What's wrong with the Boss GT-5?

[Marcus Schantz]

From what I understand for most guitarists the GT-3 is adequate enough
being that the GT-5 has more effects but the additional effects are
bizarre. If you are just looking for the basic pedal type effects the
GT-3 is enough.

Marcus

"John R. Cooper" wrote:

> I see quite a number of people talk about the Boss GT-3 guitar
> effects processor, but not the GT-5. Has the high price of the GT-5
> driven everyone away from it, or is there some serious flaw in its
> design/implementation that keeps it in the proverbial shadow of the
> newer GT-3?
>
> Cheers,
> - John

[goux]

I've had a GT-5 for several years and programmed lots of great sounds for
it. I don't really understand the difference between the 2 units other
than one less preset footswitch. The GT-5 has been a real blessing in that
it works great for a vast array of situations. You can use it to run
direct, or as a pedalboard to a guitar amp, or into a power amp, etc. The
stock presets are weak, but with some creative EQ and listening you can
get some very convincing and usefull sounds. Best all in one unit I've
ever seen and well worth the money. GouxMan

[John R. Cooper]

[snuffle]

how much are GT-5 in ŁUK these days? How much second hand?

sunil

goux wrote in message <389685F8...@pacbell.net>...

>I've had a GT-5 for several years and programmed lots of great sounds for
>it. I don't really understand the difference between the 2 units other
>than one less preset footswitch. The GT-5 has been a real blessing in that
>it works great for a vast array of situations. You can use it to run
>direct, or as a pedalboard to a guitar amp, or into a power amp, etc. The
>stock presets are weak, but with some creative EQ and listening you can
>get some very convincing and usefull sounds. Best all in one unit I've
>ever seen and well worth the money. GouxMan
>
>Marcus Schantz wrote:
>
>> From what I understand for most guitarists the GT-3 is adequate enough
>> being that the GT-5 has more effects but the additional effects are
>> bizarre. If you are just looking for the basic pedal type effects the
>> GT-3 is enough.
>>
>> Marcus
>>
>> "John R. Cooper" wrote:
>>

[cretin vandalia]

Nothing's wrong with the GT-5.
I recently purchased one instead of a GT-3. Why? Only the GT-5 has a true send and return loop. The GT-3 has a loop as well, but it can only be used as an external distortion. With the GT-5 I can use the preamp of my amp in the effect loop, use a distortion setting into that, or by switching the effect loop off, I can use one of the GT-5's amp models instead of my preamp. I tried both pedals and the only thing I liked better about the GT-3 (besides the price) was the acoustic simulator sounded a little better to me (still not something I will probably use though). The other effects that the GT-3 added are the slicer, the pickup simulator and I think something else that I also would probably never use. The GT-5 also lets you design your own preamp and distortion models, and has more flexibility with the speaker sims. Add to this the fact that only the GT-5 has reverse delay capabilities, and I find it worth the extra $. (Wish it had a univibe setting). Again though, the presets suck. You really have to be willing to spend some time tweaking and dialing in your own sound.

peace,
cretin
----------

[Gatt]

On Tue, 1 Feb 2000, John R. Cooper wrote:

> I see quite a number of people talk about the Boss GT-3 guitar
> effects processor, but not the GT-5. Has the high price of the GT-5
> driven everyone away from it, or is there some serious flaw in its
> design/implementation that keeps it in the proverbial shadow of the
> newer GT-3?

The GT-5 has an extra pedal, I -think- and a lot more programmable
patches. Basically, it's a lot more money for a lot more shit that
you'll never use. The GT-3 is smaller, less expensive, sounds just as
good, is newer and basically gets the job done quite nicely, which is why
it's more popular at this point.

I have a GT-3 that I bought after hearing my friend's GT-5 and comparing
the two. We're both lead guitarists that use them in both the studio and
live performances, and now we both swear by them...except that we both use
external wah pedals.

-gatt

Chris Gattman
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The sky is humming and my motor thunders..." -Floater
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Gatt]

On Tue, 1 Feb 2000, cretin vandalia wrote:

> Nothing's wrong with the GT-5. I recently purchased one instead of a
> GT-3. Why? Only the GT-5 has a true send and return loop. The GT-3 has a
> loop as well, but it can only be used as an external distortion.

