An inquiry for Line 6 POD owners

[supacow]

AS USUAL OT:

i had a bad experience in an audio store a couple of years ago which goes like this:  i was looking for high end preamps and they indignantly announced it's not a preamp i need, it's a mixer!!! why, a mixer has everything! ... pre's, eq's, real faders, and you get lots n lotsa channels for the price of one!  im sorry, but this thread reminds me of that.

The store is right if the mixer was a Neve. 

clearly, it wasn't.  lol, yes that was funny but taking your fondness for opening up perspectives and all, would you suggest a neve mixer to someone looking for a couple of high end preamps?  the price difference would obviously be staggering.  wouldn't a good salesman first address the question at hand before opening up other avenues to the buyer?

a higher being will smite us for all this OT.

and the smitee will be smiten by the smiter. hehe..

am learning a lot from this thread. considering that i have a similar product.

Im using a Vamp pro right now and thus far has produced great results for me. It may not sound like the real thing (as if i've already heard the real thing), but it does sound close.

The only thing not good about this is that it doesn't have it's own interface (USB) to go into the computer. hehe..

Keep the replies coming! Im really learning a lot from the exchanges here.

[marvinq]

The store is right if the mixer was a Neve. 

not if you were looking for a preamp that didn't color the sound.

OT: Hmmm... the Grace Design Model 101 fits that description in my book... Carry on!

exactly what i had in mind, kit. but the ssl's well under that category too. oh, the rnp too.

[KitC]

I don't know, but I've tried everything. I've tried dry guitar tracks from other sources recorded on the best A/D converters and tried "re-amping" them.  Maybe I'm just too choosy.  Or I am a gain freak.  It's weird that digital sounds so noisy in a different way when you use too much gain.

Run the raw files through a frequency analyzer and see if you can detect any high frequency noise. Could be a dither setting in the files/DAW. The way I would do it is to turn dither off during tracking and only apply dither during mixdown and/or bitrate/samplerate changes. Dither does get amplified when you apply gain to a low level signal file and i'ts entirely possible you're hearing 2nd or 3rd order harmonics from the dither signal. Also check the ampsim for their bitrates when recording digitally. What's the point of recording at 24-bit when the equipment's s/pdif output is only capable of 16-bit.

[starfugger]

dont you need extra equipment to reamp? like a ... er ... REAMP?

part of my wishlist.

[KitC]

The only thing not good about this is that it doesn't have it's own interface (USB) to go into the computer. hehe..

Keep the replies coming! Im really learning a lot from the exchanges here.

Doesn't matter. If you have an analog signal path that is quiet, it's just as good. Only your A/D converters now come into question, but if you have a very good soundcard (and not some crappy onboard stuff), then half the battle is already won.

[KitC]

dont you need extra equipment to reamp? like a ... er ... REAMP?

part of my wishlist.

That is one thing I'd really like to try myself... expensive little buggers. I've read that the Radial brands are good too... come with Jensen transformers.

[starfugger]

reamping without a REAMP or similar equipment (one that will change the level of the signal suitable for plugging into an amp) can really derstroy the quality of a guitar sound. it just didntt sound right, in my experience.

[KitC]

reamping suck eggs. 

OT: That, in itself, is horrible enough to visualize.

[starfugger]

reamping suck eggs. 

OT: That, in itself, is horrible enough to visualize.

i edited, since it might have been a condescending thing to say, sweeping generalizations and all.

LOL noooow i get it!

[abyssinianson]

OT: Hmmm... the Grace Design Model 101 fits that description in my book... Carry on!

exactly what i had in mind, kit. but the ssl's well under that category too. oh, the rnp too.
[/quote]

Indeed. FMR's products are some of the cleanest sounding pieces of gear I've ever used. To this day, I am a fan of the RNP and RNC units.

[marvinq]

dont you need extra equipment to reamp? like a ... er ... REAMP?

part of my wishlist.

That is one thing I'd really like to try myself... expensive little buggers. I've read that the Radial brands are good too... come with Jensen transformers.

hey kit. i have a radial x-amp. was thinking of selling it a few months ago. i changed my mind. still haven't tried it up to now. maybe we should.

