The use of Equipment, putting the BS myths to rest

[seifukusha]

good post zachman, indeed

 

anyway, fretting and fussing takes the fun away, eh?

 

did jimmy page worry about a clear signal path?

 

 

did he?

[slight-return]

Agreed, however; if someone has only eaten Soda Crackers, and wants to insist that they are the best P E R S P E C T I V E....

I think there, the problem is with the concept "best" as applied to a subjective experience and varying use models.

It was brought to my attention once by an automotive engineer (named "dad") who said -- "roadrace tires aren't good enough for the street"
What he meant by that is that the race tire tends to be engineered for extremely narrow operations (one maybe two heat cycles, smooth contour very-high traction surfaces, tiny tranistional traction envelope acceptable)
whereas a street tire has to be designed across a broader range of conditions - which can be a difficult engineering challenge

That's where perspective can get us - like


5. I

[Zachman]

good post zachman, indeed anyway, fretting and fussing takes the fun away, eh? did jimmy page worry about a clear signal path? did he?

 

Does he still use the stuff that he was limited to back then, NO he doesn't, does he?

 

Notice modern (appears to be Pete Cornish) pedal board? Apparently it appears, he does think about stuff like a clear signal path, doesn't it?

 

 

 

Notice the Multi-amp switching rig?

 

 

 

Just saying... Not a particularly big fan of Page's tone on a lot of his early recorded stuff, as though that is the benchmark for everyone. That is just as silly as the guys who are misconstruing this thread to mean racks vs pedals.... NOT

[comfortablynumb]

Agreed, however; if someone has only eaten Soda Crackers, and wants to insist that they are the best or think that is all there is, and loves them- Then has a Ritz, steak, a cheeseburger, or whatever... that they've never had before, they may discover something that they like better than a plain old soda cracker. P E R S P E C T I V E....

 

 

 

I understand but the point here is that the soda cracker isn't necessarily the Honda.. or something like that.

 

Someone may discover that a switching system is best for them, but the fact that it may be the cleanest signal path whatsoever and has all the best routing capabilities is really irrelevant to the big picture. It simply boils down to the best combination of whatever for that specific person. For a lot of people, it's switching systems. For a lot of people, it's pedals or rack gear in series with no switching other than what's on the pieces themselves. For a lot of people it's guitar into amp.

 

I know you're trying to help. Just trying to show people their options. We're all doing the same thing. I've learned a lot about gear over the years and learned a lot from people on this forum and others. I hang around this place to help those people that I am now able to give advice to. Same as you. I don't want you to take this as a shot at you, but you're pretty adamant in your opinion that switching systems are the best. They're an option. Pedalboards are an option. Racks are an option. Straight amps are an option. That's all it is. Sometimes the soda cracker is a pedalboard. Sometimes the soda cracker is a switching system and/or rack system.

[slight-return]

. I don't want you to take this as a shot at you

 

 

 

FWIW - I didn;t read it as such

 

I'm with y on that feeling "Oh, Id better disclaim" as there seems to be some animosity flying around and it's easy to get mislabeled by "well, if you ain't un of us den yur un o dem!"

(there's some pretty cool neuropsych about that)

[Zachman]

 

I think there, the problem is with the concept "best" as applied to a subjective experience and varying use models.   It was brought to my attention once by an automotive engineer (named "dad") who said -- "roadrace tires aren't good enough for the street" What he meant by that is that the race tire tends to be engineered for extremely narrow operations (one maybe two heat cycles, smooth contour very-high traction surfaces, tiny tranistional traction envelope acceptable) whereas a street tire has to be designed across a broader range of conditions - which can be a difficult engineering challenge   That's where perspective can get us - like   5. I

[comfortablynumb]

FWIW - I didn;t read it as such I'm with y on that feeling "Oh, Id better disclaim" as there seems to be some animosity flying around and it's easy to get mislabeled by "well, if you ain't un of us den yur un o dem!" (there's some pretty cool neuropsych about that)

Ha, yeah. If you've followed any of Zachman's posts, a lot of things seem to get stirred up in people. There's no need sometimes.

