Members Zachman Posted December 30, 2007 Author Members Share Posted December 30, 2007 11. Rack mounted equipment is not limited to digital rack processors anymore a. Pedals can be rack mounted, to be used in a MIDI switching system which will eliminate tap dancing b. Pedals can be rack mounted, and routed through a switching system, eliminating the need to consider true bypass mods on several potential pedals c. Several pedals can be used in conjunction with rack processors, and conveniently utilized via MIDI presets d. Rack mounting your pedals can be useful toward preserving the condition of pedals (Both from being stomped on/off again and again, having drinks being spilled on them, or having them mysteriously disappear at the hands of a would be thief. 12. A rack switching system doesn't have to be: large, or expensive It is a given the solutions described are not a suggestion of a right or wrong way to run gear, rather are meant as an optional solution where appropriate, for those interested. REALLY... an acoustic guitar is all one Needs to play guitar (and make music) and some are better than others in different areas. The same is true for the equipment that a guitarist that uses electronic equipment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members mikesr1963 Posted December 30, 2007 Members Share Posted December 30, 2007 Oh, well let me retort. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Zachman Posted December 30, 2007 Author Members Share Posted December 30, 2007 Agreed. I'm not hearing where any of these thousands he's spent on gear have added up to some amazing tone. As nothing I've posted is utilizing that rig, that stands to reason. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Drifter182 Posted December 30, 2007 Members Share Posted December 30, 2007 Zachman, I understand where your coming from, hell I'd love to go rack too, but that just isnt my style. I'd much rather mess with the 3-5 knobs on my pedal thats running into my tube amp than program all sorts patches, set up midi controls, switches, etc (And no, im not stuck in the 60's and 70's, Im only 18). Im just a plug in, mess with til I like it (or hate it and throw it off the pedal chain) and rock out. Saying that however, If any band I end up joining ever got really good/big and started using a wide sound variety, I would to right to rack..........Im sorry, but personnally I see that as the only major advantage to rack, is all those sounds, instead of the one Mesa or Marshall or W/e most amp users have for their shows. Just my 2 cents Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Zachman Posted December 30, 2007 Author Members Share Posted December 30, 2007 Zachman, I understand where your coming from, hell I'd love to go rack too, but that just isnt my style. I'd much rather mess with the 3-5 knobs on my pedal thats running into my tube amp than program all sorts patches, set up midi controls, switches, etc (And no, im not stuck in the 60's and 70's, Im only 18). Im just a plug in, mess with til I like it (or hate it and throw it off the pedal chain) and rock out. Saying that however, If any band I end up joining ever got really good/big and started using a wide sound variety, I would to right to rack..........Im sorry, but personnally I see that as the only major advantage to rack, is all those sounds, instead of the one Mesa or Marshall or W/e most amp users have for their shows. Just my 2 cents We're cool... My post wasn't meant to address guys who only use a couple of pedals, and suggest that they have to rack mount their pedals, use a floor based loop switching system, or run a rack system AT ALL, or they're somehow stupid or wrong. The chuckleheads who enjoy internet sparring, would like to convince everyone of that, but it just isn't so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Drifter182 Posted December 30, 2007 Members Share Posted December 30, 2007 Oh, btw, I agree with you on the price thing (or whoever talked about it). After finding OLCircuits, OCD, Maxxon, Ibanez, and other Boutique pedals i wanna try are gonna be Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Zachman Posted December 30, 2007 Author Members Share Posted December 30, 2007 Oh, btw, I agree with you on the price thing (or whoever talked about it). After finding OLCircuits, OCD, Maxxon, Ibanez, and other Boutique pedals i wanna try are gonna be The way I look at it is this regarding purchasing my own gear: A given product either does what I want or it doesn't... Then it comes down to affordability, then it comes down to how exacting are my requirements REALLY, then it comes down to sold coming home with me, or pass. When doing gigs that I am sitting in, I'll use whatever- and make it work. EVERYONE has their own threshold for what they're willing to accept as a working solution for their needs/desires/wants. