself.
I have to believe that there are more factors to this discussion than one
might initially think.
- KP
Richard
> "Kent Pearson" <Blues...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >And while much of my opinion is based on personal taste and aesthetics, the
> >one fact that supports my opinion more than any others is the fact that
> >playing these things just doesn't feel right.
>
> he makes, but this statement doesn't make any sense whatsoever. Refer
> to my post about people who present their emotional attachments as
> fact.
I saw Holdsworth this past summer in NYC. He gets one of the most
complex and organic guitar sounds I've ever heard--and he gets it out of
Yamaha digital modeling amps.
Using these things for their Plexi/BFDR/etc. modeling capabilities is the
wrong way to use them, IMO. Use the for what they are: amps that provide
you a great deal of control over the parameters of the sound, and the
ability to easily and consistently recreate any sound you've stored.
--
When fighting monsters, take care not to become one.
ObURL: http://home.earthlink.net/~huddler
This post contains personal opinions only.
Danny Russell
"goldtopŽ" wrote:
>
> On Thu, 23 Nov 2000 21:41:58 GMT, "Kent Pearson" <Blues...@aol.com>
> wrote:
>
> >And while much of my opinion is based on personal taste and aesthetics, the
> >one fact that supports my opinion more than any others is the fact that
> >playing these things just doesn't feel right.
>
> I have always thought rather highly of Mr. Soldano and the amplifiers
> he makes, but this statement doesn't make any sense whatsoever. Refer
> to my post about people who present their emotional attachments as
> fact.
Anyone that's passionate about their craft is going to present their
emotional attachments as fact, no matter who they are. That's the
beauty of speaking with an artist, and that's the state of any art.
It's an opportunity to see inside the mind of someone with a unique
vision. If Mike didn't have a fire and a passion for what he did,
he'd probably wouldn't be doing what he's doing. I'm sure he's
aware that everyone isn't going to agree with him. You know? IMO,
It's not really that big a deal. -Danny
--
<<<GET BLITZED!!!>>>
http://home.flash.net/~blitz/tunes.html
AMD450- MIDI- MIC-&-BALLS!
Travis Bickle
I saw this thread and have to chime in here...
I own a POD and I also own a Soldano SLO 100 (like bully fucking for me). In
addition, I have a Jim Kelley combo (deluxe on steroids) and a Super Champ. I've
been playing guitar for 27 years, I have some pretty finicky ears. Let me say
this about digital "modeling ".
It is digital, but modeling it is not.
Mike Soldano is 100% correct, they can match the sound on tape or do it for
recording purposes, but live, and in the hands of a player, the real thing
(tubes for god sake) RESPOND differently. They're have an elastic quality, they
"give".
My POD is OK, it is an improvement ove the infernal Rockman the engineers and
producers gushed over and tortured us with all those years ago. But is it? The
POD is still a non-responsive, non-interactive device (sorry guys, I call 'em
like I hear 'em).
My feeling is that they will never be able to compensate for the inherent
mechanical breakdowns in tube overload with more and more eq, gain, and/or
compression. Call me a snob or elitist, but why bother? Those modeling amps
sound like TOYS anyway, a real live Marshall or Fender or Soldano CRANKED live
is breath-taking experience, IMO.
Get on with it!
Paul
Kent Pearson wrote:
> Question:
>
> I've tried several of the modeling amps (Line 6, Rocktron, Digitech) and I
> do admit they sound cool. But after plugging into my friend's Vox AC-30, I
> found that the real thing was more present. Are you utilizing any modeling
> technology at Soldano, and what's your opinion of modeling?
> Billy
> Plano, TX
>
> Michael Soldano:
>
> "Are you kidding? Modeling technology at Soldano? It'd have to be a sub-zero
> eternity in hell, Billy, before I'd even THINK about using it! Why would I
> want to model an amp when I already make the REAL thing? Without going into
> a huge rant here, let me just say that I'm WAY sick and tired of the whole
> digital "revolution" in music. Sound is analog, the human ear is an analog
> "device", guitars are analog, and so are real guitar amps. I feel the
> coolest sounding effects are analog. I prefer analog recording to digital,
> and I prefer vinyl to CDs - so it should be no surprise to you that I'm no
> fan of modeling technology. In fact, at the risk of offending a couple of
> good friends of mine that work at Line 6, I think digital modeling sucks.
> You wanted my opinion, there it is.
>
> And while much of my opinion is based on personal taste and aesthetics, the
> one fact that supports my opinion more than any others is the fact that
> playing these things just doesn't feel right. By that I mean that the
> modeled "amp" doesn't react to what you're doing on the guitar the same way
> the real amp does. The high-gain amp model sounds like a high-gain amp
> (harmonic distortion, tone color, etc.), but it doesn't feedback or have the
> same sensitivity as a real high-gain amp - because it doesn't have any gain!
> It's digital - it can't clip like an analog amp. It's all smoke and mirrors!
> You can model the sound, but gain is gain, and without it the interaction
> between your hands on the strings, the guitar's pickup(s), and speaker(s)
> all changes - as you already experienced with your friend's AC-30.
>
> In closing on this topic, and to be fair to all of the very talented
> engineers who have sweated countless hours to develop these modeling
> products, I will say this: I'm pretty impressed at how good some of the
> modeled sounds sound on tape and/or CD. And I guess if you're recording in
> the digital realm, maybe that's all as good it needs to be. But when I'm
> playing, or listening live, nothing beats the real thing!"
>
> Taken from http://www.musicianshotline.com/q_a.htm
>
> - KP
--
You talkin' to me? Are you talkin TO ME??
Remove "NoSpam" from E-mail address when replying
Ericb
<hud...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> gol...@mindspring.com says...
> > "Kent Pearson" <Blues...@aol.com> wrote:
> >
> > >And while much of my opinion is based on personal taste and aesthetics, the
> > >one fact that supports my opinion more than any others is the fact that
> > >playing these things just doesn't feel right.
> >
> > I have always thought rather highly of Mr. Soldano and the amplifiers
> > he makes, but this statement doesn't make any sense whatsoever. Refer
> > to my post about people who present their emotional attachments as
> > fact.
>
> I saw Holdsworth this past summer in NYC. He gets one of the most
> complex and organic guitar sounds I've ever heard--and he gets it out of
> Yamaha digital modeling amps.
>
> Using these things for their Plexi/BFDR/etc. modeling capabilities is the
> wrong way to use them, IMO. Use the for what they are: amps that provide
> you a great deal of control over the parameters of the sound, and the
> ability to easily and consistently recreate any sound you've stored.
>
> --
> When fighting monsters, take care not to become one.
>
> ObURL: http://home.earthlink.net/~huddler
> This post contains personal opinions only.
Well spoken Richard... They are tools, if not toys, just like the rest of
the studio gear and effects pedals we own. They have lots of different
parameters and options, and who the hell cares if they sound exactly like
the real 1968 Plexi or 1953 Tweed
ERIC
DEidelberg
one fact that supports my opinion more than any others is the fact that
playing these things just doesn't feel right.<<
As cool as the concept is, I agree w/ Soldano 100% based on my experience with
the Line6 POD and limited experience with the Flextone amps and the Johnson
amps. My opinion is quite different of the Line6 Distortion Modeller. I also
though the Yamaha DG80 felt pretty good, but I only tried it for a little while
in a store.
PMG
mark wrote:
>
> x-no-archive: yes
>
> I'm so tired of hearing complaints that this or that device doesn't sound
> *exactly* like another piece of gear. Nothing ever sounds exactly like anything
> else. For that matter one '59 Bassman doesn't sound exactly like another '59
> Bassman. Sound producing devices should be evaluated for what they do, not what
> they can't. People who use modeling amps aren't idiots who think it precisely
> replicates a tweed Twin or Plexi. They're into the flexibility, repeatability,
> utility and control of new technology. I use tube amps only, but as the
> modeling amps improve I could easily imagine using one some day.
When modeling fans stop making wild claims about how their amps are
capable of sounding as good as tube amps and perform as well live, and
how tube amps days are numbered..., when all this stops (it won't) then
you will no longer really hear as many complaints about modeling amps
not being up to the task.
This is so obvious to me, that I don't understand why it needs to be
said.
Pete
--
I've been shoved off better doorsteps than yours,
I can assure you --Mr. Natural
Jack A. Zucker
vintage American clean is fabulous though. Not really much like a tube amp
but it rivals the best solid state clean tones for jazz (i.e. Roland JC,
Yamaha G100, Evans, etc) However, it has one fatal flaw. The gain is so low
in the American vintage clean mode that you could never use it on a loud
gig. In the 50 watt combo I played through and with all gain controls maxed,
it's got about as much volume as my Yamaha G100 amp on 1 or 2 !
Jaz
--
Jack A. Zucker
E-Mail: j...@jackzucker.com
Jazz Guitar Page: http://www.jackzucker.com
Richard S. McCown
nomination. Although you've been with us all along, Welkomme Aboard ;-)
----------------------- Call me a
Travis Bickle
Tube Nazi? Hah!, No Tubes For you!!!
:-)
"Richard S. McCown" wrote:
--
TruSoldier
tube amp designer/builder/manufacturer for dis'ing tube amp modeling techology,
as they are protecting their livelyhood. If you build Fords, of course you're
going to sh*t all over Chevys and Mopars! That's business. As for modeling
amps being used to emulate various popular tube amp models, with enough work
and programming, it can pretty much be done. My question is why?! The biggest
plus of modeling technology is that you can get a great and various array of
nice and tasty tones in a compact package. Why settle for emulating the sounds
(and shortcomings) of popular tube amps when, with a little elbow grease, you
can get far greater results! For those of you that question, I use a
Mesa/Boogie Triaxis/Simul Two:90 set-up as my main rig, and a Marshall 6101-LM
as my carry around piece. Lately, I've been traveling with a Korg AX1000G
modeling guitar processor, and a recently purchased Yamaha DG-Stomp. I've not
only been getting great tones with my modeling gear, I've been getting great
FEEL as well. IMHO modeling technology for guitar effect/amplification is the
greatest Godsend since the vacuum tube! I still like the romance of a horse
and buggy, but I'd much rather be riding in a 747 to get to the other side of
the country! Not all progress is good progress, but modeling technology is
definitely good progress.
Stanley C.
@(--->>
TruSoldier
expensive tube replacement and tube amp repairs, and tube amp melt-downs
(normally in the middle of a gig, never at a rehearsal or practice session),
are soon to be over with the emergence of modeling technology. When you're a
regularly gigging musician (I do a minimum of 5 nights a week), reliability and
portability are just as important as tone and feel.
Peace!
Stanley C.
@(--->>
PS. I don't care what you say, anything that enables one to get tube amp tones
from a Roland JC-120, get's a thumbs up from me! :-D
Benzel
>
> Question:
>
> I've tried several of the modeling amps (Line 6, Rocktron, Digitech) and I
> do admit they sound cool. But after plugging into my friend's Vox AC-30, I
> found that the real thing was more present. Are you utilizing any modeling
> technology at Soldano, and what's your opinion of modeling?
> Billy
> Plano, TX
>
> Michael Soldano:
>
> "Are you kidding? Modeling technology at Soldano? It'd have to be a sub-zero
> eternity in hell, Billy, before I'd even THINK about using it! Why would I
> want to model an amp when I already make the REAL thing? Without going into
> a huge rant here, let me just say that I'm WAY sick and tired of the whole
> digital "revolution" in music. Sound is analog, the human ear is an analog
> "device", guitars are analog, and so are real guitar amps. I feel the
> coolest sounding effects are analog. I prefer analog recording to digital,
> and I prefer vinyl to CDs - so it should be no surprise to you that I'm no
> fan of modeling technology. In fact, at the risk of offending a couple of
> good friends of mine that work at Line 6, I think digital modeling sucks.
> You wanted my opinion, there it is.
I concur with that.
> And while much of my opinion is based on personal taste and aesthetics, the
> one fact that supports my opinion more than any others is the fact that
> playing these things just doesn't feel right. By that I mean that the
> modele1@nnmp" doesn't react to what you're doing on the guitar the same way
> the real amp does.
I can attest to this from personal experience.
> The high-gain amp model sounds like a high-gain amp
> (harmonic distortion, tone color, etc.), but it doesn't feedback or have the
> same sensitivity as a real high-gain amp - because it doesn't have any gain!
Now here I have to differ from Mister Soldano. The High gain amp model
in the POD is supposedly a Mesa Boogie Triple Rectifier. Well it kinda
is, if you managed to cold it the fuck down like it was done with transistors
and badly mangled by a 66 band EQ with seriously bad phase shift properties
set to alternate bands boost and cut. On top of that, I've never been able
to get real high end out of a POD. I suspect it cuts everything above say
10khz because EQ bands above 10khz don't seem to have anything to work with
coming from the POD. But it does have gain, lots of it. In the digital realm,
gain is simply a product of multiplying the sample value with a static
'gain' control value, so that O = S * G where S = sample value, G = gain and
O = output. You can see from this that for values of G above 1 gain is in
fact introduced for a digital signal.
Anyone that has experience playing their axe through a pod into headphones
set (hellaciously) loud can attest to the fact that a POD will feed back
like mad given the chance.
> It's digital - it can't clip like an analog amp. It's all smoke and mirrors!
This seems another mistatement. It CAN clip and in fact it will clip
very hard if the product of S * G is out of range for what the digital
sample word can hold. For a 16 bit sample the maximum positive swing
is 32,768 so any product of S * G that exceeds this gets rounded off
to exactly 32,768. Modeling is a process of introducing non linear gain
and a simulated clipping model designed to produce output that looks
like what a tube stage would do when driven into saturation. Soldano
ought to know all of this by heart.
> You can model the sound, but gain is gain, and without it the interaction
> between your hands on the strings, the guitar's pickup(s), and speaker(s)
> all changes - as you already experienced with your friend's AC-30.
It seems that what Soldano is talking about anyone could reproduce by
having the speaker cabinet in a soundproof room away from the player.
A good deal of studio recording by guitarists is done this way, with
the player listening to the amp over headphones. It's a shame to hear
him talking about this when he's coming from a faulty premise in the
first place, that digital equipment cannot have 'gain'.
> In closing on this topic, and to be fair to all of the very talented
> engineers who have sweated countless hours to develop these modeling
> products, I will say this: I'm pretty impressed at how good some of the
> modeled sounds sound on tape and/or CD. And I guess if you're recording in
> the digital realm, maybe that's all as good it needs to be. But when I'm
> playing, or listening live, nothing beats the real thing!"
The real problem with digital modeling is that in order to REALLY Model
anything like a mesa boogie triple rectifier you would have to calculate
so many values in real time it's way beyond the computing capacity available
in a $300 box. Second, you have to model alot more than just the amp circuit,
but the speakers as well, and modeling the motion of a speaker cone (not
to mention the 8 grand vacuum tube mic on it feeding into a Manley tube
preamp into a tube compressor) is way the fuck beyond a POD or anything
except the VCA (Vast Computing Array) at the No Such Agency that can brute
force 56 bit DES in just under 10 minutes (for those of you that know something
about brute force cracking of encryption algorithms).
And even if PODS or anyone else's software models of amps where somewhat decent,
the current habit of implementing these things using 16 bit /44.1 khz
sampling rates and 24 bit internal word sizes for computation damns them
to the same category as cheap ass plastic cased guitar pedals made in Liberia and
Marshall Valvestate amps. Cheap ass shit.
Now maybe if POD put out a box that did the same modeling using Apogee 24 bit/96
khz converters and 48 bit (SSL console) internal word sizes and beefed up the
horsepower of the internal DSP to about that of , say , a PowerPC 604 (G4)
then MAYBE just MAYBE serious musicians trying to make serious music
would give it some serious consideration.
Just my $0.02
-B
Sonic VI
> would give it some serious consideration.
>
There'a big list of big name POD users on the Line 6 website. Maybe you're
definition of serious is different from mine though.
DAniel.
Jeffrey Davis, Ph.D.
Jeff
"Benzel" <j...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:3A21619A...@mindspring.com...
