hulika

Author Topic: GUITAR DIGITAL FLOOR MULTI EFFECTS (Why I don't Like Them)  (Read 1651 times)

Online firemodel55

  • Philmusicus Addictus
  • *****
I bought my first multi effects unit (which was a rack Digitech DSP Plus) back in 1989.  It was the 'IN' thing then but I only used it once and sold it.  It made my guitar sound one dimensional and closer to a keyboard.  Back then, I thought that digital technology would still mature and produce better sounding effects today.  But somehow the development of digital for application as Guitar FX specially in floor unit configuration did not progress as much as I hoped.

So, here goes my rant against floor Guitar digital multi fx units:

1) A great majority are made in Asia which means cost reduction was the main priority.  Unlike the old rack units made in USA and Europe, sound and durability was the priority.
2) Despite the marketing hype of more bits and higher sampling frequency, they still make a tube amp sound like a home stereo unit.  On the other hand, and surprisingly, analog effect boxes are sounding better every year.  Moreover, I have not heard any digital multi fx that can copy the sound of vintage effects from the 60s and 70s.
3) Distortion and overdrive still sound sucky compared to the best designed and manufactured analog distortion and overdrive.
4) Despite the so called flexibility in programming and one unit convenience, no digital multi fx effects unit invented as of today can claim to have ALL its effects as the best sounding.  Basically that means, along with the digital multi fx effects unit, you have to bring other effects along to supplement its weaknesses and most of the time they are analog.
5) Like your cellphone, they are easily made obsolete.
6) They do not have a high resale value.
7) They are hard to fix specially after a few years because their chips go out of production.
8. There is a loss of transparency and feel in your guitar.
9) Guys who use the same floor multi fx pedals sound the same.
10) They sound bad compared to the best analog chain made up of boutique analog effects.

P.S. I have a bunch of digital stomp boxes too -- the original Whammy, Boss DD2 and Boss DD3 and they sound great.  Used sparingly, they do not make your guitar sound like a stereo unit.
« Last Edit: May 13, 2017, 05:44:01 AM by firemodel55 »



Offline treblinkalovescene

  • Philmusicus Addictus
  • *****
Re: GUITAR DIGITAL FLOOR MULTI EFFECTS (Why I don't Like Them)
« Reply #1 on: May 17, 2017, 03:29:34 PM »
I guess you're expecting this response, Alex.

How do you feel about the newer generation of DSP-powered effects? I'm talking stuff along the line of Atomic, Kemper, Fractal, and higher-end Line 6 (Helix etc).

I'm sure there's a huge gap between your Digitech unit in '89 and a current generation unit like the AxeFx.
Offset guitars for life.

Offline nicoyow

  • Philmusicus Addictus
  • *****
Re: GUITAR DIGITAL FLOOR MULTI EFFECTS (Why I don't Like Them)
« Reply #2 on: May 17, 2017, 09:12:07 PM »
^ ha! damn right! The technology already leaped way way too far from the said date by the TS.
 :mrgreen:

I used to have digital MFX (zoom GFX-8, Zoom G1) for almost 6 years. Then decided to switch to stomp boxes after a couple of months. The reason is, MFX updates are like cellphones. Every year, there's a new release or new model etc etc. Stomp boxes never goes out of trend, still sound better if you're into analog.
nood ng TV. usually nasa huling channels yun mga pampatayo ulit e. then, ihahanda ang sandata para sa round 2.

Offline marcus_gloom

  • Forum Fanatic
  • ****
Re: GUITAR DIGITAL FLOOR MULTI EFFECTS (Why I don't Like Them)
« Reply #3 on: May 31, 2017, 11:26:22 AM »
 very valid points sir especially on numbers 5,6 and 7

...but i kinda NEED MFX coz mabigat ang analog pedal board ko (bad back). For me, cheap and light MFX for quick jams/showband gigs.



Offline skrumian

  • Philmusicus Addictus
  • *****
Re: GUITAR DIGITAL FLOOR MULTI EFFECTS (Why I don't Like Them)
« Reply #4 on: May 31, 2017, 02:59:24 PM »
5) Like your cellphone, they are easily made obsolete.
6) They do not have a high resale value.
7) They are hard to fix specially after a few years because their chips go out of production.
ito talaga ang 3 rason baket naaalangan ako bumili ng hi-end multifx.
« Last Edit: June 01, 2017, 11:37:06 AM by skrumian »
Looking for second hand but still in good condition books:
1) The Complete MBA for Dummies; and 2) The Ten Day MBA
PM me!