[marvinq]

true.  there are times when micing is juuuuuust a pain... or budget simply wont allow.  this is where the pod/amplitube/GR comes in 

well, actually, there will be instances when even in a high-budget situation, the low-budget solution is going to be employed if it's the sound that is required by the project. in the same manner, just because you have the budget to use a big orchestra, it doesn't mean you will, or have to... we use whatever will serve the song, whether it's using 20 expensive amps, and 20 drum kits, and 200 microphones, or just using a portasound... and a lazer drumkit, and a toy bongo, if that's what'll yield the sound that the project calls for.

is the "how" (methodology) really as important (or more important) than the "why" (the music itself)?

...All I am saying is, software emulations are NOT MEANT TO REPLACE AMPS.  They do have their place in the pre-prod and not-so-serious musical situations.  Who wants to bring a half-stack to a picnic?  I would love to have a laptop plugged to a boombox and do my wankery there, but not to replace a good ol' tube amp.  But if you really are serious about tone and all, be ready for inconvenience. This makes me understand why George Martin, Eddie Kramer and all these studio greats nailed great sounds on tape despite technological limitations of their time with the Beatles, Hendrix and Led Zeppelin...

it's because they weren't viewed as technological limitations... it's not like they said, "sigh, amp modelling hasn't been invented yet, so we're left with no choice but to use real amps... bummer..." i bet that if the technology was available to them during that time, they would have used it for SERIOUS music making, and not merely for picnics or pre-prods.

(*)i've had my hammond xk-2 for a long time now. i love it's sound. heck, i might be buying a leslie soon. but how many times have i used native instruments' b4 or an organ patch on my fantom xr or motif rack, because it sat better on the track i was working on? i've lost count. how many times have i used my hammond in the recent past?.... never. will i sell it? hell, no.

as musicians, we use what's there.

conflicts are very hard to avoid when there are generalizations that seem to imply one methodology as "superior" to another. ("nothing beats...." or "it's always better to...", etc.)

admit it.

it's not the only way. it's just another way of getting there. (borrowed from "conversations with god"...but i'm still catholic. haha)

[KitC]

hey kit. i have a radial x-amp. was thinking of selling it a few months ago. i changed my mind. still haven't tried it up to now. maybe we should.

Well it's about time that we did put it through it's paces... maybe if we borrowed someone's Diezel? 

as musicians, we use what's there.

conflicts are very hard to avoid when there are generalizations that seem to imply one methodology as "superior" to another.

Or we use what fits in the mix, di ba?

Here's a little mixing tip for those starting up out there... Do you know that the biggest, baddest guitar tone often does not sit well in a mix because it drowns out everything else? Doesn't matter if it's from a tube amp or a simulation, as engineers it falls unto us to make mix cohesive. So often we would cut frequencies from a guitar track, or use a different amp altogether if needed. The point is that in a mix, everything should work together, not against each other.

OT: So you read 'Conversations' eh? Great read, huh?

[marvinq]

well, that could shed some light on how much "better" real amps sound vs. software sims. we could record a clean track with different articulations (mutes, etc.), and record a miked amp, so we can compare it to the software emulations.

@kit - conversations? yeah, a long time ago. read the 3 volumes, and the 2 other books that came after it. that's how i know i'll die a catholic... because i still am after reading those.

[KitC]

well, that could shed some light on how much "better" real amps sound vs. software sims. we could record a clean track with different articulations (mutes, etc.), and record a miked amp, so we can compare it to the software emulations.

I think we're going to do one real soon... pahiram ng X-amp! hehe

[marvinq]

sure kit.

[skunkyfunk]

well, that could shed some light on how much "better" real amps sound vs. software sims. we could record a clean track with different articulations (mutes, etc.), and record a miked amp, so we can compare it to the software emulations.

@kit - conversations? yeah, a long time ago. read the 3 volumes, and the 2 other books that came after it. that's how i know i'll die a catholic... because i still am after reading those.