Richard S. McCown
rest both barrels on the bridge of their nose, and tell em like you know
how! Give em that French waiter look just for fun :-)
-------------------------- Tube Nazi?
Richard S. McCown
people on the ground won't know the difference :-)
------------------------ Trusoldier
wrote: I still like the romance of a horse and buggy, but I'd much
Ericb
mws...@aol.comfy (mark ) wrote:
> x-no-archive: yes
>
> >There'a big list of big name POD users on the Line 6 website.
>
> Correction: There's a list of big name POD *purchasers* on their website. They
> don't say how many threw it in the trash or gave it to some unsuspecting
> nephew.
I, for one , am glad everyone doesn't like the POD or Line 6 amps. The
world would suck if all musicians had the same gear. I sortof have that
beef with Line6 as since so many people are buying it, they're all
accessing the same tones, but still much of what you get out of their gear
or any gear is what comes directly from your brain and your
fingers......That said, I absolutely love my POD. I think it's one of the
best inventions ever, and could care less if I sound like a SLO100, or
1953 Tweed.......I think the SLO100 emulation on the POD2.0 is awful, but
then again I absolutely love the Rectifier emulation, the 1960 AC15, and
the 59 Bassman....... BTW, I have 8 tube amps ranging from old Fenders to
Demeter, to Marshalls, to THD, so I do know good tube tone, and the POD
has it's place in my arsenal for sure....It's a fantastic direct recording
device and headphone amp, nothing more...BUT for 200.00 it's worth a
couple of thousand to me.
ERIC
A.Wanker
>x-no-archive: yes
>
>> I suspect it cuts everything above say
>> 10khz
>
>There's no guitar sound up there. There's hardly any music up there at all.
There is a TON of musical information up there. Many guitarist who've
lost their hearing I guess can't hear it. Mesa also cuts out
everything over 10k to make their amps quieter... sounds dull to me.
The scorching fuzz of overdriven preamp tubes needs the extreme high
end. The first thing I noticed when I play a Line6 is the lack of
"Air". That's the over 10k missing.
Johnson Family
>>>> 10khz
>
>>>There's no guitar sound up there. There's hardly any music up there at all.
>
>>There is a TON of musical information up there.
>
>often nothing at all up there. Are you aware that FM broadcasts carry no
>information above 10k? Most people think FM sounds as good as their sound
>system allows. I'm not saying the upper range is always empty, but it's mostly
>noise. Tests conducted by Dolby Labs show that pure high frequency noise added
>to music makes most people think the music is crisper or clearer or as you said
>"airy" despite the noise being unrelated to the music or program.
So why don't manufacturers incorporate a source of high-frequency noise
into their designs? After all, if people think it makes it sound better,
then it DOES sound better, and it must be incredibly easy to implement.
Maybe as a "crisp" switch, or an "air" switch?
--
Tom Johnson
"Why run away, when you can break your back pushing through the pain?"
Ross M Stites
>x-no-archive: yes
>>>> I suspect it cuts everything above say
>>>> 10khz
>>>There's no guitar sound up there. There's hardly any music up there at all.
>>There is a TON of musical information up there.
>There really isn't. If you have the equipment check some LPs and CDs. There is
>often nothing at all up there. Are you aware that FM broadcasts carry no
>information above 10k? Most people think FM sounds as good as their sound
>system allows. I'm not saying the upper range is always empty, but it's mostly
This isn't correct. FM signals go to 15kHz. If they rolled off at
10 kHz you'd notice in a hurry. There's plenty of musical
information up there. Also, I assume most here can easily tell that
an FM broadcast is lacking in high end compared to vinyl or CD
recording if they have a decent system.
FYI, most guitar speakers roll off by 6-8 kHz, so there is no guitar sound
above that. If the speaker won't carry it, it doesn't matter whether the
guitar/amp creates it or not.
>noise. Tests conducted by Dolby Labs show that pure high frequency noise added
>to music makes most people think the music is crisper or clearer or as you said
>"airy" despite the noise being unrelated to the music or program.
Sounds doubtful to me.
Ross
GoobAudio
and CDs. There is
: >often nothing at all up there. Are you aware that FM
broadcasts carry no
: >information above 10k? Most people think FM sounds as
good as their sound
: >system allows. I'm not saying the upper range is always
empty, but it's mostly
frequency noise added
: >to music makes most people think the music is crisper or
clearer or as you said
: >"airy" despite the noise being unrelated to the music or
program.
: So why don't manufacturers incorporate a source of
high-frequency noise
: into their designs? After all, if people think it makes it
sound better,
: then it DOES sound better, and it must be incredibly easy
to implement.
: Maybe as a "crisp" switch, or an "air" switch?
Actually they do! The CD mastering labs often include dither
in the mastering process. The dither is a low level
HF/random noise that makes the CD's sound crisper and more
detailed.
--
Phil Abbate
http://philsaudio.stryke.com
" I am just searching for the true religion in this thing,
not the Nobel Prize"
Mike <the <no>
> Most people think FM sounds as good as their sound
>system allows.
Really? I personally know of no one that thinks FM sounds even
acceptable.
Ericb
mws...@aol.comfy (mark ) wrote:
> x-no-archive: yes
>
> >I absolutely love my POD. I think it's one of the best inventions ever, and
> could care less if I sound like a SLO100, or 1953 Tweed...
>
> I have heard the POD used live, where it sounded fine. I'm sure the
convenience
> of the device is a factor with users also. In my studio it just didn't cut it.
For me it's exactly opposite. I'd never use the POD live. I've got great
amps from a THD, to a Demeter to excellent Fenders, Marshalls, and a
Vanous. In my studio , the POD is excellent. So is the BOSS VF1 and so are
my amps......I don't mean this negatively toward anyone, but much tone is
in a person's fingers, and much tone derives from someone either knowing
how to use gear, or having the patience and ability to learn how. I've
known lots and lots of people over the years who still play 1 BF Fender
Twin, or 1 PV Classic or 1 Marshall JMP,etc and have no idea how to set
their tone knobs on the thing. When I have weekends off from gigging, I've
gone through some years where I did sound a good bit, and a good 3/4 of
the bands I've done sound for set their amps up to sound like crud. You'll
probably read this (if anyone will!) and say "that's what you think", but
no, it's not just what I think, their bandmembers agree, and it's really
easy to tell within talking to someone a few minutes if they know how to
use gear. Once again, I'm not dissing anyone who wouldn't like the POD2.0
in their studio, but to me they sound great and are extremely useful in
laying down guitar tracks
ERIC
TruSoldier
replace actual flight, when trying to get from point A to point B. Modeling
amps/effects are used in place of tube amps and analog effects all the time,
with excellent results. Furthemore, I'm not out to simulate anything. I use
my modeling gear to get killin' tones in a compact package. The bottom line
for me is that it sounds great, feels good, and enables me to put food on the
table and pay the mortgage.
Keep strokin', playa'!
Peace!
Stanley C.
@(--->>
Richard S. McCown
Stanley if what you are using meets your needs and expectations who's
to argue with you. Not everybody is going to agree with you that
modeling technology is "progress" in guitar amplification. It's
different. A horse and buggy are more compact than a 747. So if compact
was part of your priorities for a travel mode, as it is in guitar
amplification, would a 747 meet your needs? Do you need a basic 747? Or
a 747 that can behave like several different aircraft at the push of a
button? Is a 747 that behaves like different aircraft a 747 at all? If
you need a horse and buggy, is a 747 going to meet your needs? You
started the poor analogies.
-------------------------
From: truso...@aol.com (TruSoldier)
Ross M Stites
> guitar speakers cut off everything above 6khz or so. This is true and not
This was me and if you'll reread it I specificly said "roll off", not
"cut off" for a reason. It's not a big deal...just want to make sure
that no one thinks I'm blowing basic filter theory!:) FYI, the cutoff
will still be below 10kHz on any guitar speaker I'm familiar with
(cutoff = crossing the noise floor).
Ross
David B. Lamkins
<j...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> Mark I think you're confusing 10khz with 15khz (as far as FM
> broadcasting goes). And to say there is nothing up there is
> stretching the truth a bit. There's a whole field of study that's
> been going on for a while into psychoacoustics and the like that
> basically have come to the conclusion that :somehow: human beings
> are indeed capable of perceiving high frequency and ultra sonic
> sound , just not in the classical 'Yes I hear a tone' way. It seems
I'd be interested in reading about this. Where should I look?
> ultrasonic and high frequency information conveys something to the
> listener because folks do indeed notice the differance between 44.1
> khz sampling and 96khz sampling digital recordings.
Oh. Maybe you're confusing sampling rate with frequency response.
Higher sample rates will improve the phase and amplitude response of
high-frequency signals. You *can* get a 20KHz signal through at a 44KHz
sample rate, but it won't bear a lot of resemblance to the signal that
went in. Doubling the sample rate is definitely gonna help. But the
rest of the system is very unlikely to generate or pass an ultrasonic
signal.
>
> They say 96khz sounds crisper, more alive, more present, air-ier ,
> roomier , less constricted etc. One factor about tube amps is that
Yeah, that's because there's less distortion at high frequencies.
> it's common for a tube amps frequency response to extend well into
> the 100khz - 200khz and higher ranges. Someone mentioned that
Really? We're not talking about guitar amps any more, are we?
AOCrowley
Sonic VI <son...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20001126160540...@ng-fb1.aol.com...
> > then MAYBE just MAYBE serious musicians trying to make serious music
> > would give it some serious consideration.
> >
attention.
> There'a big list of big name POD users on the Line 6 website. Maybe you're
> definition of serious is different from mine though.
>
Ok let me rephrase that. "serious musicians would consider :recording: and
:playing live for an audience:
with them"
I also own a POD and like it alot. I won't say I love it because to me
it's a big tease.
It's on the verge of sounding great but in some ways doesn't even manage
good or even fair.
It's a mindf*ck.
AOCrowley aka Benzel
>
>
> DAniel.
AOCrowley
mark <mws...@aol.comfy> wrote in message
news:20001127112040...@ng-cr1.aol.com...
> x-no-archive: yes
>
> >>> I suspect it cuts everything above say
> >>> 10khz
>
> >>There's no guitar sound up there. There's hardly any music up there at
all.
>
> >There is a TON of musical information up there.
>
There is
> often nothing at all up there. Are you aware that FM broadcasts carry no
> system allows. I'm not saying the upper range is always empty, but it's
mostly
> noise. Tests conducted by Dolby Labs show that pure high frequency noise
added
> to music makes most people think the music is crisper or clearer or as you
said
> "airy" despite the noise being unrelated to the music or program.
Mark I think you're confusing 10khz with 15khz (as far as FM broadcasting
goes).
And to say there is nothing up there is stretching the truth a bit.
There's a whole
field of study that's been going on for a while into psychoacoustics and
the like
that basically have come to the conclusion that :somehow: human beings are
indeed capable of perceiving high frequency and ultra sonic sound , just
not
in the classical 'Yes I hear a tone' way. It seems ultrasonic and high
frequency
information conveys something to the listener because folks do indeed
notice
the differance between 44.1 khz sampling and 96khz sampling digital
recordings.
They say 96khz sounds crisper, more alive, more present, air-ier , roomier
, less constricted etc.
One factor about tube amps is that it's common for a tube amps frequency
response to
extend well into the 100khz - 200khz and higher ranges. Someone mentioned
that
guitar speakers cut off everything above 6khz or so. This is true and not
true at the
same time. Speakers act as natural low pass filters. As the frequency
exceeds the
ability for the cone to track due to moving mass and inertia, the
frequency response
will :roll off:: meaning the output amplitude for power input will drop.
This doesn't
mean that it acts as a brick wall filter where there will be :no: output
at higher frequencies,
just less for the power input than in the designed frequency operating
range.
Now even I with my totally blown out hearing from years of playing in
small studios
at ridiculously high volumes ( example : you get out of the studio and
watch as trucks
'float' down the street because you can't hear them anymore. Anyone else
noticed
this phenomena?) can still tell the differance when I crank up my treble
knob on
my stereo (which is centered at 12khz to be precise) so even you have to
admit
that you made a mistake in saying there is nothing above 10khz. Most
cymbals and
hi hats and (very important this , btw) drum hit impulse spikes happen in
the high
frequency range above 10khz. Also, pick click (what some plastic cool
daddy-o
pedal would probably call 'tracking' or the like) is gonna happen up here
because
it's what tells your ear exactly when a sonic event starts.
Anyways I'm still sitting here pondering why a Laney Pro Tube 50 head I
just
traced the circuit out for has the exact same pre amp circuit as a
Marshall Master
volume and still sounds horrible.
Anyone ever heard of G 3 brand tubes? (No I don't think these are GE I
wish they where.
Maybe I oughta post some pictures).
And uh, this has me stumped, RICOH brand 6CA7/EL34's ? I swear to god it
looks like
they say RICOH.
Peace
AOCrowley
AOCrowley
mark <mws...@aol.comfy> wrote in message
> x-no-archive: yes
>
> >There'a big list of big name POD users on the Line 6 website.
>
They
> don't say how many threw it in the trash or gave it to some unsuspecting
> nephew.
Or sold it on Ebay. Do a search for POD and you'll find gobs of em for
sale.
Wonder why?
AOCrowley/aka Benzel
who owns a POD that'll likely be on Ebay soon but who, btw, is keeping his
Zoom 9030
Danny Russell
"David B. Lamkins" wrote:
>
> Oh. Maybe you're confusing sampling rate with frequency response.
> Higher sample rates will improve the phase and amplitude response of
> high-frequency signals. You *can* get a 20KHz signal through at a 44KHz
> sample rate, but it won't bear a lot of resemblance to the signal that
> went in. Doubling the sample rate is definitely gonna help. But the
> rest of the system is very unlikely to generate or pass an ultrasonic
> signal.
Your my man. The real bugger is that the audible problems begin at
frequencies lower than that. Except don't try to convince the audio
experts over on rec.audio.pro about what appears to be such an obvious
and intuitive shortcoming of the current (redbook audio) resolution
rates. They'll try to bluff you with mathematical formulas like:
Nyquist + Clapton = God, or they'll spew rubbish at your feet about
some special "filters" that Moses bought down from the mountain along
with the tablets. I'm willing to bet that a 2nd grader could
understand how attempting to accurately resolve a smooth, yet complex
moving wave from two or three points couldn't possibly work (simple
shapes). It creates synthesis of audible frequencies up half the
sampling rate, but it doesn't come close to accurately reproducing the
subtle harmonic and phase relationships that define realism, openness,
and smoothness. -Danny
--
<<<GET BLITZED!!!>>>
http://home.flash.net/~blitz/tunes.html
AMD450- MIDI- MIC-&-BALLS!
Rich Koerner
I love it. You had hit the nail on the head a number of times. Thanks
for the more than the $0.02 of your time spent for this post.
If I may just cut an paste from a post of mine from a previous thread,
it serves to further cut to the bottom line again from another direction
where by the fundamental reasons for such extreme exercises in
technology are in the end, totally wasted for turd polishing.
======================================================
LOL,.......
I just put down the latest issue of MIX magazine.
I look at the studio pictures in the SSL advertisements, and then look
of the at the feature article on the latest Rock/Rap/Alternative Group,
and can't help but wonder how we have come to a place in time when multi
million dollar studios, consoles, systems, etc... Record labels with
artists making Millions on the CD sales,... Artists making millions on
ticket sales and merchandise on tours,...
All this is driven by artist who have know clue what music really is. A
bunch of teenagers fresh out of school with nothing for an education in
music is what keeps this industry alive.
Has anyone noticed that of the stuff found on these CD's would hardly
qualify as real music anymore by the level of real song writing that
surrounds us today.
All I hear are re-cycled hooks, and rock classics of the past in the
background driving the TV product commercials now.
Drum machines and computer programs replace the talents of Buddy Rich
all the way to Ginger Baker.
Samples of the talents, used by the no talents, are the substance of the
music now.
Sock Puppet Music, is a good term for the artists of today.
The Music Of the New Millennium is,..... SOCK PUPPET ROCK!!!!!!!!
