The industry has forgotten us rack heads...

[slight-return]

it happens - look around that ground and you'll see my footprints there too

it can be a lot easier to see from the outside.

[GuitarPlayerFL]

Guess players don't want stereo tone, wet/dry/wet or anything else a rack system can give you...

 

You're either:

 

1) A bedroom guitar player

or

2) Someone with a van or pickup truck with ramps

or

3) Have roadies

 

...cause all those amps just to hear stereo is TOO MUCH caca to transport around to a gig. Especially since nobody off stage hears it.

 

I go with as little as possible and it sounds good.

[timrocker]

3shiftgtr; I hear ya. I much prefer to play in stereo, also. Although I'm currently doing live in mono, since I'm still short the dough needed to complete my live rack rig. It's true-the gear manufacturers are going with the current trend of pedals, amps, cabs. I work a lot of concerts, and you hardly ever see a rack roll in for a guitar rig any more. Which says to me: If you do racks, and you do it well, you're in a lot better position right at the moment. Because you're bucking the trend.

[petejt]

You know you don't really need a full-on rack system to play in stereo or wet/dry/wet...

[3shiftgtr]

3) Have roadies ...cause all those amps just to hear stereo is TOO MUCH caca to transport around to a gig. Especially since nobody off stage hears it. I go with as little as possible and it sounds good.

 

I have and do play everything from 10k seat sheds to dive bars for tip money.

 

An 8 space rack into a cab with a controller on the floor, is no different than a head, cab and a pedal board, lugging wise and footprint wise.

 

And I have done many gigs with a Fender Blues deluxe, a Boss GT3, and a wah.

 

So what's your point?

[3shiftgtr]

You know you don't really need a full-on rack system to play in stereo or wet/dry/wet...

 

Right...lotsa ways to do it. And that is the problem.

 

What if a manufacturing company actually INTEGRATED stuff in a tube stereo format? What if there was something out there that took the processing power of say, an eclipse, and INTEGRATED it into a stereo tube format? In one unit. I realize I approached it wrong in my topic post, but one is doing it and I think it is a great idea.

 

But according to everybody on this thread, those manufacturers are stupid and foolish, cuz everybody has what they want. 'Cept lil ol me.....

 

I feel sooooo alooooone......:cry:

[TheGrooveking]

Antagonizing others doesn't bring others into the fold. You seem to have predetermined idea of what is acceptable and think others should agree. As to gear manufactures making some of this stuff you want, do the buisness plan on it and besides yourself and few others who may buy it where does it generate the revenue/profit to sustain a business?

 

You are one of the few driving the stereo thing, but in reality many clubs only have their PA's set up for mono. Additionally stereo in live rigs, can add phasing problems.

 

As to your last post on tube stereo, the guitar output is mono, so it will always take some processor to make it stereo, unless you are talking guitar synth type pickups/systems.

 

TheGrooveking

[slight-return]

What if a manufacturing company actually INTEGRATED stuff in a tube stereo format? What if there was something out there that took the processing power of say, an eclipse, and INTEGRATED it into a stereo tube format? In one unit.

 

Oh, probably pretty much the same thing that's happening in this thread.

 

you'd have some guys find maybe they like the processing section, but not the power amp section, or would rather have an all analog signal path or that (gasp) are wanting to use the unit with other-than-guitar, but find the voicing of the pre specific to guitar, etc

 

and then they'd complaint that

everybody has what they want. 'Cept lil ol me.....

 

I feel sooooo alooooone......:cry:

 

It's kind of a reflection of what you are feeling - you're an engineer, you know the boogie - integration tends to freeze the parts of the architecture..

it trades some flexibility to reduce the overhead of dealing with more discrete type system components

 

so, you've decided for the user what combination and configuration of components they are going to be using (and we assume "wants")

If it's a production unit, then you are saying that for "everyone" in your intended market and ignoring those outside that

it's basically another " The industry has forgotten us rack heads..." / "everybody has what they want. 'Cept lil ol me.....:cry:"

-- ceptin you'll be on the inside of the 'everybody' (an inlier) so it won't seem as sucky

(meanwhile, I'll be pushed further into the cold )

 

some sneetches have stars on thars

 

 

funny how that works ain't it...compromises seem a lot more reasonable when you are getting what you want

 

People are strange, when you're a stranger

Faces look ugly, when you're alone

Women seem wicked, when you're unwanted

Streets are uneven when you're down"

-J Morrison

[Jakez]

This is why nobody cares about rack stuff anymore: and even in the cheap range there's the line 6 spider series and the Peavey vypyr. Why would anybody buy a whole new rack setup when they can get rack-lite from these 4+ channel amps? Rack stuff is super cool to me and I love it, but I would ditch it for a suitable 3 channel amp and effects pedals. At least for now, the head and cab guys are winning.