Online firemodel55

  • Philmusicus Addictus
  • *****
Re: GUITAR DIGITAL FLOOR MULTI EFFECTS (Why I don't Like Them)
« Reply #5 on: May 31, 2017, 03:15:06 PM »
I guess you're expecting this response, Alex.

How do you feel about the newer generation of DSP-powered effects? I'm talking stuff along the line of Atomic, Kemper, Fractal, and higher-end Line 6 (Helix etc).

I'm sure there's a huge gap between your Digitech unit in '89 and a current generation unit like the AxeFx.

Actually, just count the number of AxeFx guys who are NOW back with their analog tube amps. Bwah hah hah.

Well, the AxeFx was impressive, so is the Roland stuff for 10 minutes, then you start to realize its missing the oompf of a great sounding tube amp.  Para siyang kinulong na tube amp sa isang maliit na kuwarto.  Also, they are not sensitive to backing off the volume pot.  Para pa rin on/off. 
Finally, the sound does not surround/engulf a room like a great sounding guitar tube amp.

Offline Stoop

  • Regular Member
  • ***
Re: GUITAR DIGITAL FLOOR MULTI EFFECTS (Why I don't Like Them)
« Reply #6 on: June 07, 2017, 11:23:55 PM »
I kinda understand that tube amps always has the upper hand against modelers considering that tube amps are pretty much what digital modelers are trying to emulate. But people that says the actual feel of a tube amp is lost on a modeler kinda missed the simple point that the reason why that amp in the room feel is almost non-existent is that digital modelers more or less are copying an amp that is MIC'D UP.

In fm55's own words, "para siyang kinulong na tube amp sa isang maliit na kwarto" which is, uh, I don't know, kinda the idea with mic'ing up an amp speaker which IS the actual way amp modelers try to emulate real amps.

Not saying that his point is not valid (it is, specially if you're the type of person who really, really, really lusts after the "amp in the room feel"), but its kinda weird to discredit modelers for being inferior to the real thing when they have in fact a purpose (albeit limited and specific) in the greater scheme of guitar-y things.

Now try comparing recorded guitar tones both on their own and specially within a mix and you can actually see the economy of having something that can be recorded in the safety of your own bedroom without the need to blast the amp to ear splitting levels just to get to that "sweet spot".

I remember fondly using a POD HD500 (yeah go ahead, strike me dead) when I had one as a way to record some materials for our band and I find that it serves the purpose (in this case recording guitar parts) well enough.

Offline worshiper16

  • Netizen Level
  • **
Re: GUITAR DIGITAL FLOOR MULTI EFFECTS (Why I don't Like Them)
« Reply #7 on: June 08, 2017, 12:38:10 PM »
sir tanong lang. for sure naranasan nyo din po mag gig. gano kadaming stomps ung nasa case nyo?

Offline nicoyow

  • Philmusicus Addictus
  • *****
Re: GUITAR DIGITAL FLOOR MULTI EFFECTS (Why I don't Like Them)
« Reply #8 on: June 08, 2017, 08:52:39 PM »
before, I have 9. now 7  :lol:
nood ng TV. usually nasa huling channels yun mga pampatayo ulit e. then, ihahanda ang sandata para sa round 2.

Online dullFingers

  • Forum Fanatic
  • ****
Re: GUITAR DIGITAL FLOOR MULTI EFFECTS (Why I don't Like Them)
« Reply #9 on: June 08, 2017, 10:01:33 PM »
sir tanong lang. for sure naranasan nyo din po mag gig. gano kadaming stomps ung nasa case nyo?

Sino po tinatanong nyo sir?

Offline treblinkalovescene

  • Philmusicus Addictus
  • *****
Re: GUITAR DIGITAL FLOOR MULTI EFFECTS (Why I don't Like Them)
« Reply #10 on: June 09, 2017, 01:46:22 AM »
Actually, just count the number of AxeFx guys who are NOW back with their analog tube amps. Bwah hah hah.