Let's all not study music at all. Just buy the programs, collect the
samples, and let the computer do it all!!!!!!!
Hey all that is needed is:
-A sock puppet instrument company
-A sock puppet amp company
-A sock puppet software company
Then, to get started:
-One or more sock puppet minded wanna be musicians
-A sock puppet with their sock puppet guitar, bass, or keyboard.
-A sock puppet amplifier, with sock puppet electronics.
-A sock puppet modeling effects rack.
-A sock puppet modeling amp.
-A sock puppet Music Composing Program
After a few sock puppet rehearsals:
-A sock puppet gig at a sock puppet club
-A sock puppet manager for the sock puppet band
-A visit from a sock puppet A&R Executive
-A deal with a sock puppet record label.
-A recording session with a sock puppet producer
-A sock puppet engineer to Master the Sock Puppet Music CD
-A sock puppet video for sock puppet music TV.
Then comes:
-The sock puppet sock puppet radio air play
-The sock puppet CD in the sock puppet Juke Box in the diner for the
sock puppets to eat their food to
-The sock puppet video air play of the sock puppet video for the sock
puppets to watch
to enhance their sock puppet lives
-The sock puppet distribution of the sock puppet CD to the sock puppet
internet for the free usage of the sock puppet music by the sock puppets
to enhance their sock puppet lives
Hmmmmm.......???????????
<thinking>
It would seem that a whole industry is now based on the sock puppets and
their sock puppet music.
Hmmmmmmm............????????
<looking at the picture of the massive SSL console pictured in the multi
million dollar studio on the page of MIX Magazine
I really can't help but think this music industry in nothing but a house
of cards based on nothing but the sock puppets and their sock puppet
music.
There isn't enough talent in the collective body of sock puppet
musicians that populate the world to fill the space in one of J. S.
Bach's Socks!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I'm sure glad I'm not a sock puppet!!!!!!
Hear is what real musicians listen to.
Check it out!!!!
http://www.bachfest.uoregon.edu/home.shtml
Emerson Lake & Palmer, who??????
Regards,
Rich Koerner,
Time Electronics.
http://www.timeelect.com
TruSoldier
Anyway, you've made one huge mistake in including modeling technology in your
little tirade. Modeling amps/effects are only a tool to get the job done.
You, as a musician and a player, still have to dial in your tones and play your
instrument. If you haven't put in the time on your axe, and on your tone, it
won't matter whether you're rockin' tubes or poppin' solid state. Modeling
gear, just like analog/tube gear, don't play/program themselves. The bottom
line: modeling technology affords one the ability to get vacuum tube/analog
(and digital) tone and feel in an affordable, portable, and compact package.
Tube amps ain't goin' nowhere, and neither is modeling technology. They're
both here to stay, and can peacefully co-exist.
Peace!
Stanley C.
@(--->>
Rich Koerner
TruSoldier wrote:
>
> You got issues, Rich! ...abused by a sock puppet wielding tormentor, perhaps?!
> Anyway, you've made one huge mistake in including modeling technology in your
> little tirade. Modeling amps/effects are only a tool to get the job done.
> You, as a musician and a player, still have to dial in your tones and play your
> instrument. If you haven't put in the time on your axe, and on your tone, it
> won't matter whether you're rockin' tubes or poppin' solid state. Modeling
> gear, just like analog/tube gear, don't play/program themselves. The bottom
> line: modeling technology affords one the ability to get vacuum tube/analog
> (and digital) tone
Nope, doesn't happen. You can play with all the pre-sets you want, you
ain't getting what fills the air from my Super Reverb. Nor, will you
come even close to the results I achieve with my fuzz face, Clyde Wah,
and old original '62 strat either plugged into my Super Reverb, or one
of my Marshall stacks.
Modeling is what it is!!!!!
Imitation, is only that. An imitation of the original.
It ain't the original!!!!!
Take the challenge. Belly up with a Line 6 with your non-strat, and see
if you can program in my set up on my Super Reverb. Just see how far
you are going to get.
Not to mention, if you achieve one of the sounds my combination can
deliver, can you get the rest???
I don't think so!!!!!!!!!!
The modeling amps are a nice toy, for those who need toys.
I prefer the REAL THING!!!!!!
Sorry, just been around the REAL things too long, and know the
difference between the fake and the original.
Sorry, it is just no substitute for the original!!!!!!
Regards,
Rich Koerner,
Time Electronics.
http://www.timeelect.com
Specialists in Live Sound FOH Engineering,
Music & Studio Production,
Vintage Instruments, and Tube Amplifiers
TruSoldier
sure that when you got your super reverb (or whatever amp you use) home, you
didn't just take it out of the box and wail away without adjusting it's tone
controls, did you?. H*ll, you did that while checking the thing out at the
music store, let alone after you got it home! The same has to be done with
modeling gear. A modeling amp/effect is not going to come out of the box with
your sound, any more so than a tube amp will. Also, not every modeling
amp/effect, or tube amp for that matter, is for everyone. With my Korg
AX1000G/Yamaha DG-Stomp combination, I've gotten pretty much that I've needed,
as far as tone goes, in a super compact package. That's my experience; I've
put in the time programming. You only get out of your gear, modeling or
otherwise, what you put into it. I'll bet dollars to donuts that you've never
actually tried to program some tones on a modeling amp. The bottom line is
innovation, not immitation! Coming up with new tones that blaze, that's the
ticket, son! I'm anxious to know how much you, and many of the respondants to
this thread actually perform live, and not just play in their bedroom,
basement, or garage. Most of all that's discussed in this newsgroup are huge
multi-amp rigs/effects racks with multiple speaker cabinets. Regularly
working/traveling musicians recognize and appreciate the advances made with
modeling technology. You know, people used to say the same things to Leo
Fender about his guitars, that you say about modeling technology. Think about
it. "Free your mind, and your *ss will follow" - P-Funk
Peace!
Stanley C.
@(--->>
TruSoldier
issue, man, totally! I just came from your web-site. You're just another cat
whose livelyhood depends in some capacity upon tube amp repairs and
modifications. Of course you'd be down on modeling technology, you're not
gonna' bite the hand that feeds you! If you'd just put a quarter of the energy
that you expend extensively modifying tube amps and guitars into programming a
modeling amp, any modeling amp, you'd see their true worth. You rant about
getting tones that match "the original", yet not one of the guitars and amps
that you own and play (?), and have pictured on your site is an original (as in
factory stock)! We're talking MAJOR modifications here, yet you feel that a
modeling amp should come out of the box with your highly customized tones
already programmed in! Your arguments don't hold water, dude! I'll drop you
an e-mail the next time that I'm performing in your area. ...get you hooked up
with a huge dose of reality and clarity, main man.
Peace!
Stanley C.
@(--->>
Jack A. Zucker
digital imitations of life and they're not even close. Maybe in 5 years
they'll be really happening but right now the clean and semi-distorted tones
coming out of the modeling amps are a joke. Try getting SRV's "Lenny",
Jimi's "Bold as Love", Clapton's "Bluesbreakers", Chuck Berry's "Johnny B
Goode", Wes's "Tequila", Benson's "The Cooker", etc. All dismal failures
with any of the digital modeling technologies. However, I don't necessarily
blame the technology though I feel it's immature at this point. I blame the
lame players who design the algorithms. My guess is that they don't spend
any time at all on the clean topology configurations which is the basis for
all other tones. The spring reverb emulation is so lame it's not even funny.
Even the worst spring reverb sounds better and more realistic than the best
digital spring reverb emulation.
Jaz
--
Jack A. Zucker
E-Mail: j...@jackzucker.com
Jazz Guitar Page: http://www.jackzucker.com
Rich Koerner
TruSoldier wrote:
>
> Now see, there's your problem right there, Rich, FACTORY PRESETS!!! I'm quite
> sure that when you got your super reverb (or whatever amp you use) home, you
> didn't just take it out of the box and wail away without adjusting it's tone
> controls, did you?. H*ll, you did that while checking the thing out at the
> music store, let alone after you got it home! The same has to be done with
> modeling gear. A modeling amp/effect is not going to come out of the box with
> your sound, any more so than a tube amp will. Also, not every modeling
> amp/effect, or tube amp for that matter, is for everyone. With my Korg
> AX1000G/Yamaha DG-Stomp combination, I've gotten pretty much that I've needed,
> as far as tone goes, in a super compact package. That's my experience; I've
> put in the time programming.
Good for you!!
You be one of the computer techno generation with your exercises in
technology.
Me, I just rather Play My Ass Off making Great Music!!!
To me, technology belongs in the BACKGROUND of MUSIC.
I'm in the foreground ALWAYS!!!!
IF the technology should fail, I'm NOT dead in the water like all to
travel this road.
My *talent* does *not depend* on technology!!!!!
> You only get out of your gear, modeling or
> otherwise, what you put into it. I'll bet dollars to donuts that you've never
> actually tried to program some tones on a modeling amp. The bottom line is
> innovation, not immitation!
I see no innovation here. It's just a glorified effects processor no a
SS amp.
> Coming up with new tones that blaze, that's the
> ticket, son!
Yeah, there is still a shit pile to be done yet with the old technology
yet. All you guitar players haven't gotten past the surface yet!!!!!
But I would suggest that coming up with the music the blazes, is the
FIRST ticket to come up with!!!!
Before you buy the TOYS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> I'm anxious to know how much you, and many of the respondants to
> this thread actually perform live, and not just play in their bedroom,
> basement, or garage. Most of all that's discussed in this newsgroup are huge
> multi-amp rigs/effects racks with multiple speaker cabinets. Regularly
> working/traveling musicians recognize and appreciate the advances made with
> modeling technology.
Just who are you hanging around with who are telling you this. The
techno musicians, or those who have spent a life time learning what
music is all about!!!!!!
But then, I'm sure you can say you have been there and done that
too!!!!!
Right!
> You know, people used to say the same things to Leo
> Fender about his guitars, that you say about modeling technology.
This modeling BS will not advance the level of the music in this country
one cents worth. Nor will it make the music better for its use. It has
nothing to do with music.
> Think about
> it.
I did!!! IT'S NOTHING TO BASE THE FUTURE OF MUSIC ON!!!!!!!
OR, YOUR ABILITY TO PLAY THE MUSIC EITHER!!!
> "Free your mind, and your *ss will follow" - P-Funk
If you only knew!!!!!
CompUser
"TruSoldier" wrote in message ...to Rich Koerner...
> I'm anxious to know how much you, and many of the respondants to
> this thread actually perform live, and not just play in their bedroom,
> basement, or garage.
Uhhhhhh...you won't be anxious for long, if Rich reads this.
You must be new here <even newer than me>.
> Most of all that's discussed in this newsgroup are huge
> multi-amp rigs/effects racks with multiple speaker cabinets.
Huh? You are new here...VERY new.
> Regularly
> working/traveling musicians recognize and appreciate the advances made
with
> modeling technology. You know, people used to say the same things to Leo
> Fender about his guitars, that you say about modeling technology. Think
about
> it. "Free your mind, and your *ss will follow" - P-Funk
Hmmm...have you posted here under the nick "Red Devil"??
Steve
guita...@hotmail.com
"Stefan Markowitz" <S.Mar...@dontspam.gmx.de> wrote:
> Maybe I could show you how a DG100 sounds live, I惻l tape my
> tomorrow愀 gig (no, I惴 not a "pro musician"). Though, listening to
> a recording is not the same as playing an amp by yourself.
> You got to check it out to have an opinion.
Well, lets see... I own (among dozens of tube amps) an SLO-100.
I have used it live for the last two years. I am very familiar with
how it responds, sounds, and feels...
I also make the rounds to the local music stores at least once
a week. They are constantly getting new versions of these modeling
things. I have a nice arrangement where I can take them out of the
store overnight to try them under "real world" conditions.
So... setting up an A/B switch, with each amp driving a similar
speaker set-up... guess what happens ? The modeling units sound thin,
distant, and small... while the real-deal sounds up front, in your
face, and huge.
The modeling amps are a great bonus for folks who can only own
one amp at a time, want a bunch of different sounds, maybe play in
a cover band needing a variety of patches on the fly (with modeled
EFX added in), or just like jamming in their bedroom.
If you want the real-deal, you'll end up paying the money for
a variety of tube amps. There aint no free lunch, folks.
Regarding the notion that the "feedback loop between the player
and his/her guitar/amplifier based on touch response and dynamics"
is reproduced by a modeling amp is a bunch of hooey. By "feedback"
I am NOT talking about an oscilation loop... I am talking about the
feedback I receive as a player about how my instrument is responding
in conjunction with the amplifier... just like an experienced driver
can FEEL how a vehicle responds in a cornering situation.
Rookie drivers cant feel this. Rookie players cant feel this.
Modeling amps are an amazing simulation. They're ideal for
headphone jamming. They're great discussion starters. Where it
ends is with real gear, with tubes included for more than just
warming the room.
I've tried it all, I want the best, the best costs money, I paid
it, it paid off... I have tone. Case closed.
Those wishing further testimonial may write to:
I seldom check the newsgroups, so flame away.
Karl W.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Rich Koerner
TruSoldier wrote:
>
> You know what, Rich? You just lost all credibility with me on this whole
> issue, man, totally! I just came from your web-site. You're just another cat
> whose livelyhood depends in some capacity upon tube amp repairs and
> modifications.
Really Now!!!!!! May I show you something you may have missed!!!!!
http://www.timeelect.com/guildman.htm
http://www.timeelect.com/55-restr.htm
http://www.timeelect.com/Plxrestor.htm
http://www.timeelect.com/road-2.htm
http://www.timeelect.com/ClubSys.htm
http://www.timeelect.com/tour07.htm
http://www.timeelect.com/ws-99.htm
http://www.timeelect.com/Upgrd-1a.htm
I'm no stranger to technology as you can see.
Nor, am I a stranger to music either.
http://www.timeelect.com/History.htm
http://www.timeelect.com/Book01.htm
http://www.timeelect.com/Book03.htm
http://www.timeelect.com/Book16.htm
Amp mods are only a very small part of what I do.
> Of course you'd be down on modeling technology, you're not
> gonna' bite the hand that feeds you! If you'd just put a quarter of the energy
> that you expend extensively modifying tube amps and guitars into programming a
> modeling amp, any modeling amp, you'd see their true worth.
Look, I've spent more time than its worth at Guitar Center playing with
those toys trying to get them to do something of merit. Everyone of
those toys CAN'T CUT THE MIX AT A GIG!!!!!!
> You rant about
> getting tones that match "the original", yet not one of the guitars and amps
> that you own and play (?), and have pictured on your site is an original (as in
> factory stock)!
Stock ain't my thing.
Would you like to see my 62 Corvette with the 350 LT-1 in it that does
over 500 pony's too!! You want to race stock, you race stock. You
want to race modified, you race modified. The point is I RACE!!!!!
And, I RACE MODIFIED, To KICK ASS!!!!!!!!!!
GET THE PICTURE!!!
I'm not the run of the mill player you run into every day. I come from
a totally different place than most today. I'm a person from where
passion from the music fuels the fire the rages within me. To be on
stage with me is to be taken on a musical trip into the unexpected.
And, I *will* take you higher!!!
Jamming is my thing. It is what I do best.
Just start, any key, any beat.
Don't need a song, we'll make it up, as we go along.
I don't care, just start!!!!!!
Start SOMETHING, Or I *WILL*!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
<wink>
Modeling amps are for the WIMPS who ain't got the talent and the brains
to figure out the old technology, and just play their collective asses
off!!!!!
They are so busy playing with your new technology, you haven't learned
what really can be done with the old one yet. So, before you start
parading around all this new shit, show you KNOW *Something*, about the
OLD SHIT FIRST!!!!
Look, I'm a power player, I am not a wimp when I'm on stage, and I make
no bones about it either. I'm there to kick ass with the music I play.
There is nothing timid, shy, or pretentious about my playing. I know
what I'm doing at all times, and play that way. I hide behind nothing.
No effects at all, unless the music calls for it. I'm a RAW bare assed
power player. Guitar, or bass, same thing.
