An inquiry for Line 6 POD owners

[xjepoyx]

@mikey

AMEN!!!

[starfugger]

OT: skunk if you absolutely must record your parts in one pass then a workaround would be to record your parts twice, first with optimal setting for chugga's and second with optimal settings for lead.  then delete leads in track 1 and chugg'as on track 2.  crossfade the remaining parts

this thread is definitely gas inducing, LOL.

[skunkyfunk]

OT: skunk if you absolutely must record your parts in one pass then a workaround would be to record your parts twice, first with optimal setting for chugga's and second with optimal settings for lead.  then delete leads in track 1 and chugg'as on track 2.  crossfade the remaining parts

this thread is definitely gas inducing, LOL.

We record in layers of course.  I am quite a whore to that in fact.  Think Tremonti.

But I don't know if I am getting my point across well... What I'm referring to is that a prog rock player would normally make a riff that is chug heavy, which needs a really compressed sound (high gain to be exact), and sometimes, he might incorporate a lick like some sweep picking (arpeggio put somewhere in the middle, as part of the riff.  With a REALLY GOOD AMP, there is no need to do different settings for the riffs and the arpeggio lick parts.  What's weird is that, in a software-based setup, that won't necessarily work.  First off, software is very noisy in high gain situations.  So it's a big problem for chugs, and moreover, arpeggios can get really weird, because you don't get the liquid feel of an amp's tube preamp. 

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. 

[starfugger]

OT: skunk if you absolutely must record your parts in one pass then a workaround would be to record your parts twice, first with optimal setting for chugga's and second with optimal settings for lead.  then delete leads in track 1 and chugg'as on track 2.  crossfade the remaining parts

this thread is definitely gas inducing, LOL.

We record in layers of course.  I am quite a whore to that in fact.  Think Tremonti.

But I don't know if I am getting my point across well... What I'm referring to is that a prog rock player would normally make a riff that is chug heavy, which needs a really compressed sound (high gain to be exact), and sometimes, he might incorporate a lick like some sweep picking (arpeggio put somewhere in the middle, as part of the riff.  With a REALLY GOOD AMP, there is no need to do different settings for the riffs and the arpeggio lick parts.  What's weird is that, in a software-based setup, that won't necessarily work.  First off, software is very noisy in high gain situations.  So it's a big problem for chugs, and moreover, arpeggios can get really weird, because you don't get the liquid feel of an amp's tube preamp. 

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. 

i know what you meant about prog rock players incorporating short lead parts in between chugs that is why i made a suggestion. i  understand this type of playing style because i have encountered this genre (or similar) in the past.  well consider the OT suggestion useful to ampsim users then.  it ain't the end of the world if one doesn't own a top of the line tube amp to wank on.  jepoy mentioned earlier that shinji does most of his guitar stuff on a pod ... about 90% of the time ... and hey i can't really call what he does "not so serious", coz among us he's the one who gets major labels right?  and i wouldn't undermine major label producers either, they ARE very strict about what they want, and are also musicians like yourself.  i would agree though, that tube amps sound very godly in the hands of a skilled musician and engineer.  that's beside the point.  the thread starter actually wanted feedback from users and pod owners, not another comparison of how tube amps blow pods.

by the way, it might be difficult to tell a mic'd amp and a pod with clean tones.

[KitC]

But I don't know if I am getting my point across well... What I'm referring to is that a prog rock player would normally make a riff that is chug heavy, which needs a really compressed sound (high gain to be exact), and sometimes, he might incorporate a lick like some sweep picking (arpeggio put somewhere in the middle, as part of the riff.

Not a function of the amp but the fx chain don't you think?

  With a REALLY GOOD AMP, there is no need to do different settings for the riffs and the arpeggio lick parts.

True, but then again, tonality and volume changes through different pickup choices/settings and corresponding tone/volume settings di ba? I would think that guitarists should know how to blend themsleves in the context of a song/mix and know how to add gain when that particular lick/pickup setting is low volume.

What's weird is that, in a software-based setup, that won't necessarily work.  First off, software is very noisy in high gain situations.

So are real hardware amps.

So it's a big problem for chugs, and moreover, arpeggios can get really weird, because you don't get the liquid feel of an amp's tube preamp. 

