| Who loops? [12] |
|---|
From: Jeff Sherman <jsherman@lorainccc...>
Subject: Who loops?
Date: Tue, 08 Jan 2002 01:24:26 GMT
Ed does live. Thaxter does but only in his basement. Dorgan's got a
boomerang but its too noisy for him on stage. I have a Boss RC20
now. Who else loops? Yeah? How? What? Where? When?
Any tips? Thoughts? Pros? Cons?Talk loops to me somebody. I got the fever bad.
Jeff
From: Bruce <ducktalk@pacbell...>
Subject: Re: Who loops?
Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2002 05:12:54 GMT
Organization: Prodigy Internet http://www.prodigy.com
Keller Williams does. Big time. I saw him a year and a half ago in San
Diego. He comes out with a big Guild 12 string and a rack of gear. Starts
shredding Kottke style for a couple of songs. All of a sudden he stomps on
a foot pedal, plays a 8 bar riff, stomps again and starts jamming with
himself like the Grateful Dead. Later on in a different song, he starts a
loop, leans over an electric bass conveniently set up nearby and nails a
funky bass line - and this gets layered into the loop. THEN he steps up to
the microphone and jams on a hot "beat box" style vocal procussion riff and
THAT gets layered into the loop! Finally he starts playing a wicked lead
guitar over the whole thing. The crowd went wild! On other tunes he jams
with himself on "vocal" horns. I have no idea what gear he was using. You
can learn more at http://www.kellerwilliams.net/
See him if you get the chance.
Cheers,
Bruce
Jeff Sherman wrote:> Ed does live. Thaxter does but only in his basement. Dorgan's got a
> boomerang but its too noisy for him on stage. I have a Boss RC20
> now. Who else loops? Yeah? How? What? Where? When?
> Any tips? Thoughts? Pros? Cons?
>
> Talk loops to me somebody. I got the fever bad.>
> Jeff
From: Jonathan R. Larsson <sti4667@blackfoot...>
Subject: Re: Who loops?
Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2002 19:54:44 -0700
Organization: http://extra.newsguy.com
Jeff,
I've got a JamMan w/32 sec. upgrade and Digitech PMC-10 MIDI controller.
All discontinued, but JamDudes are out there from time to time, and I think
Tom Loredo was recommending a different MIDI controller. Using the
programmable controller can put all of the JamGuy's feature's at your
toe-tips, so to speak.
That said, I don't play out with the JamFella, nor do I play acoustic
through it much (yet). I've got a Carvin kit guitar (Strat clone
w/humbucker in the bridge, splitter switch, and "blow" switch - turns the HB
on in any 5-way-switch setting) that I play through the JamHombre and my
Line6 Flextone+ w/ext. cab. Mostly, I'm just having a whale of a time
amusing myself, but I like to think I'm improving my improvising skills as
well as my timing, which - put politely - SUCKS DIRT! But it's getting
better. I think.
Pros? Instant "backup band" and no pesky drummer speeding things up all the
time. Infinite layering makes it fun to try some pseudo-double-stops or
even triple-stops. It really sharpens your ear trying to play in synch with
something you've already put down. And, for the more talented among us, it
really opens up some neat possibilities for live performance (hence the
reason I'm not playing out with mine). Noise level isn't too bad (afaik -
Hey! - I'm playing an electric - noise is a virtue! 8^> ) I run mine
through my effects loop, so I can lay down a loop, change amp settings on
the Flextone (at least with some of the emulations) and use a different
amp/switch setting to play lead (meaning "noodle") over it. It's also
stereo.
Cons? Without some modification (and somebody else would have to address
this) there's no way to have multiple independent loops, starting one for,
say, the verse and a different one for the chorus. I find it a little
tricky to get the input level, and wet/dry mix just right (seems to change
depending on switch settings on the guitar and/or amp settings). And, of
course, only 32 seconds of looping. Sounds like a lot, and it is, except
for when it isn't.
Final qualifier - I am a rank sub-apprentice hack and have not exploited the
real potential of the equipment that I am very blessed to have. But I DO
know how to have fun!
Jon Larsson
P.S. - The "where" and "when" - The chapel in the Christian School where I
teach (among other things), usually on my lunch break or after school.
Also, sometimes late at night when I can REALLY crank it up!
"Jeff Sherman" <<jsherman@lorainccc...>> wrote in message
news:<3c3a48e1.3227680@news...>...
> Ed does live. Thaxter does but only in his basement. Dorgan's got a
> boomerang but its too noisy for him on stage. I have a Boss RC20
> now. Who else loops? Yeah? How? What? Where? When?
> Any tips? Thoughts? Pros? Cons?
>
> Talk loops to me somebody. I got the fever bad.
>
> Jeff
From: Jeff Sherman <jsherman@lorainccc...>
Subject: Re: Who loops?
Date: Tue, 08 Jan 2002 03:39:23 GMT
On Mon, 7 Jan 2002 19:54:44 -0700, "Jonathan R. Larsson"
<<sti4667@blackfoot...>> wrote:
Thanks for ther response, Jonathon. You wrote:
>Cons? Without some modification (and somebody else would have to address
>this) there's no way to have multiple independent loops, starting one for,
>say, the verse and a different one for the chorus.
Yeah, I wondered about that too. Some songs have a structure that
lends itself to the process. Like a typical song with 2 verses before
the chorus for example: I start the loop on the downbeat of the 2nd
verse, let it run through the end of the chorus and then start the
first repeat on the downbeat of what would have been the 3rd verse. I
use that for an instrumental, followed by a chorus and then the final
verse and chorus. Sheesh. Sorry. Does that make sense?
One advantage there is that doing the first verse straight (no
recording) gives you a chance to settle down rhythmically. True?
Other songs, especially those with bridges or slight variations
between verses are tougher it seems. I just do those like I always
have.
>I find it a little
>tricky to get the input level, and wet/dry mix just right (seems to change
>depending on switch settings on the guitar and/or amp settings).
Yeah, that would figure. With acoustic I only have the one setting,
basically so I guess that's easier. I did get a volume pedal recently
just so I could control the looper's volume independently. Haven't
even practiced with that yet.
> Sounds like a lot, and it is, except for when it isn't.
LOL. The RC20's got 5 and a half minutes so that's no problem here I
guess. I could pre-record stuff and can it in the machine too but
that's seems even more like cheating. I figure you gotta do it all
live on the fly or you might as well play with tapes, ya know?
I dunno, Jonathon. I wonder how many people think the whole concept
is cheesy. I mean, I don't care but I wonder.
Ya know?
Jeff
From: Jonathan R. Larsson <sti4667@blackfoot...>
Subject: Re: Who loops?
Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2002 22:27:35 -0700
Organization: http://extra.newsguy.com
"Jeff Sherman" <<jsherman@lorainccc...>> wrote in message
news:<3c3a654f.1875700@news...>...
> On Mon, 7 Jan 2002 19:54:44 -0700, "Jonathan R. Larsson"
> <<sti4667@blackfoot...>> wrote:
> Yeah, I wondered about that too. Some songs have a structure that
> lends itself to the process. Like a typical song with 2 verses before
> the chorus for example: I start the loop on the downbeat of the 2nd
> verse, let it run through the end of the chorus and then start the
> first repeat on the downbeat of what would have been the 3rd verse. I
> use that for an instrumental, followed by a chorus and then the final
> verse and chorus. Sheesh. Sorry. Does that make sense?
We're s'posed to make sense here? (ha)
Uh, yeah, I think so. 1st verse "live", looper started at beginning of
second verse, loop kicks in after 1st chorus, continues to end of song.
Actually, I like that a lot, if you've got the time (and 5 min. + is a
HECKUVA lotta time!). I could see where a verse and a chorus would be
longer than 32 seconds, so I would probably have to have a different
approach. This would let you repeat the chorus sans looper at the end, yes?
>
> One advantage there is that doing the first verse straight (no
> recording) gives you a chance to settle down rhythmically. True?
Absolutely (I say vicariously, not being one for playing in public without a
lot of other people to cover my tracks)! I would think you could use that
first verse to decide if you want to have a go at the looper for that
particular song.
>
> Other songs, especially those with bridges or slight variations
> between verses are tougher it seems. I just do those like I always
> have.
You could also do the looper just for the verses (build a loop
instrumentally as an intro, "pause" it if your device has such a feature,
and kick it in/out as desired) and run the choruses "live" - or vice versa.
>
> >I find it a little
> >tricky to get the input level, and wet/dry mix just right (seems to
change
> >depending on switch settings on the guitar and/or amp settings).
>
> Yeah, that would figure. With acoustic I only have the one setting,
> basically so I guess that's easier. I did get a volume pedal recently
> just so I could control the looper's volume independently. Haven't
> even practiced with that yet.
Good idea - you going through an EFX loop (would that be a "loop the
loop"?)?
>
> > Sounds like a lot, and it is, except for when it isn't.
>
> LOL. The RC20's got 5 and a half minutes so that's no problem here I
> guess. I could pre-record stuff and can it in the machine too but
> that's seems even more like cheating. I figure you gotta do it all
> live on the fly or you might as well play with tapes, ya know?
Yes, I agree. I'm assuming you've witnessed someone well-versed in the art
of looping live (ala Phil Keaggy) and have some exposure to what CAN be done
with practice and sufficient familiarity with the equipment. IMO, the
looper becomes a part of the instrument, maybe a second instrument, or - at
the very least - an almost integral accessory. BTW, if you haven't seen
Phil (and I don't know anybody else doing this live like he does - probably
out there, but I'm not aware), please take the first chance you have to see
him, just for the incredible use of the looper(s) (I believe he supplements
his JamAmigo with a Line6 Delay Modeler, but Tom L. would know for sure).
>
> I dunno, Jonathon. I wonder how many people think the whole concept
> is cheesy. I mean, I don't care but I wonder.
Oh yeah - almost forgot - biggest CON to the looping thing is doing it
badly. It could easily be detrimental to your whole presentation. From
what I've heard concerning your playing and musical ability, I'm sure you
would be sensitive to that. My take is that it's supposed to enhance your
performance, not BE your performance. If the audience is aware of what
you're doing because it stands out on its own - BIG CHEESE. If they are
aware because you're explaining how it works, but they still don't see how
you can possibly be making all that very good sound on your own -
intriguing. And I suppose it would depend on your audience. A bunch of
guitar-playing gearheads who know what loopers are (but don't have one or
aren't as good with them as YOU are) would probably like to know what you're
doing. The musically-appreciative but otherwise equipment-ignorant would
mostly not care, probably. Don't really know. I keep re-reading this
trying to make it make sense. Summary - technique and taste would be the
difference between "Wow!" and "Huh?".
>
> Ya know?
>
> Jeff
Jon
From: Guillaume le Mechant <sirwill1@netaxs...>
Subject: Re: Who loops?
Date: 8 Jan 2002 14:37:19 GMT
Organization: Philadelphia's Complete Internet Provider
I've been getting extreme GAS over the Electrix Repeater after watching
Tom Greisgraber play Chapman Stick using it. I find myself hearing loop
ideas and I'm playing them in my head. I'm going to have to bite the
bullet at some point but this also means getting into a rack case that I
don't yet have which will, of course, drive further GAS -- it is downright
scary. The good part is that my wife is totally supportive and is
actually encouraging me to buy it. I'm holding back because I don't want
to invest $600 in a piece of electronics that is going to end up
collecting dust except for one or two decent ideas.
I really wish I could rent one of the damn things for a month!!
Bill
Jeff Sherman (<jsherman@lorainccc...>) wrote:
: Ed does live. Thaxter does but only in his basement. Dorgan's got a
: boomerang but its too noisy for him on stage. I have a Boss RC20
: now. Who else loops? Yeah? How? What? Where? When?
: Any tips? Thoughts? Pros? Cons?
:
: Talk loops to me somebody. I got the fever bad.
:
: Jeff
:
:
:
:
--
From: Guillaume le Mechant <sirwill1@netaxs...>
Subject: Re: Who loops?
Date: 8 Jan 2002 20:31:14 GMT
Organization: Philadelphia's Complete Internet Provider
www.electrixpro.com -- you can even download the entire instruction manual
as a pdf.
It is going to give you serious GAS!
Jonathan R. Larsson (<sti4667@SPAMTH...>!blackfoot.net) wrote:
: Jeff,
:
: Though $600 is a lot of moola (not so bad if there is a full-function foot
: controller included somehow), and I'm not looking to replace the JamHombre
: any time soon, I'm very interested in looping technology and I'd like to
: know what this thing is we're talking about. Where did you find info on
: this device? Is "Electrix Repeater" the full "given" name? Thanks!
:
: Jon
:
: "Jeff Sherman" <<jsherman@lorainccc...>> wrote in message
: news:<3C3B0492.DEC38CA5@lorainccc...>...
: > Guillaume le Mechant wrote:
: > >
: > > I've been getting extreme GAS over the Electrix Repeater after watching
: > > Tom Greisgraber play Chapman Stick using it.
: >
: > Looks like that thing'll give you the multiple, independent loops on the
: > fly that Jonathon talks about above. It better for that kind of dough.
: > Mucho dinero, mi compadre.
: >
: > Jefe
:
:
--
From: Earl <buffaloearl@my-deja...>
Subject: Re: Who loops?
Date: 8 Jan 2002 07:00:52 -0800
Organization: http://groups.google.com/
I loop....
with a Boomerang, the upgraded deal. and, so far, have only done it
in church. But, have been working up the courage to finally get out
into coffehouses and such. I've gotten really used to the timing
aspect - of course, you are pretty well screwed if you have a drummer
- they have a hard time staying with your time (expecially if they
can't hear you well - the boomerang does have a 'loop out' that you
can run to a monitor so the drummer can hear loops reallly loud)..
I also added a condenser mic to my Taylor 314CE so I could run
percussive loops (and when I'm feeling really loopy I sing into the
guitar ala Keaggy)...
if you don't have a looper, you should. best practice (technique and
composing) tool on the planet - and gives you alot of options for
live playing...too much fun..
practice and pray,
Earl
From: Jonathan R. Larsson <sti4667@blackfoot...>
Subject: Re: Who loops?
Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2002 19:27:49 -0700
Organization: http://extra.newsguy.com
"John S." <<johnsonline@yahoo...>> wrote in message
news:<3f47b9ee.0201081312.cdafb12@posting...>...
> Jeff, Jon, et al.
>
> I've been ~really~ thinking about the loop-thang to spur some creative
> juices. Mind if I play "20 Questions?"
>
Okay - animal.
> Jon, I've heard that the JamMan requires some proficiency with MIDI to
> make it useful. True? I've seen Keaggy use both the JM and Line 6
> DL-4. I'm not sure why he'd choose one or the other for a particular
> setting.
>
This is the only question you've got here that I can answer. The JamMan
originally shipped with 8 second of ram. Not enough for serious looping.
Great for echo/reverb and short loops and storing the odd backward phrase.
Upgrading it to 32 seconds is a necessity, and the chips aren't common. I
don't remember if it came with one footswitch or two, but for real-time
usage (again, ala Keaggy), MIDI is a MUST! The benefits are that switching
is faster and more reliable, and you can use a programmable MIDI pedal to
have all the functions of the JamBoy just a foot-tap away without having to
turn the knobs on the unit. Drawbacks might be having one more thing to
plug in (my PMC-10 has a wall-wart) and remembering what all the buttons do
(it can get pretty complex, though I think Tom Loredo has worked out an
efficient setup - my programming technique is pretty unimaginative). A guy
named Bob Sellon, who worked with the Lexicon folks while they were
producing the JamGent, has done some playing with a replacement ROM for the
unit that gives it extra capabilities. I can't speak for the details, but
you can find info on this (I think) at http://www.loopersdelight.com There
is all sorts of stuff there about all sorts of loopers, past and present.
Way cool!
Do you mean that you have seen Keaggy perform with ONLY the DL-4? I saw him
in Coeur D'Alene, Idaho, recently and I think he was using BOTH! (my jaw is
still on the floor)
> Is anyone familiar enough with the RC and JM that they can compare
> them here? Are they comparable in audio quality? Ease of use?
> Features?
I don't know the answer here, but the loopersdelight page might have the
answers. They have info on both, anyway.
>
> I was just reading about the Line 6 Echo Pro with its 60-second
> looper. I wonder how it compares. Seems too expensive ($500)for just
> the loop feature. And then there's the Gibson Echoplex at $800. sigh
> I did see the DL-4 on sale at "the Evil Empire" for $220 last night
> ... right next to the RC20 as it were.
I don't see any info on the Echo Pro at the loopersdelight page. Perhaps
they will sometime. I hadn't heard of this one. 60 seconds could be nice,
but $500 is a lot of money. What kind of controls does it come with? I
think I've got about that invested in my JamBubba and MIDI pedal. I've seen
the 32 second JamGuy advertised for more than that. Don't know what they're
bringing now.
>
> Thanks,
> John
Likewise.
Jon
From: Dick Thaxter <richard.thaxter@mail...>
Subject: Re: Who loops?
Date: Wed, 09 Jan 2002 04:08:00 GMT
Jeff Sherman wrote:
>
> Ed does live. Thaxter does but only in his basement. Dorgan's got a
> boomerang but its too noisy for him on stage. I have a Boss RC20
> now. Who else loops? Yeah? How? What? Where? When?
> Any tips? Thoughts? Pros? Cons?
>
> Talk loops to me somebody. I got the fever bad.