When I want to be in your face, you will know its me, by my playing
talent. Not a bunch of notes slicked up with BS effects, modeling crap,
or the like.
To me dynamic expression and amplifier sensitivity is everything.
Modeling doesn't have that. It's disconnected from my fingers, and I'm
not the only one to say that either. You may like that feeling when you
play. I don't.
I like it when what I do on the string takes a very simple path. A few
tubes, a transformer, and the speakers. Less chance for tone
degradation!!!!
Just how many electronic component devices do your notes have to pass
through before it reaches the ear.
Sorry, the simpler, the better.
> We're talking MAJOR modifications here, yet you feel that a
> modeling amp should come out of the box with your highly customized tones
> already programmed in! Your arguments don't hold water, dude!
Look DUDE!!!!! The fact I kick ass with mods, shows I know what the
technology is all about and am a lot closer to it than you are as a
user. It in no way has anything to do with the fact that modeling is
BS, and is what it is!!!!
It also is a factor, in me knowing that modeling is BS, and you
don't!!!!!
> I'll drop you
> an e-mail the next time that I'm performing in your area. ...get you hooked up
> with a huge dose of reality and clarity, main man.
No need to. Music is built by the musician's talent in playing music,
not the amp of choice. You will never get me to appreciate the sound
of a modeled violin, when I have listened to the best violins of the
real world violins.
It's the same with the guitar or the bass. Morphing the electric guitar
into another being is no progress in music, or will it attract an
already dis-interested public into liking music any better because of it
either. Artificial sounding, is artificial sounding. You don't have to
be a musician to know the difference either.
This debate is missing the point!!!
The point is, the music.
The, Real music.
The sound, of Real Music!!!!!
Like, Real SOUNDING Music!!!!!!
Now, it is the over refined processed technology that takes the REAL out
of it!!!!
RAW music comes from the soul, the spirit, and the id of the human
condition.
TECHNOLOGY SATISFIES NONE OF THAT!!!!!
WAKE UP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
IT'S BULL SHIT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Can't you all see, that what satisfies the ear of the musician, doesn't
always satisfy the ear of the listener.
If I were to come and check you out, it would be for the talent level,
the music and whether the crowd is even paying attention to the music
being played. Or are they talking as if you are a Muszak band playing.
Not some BS amp!!!
At best, I wasted my time to see a better user of something that makes
simulations of past guitar sounds. Ho Hum.
GO pull off some Hendrix and nail it. Communicate his vibe from the
stage and sound real doing it. Give me a Mississippi Queen and make it
sound and feel real like Mountain on stage. Let me feel the electricity
in the air from it!!! THAT, I could dig because, THAT is where I, come
from. I play, to create that electric music in the air.
If you can't do that, it wouldn't impress me, and be a wasted night
out!!!!
I'd rather be at the jam club with the *real* players making electrical
music.
<thinking>
<an after thought>
Now, let's carry this a few steps further. You do know that this
modeling thing is not too many steps away from being handed over to the
keyboard players. Now, you think about those keyboard players putting
the guitar players out of a job!!!!!!
Then, there will come the rest of the modeled instruments, along with
the human voice to be created for your techno listening pleasure. All
programed up from the keyboard interface you are sitting at posting away
in this news group called AGA.
Then, this will replace the musicians at the club. You will have the
musical programs with modeled instruments with projected videos on
screens of a group performing the music.
Just put another coin in the Star Trek Techno Hologram Juke Box!!!!!
Even if that, should come to pass,....
everyone would STILL, know the difference between *fake* and *live*
music!!!!
Sorry, REAL, will Always Be REAL.
And,... Fake will ALWAYS Be FAKE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
When it gets to the point where even I can turn my back to the music of
the day, as so many have already have, and find no REAL players
left,....
I'll move up into the mountains and play music for the animals.
Stefan Markowitz
guita...@hotmail.com schrieb in Nachricht
<90fj83$e4q$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
> I also make the rounds to the local music stores at least once
>a week. They are constantly getting new versions of these modeling
>things. I have a nice arrangement where I can take them out of the
>store overnight to try them under "real world" conditions.
>
> So... setting up an A/B switch, with each amp driving a similar
>speaker set-up... guess what happens ? The modeling units sound thin,
>distant, and small... while the real-deal sounds up front, in your
>face, and huge.
It is true that the DG amps don愒 have the punch of a tube amp.
But this is not because of the modeling technology, it is
because of the ss output stage. If I need higher volume
with more punch, I use a Marshall LM6100 output stage
(through the DG100愀 speakers) instead of the ss output stage.
What you call "real-deal" is exactly the thing which is
unusable to me most of the time (small gigs) because
it makes the ears bleed.
> If you want the real-deal, you'll end up paying the money for
>a variety of tube amps. There aint no free lunch, folks.
Nothing wrong with that, if you have the money and
like it to carry around your gear.
FWIW, the most effective way to improve MY sound is
practising, playing through your SLO wouldn愒 make
me sound better.
Stefan
trem...@my-deja.com
Just really a heads up here for you gentle folks of this forum. I don't
think anyone would say that DMA amps have got "there" yet but I don't
think that anyone but a total fool would deny that they have made rapid
advances in the right direction over a couple of years. They are
getting better.
With that here's what I think is the very best of these units on the
market right now, an amp that is designed to sound best played loud at
stage volume and not in the bedroom. You gents might wanna play one of
these if you get the chance. Turn it up and tell us all if it sounds
like a techno toy or not.
http://www.hughes-and-kettner.com/guitaramps/Zen/index.htm
tremblock
Zekmoe
singing their praises. The same people who say they love their sound would be
saying that they sound fake and thin. It's only the cheapskate in them that
makes them try and justify their sound as anything other than tightwad-ness.
The amps are cheap, and sound cheap. Nothing wrong with that in general, just
don't try and make a Yugo out to be a Ferrari.
Bob Maggio
Not a downstroke, fistpicker.
www.curbdog.org
Kent Pearson
On 4-Dec-2000, zek...@aol.comNOSpam (Zekmoe) wrote:
> You have to remember, if these modeling amps were $4000, no one would be
> singing their praises. The same people who say they love their sound would
> be
> saying that they sound fake and thin. It's only the cheapskate in them
> that
> makes them try and justify their sound as anything other than
> tightwad-ness.
> The amps are cheap, and sound cheap. Nothing wrong with that in general,
> just
> don't try and make a Yugo out to be a Ferrari.
Last night my new band went down to the blues jams to dress-rehearse a half
dozen songs in front of some people and evaluate our progress in a "real"
situation. (I was pleased with the results, thank you) One of the
guitarists who jammed with the house band before us brought out the infamous
POD. Oh boy! I was finally gonna get to hear one in action. Well.... he
plugged into that, and into the PA , and . . . and . . . it was friggin'
AWFULL!! First you couldn't hear him. Then they turned up his channel on
the PA, and the tone (or lack of it) was SO baddd.... (how bad was it?) it
was SO baaaaad . . . .
Screw THAT nonsense, gimme a real amplifier.
- KP
Miles O'Neal
>
> You know what, Rich? You just lost all credibility with me on this whole
> issue, man, totally! I just came from your web-site. You're just another cat
> whose livelyhood depends in some capacity upon tube amp repairs and
> modifications.
Then you're just another moron who thinks looking at three posts
and one web site gives you enough knowledge to form an opinion.
Does your knee stop jerking when you sleep?
Go read a few hundred Rich posts at deja.com or somewhere.
Rich is perfectly capable of picking up the new technology.
He learned enough HTML and related stuff to do his own web
site. He plays bass, and runs sound at places like Woodstock
99 on equipment that makes your modeling amp look like a
cheap windup toy car ($0.69 at Target).
If Rich chose to work with digital gear, I'd bet a bunch
of money in a heartbeat that within a year, he'd be one
of teh best digital gear techs in his area, and that within
two or three, he'd be world class. And I am probably
under-rating him, but I'm playing conservative here (sic).
Rich, like a number of other people, feels that tubes just
sound better. And yeah, it's a *whole* lot easier to dial
in a sound with a good amp that has two or three tone knobs.
If you want to spend youtr time programming your electronics,
go for it. But don't assume everyone who disagrees is an
idiot - or you'll look like one, yourself.
Or is it a crime in your mind to mak a living at what one
enjoys and thinks is worthwhile?
-Miles
TruSoldier
>those toys trying to get them to do something of merit. Everyone of
>those toys CAN'T CUT THE MIX AT A GIG!!!!!!
One man's tools is another man's toys, huh Rich? So, Rich, you regularly gig
at the Guitar Center, huh? That's your whole realm of experience, jamming at
the music store? I know, that was petty of me to poke a jab at your statement.
See what you made me do! ;-)
>Stock ain't my thing. Would you like to see my 62 Corvette with the 350 LT-1
in it that does over 500 pony's too!! You want to race stock, you race stock.
You want to race modified, you race modified. The point is I RACE!!!!! And,
I RACE MODIFIED, To KICK ASS!!!!!!!!!!
>
>GET THE PICTURE!!!
Oh, I totally get the picture. I get a picture of you being the one who's
dependant on technology (you do make technological modifications, don't you?)
to either enhance what little ability you have as a player, or mask whatever
flaws you posess as a player! In our exchanges on this thread, you seem to
question my ability as a player and my level of musicality based solely on my
use of modeling technology. This is what we'll do. When I get to your town,
you take me to that jam sessions that you speak of below. You can use any of
your hotroded amps and guitars, and I'll use whatever else is available. Let
the chips fall where they may. Then, after the jam, we can grab a couple of
acoustic guitars and really go toe to toe. No amps and/or effects to use as
crutches; nothing but wood, steel, and air between us, baby! That's how we can
separate the "real" player from the poseur! This thread began with a
discussion about modeling technology. You took it totally right with all of
your crap about "real music" and "real players". You threw down the gauntlet,
I'm picking it up and slapping you up-side your head with it!
>I'm not the run of the mill player you run into every day. I come from
>a totally different place than most today.
I had a feeling that you were from another planet! (now there I go again,
levying petty insults at you. That ain't cool!)
> I'm a person from where
>passion from the music fuels the fire the rages within me. To be on
>stage with me is to be taken on a musical trip into the unexpected.
>And, I *will* take you higher!!!
I'm the same kind of person and player, whether I'm using my Marshall 30th
Anniv., my Mesa/Boogie Triaxis/Simul 2:Ninety set-up, or my modeling gear. I
rock tasty tones with whatever gear I'm using. Take me higher, Sly Stone!
>Start SOMETHING, Or I *WILL*!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
><wink>
<Sigh> whatever!
>Modeling amps are for the WIMPS who ain't got the talent and the brains
>to figure out the old technology, and just play their collective asses
>off!!!!!
>
>They are so busy playing with your new technology, you haven't learned
>what really can be done with the old one yet. So, before you start
>parading around all this new shit, show you KNOW *Something*, about the
>OLD SHIT FIRST!!!!
It's funny to me that you should go there. I am of the impression that tube
amp ignorants such as yourself are down on newer technologies because you don't
have the intellectual capacity to understand and utilize the gear. It's no
easier to get great tones from a modeling unit than it is to get great tones
from a tube amp. The thought process is the same, the implimentation is what
differs.
>Look, I'm a power player, I am not a wimp when I'm on stage, and I make
>no bones about it either. I'm there to kick ass with the music I play.
>There is nothing timid, shy, or pretentious about my playing. I know
>what I'm doing at all times, and play that way. I hide behind nothing.
>No effects at all, unless the music calls for it. I'm a RAW bare assed
>power player. Guitar, or bass, same thing.
>
>When I want to be in your face, you will know its me, by my playing
>talent. Not a bunch of notes slicked up with BS effects, modeling crap,
>or the like.
Yea Rich? Performance talks, bullsh*t just lays there and stinks! Taylor
acoustic guitars at ten paces...If you're scared, say you're scared, sissy!
>Sorry, the simpler, the better.
Spoken like a true simpleton! (this is all your doing)
> Music is built by the musician's talent in playing music,
>not the amp of choice.
So, you really do agree with me then. The musician makes the gear, not the
other way around.
>You will never get me to appreciate the sound
>of a modeled violin, when I have listened to the best violins of the
>real world violins.
Guess what Rich? When you're listening to these "best instruments of the
world" on your CD player, you're listening to instruments/instrumental
performances that are being recreated (or re-modeled) in real time. I guess
all music recorded on CD is no longer valid to you, huh Rich?
>This debate is missing the point!!!
>The point is, the music.
>The, Real music.
>The sound, of Real Music!!!!!
>Like, Real SOUNDING Music!!!!!!
No Rich, you've missed the point. Again, we were discussing modeling
technology in this thread, not "real music".
>TECHNOLOGY SATISFIES NONE OF THAT!!!!!
From Mr. "I race modified" himself.
>Now, let's carry this a few steps further. You do know that this
>modeling thing is not too many steps away from being handed over to the
>keyboard players. Now, you think about those keyboard players putting
>the guitar players out of a job!!!!!!
And now more of the truth finally comes out. You're not only afraid of losing
a few of those tube amp mod dollars to modeling amp/effects sales, you're
afraid of being replaced by a keyboard player on your gigs! FYI, I get a lot
of gigs replacing keyboard players because of the tonal palette that I bring to
a gig. If your playing is such that you can easily be replaced by a keyboard
player, then you ain't up on your game like you think you are. I'm sending you
a bill for all of this therapy that I'm providing for you.
>Then, there will come the rest of the modeled instruments, along with
>the human voice to be created for your techno listening pleasure. All
>programed up from the keyboard interface you are sitting at posting away
>in this news group called AGA.
>
>Then, this will replace the musicians at the club. You will have the
>musical programs with modeled instruments with projected videos on
>screens of a group performing the music.
>
>Just put another coin in the Star Trek Techno Hologram Juke Box!!!!!
>
>Even if that, should come to pass,....
>
>everyone would STILL, know the difference between *fake* and *live*
>music!!!!
>
>Sorry, REAL, will Always Be REAL.
>
>And,... Fake will ALWAYS Be FAKE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
>When it gets to the point where even I can turn my back to the music of
>the day, as so many have already have, and find no REAL players
>left,....
>I'll move up into the mountains and play music for the animals.
There there, son, it's was all just a nightmare!
I hope you get arrested for cruelty to animals when you go play for them.
:-D
Peace!
Rich Koerner
TruSoldier wrote:
<major snip of missed points>
No Problem!
Bring a bass with ya too, you'll need it!!!!
Rich Koerner
guita...@my-deja.com
"Stefan Markowitz" <S.Mar...@dontspam.gmx.de> wrote:
> It is true that the DG amps don愒 have the punch of a tube amp.
> But this is not because of the modeling technology, it is
> because of the ss output stage. If I need higher volume
> with more punch, I use a Marshall LM6100 output stage
> (through the DG100愀 speakers) instead of the ss output stage.
> What you call "real-deal" is exactly the thing which is
> unusable to me most of the time (small gigs) because
> it makes the ears bleed.
And I was thinking about this today, wondering why folks arent
incorporating tube output stages into modeling combo's and heads.
Seems like a rational idea, they could promote the "best of both
worlds" concept, and give them something new to market. Musicman
seemed to have thought it was a good idea.
Regardless of the features contained in the preamp stage, be it
solidstate or tube, its the powerstage that gets me going or doesnt.
I have a pair of old Altec 2xEL34 power amps for just such occasions
where I need the "crunch" at reasonable volume. Dim by -3 to -6dB
via an attenuator... and its quite reasonable. A turbo tube screamer
direct into the Altec powerstage can be quite fun.
> FWIW, the most effective way to improve MY sound is
> practising, playing through your SLO wouldn愒 make
> me sound better.
Practicing through a preamp/powerstage set-up which responds to
touch, dynamics, pick attack, pick angle, fretting force, string
gauge, pick-up choice, body wood, neck wood, fretboard wood, and
picking placement between the nut and bridge are all things which
will improve your playing.
I've owned a rockman. Dont anymore. Same complaint.