Well, the AxeFx was impressive, so is the Roland stuff for 10 minutes, then you start to realize its missing the oompf of a great sounding tube amp.  Para siyang kinulong na tube amp sa isang maliit na kuwarto.  Also, they are not sensitive to backing off the volume pot.  Para pa rin on/off. 
Finally, the sound does not surround/engulf a room like a great sounding guitar tube amp.

I get that. I'm not a huge fan of that setup, but if I remember right some Fractal players do bring their own FRFR cabinets. Others, at least that I remember tend to run them through power amps and into guitar speakers, but without the speaker emulation. As far as recorded tone goes, I think it could be fairly convincing but I'm still trying to think of scenarios manufacturers could target to bring that experience closer to a real amp. People are smart, and there are only so many things you could do to a signal. It's an interesting problem to solve.
Offset guitars for life.

Offline skrumian

  • Philmusicus Addictus
  • *****
Re: GUITAR DIGITAL FLOOR MULTI EFFECTS (Why I don't Like Them)
« Reply #11 on: June 09, 2017, 05:51:51 AM »
IMHO, ang target market talaga ng high end multieffects are gigging, touring and recording professionals dahil sa convenient, quick and light setup.

kung hobbyist lang, better with with a tube amp and analog set up. mas may satisfaction in  terms of tone. just my two cents.
Looking for second hand but still in good condition books:
1) The Complete MBA for Dummies; and 2) The Ten Day MBA
PM me!

Online firemodel55

  • Philmusicus Addictus
  • *****
Re: GUITAR DIGITAL FLOOR MULTI EFFECTS (Why I don't Like Them)
« Reply #12 on: June 09, 2017, 06:07:17 AM »
I kinda understand that tube amps always has the upper hand against modelers considering that tube amps are pretty much what digital modelers are trying to emulate. But people that says the actual feel of a tube amp is lost on a modeler kinda missed the simple point that the reason why that amp in the room feel is almost non-existent is that digital modelers more or less are copying an amp that is MIC'D UP.

In fm55's own words, "para siyang kinulong na tube amp sa isang maliit na kwarto" which is, uh, I don't know, kinda the idea with mic'ing up an amp speaker which IS the actual way amp modelers try to emulate real amps.

Not saying that his point is not valid (it is, specially if you're the type of person who really, really, really lusts after the "amp in the room feel"), but its kinda weird to discredit modelers for being inferior to the real thing when they have in fact a purpose (albeit limited and specific) in the greater scheme of guitar-y things.

Now try comparing recorded guitar tones both on their own and specially within a mix and you can actually see the economy of having something that can be recorded in the safety of your own bedroom without the need to blast the amp to ear splitting levels just to get to that "sweet spot".

I remember fondly using a POD HD500 (yeah go ahead, strike me dead) when I had one as a way to record some materials for our band and I find that it serves the purpose (in this case recording guitar parts) well enough.

Unfortunately, you still get 2nd grade electronics no matter what they say.  For the simple reason that a properly designed DAC is expensive.  Recently, I was fortunate enough to spend on a separate Universal Transport and DAC for my hi-fi home system.  I could not believe the level of digital playback today in the realm of hifi.
Using material recorded at 96khz at 24 bits, not too mention 192khz at 24 bits recording directly pulled from the masters, the DAC made you feel that you were in the actual recording room -- not sounding like a microphone.  I have to say on the correct speakers -- I was using wilson audio -- the digital file sounded like the real thing.

But here is the catch, the DAC alone cost P250k.  If I was to put it in pedal form, it would surely cost at least P350k.  Not to mention, that the DAC had to feed a hifi amplifier into a PA speaker on the level of wilson audio which is currently non existent. Which brings me to my point, nobody really needs microphone recorded amp sounds.
What they need is recorded amp sounds that sound like real amps with no microphone affecting the sound in between.

Offline Stoop

  • Regular Member
  • ***
Re: GUITAR DIGITAL FLOOR MULTI EFFECTS (Why I don't Like Them)
« Reply #13 on: June 09, 2017, 11:14:41 PM »
Which brings me to my point, nobody really needs microphone recorded amp sounds.
What they need is recorded amp sounds that sound like real amps with no microphone affecting the sound in between.

