[Guitar Rig 5 Serial Number Crack
Rancul Ratha
Unleash your musical potential in The Martin Lesson Room, an exclusive online space where passion for guitar meets the legacy of Martin craftsmanship, powered by the innovative learning tools of TrueFire.
Anyone having the same problem? After updating both Cubase and Native Access 3.3.0 to both latest versions, I can't get Guitar Rig to work in Cubase and I won't register my serial number either when I open it as stand alone. I use Mac Monterey 12.6.3, Cubase 12.0.60 (Rosetta 2) and Guitar Rig 5.2.2.
Well, according to NA, it is registeret correctly but when I open it in stand alone mode it says that "Your serial number is incorrect. Please run the Service Center to enter the correct serial number." Quite funny since Service Center doesn't exist anymore. In Cubase the plugin doesn't work anymore at all.
The culprit has been found. The problem is Native Access 3.3.0. I installed Native Access from their website (3.2.2) which is not the latest version by the way and then it works again. However, there is one problem. If you want to quit NA, It forces you to install the latest version which is 3.3.0. You can't say no to this update. It updates automatically when exiting NA. Therefore, I need to keep it open.
@ Kimmo Peltola You are a life saver I was going to a session today and have a few GR5 instances. It was working fine this afternoon, I had updated NA to the latest version when I opened GR5 10 minutes ago it refused to activate. Using timemachine to go back to NA 3.2.2 did the trick. THANKS!?
I would stop suggesting users to update to the latest version of NA. People having troubles is constantly increasing and 3/4 of the times we discover the culprits are the new shiny version of NI softwares.
Yeah. I agree. I wouldn't have even opened Native Access if it weren't for this issue I've been having with Battery 4 not finding any of my expansions. Apparently this a know bug that's been around for years. I tried opening NA to see if the locations were correct (they are).
Thats a tough question to answer, because there are MANY variables in this equation, but for the most part, one thing you have to remember is that glue is not a very good tone transfer material, so the more joints you have with glue in between, the more you are likely to have to basically a robbing of tone or tranfer of vibration. thats not to say that you cant have a two piece, or a capped guitar that doesnt sustain well, or sound better than a one piece body either. so the answer is well, hard to say
Obviously modern resin glues are very hard and very dense- so MORE modern glue will make a guitar heavier, deader and colder sounding. But a multi-lam body of lightweight woods assembled with hide glue can often sound better than a one piece body.
In general a 3-5 piece body on a typical import is made of poorer quality woods- cut wetter, dried artificially and glued in a vacuum press with fast drying resin based glue- You almost ALWAYS will have a better playing and louder guitar made of lightweight woods- even 5 pieces- that a 2-3 piece assembly of very heavy wet wood. many guitars are lightened with air pockets and drilled out chambers- but that does not solve the matter of dense, wet wood that does not vibrate easily.
I doubt that it makes any difference as far as the body is concerned. When the body is properly joined there is actually very little glue there to begin with. As to it's "not a good tone transfer material", why not? Is it really any worse than wood?
It's my opinion that the quality of tone and sustain is more related to the quality of the build, proper fitting of the neck joint, solid hardware, etc. rather than the number of pieces the body is made from.
Yeah, thats always a fun one. I would "generally" tend to lean towards a MIA myself, just because you are more likely to find many more GOOD MIA's than GOOD MIM's. You will find dogs in both however. The real argument really goes back to the made in Japan strats. When at the time, the made in Japan strats were made more "true" to original as far as construction. as far as veneering, or capping the bodies. You look at the black areas of the belly cutouts on the Japs and the MIA's, and the black extends to cover the entire cutout of the MIA's at the time, but not the Japs. The MIA's were covered in black to cover up the laminated edge, whereas the Japs were'nt made that way.(made the original way, the good way"
PS to answer the original question... IMO with this topic, I have no doubt that the quality of wood is what is important. Not the # of pieces or # of glue lines. Given a decent body wood, whether it has 1, 2, 3 or 4 joints is not going to have a "real life" effect on tone, sustain etc with a solid body electric.
It's all abut HOW the pieces are jointed, rather than the number. If you are talking about a "cheapie" guitars, I don't really trust that the pieces will be as carefully joined as the Gibson, so I steer clear.
The reason I posted on this is because I noticed last night that my Strat is actually a 5 piece body, instead of a 2 piece body like I originally thought. Of course, me being completely paranoid, I automatically started thinking that instead of getting a great guitar, I got one of the "dogs." Thanks to the info in this topic, I now know that it's more pieces to lower the cost and that it really is a great guitar and not just my imagination.