>
> Jeff
Jeff,
I've used both the RC 20 and the Delay Modeler in "live" situations. I'm
better at it at home--the performance nerves can make you step on the
wrong button sometimes, etc.
I don't think it's "cheating" at all. And it's definitely more than
just for practice. I'm with you on the prerecorded stored loops,
though--that would be yecch! But maybe with drums, etc. for practice I
might use prerecorded loops. But when you record it live and then play
it back--I don't feel any guilt about that.
Part of what I like about it is using different guitar sounds played
together. I just worked out a Beatles tune last night and it sounds
great on "two" guitars. If you play Nowhere Man in E through the end of
the bridge and then play it back--now play that great chord solo with
capo 2 in D and add a bit of chorus, it sounds wonderful together. I've
got at least a dozen tunes I'm practicing a lot with the RC 20. Some
ones that work well:
Chuck Berry's Memphis -- lay down the V, I riff (B7 E7) and then play
the Johnny Rivers sliding chord thingy
Joan Baez's Diamonds and Rust -- play a verse up the neck starting with
an Em at 7 then play open chords and bass runs over it.
Lady Madonna -- I play crunchy bar chords for the whole thing through
and then add a bass line (on the guitar) and then add fast fingerpicking
open chord part.
Under my Thumb -- I play a little double stop solo over the great chord
changes, recording both and letting them loop.
Richard Thompson's Cookesferry Queen -- power chord riff and then rhythm
chords and finally solo.
Johnny Too Bad -- I start with a funky bass riff that earned me the
"groovemeister" epithet from Mr. Loredo at EC II. Add reggae rhythm
stuff and complementing bass line. I do find this one tough to sing at
the same time though.
Here's one for the "Most played songs thread" but one day my son came
home from school and started playing Brown-Eyed Girl. Everyone plays
that one so I joined in. I ended up figuring out an open D version capo
5 and still in G of the signature double stop riff. Sounds great
layered over chords.
Plus most any blues or country song where you want to do a solo--but
these songs above I add a little more than just the rhythm/solo thing.
BTW, mostly I'm talking about electrics here, using two amps. I've
worked out less acoustic numbers with the looper--I don't play acoustic
amplified very often. Sometime I'd like to use the looper for voice and
sing a harmony part, but I haven't tried it yet.
So in March the two of us can play as a six man band?
Dick
From: Dick Thaxter <richard.thaxter@mail...>
Subject: Re: Who loops?
Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2002 00:44:10 GMT
Jeff Sherman wrote:
>
> Thanks for the long post and the tips and stuff, Dick. I appreciate
> it. I always liked having one guitar capoed when I'd play with another
> person. They really separate nicely and yeah, that's a nice function
> for the loop.
>
> Need a little help here:
>
> You mentioned a pedal you use with two outputs and that you use a
> separate amp. I don't have a separate amp sooooooo . . . .
>
> I put a y-cord in the output of a digitech echoplus I use for a little
> delay; ran one of the y's through the looper to a volume pedal to the
> amp, and the other directly to the amp. (My little Crate has two inputs
> with separate volume pots, but not two channels.)
>
> I want to be able to ease off a loop through a volume pedal while I'm
> still playing dry.
>
> Makes sense so far?
>
> OK, I think something happened with the impedance of the echoplus'
> output when I put that y-cord in there --- the looper doesn't sound as
> nice. (Ed mentioned elsewhere about a y-cord halving the impedance.)
>
> OK, sooooooo . . . would a pedal like say a stereo chorus give me two
> outputs I could split?
Yep, also stereo volume pedals--Ernie Ball makes a good one. I've got
three different pedals that can split output: an Danelectro Coolcat
Chorus (a bit of tone-sucker but not bad chorus for the $$), a Boss RV-3
reverb-delay pedal and the Line 6 Delay Modeler.
>
> Should I split the signal right after it leaves the guitar instead of
> after the first device?
>
Do you solo with an overdrive pedal at all? Like a TS-9 or such? I
usually have that first in the chain, so even when I play with one amp
and the RC20, I can use the overdrive to boost volume and overdrive.
Maybe that's all you need--it's easier just to stomp on the pedal than
to manipulate a volume pedal I guess.
> How about an A,B,A/B box?
That would work too, but you could get a Coolcat for the same price
(almost).
>
> Stereo jack in the guitar?
Do you have stereo output from the guitar? or are you talking about a
mono cable that splits in two?
Dick
>
> Thanks for any tips anybody.
>
> Jeff
>
> Dick Thaxter wrote:
> >
> > Jeff Sherman wrote:
> > >
> > > Ed does live. Thaxter does but only in his basement. Dorgan's got a
> > > boomerang but its too noisy for him on stage. I have a Boss RC20
> > > now. Who else loops? Yeah? How? What? Where? When?
> > > Any tips? Thoughts? Pros? Cons?
> > >
> > > Talk loops to me somebody. I got the fever bad.
> > >
> > > Jeff
> >
> > Jeff,
> >
> > I've used both the RC 20 and the Delay Modeler in "live" situations. I'm
> > better at it at home--the performance nerves can make you step on the
> > wrong button sometimes, etc.
> >
> > I don't think it's "cheating" at all. And it's definitely more than
> > just for practice. I'm with you on the prerecorded stored loops,
> > though--that would be yecch! But maybe with drums, etc. for practice I
> > might use prerecorded loops. But when you record it live and then play
> > it back--I don't feel any guilt about that.
> >
> > Part of what I like about it is using different guitar sounds played
> > together. I just worked out a Beatles tune last night and it sounds
> > great on "two" guitars. If you play Nowhere Man in E through the end of
> > the bridge and then play it back--now play that great chord solo with
> > capo 2 in D and add a bit of chorus, it sounds wonderful together. I've
> > got at least a dozen tunes I'm practicing a lot with the RC 20. Some
> > ones that work well:
> >
> > Chuck Berry's Memphis -- lay down the V, I riff (B7 E7) and then play
> > the Johnny Rivers sliding chord thingy
> >
> > Joan Baez's Diamonds and Rust -- play a verse up the neck starting with
> > an Em at 7 then play open chords and bass runs over it.
> >
> > Lady Madonna -- I play crunchy bar chords for the whole thing through
> > and then add a bass line (on the guitar) and then add fast fingerpicking
> > open chord part.
> >
> > Under my Thumb -- I play a little double stop solo over the great chord
> > changes, recording both and letting them loop.
> >
> > Richard Thompson's Cookesferry Queen -- power chord riff and then rhythm
> > chords and finally solo.
> >
> > Johnny Too Bad -- I start with a funky bass riff that earned me the
> > "groovemeister" epithet from Mr. Loredo at EC II. Add reggae rhythm
> > stuff and complementing bass line. I do find this one tough to sing at
> > the same time though.
> >
> > Here's one for the "Most played songs thread" but one day my son came
> > home from school and started playing Brown-Eyed Girl. Everyone plays
> > that one so I joined in. I ended up figuring out an open D version capo
> > 5 and still in G of the signature double stop riff. Sounds great
> > layered over chords.
> >
> > Plus most any blues or country song where you want to do a solo--but
> > these songs above I add a little more than just the rhythm/solo thing.
> > BTW, mostly I'm talking about electrics here, using two amps. I've
> > worked out less acoustic numbers with the looper--I don't play acoustic
> > amplified very often. Sometime I'd like to use the looper for voice and
> > sing a harmony part, but I haven't tried it yet.
> >
> > So in March the two of us can play as a six man band?
> >
> > Dick
From: Jeff Sherman <jsherman@lorainccc...>
Subject: Re: Who loops?
Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2002 15:13:51 GMT
On Thu, 10 Jan 2002 00:44:10 GMT, Dick Thaxter
<<richard.thaxter@mail...>> wrote:
>Yep, also stereo volume pedals--Ernie Ball makes a good one.
Well, I just got one for the loop but its at the end of the wet chain.
Don't want two up there. You're talkng about one early in the signal
chain, right? Before the split, before the loop?
>Do you solo with an overdrive pedal at all? Like a TS-9 or such?
No. The chorus seems like the way to go. Wouldn't mind one anyway on
a few songs here and there.
But this stereo chorus out business ---- not sure I get it? Is it
regardless of whether the chorus is off or on? When its on, aren't
the L & R's getting two different . . . er, sounds?
Thanks for your help, Dick.
Jeff
| Zoom 504 II Acoustic, DOD Acoustec, or Boss AD-3 ??? [6] |
|---|
From: John Bankston <jbanksto@midsouth...>
Subject: Zoom 504 II Acoustic, DOD Acoustec, or Boss AD-3 ???
Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2002 07:53:04 GMT
Organization: RoadRunner - Midsouth
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
------=_NextPart_000_002D_01C19D67.FDDE9660
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I'm shopping for a multi-effects pedal for my acoustic guitar. I have a =
Guild F65CE acoustic-electric w/ a Fishman Blender preamp. I want to =
experiment with applying "subtle" effects to my acoustic sound for =
variety's sake. I realize a better sound can be achieved with individual =
effects pedals but I'm still interested in a multi-effects pedal. I'd =
appreciate feedback to the following questions:
1) I'm aware of the Zoom 504II Acoustic, DOD Acoustec, and the Boss AD-3 =
as being multi-effects pedals for acoustic guitars. Are there any other =
multi-effects pedals for acoustic guitars that I need to be aware of?
2) Has anyone compared at least 2 of the 3 above mentioned pedals to =
each other? If so, can you comment on which one you preferred and why?
3) What were some of your favorite presets if you own any of the above =
mentioned pedals? I realize your tastes may vary from mine but I'm =
curious to see if there is a common preset that most people like from a =
certain pedal. What is the preset for if you list any (i.e. chorus, =
reverb, etc.)?
--=20
John Bankston
www.johnbankston.com
------=_NextPart_000_002D_01C19D67.FDDE9660
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="iso-8859-1"Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Diso-8859-1">
<META content=3D"MSHTML 5.50.4616.200" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff background=3D"">
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>I'm shopping for a multi-effects pedal =
for my=20
acoustic guitar. I have a Guild F65CE acoustic-electric w/ a Fishman =
Blender=20
preamp. I want to experiment with applying "subtle" effects to my =
acoustic sound=20
for variety's sake. I realize a better sound can be achieved with =
individual=20
effects pedals but I'm still interested in a multi-effects pedal. =
I'd=20
appreciate feedback to the following questions:<BR><BR>1) I'm aware of =
the Zoom=20
504II Acoustic, DOD Acoustec, and the Boss AD-3 as being multi-effects =
pedals=20
for acoustic guitars. Are there any other multi-effects pedals for =
acoustic=20
guitars that I need to be aware of?<BR><BR>2) Has anyone compared at =
least 2 of=20
the 3 above mentioned pedals to each other? If so, can you comment on =
which one=20
you preferred and why?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>3) What were some of your favorite =
presets if you=20
own any of the above mentioned pedals? I realize your tastes may vary =
from mine=20
but I'm curious to see if there is a common preset that most people like =
from a=20
certain pedal. What is the preset for if you list any (i.e. chorus, =
reverb,=20
etc.)?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2><BR><BR><BR>-- <BR>John Bankston<BR><A=20
href=3D"http://www.johnbankston.com">www.johnbankston.com</A></FONT></DIV=
>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV></BODY></HTML>
------=_NextPart_000_002D_01C19D67.FDDE9660--
From: Rolavine <rolavine@aol...>
Subject: Re: Zoom 504 II Acoustic, DOD Acoustec, or Boss AD-3 ???
Date: 15 Jan 2002 08:37:38 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
>From: "John Bankston" <jbanksto@midsouth...>
>I'm shopping for a multi-effects pedal for my acoustic guitar. I have a =
>Guild F65CE acoustic-electric w/ a Fishman Blender preamp. I want to =
>experiment with applying "subtle" effects to my acoustic sound for =
>variety's sake. I realize a better sound can be achieved with individual =
>effects pedals but I'm still interested in a multi-effects pedal. I'd =
>appreciate feedback to the following questions:
>
>1) I'm aware of the Zoom 504II Acoustic, DOD Acoustec, and the Boss AD-3 =
>as being multi-effects pedals for acoustic guitars. Are there any other =
>multi-effects pedals for acoustic guitars that I need to be aware of?
>
>2) Has anyone compared at least 2 of the 3 above mentioned pedals to =
>each other? If so, can you comment on which one you preferred and why?
>
>3) What were some of your favorite presets if you own any of the above =
>mentioned pedals? I realize your tastes may vary from mine but I'm =
I tried all three of the above products and returned them all. The zoom is
unnatural, always and with all settings. The BOSS does nothing to take the
quack off a piezo, it sounded clean but you had to kill the treble to de quack
it. The DOD is the best of this lot, however, I found that many of it's
settings, even at the lowest intensity, were too heavy handed.
The Yamaha AG Stomp is a much better product than these 3, based on my brief
experience with it.
Rocky
From: MKarlo <mkarlo@aol...>
Subject: Re: Zoom 504 II Acoustic, DOD Acoustec, or Boss AD-3 ???
Date: 15 Jan 2002 13:45:24 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
I tried the Zoom and the Boss, and a friends DOD. I concur with Rocky. Then I
tried the Boss RV3 with 'verb and delay. OK but still not what I wanted. Then
I tried the TC Electronics chorus pedal. Great! But expensive and just
chorus.
So I gave in and went rack mount with the Lexicon MPX100. The effects are
great and I loaded it in a 2-space rack with a Raven Labs PMB-1 pre and a Boss
tuner, all plugged into an oddly shaped 8-plug power module that fits neatly
into the back corner of the box and I've got everything I could ever need.
I'll never go back to stomp boxes.
mk
>I tried all three of the above products and returned them all. The zoom is
>unnatural, always and with all settings. The BOSS does nothing to take the
>quack off a piezo, it sounded clean but you had to kill the treble to de
>quack
>it. The DOD is the best of this lot, however, I found that many of it's
>settings, even at the lowest intensity, were too heavy handed.
>
>The Yamaha AG Stomp is a much better product than these 3, based on my brief
>experience with it.
>
>Rocky
From: robohop <rjand@ix...>
Subject: Re: Zoom 504 II Acoustic, DOD Acoustec, or Boss AD-3 ???
Date: 15 Jan 2002 08:20:31 -0800
Organization: http://groups.google.com/
The Yamaha AG stomp box is featured in this months Fingerstyle
Magazine CD ... at the end of the songs, they do a series of demos.
Once I got over the annoyance of an audio commercial on my CD, I was
impressed with the sounds it was producing .... I'd check that one out
too, I heard the Zoom once and I thought it was crap, IMO.
best,
rob anderson
<rolavine@aol...> (Rolavine) wrote in message news:<<20020115033738.23541.00002196@mb-md...>>...
> >From: "John Bankston" <jbanksto@midsouth...>
>
> >I'm shopping for a multi-effects pedal for my acoustic guitar. I have a =
> >Guild F65CE acoustic-electric w/ a Fishman Blender preamp. I want to =
> >experiment with applying "subtle" effects to my acoustic sound for =
> >variety's sake. I realize a better sound can be achieved with individual =
> >effects pedals but I'm still interested in a multi-effects pedal. I'd =
> >appreciate feedback to the following questions:
> >
> >1) I'm aware of the Zoom 504II Acoustic, DOD Acoustec, and the Boss AD-3 =
> >as being multi-effects pedals for acoustic guitars. Are there any other =
> >multi-effects pedals for acoustic guitars that I need to be aware of?
> >
> >2) Has anyone compared at least 2 of the 3 above mentioned pedals to =
> >each other? If so, can you comment on which one you preferred and why?
> >
> >3) What were some of your favorite presets if you own any of the above =
> >mentioned pedals? I realize your tastes may vary from mine but I'm =
>
> I tried all three of the above products and returned them all. The zoom is
> unnatural, always and with all settings. The BOSS does nothing to take the
> quack off a piezo, it sounded clean but you had to kill the treble to de quack
> it. The DOD is the best of this lot, however, I found that many of it's
> settings, even at the lowest intensity, were too heavy handed.
>
> The Yamaha AG Stomp is a much better product than these 3, based on my brief
> experience with it.
>
> Rocky
From: gozy <gozy@hotmail...>
Subject: Re: Zoom 504 II Acoustic, DOD Acoustec, or Boss AD-3 ???
Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2002 20:40:14 GMT
Organization: Excite@Home - The Leader in Broadband http://home.com/faster
I've been using the Zoom and you're right, you get what you pay for.
Although I've been using it for a touch of hall reverb and chorus, I am
curious about the buzz surrounding the Yamaha "stomp" boxes and would love
to try one. The problem is I hate going to music stores because I never
come out with only the item I sought. I also hate going on Saturdays
because all the local grunge puppies have the Marshalls on 11.
GZ
From: David Kilpatrick <iconmags@btconnect...>
Subject: Re: Zoom 504 II Acoustic, DOD Acoustec, or Boss AD-3 ???
Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2002 22:46:51 +0000
in article Os018.56702$<K36.18116612@news1...>, gozy at
<gozy@hotmail...> wrote on 15/1/02 8:40 PM:
> I've been using the Zoom and you're right, you get what you pay for.
> Although I've been using it for a touch of hall reverb and chorus, I am
> curious about the buzz surrounding the Yamaha "stomp" boxes and would love
> to try one. The problem is I hate going to music stores because I never
> come out with only the item I sought. I also hate going on Saturdays
> because all the local grunge puppies have the Marshalls on 11.
