Multi Effects Pedals

[strangedays]

I know in the past ive often moaned about guitar sounds in the past.

However, this might be something worth looking at again from my point of view.

When recording multi effect pedals (digital ones etc) what suggestions can be given if you need to get certain effects to sound good.

You must get bands that come in bring their own effects and they sound digitally harsh. And if you low pass it can help, are there any magic boxes good for this sort of thing?

I assume popping it through a good amp and moving the mic of axis might help a bit, any other suggestions?

I know separates are a favorite, its just that I have recently had a band come in with a similar request and we ended up dumping the effects he was using just to save time really he were not a happy guitarest in some ways, and I wish I could have made more use of the pedals.

[Thrillho]

I have never heard a digital multi-effects pedal that I think sounds really good. Like you said they all sound pretty harsh.

Luckily I have my own collection of pedals that I keep around the studio to suggest that bands try. A lot of them are good to keep around all the time any way. A few different distortions/overdrives and a 7-band EQ pedal can work wonders when you're trying to get good guitar sounds.

[Brendo]

On that note, if you're getting a Boss GE7, get one that's got the sniper mod installed or do the mod yourself, it really does make the pedal so much more useful.

As far as MultiFX that don't suck balls, the Vox stuff seems to be reasonable to me.

[otek]

When recording multi effect pedals (digital ones etc) what suggestions can be given if you need to get certain effects to sound good.

If a guitar player comes in and really has a decent sound from his multi-FX unit, then why not use it? It's about results.

Though it should be said, no multi-FX pedal I've ever seen has true bypass (operates in bypass without power), which tells me you are, for good and bad, at the mercy of some chip or other inside the unit.

You must get bands that come in bring their own effects and they sound digitally harsh. And if you low pass it can help, are there any magic boxes good for this sort of thing?

"Digitally harsh" sounds like sky-high rhetoric to me. What if the guy brings in a Lexicon 224 in his rig? Will that make it sound more or less "digitally harsh"?

I think chances are, if you hear something harsh in the guitar rig, it is because of other things than a digital circuit. Read the reviews on the latest Class-D amps - they are often being compared to or referenced against high end tube amps.

I'm not saying there isn't such as thing as "bad digital".... of course there is. But harshness could just as easily come from an analog pedal.

As for the low-pass thing, about the best low-pass out there is using a good guitar speaker, and playing it loud enough to get cabinet involvement.

A broadband speaker designed for guitar, is by design a pretty musical low-pass filter.

I assume popping it through a good amp and moving the mic of axis might help a bit, any other suggestions?

The most obvious would be, if you hook anything up in front of the amp, make sure you like the sound. If not, then recreate it in a way you DO like. Most guitar pedal multi FX do a variation on a few simple themes: Modulation, delay, reverb, compression and distortion. Use other boxes to emulate them if needed (I often bring my own pedal board to sessions, and use my own collection of pedals to get sounds), or find out if some can be added afterwards (this is not always a good option, since players often depend on a certain sound, and also the special character derived from hooking the FX up IN FRONT OF the amp).

we ended up dumping the effects he was using just to save time

In other words, he wasn't prepared, because the sounds he brought didn't work in the studio. Or did they? Sometimes it's about simply making it work.



otek

[strangedays]

In other words, he wasn't prepared, because the sounds he brought didn't work in the studio. Or did they? Sometimes it's about simply making it work.



otek

And thats it really, making it work is really what you want to do.

When I say digitally harsh, I think its to do with some multi effects being poor at the conversion end, I could be wrong, but I have heard better effects from studio units - presumably due to a bigger cost and production - the TC-electronic G-systems have a good rep for a similar reason, but they cost a grand almost 4 times more than most multi effect pedals.


I guess live you can get away with a lot more, sometimes the guitarests don't realise how their live sounds just dont cut it in the studio. Thats when a better setup could be useful.

[Buzzgrowl]

> are there any magic boxes good for this sort of thing?

When not using an amp/speaker, I use a Sansamp Bass DI (not the guitar version) after any pedal. Then low pass. It's not "magical" but more like "get's job done/decent scratch track". The trick in the Sans is in (not overdoing) the presence. See if you can borrow one and try it out. I think Otek said he had used it on an early Cape many moons ago, but I could be wrong.

cheers - Buzzgrowl

[strangedays]

i only have the guitar version, i'll see if i can get a bass version from someone and try it out.

I think its a case more so of using any effects they have that are any good, and any that are not just trying to recreate the sound they want but with better quality stuff. Ive noticed some stuff can only be done with digital effects, so for me to say "digitally harsh" is probably incorrect, maybe the effects that i refer to like this do just sound shit. After all who said digital sounded harsh - it can sound quite cool sometimes even if it is noticable.

I could have almost gone down the route of fix it in the mix on this one, thank god i didn't!

[Brendo]

Oh - number 1 should be running it into an amplifier and turning off cabinet modelling on the pedal. The #1 source of shitty multifx sound in my experience is due to cab modelled tones running into a cab.

[eagan]

Oh - number 1 should be running it into an amplifier and turning off cabinet modelling on the pedal. The #1 source of shitty multifx sound in my experience is due to cab modelled tones running into a cab.

I think Brendo has hit upon what I suspect is a very common problem with these kinds of gizmos.

There's that, and the opposite; somebody takes one of these things, think "oh, alright, with this you can just get a sound without an amp/room/mic and just take a direct line and simplify things (or maybe just keep the sound levels down in some home studio or another place where blasting guitars at midnight coulod be problematic), run it direct, and use some preset patch without cabinet modeling.

Perfect for what a friend of mine likes to call "The Biblical Tone" (i.e., sounds like a swarm of locusts).


JLE

[omikl]

Guilty secret time.

I have a Boss ME-50

Dicking around with it recently I've some to the conclusionthat I may have to buy several of the distortion pedals it emulates because, for example, I lovethe Dave Gilmour tone I get from its Big Muff model.

Admittedly I'm 49 years old and have been plAying loud guitar since I was 14, so my ears are pretty much fucked :D

[otek]

The #1 source of shitty multifx sound in my experience is due to cab modelled tones running into a cab.

A very important point.

I guess live you can get away with a lot more, sometimes the guitarests don't realise how their live sounds just dont cut it in the studio. Thats when a better setup could be useful.

It's also very important to realize that an odd sound may still work contextually, or it may be plain useless depending on the flavor of the music.

I mean, if Adrian Belew, Arto Lindsay or Thurston Moore would have come into your studio and started setting up their rigs, would you feel a desire to replace their sound with the latest cock-rock distortion patch you happen to fancy at the moment, or would you recognize the greatness in what they have?

I often hear n00bs complain about guitar sounds that stray outside of a very narrow and accepted norm. The trick is realizing that something off-the-wall and strange can be totally usable, even a defining and unique characteristic of the band.


otek

[strangedays]

I get your point Otec - its that case of knowing whats going to work and what won't - instinct I guess upon hearing the sound in context. Theres some great tones that can be gotten out of multi effect devices, you just have to find them and I have heard them, problem is when some guitarests step in with a bad tone I think you have to step in at this point and DI him or convince him to let go of his box for now and use something known - im sure that sounds easier than it is.