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Zachman Posted December 30, 2007 Author Members Share Posted December 30, 2007 Where EXACTLY does Satch address using a Line 6 as a controller for his whole rig, or using it as a sampler??? Those are a couple of examples of a Line 6 NOT getting the same results, as the 2290. and NO he can't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members SG dan Posted December 30, 2007 Members Share Posted December 30, 2007 Not at all... See #10 & 11 But as far as rack mounted processors go, there are a few really nice choices that are very affordable: Rocktron Intellifex, Rocktron Intelliverb, Rocktron Replifex, Rocktron 300G, TC Electronic G-Major, TC Electronic M1, Yamaha SPX90, Yamaha SPX90II, Yamaha SPX900. Like anything else: of course there are more expensive units, but that they have to be those units, is NOT what I have EVER advocated, for getting good results. A TB loop may be a fantastic solution for the guy w/ 4-8 pedals, and is a switching system. sorry i should have been more specific about what i meant. lets use the TC electronic G major processor that you mentioned. you named some rack processors that you describe as "very affordable". so by this i think you are saying that they are lower on the cost food chain (of rack gear) but are good value and sound pretty good, have an array of decent digital effects and are rack. am i right about this? heres my point; there are pedals that i would call "very affordable". there is the behringer multi effects pedal. MF100 or 400 or 600 or whatever the hell there on now. Its quite low on the cost food chain (for pedals), and of coarse there are pedals that are much better and cost more. heres the clincher; ones 25 bucks, the others 400. most people can easily afford the behringer, so to most people its "very affordable". more people don't consider the TC very affordable than the behringer, yet, for their erspected classes they are in roughly the same area of their food chains. Of coarse, the TC is going to sound a helluva better than the behringer, but for 400$ i could probably get 3 or 4 (maybe more, or a decent multi-unit) good quality pedals to get the sounds i need rather than the vast array of budget sounds i could get with the TC. anyway, keep enjoying your gear, just wanted to be clear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members madryan Posted December 30, 2007 Members Share Posted December 30, 2007 So... To sum up what Zach has been saying... (I even read the whole thing) 1) Individual pedals are not the functional equal of top of the line rack stuff. In the context he's saying this it's a true statement. Nobody makes a pedal that will sound as good nor be as tweakable as a high end rack unit, aside from possibly the new Eventide delay pedal. You might think your pedal sounds fine, and it probably does but it won't do what a hardcore rackmount unit will. But... A DD-3 or whatever is much cheaper. 2) If you run a bunch of pedals it's going to sound better if they are setup in a looping system rather than all running in series. Again... This is true. The less crap your guitar signal runs through the better it's going to sound when it gets to your amp. If you're a purist this is the best way to go because there is a difference between one setup running several pedals in serial in front of an amp vs. all the same pedals running in loops. With the looping system it's just like plugging straight in when all the loops are off. Doesn't get much more pure than that. 3) If you should decide that running a loop system is your gig then using a MIDI controlled setup is going to be easier. This is also a fact. I've tried it both ways and I greatly prefer a single MIDI controller to a whole bunch of pedals that I have to turn on and off manually. Everyone's idea of good tone is subjective. I can't stand any amp I've ever played that used EL-84's, which obviously people play and get great tones out of. I can listen to a clip of someone playing a nice Fender with EL-84's and think "wow... great tone" but I'd quit playing before I'd play Fender combo's exclusively. I recently sold all my amp/effects gear and started over. It was incredibly uplifting. I've replaced it all and am going to do a mix of 2 amps, some rack gear, some stomps, but all set up in a Midi controllable setup that goes in one road case. It'll be heavy but it'll sound killer and be incredibly flexible. Zach is a good guy who's been very free with information and has given me several good ideas about how to go about putting things together. This thread has been very helpful to me... Thanks Zach. 3) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Zachman Posted December 30, 2007 Author Members Share Posted December 30, 2007 Having the BIG expensive rig doesn't guarantee great result, only a great variety of options (MIDI presets, combining tones of pedals and rack processors and/or variations of the various combinations), and a cleaner signal path from guitar to amp. I have heard guys play guitar with such skill and finesse, yet think, their tone sucked and vice versa... heard guys who were not all that impressive, but had gorgeous tone. Dialing in gear is a separate art than playing guitar. That art of a producer, who (in theory) best decides how to get the sound for production, isn't necessarily shared by a guitarist. It seems that the guys who really have it down, have the skill of a Guitarist, Engineer, and a Producer. Giving them the ability to choose the right tools for the job, and dial them in correctly, and wire them all together and program them all to get the results. That also includes being able to see that a guitar straight through a Marshall like Angus Young, may be PERFECT in context for the song. My excitement for rack stuff nowadays for the guys who love their pedals is that they can be utilized either in a rack or on the floor through a loop switching system allowing for the options that the rack processor guys have. The biggest advantages to a big rack that utilizes pedals and rack processors, are that there are things that pedals do, that rack processors just don't, and things that rack processors do that pedals just can't, and in that type of setup, the options are wide open. Different strokes aside, I think having the options nowadays is WAY cool. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Zachman Posted December 30, 2007 Author Members Share Posted December 30, 2007 So... To sum up what Zach has been saying... (I even read the whole thing) 1) Individual pedals are not the functional equal of top of the line rack stuff. In the context he's saying this it's a true statement. Nobody makes a pedal that will sound as good nor be as tweakable as a high end rack unit, aside from possibly the new Eventide delay pedal. You might think your pedal sounds fine, and it probably does but it won't do what a hardcore rackmount unit will. But... A DD-3 or whatever is much cheaper. 2) If you run a bunch of pedals it's going to sound better if they are setup in a looping system rather than all running in series. Again... This is true. The less crap your guitar signal runs through the better it's going to sound when it gets to your amp. If you're a purist this is the best way to go because there is a difference between one setup running several pedals in serial in front of an amp vs. all the same pedals running in loops. With the looping system it's just like plugging straight in when all the loops are off. Doesn't get much more pure than that. 3) If you should decide that running a loop system is your gig then using a MIDI controlled setup is going to be easier. This is also a fact. I've tried it both ways and I greatly prefer a single MIDI controller to a whole bunch of pedals that I have to turn on and off manually. Everyone's idea of good tone is subjective. I can't stand any amp I've ever played that used EL-84's, which obviously people play and get great tones out of. I can listen to a clip of someone playing a nice Fender with EL-84's and think "wow... great tone" but I'd quit playing before I'd play Fender combo's exclusively. I recently sold all my amp/effects gear and started over. It was incredibly uplifting. I've replaced it all and am going to do a mix of 2 amps, some rack gear, some stomps, but all set up in a Midi controllable setup that goes in one road case. It'll be heavy but it'll sound killer and be incredibly flexible. Zach is a good guy who's been very free with information and has given me several good ideas about how to go about putting things together. This thread has been very helpful to me... Thanks Zach. 3) You are most welcome. Glad the topic stirred up some ideas for you. Thank you Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Zachman Posted December 30, 2007 Author Members Share Posted December 30, 2007 heres my point; there are pedals that i would call "very affordable". there is the behringer multi effects pedal. MF100 or 400 or 600 or whatever the hell there on now. Its quite low on the cost food chain (for pedals), and of coarse there are pedals that are much better and cost more. heres the clincher; ones 25 bucks, the others 400. most people can easily afford the behringer, so to most people its "very affordable". more people don't consider the TC very affordable than the behringer, yet, for their erspected classes they are in roughly the same area of their food chains. Of coarse, the TC is going to sound a helluva better than the behringer, but for 400$ i could probably get 3 or 4 (maybe more, or a decent multi-unit) good quality pedals to get the sounds i need rather than the vast array of budget sounds i could get with the TC. anyway, keep enjoying your gear, just wanted to be clear. Fair enough... If the gear that you choose does what you want it to do, then for you, it's the best solution. The main point of this thread, in my mind, was to point out a way of running those same pedals that you'd choose in a way that provided the same benefits that the rack switching MIDI rigs have, for your preferred pedals or whatever. Keeping things in context, this wasn't a suggestion for guys with only a couple of pedals, rather for those who use lots of pedals, or a rack vs pedals thing, but the MIDI preset options eliminating the need to tap dance, would be all the reason I needed to use a switching system if I were running 10+ pedals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members slight-return Posted December 30, 2007 Members Share Posted December 30, 2007 Fair enough... If the gear that you choose does what you want it to do, then for you, it's the best solution. That's the requirements spec thing, I think a lot of guys have been speaking to The main point of this thread, in my mind, was to point out a way... that, I believe, is the main rub -- and again, it's way common in engineers, and we've both been there. Is that the communication style, even in the title has caused major problems with that. notice in the above you mention "in my mind", that's the thing about (interdisciplinary) communication...it's about framing things so we have interface. Adversarial communication can generally shut that down which can easily compromise the "to point out a way" for instance, you feel some have misconstrued what you were saying, I feel youve misconstrued what I'm saying. That old amygdala gets going, POP - adversarial mode comes outBANG - project goals get trashed ey, what I said I meant, tke a step back, just check out some of the comments..reflect a little...like you said...perspective Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members therhodeo Posted December 30, 2007 Members Share Posted December 30, 2007 Having the BIG expensive rig doesn't guarantee great result I think you've already proved that to