>
I got an ebay Boss AD-5 for Christmas (my son knew I wanted one!) and this
is just about my ideal non-stomp box. The sound quality is extremely good
and the 2x2 chorus and stereo reverb (the only effects on it, apart from
4-band EQ and feedback notch control) are simply designed to do something
very specific to acoustic guitar. Even at full setting they are not 'silly'
and at low settings they are barely perceptible but make a huge different to
the space the instrument occupies. The very robust construction, twin XLR
balanced outputs, and high input gain on both the piezo and magnetic
channels suits me well.
I have yet to use this for a gig, or for recording, just been listening to
it so far. I know the AD-3 is not the same kind of device, but for me the
AD-5 replaces two Baggs PADIs, a stereo chorus of top quality, a stereo
reverb of top quality and a feedback eliminator, all in one box with
analogue controls I can sit beside me and adjust, with plug-in footswitches
to handle in/out for the (tasteful and hardly noticed) effects.
David
| Pedals & Noise [21] |
|---|
From: Jeff Sherman <jsherman@lorainccc...>
Subject: Pedals & Noise
Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2002 04:22:36 GMT
Can an effect pedal cause distortion or noise even when its off and
the signal's just passing through?
Jeff
From: Ed <edncori@directvinternet...>
Subject: Re: Pedals & Noise
Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2002 23:38:30 -0500
Organization: None here...
Jeff Sherman wrote:
> Can an effect pedal cause distortion or noise even when its off and
> the signal's just passing through?
>
> Jeff
Yes
Ed
From: T-bone <dorgan@fltg...>
Subject: Re: Pedals & Noise
Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2002 23:41:41 -0500
Organization: Huh?
Jeff Sherman wrote:
>
> Can an effect pedal cause distortion or noise even when its off and
> the signal's just passing through?
>
> Jeff
Yes.
"True bypass" is a myth in most cases when you're referring to an
acoustic guitar chain.
Pisses you off, doesn't it?
Bob
From: Jeff Sherman <jsherman@lorainccc...>
Subject: Re: Pedals & Noise
Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2002 05:00:06 GMT
On Tue, 15 Jan 2002 23:41:41 -0500, T-bone <<dorgan@fltg...>> wrote:
>Jeff Sherman wrote:
>>
>> Can an effect pedal cause distortion or noise even when its off and
>> the signal's just passing through?
>>
>> Jeff
>
>Yes.
>"True bypass" is a myth in most cases when you're referring to an
>acoustic guitar chain.
>Pisses you off, doesn't it?
Yeah. And I never liked pedals anyway. When I'd play electric my 25
yr old dynacomp and the digitech echo plus sat on my amp, not on the
floor; both on all the time pretty much but just a little bit.
Ok, so I've been trying to get this looping set-up going and I started
with this nice clean signal on xmas day. I was sorta getting the hang
of it too. Great expectations, ya dig?
Then I start to over analyze and buy this item to deal with that issue
and then I buy that item to deal with this issue. Then when I get the
issues resolved I realize the hook up's a mess and the pedals are
moving all over the goddamn floor when I touch 'em so I spend 4 days
researching, stealing ideas, designing, making, and tweaking a $#@#%
two-tiered, powered, pre-wired, compact, efficient, pro-looking,
self-contained, pedal board with a lid to transport all the crap
around. It turned out pretty cool if I do say so myself.
Everything's great now except of course the sound sucks. All the
little functional issues are fine but the most %$#^ important, basic
%$#@ fundamental %$# issue is out the $%^#@ window.
I hate pedals. Well, maybe I like 'em one at a time and I just love
the loop station but hook 'em together and I hate 'em all.
Sherman
From: Dick Thaxter <rtha@loc...>
Subject: Re: Pedals & Noise
Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2002 07:15:15 -0500
Organization: Library of Congress
Jeff Sherman wrote:
> On Tue, 15 Jan 2002 23:41:41 -0500, T-bone <<dorgan@fltg...>> wrote:
>
> >Jeff Sherman wrote:
> >>
> >> Can an effect pedal cause distortion or noise even when its off and
> >> the signal's just passing through?
> >>
> >> Jeff
> >
> >Yes.
> >"True bypass" is a myth in most cases when you're referring to an
> >acoustic guitar chain.
> >Pisses you off, doesn't it?
>
> Yeah. And I never liked pedals anyway. When I'd play electric my 25
> yr old dynacomp and the digitech echo plus sat on my amp, not on the
> floor; both on all the time pretty much but just a little bit.
>
> Ok, so I've been trying to get this looping set-up going and I started
> with this nice clean signal on xmas day. I was sorta getting the hang
> of it too. Great expectations, ya dig?
>
> Then I start to over analyze and buy this item to deal with that issue
> and then I buy that item to deal with this issue. Then when I get the
> issues resolved I realize the hook up's a mess and the pedals are
> moving all over the goddamn floor when I touch 'em so I spend 4 days
> researching, stealing ideas, designing, making, and tweaking a $#@#%
> two-tiered, powered, pre-wired, compact, efficient, pro-looking,
> self-contained, pedal board with a lid to transport all the crap
> around. It turned out pretty cool if I do say so myself.
>
> Everything's great now except of course the sound sucks. All the
> little functional issues are fine but the most %$#^ important, basic
> %$#@ fundamental %$# issue is out the $%^#@ window.
>
> I hate pedals. Well, maybe I like 'em one at a time and I just love
> the loop station but hook 'em together and I hate 'em all.
>
> Sherman
>
Sounds like you've discovered the dark side of pedals! I've retired
several pedals --mostly cheap ones like a Danelectro CoolCat, a TS-9
reissue, an expensive and true-bypass Budda Wah, a Nobels tremelo pedal
and don't put them in the chain much. I stick with an overdrive pedal--a
Barber Tone Pump, a Boss RV-3 for reverb/echo (my '66 champ doesn't have
reverb, otherwise I'd ditch this), and the loopstation. Occasionally I'll
add the Line 6 Delay modeler.
Seems like the pedal chain would always grow until the point where I would
plug directly into that great Fender blackface and all of a sudden I'd
realize how much tone had been sucked out of the signal. I'd say the
CoolCat and also a Danecho pedal were the worst offenders. And it's
especially noticeable if you like a clean electric sound.
I did a homemade custom pedal board too, but the requirements kept
changing. Now if I'm playing somewhere I toss one or two pedals in a box
and limit myself to those.
Dick Thaxter
From: No Busking <nobusking@erols...>
Subject: Re: Pedals & Noise
Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2002 08:14:35 -0500
Dick Thaxter wrote:
> Sounds like you've discovered the dark side of pedals! I've retired
> several pedals --mostly cheap ones like a Danelectro CoolCat, a TS-9
> reissue, an expensive and true-bypass Budda Wah, a Nobels tremelo pedal
> and don't put them in the chain much.
I tried to cut the pedals in my signal chain, but then people were able to
hear what I REALLY sound like.
Now I use an A/B switcher to give me one clean route to the amp, and one
route with all the pedals.
--
Michael Pugh
From: Ed <edncori@directvinternet...>
Subject: Re: Pedals & Noise
Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2002 09:38:32 -0500
Organization: None here...
Bob Dorgan wrote:
>
> The A/B router you mention: is it quiet and clean?
> Bob
For the most part, a/b boxes are a simple switch. There are no electronics to
load or distort the signal. As long as the switch is in a metal box, it
_should_ be clean. The two things that you might get are a) a pop when you
switch, and b) because of different loads on the channels, you might get a
difference in the sound. B can be remedied by carefully setting levels and such
but it is the same as if you unplug from amp 1 and plug into amp 2.
Ed
From: Bob Dorgan <dorgan@fltg...>
Subject: Re: Pedals & Noise
Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2002 09:58:15 -0500
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com
"Ed" <<edncori@directvinternet...>> wrote in message
news:<3C459068.80D527F0@directvinternet...>...
>
> Bob Dorgan wrote:
>
> >
> > The A/B router you mention: is it quiet and clean?
> > Bob
>
> For the most part, a/b boxes are a simple switch. There are no
electronics to
> load or distort the signal. As long as the switch is in a metal box, it
> _should_ be clean. The two things that you might get are a) a pop when
you
> switch, and b) because of different loads on the channels, you might get a
> difference in the sound. B can be remedied by carefully setting levels
and such
> but it is the same as if you unplug from amp 1 and plug into amp 2.
>
> Ed
>
Thanks Ed.
How 'bout volume pedals? Ever run into one quiet and clean enough for
acoustic work?
My experiences are less than a rousing success with the ones I've tried.
Bob Dorgan
From: Ed <edncori@directvinternet...>
Subject: Re: Pedals & Noise
Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2002 13:09:59 -0500
Organization: None here...
Bob Dorgan wrote:
> >
> Thanks Ed.
> How 'bout volume pedals? Ever run into one quiet and clean enough for
> acoustic work?
> My experiences are less than a rousing success with the ones I've tried.
> Bob Dorgan
All of your guitars have preamps, right? Any of the low impedance keyboard ones
should be fine. Other than that, I'd suggest Morley. They are active pedals,
not passive and work differently. They are consistently the cleanest quietest
vol. pedals around. Which ones have you tried?
Ed
From: Jeff Sherman <jsherman@lorainccc...>
Subject: Re: Pedals & Noise
Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2002 13:35:21 -0500
FWIW, Bob I got a really (and I mean REALLY) cheap VP by Rogue just to
see how it would work. Figured it'd be disposable or I'd pass in on to
my little nephew. It doesn't seem noisy at all. Hmmmm. Maybe I need
to check it out at higher volume. This was in the basement.
It's definitely a cheapo and wouldn't work for somebody looking do
violin/pedal steel effects or chord swells. For my looping needs its
fine.
I know your boomernag has a volume wheel but that's a big thing to carry
around just for that function. Great idea, though.
Now you got me thinking about VP noise. I better crank the set-up
sometime when the family's out to see. Hate to try it live somewhere
and find a problem then.
Jeff
Bob Dorgan wrote:
>
> "Ed" <<edncori@directvinternet...>> wrote in message
> news:<3C45C1F7.DEF7925F@directvinternet...>...
>
> > All of your guitars have preamps, right? Any of the low impedance
> keyboard ones
> > should be fine. Other than that, I'd suggest Morley. They are active
> pedals,
> > not passive and work differently. They are consistently the cleanest
> quietest
> > vol. pedals around. Which ones have you tried?
> >
> > Ed
>
> Yep got preamps in all of them.
> I hadn't thought about keyboard pedals, but that makes since.
> As far as which ones I've tried, I'm not sure. I went to GC about a year ago
> and went through 3-4 of them. One was pretty good as far as noise, but it
> didn't operate smoothly and the case was pretty flimsy.
> I'll give it another shot this weekend, and keep an eye out for a Morley.
> Thanks,
> Bob
From: Steve <sefstrat@aol...>
Subject: Re: Pedals & Noise
Date: 16 Jan 2002 15:04:57 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
>
>Bob Dorgan wrote:
>
>>
>> The A/B router you mention: is it quiet and clean?
>> Bob
>
>For the most part, a/b boxes are a simple switch. There are no electronics
>to
>load or distort the signal. As long as the switch is in a metal box, it
>_should_ be clean. The two things that you might get are a) a pop when you
>switch, and b) because of different loads on the channels, you might get a
>difference in the sound. B can be remedied by carefully setting levels and
>such
>but it is the same as if you unplug from amp 1 and plug into amp 2.
>
>Ed
I have several A/B boxes. The best of them, tonally (yes, there is a
difference) is the Whilrwind A/B/Y box.
SEFSTRAT
music webpage: http://members.aol.com/sefstrat/index.html/sefpage.html
From: Steve <sefstrat@aol...>
Subject: Re: Pedals & Noise
Date: 16 Jan 2002 15:04:09 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
>
>"No Busking" <<nobusking@erols...>> wrote
>> I tried to cut the pedals in my signal chain, but then people were able to
>> hear what I REALLY sound like.
>>
>> Now I use an A/B switcher to give me one clean route to the amp, and one
>> route with all the pedals.
>> --
>
>Mike,
>are you talking about your acoustic signal chain or your electric chain?
>I've never been fond of pedals for acoustic effects, but if you've found
>something that works well on the acoustic chain, I'd like to hear about it.
>The A/B router you mention: is it quiet and clean?
>Bob
My TC chorus pedal sounds awfully good...great high voltage power supply, so
when it's off, the signal's STILL better than without the pedal.
SEFSTRAT
music webpage: http://members.aol.com/sefstrat/index.html/sefpage.html
From: No Busking <nobusking@erols...>
Subject: Re: Pedals & Noise
Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2002 10:13:42 -0500
Bob wrote:
> are you talking about your acoustic signal chain or your electric chain?
> I've never been fond of pedals for acoustic effects, but if you've found
> something that works well on the acoustic chain, I'd like to hear about
it.
> The A/B router you mention: is it quiet and clean?
I'm talking about my electric rig (when y'all start talking about pedals, I
get all excited and forget we're on an acoustic group.)
On acoustic, I'm normally going through the board, and add effects from
there (if any...I don't use many effects on acoustic. Just a little reverb
and chorus if I'm feeling "dreamy").
I'm using the Whirlwind A/B/Y box...it's pretty clean, and reasonably quiet.
It can give me a bit of a POP when switching (as Ed described, that's
largely a function of the settings on the pedals), but since it's normally
in use with the band, it's not a big deal.
For Jeff's problem, the best bet is to buy an Ultrasound and use the effects
send/return. He's probably trying to plug in to that old steam-driven
electric guitar amp of his.
--
Michael Pugh
From: No Busking <nobusking@erols...>
Subject: Re: Pedals & Noise
Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2002 10:54:32 -0500
> I'm getting one soon. SOON!!!! But does the effects send/return offer
> a signal improvement?
It could, by removing loading from effects pedals. I tend to do effects for
my electric in-line, but prefer parallel effects on acoustic.
Does this solve your A/B/Y problem? Maybe, if you go from the send to the
looper to a volume pedal and back to the return. The signal received by
the looper will be impacted by the volume of your "clean" guitar,
though...not sure if that causes an issue in your setup.
--
Michael Pugh
"Jeff Sherman" <<jsherman@lorainccc...>> wrote in message
news:<3C459EFE.F949165D@lorainccc...>...
> No Busking wrote:
>
> > For Jeff's problem, the best bet is to buy an Ultrasound and use the >
effects send/return.
>
> I'm getting one soon. SOON!!!! But does the effects send/return offer
> a signal improvement?
>
> > He's probably trying to plug in to that old steam-driven
> > electric guitar amp of his.
>
> LOL. I'm dumb but I'm not that dumb. (Well, maybe I am but that's for
> another thread.) The little Crate CA30 I use for practice has effects
> send/return too.
>
> Hey, if you get a chance and you're curious about the set-up, look at
> the thread on building a better y cord for me, will ya?
>
> Sherman
From: Ed <edncori@directvinternet...>
Subject: Re: Pedals & Noise
Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2002 08:42:41 -0500
Organization: None here...
Dick Thaxter wrote:
Very much snippage...
>
> I did a homemade custom pedal board too, but the requirements kept
> changing. Now if I'm playing somewhere I toss one or two pedals in a box
> and limit myself to those.
>
> Dick Thaxter
Agreed with most of what Dick said. I typically do the above also... pick
out what I'm going to play and just take those. I have a whole stock of
pedals and boxes and such but usually only use a couple. One thing I've sort
of collected is a bunch of small amps... 15-30 watts. If I'm doing a full
electric thing, I'll take a bunch and set up separate strings of effects (I
rarely use more than 3 effects in a line.) Really, it is boiled down to a Big
Muff, Vol. Pedal, and an echo (digitech/dod/etc). If I want a chorus sound, I
usually use a rack Digitech delay before the echo. Sometimes what I'll do is
have a switch after that which switches between looper a and amp a, or looper
b and amp b. If I use synths, it complicates things and I usually use a
stereo mixer and amp (mini PA type setup.) With all the effects I use/have
used with electric guitar, I'm sort of settled on the no effects for
acoustic. Just the PAMM.
Ed (I sure hope I make it to EC, this could be an interesting discussion in
person)
From: Jeff Sherman <jsherman@lorainccc...>
Subject: Re: Pedals & Noise
Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2002 09:25:26 -0500
Well, its pretty bare bones. I mean, there's really nothing in there I
didn't buy for a reason. I just might have bought the wrong stuff for
the right reason. For example, I've never used or even really liked
chorusing, but I got one just to be able to take advantage of the stereo
out. Now I'm thinking I should have just bought a Morley ab/y for the
same $. That's ok, though. Chorus is ok for a song or two.
I'm ditching the dynacomp in the acoustic chain but leaving it on the
board because I'll want it for electric stuff. That's easy and seems to
help.
LOL. I'm just being a drama queen. The degradation isn't all that bad,
I guess. The digitech echoplus provides a really quiet and nice
slapback. It better for the $200 it cost 15 years ago. The volume
pedal is for the loop out only so I can ease out of a loop
unobtrusively. That's not hurting anything either. I think the old MXR
was the problem. Maybe that dod chorus.
Jeff
From: Jeff Sherman <jsherman@lorainccc...>
Subject: Re: Pedals & Noise
Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2002 10:07:48 -0500
> Jeff
>
> Alright...first IMNSFHO.....ditch the Dynacomp with the acoustic - if you like
> chorus - even if it isn't true bypass - might be worth the tradeoff of leaving
> it inline. i dunno. But lose the dynacomp on the acoustic - i think that would
> help.