I understand the need for expensive DACs for hi-fi playback systems to get every nuance out and for that total immersive listening experience but again, for all intents and purposes, those guitar tones that you get to listen at on your favorite recordings are recorded by putting a mic in front of a cabinet.
No other way around it, whether it be by digital or analog, the signal comes from the clinical sound that you get when you put a mic in front of a cabinet.
I believe that what you had in mind is for the very discerning listeners and audiophiles that needs to get all the subtleties of recordings.
But you also have to consider that almost everyone now that listens to those songs, regardless of the high sampling bit-rates tend to listen to, uh, not that really good playback systems (i.e. mp3 players, smartphones, etc.).

I guess this is my long winded way of saying that when you consider the majority of casual listeners you mostly just need a sound that could translate well enough to a large portion of possible playback systems regardless of price point.

Offline knet370

  • Senior Member
  • ***
Re: GUITAR DIGITAL FLOOR MULTI EFFECTS (Why I don't Like Them)
« Reply #14 on: June 10, 2017, 09:18:15 AM »
I understand the need for expensive DACs for hi-fi playback systems to get every nuance out and for that total immersive listening experience but again, for all intents and purposes, those guitar tones that you get to listen at on your favorite recordings are recorded by putting a mic in front of a cabinet.
No other way around it, whether it be by digital or analog, the signal comes from the clinical sound that you get when you put a mic in front of a cabinet.
I believe that what you had in mind is for the very discerning listeners and audiophiles that needs to get all the subtleties of recordings.
But you also have to consider that almost everyone now that listens to those songs, regardless of the high sampling bit-rates tend to listen to, uh, not that really good playback systems (i.e. mp3 players, smartphones, etc.).

I guess this is my long winded way of saying that when you consider the majority of casual listeners you mostly just need a sound that could translate well enough to a large portion of possible playback systems regardless of price point.

I was thinking the same thing. :) typical setup of your most favorite artist/recording was mic'ing the cab. Post processing is where most of the magic of fine tweaking is happening. Unless you use a digital preamp such as the axe fx which you can run direct to record or use a cab simulator such as thr torpedo. Buy for the sake of amps, typically you plug a cab and mic the cab.

Online firemodel55

  • Philmusicus Addictus
  • *****
Re: GUITAR DIGITAL FLOOR MULTI EFFECTS (Why I don't Like Them)
« Reply #15 on: June 11, 2017, 07:38:45 AM »
I understand the need for expensive DACs for hi-fi playback systems to get every nuance out and for that total immersive listening experience but again, for all intents and purposes, those guitar tones that you get to listen at on your favorite recordings are recorded by putting a mic in front of a cabinet.
No other way around it, whether it be by digital or analog, the signal comes from the clinical sound that you get when you put a mic in front of a cabinet.
I believe that what you had in mind is for the very discerning listeners and audiophiles that needs to get all the subtleties of recordings.
But you also have to consider that almost everyone now that listens to those songs, regardless of the high sampling bit-rates tend to listen to, uh, not that really good playback systems (i.e. mp3 players, smartphones, etc.).

I guess this is my long winded way of saying that when you consider the majority of casual listeners you mostly just need a sound that could translate well enough to a large portion of possible playback systems regardless of price point.

And conversely, then, why don't you play guitar thru a 'not that really good playback system" regardless of price point?  Assuming that mics are really the constraint, by the way -- listening to hi-res files on a hifi system does not point out to the mic as the constraint -- , and  it becomes the standard of listening for almost all, we still don't play live thru a microphone majority of the time.  Most guitarists leave it at the speaker cabinet level and just allow the tech to mic the sound.   To even highlight the point further, I don't see or hear guitarists lug around an ISO cabinet with built in microphone to gigs despite the product's existence.

Hence, I don't see the need to go after the MICed sound when you can get better sound and feel through the amp and speaker cabinets.

Online juwanfidle09

  • Philmusicus Addictus
  • *****
Re: GUITAR DIGITAL FLOOR MULTI EFFECTS (Why I don't Like Them)
« Reply #16 on: June 23, 2017, 10:59:50 AM »
And conversely, then, why don't you play guitar thru a 'not that really good playback system" regardless of price point?  Assuming that mics are really the constraint, by the way -- listening to hi-res files on a hifi system does not point out to the mic as the constraint -- , and  it becomes the standard of listening for almost all, we still don't play live thru a microphone majority of the time.  Most guitarists leave it at the speaker cabinet level and just allow the tech to mic the sound.   To even highlight the point further, I don't see or hear guitarists lug around an ISO cabinet with built in microphone to gigs despite the product's existence.