I don't think glue is the problem. Too many pieces of wood together will take on the tonality of plywood. Plywood is very strong. That's why it's used in home construction. However its increased stiffness will boost trebles at the detriment of fundamentals i.e. bass. But five pieces of wood shouldn't be a problem. Especially if it's good tonewood to begin with.
I have a Suhr 1 pc. ash Classic and a 3 pc. Fender American Standard alder and I can honestly say, how the hell do I know-totally different guitars. They sound way different-the Suhr is brighter, but it also has different pickups. Too many variables and any difference would be so sublte that any amount of gain would render it a moot point anyway.
I built a Strat bodied electric waaaay back in 1986. It had a center 'core' and alder sides (still a bolt-on though), and had then EVH setup, single bridge humbucker and one volume. I slapped on a 22-fret Jackson copy neck (maple fretboard), and to this day it still sounds more alive and resonant than the majority of imports I've played.
If someone here can put on a blindfold and determine which of two otherwise identical guitars is made out of four pieces of wood and which is made out of two, I'll gladly meet them at high noon on Christmas Day in Times Square, pull down their pants and kiss their ass.
I could care less how or what it is made of. The proof is in the pudding. If it sounds great, it sounds great. You can't diminish that by saying, "but it's plywood" or "it's made of 7 pieces of wood".
I've a 4 peice natural finish pacifica, I hadn't thought about it [the fact it's 4 peices] until this thread reminded me. In fact the only time i thought about it was when a friend who's a woodworker looked at it when i bought it 5+ years ago.
The first thing that comes to mind is that it's a factory second, which means some (often minor) flaw, no warranty, and no serial number. The next is that it's stolen and the serial number was removed. The next after that is that it's counterfeit. What brand and model is it and how much is it selling for?
Some guitars only have a serial # on a label. labels can be stickers and due to being placed on dusty surface when applied, they can fall out. I see a lot of used guitars without labels...doesn't mean squat.
Just saw a guy selling a guitar on Ebay. Didn't even email the seller. His ad simply says that the reason he is selling the guitar so cheap is because the manufacturer sent him two new guitars with no serial numbers. No big deal. Just wanted to know all the reasons why an established manufacturer might send out new guitars without serial numbers.
The above comment reminds me of another thread. I remember telling people on this forum about a well established retail seller selling two Eastmans cheap & a few of you directly accused the seller of selling stolen merchandise because they were so low in price. The reason I didn't mention the seller or the manufacturer is precisely the reasons you witnessed in some of the above comments & in previous comments I read after I started the cheap Eastman thread. I didn't want the seller or manufacturer badmouthed without sufficient evidence they were doing something wrong.
As an aside, a funny thing happened to me while being on Ebay for so many years. I have actually become more trustful of people. After having hundreds of dealings on Ebay & only being ripped off once, I have grown to believe that most people are pretty darn honest. I'm still careful, but I have grown less cynical.
Can you post a link? A quick search of acoustic guitars on eBay for "no serial number" turned up 300+ hits. When I put the search string in quotes I found a koa Takoma but it doesn't sound like the same guitar.
FWIW, I see a lot of honest eBay sellers, but I also see a bunch of them say stuff like "the serial number is filed off, and it has a 'B' stamped on the headstock, but I have no idea what that means."
From: Cedar Valley, Travis County TXposted 06 May 2002 06:51 AM profile As usual, Mike provides the right stuff to answer the question. Thanks.To augment his correct and very complete answer only slightly, the serial number on two guitars I own or have owned... 1164007W and 1164008W..., were found on the changer endplate. 1264018 is stamped on the tuner endplate. The serial number on 5065023 is stamped on the rear apron edge next to the leg socket of the tuner endplate. 5065023 is also the latest serial number I've found with the month/year/guitar numbering scheme, though there could be later guitars out there with this style of serialization.I've compiled a (very incomplete) list of serial numbers of early (64-68) Emmons D10 guitars that I've run across or had information supplied to me by their owners. If any readers out there have wraparounds or bolt-on guitars and care to share the serial numbers with me and the guitar's characteristics, I'd be very grateful if I could add the information to my informal list.Jeff, your answer was the soul of brevity, but somehow lacking in informational content. ------------------
Herb's Steel Guitar Pages
Texas Steel Guitar Association Jay Ganz
Member From: Out Behind The Barnposted 06 May 2002 08:00 AM profile Mike,
This fatback I've got is a #2012 D, so
maybe they went a little higher than
1800 D (???)
[This message was edited by Jay Ganz on 22 August 2006 at 12:45 PM.]