Karl
Miles O'Neal
> It's funny to me that you should go there. I am of the impression that tube
> amp ignorants such as yourself are down on newer technologies because you don't
> have the intellectual capacity to understand and utilize the gear.
I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt
here. That tyou're merely ignorant and arrogant
instead of teh bigoted jackass this post seems
to have been written by,
Many of us who've been around a while grew up with
tubes, left tubes for the great SS revolution,
and came back to tubes years later after the SS
revolution had proven to be as bankrupt for some
things as "communism" proved to be for the USSR.
You can't spell gEEk without EE, and a lot of us
on here who prefer tubes have EE backgrounds.
Some are young enough to have been born after
tubes were pretty much gone - not all tube lovers
are dinosaurs.
> ...It's no
> easier to get great tones from a modeling unit than it is to get great tones
> from a tube amp.
You said it, not me!
But I suppose you meant "no harder". Which, to
date, is patently false. I've said before that
I suspect the digital technology will be "close
enough" within a few years. It just isn't there
yet. And most of the UIs just plain suck.
Whereas *anyone* can grok the basic one, two or
three tone knobs on most tube amps (four for those
with "presence" or "brilliance" controls). And
with a good amp (there certainly are lousy tube
amps) anyone can easily get good sounds much
more simply from those simple knobs on the tube
amp than with the multi-level menu setups on most
digital modeling amps.
-Miles
Do you just live to be flamed, or what?
stephjeff
accept anything but a tube amp. I haven't tried the most recent digital
offerings, but why would any "real" guitar player give a crap about
these? I can see for convienence of recording at 4 a.m. they could work
well. But, I've always respected what a guitarist can do live, not in
the studio. In recording, they can do a million takes, tons of effects
and speed things up or whatever. Live they gotta put it on the line.
Anyway, how many computer artists are recognized like Michael Angelo or
Munch? I can create some nice artwork on the computer but give me an
empty canvas and brushes and it's a different story. I'll tell you, I
wouldn't care if the digital technology did sound as good {which has a
ways to go as far as I'm concerned} as the tube amps. I wouldn't even
respect a guitarist for using it. There's a magic to harnessing an out
of control amp that many people CAN'T do, I love the people that can
make that guitar and amp sing, whisper, cry, squeal, and pummel you with
nothing but a volume knob and maybe a pedal or two for different colors.
That's finesse and control. Not stepping on a preprogrammed patch for
cry, saying "here it is". YOU make it cry or sing, not the friggin'
computer amp!
I can't tell you how many times I've been at a gig or jam and someone
wants to play my rig. If they aren't in total control of a raging amp
it can sound like crap and it has. Strings ring and it feeds back
uncontrollably. They sound like crap. That's not a good guitar player
at least in the rock or blues realm. This digi amp is just virtual
reality. Again the race car analogy is perfect. Playing a video game
vs. racing the Indy 500.
I guess guitar players play for different reasons. I live for those
loud amps and making magic that comes from the interaction of all the
combined elements of the raw tools. Not for sitting in a bedroom even
if it is onstage, it's still bedroom tone as far as I'm concerned. I'm
sure the technology will catch up and sound like real tube
some day. it's like beating off instead of Fuc%^&@% the hottest chick
in town.
Between the two the end result is the same- you still get off, but I
know which I'd prefer.
Jeff
guita...@hotmail.com
Rich Koerner <ri...@timeelect.com> wrote:
> Really Now!!!!!! May I show you something you may have missed!!!!!
And you did, with the thoughtfulness to back it up and obvious
experience to support your view. Amen.
I've been trying to be nice about this, but thank you for simply
putting the matter to bed.
If you're ever in Olympia WA, I'd like to buy ya dinner. Look
me up, guita...@hotmail.com
Rookie drivers have no idea of road feel, rookie players have no
idea of AMP FEEL. They think an amp is an assesory item, instead of
being 50% of the instrument. Saying a modeling amp responds like the
real thing is tantamount to saying a driving simulator could ever be
just like driving.
But... listen to the music/crap being put out lately. Its modeled
music, made by modeled players, with modeled instruments... all of
which vaguely resemble music, but have the same sterile emptiness.
This aint just the tube vs transistor debate in different clothing.
Its a whole way of life for folks who just dont get it.
They're modeled too...
Karl W.
Richard S. McCown
I think Stanley is into fusion. I'm not saying his guitar playing is
limited to this. I loved "Birds of Fire" but fusion is less dependent
on a "guitar" sound. It seems the goal is an instrument that fills that
space but is heavily effected. Maybe that's whats going on. Bridging
that guitar/synth space. All digital has a signature, and it's not a
pleasing one to me. The pro's don't outweigh the con's. Seems like some
guys go down that road, and then come to their senses. I'm gonna go
over to alt.cheese and tell em about how great cheezewhiz is! They'll go
"man you make a great freaking sandwitch, but loose the cheezewhiz"
Stanley's gonna be mad :-)
Group: alt.guitar.amps Date: Tue, Dec 5, 2000, 8:39am (PST+8) From:
guita...@hotmail.com
Miles O'Neal
>
> Attention Miles O'Neal, Karl W., Jeff, Steve, Jack A. Zucker, Bob Maggio, and
> anyone else aligning himself with Rich Koerner, I invite you all to take a
> reading comprehension course before you address this message.
There you go again with the insults, in the same paragraph (like
you ever use more than one if you can help it 8^) as the one where
you claim you don't insult anyone. You're almost as consistent as
teh average politician. Go back and reread everything you wrote
before. read it carefully. Use that "reading comprehension" you
claim to be so big on. Then reread the post I'm referencing here.
There's a HUGE disconnect.
-Miles
TruSoldier
anyone else aligning himself with Rich Koerner, I invite you all to take a
started with Mike Soldano's viewpoints on modeling technology. Then I stated
my position on modeling technology which is: I can get great tones using my
modeling gear, just as well as I can get great tones using my tube gear, and my
modeling gear affords me the luxury of having great tones in an extremely small
and portable package. Plain and simple. I never said modeling gear was
superior to tube gear! I never said modeling gear would replace tube gear! I
never said it was easier to get great tones with modeling gear! I never
questioned anyone's ability as a player to support my viewpoints! I never
brought into question the music that is being made utilizing modeling
technology, or tube technology! I never questioned the intellect and/or
validity of anyone or anything related to tube technology, or modeling
technology! I did state that those who dislike modeling technology, as a
whole, probably haven't spent much time dealing with the gear. I also stated
that if they'd put as much time into programming a modeling unit, as they put
into dialing up tones on their tube gear, they'd think differently about
modeling gear. I'm speaking from my experiences with modeling gear, and tube
gear. I was once one of you who thought that nothing past, present, and/or
future could even come close to the tones that I get with my tube gear. I'm
also a traveling musician who, until modeling technology reached it's current
level, couldn't consistantly get the tones that I'm used to, while on the road,
without great expense and discomfort. It's no big deal for a person who plays
in his bedroom, basement, or garage, and/or does the occasional gig and/or jam
session, to lug around a couple three amps, cabinets, and effects. It's a
whole other ball of wax to fly from state to state, or country to country to
perform. You'll break you back and your bank account trying to fly all of your
gear with you. OK, next you figure that you'll just list that high falutin'
mega bucks ('cause it ain't worthwile if it don't cost a bundle, right Bob
Maggio?) boutique amp with the premium select tubes and speakers on your
equipment rider. That way you can insure that you'll have great tone at every
gig without having to lug around a bunch of gear, right? WRONG! What you'll
end up with is either a dusty old Fender Twin-Reverb with microphonic tubes and
the wrong speaker, oh, and it's never been biased, or worse yet, a Roland
JC-120! Then, whatever amp you did end up with dies in the middle of the gig.
OK, now what?! I can't count the number of times that my modeling gear brought
me through when the backline provider let me down. With my modeling gear, I
get predictable and consistantly great tone in a compact portable package,
point blank!. When I'm gigging/recording around my home town, or when someone
else is picking up the cartage tab, I rock my tube gear. When I need to roll
quick, light, and repeatedly, it's my modeling gear all the way, baby! Oh, I
almost forgot, I also said that whether you're using modeling gear or tube
gear, you still gotta' program and play the gear. You still have to be the
musician; the gear won't play itself. See your boy Rich Koerner for all the
innuendo, insults, side topics that have nothing to do with the discusion at
hand, and blatant misunderstanding of the topic at hand.
Peace!
Stanley C.
@(--->>
PS Hey Rich, do you do backline as well as sound? I'll definitely recommend
your company to provide sound and backline for my group whenever we're in your
area. I know that I won't have any of the backline crap that I've encountered
in the past, using your gear. You have the kind of attitude that I like in a
sound provider. Your ego won't let you do a bum job of sound reinforcement. I
also accept all offers and invitations to jam. I make it a point to visit
wherever the jam is in whatever town I'm in. There's only two types of music,
good people... good and bad (whether written/recorded/performed on modeling
gear, or tube gear)!
'nuf said!
Johnson Family
<truso...@aol.com> writes
<snip: too much effort!>
Have you ever heard of paragraphs?
--
Tom Johnson
"Why run away, when you can break your back pushing through the pain?"
Kent Pearson
On 5-Dec-2000, truso...@aol.com (TruSoldier) wrote:
> It's no big deal for a person who plays
> in his bedroom, basement, or garage, and/or does the occasional gig and/or
> jam
> session, to lug around a couple three amps, cabinets, and effects. It's a
> whole other ball of wax to fly from state to state, or country to country
> to
> perform. You'll break you back and your bank account trying to fly all of
> your
> gear with you.
Stanley, regarding international gigging - which I have limited experience,
but would like more - is it a good idea to rent your amps at the
destination? Or is it too chancy?? I'm really reliant on the sound and
response that I've grown accustomed to with my own personal choice of amps
over the years. Perhaps it'd make sense to travel with my amp head (and
power converter) and rent a Marshall cabinet (hopefully) or other there?
- Kent Pearson
Kent Pearson
On 5-Dec-2000, Johnson Family <Our...@ourweb.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> Have you ever heard of paragraphs?
Wasn't that a paragraph???
- KP
Rich Koerner
TruSoldier wrote:
>
> Attention Miles O'Neal, Karl W., Jeff, Steve, Jack A. Zucker, Bob Maggio, and
> anyone else aligning himself with Rich Koerner, I invite you all to take a
> reading comprehension course before you address this message. This thread
> started with Mike Soldano's viewpoints on modeling technology. Then I stated
> my position on modeling technology which is: I can get great tones using my
> modeling gear, just as well as I can get great tones using my tube gear, and my
> modeling gear affords me the luxury of having great tones in an extremely small
> and portable package. Plain and simple. I never said modeling gear was
> superior to tube gear! I never said modeling gear would replace tube gear! I
> never said it was easier to get great tones with modeling gear! I never
> questioned anyone's ability as a player to support my viewpoints! I never
> brought into question the music that is being made utilizing modeling
> technology, or tube technology! I never questioned the intellect and/or
> validity of anyone or anything related to tube technology, or modeling
> technology! I did state that those who dislike modeling technology, as a
> whole, probably haven't spent much time dealing with the gear. I also stated
> that if they'd put as much time into programming a modeling unit, as they put
> into dialing up tones on their tube gear, they'd think differently about
> modeling gear. I'm speaking from my experiences with modeling gear, and tube
> gear. I was once one of you who thought that nothing past, present, and/or
> future could even come close
Close????????????
> to the tones that I get with my tube gear. I'm
> also a traveling musician who, until modeling technology reached it's current
> level, couldn't consistantly get the tones that I'm used to, while on the road,
> without great expense and discomfort.
I does make one wonder the *consist* of such gear that would cause such
a manner of expense and discomfort. It must exceed that of the basic
Super Reverb. Or some amp of that type with a good guitar and a pedal
or two.
> It's no big deal for a person who plays
> in his bedroom, basement, or garage, and/or does the occasional gig and/or jam
> session, to lug around a couple three amps, cabinets, and effects. It's a
> whole other ball of wax to fly from state to state, or country to country to
> perform. You'll break you back and your bank account trying to fly all of your
> gear with you.
Large consist, it must be too!
> OK, next you figure that you'll just list that high falutin'
> mega bucks ('cause it ain't worthwile if it don't cost a bundle, right Bob
> Maggio?) boutique amp with the premium select tubes and speakers on your
> equipment rider. That way you can insure that you'll have great tone at every
> gig without having to lug around a bunch of gear, right? WRONG! What you'll
> end up with is either a dusty old Fender Twin-Reverb with microphonic tubes and
> the wrong speaker, oh, and it's never been biased, or worse yet, a Roland
> JC-120! Then, whatever amp you did end up with dies in the middle of the gig.
> OK, now what?!
Gee, I wonder how BB King gets by these days. That Twin Reverb sits on
his equipment rider too.
> I can't count the number of times that my modeling gear brought
> me through when the backline provider let me down. With my modeling gear, I
> get predictable and consistantly great tone in a compact portable package,
> point blank!.
Ah, now we are getting somewhere.
> When I'm gigging/recording around my home town, or when someone
> else is picking up the cartage tab, I rock my tube gear.
The picture is coming together now.
> When I need to roll
> quick, light, and repeatedly, it's my modeling gear all the way, baby!
It's a Convenience!!!!!!!!!!
A cost effective Convenience!!!!!!!!
Hey, there I agree.
See how easy that was!!!!!!!!!
Damn, we could have saved so much time if you would have said that way
up at the beginning.
> Oh, I
> almost forgot, I also said that whether you're using modeling gear or tube
> gear, you still gotta' program and play the gear.
Hey, You program your displays.
I don't have any displays to look at. I just turn a few knobs.
> You still have to be the
> musician; the gear won't play itself. See your boy Rich Koerner for all the
> innuendo,
Not Guilty!!!!!!
> insults,
Not Guilty!!!!!!
You ARE new here if you think -I- was.
> side topics that have nothing to do with the discusion at
> hand,
GUILTY!!!!!!
GUILTY!!!!!!
GUILTY!!!!!!
GUILTY!!!!!!
GUILTY!!!!!!
GUILTY!!!!!!
GUILTY!!!!!!
Relevant side topics is a Hall Mark of AGA!!!!!!
And, Anything Relative to MUSIC, Is Relevant!!!!!!!!!!!
I Make FULL USE Of It, At All Times!!!!!!
There are NO RULES Here To Follow!!!!!!!
The First Amendment Lives Well In AGA!!!!!!!!
> and blatant misunderstanding of the topic at hand.
You really are new here, aren't ya!!!!!
>
> Peace!
>
> Stanley C.
> @(--->>
>
> PS Hey Rich, do you do backline as well as sound?
No.
> I'll definitely recommend
> your company to provide sound and backline for my group whenever we're in your
> area. I know that I won't have any of the backline crap that I've encountered
> in the past, using your gear. You have the kind of attitude that I like in a
> sound provider. Your ego won't let you do a bum job of sound reinforcement.
Ego is not how I see it.
I'm just on an endless quest, to be the best, at what I can do.
>I
> also accept all offers and invitations to jam. I make it a point to visit
> wherever the jam is in whatever town I'm in.
The door is open, just suit up, and go for it!!!!!!!!!
We are not known for a lot of talking. Just a lot of playing!!!!!
<A flashback>
Years ago, in one of the clubs I had played in, there was a sign on the
wall over the stage that said, Real Music Spoken Here!!!!!!!!
I'm making up a sign for the club this weekend!!!!
> There's only two types of music,
> good people... good and bad (whether written/recorded/performed on modeling
> gear, or tube gear)!
On that, we agree!!!!!
Scott Colborn
Monday I took my Strat that you helped me get set up to my local
luthier, who works out of our local music store. Had the action adjusted.
Bob, the luthier, recommended that I take the guitar into the showroom and
grab an amp and play for awhile to see if I liked the lowered action doing
bends high up on the fretboard.
The owner of the store grabbed a cable and plugged me into a Line 6
combo. I worked out for around 25 minutes, playing the Strat all over the
neck and liked the lowered action just fine (Ernie Ball .009 - .042).
