SteinbergerHack

This one....but I did keep it.

Nice playing, and a good sound. Personally, I think it has a bit more bite and less thickness to the tone than I would want to hear for this song, but that's based on comparison to the original, which isn't really a fair metric.

Have you scoped the signal before the output transformer? What about the V+ rail - is it stable when playing?

Solid wood vs. laminate, which changes resonance. Quality and type of wood - plain basswood vs. mahogany vs. maple, rosewood, rosewood, ebony, etc. Quality of components (pots, caps, pickups, bridge saddles, etc.) Fingerboard material Assembly details - fit and finish, binding, inlays, etc. Sound quality (subjective, but there IS a difference). Setup details - neck stress, fret accuracy, bridge placement, etc. Resale value, bragging rights, ego.

First was a very cheap Sears/KMart strat-style that my uncle gave me when he went to college. It came with a solid state amp with a 5" speaker and maybe a half-watt of solid state power. Not long after starting to play it, I realized it wasn't going to get me anywhere so I got an original Epiphone Casino from a friend. I wish I had never sold that guitar.......oh, well. I also got this amp, new. It took me about 6 weeks at full gain to burn it up, IIRC, at which point I started the upgrade cycle.

Nobody?

I've played through tons of amps over the past 25 years - Fenders, Marshalls, G-Ks, rack rigs, etc., and this one is the best single amp I've found yet. I'm keeping my Marshall and my MP-1 rack stack, but the Bogner will be my main gigging rig. Again, you might find a particular amp that's better at a given application, but this is a great-sounding amp that is extremely versatile. Of course, everyone has different tastes, so you may not like it as much as I do. As it stands, the single biggest detractor is that it is SO versatile. Keeping up with where everything is set can be a bit tough to get used to - it certainly isn't like using an old non-master Marshall with 5 knobs and an input jack! The only thing that could be a nice addition would be a MIDI control input. That said, there are several aftermarket units available that have more programmability than you would be likely to get in a factory option, so...... Bottom line: If you're looking for a serious workhorse multi-channel, multi-style all-tube amp, you should really find one of these to try.

A new Torpedo Live showed up at my door just before Christmas. Nice piece of equipment, looks sharp, seems easy and intuitive to get started. Naturally, I dropped everything, unboxed it and connected the output of my Bogner XTC for a quick test.First impression:This thing has a lot of nice little tweaks that you can use to adjust speaker model, mic type and location, along with a modest EQ. You can also add a tube power amp emulator if you're using the line in, and you can add a touch of reverb or slap (room emulation).I selected the standard Marshall 1960 4x12 with a SM57 - that's about as "go-to" a selection as I can imagine. I plugged in my ATH-M50x headphones for a first pass test - again, a widely used "basic" test platform that should sound relatively accurate and representative of most real-world situations (i.e., not an A-list recording studio). I disabled the power amp model since the Bogner is in-line, and also turned off the room ambiance/reverb/slap, since I have those in my FX rack already. EQ set to flat, I plugged in a guitar and started to play.....So, how does it sound? Way better than any cabinet emulator I've used in the past. Unfortunately, the straight-outtta-the-box patches still have a bit of that annoying upper-frequency grit that just sounds like a FuzzFace plugged straight into a recording console....but just a bit. It's almost usable without any real tweaking, but not quite.Next Steps:The Torpedo Live has two basic modes for building patches - "Arcade" and "Simulation". It appears that all of the stock patches delivered with the unit are built in "Arcade" mode, which is the simplest and easiest to work with. There are only a few parameters you can select - cabinet model, power amp model, room type (delay/reverb FX) and some very limited tweaks.In order to work with the EQ, disable the time delay FX and get into serious tweaking, you will need to work in the "Simulation" mode. Still working with the same baseline patch, I started playing around with the patch edit interface and found it to be a bit confusing at first, but once I worked with it a bit, I found it to be fairly easy to navigate. Personally, I would have found it easier if the twist-knobs incorporated the more common "push to select" function, but the workaround that the Two Notes guys came up with is usable.Having figured out the interface, I set about trying to get the output to sound less "direct" and more like the sound of a real cabinet.....and it was pretty easy to do. A few dB cut on the highest EQ band, move the mic back a bit from the cabinet and a touch off-center, and it started to sound really, really good. Actual use:Once I had a good baseline, I bolted the Torpedo Live into my rack, and took it to a real live gig to see how it functions in the real world.On the job:The job was a "direct-only" musical theater show, with a 21-piece pit orchestra. No cabinets for any of the electronic instruments, so I had to rely 100% on the sound from the Torpedo Live. Listening through my headphones, I was able to dial in levels and sounds fairly easily. Overall, the sounds I was able to get from this setup were easily as good as I could have gotten from my normal rig at pit levels (i.e., very, very low volume), and the direct connection eliminates problems with mic bleed.Here's the rub: It sounds good, but it is definitely not a real cabinet. I found that when playing through the Torpedo Live my relative levels between patches and channels were off. After some playing around, I think that it comes down to two things: Compression and dynamic frequency response. The modelling Two Notes has developed is very, very good, but it seems that there are still a few areas where it isn't perfect yet - and those areas are audible enough to require some attention.The Good:The Torpedo Live can sound very, very good with some tweaking, and indeed was a lot easier to set up in a live situation than a mic'd cabinet. Once I get a bit more comfortable with it, I may keep it in my go-to live rack just to have an easier solution and one less mic stand to trip over - and less signal bleed. On balance, it is by far the best sounding of any cabinet emulator I have played through, by a fairly wide margin. [To be fair, I have not played through the Palmer PDIs.]The control and connection locations are generally well thought-out, and clearly designed by someone who has used rack-mount guitar systems in tight, poorly lit performance situations. One nice touch is the red surround on the speaker input jack (not shown in Two Notes' product photos).The Torpedo also has tube amp emulation and time-delay FX (room ambience) which I have not yet tested to any degree of depth.The Bad:The factory patches don't give a good representation of what the Torpedo Live is capable of delivering, so it takes some directed tweaking to get to a sound you'll be happy with. Also, the lack of a XLR line out is unfortunate. Given that it is designed for live performance use, this seems to me to be a significant oversight. Most live performance situations give the guitarist a standard mic input to feed, so this unit requires you to carry a balanced 1/4 to XLR converter. This is easy enough to source and keep around, but it is just one more thing to carry. Neither of these is worth passing on the Torpedo Live, though, if you want to use your real tube amp in a setting where you need to provide a direct input or play at headphone volume levels.The Ugly:The price. This thing is not inexpensive, and ranks among the most expensive of any loadboxes and cabinet emulators available today. That said, it's not that much more than you would pay for a small combo cabinet, and less than you would pay for many of the high-end cabinets that it models.Summary:This is a solid piece of equipment that delivers very good sound quality and is reasonably easy to use and drop into your rack. Even when you are using a cabinet as a monitor, it will let you select different cabinet models for the output signal, which could be very useful in a situation where you need to cover a lot of different styles with a single rig. I think that the Torpedo Live is going to stay in my rack - it's that good.

