Jump to content

mystic38

Members
  • Posts

    47
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by mystic38

  1. if they know less... how on earth do they make it to the store in the first place??? :D
  2. ipad will run usb class compliant midi and usb class compliant audio only as there is no ability to have drivers So, an Ipad will not ever be running the high speed proprietary protocol used by line 6, and any option that uses a computer AND an ipad isnt needed... cos if you have the computer you dont actually have a problem :D also, imo it Frankly is waste of R&D resources by Line 6 to be working on reinventing the wheel, as it would have zero correlation to improved sales, and also divert resources from improving the helix, stomp, fx or working on new gear...
  3. PSA The clean channel on the boss katana is not a flat response..it mimics some general purpose guitar amp clean channel ...not fenderesque, not voxish, not marshally but most definitely not a flat response... the katana aux in is best, or fx return, or the acoustic amp..which to me seems mostly flat.. and gives the benefit of adding a global, albeit coarse eq
  4. The reality is that there is no such thing as a FRFR speaker... Full Range & Flat Response are objectives, design goals if you wish, but IF there were two competing FRFR speakers then the sound would be identical between them, and as we all know, that simply isnt how life and reality is.. The bottom line is that you can use whatever amp & speaker, powered speaker, powered monitor or FRFR unit that you are happy with the sound of..
  5. Technically incorrect actually... Models of cabs require no mics in order to create those models.. Models are created by modeling physical & electrical / electronic components. ergo mics are not required in the creation of those cab models. However, If your basis of cab "models" is not a true functional model, but is a macro cab+mic representative block using IR as the foundation for the block, then its not really modeling in its pure sense... Even so, this approach can still be used, given that there exists a mic that can model a dozen other mics, as such a mic can clearly model "no mic" ;) Regardless, why not simply allow other users to pursue the tone of an amp + cab, rather than an amp + cab + mic?.. it certainly does not affect your preferences, and certainly would help others regards
  6. With a "Q" scale of 1>10 then no, there is clearly not a correlation between the number and the actual Q of the filter circuit..given it is very reasonable to want to use values < 1. I had been very frustrated with TC G (& Nova) systems EQ settings until i put it on an analyzer.. their Q numbers are upside down... so there was me putting in a wide dip, and i wasn't smh .. some notes on a pad and all is fine.. you can get free spectrum analyzers on the web, so if you have an idea of what you wish to implement prior to fine tuning by ear, then i suggest to run a quick map of a filter response to get a handle on L6 version of Q
  7. 1. the sound engineer will adjust the mix, not you. 2. you dont care about how any amp actually sounds..got it. There is nothing about having a cab/ no mic model that in any way interferes with how you wish to run your rig.. why so much effort to prevent me from doing the same?..
  8. in bold..those are precisely 100% of Helix, Fractal, and Kemper customers... so again.. given we KNOW that audience tolerance for tone is at least 10 times wider than our own.. why are we spending thousands on gear to NOT sound like amps?.. just a question :) and i simply do not understand the angst at all.. we currently send a feed to foh that is cab+mic, which then gets doctored by the sound engineer, why is is such an issue that the feed be simply a more authentic sounding cab model / no mic only?... the sound engineer will still EQ to fit the mix...yes the person who will tell the difference is the guy that bought the gear in the first place.. isnt that a win? :)
  9. oh no..all is good.. :) The cab models are there to mimic the cab and produce that 412 equivalent tone out of a perfect FRFR monitor (which as we can agree is neither FR not FR).. however that is a cab model issue, nothing to do with mics at all. So, taking a point source reading from a position of (lets say from an above post ) 5.5ft up and 10ft in front of that speaker in an open space.. a 100% cab model into a theoretically perfect FRFR should and would sound the same.. otherwise the cab model is wrong...no? Now as FRFR monitors have differing responses, for sure we need to add a couple of EQ blocks.. one to tune/compensate for an individual "FRFR" and also a global final EQ for room acoustics.. and of course there is room effects to consider, hence the open space reference above, but still, at the point of users attempting to create sonically accurate presets, eliminating the mic from the equation can only improve our chances, as well as add to originality...put it this way.. at the most simplest level, the cab is an EQ curve, the mic adds an EQ curve and your FRFR is an EQ curve.. ONE EQ *should* be pretty close (the cab) leaving 2 EQ curves for the user to correct for.. eliminate one and chances go up no?..
  10. Yes indeed.. to capture the sound and establish the data array of output data for input data for a particular model yes... but its simply a question of the math.. given enough different mics being used, with already well defined properties, then there is sufficient raw data to create the mic model, and then to subtract it.. leaving cab/no mic.. hmm just found this.. https://www.sweetwater.com/store/detail/SphereL22 So it appears you can now buy a mic that will exactly model a dozen different types... and if you can do this, then you can remove the mic altogether.. so its clearly possible.
