Line 6 Sounds Suck! Line 6 Sounds Are Great!

[axe2 2001]

I'm not an engineer by any stretch but I have a few laymen observations. I've been playing for 20+ years with various amps. Mostly rock. I recently got involved in a recording project doing songs for movie soundtracks. I'm more or less a hired gun. Not that i'm mega talented but i'll hold my own. The primary writer did most of his tracks with pro tools and line 6 equipment. My first thought when I first heard the demo was that I didn't like the guitar tones. The cleans seemed lifeless and the distorted tones seemed over the top. When rehearsal started, he brought his line 6 Vetta 2. We had an immidiate clash of guitar tones. He ran direct and I mic'ed a JCM 800. I also have a Fender hotrod deluxe for clean stuff. He was the first to admit that he far prefered my recorded tone. So we spent 5 or 6 hours working with the Vetta. We got it sounding pretty good but just not as real as the real thing. The biggest difference was to mic him instead of direct. Still, theres just somthing missing or somthing thats there thats not as sweet as my tube amp setup. He already plans to line up several tube amps for the real studio when we go in. The big advantage to me was that when he wrote the material, he used a huge variety of tones that otherwise would have required a ton of gear. To me though, if thats the plan, you just added another set of variables to the recording, lining up the right amps for the tones desired. Seems to me we'd end up with alot more consistancy just using a few amps right from the start instead of chasing around finding amps to fit. For me, I far prefer a good clean (fender) , a good dirty, on the edge rythym(Marshall) and a lead tone (Marshall boosted). Everything else comes from my playing. I can concentrate more on the music and not worry about tweeking a computer. I certainly do see the value and convienience of the Vetta and will agree that most folks couldn't tell the difference. In the end , wheather your a carpenter, mechanic or an artist, you need to be comfortable with your tools to express your gut talents. If thats a tube amp, good. If it's a POD, good. Just know what either can do and it should work out.

[GeoffonTour]

In my experience, while it's possible to get a good guitar sound from a modeller, and even one that might fool people in the context of a recording, the latency and response you get from digi gear is still instantly apparent as soon as you lay your fingers on the strings.

 

I've found that if I really try I can make a modeller sound like a real amp on a recording, but they really don't behave like one at all. For example, you have to play every damn note a bit earlier to compensate for the lag (even on the PodXT, though it's getting better).

I also find that none of the 'ooh' 'eeh' 'aah' variations on the tone of each note are the same as you'd find on a real amp; there's a whole lot of aah, and waaah, (like classic rock guitar solo exclamations, 15fret bends etc) but that's because it's been programmed to do that to make kids go 'OMG I sound bitchin'.

This is really obvious when trying to jam along with something like the comfortably numb solo, where Gilmour's famously good tone is in large part down to what he's doing with his hands. On a real amp (even a cheap one) I can make the same phoenetics even if the tone is different, but with digi amps I really have to beat it out of it & exaggerate everything loads.

 

I really don't understand people who can't tell the difference, all this stuff is instantly noticeable, especially the latency.

 

Now don't get me wrong I'm not a digi hater, I use guitar rig 2 and I'd have a POD if I could afford it right now, BUT in my opinion they're not even getting close to the way real amps behave yet. Remember this is only the first few generations of all these modelling algorithms, and processor power is still limiting when you're dealing with something as complex as sound.

 

I'd certainly never try and use a modelling amp live, I've seen a few Vetta's about on stage, but never managed to hear one except in a shop.

[jackcheez]

 

And no matter what a zillion marketing departments want you to believe, most of the tone is in your hands, not your gear.

There's something to this. I know one guy in particular who can plug into a toaster and sound awesome.

 

The Pod. My experience is that it can do a few things very well. If it doesn't do what you want it to do then it's not going to be your deal. That doesn't mean it has no value. There will never be a piece of gear made, of any kind, that will please everybody.

 

Meanwhile, I won't try to tell you that it sounds like a tube amp if you don't try to tell me that a hybrid sounds like a tube amp.