That is open for conjecture. Amp simulations are coming so very close to the real thing that it becomes moot to differentiate between the 2. It does require a certain skill to program a simulation so that it approaches a real amps characteristics, but what's the fun in that? Methinks that you are approaching ampsims with the wrong mindset. As much as they are there to emulate the real thing, I think it would be much more fun to coax new sounds out of them.

All I am saying is, software emulations are NOT MEANT TO REPLACE AMPS.

Whoever said that in the first place? This thread was an inquiry about POD owners, and not meant as an "amps are better than PODs" thread.

[skunkyfunk]

OT: skunk if you absolutely must record your parts in one pass then a workaround would be to record your parts twice, first with optimal setting for chugga's and second with optimal settings for lead.  then delete leads in track 1 and chugg'as on track 2.  crossfade the remaining parts

this thread is definitely gas inducing, LOL.

We record in layers of course.  I am quite a whore to that in fact.  Think Tremonti.

But I don't know if I am getting my point across well... What I'm referring to is that a prog rock player would normally make a riff that is chug heavy, which needs a really compressed sound (high gain to be exact), and sometimes, he might incorporate a lick like some sweep picking (arpeggio put somewhere in the middle, as part of the riff.  With a REALLY GOOD AMP, there is no need to do different settings for the riffs and the arpeggio lick parts.  What's weird is that, in a software-based setup, that won't necessarily work.  First off, software is very noisy in high gain situations.  So it's a big problem for chugs, and moreover, arpeggios can get really weird, because you don't get the liquid feel of an amp's tube preamp. 

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. 

i know what you meant about prog rock players incorporating short lead parts in between chugs that is why i made a suggestion. i  understand this type of playing style because i have encountered this genre (or similar) in the past.  well consider the OT suggestion useful to ampsim users then.  it ain't the end of the world if one doesn't own a top of the line tube amp to wank on.  jepoy mentioned earlier that shinji does most of his guitar stuff on a pod ... about 90% of the time ... and hey i can't really call what he does "not so serious", coz among us he's the one who gets major labels right?  and i wouldn't undermine major label producers either, they ARE very strict about what they want, and are also musicians like yourself.  i would agree though, that tube amps sound very godly in the hands of a skilled musician and engineer.  that's beside the point.  the thread starter actually wanted feedback from users and pod owners, not another comparison of how tube amps blow pods.

by the way, it might be difficult to tell a mic'd amp and a pod with clean tones.

To begin with, I am comparing 3 different beasts: amps, amp simulators (hardware like PODxt,   V-Amp and the like) and software (NI Guitar Rig, Amplitube, etc.)  I prefer amps first, and software emulations for the modulation and clean tones, and the amp sims for the rest.  But to my liking, I mike amps 98% of the time. 

If you ask any guitar player, most would say they would prefer choosing one amp in a collection of amps in one room.  But due to the lack of resources, one has to either go the pedal route or the amp sim route.  Maybe because he gets a lot closer to the tone in his head with that.  No problems with that my friend.  But what I want to reiterate is that nothing beats miking up a good amp that perfectly fits the style and music of the player.  I mean, what's the point of miking up a Mesa Boogie in clean if he wants a stiffer but shimmery clean tone of a Vox AC30 which is not to be found in a studio?  Of course, it would be of common sense to use a PODXT or a software-based emulation simply because he has no other choice.

Of course, we cannot underestimate the advantage of amp sims - no bleed, less expensive than maintaining different amps, easy to set up, etc.  No one questions that.  But IMO, it is this "convenient route" that destroys the discipline of finding one's tone. 

You are a drummer, and if I ask you, would you prefer recording in a studio with 20 different drum kits and a huge stash of cymbals, with different rooms (hence different ambiences) or a single kit with a software-based drum replacer like Drumagog, EZ Drummer or BFD? 

[starfugger]

OT: skunk if you absolutely must record your parts in one pass then a workaround would be to record your parts twice, first with optimal setting for chugga's and second with optimal settings for lead.  then delete leads in track 1 and chugg'as on track 2.  crossfade the remaining parts

this thread is definitely gas inducing, LOL.

We record in layers of course.  I am quite a whore to that in fact.  Think Tremonti.