All during this time, in the back of my mind was the sense that this
Line 6 combo sounded flat, one-dimensional, hollow, etc. I've made it a
point to play almost all the amps in the showroom at one time or another,
and I have tried the modeling amps a number of times. I want to be able to
say something "nice" about the tone and sound of the Line 6 stuff, but I
can't. As a contrast, I just helped a guitar student of mine get a used
Ampeg combo, 12" speaker, tube amp, and it screams - for far less than the
Line 6 I played again on Monday.
I've said it before here on the AGA - I don't need to "emulate" other
amps, players, etc. All I need is a good clean tone and an amp that
responds to my guitar and overdrive pedal. Good clean multi-timbred and
multi-dimensional tone, hard-rocking lead tone with sustain and edge - I
don't need anything else. Tube amps give me that. Heck, reaching "way
back" into the dusty corner of my rehearsal space for my Acoustic 270 with
the 201 bottom (two 15's and a horn) - my old Acoustic has a ton more tone
and "feel" verses the Line 6 stuff I've demo'd. And the old Acoustic can
also double as a "window breaker" at 245 watts RMS with one cab driven.
With all this said, if someone else loves their modeling amp/combo, more
power to them. If a player gets their tone and sound from a solid state
amp, enjoy it and have fun. We get to express our personal taste here on
AGA newsgroup, and differences are expected.
I date back to the 60's and early 70's - a period of time when I
remember being able to tell someone in the same breath, "Hey man, you're
full of shit but I love you." Differences were expected and encouraged.
People had respect for one another and didn't feel that if someone disagreed
with them, they had to kill them over it. Personally I feel that the
"music" of that time period personified this, and remains one of the most
creative periods of music for rock and blues.
As a player I'll play any amp that can give me my tone and sound, give
me response to my pic attack or fingers, and can rock the house. So far,
tube amps for me have it hands down. If someone else likes a different cup
of tea, go for it. The music is the main thing anyway, and being able to
develop your craft as a guitar player and share it with others is a "gift"
that few people really have in the general population.
Thanks again Rich for the help with the Strat. I haven't forsaken my
Les Pauls, but the Strat offers another tone option and is a much more
demanding guitar, so it's helping me to play better (or so I'd like to
think - grin). I still want to see you put out a booklet of Strat lore and
tweaks - I think you'd do really well with it, and help a few others get to
another level with their instrument.
Walk in Beauty, Peace. Scott
Lord Valve
Rich Koerner wrote:
(snip)
> Gee, I wonder how BB King gets by these days. That Twin Reverb sits on
> his equipment rider too.
BB King plays a Lab Series. Solid state.
LV
Rich Koerner
Lord Valve wrote:
>
> Rich Koerner wrote:
> (snip)
>
> > Gee, I wonder how BB King gets by these days. That Twin Reverb sits on
> > his equipment rider too.
>
> BB King plays a Lab Series. Solid state.
> LV
Yes, I know. And I've seen his rider. The twin reverb is on it.
TruSoldier
with the topic at hand, I'm going to address it nonetheless. I should've
stated in my last post that I didn't insult anyone until I was first insulted
and attacked (see your past comments, as well as the comments of others). I
never fired the first shot, but I definitely returned fire. Now how about
addressing the rest of my last comment, since we've come to detente' (I hope)
with the insults.
Peace (and I really mean that)!
Stanley C.
@(--->>
TruSoldier
internationally has presented a couple of different obstacles to carrying one's
own gear to perform. For one thing, most if not all international air carriers
only allow an individual flyer one carry on, and two checked bags. Any
additional luggage is gonna' cost $50 and up (depending on weight, or whatever
other "standard" that the check-in agent decideds to impose upon you) per each
piece, each way. I don't know about you, but I go on a gig to make money, not
spend money. ;-) My carry on is my two guitars (in a Reunion Blues double gig
bag; the hassles about carrying that one on is a whole new discussion), one of
my checked bags has my clothing, the last checked case is my effects/modeling
gear. If you're using pretty standard Marshall gear (JCM 900s can be found
just about anywhere, here and abroad), you'll be straight with rented gear. If
you decide to carry your amp head, make sure that it's packed in a sturdy ATA
rated flight case. The Samsonite gorilla (remember those commercials?) is as
gentle as your grandma, compared to most of the baggage handlers that I've
witnessed (in the commission of what should be deemed as lewd, lacivious, and
illegal acts of handling a delicate piece of gear). Also, be sure to carry an
extra set of preamp/power amp tubes that are matched to the bias of your amp,
and extra fuses. It's next to impossible to get service for a tube amp in a
timely manner, in the midst of traveling and performing abroad. Power/voltage
conversion is generally handled by the sound reinforcement company at the gig,
however, If you're doing a rack of small club gigs, you may want to bring your
own power converter (adding more weight to what you already have to carry),
just in case. Get a power converter that can handle the total amp draw of all
of your gear. Depending on where in the world that you go, and what amp head
you're using, you may be able to switch the power cable connections of your amp
to match the available voltage/current. I may've been a bit overly cautious in
the past (before I started carrying my modeling gear), but I also removed the
tubes from whatever tube gear that I checked, and carried them in my guitar
bag. I kept them bad boys close to me at all times. Well Kent, that's about
all I can think of at the present. Good luck to you in your international
music endeavors.
Peace!
Stanley C.
@(--->>
TruSoldier
gear. Just about all of the negative comments that I've heard about modeling
gear have specifically targeted Line 6 (mostly the Pod). Now, I'm not a fan of
Line 6's gear myself, but I've heard some nice tones from their modulation
modeller. I've also used their Amp Farm plug-in for Pro Tools with really good
results. Try looking a little further than Line 6 before you condemn modeling
technology altogether.
Peace!
Stanley C.
@(--->>
TruSoldier
We ain't all got it like BB King, baby! And BB King does play Lab Series amps,
irrespective of what's on his rider. What's up, LV? Please tell these folks
that I'm a tube guy also (not a tube gear snob, just a plain ol' tube guy).
I'm a realist also, who knows that the statement "you can't take it with you"
applies to more than just money when you die. My modeling gear has enabled me
to comfortably and for the most part "take it with me".
Peace!
Stanley C.
@(--->>
PS: Are you sure that's a Twin Reverb, and not a Twin (that good ol' 100W
"Evil Twin") on BB's rider? I always ask for a Twin (in my rider), and nearly
always wind up with a Twin Reverb (one that's never been serviced and/or
maintained) instead.
darrell
> Hello Rich,
I still want to see you put out a booklet of Strat lore and
> tweaks -
I'll take one, maybe two.
darrell
Rich Koerner
Scott Colborn wrote:
>
> Hello Rich,
> Monday I took my Strat that you helped me get set up to my local
> luthier, who works out of our local music store. Had the action adjusted.
> Bob, the luthier, recommended that I take the guitar into the showroom and
> grab an amp and play for awhile to see if I liked the lowered action doing
> bends high up on the fretboard.
> The owner of the store grabbed a cable and plugged me into a Line 6
> combo. I worked out for around 25 minutes, playing the Strat all over the
> neck and liked the lowered action just fine (Ernie Ball .009 - .042).
Seems like you are now growing to where the Strat wants you to be, not
where you want the Strat to be. It does take time for that to come
together.
I guess you are now starting to PLAY, and have FUN at PLAY now, in the
manner we used to as a kid, PLAYED with our toys. It's A GREAT
THING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Most *can't* fall into that place NATURALLY!!!!!!!!!!
> With all this said, if someone else loves their modeling amp/combo, more
> power to them. If a player gets their tone and sound from a solid state
> amp, enjoy it and have fun. We get to express our personal taste here on
> AGA newsgroup, and differences are expected.
You know this just reminded me that we now have an FAQ on AGA Posting.
This would be helpful!!! http://aga.rru.com/
> The music is the main thing anyway, and being able to
> develop your craft as a guitar player and share it with others is a "gift"
> that few people really have in the general population.
At the jams, there are very few who are open minded to try new things in
music. I have slowly take some of the players into new realms on that
stage to show them it is not beyond their ability. It is their mind set
that prevents them from getting to the higher levels of playing better
music.
Sometimes, with them as a captive on the stage and a good drummer, I can
take the music to another place to give them a new experience in music.
Guitar players are the worst on passing judgments on the types of music
and the players.
Once I kidnap them musically and take them there, they find out its a
really cool thing. I have the habit of doing the unexpected in a song
during their solos and explore new territory. Yes, I'm still the crazy
man!!!! Some things never change.
I managed to take a few of the better players from a rock thing into a
fusion thing while we were on the stage together. Afterwards, they
start asking me where I learned that kind of music. So I turn them on
to the old fusion groups of the '70s.
One of them I want to see if he can handle some Weather Report. It
would be killer to jump on some Jaco stuff again after all these years.
> Thanks again Rich for the help with the Strat.
It was My Pleasure Scott!!!!!!
You had an open mind to try new things, and let go of all the crap for
information you had heard in the past. Now many are willing to do such
because they are so filled, and think they are expert. Isn't it
amazing how some will persist in fighting with things at all cost, just
to win the battle. All the while some, those who really KNOW what the
deal is, fly past them as if it were child's play!!!
Which, as you are finding out by now, it REALLY IS!!!!!
It IS, What You MAKE It!!!!!!
> I haven't forsaken my
> Les Pauls, but the Strat offers another tone option and is a much more
> demanding guitar, so it's helping me to play better (or so I'd like to
> think - grin).
Those Paul's can be made to go there too. We should talk about them one
day when you are ready.
> I still want to see you put out a booklet of Strat lore and
> tweaks - I think you'd do really well with it, and help a few others get to
> another level with their instrument.
You know Scott, I always seem to have a full plate, and never seem to
have it on the forefront of my mind during my day to day. Maybe, we
should rewind our phone conversations and play them back for the
Watergate, and I can transcribe them.
Then add a couple of pictures, and look for a publisher.
I really think I should get to putting that together. It is a good idea
as there is nothing out there that covers the subject like I do.
> Walk in Beauty, Peace. Scott
You too, my friend.
Lord Valve
TruSoldier wrote:
> BB King has the budget, and the prestiege to get whatever he wants on a gig.
> We ain't all got it like BB King, baby! And BB King does play Lab Series amps,
> irrespective of what's on his rider. What's up, LV? Please tell these folks
> that I'm a tube guy also (not a tube gear snob, just a plain ol' tube guy).
> I'm a realist also, who knows that the statement "you can't take it with you"
> applies to more than just money when you die. My modeling gear has enabled me
> to comfortably and for the most part "take it with me".
>
> Peace!
>
> Stanley C.
> @(--->>
Lord Valve Speaketh:
Yeah, TruSoldier's a tube dude. I should know,
he buys 'em all from me. I've been absent from
this thread for one reason only...I don't care
what people like. I only care what I like. I like
tube amps, period. I've heard the Line 6 stuff;
let's say that I'm less than impressed. It ain't
there yet. That doesn't mean that a skilled
musician won't be able to pull some really
usable tones from it, though...just because
the emulation isn't dead solid perfect, it
doesn't mean that the whole concept sucks.
I know several B-3 players who own the
real thing...but they're damn glad they don't
have to haul it (anymore) to one-nighters.
Sit-down, house-band gigs, the hog makes
the trip to the club, and stays there. For that
three-hour fat-money wedding reception,
the Voce/Oberheim/Roland/Whatever is
just fine. It'll fool the audience, it'll fool
most non-organists. The downside is the
"feel" of the instrument...midied to a
cheeseball synth keyboard, without the
feel and massive presence of the mighty
Hammond, your playing takes a hit. I'm
not a guitarist, so I can't comment much on
the "feel" that the modeling amps have...
but I *can* comment on what I hear. Or
what I *don't* hear, in this case. Something's
missing. Can the audience hear it? Probably
not. Can the design-nerds fix it? Well...they've
been working on the Hammond emulators
for nearly thirty years now. No luck so far,
but they get better every year. The last
entry from Oberheim, the OB-5, was one
of the best tries I've heard...in fact, they
got the Leslie emulation perfect. It was
the first time I'd ever heard a digitally
generated Leslie that I could honestly
say I'd be comfortable with on a gig. The
organ itself had serious flaws, though...
I wrote a giant rant on it; I hear they're
working on it. I'm sure the Line 6 nerds
are working on their stuff, too. Everything
has a sound of its own...even stuff that's
supposed to sound like other stuff. Some
folks will use these sounds in new ways.
Some folks will bitch because the sounds
aren't like the old ones. Not much I can
do about it either way. Anyone wanna
buy some toobs? ;-)
Lord Valve
VISIT MY WEBSITE: http://www.nebsnow.com/LordValve
I specialize in top quality HAND SELECTED NOS and
current-production vacuum tubes for guitar and
bass amps. Good prices, fast service.
NBS Electronics, 230 South Broadway, Denver, CO 80209-1510
Phone orders/tech support after 1:30 PM Denver time at 303-778-1156
VISA - MASTERCARD
"I'm not an asshole, but I *play* one on the Internet." - Lord Valve
TruSoldier
R&B (classicaly produced R&B moreso than what's currently considered R&B), and
rock, and funk, and soul! You're wrong, Richard, fusion is just as "dependent
on a guitar sound" as any other genre of music! Some of the best guitar tones
to be heard are generated by "fusion" guitarists. Take a listen to Scott
Henderson, Wayne Krantz, Allen Holdsworth, Steve Topping, Hiram Bullock, Jef
Lee Johnson, Frank Gambale, Bon Lozaga, Mike Kenneally, Adam Rogers, Robben
Ford, Buzzy Fieten, Bireli Lagrene, John Scofield, Mike Stern, Tony Re'my,
Mitch Watkins, Jimi Tunnell, Larry Carlton, Pat Metheny, Larry Coryell, Dave
Fuiczynski, Michael Landau, Dean Brown, Jean-Paul Bourelly, John McLaughlin,
David Gilmore, Jimmy Herring, Ulf Wakenius, Erik Sayles, Foley McCreary, etc.,
on & on, then we can talk about the importance of guitar tone to fusion. As to
the rest of your comments, they're your opinions and it's all good. Do what
you do, as I do what I do. I ain't mad at cha'!
Peace!
Stanley C.
@(--->>
> I think Stanley is into fusion. I'm not saying his guitar playing is
>limited to this. I loved "Birds of Fire" but fusion is less dependent
>on a "guitar" sound. It seems the goal is an instrument that fills that
>space but is heavily effected. Maybe that's whats going on. Bridging
>that guitar/synth space. All digital has a signature, and it's not a
>pleasing one to me. The pro's don't outweigh the con's. Seems like some
>guys go down that road, and then come to their senses. I'm gonna go
>over to alt.cheese and tell em about how great cheezewhiz is! They'll go
>"man you make a great freaking sandwitch, but loose the cheezewhiz"
>Stanley's gonna be mad :-)
>
>Group: alt.guitar.amps Date: Tue, Dec 5, 2000, 8:39am (PST+8) From:
>guita...@hotmail.com
>In article <3A2B73BA...@timeelect.com>, Rich Koerner
><ri...@timeelect.com> wrote:
>Really Now!!!!!! May I show you something you may have missed!!!!!
>=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0And you did, with the thoughtfulness to back it up and
>obvious experience to support your view. Amen.
>=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0I've been trying to be nice about this, but thank you
>for simply putting the matter to bed.
>=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0If you're ever in Olympia WA, I'd like to buy ya
>dinner. Look me up, guita...@hotmail.com
>=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0Rookie drivers have no idea of road feel, rookie
>players have no idea of AMP FEEL. They think an amp is an assesory item,
>instead of being 50% of the instrument. Saying a modeling amp responds
>like the real thing is tantamount to saying a driving simulator could
>ever be just like driving.
>=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0But... listen to the music/crap being put out lately.
>Its modeled music, made by modeled players, with modeled instruments...
>all of which vaguely resemble music, but have the same sterile
>emptiness.
>=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0This aint just the tube vs transistor debate in
>different clothing. Its a whole way of life for folks who just dont get
>it.
>=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0They're modeled too...
>=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0Karl W.
CompUser
"Miles O'Neal" wrote ...