[Cary Chilton]

I don't use multFX but a few have Fractal Audio
http://www.fractalaudio.com/

and a foot board

probably the most realistic sounding, but still not perfect, imo

[otek]

I get your point Otec

That's good to know Pstrangedaze.

problem is when some guitarists [you're welcome] step in with a bad tone I think you have to step in at this point and DI him or convince him to let go of his box for now and use something known

But see, that's the crux right there. At which point do you decide his tone is "bad"? And in relationship to what? Other bands? The musical context in which this sound will eventually reside?

You naturally base it on your past experience of similar music and your own aesthetic leanings, and obviously the band has hired you for your opinions about sound. I'm just saying it's not an easy thing, and sometimes it requires a bit of testicular fortitude.

Some probably though Hendrix's guitar sound was bad, too - but then there were people who had the guts to go with his vision and put it on a record, thereby forever changing the way we hear electric guitar. The same goes for most any groundbreaking artist or style. The important thing is the objectivity and "nerve" to sometimes make a call that goes beyond the immediately acceptable and "safe", in order to create something great.


otek

[Holm]

My favorite memory regarding multi FX pedals is a guitar player coming to the studio with a Boss GT6 pedal and a Dimmu Borgir mp3.

"d00d, I wants this sound. Twist ze knobs on me pedal to make me sound like Dimmu Borgir. I can't do anything with my pedal, too complicated. You ze padoosa, you do it."

At one time during the session then he played me the notes of his guitar solo and I recorded them. No, not the guitar solo, the notes of it to the silent background, with random length and random intervals and poor tone.

Then we sat there for 2 hours and sliced them into a "guitar solo" - "yeah, move that note a bit to the left! - Yes... err no, not that much, yes a bit to the right... no, back left a bit! Yes, correct, now the next one, make it shorter and move close to the previous one. Yes! Like that..." and on for 2 hours. Then we listened to the whole thing it and he was like "funny, it doesn't sound quite right to me, feels a bit unnatural".

YOU THINK????

[Brendo]

2 hours! Lucky! I did that for 12 once.

[strangedays]

That's good to know Pstrangedaze.

Some probably thought [anytime Otek] Hendrix's guitar sound was bad, too - but then there were people who had the guts to go with his vision and put it on a record, thereby forever changing the way we hear electric guitar. The same goes for most any groundbreaking artist or style. The important thing is the objectivity and "nerve" to sometimes make a call that goes beyond the immediately acceptable and "safe", in order to create something great.


otek

We're all human at least!

The issue is when that sound is uncool/cool - fashion in terms of clothes is an easier game, everyone starts to wear the same and provided that look the part to they fit.

But music is more like sport in a way I guess due to the likening it to the handling of the racket.

Hendrix played in a way that nobody ever copied successfully so perhaps its more than just the tone, its the way its used.

[Tim Halligan]

We're all human at least!

The issue is when that sound is uncool/cool - fashion in terms of clothes is an easier game, everyone starts to wear the same and provided that look the part to they fit.

But music is more like sport in a way I guess due to the likening it to the handling of the racket.

Hendrix played in a way that nobody ever copied successfully so perhaps its more than just the tone, its the way its used.


Huh?

What?

Does somebody have a Moron -> English dictionary handy?


Cheers,
Tim

[strangedays]

Can't you just reply like everyone else here? (joke!)

Look thing is round here is that when you start to term anything it gets too philisophical - which ius bad I agree.


Perhaps I can rephrase stuff a bit.

Obviously the sound you get is very dependent on the player and his kit, but I believe so is when you decide to record main guitars.

So I have noticed something else - its damb difficult to get the guitars sounding good on their own, of course without the rest of the song already recorded it sounds harsh - sometimes, either that or just muddy and lifeless.

I think without the experience of seeing this done by a pro you are forever lost in the dark. - I mean some engineer stick with their fav amps and never change - im sure this doesn't mean they couldn't use other amps, but for their main recorded sounds I am sure it helps.

[eagan]

Mr. Daze.

I think you might still be having a little problem with something that Otek has been patiently trying to get across. WW offers a few cues and hints on this occasionally. So do many others.

Not just here in this specific thread, either. It's a recurring item.

It's this. This repeating matter of you, dealing with working situations that you never seem to quite define clearly, and asking questions that revolve around a similar theme. It goes something like "I'm working with something and it doesn't sound right/good/appropriate, how do I make it sound right/good/appropriate, (and/or "how far do I go to make it sound right/good/appropriate?").

And the question that never really ever gets answered by you very clearly, and is always the biggest question, is "right/good/appropriate according to WHO?".


JLE

[strangedays]

can I just query that one Mr E.

Is my problem that I want to please everyone?

I often find myself asking others only to get a lot of different feedback.

Perhaps I am not great at dissecting that information in an appropriate way.

However there are some blatant "NOOO" areas - I think I am clear of them now, ie guitar sounds really muddy or lacks any definition - yes I got past that a while ago.

Im onto stuff that the men obviously fight over like a night in with Zooey Deschanel.

http://img2.listal.com/image/326843/600full-zooey-deschanel.jpg

[otek]

Some probably thought [anytime Otek]

Touché.... Although I wonder if that's really a game you should be playing... :Razz: :D

Hendrix played in a way that nobody ever copied successfully so perhaps its more than just the tone, its the way its used.

Of course it is, but those are the things neither you nor I can control - therefore a bit beside the point in this case.

However there are some blatant "NOOO" areas - I think I am clear of them now, ie guitar sounds really muddy or lacks any definition - yes I got past that a while ago.

its damb difficult to get the guitars sounding good on their own, of course without the rest of the song already recorded it sounds harsh - sometimes, either that or just muddy and lifeless.

I often find myself asking others only to get a lot of different feedback.
Perhaps I am not great at dissecting that information in an appropriate way.

I don't think it's that so much as asking questions that kind of answer themselves, or asking questions and then circularly reasoning your own way back to square one. Or, asking in the form of an observation, so people don't quite know what the question is.

Take the above quote about harsh/muddy guitars for example. Yes, it is damned hard to make electric guitars sound good recorded - I've been hacking away at it for almost 15 years! What do you want me to do about it?

Im onto stuff that the men obviously fight over like a night in with Zooey Deschanel.

I have no idea what you just said but thanks for that awesome picture. :D



otek

[AxeSlash]

getting back to the original question...we're talking about DI guitar here.


the inherent "harshness" here is probably less to do with the pedal itself and more to do with the fact that it's DI'd [although yes, digital pedals do often, in my experience, sound like finely processed dogshit].

And thus, once again I shall point you in the direction of the legendary Slipperfart's radio - listen to the Palmer Box episode. I normally reccomend this for the hilarity involved alone, but it also teaches you a bit about DI guitar (and why it's rare that anyone even bothers with it).