But I don't know if I am getting my point across well... What I'm referring to is that a prog rock player would normally make a riff that is chug heavy, which needs a really compressed sound (high gain to be exact), and sometimes, he might incorporate a lick like some sweep picking (arpeggio put somewhere in the middle, as part of the riff.  With a REALLY GOOD AMP, there is no need to do different settings for the riffs and the arpeggio lick parts.  What's weird is that, in a software-based setup, that won't necessarily work.  First off, software is very noisy in high gain situations.  So it's a big problem for chugs, and moreover, arpeggios can get really weird, because you don't get the liquid feel of an amp's tube preamp. 

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. 

i know what you meant about prog rock players incorporating short lead parts in between chugs that is why i made a suggestion. i  understand this type of playing style because i have encountered this genre (or similar) in the past.  well consider the OT suggestion useful to ampsim users then.  it ain't the end of the world if one doesn't own a top of the line tube amp to wank on.  jepoy mentioned earlier that shinji does most of his guitar stuff on a pod ... about 90% of the time ... and hey i can't really call what he does "not so serious", coz among us he's the one who gets major labels right?  and i wouldn't undermine major label producers either, they ARE very strict about what they want, and are also musicians like yourself.  i would agree though, that tube amps sound very godly in the hands of a skilled musician and engineer.  that's beside the point.  the thread starter actually wanted feedback from users and pod owners, not another comparison of how tube amps blow pods.

by the way, it might be difficult to tell a mic'd amp and a pod with clean tones.

To begin with, I am comparing 3 different beasts: amps, amp simulators (hardware like PODxt,   V-Amp and the like) and software (NI Guitar Rig, Amplitube, etc.)  I prefer amps first, and software emulations for the modulation and clean tones, and the amp sims for the rest.  But to my liking, I mike amps 98% of the time. 

If you ask any guitar player, most would say they would prefer choosing one amp in a collection of amps in one room.  But due to the lack of resources, one has to either go the pedal route or the amp sim route.  Maybe because he gets a lot closer to the tone in his head with that.  No problems with that my friend.  But what I want to reiterate is that nothing beats miking up a good amp that perfectly fits the style and music of the player.  I mean, what's the point of miking up a Mesa Boogie in clean if he wants a stiffer but shimmery clean tone of a Vox AC30 which is not to be found in a studio?  Of course, it would be of common sense to use a PODXT or a software-based emulation simply because he has no other choice.

Of course, we cannot underestimate the advantage of amp sims - no bleed, less expensive than maintaining different amps, easy to set up, etc.  No one questions that.  But IMO, it is this "convenient route" that destroys the discipline of finding one's tone. 

You are a drummer, and if I ask you, would you prefer recording in a studio with 20 different drum kits and a huge stash of cymbals, with different rooms (hence different ambiences) or a single kit with a software-based drum replacer like Drumagog, EZ Drummer or BFD?  

sobrang ot na ha:

god, wouldn't that be overwhelming.  i just want a decent kit with decent cymbals.  so many options might drain the energy from me and leave me uninspired eventually.  grabe 20 drumsets!!!  let's say we rent one for 2500 a day, that would cost around 50k just to make a decision!  plus more in case i change i change my mind.  not to mention studio time for different rooms.  can we go back to the real world now? yeah, gimme a drumagog and a pod, i don't mind.

the point is, one time or the other one will hit a dead end when it comes to options. i myself own a couple of nice amps, but theyre not the end all solution to every guitarist's needs.  so, thank god for pods and amp sims.

[KitC]

  But IMO, it is this "convenient route" that destroys the discipline of finding one's tone. 

Not true. One would have to work just as hard to find "one's tone". The problem is that ampsims have presets which hardware amps do not necessarily have, but we have numerous references about amp settings and fx chain scattered all though out the net so aren't those considered presets as well?

Neither a tube amp nor an ampsim will ensure that one can find his own "tone" without endeavouring himself with the time and effort to do so.

[xjepoyx]

You are a drummer, and if I ask you, would you prefer recording in a studio with 20 different drum kits and a huge stash of cymbals, with different rooms (hence different ambiences) or a single kit with a software-based drum replacer like Drumagog, EZ Drummer or BFD?  

god, wouldn't that be overwhelming.  i just want a decent kit with decent cymbals.  so many options might drain the energy from me and leave me uninspired eventually.  grabe 20 drumsets!!!  let's say we rent one for 2500 a day, that would cost around 50k just to make a decision!  plus more in case i change i change my mind.  not to mention studio time for different rooms.  can we go back to the real world now?

dojie,

may 20 drumset sa studio mo dojie? same rate pa rin per hour? pa record naman kami

I think this is too much OT na! tama si KitC "This thread was an inquiry about POD owners, and not meant as an "amps are better than PODs" thread."

i guess time to put a stop to this OT at gumawa ka na lang ng sarili mong thread "AMP Sims vs Miking Real AMP" (sana may mag post)

[skunkyfunk]

But I don't know if I am getting my point across well... What I'm referring to is that a prog rock player would normally make a riff that is chug heavy, which needs a really compressed sound (high gain to be exact), and sometimes, he might incorporate a lick like some sweep picking (arpeggio put somewhere in the middle, as part of the riff.