[boneman]

Ok, I've read the whole thread, and has anyone figured out a nice small midi pedal switching system to recommend? I would like get my pedals off the floor and out of reach of spilling drinks.

[Zachman]

I understand but the point here is that the soda cracker isn't necessarily the Honda.. or something like that. Someone may discover that a switching system is best for them, but the fact that it may be the cleanest signal path whatsoever and has all the best routing capabilities is really irrelevant to the big picture. It simply boils down to the best combination of whatever for that specific person. For a lot of people, it's switching systems. For a lot of people, it's pedals or rack gear in series with no switching other than what's on the pieces themselves. For a lot of people it's guitar into amp. I know you're trying to help. Just trying to show people their options. We're all doing the same thing. I've learned a lot about gear over the years and learned a lot from people on this forum and others. I hang around this place to help those people that I am now able to give advice to. Same as you. I don't want you to take this as a shot at you, but you're pretty adamant in your opinion that switching systems are the best. They're an option. Pedalboards are an option. Racks are an option. Straight amps are an option. That's all it is. Sometimes the soda cracker is a pedalboard. Sometimes the soda cracker is a switching system and/or rack system.

 

There is no question that a switching system is the cleanest signal path, that it allows for more options than a traditional pedal board, and I'm not saying that it's a prerequisite for great results. I get the biggest arguments about this stuff from guys who've NEVER experienced the difference. I have and have rather enjoyed being helpful to those truly seeking to broaden their understanding of the available options out there. I have also taken an evil pleasure in handing the guys/naysayers (in real life) their asses when their theoretical bull{censored} comes crashing down around them, when trying to prove a point- that they're stuff sounds just as good. It doesn't. It REALLY doesn't. The difference is I can get their tone/tones and can get them quieter, and they can't get mine. Pretty simple...

 

I more often than not, use a small setup with a few pedals (nothing special or boutique), when playing live small to medium sized gigs.

 

The big rig, clearly isn't required, but DOES sound WAY WAY better, EVERYTIME.

[slash81291]

The philosophy of subjectivity is a Pandora's box of endless possibilities, but Pedal boards are fine if you just want a few pedals and your switching needs are basic. But if you are truly serious about your tone, and you want many sound options available to you at any time (not to mention preset combinations and midi program change capability), a switching system is the way to go. No one said you have to turn on all the stuff at the same time! Besides, THERE IS NO CLEANER SIGNAL PATH FROM GUITAR TO AMP THAN WITH A SWITCHING SYSTEM, PERIOD. With a pedal board, even if every effect is bypassed, and you have "100% bypass" switches in all your effects (which is rare), you are still running through every pedal, and every cable and connection in the system. If something fails, good luck finding it. There is still a major capacitive buildup (which results in a severe loss of tone, mainly high end) because your signal must go through each cable and pedal. This is why signal buffers are so important. With a CAE switching system, troubleshooting is easy because you can bypass to get effects out of the signal path, and you can patch in between various places in the signal path, when you know what to look for. With a CAE custom switching system (can't vouch for other manufacturers) the majority of the signal path is hard wired internally, and with a loop based system bypassing the effect bypasses the cables connecting the effect as well! This is impossible with a traditional pedal board.

 

 

 

Zack do you think I would be well off just building myself a truebypass looper on my board. A MUCH better option IMO for those of us who want a simpler rig (not bringing a rack), and also having said improvement in performance.

 

i hate wanting thing and not having the $$$!

[slight-return]

Agreed and as someone with an EET degree, as I have as well, surely you can appreciate the fact that certain designs are better than others, in reality, not just in a subjective sense

hmmm, as an engineer - I'm sure you know the mantra in design meetings "it depends"
and how the "my team's design is better b/c" arguments start and how each team weight their parameters differently (especially with those Germans! )


, cleaner signal is cleaner signal bottom line and an efficient signal path is what it is.

this is an interesting example

yup! it is what it is - which leaves the question "does that is fit the specs"
in this case a "clean" signal path - as an engineer, I'm sure you're sensitive to the integration side of things.
[i think we've all had the young buck...OK, sometimes the old buck too ... "improve" things out of spec and {censored} up integration

a full-range speaker, for instance is a more effiecient signal path element - yet it might not be the right fit for a particular guitar/amplifier system
(that requirements spec!)

or integrating something like an older fuzz-face design wherein the loading is even expected

or even "scrubbing" some of the transients of a piezo pickup by introducing inefficiencies such as mic modelling

GP bikes are terribly inefficient! (they are also extremely high ouput!)