This is NOT, however, to say that DI guitar cannot be done. But, in Slippy's terms, it's a LOW YIELD system - you need to work harder to get a sound, and even then it probably won't be what you were hoping for.

I will add that I am yet to hear a convincing digital distortion. I've tried plenty of them, cheap and expensive, and none come close to the sound of a valve pre (although recently I came to the conclusion that even the valve thing is something of a myth - more important is exactly WHAT type of component is being clipped; I find LED clipping better for the type of stuff I do...everything has it's place though eh?)...maybe someone, somewhere has found a context for digital distortion that works (probably something in the electronic music domain I'm guessing), but most stuff I hear done with digital distortion I feel could have been done better by something analogue.

Fine, run digital effects and processing; I have no problems with that, but digital distortion? I struggle to give it credibility.

If a guy turns up to my place with a multifx unit, I'll usually make him do an A/B with my own rig combined with some nice effects ITB, and it usually results in said multifx being put back into it's box.

I have heard some quite nice effects on these thins, but the pre stages are just diabolical and let the whole thing down.

Saying that, there was a DOD pedal around years ago that had a valve built in...I always wanted to try one but never got around to it.

[blackieC]

Am I the only one who finds it hilarious that otek and strangedays quote each other in their sigs?

Moving on now.

In my humble experience multi effect pedals try to be everything to everyone and fail miserably on all accounts. The Swiss army knife is a brilliant little gizmo, but still a pretty shitty knife.

The corkscrew works as promised, but I have a better single function tool for that.

[strangedays]

I quote Otek for his brilliance he quotes me for my stupidity, I guess you could sort of see it as ying and yang or whatever..


I personally use valve pedals, I've got one I really like the Seymour Duncan twin tube, push that into the amp in the right way and I've found sending it into my valve compressor actually gives me a perfect mix ready sound.

Of course since this thread started I have been experimenting, and despite what you use I still notice that moving the mic a bit and getting the gain sorted throughout the chain seems to have the most effect. I cannot feel happy DI-ing anything like this to me the real speaker sound is a must - mostly on any detailed attack and decay material including chugging.



The more I go on about it the least important any of the detail sounds, so yes sorry for looping the thread circular, but to be honest I am the sort of bloke who works by going over stuff, of course the input and advise of here is a grand help.

[Brendo]

I will add that I am yet to hear a convincing digital distortion.

Megadeth's last two albums? Some of the more recent Meshuggah? All of that is Line 6.

Apparently for the newer of the Megadeth albums, they had a choice of reamping through various different amps (JSX, Dual Recto, 5150, Marshalls etc - Andy Sneaps' standard stuff) but still picked the Line 6.

I have heard some quite nice effects on these thins, but the pre stages are just diabolical and let the whole thing down.

From memory ChrisJ has/had a multifx of some description (was there one called a Johnson at some point, a pod-alike? Memory failing me) on which he had wired around the preamp stage, to great benefit.

I cannot feel happy DI-ing anything like this to me the real speaker sound is a must - mostly on any detailed attack and decay material including chugging.

Are you talking about with multifx or just recording amps now? Recording with Multifx is much the same as recording with real stuff...

1) Throw a distortion pedal in front if you can, and turn off the distortion and cabinet models on the multifx - preferably something that will stop the multi from tone-sucking, you'll have to experiment with buffered/unbuffered pedals, etc.

I actually plan on setting myself up with a minimal pedalboard for doing scratch tracks and so forth, with a cheapie Korg multifx setup to do my modulations/delays/reverbs and then place a real wah and a distortion pedal or two in front - basically using the multifx purely as an FX unit.

2) Mic as usual - see the Slipperthread from Hell (http://www.badmuckingfastard.com/sound/slipperman.html plus the episodes in the radio above)


strangedays, it seems that whenever you start a thread here, the question is vague or hypothetical. I find that I get the best results when I'm posting about something I am actually doing and about a specific issue that I am having. Whereas posting something like "what is a GOOD guitar sound" is, well, the vaguest vaguely vague of vagueland question that could ever be vagued.

[otek]

I quote Otek for his brilliance he quotes me for my stupidity...

To be honest my line in your sig doesn't look all that great either, since it's quoted out of context - it looks like I don't give a shit about my mixes.... :lol:

As for digital this and tube that... Yeah, I love tube amps, and I love recording speaker cabinets pushing air. But, I also use a lot of transistorized, fake, clownfucking bullshit, and I am very happy with some of the sounds I'm getting from it, so never say never.


otek

[Keks]

Megadeth's last two albums? Some of the more recent Meshuggah? All of that is Line 6.


No, iirc it is Fractal Audio.
I don't own an Axe FX myself, but I had the chance to thoroughly test it.
The software ergonomics is a POS,
but the effects section is mind boggling,
great for getting freaking creative.
I am not sure what to say about the amp emulations,
I have heard pretty decent sounds from the Axe, but I usually fail impressively trying to build sounds from scratch without context.
Additionally I don't know many of these benchmark amps, nor, how they translate to tape.
(The testing Setup was Axe->FRFR monitors.)

All the best,
the keks

[Holm]

And in the end anyone anytime will prefer a clownfucked guitar player that knows what the hell he is doing to guitar played by a clueless fuckwit that is miked with a best possible care and recorded through the most epic amp/cab combo ever made.

And everyone WILL say that the clownfucked guitar sounds better.

[G. Hoffman]

How do you get great sound from a multi-effects pedal? Well, first, your name must be either Robert Fripp, Adrian Belew, or Reeves Gabrel. Apparently it is important to have worked with David Bowie, who knew? But you know what I notice about those guys? None of them have what I would call a "classic" rock guitar sound - or rather, they are classic in a completely different way. Also, they all have much better chops than most of us.* Reeves does classic rock sounds sometimes, but when he does he uses his 50's Les Paul Jr. through a early Dual Rectifier (or his ORIGINAL 50's Flying V - at least that was what he used when I used to see him with Modern Farmer back in Boston). That amp was from the first run, which apparently are much better than the latter ones.

If you ARE going to use the damn things, it is a REALLY, REALLY good idea to have an active instrument - EMG's, or some buffer amp in your guitar. Those things are going to load your pickups funny otherwise, and the active shit will help a lot. Those kinds of things are what active pickups are made for, as far as I'm concerned.

If you want something a little more "normal," (yeah, yeah, why be normal...not the point), I've always found the most useful button on most digital effects units is the one marked "True Bypass," (except MAYBE for digital delays.) Hopefully the one you're dealing with has one.


Gabriel


*When I was living in Boston, I saw Reeves Gabrel play a gig with a Roland guitar synth ON THE SAME DAY HE BOUGHT IT. He said it was the first time he had ever used a guitar synth, and I promise he had more success with it than I've had in 15 years of mucking about with the fuckers! The dude has chops to burn.

[Brendo]

No, iirc it is Fractal Audio.

