Jump to content

geek_usa

Members
  • Posts

    5,994
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Converted

  • Location
    Maine

geek_usa's Achievements

Newbie

Newbie (1/14)

0

Reputation

  1. I have a few really nice vintage pedals that I love to use but I hardly get to because they are tone-suckers. I prefer using my tone dry without the effects because it gives me a better "main" sound but I'd like to start incorporating the effects into my signal chain. What I want to do is have the cable go from my guitar, and split up where I have one dry signal and one wet, but both going to my amp. I've thought about how to do this and I'm unsure exactly. So it would be Guitar > (path 1 : FX board) > amp ..........> (path 2: dry, amp) Is this achievable or am I dreaming?
  2. No, it's a monophonic synthesizer for your guitar. Try to recall the trippy solo on Cherub Rock for an example. Gotcha.
  3. I remember taking a look at it a year or so ago. It wasn't something that really piqued my interest. It's basically a glorified EQ, right? With like a fuzz built in? I was thinking of a Fender Blender, but I know there's lots of handmade pedals out there too that really make some interesting noises.
  4. I've been out of the "loop", so to speak with guitar pedals for so long. I really enjoy a simple set up but I also love to experiment. I'm looking for some noise boxes but not stuff that just disintegrates when you look at it wrong. Something that is creative and really allows you to get some unique sounds. Help?
  5. Is there a huge difference between the ones WITH the LED vs. the ones without it? Does the LED interfere with bypass or tone or whatnot? Thank you.
  6. I'm looking at getting one of these two because I like how clean the pres are. The deal is, I could get the FirePOD for around $100 less than the FireSTUDIO. I don't really see much of a difference other than JETPll and that other abbreviated feature. Is the Firepod good for recording semi-professionally? I'm working on a new CD. Thanks!
  7. I used to think there was absolutely no difference between the two. I've owned about four of these different wahs in my lifetime of playing guitar. I finally have two side by side, one chicago and one sepulveda. I bought the sepulveda because my "old" chicago broke. Then I bought the "new" chicago because it was modded true bypass and had an adapter jack built in. When I first got my Sepulveda I was floored. Then I got my Chicago version and I was floored as well - but in a different way. For 2-3 weeks now off and on I've been trying to decide which one is better so I can get rid of one of them. I can't decide which one I like better. I will say however that I have pinpointed the characteristics of each of them so here's a few of the differences. The Chicago is a more unique sounding wah and it has a very watery type of sound. For some reason I'm sometimes reminded of a phaser when I play with it. The sweep is limited but the "sweet spot" is easier to find and if you just rock a tiny bit within that sweet spot you can get a pretty nice watery wah tone. I find this one to be more of a creative wah pedal in that it doesn't sound like hardly anything else (except for Voodoo Chili) and you can get some original tones out of it. My initial impression with this Chicago wah is that it sounds a bit less pro than the Sepulveda but the originality more than makes up for it. The Sepulveda has a much broader sweep and sounds a little dryer than the Chicago. The range is amazing though and goes from almost completely void of tone to a sharp, piercing cry. I find this to be more of a "standardized" wah, something you'd hear on a recording or so. My initial impression with this one is that it sounds professional in comparison to the Chicago. So anyways, I know that there's a lot of flack between the two and I just wanted to share my findings.
  8. This mic rocks! I've used almost everything from Shure including their Beta series, I've used Electro-Voice, Audio-Technica, and Peavey. This mic smokes them all! Of course the sticker is a lot higher than most mics, so the value vs. price isn't all that great, but the sound is pristine, clear, and attenuated. I can cut through a hard rock/metal band very easily with this mic, when I couldn't with an SM58. It's a very quality mic and if you can find it at a lower price, go for it. I don't regret the $60 I spent for mine. There's a reason why bands like Pearl Jam and Smashing Pumpkins have used the Audix OM series in the past. It's professional and very low feedback. Great for on stage use and practices.
  9. Among those mics was this Audio Spectrum microphone which I picked up for around $10 at a local shop. I bought it to mic my acoustic guitar when I was playing small solo gigs year or so back. Since then I've used it inside the hole of a kick drum while recording. For that purpose it works excellent. For other purposes however it really doesn't measure up. On vocals the sound is muddy and very bassy; yet when I turn the highs up it feeds back before I can hear the difference. On acoustic the sound is dark and undefined, in fact I'd say this mic performs the best within the 40-400hz range. It goes beyond that obviously but anything within that range is what this mic is best at. Got a bass cab and don't want to damage a more expensive microphone? Give this one a shot. Don't want to lay down the lettuce for a Shure PG-52? Though not as elegant, this thing will do the trick for now. For $15-$20 it's not a bad one-trick mic. I just wouldn't recommend it for live use with vocals or other instruments. It fails horribly there. :-)
  10. Probably the greatest tuner I've used, ever. The display is ridiculously large and bright; you will definitely not have to squint or bend over to see what is going on. The design is sleek and smooth; the lights are in a circular pattern which shows you how far or how close you are to the desired pitch and also lets you switch to chromatic mode for hz tuning. Very classy. I plugged in my Telecaster and I was up and going in less than 30 seconds. The speed and accuracy is bar none. Even the built-in tuner on my acoustic doesn't match this. Flawless. I looked into the Fender and Boss and Korg tuners. The Fender was the most affordable but the least dependable from what I've heard; the Boss holds its value so ridiculously well that you still pay $70 for it used; and the Korg, though legendary for accuracy and speed, was even more expensive than the Boss most times. So I came across this on accident and only payed half of what one usually would for a tuner of this caliber. I recommend it highly. One scoffs at any tuner that isn't a Korg or Sabine or Boss - but honestly, this one blows all of them out of the water. Simple, sleek, accurate, and cute. TEN.
  11. Already had one Sold it because it didn't have what I wanted.
  12. Trying to find a decent delay pedal with Reverse but has a mix knob so only the effected signal comes through. I know Kim Thayill from Soundgarden (Holy Water solo) has used some of this effect as well as Billy Corgan of Smashing Pumpkins (Soma solo). I'd like just the reverse delay on a solo, not the signal THEN the reverse. any other way to do that? recommendations would be grand. thanks!
×
×
  • Create New...