Support
Looper's Delight
|
Support |
|
|
Sorry ... that should have said "Rainer, you crack me UP ..." so much for not having sufficient caffeination ... that's one area software is gonnahave a hard time replacing hardware. "Give me expresso or give meth!" (Just kidding about the meth part ... but you'll pry my jumbo teacup out of my dead stiff fingers!)
Immer die Beste!
Dennis
Thanks to all of you who replied to my original message which I'm quoting
again in parts to create the reference:
There are several statements mixed up in that paragraph, and not all of them
> "Frankly, I'm getting tired of all that "I can feel the
> difference" talk.
> Either you're able to do it with a more compact setup, or you
> should embrace the thought that you better take yourself and
> your tube amp and stompbox setup to the retirement home."
clearly separated from each other or sufficiently explained. People here
have replied to it in lots of different ways, so I'd like to make that more
clear:
1. There is exactly one thing in a typical guitarist's signal chain which
cannot by any means be modeled properly by digital modeling (be it within a
computer or within an embedded DSP-based system like a Line6 POD or Vox
Tonelab or Boss GT10 or whatever), and that is the actual input to the
system ("the system" here being everything between your guitar and your
audience).
Obviously, also George understands that well as he said:2. Comparisons between the two candidates (which in this case has been
> So in my current rig, I've been using a Universal Audio Solo 610 as a tube
DI.
digital modelling vs. tube amps) is most of the time not conducted in a way
which holds any scientific value (read: double blind tests). Clearly, a test
setup like
> Bill is a completely different musician, however, and I can tell you thatwill NOT qualify here.
I've been with him in his garage trying out amp/tube modeller after amp/tube
> modeller with cabinet simulators on the backside and then listened to him
play the identical thing through small Fender and Vox vintage tube amps and
the > difference is STUNNING!
3. There is a lot of inflexibility with regard to their gear with many
musicians - which looks well understandable for e.g. AC/DC who have been
playing the exact same music for decades, but which is surprising for
musicians which consider themselves as "innovative".
4. Know your setup and know your requirements. Especially if you're using a
combination of lots of stompboxes and lots of powerful multi-fx and want to
trim that down, this helps. You can either do some kind of formal analysis,
or simply take notes while you're playing. If you identified the least-used
devices, look if you can replace their functions with other devices already
in the setup. Or see if it works if you play without them.
I understand that most of you do not like that requirement engineering
approach, as exemplified by this reply:
> Did you mean...take it to the retirement home...NOW? Cuz that's kinda,Summarizing: Mainly, if you want to haul around huge crates of gear, feel
like, ouch.
free to do so, independently of whether you live in a retirement home or are
touring the world. On the other hand, if you want or need to trim down your
setup: the possibilities are (almost always) there, but may require some
effort on your part. But please, if you don't know what you need, lack
technical understanding, are filled with preconceptions and completely
unflexible, then please don't blame technology.
If somebody sees this (the items 1-4 above) as arrogant, then well okay: a
certain level may look like arrogance from below, as they say.
That being said, it wasn't my intention to personally attack or defame
anyone here.
Thanks for all your input,
Rainer