Line 6 POD vs Boss GX-700
Marc Jordan
or the other and I'm having a tough time deciding. I can get 'em both for
the same price, and I've found that there are things that I like & dislike
about both. Would anyone who's had/tried a GX-700 please offer up some
comments? This will be my first amp sim/effects unit so I don't have a lot
of experience with this, but here's what I've found so far:
POD Pros - Better amp simulation than the GX-700 IMO. Nice PC front-end
with the SoundDiver.
POD Cons - Kinda sucky desk-top case design. It's a solid case but when
stuff is plugged in it kinda sticks out all over the place. Limited effects
& effect combinations. Effects seem weaker than the GX-700. Sounds a
little muffled in general compared to the GX-700. No MIDI thru.
GX700 Pros - Excellent effects. Totally configurable, separate effects.
More effects than the POD. Nice rack-mount case. MIDI thru.
GX700 Cons - Distortion sims sound a little thin & kinda synthetic compared
to the POD. Kinda cheezy PC front-ends.
I can get past the MIDI thru thing for the POD 'cause I can get a PCI MIDI
IO card (I need one anyway). I've downloaded tons-o-patches for each plus
played around with each knob & doohickey. With the noise gates off both
boxes have quite a bit of idle noise when using the distortion sims (tested
with my computer/monitor off & with no input). I'd like to have both (POD
for amp sim & GX for effects) but it just ain't gonna happen right now :)
I'm really stumped at this point so if anyone has any insights or ideas for
things to try out please let me know.
Thanks,
Marc Jordan
mjo...@crystal.cirrus.com
fretwire
Marc Jordan <mjo...@crystal.cirrus.com> wrote in message
news:_jaj4.4700$f4.1...@typhoon.austin.rr.com...
getting bored with the (digitally) "dead" , muffled tones of the POD. The
GX700 is much more lively, closer to a real amp, and much better in the
clean area. The effects of the GX700 are much better, too,
Now if there would be a preamp that had some of both.... I had hoped the
Boss VF-1 would be the combination, but it is rather limited as to
combinations of preamps and speaker simulators.
K Cheung
Marc Jordan <mjo...@crystal.cirrus.com> wrote:
Have you tried the Boss GT-3? It is not a POD and GX700 combined
but it works well for me. I believe GT-3 is similar to GX700 but
a bit newer.
--
Kevin.
--- kkhc...@math.uwaterloo.ca ---
http://www.grad.math.uwaterloo.ca/~kkhcheun
On a toujours assez de temps. One always has enough time.
COF1971
>comments?
I own a GX-700, and I also owned a Line 6 AX2 212, which is the top of the Line
amp that Line 6 makes. Notice I said that I "owned" the Line 6, as in past
tense. I was in love with the Line 6 for a while, but eventually, I realized
that I liked the sounds I got from the Boss better. Glad to hear that I am not
the only one that thought the Line 6 distortions sounded muffled, as someone
else mentioned. I loved the sounds, and did alot of recording, but I always
thought the distortion sounds were muffled sounding, and no amount of eq or
other tweaking seemed to help.
Gary Gramolini
on it, just the guitar/amp setup. Whichever one has the 'realest
bestest' sounds for your thing is the one to get. Effects are way
secondary to tone.
fretwire
the POD for 1 year) and it is like you said: they both have their strong and
weak points. The POD is better in the distortion sounds (though rather
lifeless); the GX700 has better clean sounds and is more expressive in the
high mids and high frequencies, but it doesn't have the bottom end of the
POD. You could start with the POD and if your next step is a multitrack, you
could consider the Roland VS840EX, as it has (more or less) a GX700 in its
effect card.
Gary Gramolini <gjg...@home.com> wrote in message
news:38C470A6...@home.com...
Henry Chrostek
released at the end of March. I talked to these people at the NAMM show and they
told me that J-Station will have 8-10 more processing power than POD, it means
better amp simulations. Go to www.johnson-amp.com and take a look at the unit.
Henry
P.S. Once, I purchased POD, play for while and returned it back. I didn't like it.
I ended up with DigiTech RP-21D. But still I am waiting for J-Station, list price
around $450.
>
Lion
<hen...@congo.usc.edu> writes
>I talked to these people at the NAMM show and they
>told me that J-Station will have 8-10 more processing power than POD, it means
>better amp simulations.
More processing power doesn't always mean better quality. The software
needs to be up to scratch to make use of the power!
--
Lion
BreadHead - Back By Popular Demand
Steve
with programmable effects and is MIDI controllable. Not really a valid
comparison.