Yes, but is it a good as an Esteban?

My 814CE feels better to me than the Santa Cruz' that I've played, but others may disagree - and in any case, both will be very nice instruments. From my experience, I would say that the build method differences between Taylor and SC will have a bigger impact than the wood (particularly so if the 810 is the new V-Braced version). Play 'em both and the differences should be obvious.

Yes.

FWIW, as I have grown older, I have found that what music I play is far less critical than who I play with. Right now I am headed to a rehearsal for one of the most banal, formulaic works I have ever played. However, I will be playing with good friends - including one Grammy winning player and several Broadway veterans. The songlist isn't the reason I accepted the gig, and neither is the paycheck (though it does pay quite well).

Back to the OP - the Shubb S3V solved the problem. It's more than a bit finicky and really messes with the tuning, but it does in fact work.

It's been out for a couple of months now, so has anyone tried it in the real world yet? It looks like it really be a great solution for low-key gigging - and nicely lightweight. It seems that over the past few years my trusty Bogner XTC just keeps getting heavier and heavier....must be some sort of relativistic physics going on, there....

I've seen 'em from a distance, but never tried one out. I just ordered the Shubb S3V designed for thicker necks, so I'll see if it works and report back. The Ovation Elite 12 actually plays quite well, and the majority of the use it will get will either be standing with a strap or affixed to a Gracie stand, so the bowl-back doesn't create much of a problem for me. That said, I really would prefer one of the super-shallow bowls, but finding a 12-string in that form is, well, challenging.

As always, that would depend on one's definition of "good". For a beginner, the most important thing is getting something that is easy to play and comfortable to hold. That is what will allow them to play more often and longer, which in turn makes their experience more likely to be successful.

I came very close to buying a Taylor 752, and a K66 12-string was tugging, as well. However, I ended up getting a package deal on a Taylor 814ce and the Ovation - it was sort of a "do you want fries with that" add-on that fills the gap in my toolbox. I have a lot of experience getting a good sound out an Ovation pickup system, but there's no way to get there with a 150, as near as I can tell. So.....here I am.

No worries - interestng stuff!

I saw that on line and that may be my "last choice" is nothing else will work. Thanks!

The issues is that the Ovation neck is a LOT thicker than most 12-string necks, so the Shubbs I've tried won't open wide enough to clamp on, even with the stop fully turned out.

Hmm...I guess I hadn't thought about that approach. I haven't seen one of those in decades, much less used one.

I just got a new 12-string that has a VERY thick neck - "baseball bat" style. I grabbed my trusty Shubb to play a few of my stock tunes, and discovered that it will not clamp onto the neck. The neck is so thick that the clamp bar won't go around it, much less clamp on properly. I've looked at a few other capos in local shops and haven't found anything that would work - nothing. They all seem to be designed around a more standard neck thickness - even the 12-string specific capos all seem to expect a thinner neck. Has anyone else run into this? If so, what would you suggest? Not using a capo is not an option - and it might actually be a deal-breaker for the guitar (which is not cool to find out after I've already bought it and kept it for the better part of a week.) Help!

Absolutely true. Today, some bedroom hacker can buy $500 worth of gear, cut 300 takes of his one and only song, then blast it out to the world. That would have cost an immense amount back in the 70s or 80s, and simply wasn't possible prior, due to the very limited availability of equipment and tape. Personal anecdote - when I was playing full-time and decided that I wanted to do some studio work, I took a simple.direct approach. I chose the local studio where I wanted to work, called them up and booked an hour to record a personal demo. About 15 minutes into the session, the engineer "took a 5 minute break", and went to get the studio owner to come listen. That hour of purchased studio time (and tape) ended up getting me a LOT of work over the next couple of years, because it showed the studio owner one simple thing - I cut every track in one take. You can't make that point with a basement recording on the internet...and maybe it doesn't really matter anymore anyway......

Well, we get that great sound with only two ears. Yeah, back then, they had to put their effort into the basics - performance, mic placement, gain structure, etc. In order to have access to the best talent and equipment, you had to have proven your abilities.

There is - the blue ball (or star) to the left of the thread title takes you to the first unread post.