Eto pampagulo nang konti:  Let us say we wanna test a Mesa Boogie Dual Rectifier setting in a POD, NI GR2, and the real thing, miked with an SM57 and a decent ribbon or condenser mic...  Same take, signal split to 3 tracks...

1.  Can an A/B/C test of either tracks (i.e. software sims vs. hardware amp sims vs. real amps miked) tell the story of response to a guitarplayer's playing dynamics? 

Assuming tracks A, B and C yield perfectly the same results, do you think the player could have had the same feel if he were in front of the amp, versus being in front of the computer monitor with either the POD or softsynth?


2.  If there are differences in tracks A, B and C what would you choose?   

In a blindfold test, you choose what works best for the mix and the music.  So this would be more of a poll thing. 

3.  Can your amp sim make use of the room acoustics?  What if I wanna nail Brian May's roomy tone?

4.  Do you know the history of the amps your amp sim is modelling and how they can help you shape the sound of your band/artist?

[marvinq]

1.  Can an A/B/C test of either tracks (i.e. software sims vs. hardware amp sims vs. real amps miked) tell the story of response to a guitarplayer's playing dynamics? 

Assuming tracks A, B and C yield perfectly the same results, do you think the player could have had the same feel if he were in front of the amp, versus being in front of the computer monitor with either the POD or softsynth?


2.  If there are differences in tracks A, B and C what would you choose?  

In a blindfold test, you choose what works best for the mix and the music.  So this would be more of a poll thing. 

3.  Can your amp sim make use of the room acoustics?  What if I wanna nail Brian May's roomy tone?

4.  Do you know the history of the amps your amp sim is modelling and how they can help you shape the sound of your band/artist?

1. the final mix wouldn't "tell the story" either... when the song is played on the radio... that is, if it gets that far at all... (i'm trying to look at this from the angle of a producer and a player) one more thing, i hope they don't yield perfectly the same results, because not even real amps, real mics, and real mic preamps are that consistent.

2. yup. i agree. we use what sits best (i'd go for "good" rather than "real"). that's an entirely personal call.

3. well, that opens an entirely different topic. rooms and their simulations. and also, i wonder if brian may was indeed going for "brian may's roomy tone" or if he was just making use of what he had at that particular time.

4. well, i'm not a very informed listener of classical music, and yet i can write orchestral music just the same (some people think i'm pretty good, *wink* *wink*). that's not to say history is not worth looking into... but not knowing it shouldn't stop one from making good music. when amplified guitars were just starting to ge utilized, they didn't have any history to look back to. that didn't stop them either.

[marvinq]

also, the original poster wanted to find out if he'd be able to make good (his actual term was "decent") recordings with the pod. the answer is YES.

[skunkyfunk]

also, the original poster wanted to find out if he'd be able to make good (his actual term was "decent") recordings with the pod. the answer is YES.

Sir kaya nga "pampagulo" lang hehehe.

But in all honesty, I want him to make an informed choice.  For all you know it  is a modelling amp+ mics he is really after.

[marvinq]

well, he did mention that he was on a tight budget.

[marvinq]

Ask yourself, are you after more tones, or specializing a few specific but great tones?

the thing about "great" is that it's totally relative to the listener, and we can't assume "great" tones are impossible with the pod.

we just had a client that preferred the sound of a sax patch from a keyboard (which i'd rather die than use) over the real thing.

@kit - i know. actually, today's my first day to have too much coffee again... haha

[skunkyfunk]

well, he did mention that he was on a tight budget.

Hence the other options I gave.  But if the threadstarter would really want something versatile, I would recommend him the Rocktron Replitone 212 or Yamaha DG100-212.

[marvinq]

well, sir, neither of the two will let him make good recordings on a computer. his "tight budget" makes me assume that his mic collection, studio equipment, and room treatments are less than ideal.

[KitC]

Those Digistomps are quite good. I was a bit amused when I found out that they used the same fx algorithms (reverb/chorus/variation) found in my (old) MU80 module.  For kicks, I sometimes use that module for it's distortion/OD algorithms which sound soooo...... Yamaha. I'd rather get my hands on an old Boss SE-70 (soon, soon... hehe).