  11. ..and agreement with that.. the sound engineer is responsible to adjust our tone to sit in the mix. though I do not agree that a cab/no mic model would rarely be used though.. I suspect the vast majority of users do not play out beyond their studio space and those would actually be able to get an idea of what an amp/cab combination actually sounds like.. , rather than that amp, cab and that mic..:) My point is that a mic was an integral and required element in sound reinforcement...and now it isn't. So, given i believe it is mathematically possible to eliminate the mic from the digital modeling path, then we should.. as it serves no purpose whatsoever, other than to color the sound of our tone. ..and yes, the sound engineer will still HP the crap out of the tone but hey..at least what is left will sound like an amp/cab
  12. This of course is a bad analogy.. it is perfectly possible to listen to a guitar amp/cab without using a microphone.. after all..."if you want to hear a guitar amp buy a microphone" said nobody ever. and specifically when you use the word "model" rather than "profile" or "record".. If you are modeling a system, then you are mathematically constructing the individual elements and hence a CAB/no mic option is straightforward...just dont model the mic. If however you are not really modeling, but recreating a likeness, like profiling, or recording, or emulation, you are producing more macro models, ie in a more limited way deriving your models from other data that is somewhat correlating to the elements to be modeled eg a CAB/MIC IR.. In this case it is still straightforward, its just more work, to produce a CAB/no Mic model, given that the data set of mic IR's for a single cab would be sufficient enough to mathematically correct for the mics. A mic is a relic of analog sound reinforcement and needs to bite the dust. It is simply not needed in a modern system and the focus needs to be put on systems that allow a FRFR modeling system to sound EXACTLY like the amps do... to you..standing 10ft in front of that 412... and the cab/no mic model is it. mic drop (pun intended)
  13. tone suck using loops is typically when the loops are not driven properly and the output stage (FX send) is both resistively and capacitively loaded by the cable to the fx units, and the input stage of the first FX unit... if your amp does not state "tube buffered fx loop" then you are highly prone to tone suck. Try using a buffer immediately at the FX send of the amp, then run the cable to the hd500.. i am guess that the outs of the HD500 have a decent and clean buffer to drive the FX return decently enough
  14. Cant see the reason to dismiss out of hand the Torpedo cab.. $$ objections?.. sure after all..its the price of an HD500x :D Anyway, i have been demo'ing this unit by trialing the VST (afaik the CAB is "simply" the WOS VST in hardware) and the results are very very impressive.. so much so that the best tone i have ever had out of my computer to date has been the BE-OD > WOS plugin > out. with power amp simulation, speaker selection, stereo mic selection & placement, compression, EQ and reverb comparisons to analog speaker sim pedals are pretty pointless imo
  15. check out the voodoo labs control switcher... send it CC or PC commands and it should do what you need.
  16. I am assuming that the FBV3 is like the mkII's.. The Shortboard mkII can be set to control external gear, however it is via USB only .. so if you are not using a computer then the only cheap option i have found is a kenton USB midi host.. iconnectmidi4 is a 4 port midi router with a USB host port that i have also used, but ovrkill unless synths and stuff are involved. i am using the FBV shortboard mkII USB >kenton midi host > DIN mid > Avid Eleven Rack and its flawless.
  17. Sorry, but it most certainly does.. I have an FBV express II.. It can be setup on a PC, moved elsewhere, eg in my case, connected to a kenton midi host and connected via midi din to an Eleven rack.. and it works
  18. this will probably do, but as the helix and the nanoKontrol are both USB devices, not hosts, then bus powering is not likely an option?..
  19. Well, i didnt expect much from the POD HD, and dont from the Helix.. loop time more than 20 secs is fine for most given that you cannot midi sync tempo. My suggestion and request is that once in Looper mode, and ONLY in looper mode, the looper buttons can send programmable midi CC out.. then, whether you want loopyHD, an Infinity looper (me), boomerang or whatever then you are covered...WITHOUT dedicating buttons to the job and losing other functions or buttons when NOT in looper mode.
  20. there are free metronome apps, and you can use the aux in.
  21. What would you use the M9 for?.. it doesn't do anything that an FX block in the HD500 cant do..
  22. if you do not wish to use amp modeling and have mod, chorus, delay, reverb in the FX loop of your amp, you do not need the 4CM, you can use the HD500 as FX only and use gtr input and regular output in the FX loop of your amp.
  23. try to consider EQ as a way to CUT frequencies rather than boost...its a bit of a mental shift, but worth it.
  24. I think what I am asking is if you have invested enough effort into learning, tweaking and adjusting the GT100 that you are sure that it isn't for you, and also that a simple fix like a pedal isn't an easy way to get you where you want to go.. There are also a number of things you would lose in a move from the GT100 to the hd500 should you choose to do so... make sure you are willing to give them up :)
  25. M13 vs pod comments 1. yes M13 scenes.. push button access to banks of 4 (+gate) effects 2. yes & no M13 models input impedances of blocks. cannot be changed. if used in 4cm may need pedal buffer in fx loop 3. no, fx loop can be off, post a, post b, post c. also.. there is a global noise gate you can use in a pinch.. so.. unless you never want more than 4 fx, m13 is good m13 can switch easily (scenes) between 12 different 4 fx setups not sure all of this is worth selling hd500 and shelling out for m13, as you lose expression pedal, aux and mic in, headphone out etc.. if it was me, I would just have 3 or 4 presets in the hd500 and scroll between them, or combine 2 in one preset.
×
×
  • Create New...