Not a function of the amp but the fx chain don't you think?

I use a fair amount of gain in my mic preamp.  It does the goods... so I don't bother twiddling with theguitar's volume when doing different

  With a REALLY GOOD AMP, there is no need to do different settings for the riffs and the arpeggio lick parts.

True, but then again, tonality and volume changes through different pickup choices/settings and corresponding tone/volume settings di ba? I would think that guitarists should know how to blend themsleves in the context of a song/mix and know how to add gain when that particular lick/pickup setting is low volume.

Yup, very true.  In most cases too much gain tends to thin up the sound.  But a lot prefer the dynamics of a heavily gained up amp, even if it sounds like a buzzsaw.  Look at Godsmack and them death metal acts.  They are using way much gain but it seems that they enjoy the tone.  Personally I don't like it that way.  But it is their music.  And when you make music with that setup, the tone supports the musical statements.  IMO, in a software scenario, I hear too much SHHHHHHHHH than hum.  Sorry, it's just not musical unlike hum, which goes off once you start playing.  And hum can be reduced with proper grounding and shielding.

What's weird is that, in a software-based setup, that won't necessarily work.  First off, software is very noisy in high gain situations.

So are real hardware amps.

Yes, but the noise characteristics are different.  Hum sounds more like "organic noise" which can easily be solved by gating, because they tend to be apparent only during quiet passages.  But with digital noise, you have that layer of SHHHHHHHHH forever, and that commands noise filtering, that may destroy your tone or affect your playing dynamics.

So it's a big problem for chugs, and moreover, arpeggios can get really weird, because you don't get the liquid feel of an amp's tube preamp. 

That is open for conjecture. Amp simulations are coming so very close to the real thing that it becomes moot to differentiate between the 2. It does require a certain skill to program a simulation so that it approaches a real amps characteristics, but what's the fun in that? Methinks that you are approaching ampsims with the wrong mindset. As much as they are there to emulate the real thing, I think it would be much more fun to coax new sounds out of them.

As I said earlier, I loved the synth effects of GR2.  I don't need a Mellotron or a Moog anymore to coax sounds like those, but doesn't mean that I've heard a Mellotron or Moog through that.  I also liked the time-based effects.  But seriously, I would still prefer a real delay pedal for delays.

All I am saying is, software emulations are NOT MEANT TO REPLACE AMPS.

Whoever said that in the first place? This thread was an inquiry about POD owners, and not meant as an "amps are better than PODs" thread.

Yes, which is my way of saying, "It depends on what direction you wanna take.  If you are really serious with guitar tone, you'll eventually not like the PODxt.  But if your goal is just to make decent sounds, and use it for pre-prod and not-so-serious tone projects then go ahead and buy it."

[skunkyfunk]

You are a drummer, and if I ask you, would you prefer recording in a studio with 20 different drum kits and a huge stash of cymbals, with different rooms (hence different ambiences) or a single kit with a software-based drum replacer like Drumagog, EZ Drummer or BFD?  

god, wouldn't that be overwhelming.  i just want a decent kit with decent cymbals.  so many options might drain the energy from me and leave me uninspired eventually.  grabe 20 drumsets!!!  let's say we rent one for 2500 a day, that would cost around 50k just to make a decision!  plus more in case i change i change my mind.  not to mention studio time for different rooms.  can we go back to the real world now?

may 20 drumset sa studio mo dojie? same rate pa rin per hour? pa record naman kami

I think this is too much OT na! tama si KitC "This thread was an inquiry about POD owners, and not meant as an "amps are better than PODs" thread."

i guess time to put a stop to this OT at gumawa ka na lang ng sarili mong thread "AMP Sims vs Miking Real AMP" (sana may mag post)

Jepoy, i don't own 20 drumsets, nor do I own 20 amps.  But what I can say for sure, 1 very good drumkit with more than enough cymbals, head and snares would yield better tone for many folks than having an OK drumkit with one set of heads and cymbals which shall be subject to drum replacement if your goal is to personalize your client's tone. 