I can find a quote of Andy Sneap specifically stating that he used the Mustaine signature Line 6 head prototype that never made it to production for the guitars on United Abominations.

Would you like me to? Because I can do it. Just say the word.

EDIT: Actually, I got bored, so voila:

We actually used the Line 6 in the end without the Prophesy, into a Boogie cab.

Dave uses the Prophesy live because the switching is better, and from what I understand Line 6 is now not going to be manufacturing this amp, so he's looking at some different companies.

You can't get overly gainy with this kinda stuff, the original tone they had going on was really undergained and dark and the Line 6 really lended itself to the DI's that were there for reamping.

[Keks]

Brendo, you're right, I'm sorry.
They turned to the Fractal audio stuff recently, it seems,
but the recordings were cut with Line 6.

All the best,
the keks

[Brendo]

No hard feelings - what about Meshuggah though? I've seen posts of racks of Line 6 gear on here in the past.

[eagan]

Before all else I should say that at least you've made a decent step in redeeming a lot of stuff by posting the photo of the lovely Zooey.

Anyway. I digress.


can I just query that one Mr E.

Is my problem that I want to please everyone?


Where can a guy start here?

Let's see. I'll give this a try. The simplest version of the point here is that you've already gotten the answers a bunch of different ways from a bunch of different people.

Some would say this is your biggest problem, but I'll try to be more specific without this turning into a long essay.

Since it seems like you might not have quite gotten the point of my post there, let's try this again. In the context of this thread, and others you have had going around here, there runs a common theme. The common question that comes to my mind that I'm thinking you need to ask yourself, and answer clearly for yourself, is this.

In any of this stuff, WHO, exactly, is it you're trying to please?

This gets us into stuff that's been discussed a lot around here, and it's fairly broad "general philosophy and working practices" stuff.

Our favorite local English refugee has answered one of your many different threads with a very simple, concise, and absolutely straight to the point answer, in the form of a question.

"Who is the producer?".

That is right on the mark, because in any number of the things you've posted general queries about, all else follows from that. But maybe that's a little bit too much of a subtle zen koan for you.

So I'll spell stuff out a little more explicitly.


There can be different working situations in a studio.

You might have a spectrum ranging from one end; you have a project with a writer, arranger, musical director/conductor, performers, engineer, assistant engineer, and producer (and maybe even a mook or two "executive producer"). At the other end of the spectrum, "one guy doing it all in a personal studio".

You can get into extended discussions and debates about various working situations along that spectrum and the exact role and extent of involvement of a producer in the various aspects involved in a musical recording project. That's important, and relevant here, but that's kind of a secondary matter that follows the most relevant and primary point here, which is, whatever the case, there must be a producer.

Even if the producer is somebody who happens to be involved in the project in another role and taking on the role of producer as well, SOMEBODY has to be the producer, and be capable of doing the job, with everybody understanding that. Otherwise you have the ever popular (and dreaded, by any half sane person with any experience in this stuff) "producer by default". Which, realistically, means whoever manages to be most dominant in assorted chaotic squabbling. Good luck with that. I suspect that in most cases where that manages to work, it's really only because somebody DID grab the reins and assume the role of producer, even if they might have been the only person in the room who realized this.

In any case, when it comes to any question like yours, it all comes into the hands of the producer, even if the producer delegates sonic details.

This is stuff to consider and address, here, and the same thing in that thread you have up about drum sounds or whatever the fuck it was under "fixing stuff in the mix" or whatever the subject was.

Who, exactly, is it who is the person to decide what sounds "good" or "right"?



I often find myself asking others only to get a lot of different feedback.

Perhaps I am not great at dissecting that information in an appropriate way.


To continue along the same lines here...

The most obvious thing is that perhaps you are far less than great in the way you compose the questions. Yeah, you do get a lot of different feedback. There are good reasons for that. Part that is naturally going to be, in some cases, just because of the fact that different people will approach skinning a given cat a different way.

For you, from what I've read spread out over many months, the most basic problem is how you pose the questions. There are many people here who find themselves thinking the same things pretty often, I am sure, basically "what IS the question?".

Coupled with that is what I've been talking about above. Way too often (some might say always), you're asking questions without providing any clear picture of context and your role.

If you are the engineer on a project, then your role is to apply your technical skills and ears to do your absolute best to realize somebody else's vision, and the person guiding that is the producer. If you are the engineer and also the producer, your role and your degree of authority over what sounds like what is much broader, and even then, while there can be some debate about how much control you assert over how the artist sounds, if you're examining, say, a guitar sound, then it's a pretty good idea to consider what the fuck the guitarist thinks. If you are alone in a studio and it's all you, well, it's all your call.

But we never know from you what that story is. And everything depends on that.

You want clarity, then be clear.

You'll gain much more from this place, and you'll catch a lot less shit from people sitting in front of a screen thinking "what the fuck is he babbling about now?".


JLE

[otek]

No, iirc it is Fractal Audio.

what about Meshuggah though?

Meshuggah are still using Line6, unless they changed it very recently - and I doubt that.

Robert Fripp, Adrian Belew, or Reeves Gabrel.... they all have much better chops than most of us.

Boy do they ever. And, to break the "Bowie" pattern (even though there are several connections), let's add David Torn to that group of players, too.

early Dual Rectifier.... That amp was from the first run, which apparently are much better than the latter ones.

And then some. Mesa Recto amps didn't really begin gathering their bad reputation until they launched the newer line with the faux-metal knobs and the "solo volume". I owned a 1993 Recto (one of, if not the last one made before they started with the black front panels), and it sounded great on a lot of things - you could even dial in some almost Angus Young-ish crunch on them. The latter-day models have a much uglier-sounding distortion breakup IMO.

I've always found the most useful button on most digital effects units is the one marked "True Bypass," (except MAYBE for digital delays.) Hopefully the one you're dealing with has one.

In my experience, those are pretty rare especially on low-end digital pedals. They are more often than not "one chip"-based designs.


otek

[eagan]

let's add David Torn to that group of players, too.



Yeah. Thank you. I was going to mention him to follow up the other names that had popped up and got sidetracked.

Great example of what you were talking about.

I love Torn, the dude is one of my all time favorite guitar players. I first heard him when I bought a copy of "Cloud About Mercury" pretty much because just because Bill Bruford, Tony Levin, and Mark Isham were on it and thought to myself, "self, there is a very good chance that this here musical recording will not suck".

I think I was on the floor for about a week. In fact, now that you've got me rambling, I will say that this particular album has to be one of my top 10 favorite albums of all time.

Where was I?

Right.

The thing is with Torn, well, there are many things about Torn, his sound has widely varied over his recorded career, wildly varied. Over any particular album, for that matter. I like all of it. Fucking amazing stuff.

But, for many people who might have particular notions of their taste in ideal guitar sounds, they just might listen to what he's doing and think "wow.....um.... that's kind of weird".

(For a full dose get ahold of "what means solid, traveler?" and have a listen.)