 

Honestly, I don't think we even know exactly WHY people like tubes...just saying "They sound better" or "they feel better" isn't a lot of data to go on!

My ears supersede all other data.

[coyote-1]

Yeah, why is that? I owned a Vamp for awhile and returned it, and later got a Pod and returned it - and it was very much because of that disconnect. BTW, I got the same sensation when playing the Variax.

Originally posted by Lee Flier Playing it live is a real bummer, too... I feel really disconnected from the process of playing and feeling the music when using a POD or anything similar (and yeah I've tried the XT Live... same deal). .... but the POD claims to substitute for both and more. And it doesn't.

I'd far rather live with the limitations of an amp... at least it feels right when you're playing it.

[Lee Flier]

Well first of all I'd like to add "+1 billion" to everything MrKnobs said. Couldn't have said it better.

 

 

Originally posted by sventvkg On a side note I would just like to add that most people i have come across can not tweak processors to get anything close to a decent tone...Hence the bad name a lot of processors get...

 

 

But on the other hand (apart from the fact that many people can't get the sounds they want no matter how much tweaking they do), there are some people (and to a certain extent, I'm one of them) who believe you shouldn't have to endlessly tweak a piece of gear to get something inspiring out of it. To my mind, the simpler an interface is on any kind of music gear, the better. If twiddling half a dozen knobs on an amp for 10 minutes doesn't begin to get you any kind of sound you like, ordinarily you'd move on to another amp. When I want to play guitar nothing kills the buzz for me faster than having to fart around for hours trying to get the sound I want. Whereas for some people that's half the fun.

 

Again it comes down to people working differently and wanting different sounds.

[Lee Flier]

 

Originally posted by Anderton Well maybe it should be, but one of the slams on modeling stuff is "no matter what you put through it, it all sounds the same" and I just don't think that's true. What you put through it makes a big difference.

 

 

I think maybe what that comment means is that no matter what you put through it, you always hear certain specific artifacts/always have the same issues with it.

[paulskirocks]

ok... gotta chime in here... i would love to have one of every bitchen amp... but, money talks, or, lack of money walks! i don't have a line6 pod, but i do have the flextone ii amp, and am very happy with it... like another poster said, i had to do a lot of tweeking to find the tones i like, because the factory presets seem to be over the top, so a 13 year old could be in awe over the delays and chorus' etc...

 

i have been happy with my line6 and would not get rid of it if i had 20 great tuber amps... i think the trick is to learn to tweek the settings...

 

paulski

[Lee Flier]

Originally posted by Anderton I do believe conditioning has a lot to do with it. If only CDs had existed since the 1900s, and someone showed up at AES with a vinyl record in 2006, he'd be laughed out of the place..."Okay, so you drag this rock through a piece of plastic, and the sound deteriorates every time you play it, and there's distortion you can't get rid of, and you can't have any bass below 50Hz...uh, okay, good luck."

 

Well, but that's pretty much what electric guitars were. The first electric guitars were nothing more than an attempt to amplify (acoustic) guitars so it could be heard over a big band. And they succeeded in being heard, but as a replacement for an acoustic guitar they failed miserably. Way too much distortion of course. Nowhere near the responsiveness to the touch. Any acoustic player of the era who screamed "bloody murder" at the idea that these things could ever substitute for acoustic guitars, was completely right to do so!

 

But some people took that distortion and made it into an artform of its own, and stopped bothering to promote the electric guitar as an acoustic "modeller." Cuz that's a futile excercise and an insult to acoustic players. And now of course the idea of anybody designing an electric guitar or amp with NO distortion is pretty unheard of. Meanwhile acoustics are still going strong, and acoustic amplification technology has also come a long way, though many acoustic players are still not happy with it.

 

Same thing of course with tube vs. solid state. Everyone assumed solid state would be better because the specs were better, and lots of people tried to like it better because the consistency and lighter weight and lower maintenance were appealing... but of course lots of people never did get happy with SS, and now we're seeing lots of new tube amps, and new tubes on the market again. But solid state technology didn't go away either. We've had the same debate about analog vs. digital and so on.