Actually, that's not QUITE accurate. It can be used as anything, but it's
CALLED External Distortion for some reason and, unfortunately, you
activate it by selecting external distortion in the OD/DS menu for the
patch. Means that if you use it as an FX loop for, say, an external
phaser or a talk box or something, you have to have external distortion in
the loop if you're going to use distortion before the amp.

The reason this bears distinction is because it's not an issue if you're
like me and you use the natural distortion in the amplifier itself.

> price) was the acoustic simulator sounded a little better to me (still
> not something I will probably use though). The other effects that the

Most of the acoustic processor stuff on either of them is designed to be
used with an acoustic guitar moreso than it is to be used like the Boss
Acoustic Simulator. (AC-2?) I don't use it much either but I've tried
it with my Takamine acoustic and it sounds nice if you need that sort of
thing. It's just that hardly anybody does.

> GT-3 added are the slicer, the pickup simulator and I think something
> else that I also would probably never use. The GT-5 also lets you design

The slicer is a bit weird. Sounds cool if you have a use for it, but
otherwise it's pointless. The pickup simulator is actually pretty nice
if you have a single-coil pickup and want to emulate a humbucker (without,
as in my case, routing out my 1977 Les Paul and removing the P-90 to put
it a humbucker.)

> capabilities, and I find it worth the extra $. (Wish it had a univibe
> setting). Again though, the presets suck. You really have to be willing

Yep. The sales guy where I bought my GT-3 described a basic univibe
sound. I think I used the expression-pedal-controlled Vibrato with some
delay and reverb to build a univibe sound that is very similar to the
actual pedal. We did it right there in the store and compared.
Slightly different, but nothing worth throwing out the GT-3 for (Consider
that I actually went to the store to buy a Univibe in the first place.)

Either way, both the GT-3 and GT-5 rock for the money, and you just don't
see a lot of people posting about how they're having trouble with their GT
as opposed to some of the other multifx processors.

[Chip of Known Space]

On Tue, 01 Feb 2000 01:37:14 GMT, John R. Cooper
<jrco...@san.rrREMOVE.com> wrote:

> I see quite a number of people talk about the Boss GT-3 guitar
>effects processor, but not the GT-5. Has the high price of the GT-5

The GT-3 is newer and has better analog-digital converters, and maybe
sounds a bit less "grainy". It still sounds "digital" IMO, although
the Roland COSM stuff does power amp sag better than any other
modelling amp I've heard. Fairly quick as far as latency (time delay
between the moment you hit the strings and the sound comes out) is
concerned as well. But still - it's not a real amp.

Chip McDonald
]]] Chip McDonald - ch...@mindspring.com
]]] "Try to be reasonable whenever possible"
]]] http://www.mindspring.com/~chipm/chip.htm
]]] I teach guitar - check out http://www.mindspring.com/~chipm/lessons.htm
]]] Musician, voracious reader, overly contemplative thinker, punching bag for fate.
]]] "People think I'm in my own world; that's ok, they know me there" - J. Hodgson

[cretin vandalia]

You're right, I was a little unclear about the effect loop. You certainly can use the effect loop on the GT3 for anything you would like, but you can only select it as one of your distortion choices. The loop on the GT5 however, is a seperate "effect" choice and can be used in conjunction with an od/dist setting as well as a preamp setting. I use the loop to run into my preamp, then run the GT5 main out into my amp's power amp. This gives me an incredible amount of flexibility. For me, the GT3 loop was limiting, because I couldn't do this. Gatt's right; if you're going to run the output of the GT3 straight into your amp this isn't an issue, but if you want the flexibility to be able to use both your amp's preamp or to bypass it and use the modeled GT amps go for the GT5.

PS-the other additional GT3 effect (that I'd never use) which I couldn't remember in my previous post is the Auto-Riff. fyi

peace,
cretin

----------

[goux]

There is very minor "latency"(unwanted delay) in the GT-5. I don't know
if the GT-3 is any better overall. There is so much power in the GT-5,
if you are willing to program sounds(the stock ones suck) you can use
the unit for any application including DI, amps or power amp. I haven't
programed a univibe, but I have some great ones I did in the SE-70, and
the parameters are mostly all the same between the two units. Start with
a light slow phase or flange, some EQ and very short delay. This is a
very underated unit. One caveat: the onboard volume pedal is OK for
adjusting level, but it sucks for volume swells. If you need any
outboard pedal, it would be a volume pedal for swells. I just live with
the one on it because the unit is so versatile and convenient to use.
GouxMan