The idea that some character might take that after a quick cursory listen and try to say "oh, no, this isn't right, that's not a good guitar sound at all, we must FIX this" is not something I would agree with, in fact, I find the very thought of that pretty fucking irritating to consider.


JLE

[MGMc]

Yeah, but c'mon! Seriously, a lot of those units DO sound like ass, context be damned.

[G. Hoffman]

I would say instead that they ALL sound like ass when they try to recreate the sound of older equpment, but at least most of them could be used to come up with useful NEW sounds. Which is why guys like Belew, Fripp, etc. can make them useful - they are always trying to do things which are new.


Gabriel

[Meverylame]

Megadeth's last two albums? Some of the more recent Meshuggah? All of that is Line 6.

Apparently for the newer of the Megadeth albums, they had a choice of reamping through various different amps (JSX, Dual Recto, 5150, Marshalls etc - Andy Sneaps' standard stuff) but still picked the Line 6.


Just a quick point, just because they did it doesn't mean that it sounds good/will sound good in 15 years. History has show more than a handful of times that proven QUALITY devices have been tossed aside in favor of new technology and more often than not in the long run are looked upon in poor favor. SynClav(eat me, they do make stuff sound dated), Linndrum, Adat, digital mixing consoles just off the top of my head.

[Brendo]

Have you actually heard the albums that I'm talking about? The one I've heard is United Abominations and I wouldn't have picked that as being Line 6 at all - what're you going to do in a decade, look at it and go "oh, the top end isn't quite right between 8khz and 8.1khz"?!

[strangedays]

But we never know from you what that story is. And everything depends on that.

You want clarity, then be clear.

You'll gain much more from this place, and you'll catch a lot less shit from people sitting in front of a screen thinking "what the fuck is he babbling about now?".


JLE


I like to hold on to some mystery.:lol:

PS Otek I pinched another one of your lines for the sig, obviously I haven't come out with as daft a statement as the one you currently have of me- which is progression in my view!.

[otek]

History has show more than a handful of times that proven QUALITY devices have been tossed aside in favor of new technology and more often than not in the long run are looked upon in poor favor.

Absolutely, unless you take a moment to go beyond the presets and the obvious - Whereas the Fairlight Shakuhashi samples on some 80's records are beyond dated, Peter Gabriels "Surveillance" record still sounds great.


otek

[Brendo]

That seems to be what it's all about with these things, doesn't it? So Rules For Multieffects Pedals version 2:

1. Turn off the cabinet modelling.
2. Start from scratch and create your own patches.

[Holm]

Peter Gabriels "Surveillance" record still sounds great.

Agreed except that it is called Security. Or simply Peter Gabriel IV, depending on the country it's been sold in.

Carry on.

[eagan]

You can go all kinds of places with this stuff.

I mean, let's just take a minute to look at one particular example.

The Mellotron.

If somebody hears a Mellotron on a recording done today, they might say "oh, that sounds dated".

Well, alright.

So what's the point?

Consider the Mellobeast in terms of some people sitting around dumping forth opinions about what sounds good or bad or better or worse.

Now, if you sit down and listen to a straight direct unadulterated unprocessed Mellotron strings sound, and listen objectively in terms of nailing down some assessment of whether it sounds "good" or "bad", what will you get? Listen to a straight plain Mellotron playing strings and if you listen to it with a certain perspective (like, simply, "does this sound like a string orchestra playing sustained arco notes?"), most people listening and making a basic assessment of their opinion of sound quality, with no working musical context, are probably going to have a pretty simple and quick answer.

It sounds like shit.

Absolute mounds of fecal debris. Fucking wretched.

Guess what? I love Mellotrons. Strings? Does it sound like bowed strings from a string section? Um, not exactly. With no other context, does a live string section, or even a sampler with a good string library loaded, or even a digital sample/wavetable based synth, sound "better"? There's not even a competition.

But sometimes that fucking shitty, horribly flawed, Mellotron string sound (and understanding that even "Mellotron strings" covers a number of variations) in a given setting can be just the "right" thing.

I have three different Mellotron emulation plugins that I fire up not and then (and each of them for different reasons), the Mtron from G Media, and a couple of freeware plugins, the Mellosound and Nanotron. I likes them some lots.

I vaguely remember Der Schlippermensch saying something here some time ago about the value and merits of using an actual real live living, breathing, clunking, clanking Mellotron rather than one of these software emulations based on Mellotron library samples. Not me. I would much rather make life simpler and use one of the above.

Now, if we found ourselves in a studio together working on something, and Slippy said he would rather use his Mellotron because that he thought that was much better than one of the plugins, would I say "no, you're wrong?". What the fuck would that even mean? What, "no, you're wrong, you don't think that would be much better for this stuff?".

All of this goes back to the point that you can say "this sounds like ass" or something, but you have to go back to the basic premise of whatever situation you're working and decide whose choice it is and whose opinions and tastes and ideas about the end goal are important.


JLE

[G. Hoffman]

All of this goes back to the point that you can say "this sounds like ass" or something, but you have to go back to the basic premise of whatever situation you're working and decide whose choice it is and whose opinions and tastes and ideas about the end goal are important.


JLE



I don't disagree with that, per say, but the problem comes in when you look at what these clownfucking boxes CLAIM, and what they DELIVER. They claim to recreate the sound of a great guitar through a great amp, through a great cab, captured by a great mic. At that, they fail. Badly.

What they can deliver, if you bother to try, is new sounds that you can't get with a traditional great guitar/amp/cabinet/etc. setup. For that, clownfucking is cool.

Now, a Mellotron string sound is not a particularly complex sound - and is an electronic sound to begin with - so I can see how they could be recreated to a satisfactory degree, but the rather complex, and highly signal dependent response of a tube amp? Not to mention the interaction between the guitars pickups and the amp?

I suppose you could have something on your clownfucking box that would vary the impedance on the input - but I don't know of anyone who has done so yet, and with out that you are not getting the pickup response right. I can well believe that those things are useful for people who feel the need to play a sound that resembles whatever album they are taking a song from, but the best they can do is resemble the real thing.


Gabriel

[Strat+AC30]

You can go all kinds of places with this stuff.

I mean, let's just take a minute to look at one particular example.

The Mellotron.

...

All of this goes back to the point that you can say "this sounds like ass" or something, but you have to go back to the basic premise of whatever situation you're working and decide whose choice it is and whose opinions and tastes and ideas about the end goal are important.Good post.

[otek]

Agreed except that it is called Security. Or simply Peter Gabriel IV, depending on the country it's been sold in.


I was apparently high on crack when I wrote that.

Thanks for the heads-up.


otek

[MGMc]

I like lo-fi sounds. I like kitschy sounds. I like all kinds of sounds. But I've heard WAY too many guitarists in bands playing through crappy little digital all in one units and it just sounds bad. I'm not saying that no one could ever find a good context for that, but 'guy playing guitar in a band trying to sound like a guy playing guitar in a band' is a bad match for a few of those units. Mind you, they're getting better and more affordable all the time. Hopefully the really horrible ones are all sitting in pawnshops by now.