OK, thanks. Yeah the dynacomp was a major villain. Figures. Its
ancient. Took care of that.
The chorus was just so I'd have a stereo out --- one signal to the
looper and a dry signal to the amp. I want a volume pedal on the loop
out so I can ease out of a loop unobtrusively. (Get a little song intro
going and then back it down gradually when I start singing so I can
clear the loop and get it ready for a verse/chorus cycle.)
Its a dod 'ice box.' Probably junk?
Thanks again. And Ed, and Bob, and Dick, and everybody.
Sherm
From: AMost2001 <amost2001@aol...>
Subject: Re: Pedals & Noise
Date: 16 Jan 2002 16:29:36 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
<< > Jeff
>
> Alright...first IMNSFHO.....ditch the Dynacomp with the acoustic - if you
like
> chorus - even if it isn't true bypass - might be worth the tradeoff of
leaving
> it inline. i dunno. But lose the dynacomp on the acoustic - i think that
would
> help.
OK, thanks. Yeah the dynacomp was a major villain. Figures. Its
ancient. Took care of that.
The chorus was just so I'd have a stereo out --- one signal to the
looper and a dry signal to the amp. I want a volume pedal on the loop
out so I can ease out of a loop unobtrusively. (Get a little song intro
going and then back it down gradually when I start singing so I can
clear the loop and get it ready for a verse/chorus cycle.)
Its a dod 'ice box.' Probably junk?
Thanks again. And Ed, and Bob, and Dick, and everybody.
Sherm
>>I used to drive myself nuts a/bing and still do - no matter what you do nothing
sounds as good as straight plugged in. it's a trade off.
From: Bill Chandler <drink@yourown...>
Subject: Re: Pedals & Noise
Date: 16 Jan 2002 19:45:52 GMT
Organization: Organization? Surely you jest...
On Wed, 16 Jan 2002 09:25:26 -0500, Jeff Sherman
<<jsherman@lorainccc...>> brewed up the following, and served it to the
group:
<snip>
>LOL. I'm just being a drama queen. The degradation isn't all that bad,
>I guess. The digitech echoplus provides a really quiet and nice
>slapback. It better for the $200 it cost 15 years ago. The volume
>pedal is for the loop out only so I can ease out of a loop
>unobtrusively. That's not hurting anything either. I think the old MXR
>was the problem. Maybe that dod chorus.
Jeff--I've never been a major effects guy, but I do have an old Boss
CE3 chorus pedal, an MXR Phase 90 (original...no light...), and a Boss
RV3 (I think?) digital delay/reverb. The chorus is one of the
noisiest things on the face of this earth. Always has been. If I
didn't like the sound so much on electric (and sometimes on bass!...),
I'da thrown the damned thing out years ago. And back when I got it
(around '83 or '84, I think), it was state of the art stomp-box stuff.
So you might be on to something in the chorus. Not too familiar with
the DOD stompboxes, but you might wanna look at it...
-----
"The truth knocks on the door, and you say, 'Go away, I'm
looking for the truth,' and so it goes away. Puzzling."
--Robert M. Pirsig, "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance"
the above e-mail address remains totally fictional.the real one is <bc9424@spamTH...>!.concentric.net (if you remove spamTHIS!.)
...please check out http://www.mp3.com/BillChandler some time...
...TX-2 Pictures at http://www.concentric.net/~Bc9424/index.html
Bill Chandler
...bc...
From: Steve <sefstrat@aol...>
Subject: Re: Pedals & Noise
Date: 16 Jan 2002 23:07:54 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
<<
Jeff--I've never been a major effects guy, but I do have an old Boss
CE3 chorus pedal, an MXR Phase 90 (original...no light...), and a Boss
RV3 (I think?) digital delay/reverb. The chorus is one of the
noisiest things on the face of this earth. Always has been.>>
And unless you get into the Carl Martin compressor pedal, the Boss CS-3 is one
of the QUIETER compressors in a pedal format!
Steve (who has tons of effects all over the damn place, see website...)
SEFSTRAT
music webpage: http://members.aol.com/sefstrat/index.html/sefpage.html
From: Tom Loredo <loredo@astro...>
Subject: Re: Pedals & Noise
Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2002 18:36:39 -0500
Organization: Cornell University
Hi folks-
> "True bypass" is a myth in most cases when you're referring to an
> acoustic guitar chain.
Just to clarify a bit: Technology is such that, believe it or not,
a fairly high tech (in the sense of not being feasible 50 years ago)
piece of active circuitry that switches your signal through or around
the effect circuitry with transistors is actually cheaper than a good
quality mechanical switch! It is also easy to do "clickless" switching
with such a circuit. So most effects pedals have a cheap mechanical
switch that controls some routing circuitry, rather than just having
a good mechanical switch that truly bypasses your signal around
all the effect circuitry. As a result, your signal is affected by
going thru the pedal even when the effect is off, to a greater or
lesser extent depending on how carefully the routing circuitry was
designed. And even if it was designed well, if your pedal is run
by a battery and the battery is low, your signal will get distorted
even in the "off" position, because the routing circuitry will be
underpowered.
Effects that do have a good quality switch that bypasses all
active circuitry (or a less robust switch controlling an internal
relay for the bypass) have what is called "true bypass." They
should in theory be sonicly transparent. In practice, even in
such cases there could be some degradation if the switch contacts
are dirty, or if passive circuitry is used to make the
switching "clickless." But practically speaking, if the pedal
has "true bypass," it should sound very transparent when it's off.
Peace,
Tom Loredo
| Boss Super Chorus - Distortion? [3] |
|---|
From: Steven Dillon <laswd@earthlink...>
Subject: Boss Super Chorus - Distortion?
Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2002 04:43:29 GMT
Organization: Cox Communications
All,
I know I probably shouldn't have, but I bought the Boss Super
Chorus instead of the TC Electronics that some folks here
recommended. The TCE SCF was just too expensive. I
had heard that the Boss may have some distortion issues,
at least I thought that was one of the complaints. Well, I brought
it home and tried it for a couple of weeks. I didn't notice any
distortion at all so I decided to keep it. Now it's almost a year
old, and I believe it's doing two things.
1) Limiting the throughput of the signal.
2) Causing extra distortion which until recently didn't exist.
I can handle limiting the signal since it has an output knob
(the EQ Level) and I'm below 12 o'clock.
Distortion on an acoustic is sickening to my ears though. It's
just down right nasty...
I tried it through two different amps with nearly identical results.
And, yes, I checked the battery. The Battery Check light is nice
and bright and just to be sure, I pulled the battery and checked
it to make sure it had lots of juice. Everything is fine battery
wise.
I've been running it through the effects loop - I wonder if that could
be causing any problems? Maybe it isn't tough enough to handle
input from the effects loop??
Anybody else experience similar problems with one of these?
Keep Picking,
Steven Dillon
--
http://www.stevendillon.com
http://mp3.com/stevendillon
From: Tom Loredo <loredo@astro...>
Subject: Re: Boss Super Chorus - Distortion?
Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2002 18:34:56 -0500
Organization: Cornell University
Hi Steve-
Steven Dillon wrote:
> Well, I brought
> it home and tried it for a couple of weeks. I didn't notice any
> distortion at all so I decided to keep it. Now it's almost a year
> old, and I believe it's doing two things.
>
> 1) Limiting the throughput of the signal.
> 2) Causing extra distortion which until recently didn't exist.
>
[snip]
> I tried it through two different amps with nearly identical results.
> And, yes, I checked the battery. The Battery Check light is nice
> and bright and just to be sure, I pulled the battery and checked
> it to make sure it had lots of juice. Everything is fine battery
> wise.
>
> I've been running it through the effects loop - I wonder if that could
> be causing any problems? Maybe it isn't tough enough to handle
> input from the effects loop??
I don't have one of these, so I can't compare experiences. You
mention the effects loop---does the distortion not appear when
you use it directly rather than in the loop? Or is your worry that
over time the effects loop has damaged it (i.e., it sounds
distorted now even used directly)? The latter is unlikely, though
not impossible.
If your effects loop lets you control the send level or the return
gain, reduce the send level and raise the return gain and see if
the problem goes away. If so, you were driving it too hot.
Also, how did you check the battery? A voltage meter is not a
good battery tester. As a battery fails, its internal impedance
rises. The early sign of this is reduced output voltage *under
a load*. A standard voltmeter is designed to present a negligible
load to whatever it is measuring (the idea is that you don't want
the measurement device "contaminating" what you are trying to
measure). It has a very high impedance. A battery tester, on the
other hand, is essentially a voltmeter with a low impedance, so
that when a battery is connected to it, significant current flows.
A battery that is failing can measure fine on a voltmeter, but
cause distortion in a circuit and measure poorly on a battery
tester. If you don't have a battery tester, the easiest secure
test of whether the battery is the culprit is to swap in a new
battery and see if the problem goes away.
That said, the battery check light should be measuring things
under load, so I'm doubtful about the battery being the problem.
It remains possible that, if you are driving the box hard, a
distortion problem could arise due to a weak battery before the
check light warns you. Again, a battery swap is the safest check.
Frankly I'm a bit mystified about this....
Peace,
Tom Loredo
From: Tom Loredo <loredo@astro...>
Subject: Re: Boss Super Chorus - Distortion?
Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2002 16:55:18 -0500
Organization: Cornell University
Steve-
With all the further details, it seems very likely to me that you
have a defective unit (perhaps as simple as a defective electrolytic
capacitor at the input or between stages). If possible, I would
return it under warranty and see if a replacement works.
It really is very unlikely that the effects loop signal could
have damaged the pedal. It would take a signal much higher in
level than is typical from an effects loop to damage the
circuitry. But if the effects loop itself has a problem....
Good luck, and let us know what works in the end.
Peace,
Tom
| Was: Boss Super Chorus - Distortion? |
|---|
From: Tom Loredo <loredo@astro...>
Subject: Re: Was: Boss Super Chorus - Distortion?
Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2002 15:13:05 -0500
Organization: Cornell University
Steven Dillon wrote:
>
> Anybody ever or currently own a Boss Super Chorus??
>
> If so, do/did you have any distortion problems???
>
> Am I the only one using one of these boxes? :-(
You're in good company, Steve! Phil Keaggy sometimes uses one
in his acoustic setup (an Olson with a Baggs dual source setup,
or a Langejans with an RMC). I haven't noticed significant
distortion when he kicks it in, but he doesn't use it very much.
Peace,
Tom Loredo
| Acoustic modeler designed for electric guitar amps? [3] |
|---|
From: Tom Guertin <Tom.Guertin@pwgsc...>
Subject: Acoustic modeler designed for electric guitar amps?
Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2002 17:00:55 -0500
Organization: PWGSC
I'm trying to consider all options as I venture down the road toward
equipping myself with the right gear for my particular needs. Having
previously posed questions about acoustic amps and the feasibility of
running electric guitars thru them (e.g Rivera Sedona), I now have a
question about acoustic guitars and electric guitar amps.
This question has probably been asked a thousand times, 'tho I wasn't
able to find a thread addressing it. Is there an acoustic guitar modeler
on the market designed to make an acoustic sound good (great) thru
electric guitar amps (depending on amp, of course)? If so, opinions in
general and a make/model recommendations.
Also, this question may be silly, but might there be a device on the
market designed to enable mic/vocals thru an electric guitar amp?
Just trying to educate myself. Please bear with me. I'm
amplifierly-challenged ;-).
Tom
From: foldedpath <mbarrs@REMOVE-NOSPAM...>
Subject: Re: Acoustic modeler designed for electric guitar amps?
Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2002 23:07:33 GMT
Organization: Giganews.Com - Premium News Outsourcing
"Tom Guertin" <<Tom.Guertin@pwgsc...>> wrote in message
news:<3C699097.612B89F1@pwgsc...>...
> This question has probably been asked a thousand times,
> 'tho I wasn't able to find a thread addressing it. Is there an
> acoustic guitar modeler on the market designed to make an
> acoustic sound good (great) thru electric guitar amps (depending
> on amp, of course)? If so, opinions in general and a make/model
> recommendations.
I don't think anybody makes such a thing. It's a fundamental problem with
frequency response. Imagine this as the ideal frequency band for natural,
realistic reproduction of acoustic guitar:
<Sub><Lows>< Lower-Mids><Mids><Upper Mids><Highs><Ultrahighs>
A small electric guitar amp like a Fender Champ gives you this:
<Mids>A larger electric guitar setup, like a big head on a double stack of 4x12
cabs gives you this:
<Lower-Mids><Mids><Upper Mids>See the problem, when you try to use an acoustic guitar through the electric
guitar amps? You can't shove a full-range signal through a narrowband pipe.
Our ears have been trained to like the sound of electric guitars through
narrowband speakers, and it's also no coincidence that it's much easier to
build equipment that can produce ear-blasting volume if you stick to the
midrange.
You can't get around this problem with digital modeling or EQ. I can boost
all the high end EQ I want, when sending acoustic guitar through a Fender
Champ. But it's just going to be cut off by the speaker. It acts like a
passive EQ with a shelving high band roll-off (or something like that, I
don't always get these descriptions right!).
Vocals have a little more in common with electric guitar tone than an
acoustic guitar does, so in a pinch you can shove vocals through a midrangy
speaker system. It's done all the time... just look at the cheap PA setups
in clubs. Some people's voices actually benefit from that. But if you want a
natural sound from an acoustic guitar, you have to be able to reproduce all
the harmonics that ring off the strings, and some of those get way up there.
Acoustics also benefit from a little more low end "oomph" than electric
guitars or vocals, especially if you work with dropped tunings.
I understand (I think) what you're trying to do here, but honestly, I think
you'll be better off going the other way. Get a full-range PA or acoustic
guitar amp, and then use a Pod or VG-88 to get an electric sound that will
work with that type of sound reinforcement. Or else just bite the bullet,
and schlep an electric amp to the gig along with everything else.
From: JD Blackwell <jdblack@blarg...>
Subject: Re: Acoustic modeler designed for electric guitar amps?
Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2002 23:44:46 GMT
Organization: Giganews.Com - Premium News Outsourcing
"Tom Guertin" <<Tom.Guertin@pwgsc...>> wrote in message
news:<3C699097.612B89F1@pwgsc...>...
> I'm trying to consider all options as I venture down the road toward
> equipping myself with the right gear for my particular needs. Having
> previously posed questions about acoustic amps and the feasibility of
> running electric guitars thru them (e.g Rivera Sedona), I now have a
> question about acoustic guitars and electric guitar amps.
>
> This question has probably been asked a thousand times, 'tho I wasn't
> able to find a thread addressing it. Is there an acoustic guitar modeler
> on the market designed to make an acoustic sound good (great) thru
> electric guitar amps (depending on amp, of course)? If so, opinions in
> general and a make/model recommendations.
>
> Also, this question may be silly, but might there be a device on the
> market designed to enable mic/vocals thru an electric guitar amp?
>
> Just trying to educate myself. Please bear with me. I'm
> amplifierly-challenged ;-).
>
> Tom
If you've ever plugged an acoustic into the wrong channel of a Rivera
Sedona, you've heard how bad it can sound. The electric side is (as most
electric amps are) designed to distort which is the antithesis of acoustic
amplification. No amount of digital modeling will get past the level of
built-in distortion so the only effective way to deal with it is to use a
very clean amp and model the electric input. I use a POD for my Strat and a
Rane AP13 preamp for my acoustic. I mix them through a Eurorack 602 mixer
(very small, less than $100.00) into a Carver 300PFM rack amp and a pair of
small PA speakers which gives an a clean sound for the acoustic and a nice
"crunch" for the Strat. There's even an XLR jack leftover so I can use the
rig with a mic for solo work. Admittedly, it's not a simple solution but
most of the gear was picked up used or on Ebay and it's worked very well. It
also takes up less space than two separate amps.
JD
| Help- recommend FX for accoustic/elec. live sound [3] |
|---|
From: news.bellatlantic.net <vze3nk78@verizon...>
Subject: Help- recommend FX for accoustic/elec. live sound
Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2002 06:04:07 GMT
I'm looking for recommendations for an effects pedal for acoustic guitar.
My wife plays in an "acoustic duo". She and another woman play
acoustic/electric guitar and sing and a midi processor provides drums and
bass. (It's become my job to research this because I'm the only gearhead in
the house.) She plays a Taylor 410CE straight into the PA and she's
dissatisfied with the sound quality. They use a very nice, expensive PA amp
and mixer but she'd like to add a little warmth to the mix as well as be
able to add reverb and other effects on the fly.
We were in a Guitar Center today and we demo'd the Yamaha AG Stomp. It's a
digital floor unit with reverb, delay, chorus, a tuner, and the coolest
thing - mic modeling (dynamic, tube,etc). It's a very nice unit with great
sounds and features (except for the tuner which doesn't seem to track very
well). It's a little expensive at $399 but we're considering it. I thought
I'd see what advice I could get from you fine people.
I did a little research on Harmony Central about the above unit as well as
the DOD AcousTEC, BOSS AD-5, and the BOSS AD-3. The BOSS units got pretty
decent reviews but not the DOD. Anyway, I'm rambling. Please let me know
if there any other units I should checkout. Thanks!