Hence, I don't see the need to go after the MICed sound when you can get better sound and feel through the amp and speaker cabinets.

Dahil dito :lol:


Kung marunong naman yung tech, ibang scenario naman yun. :-D

Offline Ralph_Petrucci

  • Philmusicus Addictus
  • *****
Re: GUITAR DIGITAL FLOOR MULTI EFFECTS (Why I don't Like Them)
« Reply #17 on: June 23, 2017, 03:43:13 PM »
Dahil dito :lol:


Kung marunong naman yung tech, ibang scenario naman yun. :-D


HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA  "kuya palakasan naman" "nagfefeedback na pogi" HAHAHAHAHA
hahaha ako binibiyak ko muna yung wetpaks para makita kung may yellow thingy hahahaha

Offline titser_marco

  • Philmusicus Addictus
  • *****
Re: GUITAR DIGITAL FLOOR MULTI EFFECTS (Why I don't Like Them)
« Reply #18 on: June 23, 2017, 09:12:28 PM »
Alex's point stands esp when you're talking about club gigs. A 50w can easily fill Guijo or Route 196 with the unadulterated (by a mic anyway) amp tone. With larger and especially open air gigs though, miking amps is an absolute necessity

Sent from my SM-N910C using Tapatalk

I'd rather be sharp than flat.

Offline Stoop

  • Regular Member
  • ***
Re: GUITAR DIGITAL FLOOR MULTI EFFECTS (Why I don't Like Them)
« Reply #19 on: June 24, 2017, 01:34:04 AM »
And conversely, then, why don't you play guitar thru a 'not that really good playback system" regardless of price point?
If a "not that good playback system" is what you have then why not? Its what you have that you actually have to work with anyways.
The ideal is to have everything top of the line but that cannot always be the case, hence the multi-purpose tool that we come to know as modelers.
I am not sure if I understand this or if I did manage to get my point across.
You were talking about playing the amp while I was trying to say "listening to the amp" because you I know you have to spend some dough to at least thin the herd of good amps/guitars/audio equip and such but there will always be an actual limit to the gratification fever equivalent to the money you can and/or willing to spend.

We still don't play live thru a microphone majority of the time.  Most guitarists leave it at the speaker cabinet level and just allow the tech to mic the sound.   
There you got me, but from what I understand, the more "advanced" modelers out there now are supposed to cater to a large number of users that either

a. gig professionally,
b. into home recording, and/or
c. straight up bedroom guitarist

And if I understand it correctly, those can still be handled by them modelers BUT only up to a certain extent like:

a. For pro gigs, the actual removal of being at the mercy of the sound guy is a heaven sent. Direct to PA is one of the features available to them modelers
b. The ability to record silently with everything having pretty much in-the-box is also great. The lesser ADA conversion, probably the better (because of lesser digital artifacts being acummulated) and acting as a standalone recording interface/preamp is something modelers can do also
c. Volume is always a problem for tube amps, specifically for amps that needs Power Amp saturation to get to its sweet spot, there modelers can be the salve because of the global volume control

To even highlight the point further, I don't see or hear guitarists lug around an ISO cabinet with built in microphone to gigs despite the product's existence.
And STILL for larger venues those speaker cabinets gets to be, lo and behold, MIC'ed up and fed to the PA.
Also ISO cabinet tends to have more use in recording than actual gigging.

Hence, I don't see the need to go after the MICed sound when you can get better sound and feel through the amp and speaker cabinets.
Yes YOU don't see the need, but the purpose of "advanced" modelers is basically to give you tones BOTH for live (amp in room) AND recording.
You can do the amp in the room with modelers simply by using an actual Power Amp (remember these digital thingies are marketed as guitar "preamps") just turn off the power amp/speaker emulation and then hook it up to an actual guitar speaker cab.
If you want the whole shebang where preamp-power amp-speaker config are all in the modeler, use an FRFR for best results.
Again this is from the perspective of what these digital thingies are marketed out to be.