[Brendo]

...to be picked up by a new generation of clueless guitarists?

Nay. Hopefully they've died like two of the multifx boxes I have sitting here.

[blackieC]

Hopefully the really horrible ones are all sitting in pawnshops by now.

Yep. A lot them are.

[MGMc]

I kicked mine down to a young kid who is thrilled with it. I figure the poor bastard has got a year at most before he realizes that it's cock and balls. Then he can never be happy like the rest of us. :Wink:

[Jasco]

Never really been satisfied with the multi-effects units I've tried. But I'm a minimalist with effects in general for guitar.


Out of curiosity, does anyone besides me ever just plug straight into an amp to record anymore? :lol:

[Jakey]

Jasco That's what I do also.
Or a wha wha pedal for a song or 2.every thing just gets mushy or out of control.guitarist joe bonamassa has all that effect shit under control :Coolio:

[MGMc]

I feel naked with out a wah, but yeah, although I cheat with a three channel amp. I have a bunch of pedals but they mostly sit in a box.

[Tim Halligan]

Out of curiosity, does anyone besides me ever just plug straight into an amp to record anymore? :lol:


Yes.


Cheers,
Tim

[Meverylame]

Have you actually heard the albums that I'm talking about? The one I've heard is United Abominations and I wouldn't have picked that as being Line 6 at all - what're you going to do in a decade, look at it and go "oh, the top end isn't quite right between 8khz and 8.1khz"?!

Yeah, yeah I have, wasn't all that impressed.

[Meverylame]

Absolutely, unless you take a moment to go beyond the presets and the obvious - Whereas the Fairlight Shakuhashi samples on some 80's records are beyond dated, Peter Gabriels "Surveillance" record still sounds great.
otek

Absolutely, but I think in particular with this being an instrument(as opposed to studio gear or an amp), and Peter Gabriel being Peter Gabriel that yes of course it sounds great. But typically the fairlights on record especially when they first came out seem to be a little emperor's new clothes.

[eagan]

... the problem comes in when you look at what these clownfucking boxes CLAIM, and what they DELIVER. They claim to recreate the sound of a great guitar through a great amp, through a great cab, captured by a great mic. At that, they fail. Badly.

What they can deliver, if you bother to try, is new sounds that you can't get with a traditional great guitar/amp/cabinet/etc. setup. For that, clownfucking is cool.


I would tend to agree with you to some degree here.

I think that a very large part of the fuss about this stuff might be boiled down to one simple word, to the idea of expectations.

My view is, I think, pretty simple and straightforward. If you sit down with any of these kinds of devices, you'll go clicking buttons or turning a dial or whatever scrolling through some list of amp models and see, oh, whatever, "Blackface Twin... JCM900......Tweed Deluxe.....AC30....." and whatever the Usual Suspects might be in that particular gizmo.

I give little weight or attention to any of that shit, other than just using them to keep track of the options. They could just as well be labeled "Ralph...... Zelda..... Fluffy..... Seymour... Skippy" for all I care.

Things are what they are, the options do what they do and sound how they sound.

It's about the same stuff when I view the occasional forum thread about some software plugin that's supposed to be an emulation of some famous wonderkind unobtanium processor box from the sixties or something, including comically irrelevant exact graphic image reproductions of "the original", and we have some extended discussion of "does this sound like the original?".

There's an important point to scrutinize in that stuff. People chasing after "does it sound like this famous rare vintage gizmo?", not "does it sound good? what adjustments and options does it provide for me?". Getting hung up on how much something is like something else.

Which is pretty pointless, in my view of things. I've said this very same thing in those kinds of things. In short; it's very simple. There's this thing. It works for you in the way you desire and makes a sound you like, or not.

I already talked about the Mellotron; you can also draw comparisons to synthesizers, especially the early days, monophonic voltage controlled analog synths, and how people viewed them and dealt with them.

Say somebody took a Minimoog or an Odyssey and worked with it a bit and came up with a patch that had some vaguely "horn like" character to it. Some other character sat down and noodled a bit on it, and within seconds was complaining. "Oh, man, are you kidding me? This is supposed to be a trumpet? This doesn't sound like a trumpet! It can't do this and that and any of the stuff a trumpet player can do with a trumpet! What kind of bullshit is this, man!".

Is it a good, interesting sound? Is it a musically useful sound? Can you actually make music with this and have something cool? Forget that it's not a trumpet and doesn't behave just like a trumpet. So what? Alright, if you want a sound that's exactly like a trumpet, that works and responds to playing techniques just like a trumpet, then maybe the thing to do is to get a fucking trumpet player playing a trumpet and forget about all the disappointment and complaints that this newfangled electronic thingy has failed to be a trumpet.

In the meantime, other people found the synthesizer useful and didn't really give a rat's ass about how like or unlike something else it was.




I can well believe that those things are useful for people who feel the need to play a sound that resembles whatever album they are taking a song from, but the best they can do is resemble the real thing.


I have a hunch that this is the most common source for people's bad opinions of them. That is, their use by guitarists playing covers in a bar band who may or may not be putting a lot of time into sonic R&D and preparation, who just want "kind of like" for whatever tune is next on the set list. Maybe at a rehearsal the band was going to play some old Pink Floyd tune. Guitar player says "hmm..... OK, guys, hang on a minute, I need that big wailing David Gilmour lead sound. Punches through the factory presets on his shiny new Clownfucker X1000b, finds a preset called "Comfortably Dumb", says "boy howdy, kids, I gots it, count it off!" and off they go. Maybe he might even try playing a few notes to check it out first.


JLE

[G. Hoffman]

I would tend to agree with you to some degree here.



Actually, I'd say we agree pretty much completely. Can you make good sounds with clownfucking gear? Sure. Can you recreate the sound of David Van Clapton's Fender JCM Mark III? No, but if your smart you won't either care or try.

Then again, if you're playing on a cruise ship with a sleeping cabin the size of an Ampeg bass cabinet, a stage volume limit of 15 dbSPL, and an audience of 50-something optometrists - with their trophy wives/mistresses - who haven't been to a real rock show in, well, EVER, it probably isn't that big of a deal if the sounds aren't perfect, you know? The clownfucking reprosemble of the Marshall Dual tremofier is probably close enough. The audience is more interested in their all you can eat beef and pork buffet anyway.

Which is probably just another instance of using appropriate gear, instead of the best gear.


Gabriel

[eagan]

Yes, Gabriel, I think we are looking at this stuff pretty much the same way.

Hurry up and trademark the name "reprosemble", too, you may be onto something there.


JLE

[G. Hoffman]

Hurry up and trademark the name "reprosemble", too, you may be onto something there.


Yeah, I was going to go with resemduction, but it didn't flow off the tongue so well.


Gabriel

[Comte de St Germain]

As OTEK said the artist gets benefit of the doubt but after a few, if I'm uneasy I ask the guy how much tweaking he's done to the MEU and if he says it's a preset, his tone is fair game.