us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Zachman Posted December 30, 2007 Author Members Share Posted December 30, 2007 I think you've already proved that to us. You already knew that, as many agree that, by today's standards: Hendrix, SRV, Page, George Harrison. BB King, Eric Clapton, Keith Richards, Chuck Berry etc... tones are mehhh and feel their actual technique is sloppy at best Great song writers, IMO don't make good tone benchmarks automatically though. I personally love the guys I mentioned and don't particularly think much of their tones, though there are exceptions. The reverse is also true, some of the guys who have tone that I think is FANTASTIC, I can only tolerate listening to their music for so long, and only when I'm in the mood. Tastes are subjective indeed You may not think this Eventide H8000FW clip is nice, but I think it is: [YOUTUBE]IeroDKOR2BI[/YOUTUBE] Some very short Eventide Clips that I think will give a perspective on my view of good tone results, and interesting usage of effects not possible with a traditional pedal, or just nice tones that are as well: http://ftp.missingtoast.com/edemo/allanchorus2.mp3 http://ftp.missingtoast.com/edemo/ambientgtr1.mp3 http://ftp.missingtoast.com/edemo/behindspace.mp3 http://ftp.missingtoast.com/edemo/biomec2.mp3 http://ftp.missingtoast.com/edemo/ambiclouds.mp3 http://ftp.missingtoast.com/edemo/choralspace.mp3 http://ftp.missingtoast.com/edemo/crystalwash.mp3 http://ftp.missingtoast.com/edemo/cumulonimbus2.mp3 http://ftp.missingtoast.com/edemo/diamondrain.mp3 http://ftp.missingtoast.com/edemo/earthrise.mp3 http://ftp.missingtoast.com/edemo/electrofilters.mp3 http://ftp.missingtoast.com/edemo/ghostingdelay.mp3 http://ftp.missingtoast.com/edemo/splattergtr.mp3 http://ftp.missingtoast.com/edemo/quintillizer.mp3 http://ftp.missingtoast.com/edemo/mybloodyvalentine.mp3 http://ftp.missingtoast.com/edemo/instamagic.mp3 http://ftp.missingtoast.com/edemo/stereophaser.mp3 http://ftp.missingtoast.com/edemo/Tdelay4plex.mp3 http://ftp.missingtoast.com/edemo/vintageDDL.mp3 http://ftp.missingtoast.com/edemo/warmflange.mp3 http://ftp.missingtoast.com/edemo/waterychorus.mp3 http://ftp.missingtoast.com/edemo/wormhole2.mp3 http://ftp.missingtoast.com/edemo/fuzzpitch.mp3 http://ftp.missingtoast.com/edemo/detune4plex.mp3 http://ftp.missingtoast.com/edemo/rhythmringers.mp3 http://ftp.missingtoast.com/edemo/bouncingball.mp3 http://ftp.missingtoast.com/edemo/allanchorus.mp3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Zachman Posted December 30, 2007 Author Members Share Posted December 30, 2007 That's the requirements spec thing, I think a lot of guys have been speaking to The main point of this thread, in my mind, was to point out a way... that, I believe, is the main rub -- and again, it's way common in engineers, and we've both been there. Is that the communication style, even in the title has caused major problems with that. notice in the above you mention "in my mind", that's the thing about (interdisciplinary) communication...it's about framing things so we have interface. Adversarial communication can generally shut that down which can easily compromise the "to point out a way" for instance, you feel some have misconstrued what you were saying, I feel youve misconstrued what I'm saying. That old amygdala gets going, POP - adversarial mode comes out BANG - project goals get trashed ey, what I said I meant, tke a step back, just check out some of the comments..reflect a little...like you said...perspective I understand... though several others got the point of the thread wrong, and took it to be about "The" way Others got it EXACTLY right, so... What I said, I meant too. It unfortunately required reading comprehension, and those who's sport trolling priority is their only agenda, aren't interested in intellectual growth, just confrontation. Just as you rambled on w/ your incorrect spec info, incoherent time line, addressing things that were of no use; as someone who admits they understood the point of the thread, you appeared to purposefully, avoid answering my questions to you directly, and ... appeared to me, to only be interested in making a spectacle of yourself too. Just like the trolls. Heck, I'm surprised you didn't try to throw in the coefficient of coupling formula and the history of the discovery of magnetic flux in there too w/ your other useless ramblings. I know the thread was written in a provocative style, it was done so intentionally, so as to bring a lot of attention to the topic and it worked, look at the view count of this thread. Your psych analysis not withstanding, I accomplished my goal, and have already dealt with several E-mails from those who are interested in learning more, but aren't interested in dealing with the troll's BS, by discussing it publicly, so feel free to psychoanalyze how you misjudged, my motives, and methods and think about how things aren't always as they appear, before you do so again, tool.:p Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members jeverist Posted December 30, 2007 Members Share Posted December 30, 2007 Many? I wouldn't associate your opinions with the many. Many are the people who disagree with you in this thread, and even if you took the few who did agree with you, you probably would not find any who agree with what you just said here. The many would say if you don't think this list of greats had great guitar tone, that you should probably consider a different instrument. No matter how you try to spin it, you have to work with a piece of wood with magnetic pickups and a tube