 

Fact is, technology doesn't always evolve in a completely linear fashion, and that's fine. And one technology doesn't have to supercede another, they can co-exist - especially when it comes to the arts, which are so subjective. But there are some people who always believe the latest thing is the best and must replace everything that came before. That is understandably going to piss off the people who aren't buying the hype, and it cracks me up that such people get labeled "Luddites" even as we're likely posting our objections from a computer with a broadband connection and the latest and greatest processor we can afford.

[RockViolin]

Tone is in the fingers.

 

You can give the same Stradivarious to different players with widely differing results. At times between certain players it may not even sound like the same violin. And from my experience the same pretty much holds true with electric violins and my various rigs, to a lesser degree maybe.

[UstadKhanAli]

I basically agree with Lee's reasoning, a reason I haven't chimed in here. I'm not as adamant about it as she is, but I share her opinions.

 

While I like Flextones, PODs, etc. and totally see the benefit and versatility of them, I get my tone in part by jacking my guitar into a Carr Rambler and gettin' on with it.

 

It sounds good on any "setting". It's responsive. It's physical. It's sweet-sounding. And it's easy.

 

Oh, yeah, and it does sound better to my ears.

[Lee Flier]

Originally posted by RockViolin Tone is in the fingers.

 

Well if that is the case then we might as well never even discuss gear. We should all be able to just plug into a transistor radio and be happy, so long as we're using the right fingerings. And we should all be able to happily record on cassette tape or Soundblasters too.

 

Sure, it's a given that different players with the same gear setup are going to sound different. But it's ALSO a given that the same player through different gear is going to sound different. I can't get a sound like Keith Richards playing through a Roland JC120, but I can get it in about 30 seconds with my Ampeg. But somebody wanting Andy Summers' kind of tone would go for the Roland. Is this so hard to comprehend?

[amplayer]

I don't have any experience with the Pod, but I do have a lot of experience with many real tube and SS amps and also a couple Pod competitors:

1) Boss GT-8

2) Amplitube

 

Here's my take:

1) If I tweak the modelers enough, I will get a sound I am fully satisfied with for any medium to heavily overdriven sounds.

2) Modelers are much quicker (for me) in the recording process because I can easily change the basic sound to make the guitar sit right in the mix. This isn't acceptable to some because they want the feel of the tube amp during the recording process. Well, to me, as long as the sound is close to what I'm after during the recording process, I can live with it and it won't detract from the end result.

3) Clean sounds are not easily duplicated on a modeler. I never can quite get the bubbly sound and feel to be as good on the modeler(s) as on a real tube amp.

4) Modelers suck for live use because even the best of them (like the GT-8) are still a major pain to get to sound right for every room you are in.

[Billster]

I think there's a perception issue when you have something like a POD with patches and presets named things like "Hot-Rodded Fender" or "Marshall '65". If you know what a genuine one sounds like, you will pick up on (and possibly over-emphasize in your critique) any artifacts that don't belong, or elements that are missing.

 

Now the sound may be acceptable on its own merits, but you've been conditioned to think it's supposed to be something else.

 

What I find with modelers is that even aside from a perception angle, what I feel in terms of responsiveness to input dynamics is not as wide a field as a true amplifier circuit. If I'm plugged into my little Fender Champ (turned all the way up of course ), and play with a light picking hand, or do certain things with my fret hand, I get certain responses from the amplifier. If I plug into a modeler that says "Fender on 11" I don't get that same touch sensitivity. The modeler seems to have less on each end, and all the response variables are crowded in the middle.

[amplayer]

 

Originally posted by RockViolin Tone is in the fingers. You can give the same Stradivarious to different players with widely differing results. At times between certain players it may not even sound like the same violin. And from my experience the same pretty much holds true with electric violins and my various rigs, to a lesser degree maybe.

 

 

+1

 

However, it is important for some players to have a really great sound in order not to kill inspiration.

Maybe because I'm only an average player, I don't lose inspiration if the sound isn't optimum.

 

Nevertheless, I would ALWAYS rather hear a great player using inferior equipment than a good player using outstanding equipment.