It's now time to educate and simultaneously be prepared for a moron attack.


These things take time to dial in a reasonable realistic sound, they also take time to make new ones that are hyper-real.

[eagan]

As OTEK said the artist gets benefit of the doubt but after a few, if I'm uneasy I ask the guy how much tweaking he's done to the MEU and if he says it's a preset, his tone is fair game.

It's now time to educate and simultaneously be prepared for a moron attack.


These things take time to dial in a reasonable realistic sound, they also take time to make new ones that are hyper-real.

Yes. On both counts.

I mean, taking that back to the original question, it's one thing if somebody comes into a studio, you're recording them, and it's clear they're just floundering and/or haven't really given anything any real attention. It's a much different thing if somebody presents something where you might think it's weird, or just not your taste, but this is not arbitrary; they've given it time and attention and thought and work, and by god, that IS the sound they want.

On the second part, I think that's exactly right and the source of most of the criticism of the things. Not so much the things themselves, but the users and said users just plugging in, punching up a preset with hardly a thought, and going.

These things require work. They're not "just add electricity, and presto, instant magic!".


JLE

[MGMc]

Yeah I think Ron (:lol:) just extrapolated the crux of the biscuit, as far as I can tell from the original post.

You're supposed to be recording a band and someone's tone just isn't cutting it. It wouldn't have to be the guitarist and it wouldn't have to be due to a digital processor, all though SD did give those specifics.

[Brendo]

By the way - I discovered the cabinet modelling phenomenon when my other guitarist and I in my old band bought multiFX pedals at the same time, and his had cabinet modelling and mine didn't.

Guess whose sounded better? (Also, mine had a parametric EQ section, which I made sure to turn OFF as well since all the presets were Treble+++++ and it didn't really need it as I had the EQ on the amp).


Also, I have a pedalboard which consists of... lemme think... 10 pedals including a tuner, plus my amp's three footswitches. However, I'm fully convinced I could gig with just a multifx, a wah, a distortion pedal and a footswitch. I have all the pieces ready to go - I'm just waiting to have the free time to set it all up and program some patches with nothing but modulations, delays and reverbs. One patch per song, and thinking of building a true bypass box to bypass it with.

[strangedays]

Its just one of those typical moments of experience and work which is what all of this comes down to, obviously its very difficult to suggest the best result on something so none specific.


Digital effects pedals can sound great as I have recently found out, as long as you don't use them to create a Mesa sim with a true tape delay sim and expect it to sound like a mesa amp with a true tape delay.

These pedals are best in the hands of someone who never wants to achieve that anyway and all these simulators are what distorts the way a lot of this thought process works.

Sometimes to forget what its supposed to do and just experimenting with it and seeing what it does is the only way to truly appreciate the power of some of our equipment. This does however require more work and I think we would all like to believe there is a shortcut by trusting others views on analog this and valve that but the reality is that this course is lazy and uninspiring. Once you get used to the fact that you must learn the kit despite its origins you begin to break free and actually have fun.


There is however one big flip side to this. If you do not understand the balance of sound when doing this a lot of stuff you think sounds cool actually is a big turd.

or is it? At this point you just need to learn to be honest with yourself. The hardest part of the whole process.

[Tommy Fobia]

For what its worth I had a play with the Fractal box the other day.

From my few hours of noodling I deduced two things.

1. It is capable of some very organic and detailed tones, many of which sound frighteningly similar to the real deal. Since the unit features many models I decided to spend most of my time tweaking two amps of which I am very familiar, the 5150 and the VH-4. The way the models react is very life-like - it feels like an amp.

2. (this is the biggie). The amount of tweaking possible with the unit is insane. I spent three hours tweaking the 5150 model (which is far more time than I would spend dialing in an actual 5150). I truly believe I got to a point with the axe fx model where it surpassed both my tried and trusted 5150s. But it took a LOT of work. Due to the sheer amount of options, the axefx is much less 'immediate' than the real amp which is what I think frustrates people with the unit. I mean you can choose the value of the fucking brightness cap on the diezel model (and it actually does what its supposed to do). On the other hand, its entirely possible to tweak an amp to the extent that it sounds much worse than the preset.

These are just my initial reaction. I want to spend more time with the unit to give a more in depth opinion of it.

[MGMc]

The way the models react is very life-like - it feels like an amp.

Seriously?

[Tommy Fobia]

Seriously?

Actually yeah, at least with the models I played with (5150, VH-4). Also worth noting, the 3khz sharpness which I associate with digital modellers was absent.

Like I said, thats my initial thoughts after a session with the unit. I want more time with it though. I only played with two of the 50 models.

I'm not getting rid of my 5150s any time soon though. They are just too useful to me at the moment.

[MGMc]

That's always been my main hang up. Even the ones that sounded great have been disappointing when I actually got behind the wheel.

[chrisj]

What I find with these things- and I've been known to hotrod a J-station so the input caps are humongous polypropylene film caps instead of the Walkman grade electrolytic- is that it's not hard to get a sound coming out of the amp that sounds like it's already coming out of a mix.

Anytime I need to make a sound that actually is going to be coming out of a mix, I need to make it so direct and raw in the room that it barely even sounds right anymore, and then when it's recorded it sounds punchy and dimensional etc IN the mix, now that it's no longer eviscerating my ears. (Headphones are also a help for taming these raw tones)

Maybe that's just my stupid taste, but I think there's a real risk with multi-effects and clownfucking of making sounds that are OMG BIIIIG and take up loads of space like they were a symphony orchestra- but at the same time they're real small and they're taking up that space very unimpressively. You can't always do a raucous semidirty Keef thing just because it has a lot of impact for the space it takes up- but there's a balance, and with the effects/clown business you're taking up space without INTENDING to.

But then almost all my FX are MXR stompboxes, so I'm an insufferable snot. :D

[chrisj]

From memory ChrisJ has/had a multifx of some description (was there one called a Johnson at some point, a pod-alike? Memory failing me) on which he had wired around the preamp stage, to great benefit.


Wahey! Speak of the devil. Yes, a Johnson J-Station, which I still think sounds a bit less processed than a Pod.

Great benefit being a slightly more appropriate use of the G-word than "Great White" :icon_eek:

I can say however that I think I've found the proper use for clownfuckery- in teeny battery amps for use out and about at acoustic-guitar levels. I have a little Vox that I've barely done anything to, and it's got at least two nifty clowns available. They're not even wearing labels though you can tell what they want to be. Blues 3 is sort of crunchy JCM-800 stylee, and Hi Gain 1 wants to be a Marshall Plexi a la EVH. The thing is, you can switch on the compressor effect and it's pre-gain and still all digital- so it's actually possible to get clownfucky versions of Steve Ray tones with the first one, or obscenely sloppy ZZ Top raunch out of the second. It's probably greasier than the real thing, though it wouldn't record half as well. You just keep the gains down and Bob's your uncle.