Medyo OT pero as I said,  I am just pointing out the differences of ampsims and real amps.  And I do think it is fair to do that.  Because that way, the thread starter can discern what to buy according to his needs. 

[xjepoyx]

All I am saying is, software emulations are NOT MEANT TO REPLACE AMPS.

Whoever said that in the first place? This thread was an inquiry about POD owners, and not meant as an "amps are better than PODs" thread.

Yes, which is my way of saying, "It depends on what direction you wanna take.  If you are really serious with guitar tone, you'll eventually not like the PODxt.  But if your goal is just to make decent sounds, and use it for pre-prod and not-so-serious tone projects then go ahead and buy it."

dojie,

Is that message for the threadstarter only?

all i can see here is that you're saying that our friend shinji who released a lot of records already by Major Record Label is not so serious about what he does coz he uses a PODxt. coz you're saying na "not so serious projects" WTF... how come you dont have a major record label released yet if your so serious about it?

be more specific so theres no misleading here!

Boss Kit sorry if i got so hot headed here. If you dont like my post post you can delete right away. Its just that dojie is playing GOD now in guitar recording

[starfugger]

i shoulda known this was gonna take up more of my time than i initially planned to invest.

mr thread-starter, id like to point you in the direction of mr shinji aka astrobog who records commercially released albums using a pod most of the time.  you might wanna pm him.  his pod broke down lately and true enough he has been getting glorious sounds from a tube amp.  but wait, why the heck did he order another POD, the rack mountable (and more expensive) version?!  

[abyssinianson]

i shoulda known this was gonna take up more of my time than i initially planned to invest.

mr thread-starter, id like to point you in the direction of mr shinji aka astrobog who records commercially released albums using a pod most of the time.  you might wanna pm him.  his pod broke down lately and true enough he has been getting glorious sounds from a tube amp.  but, wait, why the heck did he order another one, the rack mountable (and more expensive) version?! 

personally, i love the POD Xt Pro - lovely piece of kit AND it has amp cab simulations too! My PSA-1 sounds great but it doesn't have cab emulations.

[skunkyfunk]

Boss Kit sorry if i got so hot headed here. If you dont like my post post you can delete right away. Its just that dojie is playing GOD now in guitar recording

Ser, I am not playing GOD in any of my statements.  Read my statements again.  I never discounted the advantages of either approach, in fact I gave the threadstarter more in-depth observations of how amps/ampsims and software behave.  I always mention NOISE as being a deterrent to one's playing, it's just that no one seems to care except me.  I give clients the option to HEAR the differences and let them decide.  Now if they decide to track with their Zoom G2 direct and perfectly supports their musical statements then why not? 

Please don't accuse me of anything bad because my goal is to enable everyone to look at things from a much deeper perespective.  Hindi yung "bibili ako nito kasi convenient at mura".

has anyone answered anything besides a PODXT?  What about the Rocktron Replitone 212 amp?  The Yamaha DG100-212 modelling amp?  Or what about a used Johnson Marquis JM120?  Miking them up can yield a better sound because you feel air being pushed.  I can lay down as many options for the threadstarter if he wants, (And he can PM me if he bothers to) because I understand the problem in this country.  We are creative people with a limited budget.  That is why I do not adhere to marketing hype... and LINE 6 MARKETING > ALL.

[skunkyfunk]

All I am saying is, software emulations are NOT MEANT TO REPLACE AMPS.

Whoever said that in the first place? This thread was an inquiry about POD owners, and not meant as an "amps are better than PODs" thread.

Yes, which is my way of saying, "It depends on what direction you wanna take.  If you are really serious with guitar tone, you'll eventually not like the PODxt.  But if your goal is just to make decent sounds, and use it for pre-prod and not-so-serious tone projects then go ahead and buy it."

dojie,

Is that message for the threadstarter only?

all i can see here is that you're saying that our friend shinji who released a lot of records already by Major Record Label is not so serious about what he does coz he uses a PODxt. coz you're saying na "not so serious projects" WTF... how come you dont have a major record label released yet if your so serious about it?

be more specific so theres no misleading here!