Apollo 13's voltage spec changed to a more efficient design...ceptin that stir motor system




Re: playing vs programming- In the studio time is money and I can dial in a program so fast, it'd likely make your head spin. I enjoy (always have) playing with tones and dialing in tones


certainly! that would speak to that particular use model (in a recording studio where you are looking for "soundscape" tones)

just as the cocktail job can be served well by an instrument, a polytone and a stool (where the req spec might not include soundscape programming, but can weight more heavilly to easy, transparent loadout)

or a good old horabe 35 a stand and a binder is good for wedding jobs

different use models


and that is a separate source of enjoyment for me, than playing is.


That can speak back to the "Id rather be playing than programming" thing

for you, for me, for user X -- use models can differ

it's easy to get "target fixation" n a particular use model - esp as engineers
then we give something to marketing to beta...BOOM!



It helps understanding how stuff works and why it works... makes programming when, going for a given result, pretty painless. my $.02

certainly! provided when someone is looking to program!
That goes back to the use model thing. -- just my 2 cents - engineer to engineer!

[Zachman]

Ok, I've read the whole thread, and has anyone figured out a nice small midi pedal switching system to recommend? I would like get my pedals off the floor and out of reach of spilling drinks.

 

An Axess GRX-4

 

 

# The GRX4 Guitar Router/Switcher provides four (mono) MIDI controlled audio loops.

# Relays with gold-plated contacts are utilized to route the audio signal with absolutely no tone coloration or degradation.

# The signal path is configured as a series chain of three audio loops and a fourth audio loop (with its own input and output jacks) that can also be used for mute switching or as an Isolated Control/Switching Function.

# Includes the same high quality Op-Amp based buffer circuit that is in our BS2 Buffer/Splitter which is both low-noise and musical. Don

[boneman]

Ok, thanks Zach.

[Zachman]

or even "scrubbing" some of the transients of a piezo pickup by introducing inefficiencies such as mic modelling Re: playing vs programming- In the studio time is money and I can dial in a program so fast, it'd likely make your head spin. I enjoy (always have) playing with tones and dialing in tones certainly! that would speak to that particular use model (in a recording studio where you are looking for "soundscape" tones) just as the cocktail job can be served well by an instrument, a polytone and a stool (where the req spec might not include soundscape programming, but can weight more heavilly to easy, transparent loadout) or a good old horabe 35 a stand and a binder is good for wedding jobs different use models and that is a separate source of enjoyment for me, than playing is. That can speak back to the "Id rather be playing than programming where It helps understanding how stuff works and why it works... makes programming when, going for a given result, pretty painless. my $.02 certainly! provided when someone is looking to program! That goes back to the use model thing. -- just my 2 cents - engineer to engineer!

 

The cool thing about programming is that once you understand how to do it, and program your stuff, you can pretty much forget about it, and just play.

 

I've seen guys with traditional pedal board setups who spend infinitely more time tweaking with their {censored} than I do. All I have to do is step on a button, and I'm done. Add to that the ability to control parameters w/ Continuous Control Messages and expression pedals I CAN change {censored} while I'm still playing. I don't have to bend down to tweak knobs in the middle of a performance, I CAN concentrate on playing, when it REALLY counts.

 

Bottom line I can do, w/ my setup what they can do, but with less noise, more flexibility, and they can't do what I can, so it seems a stretch to argue that their way is better. At least that's how I see it.

[Zachman]

Ok, thanks Zach.

no prob... feel free to shoot me an e-mail anytime, if you have a question.

[comfortablynumb]

 

certainly! provided when someone is looking to program! That goes back to the use model thing. -- just my 2 cents - engineer to engineer!

 

 

 

 

There's really no more I could add than what you just said. Whatever fits the specs.