Aaron
aflexer AT hotmail.com
From: CyberSerf <nospam.cybrserf@sympatico...>
Subject: Re: Help- recommend FX for accoustic/elec. live sound
Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2002 08:07:48 -0500
Organization: Bell Sympatico
I use a programmable Korg AX-1G. It is very affordable (currently under
$100) and has thirty programmable channels. I have a bank of 10 set up for
acoustic (1 volume, 3 tones (one heavy on the highs, another on the mids and
the third on the bass), 2 reverbs (big hall, small room), a flanger, a
chorus, a combo of the two and a twelves string effect). This pedal is very
versatile...the large pedal can be progammed to moderate the amount of
effect (I usually just leave it as a volume pedal), the 2 smaller pedals are
used to cycle through the programs. There is a built in tuner accessible
through the by-pass. The pedal includes a host of effects including chorus,
flanger, reverb (several types), delay, compression, distortion, fuzz, wah,
voice, delay, loop, echo, pitch bending, phaser, vibrato, termolo, pan,
octave, overdrive, etc... Really quite neat...and the best thing is that,
since it is a bit dated, you can likely get a similar multi-effects pedal
that does much more, for half what I originally paid. Look around and play
with different ones...remember, if it is programmable, you are not limited
to the default values. When I bought mine, there were only a few programs
which could be used for acoustics...the rest were distortion effects for
electrics. However, a little time with the manual and the pedal can now
accomodate both electric and acoustic to my liking.
Anyway, just my 2 cents worth
Cheers, CS
--
---
The opinions, comments, and advice offered by me here are mine alone.
As such, they carry as much weight as a feather in a snow storm.
news.bellatlantic.net <<vze3nk78@verizon...>> wrote in message
news:rJHb8.320$<Lt.272@nwrddc04...>...
> I'm looking for recommendations for an effects pedal for acoustic guitar.
> My wife plays in an "acoustic duo". She and another woman play
> acoustic/electric guitar and sing and a midi processor provides drums and
> bass. (It's become my job to research this because I'm the only gearhead
in
> the house.) She plays a Taylor 410CE straight into the PA and she's
> dissatisfied with the sound quality. They use a very nice, expensive PA
amp
> and mixer but she'd like to add a little warmth to the mix as well as be
> able to add reverb and other effects on the fly.
>
> We were in a Guitar Center today and we demo'd the Yamaha AG Stomp. It's
a
> digital floor unit with reverb, delay, chorus, a tuner, and the coolest
> thing - mic modeling (dynamic, tube,etc). It's a very nice unit with
great
> sounds and features (except for the tuner which doesn't seem to track very
> well). It's a little expensive at $399 but we're considering it. I
thought
> I'd see what advice I could get from you fine people.
>
> I did a little research on Harmony Central about the above unit as well as
> the DOD AcousTEC, BOSS AD-5, and the BOSS AD-3. The BOSS units got pretty
> decent reviews but not the DOD. Anyway, I'm rambling. Please let me know
> if there any other units I should checkout. Thanks!
>
> Aaron
> aflexer AT hotmail.com
>
>
From: MKarlo <mkarlo@aol...>
Subject: Re: Help- recommend FX for accoustic/elec. live sound
Date: 18 Feb 2002 04:26:42 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
I hate stomps, so I x'd them out a long time before the Yamaha came along. I
use a rack mounted piece, the Lexicon MPX100, run into the FX loop on the board
and my acoustic preamp. It's clean, it's quiet, and I have the FX I want
programmed into the "User" channel so I can change on "the fly".
Mitch
| Processors: I Need a Boost [7] |
|---|
From: Jeff Sherman <jsherman@lorainccc...>
Subject: Processors: I Need a Boost
Date: Sun, 10 Mar 2002 19:51:40 GMT
I need a way to add a volume boost with a stomper. MXR makes a pedal
called a MicroAmp (M133) that does just this but I'm wondering about
all this cheap-assed, rock and roll gear in my signal chain. Are
effects made for magnetic, electric guitar pickups less than ideal
for amplified acoustics?
Anybody know of an acoustic-dedicated pre-amp/processor that has this
simple boost function along with delay and maybe some chorus? That's
all I need, really, and I could live without the chorus. This MXR
M133 stomper is gonna run $75 so by spending a little more well . . .
you get the gist.
Looks like that fancy new Yamaha pedal would do it all but that's
waaaaay out of my price range. Anything else come to mind? I could
have sworn that I've seen an acoustic pedal with a button labeled
boost but I've checked all the brands I can think of and haven't found
it again.
Thanks, anybody,
Jeff
From: Steve <sefstrat@aol...>
Subject: Re: Processors: I Need a Boost
Date: 11 Mar 2002 16:15:24 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
<< There's already so much stuff going on that I don't
want to do any fine tuning, just hit a button for a quick, predictable
increase and then back. >>
Try a DOD FX10 FET preamp pedal. Clean, adjustable boost. Twist the tone knob
until the bopost tone is the same as the unboosted tone.
I have one last in my pedalboard on electric gigs, and it's great. Cheap, too.
I've used it as a lead boost on acoustic gigs, too, in duos, etc.
SEFSTRAT
music webpage: http://members.aol.com/sefstrat/index.html/sefpage.html
From: Tom Loredo <loredo@astro...>
Subject: Re: Processors: I Need a Boost
Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2002 16:05:05 -0500
Organization: Cornell University
Steve wrote:
>
> << There's already so much stuff going on that I don't
> want to do any fine tuning, just hit a button for a quick, predictable
> increase and then back. >>
>
> Try a DOD FX10 FET preamp pedal. Clean, adjustable boost. Twist the tone knob
> until the bopost tone is the same as the unboosted tone.
This is a good suggestion. But DOD stopped making this pedal years
ago, and I only see them rarely for sale used (I shouldn't have gotten
rid of mine all those years ago). Steve, I know you've said recently
that they are still available, but they haven't been listed on DOD's
web site for a long time, and I cannot locate any at the usual
online sources. If you know of a source, please pass it on.
Peace,
Tom Loredo
From: Jeff Sherman <jsherman@lorainccc...>
Subject: Re: Processors: I Need a Boost
Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2002 14:21:41 GMT
On Mon, 11 Mar 2002 21:31:48 GMT, "George Gleason"
<<g.p.gleason@worldnet...>> wrote:
>Jeff I have been following a thread about ZZSounds haveing problems with
>customer service and follow through
>if every thing is in stock and handled properly you will never know but if
>there is one little screw up your in mail order hell
>George
Yeah. I've been luckily with my few mail orders, I guess.
Looks like Amercian Musical Supply has an extensive website too but it
seems really slow to load.
Hey, thanks again for that a/b channel switch suggestion for my volume
boost application, George. Very practical, simple, clean, functional
idea. And cheap. Never even occured to me.
LOL. I am soooooo cheap.
This maxes out the 8 channels on my little Behringer, though. I
remember you, Steve, Hank, Tom, Michael and others all agreeing on
going for more channels than you think you'll ever need. That's
been my experience but I think I got in just under the wire here in
this case.
Jeff
From: Steve <sefstrat@aol...>
Subject: Re: Processors: I Need a Boost
Date: 12 Mar 2002 15:07:55 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
>Hey Steve: A few weeks ago you recommended 2 on-line stores. One
>was zzounds (which seems pretty cool, btw) but do you remember the
>other one? I think it was in DC.
>
>Jeff
Washington Music:
http://www.wmcworld.com./
talk to Brian Meader
Indoor Storm: http://www.indoorstorm.com/
talk to Eddie Berman
SEFSTRAT
music webpage: http://members.aol.com/sefstrat/index.html/sefpage.html
From: Steve <sefstrat@aol...>
Subject: Re: Processors: I Need a Boost
Date: 12 Mar 2002 15:05:51 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
<<> Try a DOD FX10 FET preamp pedal. Clean, adjustable boost. Twist the tone
knob
> until the bopost tone is the same as the unboosted tone.
This is a good suggestion. But DOD stopped making this pedal years
ago, and I only see them rarely for sale used>>
I have three. I bought one new three months ago.
I think they're still available. If Jeff wants one, he can email me; I think I
know who has them hereabouts.
SEFSTRAT
music webpage: http://members.aol.com/sefstrat/index.html/sefpage.html
From: Jeffrey Cohen <cohenj@umich...>
Subject: Re: Processors: I Need a Boost
Date: Sat, 16 Mar 2002 10:47:16 -0500
Organization: Bell Sympatico
Hi. I've posted this as a response to various questions like this one, so
pardon the repeat.
I use a Boss AD-3, which is an acoustic processor that feature a preamp,
EQ, feedback control, chorus and reverb. That gives me the extra headroom
I need and tailors the sound pretty well. The guitar goes through the
AD-30 and then into a Morley Volume Pedal. I have the threshold on the
Morley set to that in the up position I get my rhythm volume and in the
full down position I get my lead volume.
I use a volume pedal instead of an a/b swich so that I can adjust the
volume to whats going on with the rest of the band, real time. The setup
works quite nicely.
Oh, and I'm driving it with a Fishman Matrix III
You could probably put this rig together by buying the stuff used for not
too much money.
Regards,
JC
Jeff Sherman wrote:
> I need a way to add a volume boost with a stomper. MXR makes a pedal
> called a MicroAmp (M133) that does just this but I'm wondering about
> all this cheap-assed, rock and roll gear in my signal chain. Are
> effects made for magnetic, electric guitar pickups less than ideal
> for amplified acoustics?
>
> Anybody know of an acoustic-dedicated pre-amp/processor that has this
> simple boost function along with delay and maybe some chorus? That's
> all I need, really, and I could live without the chorus. This MXR
> M133 stomper is gonna run $75 so by spending a little more well . . .
> you get the gist.
>
> Looks like that fancy new Yamaha pedal would do it all but that's
> waaaaay out of my price range. Anything else come to mind? I could
> have sworn that I've seen an acoustic pedal with a button labeled
> boost but I've checked all the brands I can think of and haven't found
> it again.
>
> Thanks, anybody,
>
> Jeff
| Acoustic Modelling [2] |
|---|
From: gmc <gmc@intlog...>
Subject: Acoustic Modelling
Date: Mon, 01 Apr 2002 01:20:11 GMT
Organization: none
Jeez! that's a long line!!!..
As I read it, the patent suggests that it might be possible to have a
guitar on your lap & be able to dial into the electric gizmo & program
what shape & form you would like it to take...
Prewar Martin?
Parlour or Dreadnought?
A bit similar to Line6 electric modelling preamps - but different in
the sense that it is actually driving the soundboard of your guitar -
-----------
(Hey! - Tom Leredo - thanks for turning me on to the Wild West of
uspto.com!)
From: jgoska <jgoska@my-deja...>
Subject: Re: Acoustic Modelling
Date: 1 Apr 2002 05:12:42 -0800
Organization: http://groups.google.com/
<gmc@intlog...> (gmc) > As I read it, the patent suggests that
it might be possible to have a> guitar on your lap & be able to dial
into the electric gizmo & program> what shape & form you would like it
to take...
The device is intended to modify the sound, not the instrument.Here's the basic idea:
<http://gtresearchnews.gatech.edu/newsrelease/GUITAR.html>
| Lexicon MPX-100 noise? [3] |
|---|
From: Mark Bratcher <_mbratche_@rochester...>
Subject: Lexicon MPX-100 noise?
Date: Sun, 21 Apr 2002 01:23:27 GMT
Organization: Road Runner
Hi,
I use a Lexicon MPX-100 for my acoustic guitar effects processing.
It's a very nice unit but on reverb/delay it seems to add a slight
noise on notes that sounds somewhat like a string buzz or rattle.
This unit is 20-bit D/A A/D with 24-bit internal processing. All
the newer Lexicons are 24-bit D/A A/D. Is this the issue? My strings
don't sound like the rattle in bypass mode.
Thanks.
Mark
From: foldedpath <mbarrs@REMOVE-NOSPAM...>
Subject: Re: Lexicon MPX-100 noise?
Date: Sun, 21 Apr 2002 19:14:50 GMT
Organization: Giganews.Com - Premium News Outsourcing
"Mark Bratcher" <<_mbratche_@rochester...>> wrote in message
news:<slrnac454i.2ug._mbratche_@dadpc...>...
> Hi,
> I use a Lexicon MPX-100 for my acoustic guitar effects
> processing. It's a very nice unit but on reverb/delay it
> seems to add a slight noise on notes that sounds somewhat
> like a string buzz or rattle. This unit is 20-bit D/A A/D with
> 24-bit internal processing. All the newer Lexicons are 24-bit
> D/A A/D. Is this the issue? My strings don't sound like the
> rattle in bypass mode.
Okay, this could be a few different things. Set the effect's mix
parameter to 100% wet (no input guitar, just reverb wash). Now listen
to the effect. Do you hear a buzzing or rattling sound all the way
through the effect, or does the effect sound basically clean, with the
noise happening just towards the end of the reverb tails?
If it's the former (buzz all the way through the note), then you may
be clipping the inputs. Is there an indicator light for that? Try
backing off the output level from your mixer, or whatever you're using
to send a signal to the MPX-100. Also check that you're not clipping
the effect return coming back from the reverb. Gain staging problems
are the most likely cause of a harsh or buzzing sound with a digital
effects processor.
If it's the latter (a clean reverb wash with buzzing on the tails or
delay bounces) then you're probably hearing normal digital artifacts
from the signal processing. To minimize that, try using a patch that
dedicates all the DSP horsepower to reverb only, instead of a combined
effect like reverb + delay. On most digital reverbs this will give you
cleaner reverb tails and better overall quality. I don't think it's a
20-bit vs. 24-bit A/D-D/A issue. The difference in converter quality
would be very subtle. You have to spend some fairly big bucks
($1,000-$2,000) to get a reverb with no audible artifacts on the
ends of reverb tails.
If it's neither of those things, then there's a chance it could be a
defective unit. But that's rare with digital FX like this. They tend
to either work 100%, or not at all. If you still think it might be a
defective unit, then try to find another MPX-100 in a store, so you
can audition it and see if it does the same thing.
I hope this helps!
From: Mark Bratcher <_mbratche_@rochester...>
Subject: Re: Lexicon MPX-100 noise?
Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2002 00:34:28 GMT
Organization: Road Runner
That helps tremendously! Thanks!
Mark
--
Mark Bratcher
---------------------------------------------------------
Escape from Microsoft's proprietary tentacles: use Linux!
| Looping for Original Fingerstyle [10] |
|---|
From: David Kilpatrick <iconmags@btconnect...>
Subject: Re: Looping for Original Fingerstyle
Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2002 20:14:25 +0000 (UTC)
Organization: Icon Publications Ltd
foldedpath wrote:
> The two high-end rackmount loopers are the Echoplex (which has
> been around a long time), and the newer Electrix Repeater. I've
> had a Repeater for a few months now, and I'm still trying to
> learn how to use it. Hide your wallet before you look at this
> link:
We had a workshop with David Allison, undoubted=20
king of all acoustic loopers (singing or making=20
wind noises into his soundhole mike, hitting=20
things, using a shaky egg and all sorts of stuff=20
to enormous effect on his Lowden with VG-88 pickup=20
and midi too).
He said the Echoplex was now down to =A3600 ($900)=20
which seems very good value.
The Repeater sounds even better - how much?
Obviously the loopstation is highly affordable. I=20
find people are astounded by something as simple=20
as using the 800 milliseconds delay on the Boss DD=20
echo pedal with its 'hold' function to set up a=20
rythm behind a jig or reel.
Even so, I hardly ever do this. Mainly because 98=20
per cent of the time i play totally acoustic and=20
with other people.
Doesn't stop me wanting the features you listed=20
though!
David
From: foldedpath <mbarrs@REMOVE-NOSPAM...>
Subject: Re: Looping for Original Fingerstyle
Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2002 21:08:49 GMT
Organization: Giganews.Com - Premium News Outsourcing
"David Kilpatrick" <<iconmags@btconnect...>> wrote in message
news:<3D050898.5080707@btconnect...>...
foldedpath wrote:
> >The two high-end rackmount loopers are the
> >Echoplex (which has been around a long time), and
> >the newer Electrix Repeater. I've had a Repeater for
> >a few months now, and I'm still trying to learn how to
> >use it. Hide your wallet before you look at this link:
> We had a workshop with David Allison, undoubted
> king of all acoustic loopers (singing or making
> wind noises into his soundhole mike, hitting
> things, using a shaky egg and all sorts of stuff
> to enormous effect on his Lowden with VG-88 pickup
> and midi too).
>
> He said the Echoplex was now down to £600 ($900)
> which seems very good value.
>
> The Repeater sounds even better - how much?
The Repeater's going for $500 now at 8thstreet.com. It's a
Canadian product (the company is located in Victoria, BC), so you
may want to check and see if you have other sources closer to
home. But that's a pretty good price.
The Echoplex still has fans in the looping community. I've read
comments here and there, where people have said it's the better
of the two rackmount loopers for certain live performance
situations, especially where you're continuously building up
complex layers (ambient music stuff). I don't understand enough
about the differences between the Echoplex and Repeater to know
what the advantage is there. I think it has to do with the way
they both respond to Midi messages. Anyway, I was immediately
attracted to the 4 tracks on the Repeater, the longer looping
time, and the fact that I could export recordings to my PC. It
helps that it's less expensive too. The Echoplex price made more
sense when it was the only rackmount looper out there.