amplifier with a circuit very similar to what was originally designed in the 40's. All the other effects and rack stuff are just polish. Great tone starts with a good guitar and a good sounding tube amp. It does not need to be in stereo or have tons of delay or reverb. I remember back in the 80's when all the top producers would drown guitar parts with the delays and reverb and I also remember the time sometime in the early 90's when that kind of production went out of style. That's when they decided it was better to actually hear the real guitar sound and also incidentally that's when rack gear went out of vogue. I notice you don't talk about your guitars very much, which to me is odd, because thats where the tone actually is. Your amplification system should be bringing out all the subtle tones that live inside your guitar. I get the feeling for you, your guitars are just tone generators and all your toys are actually the musical instrument. I look at it in a different way. Does a violin or a cello player usually use a giant rack system? Or practically any other instrument? No, because the tone is in the instrument, and in the player. You already knew that, as many agree that, by today's standards: Hendrix, SRV, Page, George Harrison. BB King, Eric Clapton, Keith Richards, Chuck Berry etc... tones are mehhh and feel their actual technique is sloppy at best Tastes are subjective indeed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Fred5 Posted December 30, 2007 Members Share Posted December 30, 2007 Racks suck. Questions? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Zachman Posted December 30, 2007 Author Members Share Posted December 30, 2007 good one lady Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Zachman Posted December 30, 2007 Author Members Share Posted December 30, 2007 I suck. Questions? FIXED: Nope, agreed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Zachman Posted December 30, 2007 Author Members Share Posted December 30, 2007 Many? I wouldn't associate your opinions with the many. Many are the people who disagree with you in this thread, and even if you took the few who did agree with you, you probably would not find any who agree with what you just said here. The many would say if you don't think this list of greats had great guitar tone, that you should probably consider a different instrument. No matter how you try to spin it, you have to work with a piece of wood with magnetic pickups and a tube amplifier with a circuit very similar to what was originally designed in the 40's. All the other effects and rack stuff are just polish. Great tone starts with a good guitar and a good sounding tube amp. It does not need to be in stereo or have tons of delay or reverb. I remember back in the 80's when all the top producers would drown guitar parts with the delays and reverb and I also remember the time sometime in the early 90's when that kind of production went out of style. That's when they decided it was better to actually hear the real guitar sound and also incidentally that's when rack gear went out of vogue. I notice you don't talk about your guitars very much, which to me is odd, because thats where the tone actually is. Your amplification system should be bringing out all the subtle tones that live inside your guitar. I get the feeling for you, your guitars are just tone generators and all your toys are actually the musical instrument. I look at it in a different way. Does a violin or a cello player usually use a giant rack system? Or practically any other instrument? No, because the tone is in the instrument, and in the player. [YOUTUBE]jTUruCv4Qi4&feature=related[/YOUTUBE] Racks aren't the problem, they are just tools, either effectively utilized or not. I agree that the PROPER use of equipment in whatever genre or configuration is best done in context. * If one is using a guitar and trying get a sound other than a normal guitar than your statement is not valid. Allan Holdsworth is just one example. * If one is using a guitar to sound particularly cheesy, for an overall affect in the context of their song, then you statement is not valid. (Just a couple of examples, there are more, but I figure this makes the point I wanted to make). * If one who uses a rack setup is going for the result that you address, knows how to dial it in, and programs their gear and routes their signal properly they can do what you deem is the end all be all goal of guitar tone. Though there are lots of guys who would argue that a brutal metal tone is the end all be all using their EMG's and 5150 with the mids dumped, and the gain cranked. P E R S P E C T I V E. RE: your violin comparison: As I recall, Jean Luc Ponty uses the electric violin, perhaps that question is best asked of him. You appear to be one of the guys who doesn't get that I wasn't referring to a rack vs pedal paradigm Please direct yourself to the last sentence in post #1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Zachman Posted December 30, 2007 Author Members Share Posted December 30, 2007 [YOUTUBE]yDckVFz_4vU[/YOUTUBE] [YOUTUBE]jzVq9JsBLsI[/YOUTUBE] [YOUTUBE]Ns-I-TcL49Q[/YOUTUBE] [YOUTUBE]e2uklZ7_C5s[/YOUTUBE] [YOUTUBE]4yUUCRJGdko[/YOUTUBE] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Zachman Posted December 30, 2007 Author Members Share Posted December 30, 2007 The Edge... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members murch33 Posted December 30, 2007 Members Share Posted December 30, 2007 Wow... 1 7 pages? Really guys? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.