 

duuudee... who have learned you to speak that dirty?... do you know what your talking about?

[3shiftgtr]

some sneetches have stars on thars People are strange, when you're a stranger Faces look ugly, when you're alone Women seem wicked, when you're unwanted Streets are uneven when you're down" -J Morrison

Love your posts Mr. slight return.....

 

So what exactly does one do with their sneech? And what does one do with an idea that no one wants? Or more specifically, for the people who hate it, what exactly is it they DON"T want? Or are they just responding to the state of the market?

 

Test marketing? The countryside is littered with ARP Avatars.

 

Hackneyed topic post aside, no one wants a rack, yet there's a section called MONSTER RACK. No one wants stereo, yet 80% of the racks I've seen (pro and semi pro) are stereo. Oh, yeah..everyone has what they....oh never mind....

 

Outlier status vs. inlier status regarding product ideas belies the fact that we're talking about timing too. Do the opposite of what is popular, and you've got the next big thing. 70's-stacks, 80's-racks, 90's-vintage combos, 2k's-low wattage and on an on. Did the ARP Avatar sink cuz of the timing, or cuz it sounded crappy? Or because people THOUGHT it sounded crappy? Or all of the above?

 

also....I was being facetious about the masters in e.e....I'm the Rudy Rueteger of the soldering iron...

[WRGKMC]

I use dual amps recording and dual preamps for recording direct also. Notice I say Dual, not stereo. Unless you wire your guitar with separate channels for each pickup like Rickenbacker did with many of their guitars, all you're doing is pushing some form of biamped setup, not true stereo. To be true stereo you need two sources. You can place different effects in line to create a "stereo-like" effect, echos, reverbs, chorus etc to get a wider fields between amps or even completely different sounds on each (and I do) but its not stereo, its dual mono. Once recorded though, some effects can cancel each other out. Many choruses simply use an inverted signal for a plus and negative going wave and in a mono mix they cancel each other out. You can also have phase issues with echo rates being different on either channel. Having it sound good in mono is key because radio transmissions will switch to mono when a signal is weak. If you have these issues the guitar would vanish from the recording mix, so the kind of biamped effects must be in phase.

 

Since I do record with a Fender and Marshall usually I can dial up either sound after recording to get a blend, sometimes one on either side, sometimes just to get a wider field on one side. Sometimes I may pick one or the other if there are alot of instruments in the mix. None of this is true stereo though, in fact all of these can be recreated in the box with plugins. The only true stereo is two instruments playing complimentary or parts in unison. The human element is needed to make those suttle differences plain old parts doubbleing doesnt create. Playing live I dont waste my time hauling all the racks and extra amps though. Any effects needed are done with the sound man through the PA. Too much on stage wash is unnessasary if you have a good PA, monitors and sound man.

[slight-return]

Love your posts Mr. slight return.....

 

thanks - here to help!

 

also....I was being facetious about the masters in e.e....

 

I think that was a problem with this thread from the get go

it started with a facetious , extreme tone right in the thread title

and that tone has carried through the entire thread creating this environment where we are talking in these superlative absolutes

"Us rack heads" (as monolithic )

"everybody has what they want"

"I guess I'm the only one"

'everyone knows the advantages of rack are....' (specific things tht aren't actually in the rackmount spec)

 

they get used, and then when someone responds in kind, their words are repeated with an implied sense of ridiculousness.

 

the facetiousness pushes one view and attempts to discredit other views and show them as ridiculous -- and nothing really gets done beyond alienation.

 

 

Hackneyed topic post aside, no one wants a rack, yet there's a section called MONSTER RACK.

 

Funny thing about that, ever read what the intent of Monsterrack was?

 

but again, I think the statement is more just more fallout fromt the facetiousness thing

 

No one wants stereo, yet 80% of the racks I've seen (pro and semi pro) are stereo.

 

Hell, prob 80% of the racks I've seen aren't even audio equipment. Anecdotal suffers from a lot of problems inccluding sample selection and confirmation bias.

 

Oh, yeah..everyone has what they....oh never mind....

 

first paragraph

 

And what does one do with an idea that no one wants?

 

It depends if this is part of the facetiousness.