Its just rather a matter of are you willing to have one solid tool that does a great job for a single thing or a swiss army knife that could handle most jobs for a "decent" price?
I almost forgot that this thread is about why you don't like digital multi-fx but since I thought you wanted a discussion, I thought I could have my .02 thrown in.

Online juwanfidle09

  • Philmusicus Addictus
  • *****
Re: GUITAR DIGITAL FLOOR MULTI EFFECTS (Why I don't Like Them)
« Reply #20 on: June 24, 2017, 03:00:08 AM »
If a "not that good playback system" is what you have then why not? Its what you have that you actually have to work with anyways.
The ideal is to have everything top of the line but that cannot always be the case, hence the multi-purpose tool that we come to know as modelers.
I am not sure if I understand this or if I did manage to get my point across.
You were talking about playing the amp while I was trying to say "listening to the amp" because you I know you have to spend some dough to at least thin the herd of good amps/guitars/audio equip and such but there will always be an actual limit to the gratification fever equivalent to the money you can and/or willing to spend.
There you got me, but from what I understand, the more "advanced" modelers out there now are supposed to cater to a large number of users that either

a. gig professionally,
b. into home recording, and/or
c. straight up bedroom guitarist

And if I understand it correctly, those can still be handled by them modelers BUT only up to a certain extent like:

a. For pro gigs, the actual removal of being at the mercy of the sound guy is a heaven sent. Direct to PA is one of the features available to them modelers
b. The ability to record silently with everything having pretty much in-the-box is also great. The lesser ADA conversion, probably the better (because of lesser digital artifacts being acummulated) and acting as a standalone recording interface/preamp is something modelers can do also
c. Volume is always a problem for tube amps, specifically for amps that needs Power Amp saturation to get to its sweet spot, there modelers can be the salve because of the global volume control
And STILL for larger venues those speaker cabinets gets to be, lo and behold, MIC'ed up and fed to the PA.
Also ISO cabinet tends to have more use in recording than actual gigging.
Yes YOU don't see the need, but the purpose of "advanced" modelers is basically to give you tones BOTH for live (amp in room) AND recording.
You can do the amp in the room with modelers simply by using an actual Power Amp (remember these digital thingies are marketed as guitar "preamps") just turn off the power amp/speaker emulation and then hook it up to an actual guitar speaker cab.
If you want the whole shebang where preamp-power amp-speaker config are all in the modeler, use an FRFR for best results.
Again this is from the perspective of what these digital thingies are marketed out to be.

Its just rather a matter of are you willing to have one solid tool that does a great job for a single thing or a swiss army knife that could handle most jobs for a "decent" price?
I almost forgot that this thread is about why you don't like digital multi-fx but since I thought you wanted a discussion, I thought I could have my .02 thrown in.

I remember watching Crossfire last Pulp Summerslam. Their tones just slay and according to a source, Axe FX II gamit na direct sa board.

Online firemodel55

  • Philmusicus Addictus
  • *****
Re: GUITAR DIGITAL FLOOR MULTI EFFECTS (Why I don't Like Them)
« Reply #21 on: June 24, 2017, 09:24:38 AM »
I remember watching Crossfire last Pulp Summerslam. Their tones just slay and according to a source, Axe FX II gamit na direct sa board.

Of course, I have to ask, anong experience and exposure ng source?  Are we saying that axe fx 2 thru I don't know what kind of made in china mixing board with probably low quality power amps and maybe bad quality PA speakers sound better than guitar tube amps and celestion loaded pine or birch cabinets?

Online firemodel55

  • Philmusicus Addictus
  • *****
Re: GUITAR DIGITAL FLOOR MULTI EFFECTS (Why I don't Like Them)
« Reply #22 on: June 24, 2017, 10:12:46 AM »
If a "not that good playback system" is what you have then why not? Its what you have that you actually have to work with anyways. (That was the case before and now.  Remember, the blues were built on 50s tweed amps. My point that its hard to believe that any digital stuff is better than a 50s Fender Tweed amp in reproducing good sounding rich guitar tones.)
The ideal is to have everything top of the line but that cannot always be the case, hence the multi-purpose tool that we come to know as modelers. (I agree that the ideal cannot always be but the 70s and 80s went by without modelers.  And they still sounded better without modelers.  And they produced great guitar tones.)
I am not sure if I understand this or if I did manage to get my point across.  (Name a great guitar tone today produced by a modeler?)
You were talking about playing the amp while I was trying to say "listening to the amp" because you I know you have to spend some dough to at least thin the herd of good amps/guitars/audio equip and such but there will always be an actual limit to the gratification fever equivalent to the money you can and/or willing to spend. (Axe Fx with the accompanying PA system is also a lot of dough.)
There you got me, but from what I understand, the more "advanced" modelers out there now are supposed to cater to a large number of users that either