Steve (SEFSTRAT)
webpage: http://members.aol.com/sefstrat/index.html/sefpage.html
John Huff
sefs...@aol.comnospam (Steve) writes:
>
>The POD is a preamp, not an effects unit.
The POD has some effects; and I would hesitate to use it as a preamp
for anything other than direct recording for demos and such.]
It has tons of different amp and speaker cab simulators and some
effects such as tremolo, vibrato, 'verb and I believe chorus and a
simulated wah
Daniel
Steve
The POD has some effects; and I would hesitate to use it as a preamp
for anything other than direct recording for demos and such.]
It has tons of different amp and speaker cab simulators and some
effects such as tremolo, vibrato, 'verb and I believe chorus and a
simulated wah
Daniel>>
Sorry...you're right. Compared to the Boss GX-700, though, the effects are
quite minimal.
The POD really IS a direct recording device. The GX-700 is really suited to
live gigs.
Mike Stull
>The POD really IS a direct recording device.
While the POD has DI capability I'll let you in on a secret:
it's really the best damn headphone amp going.
Perhaps a bit expensive for a headphone amp but I can dial in many sounds and
wail away without disturbing the neighbors, my wife, etc...
That having been said (and before someone points it out) the POD models tube
amps, and it may sound close, BUT nothing replaces the real thing. For my
purposes I really don't give a damn if it's an exact match for any given amp, I
can practice whenever I want and for that reason I like it.
Mike Stull
"We have learned the answers, all the answers:
It is the question that we do not know."
Archibald MacLeish
John Huff
sefs...@aol.comnospam (Steve) writes:
>
><<>The POD is a preamp, not an effects unit.
>
>The POD has some effects; and I would hesitate to use it as a preamp
>for anything other than direct recording for demos and such.]
>
>It has tons of different amp and speaker cab simulators and some
>effects such as tremolo, vibrato, 'verb and I believe chorus and a
>simulated wah
>
>Daniel>>
>
>Sorry...you're right. Compared to the Boss GX-700, though, the
effects are
>quite minimal.
True.
>
>The POD really IS a direct recording device. The GX-700 is really
suited to
>live gigs.
>
Yep. Two different animals.
The POD is pretty damn cool for what it is; a friend has one he uses
w/his PC and some midi/recording software.
It won't blow your mind like a Fender or Marshall at volume, but sounds
real nice for a direct unit.
Daniel
William Cleveland
>
> The POD is pretty damn cool for what it is; a friend has one he uses
> w/his PC and some midi/recording software.
> It won't blow your mind like a Fender or Marshall at volume, but sounds
> real nice for a direct unit.
>
outside of a concert? I can't go far above 1 on my Crate without
hurting my ears and worrying about disturbing the neighbors.
Of course, this may be why I dislike tube amps; I've only played them
at reasonable volumes, which isn't really where they're meant to be
played.
Bill
Steve
>>The POD really IS a direct recording device.
Mike Stull said:
>While the POD has DI capability I'll let you in on a secret:
>
>it's really the best damn headphone amp going.
>
>Perhaps a bit expensive for a headphone amp but I can dial in many sounds and
>wail away without disturbing the neighbors, my wife, etc...
>
Hmmm. I'd never need one, because I sing, and putting it all together is a
part of my practice routine for band stuff.
Not A Speck Of Cereal
[] John Huff wrote:
[] >
[] > The POD is pretty damn cool for what it is; a friend has one he uses
[] > w/his PC and some midi/recording software.
[] > It won't blow your mind like a Fender or Marshall at volume, but sounds
[] > real nice for a direct unit.
[] >
[] Does anyone actually play Fenders or Marshalls at the higher volumes,
[] outside of a concert? I can't go far above 1 on my Crate without
[] hurting my ears and worrying about disturbing the neighbors.
Well, if yer recording and want that tone, that's one of the few options you have. One
alternative option, turning down the master-volume (which isn't possible on a vintage amp
that doesn't have the master volume), doesn't work if you're tracking a band live
(because, of course, the mic would get more of the drums'n stuff than the amp); it also
doesn't work if there's noise in the room... like yer one of the guys that moves around,
grunts, etc. etc. The other alternative option is a POD. Surrender to the POD force!
[] Of course, this may be why I dislike tube amps; I've only played them
[] at reasonable volumes, which isn't really where they're meant to be
[] played.
Bill, there are many decent modern tube amps that let you overdrive the tubes, but give
you the master volume to reduce room volume. Give'er a try.
Eh?
Stevie Speck
----
"And there's only two things made of wood, and one of them is wood."
-- Don "Don Put" Put
Remove X's from my email address above to reply
[These opinions are personal views only and only my personal views]