If it's literally nobody - then bury it

if it's a single individual - then there is the custom route

If it's a niche, then market research and ROI calcs (including opportunity cost) need to be seriously tight.

 

 

Outlier status vs. inlier status regarding product ideas belies the fact that we're talking about timing too. Do the opposite of what is popular, and you've got the next big thing.

 

Or the next Bricklin

First mover does have its upsides, but it also has its risks/liabilities (esp if developing the tech isn't particularly super front-end heavy or if it isn't patentable) - you have to float it til the market catches up, user education, it's speculative as to if the market will adopt it, second movers can ride ya without the pioneering costs

 

Did the ARP Avatar sink cuz of the timing, or cuz it sounded crappy? Or because people THOUGHT it sounded crappy? Or all of the above?

 

I think it's a good example

 

Oh probably a mix of a number of things -- (complexity, cost both in dev terms and product price, performance problems)

and it does highlight a problem, not only market research - but poorly executed (incomplete, ill defined, possibly biased) market research

AND in a management structure that was developer-influence heavy (optimistic bias not only in product success, but too low an estimation of opportunity cost)

 

 

Or more specifically, for the people who hate it, what exactly is it they DON"T want?

 

What does one do for and with ? some very simple things that are very difficult for some people to do

 

-Decide if you are interested in asking or telling and be honest with yourself about which one you are doing.

If you are interested in asking, make sure you don't alienate folks

If you are interested in telling, make sure you don't alienate folks

 

-Thank people for their time and opinions (even if extreme, even if you don't agree -- you can weight them how you think you should weight them. CAVEAT : weight them how you think you should weight them, not how you want to weight them).

Take them to head (otherwise you aren't really asking) for what they are, preferences and opinions and honest opinions.

 

-consider them a market segment that will, at best, be late majority on the Roger's curve, be a hard sell, and potentially be unreachable customers and reflect that in the numbers

 

Or are they just responding to the state of the market?

 

hard to tell as we've got a pretty big source of distortion. What they are directly responding to (pretty much by definition, you ask and they answer) is the line of questioning (if we can call it a question) and it's got some HUGE problems in bias and tone

 

I mean if the purpose thread really, honestly and forsooth (eh, I just wanted to find an excuse to use that word) is

My sad, desperate, and yet optimistic *chuckle* hope for this thread was for folks to talk about what they need and want in their racks that isn't out there.

 

I think it's a trainwreck as far as that goal

[bigjd]

 

My sad, desperate, and yet optimistic *chuckle* hope for this thread was for folks to talk about what they need and want in their racks that isn't out there.

 

 

 

What I need in a rack is pretty well served by the stuff thats out there.

I guess for me it comes down to personal taste and budget.

I really like my MP-1,but in the end I needed more from it than it can deliver.

I don't like preamp/effects combinations,I like seperate units doing specific tasks and I like to be able to control them all as I like.

 

This has been a great thread by the way.Both you guys have points and are intelligent about making them.

Good read.

[drewl]

Another thing, with the multi-FX units available today you can get away with one unit as oppsed to a "monster rack" filled with different effects since they're all in one unit nowadays.

 

I've used a "rack" for the past twenty years, a multi fx unit (GSP1101, ValveFX before that) tuner and power supply into at least two amps.

If I'm lazy and only bring one amp the band thinks I'm not feeling well.

[petejt]

 

The only true stereo is two instruments playing complimentary or parts in unison. The human element is needed to make those suttle differences plain old parts doubbleing doesnt create.

 

 

That is exactly why a lot of rock/metal bands have two guitarists that both perform the rhythm guitar parts onstage.

[3shiftgtr]

 

I mean if the purpose thread really, honestly and forsooth (eh, I just wanted to find an excuse to use that word) is My sad, desperate, and yet optimistic *chuckle* hope for this thread was for folks to talk about what they need and want in their racks that isn't out there. I think it's a trainwreck as far as that goal

 

 

Yep...got that. Learn then learn. The decide before part...got it.

 

That's why my initial reaction to the early "everybody has what they want" posts was "huh"?

 

And what does one do with an idea that no one wants?

 

It depends if this is part of the facetiousness.

If it's literally nobody - then bury it

if it's a single individual - then there is the custom route

If it's a niche, then market research and ROI calcs (including opportunity cost) need to be seriously tight.

 

Not facetious at all there. Boils down to belief in the product on the manufacturing side. Ideas have no opportunity cost and new Coke was a response to market research. Bottom line with any entrepreneur (and I am one), is if THEY believe in it, it is a go.