Boss Kit sorry if i got so hot headed here. If you dont like my post post you can delete right away. Its just that dojie is playing GOD now in guitar recording

OT:
How much crap is being released by major labels now?  In all honestly, I think their goal is not to shape an artist's tone.  Their more after the money to earn.  Look at Sinosikat.  They had the best mixes prior to Allen's departure from the band, but IMO, that would be too hard to market in the Philippine Setting.  So they had to dumb down the mixes to a much cleaner and "safe" fashion for more ears to appreciate, but doesn't necessarily mean they still retained that world-class sound they nailed already.  I can't say it sounded crap, but it sounded inferior to the original mixes. 

People go for PODs because it saves them time, but ask each guitarist...  They prefer amps if and only if the amps support the tone they want.  If a studio had a Marshall JCM900 but wanted a Fender Twin Reverb clean sound, I would recommend them to go through the POD instead.  But ideally, why rent a studio if I can record direct and do that at home?  I'd rather buy a POD myself instead of spend many hours in a studio that has one.  Wala pang pressure.

Ako nga, may Randall RM100 all-tube amp, with Egnater-technology hot-swappable preamps.  The different preamps are there to simulate different amp models... hindi ko pa rin masabi na it is the cure-all for our impoverished musicians.  And it is supposed to be a step above digital modelling.  And now here are you accusing me of "God-playing" when I am just using my ears.  Dahan-dahan naman kayo sa panghuhusga. 

[starfugger]

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.

you do have a point, skunk.  but the thing is people perhps get offended by the condescending way you communicate it. case in point:  "How much crap is being released by major labels now?"  do we really wanna go there?  man ... ang daming implications nung statement na yon in the context of THIS thread and the things we previously said ...

[marvinq]

medyo OT lang.

anyway, it is my personal opinion that this present generation of computer musicians have been obsessing way too much about "realism", perhaps even giving more weight to it than having a great tone or sound. the past generations of music makers never had to worry about coming up with a "real" or "believeable" sound -- most, if not everything, was about what made the music better.

maybe that's why this generation makes too many remakes. they might be trying to bring back songs from a time when musicians obsessed on making a good song, arrangement, tone or mix, rather than worrying about whether their guitar sound sounded "like a real amp", or whether their plug-in "really sounded like a neve, or ssl, etc.", or whether their samples "sound like a real orchestra".

back in those days, good songwriting, good arranging, good mixing skills made good records.

personally, i'd use whatever helps the song... whether it means buying an ultra-expensive snare drum or getting a behringer mic (so what if it's not a neumann? haha) that most everybody can afford... i don't equate "real" with "good".

the mellotron was among the first to bring sampling to the recording world. did it sound "real"? hell, no. but it was a REAL instrument. why? a lot of good music have been made with it. now, there are even sample libraries that bring the classic sound of the mellotron to those who want it (and can afford it). well, that's also proof that there really is a big number of people obsessing about sounding "real".

[skunkyfunk]

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. 

[starfugger]

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.

[KitC]

IMO, in a software scenario, I hear too much SHHHHHHHHH than hum.  Sorry, it's just not musical unlike hum, which goes off once you start playing.

Something tells me you have to check your signal chain and track down the source of that noise. You may be barking up the wrong tree.

[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.

again, we use whatever serves the music we're making.

mr. joe meek put it very nicely. if it sounds right, it is right.

@kit -- wow. thought i got lost in the guitar forums again... or the classical forums. haaaay. papano na lang kung magkaroon dito ng classical guitar forums?... haha

[skunkyfunk]

Before this thread goes anywhere (much worse, deleted or locked), here is a recommendation for the threadstarter.

Since you have a budget for POD XT, maybe you wanna consider these instead:


YAMAHA DG-1000


Rocktron Replitone 212 modelling amp (may direct out yan)


YAMAHA DG100-212 modelling amp


These are good alternatives to the POD, and you have the additional option of miking them up.  Yamaha DGs and Replitones have the best independent reviews of all the modelling stuff.

There is another option  (You can get these cheap at eBay:)


Johnson JM120

[KitC]

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!

[skunkyfunk]

IMO, in a software scenario, I hear too much SHHHHHHHHH than hum.  Sorry, it's just not musical unlike hum, which goes off once you start playing.

Something tells me you have to check your signal chain and track down the source of that noise. You may be barking up the wrong tree.

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.