> TruSoldier wrote:
> >
> > Attention Miles O'Neal, Karl W., Jeff, Steve, Jack A. Zucker, Bob
Maggio, and
> > anyone else aligning himself with Rich Koerner, I invite you all to take
a
> > reading comprehension course before you address this message.
>
> you ever use more than one if you can help it 8^) as the one where
> you claim you don't insult anyone. You're almost as consistent as
> teh average politician. Go back and reread everything you wrote
> before. read it carefully. Use that "reading comprehension" you
> claim to be so big on. Then reread the post I'm referencing here.
> There's a HUGE disconnect.
You got it Miles!!
Same thoughts at the same point...he's got an axe to grind, this
just happens to be a place to do it.
Steve
TruSoldier
of your's directly. I'm going to rectify that right now.
>>It's funny to me that you should go there. I am of the impression that
>>tube amp ignorants such as yourself are down on newer technologies >>because
you don't have the intellectual capacity to understand and >>utilize the gear.
>I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt
>here. That tyou're merely ignorant and arrogant
>instead of teh bigoted jackass this post seems
>to have been written by,
The above quoted statement of mine's that you took such offense to (so offended
that your spelling went all to sh*t) was actually a rhetorical response to
Rich's comment that "non musicians" use modeling gear because they can't get
good tones out of traditional tube gear, or to compensate for their "lack of
talent". (the items in quotes are not Rich's exact words, but they are his
exact sentiments) I am probably the most unbiased person posting on this
thread. My number one concern is getting great tones, and having great tones
wherever I perform/write/ record, no matter what the source of that great tone
is.
>Many of us who've been around a while grew up with
>tubes, left tubes for the great SS revolution,
>and came back to tubes years later after the SS
>revolution had proven to be as bankrupt for some
>things as "communism" proved to be for the USSR.
>
>You can't spell gEEk without EE, and a lot of us
>on here who prefer tubes have EE backgrounds.
>Some are young enough to have been born after
>tubes were pretty much gone - not all tube lovers
>are dinosaurs.
I share your experience, and your pain with the "great Solid-State revolution".
However, I did not lose my open mind in the journey. My Original SansAmp,
Hafler P7000 (used for acoustic guitar, and bass guitar power amplification),
and SansAmp PSA-1 (used mostly for bass guitar) are about all that I've chosen
to keep from that episode. Not all modeling gear users are geeks, either.
>>...It's no easier to get great tones from a modeling unit than it is to get
>>great tones from a tube amp.
>You said it, not me!
>
>But I suppose you meant "no harder". Which, to
>date, is patently false. I've said before that
>I suspect the digital technology will be "close
>enough" within a few years. It just isn't there
>yet. And most of the UIs just plain suck.
No, I meant no easier, just as I stated. My above quoted statement was in
response to Rich's intimation that using modeling gear makes it easier for "non
musician guitarists" to sound good. He made it seem as if musicians using
modeling gear are trying to take the easy way out; to shortcut developing their
skills as an instrumentalist, and as a musician. On the contrary, it takes
good ears, good taste, and good time to get good tones from any kind of gear.
"To date", it's patently false for YOU to be able to get good tones out of
modeling gear, I've had much success.
>Whereas *anyone* can grok the basic one, two or
>three tone knobs on most tube amps (four for those
>with "presence" or "brilliance" controls). And
>with a good amp (there certainly are lousy tube
>amps) anyone can easily get good sounds much
>more simply from those simple knobs on the tube
>amp than with the multi-level menu setups on most
>digital modeling amps.
Ok, now we're getting somewhere. It's easier for anyone (says YOU) to get
"good sounds" with a tube amp than it is with a digital modeling amp (according
to your above quoted statement), right? Well, it's easier to buy fish at the
market, than to go catch your own fish. Does that make fishing invalid?
Moving right along.
>Do you just live to be flamed, or what?
If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen, baby! I ain't scur'red!
Peace!
Stanley C.
@(--->>
god...@my-deja.com
"Stefan Markowitz" <S.Mar...@dontspam.gmx.de> wrote:
> Kent, have you checked out the Yamaha DG amps?
> I´m not saying that they would be better than the "real thing",
> but for me they work much better than an attenuated
> tube amp.
I optimistically tried a DG stomp! The distortion modelling was just
fine but no Bypass whatsoever, and the digital FX board looked easier
to use than it really was. hitting the stomps caused the FX settings
to jump all over the place, what are the dials there for except to
tease you.
Most new modelling tools fall into the idiots FX trap. The presets
don't work with your guitar or amp, and they clog free settings.
I've heard these modelled amp live too, they don't cut.
If your an expert and you know you want a modeller than fine, But I'd
advise a "real tube amp" instead. They are ultimately Just SS amps.
Who do you call to fix a broken modeller anyway?
> ---your quoting of Mike Soldano---
> >The high-gain amp model sounds like a high-gain amp
> >(harmonic distortion, tone color, etc.), but it doesn't feedback or
have
> the
> >same sensitivity as a real high-gain amp - because it doesn't have
any
> gain!
> >It's digital - it can't clip like an analog amp. It's all smoke and
> mirrors!
> This is completely bullshit. I can achieve very nice feedback with my
> DG amp and it responds very good to picking strength and/or guitar
> volume pot.
Of course guitar feedback occurs with the Solid state amps not the
digital modeller.
The Yamaha you refer to converts the digital sound to an "analog"
signal that is then sent through a SS power amp.
> It is even suitable for playing "Lights Out" :-)
> Stefan
Frank Hudson
says...
>
> And I was thinking about this today, wondering why folks arent
> incorporating tube output stages into modeling combo's and heads.
> Seems like a rational idea, they could promote the "best of both
> worlds" concept, and give them something new to market. Musicman
> seemed to have thought it was a good idea.
I have the same thoughts. I wonder who'll be the first to do it?
-Frank Hudson
remove the "x" when replying
Web page with sound samples, gear pics and tributes at:
http://www.users.uswest.net/~fhudson/
Miles O'Neal
>
> Hey Mile's, even though your below quoted comment has nothing whatsoever to do
> with the topic at hand, I'm going to address it nonetheless.
??? The topic changes rapidly. And from my standpoint,
that became the current topic. Ah, well.
> I should've
> stated in my last post that I didn't insult anyone until I was first insulted
> and attacked (see your past comments, as well as the comments of others).
I disagree, but that's OK.
> I
> never fired the first shot, but I definitely returned fire. Now how about
> addressing the rest of my last comment, since we've come to detente' (I hope)
> with the insults.
At this point, I have no idea what your last comment was.
I don't have the time or energy to read stuff from people
I'm convinced aren't really listening, and at the time I
was convinced you weren't. I apologize if I was wrong.
But at any rate, that part of the post was the point at
which I gave up trying to discuss it, so I have no idea
what came next.
Sorry. Feel free to try again. If it doesn't start out
like the last one, I promise to keep reading this time.
8^)
-Miles
Rich Koerner
TruSoldier wrote:
>
> You're right, Richard, I am into fusion, and traditional jazz, and blues, and
> R&B (classicaly produced R&B moreso than what's currently considered R&B), and
> rock, and funk, and soul! You're wrong, Richard, fusion is just as "dependent
> on a guitar sound" as any other genre of music! Some of the best guitar tones
> to be heard are generated by "fusion" guitarists. Take a listen to Scott
> Henderson, Wayne Krantz, Allen Holdsworth, Steve Topping, Hiram Bullock, Jef
> Lee Johnson, Frank Gambale, Bon Lozaga, Mike Kenneally, Adam Rogers, Robben
> Ford, Buzzy Fieten, Bireli Lagrene, John Scofield, Mike Stern, Tony Re'my,
> Mitch Watkins, Jimi Tunnell, Larry Carlton, Pat Metheny, Larry Coryell, Dave
> Fuiczynski, Michael Landau, Dean Brown, Jean-Paul Bourelly, John McLaughlin,
> David Gilmore, Jimmy Herring, Ulf Wakenius, Erik Sayles, Foley McCreary, etc.,
> on & on, then we can talk about the importance of guitar tone to fusion. As to
> the rest of your comments, they're your opinions and it's all good. Do what
> you do, as I do what I do. I ain't mad at cha'!
Yeah, I guess I wouldn't know what fusion is. Especially after having
mixed the house for three shows for the Mahavishnu Orchestra (Inner
Mounting Flame) tour through New Jersey in the '70s.
Where were you then?????
<wink>
Stefan Markowitz
god...@my-deja.com schrieb in Nachricht <90mhon$4is$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>I optimistically tried a DG stomp! The distortion modelling was just
>fine but no Bypass whatsoever, and the digital FX board looked easier
>to use than it really was. hitting the stomps caused the FX settings
>to jump all over the place, what are the dials there for except to
>tease you.
I haven愒 tried the DG stomp yet. I惴 using a DG1000 for more than
3 years with a tube power amp. The reason for going the
modelling way was that I always had problems getting a good
sound at different volumes, furthermore I like to have some
versatility. Before that, I tried different tube preamps.
For my need the DG is a good solution, it gives me
versatility and decent sound. When played through a tube
power amp, it feels real.
Now I惴 playing a DG100 (2x Vintage30 combo). The
ss output stage indeed is weak in comparison to a
tube amp. But that愀 no problem to me, if I can play
loud then I use one of my tube amps as power amp
instead of the inbuilt ss.
Some time ago I played the DG1000 through an AC30.
That was really exciting, I could make the AC30 scream
at moderate volume level while preserving its typical
tone. The owner of the amp had bought a power brake
and we compared both approaches.
Guess which solution sounded better!
>Most new modelling tools fall into the idiots FX trap. The presets
>don't work with your guitar or amp, and they clog free settings.
I guess this is true. The presets of the DG amps are
horrible (overloaded with reverb, delay and chorus).
But if you disable the effects, the basic sounds are
very good, there is not much tweaking needed for
a good sound. Most of my "tweaks" are simply
variations of the gain knob.
>I've heard these modelled amp live too, they don't cut.
The ss output stage of the DG100 is suitable for small gigs.
If I need more then I use a LM6100 as output stage.
I惴 just building an extension to my (homebrew)
MIDI mapper/switcher so that I can chose the outputstage
via MIDI foot controller.
This issue has nothing to do with the modelling technology.
>Who do you call to fix a broken modeller anyway?
Why, I would fix it myself. :-)
That愀 the curse of modern technology. Who do
you call if the "electronic motor management" of
your new car craps out?
>Of course guitar feedback occurs with the Solid state amps not the
>digital modeller.
>
>The Yamaha you refer to converts the digital sound to an "analog"
>signal that is then sent through a SS power amp.
Sorry, I don愒 understand what you are saying. I悲 say "Of course
guitar feedback occurs because the signal of the guitar pickup
is amplified and drives a speaker which moves the air ->
feeding back energy to the vibrating string". This does
not relate to the technology being used.
Stefan
Kent Pearson
On 6-Dec-2000, "Stefan Markowitz" <S.Mar...@dontspam.gmx.de> wrote:
> Why, I would fix it myself. :-)
> That´s the curse of modern technology. Who do
> you call if the "electronic motor management" of
> your new car craps out?
You take it back to the car dealer, and hope it's still under warrantee.
And if it's not, be prepared to bend over. And bring your own lube, cause
they're not gonna provide it.
- KP
TruSoldier
McCown, not you. Why're you so much on the defensive, playa'? We're just
exchanging info and viewpoints on subjects relating to (and lately, not so much
related to) modeling technology. I ain't mad at cha' for real, Rich (your boy
Miles O'Neal is trippin' though). Anyone that looks like Leon Redbone on
prupose, and cites Jaco Pastorius as a musical influence is alright in my book.
;-D Now, when're you going to respond to my 12/5/00 @ 8:43 PM message?
Peace!
Stanley C.
@(--->>
PS: I can't say one way or the other whether or not mixing FOH for three
Mahavishnu Orchestra performances in the 70's qualifies you as a pundit on
fusion, or anything relating to fusion. It does show that you've had dealings
with sound reinforcement for a long time. Longevity kudos to you, main man, if
that's what you're looking for. Let's converse, not conflict!
<winkin' back at cha'>
Miles O'Neal
>
> You know what, Miles, I kinda' let you off the hook by not addressing this post
> of your's directly.
Whatever.
> I'm going to rectify that right now.
Solid state or tube rectification?
> >>It's funny to me that you should go there. I am of the impression that
> >>tube amp ignorants such as yourself are down on newer technologies >>because
> you don't have the intellectual capacity to understand and >>utilize the gear.
>
> >I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt
> >here. That tyou're merely ignorant and arrogant
> >instead of teh bigoted jackass this post seems
> >to have been written by,
>
> The above quoted statement of mine's that you took such offense to (so offended
> that your spelling went all to sh*t)
You're seeing my (lack of) typing skills. My spelling
skills are fine, and don't change with my mood. But the
typing there was as good as your grammar, so we're even.
8^)
> was actually a rhetorical response to
> Rich's comment that "non musicians" use modeling gear because they can't get
> good tones out of traditional tube gear, or to compensate for their "lack of
> talent".
If you say so. But for the record, what your response
*sounded* like was a knee-jerk, bigoted comment. "Tube
amp ignorants"?
> (the items in quotes are not Rich's exact words, but they are his
> exact sentiments) I am probably the most unbiased person posting on this
> thread.
Am I missing some self-deprecation here? Or are
you just really egotistical? Because you obviously
have no clue about some of the rest of us. Are you
saying we are biased just because we disagree with
you? Or do you have other evidence I'm unaware of?
Or are you just telling us your cathode resistor
has shorted?
> My number one concern is getting great tones, and having great tones
> wherever I perform/write/ record, no matter what the source of that great tone
> is.
Funny, Rich and I and most of the others here would
say the same thing.
> I share your experience, and your pain with the "great Solid-State revolution".
Oh, great. You and Bill Clinton share my pain.
8^P
> However, I did not lose my open mind in the journey.
There we go with the insults again. Peace, huh? Or are
you just always in sarcastic mode?
> No, I meant no easier, just as I stated.
And I read it wrong. I actually agree with you; it's
*not* easier to get good tones from a modeling amp.
> My above quoted statement was in
> response to Rich's intimation that using modeling gear makes it easier for "non
> musician guitarists" to sound good. He made it seem as if musicians using
> modeling gear are trying to take the easy way out; to shortcut developing their
> skills as an instrumentalist, and as a musician. On the contrary, it takes
> good ears, good taste, and good time to get good tones from any kind of gear.
True. But a lot of people think all they have to do
is buy the "12 amps in one box!" package, and they
are all set to sound like they are playing through
any of those twelve amps modeled.
> "To date", it's patently false for YOU to be able to get good tones out of
> modeling gear, I've had much success.
I don't doubt that you might get some good tones. But
the modeling technology isn't there yet (at least at
a price point that allows it to show up in the amps
on the market) to *truly* emulate good tube amps. It
probably won't emulate bad tube amps, either, but
most of us could care less about that. 8^) Will it
do it within a few years? Perhaps. We'll know in a
few years.
> Ok, now we're getting somewhere. It's easier for anyone (says YOU) to get
> "good sounds" with a tube amp than it is with a digital modeling amp (according
> to your above quoted statement), right? Well, it's easier to buy fish at the
> market, than to go catch your own fish. Does that make fishing invalid?
I wasn't addresing fish (unless you're a tuna or something).
I was addressing the idea of ease of getting a certain sound.
Are you saying it's easier, or even as easy, to dial in a
good sound with a modeling amp as with a good tube amp? If
so, you are the *only* person I've heard make that claim (I
am not worrying about what the manufacturers say, just users).
And maybe it is for you. But even the most rabid pro-modeling,
anti-tube rantist I've run across (other than yourself 8^)
has said it takes a good bit of work to get good tones out
of a modeling amp. Whereas with a good BFDR, if you can play,
you can probably set the tone in a couple of knob tweaks.
-Miles
Miles O'Neal
> > Why, I would fix it myself. :-)
> > That´s the curse of modern technology. Who do
> > you call if the "electronic motor management" of
> > your new car craps out?