> Obviously the loopstation is highly affordable. I
> find people are astounded by something as simple
> as using the 800 milliseconds delay on the Boss DD
> echo pedal with its 'hold' function to set up a
> rythm behind a jig or reel.
>
> Even so, I hardly ever do this. Mainly because 98
> per cent of the time i play totally acoustic and
> with other people.
I can see that. Heavy use of looping would drive people nuts in a
jam session... especially if there are any drummers or percussion
players. For a drummer it's like playing to a click track.
I'm not sure if I'll ever make the looper part of my "main thing"
(whatever that is). Right now it's just a side interest, but I'm
having a lot of fun with it. It's also a great practice tool. I
didn't realize how sloppy my timing had gotten lately until I
started looping. Loopers are great for tightening up your time.
Mike Barrs
From: foldedpath <mbarrs@REMOVE-NOSPAM...>
Subject: Re: Looping for Original Fingerstyle
Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2002 15:12:31 GMT
Organization: Giganews.Com - Premium News Outsourcing
"Sherm" <<jsherman@lorainccc...>> wrote in message
news:<3d05f707.1613655@news...>...
> On Mon, 10 Jun 2002 21:08:49 GMT, "foldedpath"
> <<mbarrs@REMOVE-NOSPAM...>> wrote:
>
>
> >The Repeater's going for $500 now at 8thstreet.com. It's a
>
>The Boss LoopStation's almost $300 so that's not too bad is it?
I think the Repeater is a bargain for what it does.
> Does it only do midi? I mean, do you have to midi capable?
No, you don't need to be Midified to use the Repeater.
They do cut corners by not giving you a footswitch with the unit,
which is a little annoying. I had to buy a $30 Digitech TRS
pedal, which controls the basic record/play function on a
standard 1/4" stereo cable. For full control you'd need a
programmable (command stacking) Midi pedal. Most Repeater owners
seem to be using the Behringer FCB1010 pedal, which goes for
about $130. You'd probably want a bigger flaschard than what they
give you with the unit. I bought a 128mb card for $80, and it
came bundled with the USB reader for my PC. So it does cost a
little more than $500 to get completely set up with the Repeater.
Mike Barrs
From: foldedpath <mbarrs@REMOVE-NOSPAM...>
Subject: Re: Looping for Original Fingerstyle
Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2002 16:42:30 GMT
Organization: Giganews.Com - Premium News Outsourcing
"Sherm" <<jsherman@lorainccc...>> wrote in message
news:<3d061504.9292149@news...>...
> On Tue, 11 Jun 2002 15:12:31 GMT, "foldedpath"
> <<mbarrs@REMOVE-NOSPAM...>> wrote:
>
> > You'd probably want a bigger flaschard than what they
> >give you with the unit.
>
> Thanks for the detail, Mike. I never save anything. Once
> the tunes over I clear it for the next one. Still need a
flashcard?
> How much time on the included one?
The Repeater comes with 8mb internal memory (volatile, disappears
when you turn the unit off), and a 16mb flashcard. It eats up
roughly 5mb for every 60 track-seconds of recording time. And it
stores the loops based on internal memory in a different number
sequence than the ones on the flashcard. So you get roughly a
minute and a half of recording on the internal RAM, and the
longest recording you can do with the supplied 16mb flashcard is
roughly 3 track-minutes. That's just barely enough for some
songs, and not long enough for others. That's why most people
spring for a bigger flashcard.
Mike Barrs
From: Bill Benzel <sirwill1@netaxs...>
Subject: Re: Looping for Original Fingerstyle
Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2002 20:34:40 GMT
Organization: Philadelphia's Complete Internet Provider
foldedpath (<mbarrs@REMOVE-NOSPAM...>) wrote:
[snip of great detailed post...]
:
: So far I haven't done much with all this. I don't have a Midi
: pedal yet, just a simple 3-button floor switch that does
: record/play, stop, and undo. I have to reach over and push
: buttons on the unit to arm different tracks, or fade tracks in
: and out. That breaks up the flow of a performance. So mostly I'm
: just using it as a single track mono looper and 4-track scratch
: recorder for song ideas. I'll have to get a Midi pedal and dive
: into Midi programming (yuck!!) to get any deeper into it. This is
: new territory for me and I'm just scratching the surface. I'm
: very interested in hearing what everyone else out there with a
: looper is doing with it.
:
: Mike Barrs
:
:
Exactly the same place I've got to -- I have the repeater and am pretty
much using it to jam with myself. The MIDI study will come in due time
but, for now, I'm content to just practice with the little 3 button foot
switch.
Bill
From: Michael W Pannell <mwpannell@yahoo...>
Subject: Re: Looping for Original Fingerstyle
Date: 10 Jun 2002 18:44:08 -0700
Organization: http://groups.google.com/
Dick Thaxter <<rtha@loc...>> wrote in message news:<<3D04E199.44D0997A@loc...>>...
> Jeff,
>
> When we wrote about this before I'm sure I mentioned Tom Loredo's
> "Philia" which is on the first RMMGA CD, I think.
> (snip)
> Anyway, it's a montage of Phil Keaggy inspired stuff that Tom does.
> Definitely got the different parts interweaving, etc.
As far as I can tell, Tom's grasp of the intricacies of audio
electronics are only surpassed by his finess as evidenced by "Philia".
If any of you want to hear/see Keaggy's phenominal abilities at
looping in the safety of your own computer chair, you may want to see
a couple of recent webcasts:
http://www.livefromstudiob.com/index.cfm/fa/artist/id/47
After maybe a too-long show intro, Phil does some remarkable looping,
even though these songs are mainly vocal, if I remember correctly.
Anyway there's always ample guitar magic with Phil. Stay tuned during
the blank show breaks for the next segments. You'll be rewareded.
http://cbn.org/700club/previousbroadcasts
Scroll down to Tuesday, May 28, and when you launch the video, go on
to about 39:50, or 2/3 through. Phil does one great looping tune.
On both of these he is joined by his wife as the two of them discuss a
book she/(they) wrote concerning the loss of several of their children
through miscarriage/infant complications.
Also, unless I am not really mistaken, Phil seems to not be using his
signature JamMan on these performances (Chet Atkibns introduced it to
him), but rather his Line 6 DL-4 delay. (Tom, have you seen these?
Does this look accurate to you?) It seems so more evident on the cbn
webcast which streams really well on broadband.
I recently got a Line 6 and am trying to learn some rudimentary
looping techniques myself.
Michael
From: Dick Thaxter <rtha@loc...>
Subject: Re: Looping for Original Fingerstyle
Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2002 06:48:15 -0400
Organization: Library of Congress
I've got both the Line 6 Delay modeler and a Boss Loopstation. I do like the
control features on the Line 6 (especially the one touch overdub feature), but the
28 seconds isn't enough for what I want to record. Overdubbing with the Boss, one
has to stomp the button twice--so you can never get the first couple of beats.
Dick
Michael W Pannell wrote:
> Dick Thaxter <<rtha@loc...>> wrote in message news:<<3D04E199.44D0997A@loc...>>...
> > Jeff,
> >
> > When we wrote about this before I'm sure I mentioned Tom Loredo's
> > "Philia" which is on the first RMMGA CD, I think.
> > (snip)
> > Anyway, it's a montage of Phil Keaggy inspired stuff that Tom does.
> > Definitely got the different parts interweaving, etc.
>
> As far as I can tell, Tom's grasp of the intricacies of audio
> electronics are only surpassed by his finess as evidenced by "Philia".
>
> If any of you want to hear/see Keaggy's phenominal abilities at
> looping in the safety of your own computer chair, you may want to see
> a couple of recent webcasts:
>
> http://www.livefromstudiob.com/index.cfm/fa/artist/id/47
>
> After maybe a too-long show intro, Phil does some remarkable looping,
> even though these songs are mainly vocal, if I remember correctly.
> Anyway there's always ample guitar magic with Phil. Stay tuned during
> the blank show breaks for the next segments. You'll be rewareded.
>
> http://cbn.org/700club/previousbroadcasts
>
> Scroll down to Tuesday, May 28, and when you launch the video, go on
> to about 39:50, or 2/3 through. Phil does one great looping tune.
>
> On both of these he is joined by his wife as the two of them discuss a
> book she/(they) wrote concerning the loss of several of their children
> through miscarriage/infant complications.
>
> Also, unless I am not really mistaken, Phil seems to not be using his
> signature JamMan on these performances (Chet Atkibns introduced it to
> him), but rather his Line 6 DL-4 delay. (Tom, have you seen these?
> Does this look accurate to you?) It seems so more evident on the cbn
> webcast which streams really well on broadband.
>
> I recently got a Line 6 and am trying to learn some rudimentary
> looping techniques myself.
>
> Michael
From: Sherm <jsherman@lorainccc...>
Subject: Re: Looping for Original Fingerstyle
Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2002 13:04:29 GMT
On Tue, 11 Jun 2002 06:48:15 -0400, Dick Thaxter <<rtha@loc...>> wrote:
>I've got both the Line 6 Delay modeler and a Boss Loopstation. I do like the
>control features on the Line 6 (especially the one touch overdub feature), but the
>28 seconds isn't enough for what I want to record. Overdubbing with the Boss, one
>has to stomp the button twice--so you can never get the first couple of beats.
>
>Dick
Talk to me, my brother ---- I don't reach. Ok, maybe I do. Sounds
like you mean you have a track stored and you want to overdub
beginning at Beat 1 from a dead stop. Correctomundo?
When I'm doing a tune live and the verse1/chorus1 that I recorded is
playing back while while I'm singing verse2/chorus2, I hit the left
button anytime to start capturing the fills or whatever I'm playing
live (now overdubbing), and then again to stop overdubbing.
So I guess you have to wait for Beat 1 to cycle around again, right?
To do what you want to do, that is? Am I right or am I right?
Jeff
From: Dick Thaxter <rtha@loc...>
Subject: Re: Looping for Original Fingerstyle
Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2002 14:00:18 -0400
Organization: Library of Congress
Jeff,
Here's what I mean. I record rhythm track for verse and chorus. I want to immediately
play it back while overdubbing a bass line. On the Line 6 I just press button 1 and it
goes into overdub and playback mode immediately. The Boss requires two taps of the foot
(one to start playback and one to start overdubbing) which means I'll miss at least one
or two beats of the bass line. I usually just hit the button to start playback and then
hit the button again for overdubbing at the end of the first bar or whatever then
overdub the bass through the whole verse chorus and then the first bar of the verse
again. Then the loop has both layers and I can let it go indefinitely, play another
rhythm over it, sing, or take a solo. It's a small annoyance, really, but if I was
really trying to get up to "performance" level the way you are, it might be a bigger
deal.
Dick
Sherm wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Jun 2002 06:48:15 -0400, Dick Thaxter <<rtha@loc...>> wrote:
>
> >I've got both the Line 6 Delay modeler and a Boss Loopstation. I do like the
> >control features on the Line 6 (especially the one touch overdub feature), but the
> >28 seconds isn't enough for what I want to record. Overdubbing with the Boss, one
> >has to stomp the button twice--so you can never get the first couple of beats.
> >
> >Dick
>
> Talk to me, my brother ---- I don't reach. Ok, maybe I do. Sounds
> like you mean you have a track stored and you want to overdub
> beginning at Beat 1 from a dead stop. Correctomundo?
>
> When I'm doing a tune live and the verse1/chorus1 that I recorded is
> playing back while while I'm singing verse2/chorus2, I hit the left
> button anytime to start capturing the fills or whatever I'm playing
> live (now overdubbing), and then again to stop overdubbing.
>
> So I guess you have to wait for Beat 1 to cycle around again, right?
> To do what you want to do, that is? Am I right or am I right?
>
> Jeff
From: Tom Loredo <loredo@astro...>
Subject: Re: Looping for Original Fingerstyle
Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2002 13:39:47 -0400
Organization: Cornell University
Hi Michael-
Wow, thanks for the great compliments! And thanks for those PK URLs;
I'll have to look at them on my home computer.
Michael W Pannell wrote:
>
> Also, unless I am not really mistaken, Phil seems to not be using his
> signature JamMan on these performances (Chet Atkibns introduced it to
> him), but rather his Line 6 DL-4 delay. (Tom, have you seen these?
> Does this look accurate to you?) It seems so more evident on the cbn
> webcast which streams really well on broadband.
I can't speak for that show, but at recent shows (e.g., when I saw him a
month or so ago in Rochester) he has been using both the Line 6
and his JamMan (the latter controlled with an RFX MidiWizard pedal that
accesses functions not accessible from the front panel or standard
footswitches). Each one does things the other doesn't, and he used
them both expertly. The man's a genius!!!!!
Peace,
Tom
| Boost volume for acoustic lead? [8] |
|---|
From: Trek5200CS <trek5200cs@aol...>
Subject: Boost volume for acoustic lead?
Date: 10 Jun 2002 23:19:01 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
What is a good way to boost volume for acoustic leads that need to stand out in
a live mix? I was thinking of getting a compression/sustain pedal like the Boss
CS-3. Would that work? I play with another acoustic guitarist, blues harp and
sometimes a bass player. when I take an acoustic lead, I need to turn it up.
(No sound man) Volume pedal perhaps?
I play a Taylor 514CE, with a B-band Pickup thru a Mackie PA with Mackie SRM450
powered Speakers. I laos have a Raven Labs PMB-1, but don't really need it with
the new B-band UST pickup. It sounds SO good!
Thanks for your input.
Gary Roberts
From: foldedpath <mbarrs@REMOVE-NOSPAM...>
Subject: Re: Boost volume for acoustic lead?
Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2002 01:09:10 GMT
Organization: Giganews.Com - Premium News Outsourcing
"Trek5200CS" <<trek5200cs@aol...>> wrote in message
news:<20020610191901.00251.00000806@mb-fc...>...
> What is a good way to boost volume for acoustic leads
> that need to stand out in a live mix? I was thinking of
> getting a compression/sustain pedal like the Boss
> CS-3. Would that work? I play with another acoustic
> guitarist, blues harp and sometimes a bass player. when
> I take an acoustic lead, I need to turn it up.
> (No sound man) Volume pedal perhaps?
>
> I play a Taylor 514CE, with a B-band Pickup thru a
> Mackie PA with Mackie SRM450 powered Speakers.
> I laos have a Raven Labs PMB-1, but don't really
> need it with the new B-band UST pickup. It sounds
> SO good!
Hi Gary,
I recommend a volume pedal. Rock it back to 60% when you're
playing rhythm, then go 80% for lead. Save that last 20% of
reserve volume for burning on your encore number, or if the
second guitar player decides he needs to turn up also. ;-)
Volume pedals are also great for killing the output of your
guitar when you're tuning up, or plugging/unplugging a guitar.
A compressor will help your guitar cut through the mix, but it's
an on/off effect when you stomp it. You won't be able to
fine-tune it while you're playing. Murphy's Law says that however
you set it during sound check, you'll need more (or less) volume
during the actual show. Compressors can also push the guitar over
the edge into feedback if you're not careful. A compressor would
be the next step if a volume pedal doesn't give you what you
need, but get the volume pedal first, so you can control the
overall levels.
One other thing... stomp box compressors like the CS-3 are not
very high quality (they don't need to be, for electric guitar or
electric bass). It will compromise the quality of your tone,
especially on the high end. If you do decide to get a compressor,
then buy a $175 FMR RNC Really Nice Compressor --
(http://www.mercenary.com/fmraudio.html). Patch that into your
Mackie. You'll be amazed how good the RNC sounds, compared to a
Boss stomp box.
Mike Barrs
From: Sherman <jsherman@lorainccc...>
Subject: Re: Boost volume for acoustic lead?
Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2002 01:36:09 GMT
On Tue, 11 Jun 2002 01:09:10 GMT, "foldedpath"
<<mbarrs@REMOVE-NOSPAM...>> wrote:
>I recommend a volume pedal.
Couldn't go wrong with that.
I asked a similar question a few months ago and ended up following
Gleason's advice --- an A/B footswitch switch to jump to a different
mixer channel set slightly higher. I already had a volume pedal on
the looper output and didn't want to have to deal with two so this was
sort of a special case.
Made the mistake of cheaping out on the A-or-B switch, though. Bought
a Carvin (a good value for what it is) at @ $39 except I didn't
realize that it lacks led indicators until it came in the mail. That
would have helped a little.
The Boss low impedance VP I bought recently seems to work ok. Its
quiet and has the threshold control that Mike mentions. Not as
heavy duty as the Ernie Ball I was looking at but I wanted something
relatively small.
Jeff
From: Sparky <Aiyaiyai@aiyyai...>
Subject: Re: Boost volume for acoustic lead?
Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2002 20:15:47 -0600
Organization: AT&T Canada IES
I use an A/B switch. This gives me 2 separate lines coming out of the pedal.
I then set up 2 separate channels on the board - one for strumming
background stuff & the other for solo's (the solo channel is turned up).
This way I can also EQ each channel. This way things always stay consistent
& I don't have to worry about getting the volume pedal in the exact same
position each time I change from background - to solo - to background etc.
etc. etc.
Sparky"Trek5200CS" <<trek5200cs@aol...>> wrote in message
news:<20020610191901.00251.00000806@mb-fc...>...
> What is a good way to boost volume for acoustic leads that need to stand
out in
> a live mix? I was thinking of getting a compression/sustain pedal like the
Boss
> CS-3. Would that work? I play with another acoustic guitarist, blues harp
and
> sometimes a bass player. when I take an acoustic lead, I need to turn it
up.