And if you go to the chorus-delay one and crank the only convenient effect knob, you get shrink-wrapped David Gilmour echojam, which is always just great for wowing nonmusicians with. Seriously all I gotta do is go strat middle pickup, that setting, Blues 3 and some volume knob swells, and it's like a string section or something- within the context of 'sounding like it's coming out of a radio already' it's amazing, and you can do it on battery power. Hell, if you're burly you can sling the amp on a guitar strap and walk around annoying people with it...

Still less into trying to record real music (other than location jams) with such a thing, but if you asked me whether I wanted to bring even a microwatt real tube amp, real cab, real pedalboard etc. just to go out and invade hallways and stairwells, I would look at you like you were crazy :)

Picked up a Zoom H2 also. The one that will record quad. I have some really evil plugin ideas involved with that one ;) the stuff you could do with folding such a recording down into stereo as far as enhancing ambience, is really off the hook...

How can you not respect the Walkman-like evolutions available from a technology that lets you pick up your axe and literally go whatever crazy acoustic place you want? I'm totally doing some giant stairwell jams :Twisted:

[otek]

it's not hard to get a sound coming out of the amp that sounds like it's already coming out of a mix.

Anytime I need to make a sound that actually is going to be coming out of a mix, I need to make it so direct and raw in the room that it barely even sounds right anymore

This is true. A lot of inexperienced guys complain that the sound of a Marshall, Vox or even Mesa is "too bright/clunky/loud/in your face", whereas the soft, processed, somewhat distant sound they get from mult FX units and small clownfucking amps appeals to them. But these sounds do not record well.


otek

[strangedays]

This is true. A lot of inexperienced guys complain that the sound of a Marshall, Vox or even Mesa is "too bright/clunky/loud/in your face", whereas the soft, processed, somewhat distant sound they get from mult FX units and small clownfucking amps appeals to them. But these sounds do not record well.


otek


You've hit the nail right there!

And that really sums up the issue when you refer to what sounds good to some and not to others doesn't necessary mean that that really makes any difference, the real crux is what will actually work.

[Comte de St Germain]

I used some multi-effects in this photo; care to guess which ones?

[Jasco]

This is true. A lot of inexperienced guys complain that the sound of a Marshall, Vox or even Mesa is "too bright/clunky/loud/in your face", whereas the soft, processed, somewhat distant sound they get from mult FX units and small clownfucking amps appeals to them. But these sounds do not record well.


otek

I'd agree. I record quite a few inexperienced guitarists. They always bring over some multi effects unit or clownfucking simulator along with a crappy 15 watt solid state practice amp.

I have a fairly large collection of vintage and modern Fender, Marshall, Mesa, and Gibson amps that I suggest they try, but taking away their crap gear is worse than trying to take away my 2-years old's security blanky.

My next step, is to ask them if they could back the distortion and compression off from 11 on their multi effects junk. That usually fails too.

So it leaves a mushy limp-dick guitar tone to try to mix more often than not. *sigh*

It seems guitarists are the most insecure and immature of all instrumentalists, in general.

[Tim Halligan]

It seems guitarists are the most insecure and immature of all instrumentalists, in general.

Possibly.


But they are well-adjusted, confident, and well-rounded people compared to singers.


At least 50% of the job of recording a singer is psychology.


:D


Cheers,
Tim

[Comte de St Germain]

Sometimes taking a direct line is the most direct route to good tone.

It's a last resort but better than none at all.

[Jasco]

Sometimes taking a direct line is the most direct route to good tone.

It's a last resort but better than none at all.

Occasionally I can convince one of the kids to split his signal to a good amp as well as his crap gear. I just make sure that only his 'security-blanket-mush-tone' is in his cans while he plays.

[Stevil]

Occasionally I can convince one of the kids to split his signal to a good amp as well as his crap gear. I just make sure that only his 'security-blanket-mush-tone' is in his cans while he plays.

good plan! :Thumbsup:
also i second the backing off any cabinet emulations, reverbs & eq in those digital fx boxes. a while back a friend brought over his bass pod that he typically uses in conjunction with an ampeg 8x10 & wondered why it sounded so thin running direct to my nearfields. :Roll eyes:

[moaus]

And then some. Mesa Recto amps didn't really begin gathering their bad reputation until they launched the newer line with the faux-metal knobs and the "solo volume". I owned a 1993 Recto (one of, if not the last one made before they started with the black front panels), and it sounded great on a lot of things - you could even dial in some almost Angus Young-ish crunch on them. The latter-day models have a much uglier-sounding distortion breakup IMO.


otek

dude i would have completely poo poo'd this post in the past HOWEVER

i had a similar experience when i was in the states with my band

we were borrowing gear and whatnot and never knew what to expect

one night i used one of the mesa's u are talking about and with my gretsch managed to pull a really decent ac/dc marshall type tone out of it!!

i was completely SHOCKED as my normal experience with rectum fryers has always been terrible and hated them fkn amps - or at least i thought i did

just cranked up the mids and the master volume - pulled down the pre's and the dude who's amp i borrowed told me i managed to make it sound better than he can (i think his active pickup ESP had a lot to do with it - if he liked the more natural tone the gretsch provided)

so yeah i was completely won over by this amp

who'da thunk it

[otek]

so yeah i was completely won over by this amp

who'da thunk it

My guess is that at some point, the bean counters had their say and they started cutting costs. The line was already well established by then.

I don't want to over-emphasize the Angus Young comment - a Marshall has a unique sound after all. What I'm saying is that a full, thick and rather unique tone is possible with those older Rectos. To me it's a useful flavor to have around, and distinctly different from Marshalls, Oranges, Voxes and Fenders.


otek

[moaus]

yeah i wouldn't over-state it at all

it doesn't make you sound like ac/dc or have a distincly marshall bite to it

but it does come close to having a useable tone for a guy who loves his marshalls and doesn't suck donkey dick (like most rectum fryers i have used)

[strangedays]

Changing the subject all over the place (hey its a fucking talent ok!),

Ive fallen in love with everything again in a very different way, Mrs Brandy oh I haven't seen you for a while has helped with this a bit but more so im beginning to appreciate a sound for what it is.

Ive realised the best thing is to track stuff down and get everything as clear as possible. AS with other threads a sound is a usable as it first sounds.

Bass guitar and drums and vocals are really the only important bits meaning they should be the things that form the general backbone of a song.

So the multi effects pedals can sound great. They can also sound shit. And after reading a thread around here about suck and good it makes a lot of sense. Looking through this stuff there are some gems in here.

Some real gems. Like Diamonds, only more colourful or colorful if you insist on the stupid American spellchecker on here.

[Brendo]

Sure, yes, some multifx can sound great. I have one on my pedalboard right now actually, replacing my H2O while it's in for repair.

The issue with it is when it's plugged into my 9v power chain, it gets very noisy, so running it before the amp's distortion is a complete no-go zone.

[otek]

Some real gems. Like Diamonds

...and they go where they belong? :Wink:


otek

[strangedays]

What a journey its been so far...