[Billster]

Lee, you're being to hard on Rockviolin. If he's talking about acoustic instruments, I agree that the touch of the player is defining. And as he stated with electric violins, the difference is less apparent.

 

 

Originally posted by amplayer 4) Modelers suck for live use because even the best of them (like the GT-8) are still a major pain to get to sound right for every room you are in.

 

 

I think modelers are ideal for certain live situations because you can use the presets to get reasonable sounds for a wide variety of tone cliches without having to twiddle. For a cover band that plays anything from Sinatra to Nirvana, the guitar player can't be twiddling knobs between every song. And IMO, the artifacts that are so distracting in concentrated listening are less apparent in a typical club's live sound situation.

 

I do agree that modelers are great for home recording where setting up a microphone may be a hassle, and inconsiderate of the other residents, but in a really focused, clean soundscape, the limitations of modelers (see my previous post) become most apparent.

[Anderton]

>

 

Well, I heard that the guitar intro to "Street Fightin' Man" was recorded on a cassette and transferred to multitrack, so that's at least one happy "Cassette Camper"!

[Lee Flier]

 

Originally posted by amplayer Nevertheless, I would ALWAYS rather hear a great player using inferior equipment than a good player using outstanding equipment.

 

 

Me too, but it doesn't have to be an either-or thing and usually isn't. Why not a great player, or even a good one, using the equipment that inspires them most and offers them the most creative freedom by their own standards?

[Lee Flier]

Originally posted by Anderton Well, I heard that the guitar intro to "Street Fightin' Man" was recorded on a cassette and transferred to multitrack, so that's at least one happy "Cassette Camper"!

 

Oh, there are a lot of them! Remember that one-hit-wonder song, "Welcome to the Boomtown" by David & David? It had a wonderful sounding guitar solo and that was done on a cassette Portastudio. They ended up using the solo from the cassette demo because they couldn't beat it with "superior" equipment. Same thing with "Street Fightin' Man" and "Jumpin' Jack Flash" et al.

 

But if everybody was therefore expected to record on cassette just because it works in some instances, a lot of people would be understandably upset.

[Lee Flier]

Originally posted by Billster Lee, you're being to hard on Rockviolin. If he's talking about acoustic instruments, I agree that the touch of the player is defining.

 

I agree too, except that the subject isn't acoustic instruments, it's modellers vs. amps. No offense to RockViolin (or Craig, who actually said it first ) but it does get old when the discussion is specifically about gear and somebody chimes in with "tone is all in the fingers." A similar discussion often comes up in recording forums, where we might be talking about microphones and somebody says "If you want to make a great sounding recording, write a great song." Well duh. But assuming the same set of fingers, or the same song, different gear is still going to sound different. And really that is true of acoustic instruments too, otherwise no great player would bother to invest in or maintain a Stradivarius.

[Mats Nermark]

 

Originally posted by Anderton So where does modeling fit in? Well, it depends on the algorithm. The guys at Spectral Design who modeled the Quadrafuzz actually understood LED transfer characteristics AND played guitar, and they nailed THAT sound. I didn't think it was possible; they proved me wrong. I've heard other amp algorithms that were just plain nasty, buzzy messes.

 

 

Hi,

 

The guys at Spectral Design also programmed the H&K Zentera amp wich in my experience is that most authentic feeling and sound digital amp so far.

 

Cheers,

 

Mats N

[RockViolin]

Originally posted by Lee Flier Well if that is the case then we might as well never even discuss gear. We should all be able to just plug into a transistor radio and be happy, so long as we're using the right fingerings. And we should all be able to happily record on cassette tape or Soundblasters too. Sure, it's a given that different players with the same gear setup are going to sound different. But it's ALSO a given that the same player through different gear is going to sound different. I can't get a sound like Keith Richards playing through a Roland JC120, but I can get it in about 30 seconds with my Ampeg. But somebody wanting Andy Summers' kind of tone would go for the Roland. Is this so hard to comprehend?