> (No sound man) Volume pedal perhaps?
>
> I play a Taylor 514CE, with a B-band Pickup thru a Mackie PA with Mackie
SRM450
> powered Speakers. I laos have a Raven Labs PMB-1, but don't really need it
with
> the new B-band UST pickup. It sounds SO good!
>
> Thanks for your input.
>
> Gary Roberts
From: David Eidelberg <DavidEidelberg@msn...>
Subject: Re: Boost volume for acoustic lead?
Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2002 22:15:49 -0400
A quality volume pedal is a good solution. If you want a visual indication
of where the pedal is set, look for a Visual Sounds Visual Volume pedal. No
longer made, but you may find one out there somewhere. It has LEDs on the
side to show you how far the pedal is.
What I use in my electric rig is an MXR Microamp. Works great.
"Trek5200CS" <<trek5200cs@aol...>> wrote in message
news:<20020610191901.00251.00000806@mb-fc...>...
> What is a good way to boost volume for acoustic leads that need to stand
out in
> a live mix? I was thinking of getting a compression/sustain pedal like the
Boss
> CS-3. Would that work? I play with another acoustic guitarist, blues harp
and
> sometimes a bass player. when I take an acoustic lead, I need to turn it
up.
> (No sound man) Volume pedal perhaps?
>
> I play a Taylor 514CE, with a B-band Pickup thru a Mackie PA with Mackie
SRM450
> powered Speakers. I laos have a Raven Labs PMB-1, but don't really need it
with
> the new B-band UST pickup. It sounds SO good!
>
> Thanks for your input.
>
> Gary Roberts
From: Steve <sefstrat@aol...>
Subject: Re: Boost volume for acoustic lead?
Date: 12 Jun 2002 02:40:51 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
>A quality volume pedal is a good solution. If you want a visual indication
>of where the pedal is set, look for a Visual Sounds Visual Volume pedal. No
>longer made, but you may find one out there somewhere. It has LEDs on the
>side to show you how far the pedal is.
>
>What I use in my electric rig is an MXR Microamp. Works great.
I use a DOD FX-10 FET preamp pedal in my electric rig and in my acoustic setup.
Works great.
SEFSTRAT
music webpage: http://members.aol.com/sefstrat/index.html/sefpage.html
From: Charlie <no@no...>
Subject: Re: Boost volume for acoustic lead?
Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2002 21:57:31 +1000
Organization: OzEmail Ltd, Australia
I use a Boss 7 band eq pedal. Just set up the boost volume to the level you
want, then step on it to boost the volume. The pedal also acts as a preamp
(even when you dont step on it) which improves acoustic sguitar sound..
A pretty simple solution and a 9 Volt battery lasts a few gigs.
Cheers
"David Eidelberg" <<DavidEidelberg@msn...>> wrote in message
news:ae6ah0$4bf1f$<1@ID-133510...>...
> A quality volume pedal is a good solution. If you want a visual
indication
> of where the pedal is set, look for a Visual Sounds Visual Volume pedal.
No
> longer made, but you may find one out there somewhere. It has LEDs on the
> side to show you how far the pedal is.
>
> What I use in my electric rig is an MXR Microamp. Works great.
>
>
> "Trek5200CS" <<trek5200cs@aol...>> wrote in message
> news:<20020610191901.00251.00000806@mb-fc...>...
> > What is a good way to boost volume for acoustic leads that need to stand
> out in
> > a live mix? I was thinking of getting a compression/sustain pedal like
the
> Boss
> > CS-3. Would that work? I play with another acoustic guitarist, blues
harp
> and
> > sometimes a bass player. when I take an acoustic lead, I need to turn it
> up.
> > (No sound man) Volume pedal perhaps?
> >
> > I play a Taylor 514CE, with a B-band Pickup thru a Mackie PA with Mackie
> SRM450
> > powered Speakers. I laos have a Raven Labs PMB-1, but don't really need
it
> with
> > the new B-band UST pickup. It sounds SO good!
> >
> > Thanks for your input.
> >
> > Gary Roberts
>
>
From: <fader@free...>
Subject: Re: Boost volume for acoustic lead?
Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2002 07:34:15 -0000
Organization: SDF Public Access UNIX System, est. 1987 - sdf.lonestar.org
In article <<20020610191901.00251.00000806@mb-fc...>>,
Trek5200CS <<trek5200cs@aol...>> wrote:
>What is a good way to boost volume for acoustic leads that need to stand out in
>a live mix? I was thinking of getting a compression/sustain pedal like the Boss
>CS-3. Would that work? I play with another acoustic guitarist, blues harp and
>sometimes a bass player. when I take an acoustic lead, I need to turn it up.
>(No sound man) Volume pedal perhaps?
>
>I play a Taylor 514CE, with a B-band Pickup thru a Mackie PA with Mackie SRM450
>powered Speakers. I laos have a Raven Labs PMB-1, but don't really need it with
>the new B-band UST pickup. It sounds SO good!
A volume pedal is one answer. They can be a hassle until you get used to
them, but the swells are fun. I have one with a nice feature - you can set
the low end of the volume cut, which lets you kick it all the way back for
your low volume, and then all the way front for lead, and you don't have
to concentrate on your feet so much.
The other option would be to play less loud when you don't want to be so
loud, and then lean into it for your lead parts. With your setup you
shouldn't have any trouble with headroom.
I would not recommend compression to deal with this problem. Some
compression can be a good fix for some live acoustic guitar problems, but
not this one, and stomp box compressors tend to color your sound in a very
noticeable way.
--
Jon Kiparsky - Portland, Oregon
<fader@sdf...>
| Volume pedal for acoustic? [18] |
|---|
From: Jcarp <jcarp.1@starpower...>
Subject: Volume pedal for acoustic?
Date: 11 Jun 2002 12:31:40 -0700
Organization: http://groups.google.com/
Being a life long acoustic guitarist I am an idiot when it comes to
electronics. I sometimes play through a Fender Acoustasonic Jr.
Amplifier and lately I've been doing some gigging. Since giving up my
Taylor with Fishman and it's barn door controls I need to find a way
to boost my volume when I want to switch from playing rhythm to lead.
I would like to know what folks have found to be the best way to do
this? I went to a music store and the guy insisted that what I needed
was the Maxxon GE 601. This is a graphic equalizer with six frequency
bands and a stomp button that allows you to boost or cut the signal
and volume. I'm not sure if that is what I need or not and wasn't
ready to plunk down $110 just because the guy insisted that it was
what I needed. He even used the line on me: "This is THE company for
graphic equalizers. If you pull this baby out all the other players
will say Wow!" I guess he didn't see the gray hair and thought maybe
I needed to be cool or something.
So folks, any ideas?
Jcarp
From: Lee <mrbigaxeatyahoodotcom>
Subject: Re: Volume pedal for acoustic?
Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2002 16:21:09 -0500
Organization: Newsfeeds.com http://www.newsfeeds.com 80,000+ UNCENSORED Newsgroups.
I don't think that would be the best way to go. For about $60 more you can
get an effects unit that has an expression pedal that can be used as a
volume pedal. I have a pedal made by Digitech that works pretty good for
me. I rarely use anything besides the EQ, reverb, chorus and volume pedal,
but it works good for me. Of course, if you already like the sound that you
get and do not need the added effects, you could just buy a volume pedal. I
think I have seen them for around $45.
"Jcarp" <<jcarp.1@starpower...>> wrote in message
news:<c5700deb.0206111131.47fac3da@posting...>...
> Being a life long acoustic guitarist I am an idiot when it comes to
> electronics. I sometimes play through a Fender Acoustasonic Jr.
> Amplifier and lately I've been doing some gigging. Since giving up my
> Taylor with Fishman and it's barn door controls I need to find a way
> to boost my volume when I want to switch from playing rhythm to lead.
> I would like to know what folks have found to be the best way to do
> this? I went to a music store and the guy insisted that what I needed
> was the Maxxon GE 601. This is a graphic equalizer with six frequency
> bands and a stomp button that allows you to boost or cut the signal
> and volume. I'm not sure if that is what I need or not and wasn't
> ready to plunk down $110 just because the guy insisted that it was
> what I needed. He even used the line on me: "This is THE company for
> graphic equalizers. If you pull this baby out all the other players
> will say Wow!" I guess he didn't see the gray hair and thought maybe
> I needed to be cool or something.
>
> So folks, any ideas?
>
> Jcarp
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
From: Carlos <calden3@msn...>
Subject: Re: Volume pedal for acoustic?
Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2002 15:30:34 -0700
>> Being a life long acoustic guitarist I am an idiot when it comes to
>> electronics. I sometimes play through a Fender Acoustasonic Jr.
>> Amplifier and lately I've been doing some gigging. Since giving up my
>> Taylor with Fishman and it's barn door controls I need to find a way
>> to boost my volume when I want to switch from playing rhythm to lead.
>> I would like to know what folks have found to be the best way to do
>> this? I went to a music store and the guy insisted that what I needed
>> was the Maxxon GE 601. This is a graphic equalizer with six frequency
>> bands and a stomp button that allows you to boost or cut the signal
>> and volume. I'm not sure if that is what I need or not and wasn't
>> ready to plunk down $110 just because the guy insisted that it was
>> what I needed. He even used the line on me: "This is THE company for
>> graphic equalizers. If you pull this baby out all the other players
>> will say Wow!" I guess he didn't see the gray hair and thought maybe
>> I needed to be cool or something.
>>
>> So folks, any ideas?
>>
>> Jcarp
I have a volume pedal, a Morely Little Alligator, which has a taper pot on
it. You can thus adjust the amount of change for the same travel length of
the pedal. That is, for one full pedal forward, the volume can change a
lot or a little. This works great for me in a band situation changing from
rhythm to solo work.
Carlos
From: David Enke <putw@mindspring...>
Subject: Re: Volume pedal for acoustic?
Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2002 09:51:05 -0600
Organization: MindSpring Enterprises
"Lawrence Lucier" <<llucier@shaw...>> wrote in message
news:<3D0695AF.151A7DC7@shaw...>...
> I too am thinking about adding a volume pedal to my setup as it's
> always bugged me that I can't vary my volume with my acoustics
> like I can with my electrics.
>
> One thing that sprang to mind whilst reading this message is that
> by using just a straight volume pedal, it can be used as an
> effect too; same kind of effect that is had when playing an
> electric guitar and sweeping the volume control back and forth.
>
> While I like the mixer/two channels at two different volume
> levels mentioned by other participants here, my thoughts right
> now are that the volume pedal would be more versatile when
> comparing between the two setups.
>
> Now all I gotta do, is search the net for an applicable circuit
> and build the sucker! :-)
Hi Lawrence,
the Ernie Ball stereo volume pedal is a good candidate for building around.
There is lots of room in it for circuitry, and having the ability to switch
between stereo volume levels and panning is pretty neat.
David Enke
Pick-up the World
www.pick-uptheworld.com
<pickups@rmi...>
719-742-5303
From: Dick Thaxter <richard.thaxter@mail...>
Subject: Re: Volume pedal for acoustic?
Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2002 21:56:48 GMT
Jim,
If all you want is a volume boost, I'd go with a good volume pedal.
Ernie Ball's pedals are built solidly and not noisy.
If you need a graphic EQ, it would be for other reasons, like
eliminating feedback, getting the sound right, etc. But if you're good
plugging right into the Acoustasonic, I don't know why an EQ that
happens to have a boost switch would be necessary. Similarly, the last
thing I would do is get a noisy multi effects pedal (as someone
suggested) just because it has an expression pedal. You've got verb and
chorus on the amp anyway.
Dick
Jcarp wrote:
>
> Being a life long acoustic guitarist I am an idiot when it comes to
> electronics. I sometimes play through a Fender Acoustasonic Jr.
> Amplifier and lately I've been doing some gigging. Since giving up my
> Taylor with Fishman and it's barn door controls I need to find a way
> to boost my volume when I want to switch from playing rhythm to lead.
> I would like to know what folks have found to be the best way to do
> this? I went to a music store and the guy insisted that what I needed
> was the Maxxon GE 601. This is a graphic equalizer with six frequency
> bands and a stomp button that allows you to boost or cut the signal
> and volume. I'm not sure if that is what I need or not and wasn't
> ready to plunk down $110 just because the guy insisted that it was
> what I needed. He even used the line on me: "This is THE company for
> graphic equalizers. If you pull this baby out all the other players
> will say Wow!" I guess he didn't see the gray hair and thought maybe
> I needed to be cool or something.
>
> So folks, any ideas?
>
> Jcarp
From: Adrian Legg <commercial-free@speech...>
Subject: Re: Volume pedal for acoustic?
Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2002 0:29:06 +0100
On Tue, 11 Jun 2002 22:56:48 +0100, Dick Thaxter wrote
(in message <<3D0672B5.A6E5BA15@mail...>>):
>[...] Similarly, the last
> thing I would do is get a noisy multi effects pedal (as someone
> suggested) just because it has an expression pedal. [..]
Imho there's a lot to be said for getting the volume pedal out of the signal
chain, and one has to wonder if this amp is so low noise anyway. There are
some pretty low noise fx around now, I've used the AG Stomp d.i. for
recording, for example.
I've heard criticism of expression pedals that say one can hear the 127
stops, but I'm not hearing them plugged into good kit. I suppose we're not
going for weepy steel guitar swells here anyway.
But I used a simple cheap plastic stereo volume pedal for yonks anyway - the
keyboard ones seem to work best with preamp outputs. I think mine was called
a Bespeco - the name plate fell off pretty quickly.
Adrian
--
www.adrianlegg.com
From: Earl <buffaloearl@my-deja...>
Subject: Re: Volume pedal for acoustic?
Date: 12 Jun 2002 04:56:43 -0700
Organization: http://groups.google.com/
Don't know about that brand - but I went through this last year
(needing a volume pedal) - and the choice ended up being between the
Ernie Ball and the Boss volume pedal (the better one..not the little
blue one)...since Phil Keaggy uses the Boss pedal, I figured it
couldn't be that bad - so that's what I ended up with...works
great...if it's in the effects loop, you need the low impedence one
(oh man, please, not that thread again) - if you hook it inline with
the guitar, you need the high impedence one. Tom Loredo or one of
those other impedence guys will correct me if I'm wrong..
I know some people like the Morely too....I've never tried one.
Definitely get a volume pedal though, they are handy to have around.
Earl
>
> So folks, any ideas?
>
> Jcarp
From: Cor & Helma <vaessen1@worldonline...>
Subject: Re: Volume pedal for acoustic?
Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2002 16:42:46 +0200
Organization: Tiscali Benelux
Hi,
I've tried the Boss Graphic-EQ pedal and it works for me.
Lot easier than a volume-pedal!
Regards, Cor
"Earl" <<buffaloearl@my-deja...>> schreef in bericht
news:<4aa59013.0206120356.5578517c@posting...>...
> Don't know about that brand - but I went through this last year
> (needing a volume pedal) - and the choice ended up being between the
> Ernie Ball and the Boss volume pedal (the better one..not the little
> blue one)...since Phil Keaggy uses the Boss pedal, I figured it
> couldn't be that bad - so that's what I ended up with...works
> great...if it's in the effects loop, you need the low impedence one
> (oh man, please, not that thread again) - if you hook it inline with
> the guitar, you need the high impedence one. Tom Loredo or one of
> those other impedence guys will correct me if I'm wrong..
>
> I know some people like the Morely too....I've never tried one.
> Definitely get a volume pedal though, they are handy to have around.
>
> Earl
>
> >
> > So folks, any ideas?
> >
> > Jcarp
From: gozy <gozy@hotmail...>
Subject: Re: Volume pedal for acoustic?
Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2002 11:11:01 GMT
Organization: Cox Communications
Ernie Ball. Built like a tank and silent. Whatever you use, put it AFTER
any signal processing in your chain.
From: Carlos <calden3@msn...>
Subject: Re: Volume pedal for acoustic?
Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2002 11:34:12 -0700
A few days ago I suggested that I like my Morley Little Alligator volume
pedal. I actually bought it after conceiving of a pedal idea I had had
for some time.
I would ideally like a stomp box with four or five silent "on"switches, and
a pot for each one. I could pre-set the volume level for each switch, then
when playing engage the appropriate level: very low for when I whang away,
bit louder, midrange for two-three string drone work, bit louder, then very
loud for delicate fingerpicking. I wouldn't have to worry about how FAR
to rock the pedal to get the level I needed.
Carlos
From: Carlos <calden3@msn...>
Subject: Re: Volume pedal for acoustic?
Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2002 08:55:55 -0700
in article <20020614115026.23371.00000935@mb-fy...>, TarBabyTunes at
<tarbabytunes@aol...> wrote on 6/14/02 8:50 AM:
> << A few days ago I suggested that I like my Morley Little Alligator volume
> pedal. >>
>
>
> Hey Carlos!
>
> I was going to post an inquiry... but didn't you say that the pot on this one
> is adjustable for the width of the mid sweep?
>
> I've often wanted that from a volume pedal, but not known which one(s) had an
> adjustment.
>
> Thanks,
>
> stv
Yes, it has an adjustable gain pot. To reclarify: you can have a BIG
volume change with one pedal swipe, or a small change with the same swipe.
Go and look at one and try it out - it's a much simpler thing to try than
get from my explanation. I like this feature a lot, because I don't like
trying to struggle with a pedal that feels too sensitive with the change.