>
> You take it back to the car dealer, and hope it's still under warrantee.
> And if it's not, be prepared to bend over. And bring your own lube, cause
> they're not gonna provide it.
If it's out of warranty, we take it to our shade tree
mechanic. He worked for IBM for years as a top notch
EE, but his real love was cars. He has all the diagnostic
computer equipment, so he does it all.
But of course, he loves the simpler cars. As do I.
He's almost got me talked into getting an old muscle
car when we need another one...
-Miles
AGAweb : http://aga.rru.com/
Miles O'Neal
>
> In article <90hvbv$cmm$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, guita...@my-deja.com
> says...
> >
> > And I was thinking about this today, wondering why folks arent
> > incorporating tube output stages into modeling combo's and heads.
> > Seems like a rational idea, they could promote the "best of both
> > worlds" concept, and give them something new to market. Musicman
> > seemed to have thought it was a good idea.
>
> I have the same thoughts. I wonder who'll be the first to do it?
Not really that great an idea, after you think about it.
The output stage is the most expensive, heaviest part of
the whole amp. You need a big OT. You need the higher
voltages, so you need the big PT. Throw in the tubes,
and there's a huge hunk of your cost (and weight, without
even worrying about the tubes).
People have built hybrid amps with SS preamps and glass
output sections. They're just as heavy as their equivalent
all tube amps, and the cost isn't much different. The main
thing is you can pack in more features in the same space.
But since the modelers claim to already be emulating the
tube sounds, they'd look sort of silly bumping their price
and wieght up. Plus they'd have another problem. A set
of EL34s just doesn't sound like a set of 6V6s. A set of
6L6ss won't sound like a Vox AC30. If they depend on
power tube sounds, they immediately color the modeled sounds.
They could perhaps compensate, but is it worth the hassle?
That's not to say it won't happen, or even become the rage.
But I don't see the point.
-Miles, just another tube ignorant, I guess
TruSoldier
and discussions turn into arguments leading to petty sniping, in this
newsgroup. You read a little bit of a comment, present part of what little you
read totally out of context, then proceed to hurl insults based upon your
incorrect assumptions. I apologize for not breaking my comments down into
separate little paragraphs for your ingestion. Please accept my condolences on
your short attention span and lack of patience. 12/5/00 @ 8:43 PM was the
comment that I was refering you to. Have a nice day!
Peace!
Stanley C.
@(--->>
>??? The topic changes rapidly. And from my standpoint,
>that became the current topic. Ah, well.
>
>At this point, I have no idea what your last comment was.
>I don't have the time or energy to read stuff from people
>I'm convinced aren't really listening, and at the time I
>was convinced you weren't.
>
>But at any rate, that part of the post was the point at
>which I gave up trying to discuss it, so I have no idea
>what came next.
>
TruSoldier
effects driving a tube power amp and cabinet. One of the main ideas behind the
modeling revolution is to get tube tone, response, and feel, without utilizing
tubes (and having to deal with the physical drawbacks of tubes). IMHO, I don't
think a hybrid amp in the above mentioned configuration would do very well in
the marketplace. It may have a great sound, but many tube purists would be put
off by the learning curve associated with programming the modeling preamp
section, and most people looking to get into a modeling amp are trying to get
away from dealing with the physical drawbacks of tubes. The smart thing for
the modeling gear manufacturer to do would be to make his gear as conducive as
possible to interconnectivity with all types of devices. I would've purchased
a Yamaha DG-1000 years ago if it had stereo outs (for connection to a stereo
power amp, or a couple of combo amps) , a stereo effects loop (digital, as well
as analog, would've been a really nice touch here), balanced speaker emulated
line outs with separate level control, power thru-put for a MIDI foot
controller, and a digital output. This is the least of what I would expect to
be implemented to enhance the connectivity of a modeling amp/pramp.
Peace!
Stanley C.
@(--->>
TruSoldier
with a tube amp repair, just as easily as anything else. It's a cold cruel
world out there, my boy!
Peace!
Stanley C.
@(--->>
TruSoldier
(pretty much) on a modeling gear issue?! Hey Miles, does that boost my
credability, or lower your's? LOL! I hereby change your status from tube
ignorant, to somewhat modeling innocent. Here's lookin' at you, kid! One
love!
Peace!
Stanley C.
@(--->>
TruSoldier
>> exact sentiments) I am probably the most unbiased person posting >> on this
thread.
>Am I missing some self-deprecation here? Or are
>you just really egotistical? Because you obviously
>have no clue about some of the rest of us. Are you
>saying we are biased just because we disagree with
>you? Or do you have other evidence I'm unaware of?
My above quoted comment was in response to your below quoted comment. I
thought of "biased" and "bigoted" interchangably when I commented on your below
quoted comment. All I know about anyone here, I deduce from what they say. I
only comment on what they bring to the discussion at hand. The things that I
don't know about the folks here (their level of expertise as a player, their
musicality, their knowledge of issues that are not the topic at hand, etc.), I
don't bring into question, to support a point that I'm trying to illustrate. I
never said that anyone was biased, especially if they don't agree with me. I
stated that I am totally unbiased (as related to looking at new technologies
and trying new things).
>> >I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt
>> >here. That tyou're merely ignorant and arrogant
>> >instead of teh bigoted jackass this post seems
>> >to have been written by,
> what your response
>*sounded* like was a knee-jerk, bigoted comment. "Tube
>amp ignorants"?
I guess that was a li'l harsh, especially when viewed out of the context of the
comment that it originated from. How about "modeling gear programming and
utilization innocent" in place of "tube amp ignorant"?>
>> My number one concern is getting great tones, and having great
>> tones wherever I perform/write/ record, no matter what the source of >> that
great tone is.
>Funny, Rich and I and most of the others here would
>say the same thing.
I feel that you would say the same thing, but with the addition of "as long as
the source of that great tone is tube based". My point is that my utilization
of modeling gear has enabled me to get consistantly good tone when I travel. I
love tube gear, but tubes is not the only means to an end. IMHO, and through
MY personal experience, modeling gear offers an excellent alternative (not
replacement for, alternative to) to tube gear. I'm thankful that I have my
modeling gear to fall back on when it's not feasible for me to use my tube
gear. Guitarists haven't gotten this much love on the technological
developement side in a long, long time, my friend. Think about it.
>> However, I did not lose my open mind in the journey.
>There we go with the insults again. Peace, huh? Or are
>you just always in sarcastic mode?
That wasn't an insult, dude. So many cats are so burned out on all of the past
attempts (which really weren't that many...but that's another discussion
entirely) at capturing tube nirvana with electronics, that they've totally
closed themselves off to present, future developments that portend to be the
actual solution to the puzzle. I was just stating that I'm not one of those
cats.
>> I share your experience, and your pain with the "great Solid-State
>> revolution".
>Oh, great. You and Bill Clinton share my pain.
Hmm!...talk about always being "in sarcastic mode"!
>a lot of people think all they have to do
>is buy the "12 amps in one box!" package, and they
>are all set to sound like they are playing through
>any of those twelve amps modeled.
This is so true, and it's mainly the fault of the modeling amp manufacturers
themselves. You have the manufacturers who state that their amps sound and
behave exactly like (fill in the blank) without the exspense and upkeep. These
are the ones who's intent, it seems, is to bump heads with tube cats. They're
at the core of the debate. Then you have the modeling amp manufacturers who's
only means to describe the tones that there gear is capable of, is to list what
we're already familiar with (the standards of tone, if you will). The minute
they make mention of the venerables of tone (innocently only in a descriptive
manner), they get lumped in with the first type of manufacturers. It's a tough
row to hoe. It's like trying to describe the sound that a trumpet makes,
without being able to use for comparison any other sound that a person is
familiar with.
>> Ok, now we're getting somewhere. It's easier for anyone (says YOU) to get
>> "good sounds" with a tube amp than it is with a digital modeling amp
>(according
>> to your above quoted statement), right? Well, it's easier to buy fish at
>the
>> market, than to go catch your own fish. Does that make fishing invalid?
>I wasn't addresing fish (unless you're a tuna or something).
...more sarcastic mode, huh?
>I was addressing the idea of ease of getting a certain sound.
>Are you saying it's easier, or even as easy, to dial in a
>good sound with a modeling amp as with a good tube amp?
Not at all (I think we adressed this earlier, but it's important enough to
visit again)! It think that it takes the same amount of effort and critical
listening to get good tones out of modeling gear, as it does to get good tones
out of tube gear. The mechanics are different, but the grey matter part is
identical.
>even the most rabid pro-modeling, anti-tube rantist I've run across (other
>than yourself 8^)
I'm neither "rabid" pro-modeling, nor anti-tube (I don't think that I rant
either, but my lady agrees with you on that one).
>has said it takes a good bit of work to get good tones out
>of a modeling amp. Whereas with a good BFDR, if you can play,
>you can probably set the tone in a couple of knob tweaks.
To that end I say, each person's ability, comprehension, and wherewithall is
different. Each person's experience is their own unique experience. I've had
good experiences with my modeling gear, and with about the same effort put into
tweaking their tube gear, others to can have good experiences with modeling
gear.
Peace, for real, Bro. Miles!
Stanley C.
@(--->>
Jack A. Zucker
news:20001207022051...@ng-cv1.aol.com...
> You ever tried having a Marshall 30th Anniv. amp repaired? You can get
porked
> with a tube amp repair, just as easily as anything else. It's a cold
cruel
> world out there, my boy!
You're getting off tangent. Those amps are supposedly modeling vintage tube
amp tones so compare the repair record of the modeling toys to the Fenders
and Marshalls which have been working for 35 years.
--
Jack A. Zucker
E-Mail: j...@jackzucker.com
Jazz Guitar Page: http://www.jackzucker.com
Kent Pearson
On 7-Dec-2000, "AOCrowley" <j...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> This is interesting. Someone is saying fusion guitar isn't tone oriented
> the way
> blues is? That's a serious mistatement born of total ignorance. For
> instance,
> Holdsworth is so tone-centric it isn't funny.
There's a whole hell of a lot more to Alan Holdsworth that isn't funny.
He's one of the worst fucking wankers I ever heard in my life. Absolutely
NO musical taste whatsoever. Who can hear tone out of all that garbage?
And you can put Al Dimeola in the same boat. The ONLY people who buy their
records are a very small percentage of guitar players who are hypnotized by
speed scales. Cut the crap and be serious. I'd rather hear one toneful
note out of BB King than a thousand out of those tone deaf wankers. If you
like that stuff, go hang around Berzerlee "College" of Music. You'll be
sick of it soon enough!
- Kent Pearson
Kent Pearson
Berklee days.
- KP
AOCrowley
;)
-AOCrowley
Kent Pearson <Blues...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:mtTX5.5898$b96....@e420r-atl1.usenetserver.com...
AOCrowley
> Sorry, I don't know what came over me. Must have been a flashback to
those
> Berklee days.
HEHEHEHE
> - KP
>
>
Miles O'Neal
> I feel that you would say the same thing, but with the addition of "as long as
> the source of that great tone is tube based".
And therein lies your prejudice, if not bigotry. Because
you *have* prejudged. You don't have enough information
to make that judgement, or you would not have come to it.
(Or you use a very bizarre sort of logic.)
I love the Lab L5 amps, for instance. Nary a tube in
them. It's not a tube sound, but I love them. CCR
got *great* Tone with solid state. It doesn't (IMO)
work for all kinds of music, but it's perfect for their
music.
Sonny Lollerstedt played a Strat through a Standel
SS bass amp, and it sounded like he'd already died
and gotten the position as God's Lead Guitarist.
Tube amps have a lot going for them. Good tone, easy
to modify/repair/etc. If and when solid state sounds
as good on average and is as easy to repair, I'm interested.
I try to be extremely honest with myself as well as
with others. I guarantee you I am my harshest critic.
I like tubes for a variety of reasons, but the two
given above are the biggest. And I prefer point to
point tube amps above all others, for ease of repair
and modification.
But if the tone weren't there, I'd chuck tube amps in
a minute.
> My point is that my utilization
> of modeling gear has enabled me to get consistantly good tone when I travel. I
> love tube gear, but tubes is not the only means to an end. IMHO, and through
> MY personal experience, modeling gear offers an excellent alternative (not
> replacement for, alternative to) to tube gear.
Great. I've said it many times, as has Rich. Try it out, and
use what works for you.
> I'm thankful that I have my
> modeling gear to fall back on when it's not feasible for me to use my tube
> gear.
OK, I'll bite. when is it not feasible?
> Guitarists haven't gotten this much love on the technological
> developement side in a long, long time, my friend. Think about it.
Ummm, OK...
> >> However, I did not lose my open mind in the journey.
>
> >There we go with the insults again. Peace, huh? Or are
> >you just always in sarcastic mode?
>
> That wasn't an insult, dude.
You don't seem to live in the real world. Your post clearly
implys, based on the context of your posts, that *you* haven't
lost your open mind on the journey, but we have. Whether you
meant that or not I don't know, but you say things that come
off that way pretty consistently in your posts.
Maybe you communicate better when you sing? Perhaps you should
write us a song to explain your feelings on the issue. 8^)
> Hmm!...talk about always being "in sarcastic mode"!
I'm still way behind you, man. Just trying to keep up. 8^)
> This is so true, and it's mainly the fault of the modeling amp manufacturers
> themselves. You have the manufacturers who state that their amps sound and
> behave exactly like (fill in the blank) without the exspense and upkeep. These
> are the ones who's intent, it seems, is to bump heads with tube cats. They're
> at the core of the debate. Then you have the modeling amp manufacturers who's
> only means to describe the tones that there gear is capable of, is to list what
> we're already familiar with (the standards of tone, if you will). The minute
> they make mention of the venerables of tone (innocently only in a descriptive
> manner), they get lumped in with the first type of manufacturers. It's a tough
> row to hoe. It's like trying to describe the sound that a trumpet makes,
> without being able to use for comparison any other sound that a person is
> familiar with.
I agree with this.
> >> Ok, now we're getting somewhere. It's easier for anyone (says YOU) to get
> >> "good sounds" with a tube amp than it is with a digital modeling amp
> >(according
> >> to your above quoted statement), right? Well, it's easier to buy fish at
> >the
> >> market, than to go catch your own fish. Does that make fishing invalid?
>
> >I wasn't addresing fish (unless you're a tuna or something).
>
> ...more sarcastic mode, huh?
No, just silliness. Again, if you'd actually read a while here in
the NG before jumping in, you'd know my personality a bit better.
I tend to take the lighthearted approach a lot. I should have
insrted a smiley face, but I thought it was obvious it was implied.
[Dr. Freud jumps in. ``Why are you so sensitive about being
compared to a fish?'' Miles and Stanley join forcxes long enough
to chase him off.]
> >I was addressing the idea of ease of getting a certain sound.
> >Are you saying it's easier, or even as easy, to dial in a
> >good sound with a modeling amp as with a good tube amp?
>
> Not at all (I think we adressed this earlier, but it's important enough to
> visit again)! It think that it takes the same amount of effort and critical
> listening to get good tones out of modeling gear, as it does to get good tones
> out of tube gear. The mechanics are different, but the grey matter part is
> identical.
And that's one place we disagree. It takes *far more* effort to get
good tones out of any modeling gear I'm aware of than out of good tube
gear. IMO.
> >even the most rabid pro-modeling, anti-tube rantist I've run across (other
> >than yourself 8^)
>
> I'm neither "rabid" pro-modeling, nor anti-tube (I don't think that I rant
> either, but my lady agrees with you on that one).
There was a smiley face there. You do understand smiley
faces? I'm trying not to take *anything* for granted here
if I can help it, due to the enormous communication gulf we
seem to have, so don't feel insulted if you are the smiley
face king.
> To that end I say, each person's ability, comprehension, and wherewithall is
> different. Each person's experience is their own unique experience. I've had
> good experiences with my modeling gear, and with about the same effort put into
> tweaking their tube gear, others to can have good experiences with modeling
> gear.
I don't think Rich or I ever tried to argue with your
experiences with your gear. I know I didn't.
-Miles