 

I think that was a problem with this thread from the get go

it started with a facetious , extreme tone right in the thread title

and that tone has carried through the entire thread creating this environment where we are talking in these superlative absolutes

"Us rack heads" (as monolithic )

"everybody has what they want"

"I guess I'm the only one"

'everyone knows the advantages of rack are....' (specific things tht aren't actually in the rackmount spec)

 

The whole idea was "This sucks, dunnit? Let's do something about it." I know...presented poorly. And as an idea in a web forum, a bit errant. The concept, when altered and asked differently, would get a different web discussion. But different responses? Hmmm....Dunno....

 

There has been an underlying narrative tho': new ideas 'in the field' and how the industry applies them. The industry keeps an eye on these places. The industry always has its nose up to see if they smell something. Heck, this place is owned by a RETAILER.

 

So, here's the 'what is and what should never be' question: Can places like this create stir? Can users here, however ineloquent (me), cause heads to turn?

[slight-return]

- "And what does one do with an idea that no one wants?"

 

- "It depends if this is part of the facetiousness."

 

-Not facetious at all there.

 

Ok, so "an idea that no one wants" is not facetious

 

well then we don't have anything to solve at all..

 

Bottom line with any entrepreneur (and I am one), is if THEY believe in it, it is a go.

 

b/c there is no "they" to believe in it.

If "no one wants" isn't facetious then we don't have anyone believing in it.

 

 

The whole idea was "This sucks, dunnit? Let's do something about it." I know...presented poorly.

 

if that was the idea, then yeah - poorly presented (it happens. and it's not shocking -- you are very interested in getting the solution that'd fit you and this is the reason for the saying "a lawyer who represents himself has a fool for a client")

 

I mean it address the "ME" (this is what this user wants), and goes on to alienate other users and didn't really ask what other users think sucks in the industry -- ie it took the "US" out of "Let's [ed : let us] do something about it"

 

Notice even there the "?" again, it's a question ---it's, again telling.

 

And, unfortunately, it can function as "meet the new boss, same as..." -- as it complains about the industry not paying attention to "our" needs, but then goes on to TELL us what we want

 

 

The concept, when altered and asked differently, would get a different web discussion. But different responses? Hmmm....Dunno....

 

Well, if we have a different discussion, that would imply we have different responses. If we only have a different statement,but the same responses, then we really don't have a different discussion, just a different opening statement

 

if you are looking for a way to structure it so you get responses supporting your position -- well, that's a confirmation bias design problem and makes for really poor market research.

That goes back to the tellin' not askin' thing.

 

 

 

The industry keeps an eye on these places.

 

that's where crafting the discussion (better presentation) can be really helpful

you are an entrepreneur* -- if you can't present and get the idea across and do so in a clear, attractive manner that engages the audience (instead of alienates them) then it's time to rework the presentation

 

*I assume it's the case, but maybe it's more like the MS in EE -- and that goes back to the tone of the presentation and the use of facetiousness,how it can derail the whole show. It frames the conversation in disingenuousness and ridicule so when you then try to make a point, the listener is already habituated to thinking "oh, he means that as bull{censored}" or "the views are expressed in exaggeration". It puts up the listener's gloves FOR them - it creates skeptical bias that you then have to overcome to get to "yes"

 

So, here's the 'what is and what should never be' question: Can places like this create stir? Can users here, however ineloquent (me), cause heads to turn?

 

Probably not if it's ineloquent - I mean if you can't get the idea across and alienate others it could even damage the position.

 

 

 

I'd suggest taking some time to honestly decide if you want to tell what you want or if you are genuinely asking something

 

 

If you are asking,use this ?

BUT

If you are telling, use this !

 

 

When used to make a statement...this ? is just a this ! that's crooked and distorted

 

 

CAVEAT : IF you feel you are not a great presenter, do not throw the rhetorical question. It's a bit of a trick shot, - it requires a lot of touch and its appropriate use is limited. Yes, people think it's all slick and crafty - and as a result it gets overused and used really poorly. It's sort of the masse' (I mean even in function) of presentation

[drewl]

I'm happy with my rack unit.

It enables me to play a wide variety of material requiring alot of different sounds.

The only things I'd want out my 1101 are better pitch shifting, and a piano/keyboard emulator.

but for $350 for unit and controller I'm quite satisfied.

[twinkletoes]

problem is rack products require:

more money

more intelligence

more skill

more effort

more patience

 

it's just easier and cheaper for manufacturers and players to stick with their simple rigs, but you have my vote for more stereo/midi tube gear