Re: VG8-or 2112

["James H. Sidlo" <jameshsidlo@stic.net>]

Frank Gerace wrote:

>         Basically I agree with  all that follows on the mixer.  To all 
>this
> I would only add that Mackie 1202s are very big on this list provide a 
>great
> deal of flexibilty in processing (two effects sends that can be used as 
>mono
> sends and have four effects, 2 on each send).  Their manuals are easy to
> understand and in conjuction with the Torn video and some time, you'll be
> able to do all sorts of fun stuff.    What do you think of the Berringer 
>(sp)
> equivalent of the 1202. Same quality, less dough?  James  
>jameshsidlo@stic.net
>
>         I have a VG and use it with a 1202 and have a JamMan and Boss 
>RSP-10
> tied into Aux send 1 and the Echoplex in Aux 2.  The VG8 can also do
> looping, although you don't have a lot of time available.  You can set 
>the
> amount of regenration to be controlled by the expression pedal so you can
> loop and play over the loop without recording by rocking back and forth 
>on
> the pedal  (Thanks to David Coffin for that trick).  The pickup sounds 
>are
> quite good, very reasonable approximations.  With a little patience and
> tweaking, you can get them to sound even better.
>         There's a VG website (www.vg-8.com) to which a lot of folks 
>submit
> their patches for easy download and a discussion list akinb to this one,
> although not quite as busy.  I find the guitar and amp sounds work really
> well and I love the HRM aspects of it as well.  I just released a CD and
> recorded 85% of the trcks using the VG8 directly.  To my ears, they 
>sound as
> good as the old fashioned tracks with a strat, SansAmp etc. into an AC30.
>         I still play with my amp from time to time, but live I run 
>through
> the PA.  My back works much better as a result.
>         This is a great device with a lot of levels to it.  I've never 
>tried
> the 2112 so I have no way to make a comparison.
>
> Frank Gerace
> Dreamchild
> http://www.channel1.com/users/seahorse
>
> At 08:53 PM 10/19/98 +0100, you wrote:
> >dennis,
> >
> >I haven't got a VG8 but do have a Roland GR1 guitar synth. I think the 
>key
> >to flexibility is to utilise a good mixer, one with as many
> >effect send as possible.
> >With two outputs to process ( guitar + synth ) you use two input 
>channels (
> >or 3 if the vg8 has stereo outs )
> >Now the signals are in the mixer , where they can be routed via the fx
> >sends to various effects units. If you return the fx to other
> >mixer inputs then these signals can be sent around again and out to 
>another
> >effect on another send ( or heard on the channel return )
> > Hence the usefulness of a mixer with many sends.  NB: you really have 
>to
> >spend time on this, as feedback loops lurk everywhere ! It's probably 
>the
> >biggest 'my brain hurts' inducer involved with this setup, but the 
>results
> >can be very interesting.
> >Unortunately you'll find most mixers come with only  two fx sends, 
>usually
> >a pre and a post. Pre is better, as
> >you don't have to hear the input ( dry guitar, or dry synth ) on that
> >channel before you send it out again. A post signal has to have the
> >channel fader up before it goes post, so you can't hide that channels
> >output. In order to hear the results of all this processing, the final
> >output goes stereo out to a power amp and speakers ( or the inputs of a 
>DAT
> >etc ). Big setup !
> >A very good source of ideas on using a mixer and effects is the David 
>Torn
> >video ( number 2 ). Studying this and thinking how I
> >could adapt my equipment to dt's ideas has given me many hours of
> >experimentation to puzzle over.
> >Many people on this list use mackie 1604 mixers. I've been using a 
>tascam
> >688, which has the ability to send to 4 effects, and a handy
> >little digital display ( 'scenes' ) to map the signal routing - but the 
>688
> >isn't really a gigging option, as it's huge..
> >Another useful aid is some kind of speaker emulator/load device which 
>can
> >take the output of your guitar amp straight to the mixer.
> >This means you won't hear anything until long after you've processed it.
> >Getting really gear frenzied now, a simple A/B box after your guitar 
>signal
> >where A goes to the 'silent' guitar amp and B goes to a 'heard' guitar 
>amp
> >means you can build a loop, switch to B and play over whatevers coming 
>out
> >of the mixer.
> >
> >I'm off now to get a life.
> >
> >hope this helps
> >At
> >
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From:  ur eye [SMTP:ureye@hotmail.com]
> >Sent:  19 October 1998 02:45
> >To:    Loopers-Delight@annihilist.com
> >Subject:       VG-8 or 2112
> >
> >Ok, this may seem like comparing oranges & apples but.... I'm trying to
> >choose between these. Does anyone have any comments regarding just the
> >parts you can compare? Like the basic guitar timbre processing of the
> >VG-8(or the synthesis there of?) I would especially like to hear from
> >you folks who loop with a VG-8. Stuff like how you configure your loop
> >setup w/ the unit. As a blossiming Guitar player/looper, I am ready to
> >move up from my lowly SE-50 to a "real" guitar processor. I use a GR-50
> >also and get into adding a little something special to that core analog
> >sound from my STRAT. That core sound is what impressed me about the
> >Digitech 2112. On the other hand I like synthesized sound too so here
> >lies my problem. Are the various pickup config patches on the VG
> >reasonably comparable to the 'ol analog ways?
> >Thanks, -Dennis
> >
> >______________________________________________________
> >Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
> >
> >
> >