 

Zach, there's many ways to get to that tone that just gets you in the zone and lets you play your best. In the music world, how someone gets there just doesn't matter. The gear is irrelevant.

[slight-return]

Buffers are extremely important in a multi-component system. They are often misunderstood and often get a bad rap by those who are uninformed....

I think you are misunderstanding me there bro
my comments weren't specifically about buffer design but rather about effieicency (and what type) as a metric for design quality and integration suitability

the above stuff looks like boilerplate which really isn't addressing what I was saying


I think where you might be getting confused is that old amygdala - psuhing toward "he must be a dem!" (I'm not an "us" OR "dem" )


The cool thing about programming is that once you understand how to do it, and program your stuff, you can pretty much forget about it, and just play.


Depends on the UI, if the user works in discrete programs, etc


I've seen guys with traditional pedal board setups who spend infinitely more time tweaking with their {censored} than I do.


Certainly! - they are programming too!
like you mentioned, it doesn't HAVE to be mutually exlcusive (the programming can be part of the "playing") NOR does it have to include that


All I have to do is step on a button, and I'm done.

provided one is even working IN a discrete "patch" type use model!

other users might have different needs sensitivities as to "best"

Hey, I hear ya - as an engineer, it's often really hard to get into different use models (one of the reasons why marketing make such good, but reluctant, testers...they will do the weirdest - to the engineering team - {censored})
and our {censored} is always "the best" we're engineers!

[slight-return]

There's really no more I could add than what you just said. Whatever fits the specs.

Well it sure as {censored} isn't because I'm wise -- just weary, very weary

got "promoted" into management (which was actually cool b/c I just fond it a form of macro-engineering)
then mustered out and now do IP [which is nice, engineering analysis w/o the mud on the boots]

funny thing is, same path both Dad and the wife took too (though they were/are full on attys)

[slight-return]

Aw cmon - nobody has said it yet?!?!

What's best?

c'mon - Anyone, Bueller, Schwartzenegger, anyone?

[houseofglass21]

All I know is that if I lived in Hawaii I wouldn't be online arguing about peoples gear choices. I'd be catching some rays and gnarly waves.

 

[Urinate Forever]

Yes... the sounds provided by preferred pedals analog or digital or rack processors analog or digital, can all benefit, in a guitar setup, by being run most efficiently, and yet, it's stunning how much opposition there is to doing that, or even discussing the possibility, especially when it's been show to be affordable, more efficient, and allow so much benefit for live performance. The phrase cut off the nose to spite the face, comes to mind. It doesn't have to be like this, but the guys who think they can get their pedals to do what something like this can are smoking crack.

the best part of that picture is those THICK ASS cables running around. the big 2" thick suckers.

[Zachman]

Hey, I hear ya - as an engineer, it's often really hard to get into different use models (one of the reasons why marketing make such good, but reluctant, testers...they will do the weirdest - to the engineering team - {censored}) and our {censored} is always "the best" we're engineers!

 

I know guys that are network engineers for CNN and are geniuses at what they do, but they don't know {censored} about guitar tone, and routing a guitar systems signal to be done in the most effective and efficient way. The guy who built my stuff is the guy who invented the technology. I think he has a good grasp on it, as he has seen and built more rigs than you and I will ever see, for the TOP guys in the WORLD. Literally...

[Zachman]

All I know is that if I lived in Hawaii I wouldn't be online arguing about peoples gear choices. I'd be catching some rays and gnarly waves.

 

You might, if you had bronchitis too.

[Zachman]

 

I'm pretty sure J Mascis has most of his pedals set up in a rack exactly like that. the best part of that picture is those THICK ASS cables running around. the big 2" thick suckers.

 

 

Have you seen the video of the building of his racks?

[Zachman]

 

Aw cmon - nobody has said it yet?!?! What's best? c'mon - Anyone, Bueller, Schwartzenegger, anyone?

 

 

Going by Industry Benchmark Standards: Any "major" studio that you go into will have one or more of these units, as a result.

 

NEVE, SSL, Trident, URIE, TC Electronic, Eventide, AMS, Lexicon, Pro Tools, Studer, Neumann microphones, etc...