a. gig professionally, (you are at the mercy of PA which in the philippines is full of crap and bad sounding)
b. into home recording, and/or (Agree if you are on a budget.)
c. straight up bedroom guitarist (volumes are too low to produce rich sounding guitar)

And if I understand it correctly, those can still be handled by them modelers BUT only up to a certain extent like:

a. For pro gigs, the actual removal of being at the mercy of the sound guy is a heaven sent. Direct to PA is one of the features available to them modelers (Yeah but PA in the Philippines suck.  Even then, are you plugging to a Neve Console anywhere else?)
b. The ability to record silently with everything having pretty much in-the-box is also great. The lesser ADA conversion, probably the better (because of lesser digital artifacts being acummulated) and acting as a standalone recording interface/preamp is something modelers can do also (So get an ISO box with guitar speaker  and microphone. You are less one digital step.)
c. Volume is always a problem for tube amps, specifically for amps that needs Power Amp saturation to get to its sweet spot, there modelers can be the salve because of the global volume control (Yeah but you are assuming that modelers know what a sweet spot is.  I don't they can capture the sweet spot.)
And STILL for larger venues those speaker cabinets gets to be, lo and behold, MIC'ed up and fed to the PA. (So are we know saying that the modelers speaker emulation is better than the actual cabinet?  I will clearly debate you on that because if anything I learnt the pass twenty years, speaker cabinets are more important than Guitar Amp Heads!)
Also ISO cabinet tends to have more use in recording than actual gigging. (So if its all about that, why don't we switch to keyboard?  I mean why play guitar when it can be emulated by the latest and greatest synthesizer without gigging problems in any venue and without recording problems?)
Yes YOU don't see the need, but the purpose of "advanced" modelers is basically to give you tones BOTH for live (amp in room) AND recording. (Which it neither does on a superior basis)
You can do the amp in the room with modelers simply by using an actual Power Amp (remember these digital thingies are marketed as guitar "preamps") just turn off the power amp/speaker emulation and then hook it up to an actual guitar speaker cab. (Digital preamp plus Analog Power amp?  That's a whole new can of worms in terms of matching.)
If you want the whole shebang where preamp-power amp-speaker config are all in the modeler, use an FRFR for best results.
Again this is from the perspective of what these digital thingies are marketed out to be.

Its just rather a matter of are you willing to have one solid tool that does a great job for a single thing or a swiss army knife that could handle most jobs for a "decent" price? (I get that point but are you willing to spend US$10k for a digital modeler?  That's my point and that's what I am asking for -- produce a worthy digital modeler beating HiFi DACs.  Its budget driving your choice between digital and analog and not sound.)
I almost forgot that this thread is about why you don't like digital multi-fx but since I thought you wanted a discussion, I thought I could have my .02 thrown in. (Just my two cents worth, too.)

Online juwanfidle09

  • Philmusicus Addictus
  • *****
Re: GUITAR DIGITAL FLOOR MULTI EFFECTS (Why I don't Like Them)
« Reply #23 on: June 25, 2017, 12:45:31 AM »
Of course, I have to ask, anong experience and exposure ng source?  Are we saying that axe fx 2 thru I don't know what kind of made in china mixing board with probably low quality power amps and maybe bad quality PA speakers sound better than guitar tube amps and celestion loaded pine or birch cabinets?

experienced in the local band scene, sound tech and sessionist din hehe

Online firemodel55

  • Philmusicus Addictus
  • *****
Re: GUITAR DIGITAL FLOOR MULTI EFFECTS (Why I don't Like Them)
« Reply #24 on: June 25, 2017, 12:45:06 PM »
experienced in the local band scene, sound tech and sessionist din hehe

Just to clarify, and no harm or insult meant, I wanted to find out what equipment the source is/was exposed to rather than his musical experience or skill.