 

 

Hey, Lee. I was just trying to point out that from my angle that there is some truth to the saying. Boney fingers don't sound like fat fingers. And that is not so hard to understand. I suppose for rock guitar the biggest variable is the guitar and the amp. But that is not the only variable.

[Lee Flier]

Originally posted by RockViolin Hey, Lee. I was just trying to point out that from my angle that there is some truth to the saying. Boney fingers don't sound like fat fingers. And that is not so hard to understand. I suppose for rock guitar the biggest variable is the guitar and the amp. But that is not the only variable.

 

Absolutely! And I think I said that in my very first post in this thread: that tone is a relationship between the player and the gear and you can rarely discount the importance of either one.

 

In fact a huge part of the reason I prefer the specific guitars and amps that I do is because they're more responsive to different fingering than a lot of other guitars and amps that are commonly used for rock.

 

[RockViolin]

Originally posted by Lee Flier I agree too, except that the subject isn't acoustic instruments, it's modellers vs. amps. No offense to RockViolin (or Craig, who actually said it first ) but it does get old when the discussion is specifically about gear and somebody chimes in with "tone is all in the fingers." A similar discussion often comes up in recording forums, where we might be talking about microphones and somebody says "If you want to make a great sounding recording, write a great song." Well duh. But assuming the same set of fingers, or the same song, different gear is still going to sound different. And really that is true of acoustic instruments too, otherwise no great player would bother to invest in or maintain a Stradivarius.

 

No one that I'm aware of said tone is all in the fingers. Perhaps it was the brevity of the statement. I made the caveat for electric versus acoustic as well. Acoustic or electric, it all starts with the contact with the string. Oodles of players must have the exact same rig as their heros. That is a small part of it IMO. But anyway, I have the POD XT PRO. Since I spent all the xtra $$$ on the upgrade, and model packs, and floorboard...ugh...it has been serving it up, and does so with a lot less noise and hassle. And I don't have to mess with a real Variac. Yikes!

[sventvkg]

 

Originally posted by Lee Flier Well first of all I'd like to add "+1 billion" to everything MrKnobs said. Couldn't have said it better. But on the other hand (apart from the fact that many people can't get the sounds they want no matter how much tweaking they do), there are some people (and to a certain extent, I'm one of them) who believe you shouldn't have to endlessly tweak a piece of gear to get something inspiring out of it. To my mind, the simpler an interface is on any kind of music gear, the better. If twiddling half a dozen knobs on an amp for 10 minutes doesn't begin to get you any kind of sound you like, ordinarily you'd move on to another amp. When I want to play guitar nothing kills the buzz for me faster than having to fart around for hours trying to get the sound I want. Whereas for some people that's half the fun. Again it comes down to people working differently and wanting different sounds.

 

 

I agree Lee...I like the line 6 stuff and it has it's place for me but I can see myself getting a few more nice Tube amps and using them for the bulk of my studio sounds for sure. A nice Vox Should get me very quckly to what i need 70% of the time either Clean or dirty. Nice and simple.

[blue2blue]

Makes sense that the guitar could make a big diff, obviously. Certainly REAL amps sound different with different guitars -- I got rid of one amp when I sold my old Mustang -- 'cause it didn't sound good with my new Strat. Both single-coil, of course, but...

 

 

Anyhow... anything I might have to say about the Pod (and I have a Pod XT in the other room that a friend has parked here -- and I went through every preset on it and did some tinkering, too) has to be filtered through this:

 

I don't much like a LOT of the guitar sounds you hear on the radio and in what passes for rock these days. I mean, I REALLY don't like them. (I really don't like the music, by and large, too.)

 

So the ability to somewhat faithfully recreate those sounds is NOT a plus to me. My idea of hell on earth has always been to be in a cover band.

 

 

And then there's the latency ish... I simply don't feel comfortable playing even the low-latency patches... and some fo them are just about unplayable... but we've done that, huh?

 

 

[interestingly, the guy who owns the XT I have here ALSO has an all single-coil Strat. And he loves the Pod. Go figger. Then again, he uses it for grungy, punkish distortion.]