Carlos
From: Sherm <jsherman@lorainccc...>
Subject: Re: Volume pedal for acoustic?
Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2002 16:00:08 GMT
On 14 Jun 2002 15:50:26 GMT, <tarbabytunes@aol...> (TarBabyTunes)
wrote:
><< A few days ago I suggested that I like my Morley Little Alligator volume
>pedal. >>
>
>
>Hey Carlos!
>
>I was going to post an inquiry... but didn't you say that the pot on this one
>is adjustable for the width of the mid sweep?
>
>I've often wanted that from a volume pedal, but not known which one(s) had an
>adjustment.
>
>Thanks,
>
>stv
The low impedanxce Boss I got last week has that if you just mean a
threshold setting. (All the way off and the pedal is silent when
depressed; slightly on the pedal decreases the volume only to that
point.)
BTW, as somene else mentioned the Ernie Ball is built like a tank
and it was only $10 more. I'd have gone for it but I needed something
smaller to fit in a pedal board. Plus the EB weighs a ton and the
board's already heavy.
The EB's heavy duty, though, so if you need something that might be
banged around a little I'd say go with the EB. My little Boss is
protected inside the board so that wasn't an issue for me.
Post what you decide, ok?
Jeff
From: Jeff Sherman <jsherman@lorainccc...>
Subject: Re: Volume pedal for acoustic?
Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2002 20:42:26 -0400
TarBabyTunes <<tarbabytunes@aol...>> wrote in message
news:<20020614180126.02441.00003045@mb-cb...>...
> << The low impedanxce Boss I got last week has that if you just mean a
> threshold setting. >>
>
>
> Low impedance? XLR connectors and not 1/4" ?
I dunno squat about impedance.
But . . . its 1/4" inputs; stereo.
Boss makes a hi and a lo version, the lo for using after another effects
device they say. I figured it was the one for the output of a Boss Loop
Station.
Sounds like that other control (on the Morley?) is cool if I got the picture
right --- it controls the sensitivity of the sweep?
Jeff
From: Chris Beeson <cbeeson@cix...>
Subject: Re: Volume pedal for acoustic?
Date: Fri, 02 Aug 2002 20:48:43 +0100
Organization: Nextra UK
In article <<c5700deb.0206111131.47fac3da@posting...>>, Jcarp
wrote:
> Since giving up my
> Taylor with Fishman and it's barn door controls I need to find a way
> to boost my volume when I want to switch from playing rhythm to lead.
>
Lots of good advice already given. Just wanted to add that if you're
running a piezo (or similar) pickup straight into the Fender amp, it
may not be a good idea to put a volume pedal between the guitar and the
amp. <Warning: 'impedance' will be mentioned in the next sentence!> The
pickup needs to see an impedance at the amp input of around 10Mohms or
more, whereas the pedal's input may be only around 1Mohm - fine for
magnetic pickups, but with piezo's you'll lose some bass. If the guitar
has an on-board pre-amp, this won't be a problem.
(PS, I'm so behind reading messages that someone's probably already
said this!)
Chris Beeson Preston, Lancs UK
From: Sherm <jsherman@lorainccc...>
Subject: Re: Volume pedal for acoustic?
Date: Sun, 04 Aug 2002 11:58:27 GMT
On Sat, 03 Aug 2002 12:43:27 -0400, Jim's Mail <<jcarp.1@starpower...>>
wrote:
>I got a volume pedal. It's a Boss FV-50H. I'm experimenting with it. It
>seems ok.
>
>Jcarp
>> From: "Troubleman \(Jay Brown\)" <<troubleman@starpower...>>
>> Get one of the volume pedals made for keyboards - they don't suffer from the
>> impedance mismatch. Volume pedals made for electric guitars do....
<sigh> Ok, Jim: You can't imagine how much I hate to be the one to ask
this --- you can't imagine --- but are you plugging the guitar
directly into the volume pedal? Boss makes a version of that pedal
called the FV50L that's different electronically somehow. (There's a
word for it but it escapes me.)
Sherm
From: Jim's Mail <jcarp.1@starpower...>
Subject: Re: Volume pedal for acoustic?
Date: Mon, 05 Aug 2002 11:09:52 -0400
I think I can still take it back to the store as I have all the receipts. I
have a Highlander pickup in a CFox Small Jumbo.
I have zero experience with the electronic side of the guitar world. It was
a big step for me to get an amp. Now that I don't have control knobs
(unlike the Taylor I sold) I need some way to control the volume. This
seemed like a good solution at the time. . .
Jcarp
> From: <jshermannospam@lorainccc...> (Sherm)
> Newsgroups: rec.music.makers.guitar.acoustic
> Date: Mon, 05 Aug 2002 13:33:20 GMT
> Subject: Re: Volume pedal for acoustic?
>
> On Mon, 05 Aug 2002 09:04:52 -0400, Jim's Mail <<jcarp.1@starpower...>>
> wrote:
>
>> Jeff,
>>
>> (sigh) Of course I missed all of your imdedence threads.
>
> Oh, lucky man, huh?
>
>> Yes, I'm plugging
>> the guitar straight into the volume pedal and then the pedal into the amp.
>> The amp is a Fender Acoustasonic Jr. I got this particular pedal because it
>> has a knob so you can set the range of the pedal.
>
> The low imped . . er, I mean the other version of the Boss VP has
> that knob too.
>
>> So am I doing something wrong here?
>
> Oh man, I don't have a clue. I think you might have preferred the
> FV50L for that but let's see if somebody else can say for sure. I
> think they might need to know what kinda of pick-up/preamp you have in
> the guitar. Maybe Troubleman can clarfy his comment about keyboard
> pedals (low or high).
>
> I got the FV50L because the Boss manual (such as it is) said that that
> was the one to use if its following another effects pedal in the
> chain. (I'm sending it the output of a Boss Loop Station.)
>
> Jeff
>
>
>
>> Jcarp
>>
>>> From: <jsherman@lorainccc...> (Sherm)
>>> Newsgroups: rec.music.makers.guitar.acoustic
>>> Date: Sun, 04 Aug 2002 11:58:27 GMT
>>> Subject: Re: Volume pedal for acoustic?
>>>
>>> On Sat, 03 Aug 2002 12:43:27 -0400, Jim's Mail <<jcarp.1@starpower...>>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I got a volume pedal. It's a Boss FV-50H. I'm experimenting with it. It
>>>> seems ok.
>>>>
>>>> Jcarp
>>>
>>>>> From: "Troubleman \(Jay Brown\)" <<troubleman@starpower...>>
>>>>> Get one of the volume pedals made for keyboards - they don't suffer from
>>>>> the
>>>>> impedance mismatch. Volume pedals made for electric guitars do....
>>>
>>> <sigh> Ok, Jim: You can't imagine how much I hate to be the one to ask
>>> this --- you can't imagine --- but are you plugging the guitar
>>> directly into the volume pedal? Boss makes a version of that pedal
>>> called the FV50L that's different electronically somehow. (There's a
>>> word for it but it escapes me.)
>>>
>>> Sherm
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
From: Tom Loredo <loredo@astro...>
Subject: Re: Volume pedal for acoustic?
Date: Mon, 05 Aug 2002 15:32:57 -0400
Organization: Cornell University
Jim's Mail wrote:
>
> I think I can still take it back to the store as I have all the receipts. I
> have a Highlander pickup in a CFox Small Jumbo.
>
> I have zero experience with the electronic side of the guitar world. It was
> a big step for me to get an amp. Now that I don't have control knobs
> (unlike the Taylor I sold) I need some way to control the volume. This
> seemed like a good solution at the time. . .
Jim-
The Highlander is an active pickup, so its output is low impedance.
You can send a low impedance signal into either a high or low impedance
input with negligible difference tone-wise. It's the high impedance
signals (e.g., from passive piezo pickups) you have to be careful about---
they must go into a high impedance input.
For your use, any volume pedal should work. Different makers and
different models from the same maker have different tapers (rates of
change of volume with pedal position); that and features such as
the min volume capability are all you need to worry about.
Peace,
Tom Loredo
From: Tom Loredo <loredo@astro...>
Subject: Re: Volume pedal for acoustic?
Date: Tue, 06 Aug 2002 19:33:34 -0400
Organization: Cornell University
Hi Mitch-
MKarlo wrote:
>
> Good to see you weigh in here, Tom. At one time you advised not using the
> "volume" knob on my PADI to actually control the volume, I presume for tonal
> reasons. Would a volume pedal be a good fix? How should I position things in
> the signal chain? I have B-Band actives with the PADI. Thanks.
Hmm, I don't recall it quite that way, though I haven't bothered to look
up the original posts. As I recall (this has come up in a few threads,
I think, so I may not be recalling your situation), the issue was in regard
to keeping the PADI volume low and a subsequent volume knob high. The
PADI volume control is just an attenuator, so unless there is a good
reason otherwise, it should be maxed out (I believe this is even stated
in the manual). But certainly one good reason for it not to be
maxed is if you are adjusting volume during a gig. With the PADI volume
at or near max, set all other levels so you are getting as loud a sound
as you will need (maybe have it just below max in case you find later
you need a little extra juice!). Then back off the volume as necessary
during the gig when you need less volume.
The PADI volume knob should have no noticable effect on tone.
If you need to adjust the volume and the knob is awkward, a volume
pedal is just fine. The PADI has an effects loop jack, and as the
manual notes, this is a good place for a volume pedal. If you are
using the line (1/4" phono jack) output rather than the XLR out,
you can also put it after the box if you wish. And if you are using
an active pickup, you can even put it before the box, though that
isn't optimal.
Peace,
Tom
| Effects on acoustic guitars [18] |
|---|
From: Michael James Richard Brown <rockon02@senet...>
Subject: Effects on acoustic guitars
Date: Sun, 16 Jun 2002 16:27:55 +0930
There has been a lot of discussion on the group lately on the use of
various effects units with "acoustic" guitars. I don't want to sound
like a fanatical purist (as I'm certainly not one) but surely this
defeats the whole concept of an acoustic guitar. I have soundboard
pickups in two of my guitars and a UST in another, but I only use them
for recording, and then try to use the sound without effects. If I
want a sound other than that produced by one of my acoustics, then I
use an electric, and then feel free to tamper with the sound as much
as I like. Michael B
From: Jeff G <morespam@waysoft...>
Subject: Re: Effects on acoustic guitars
Date: Sun, 16 Jun 2002 17:03:38 GMT
In article <<gb2mguk1c70de38b5r0kd4goni07j5980t@4ax...>>,
Michael James Richard Brown wrote:> There has been a lot of discussion on the group lately on the use of
> various effects units with "acoustic" guitars. I don't want to sound
> like a fanatical purist (as I'm certainly not one) but surely this
> defeats the whole concept of an acoustic guitar...
I find that "defeating concepts" is almost always a good
thing.
OTOH, one thing I like about acoustic guitar is that it
CAN stand alone - naked and unplugged - and still be fun
and (despite my bumbling fingers) musical.
--
-jeff
<jeff/at\waysoft/dot\com>
"I" moved your stupid cheese.
From: foldedpath <mbarrs@REMOVE-NOSPAM...>
Subject: Re: Effects on acoustic guitars
Date: Sun, 16 Jun 2002 19:12:17 GMT
Organization: Giganews.Com - Premium News Outsourcing
"Michael James Richard Brown" <<rockon02@senet...>> wrote in
message news:<gb2mguk1c70de38b5r0kd4goni07j5980t@4ax...>...
> There has been a lot of discussion on the group lately on the
> use of various effects units with "acoustic" guitars. I don't
want
> to sound like a fanatical purist (as I'm certainly not one) but
> surely this defeats the whole concept of an acoustic guitar.
>
> I have soundboard pickups in two of my guitars and a UST
> in another, but I only use them for recording, and then try to
> use the sound without effects. If I want a sound other than
that
> produced by one of my acoustics, then I use an electric, and
> then feel free to tamper with the sound as much
> as I like. Michael B
We all probably draw this line in the sand at a different point.
:-)
To me, the only true acoustic sound is when I'm sitting 6 to 10
feet in front of someone playing a guitar without amplification.
That's where I'm hearing the fully-developed guitar wave off the
instrument -- the sound of the top, the resonant air mass inside,
the direct sound of the strings, the resonance of the neck and
headstock -- all of that coming at me direct, and also as early
reflections off the walls and floor, and then diffusing through
multiple reflections through the room. That's acoustic sound, and
you take a big step away from it when you try to shove all that
through a tiny pickup or microphone transducer, and then try to
reproduce it on the back end through a set of speakers.
If I had better acoustic spaces to record in, with less ambient
noise so I could back the mics up far enough from the guitar,
then I wouldn't need digital spatializing and reverb effects. As
it is, I don't have that perfect recording environment, so I use
a little digital reverb. I also use some subtle effects and a
full stereo field for live sound reinforcement, to help make up
for the limitations of the pickup and speaker system.
I think we should all remember that everything we use is an "EQ",
and everything we use is also an "effect", whether it's
electronic or natural. The type of guitar I choose is an EQ, and
so is my choice of microphone or pickup. You probably don't think
of the room you're sitting in as a reverb chamber, but that's
exactly what it is. If you choose to record your guitar through a
pickup and use no effects, or close-mic your guitar so you're
getting no room sound at all, then you're using an "anechoic
chamber effect" that has no relationship to how people usually
hear an acoustic guitar being played in a room. I have CD's of
solo classical guitar music where no digital effects were used,
but they were recorded in acoustically wonderful spaces. That's
an intentional use of an "effect", even though the effect doesn't
come in a metal box or software plug-in. You can't get away from
these choices, so it's just a question of choosing which effects
you want, and which you don't.
Mike Barrs
From: Hojo2x <hojo2x@aol...>
Subject: Re: Effects on acoustic guitars
Date: 16 Jun 2002 20:31:30 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
Michael James Richard Stanislaus Hank Billybob "Opie" Brown in Australia wrote:
>There has been a lot of discussion on the group lately on the use of>various
effects units with "acoustic" guitars.
Okay.
>I don't want to sound>like a fanatical purist (as I'm certainly not one)
No, you sound more like a fanatical AUSTRALIAN, frightening pallid North
Americans with your flamboyant accent and waving shrimp skewers for the barbie
in one hand and enormous cans of Fosters Lager in the other!!
Snorting with impatience, MB continues:
> but surely this>defeats the whole concept of an acoustic guitar.
>If I>want a sound other than that produced by one of my acoustics, then I
>use an electric, and then feel free to tamper with the sound as much>as I
like.
I understand and sympathize with your feelings there, Michael, and have been
frustrated more than once by an acoustic guitarist who went too heavy on the
effects. There's one woman up here who plays a Japanese-made Bozo guitar who
uses a chorus effect on every single song, and it just drives me crazy.
Having said that, I have an effects board and use it sparingly.
If you are playing a full evening of three to four sets and need to keep things
varied, an effect here or there can add a lot.
My general rule of thumb is that I limit myself to one use of each effect per
set, no more. I don't run through a chorus the entire evening, and I try to
keep the degree and intensity of each effect subtle and controlled.
It really just depends on the song, but like anything else, it's just a tool.
I don't use effects when playing at home, but once you run your guitar into an
amp or PA you're no longer looking at a pure "acoustic" guitar, anyway.
So if certain songs will benefit with a subtle tinkering of the signal chain, I
have no profound philosophical problems with doing that.
So long as it's done subtly, intelligently and seldom....
Wade Hampton Miller
Chugiak, Alaska
From: Gorblimey <persistent_offender@yahoo...>
Subject: Re: Effects on acoustic guitars
Date: Sun, 16 Jun 2002 22:48:34 +0100
On Sun, 16 Jun 2002 16:27:55 +0930, Michael James Richard Brown
<<rockon02@senet...>> wrote:
>There has been a lot of discussion on the group lately on the use of
>various effects units with "acoustic" guitars. I don't want to sound
>like a fanatical purist (as I'm certainly not one) but surely this
>defeats the whole concept of an acoustic guitar.
I am the only electric player I know who uses no effects at all - just
the guitar and the amp, and I get pissed off listening to guitarists
who over egg the pudding with fuzzboxes, phasers etc. On the other
hand, one of my favourite acoustic players is John Martyn, who relies
on a range of effects from simple phasing through to loops and God
knows what else.
I guess as long as the performance choices one makes are driven by the
demands of the music, it's OK to use whatever one likes to enhance it.
Pete (electric guitar purist!)
--
Pete
From: Lumpy <usenet-abuse@digitalcartography...>
Subject: Re: Effects on acoustic guitars
Date: Sun, 16 Jun 2002 16:28:09 -0700
Gorblimey wrote:
> I guess as long as the performance
> choices one makes are driven by the
> demands of the music, it's OK to
> use whatever one likes to enhance it.
I love the sound of Cage's 4'33" on
a vintage Strat with just a touch
of distortion.
lumpy
From: P&R <ray.pattyNOSPAM@prodigy...>
Subject: Re: Effects on acoustic guitars
Date: Sun, 16 Jun 2002 23:58:06 GMT
Organization: Prodigy Internet http://www.prodigy.com
I saw Phil Keaggy not to long ago and thought his use of effects with
acoustic guitar was great. It was subtle but he was able to get so much
from that one guitar on stage, at times sounding like a whole band. Effects
on a acoustic aren't appropriate for all tunes in all occasions, but when
used with taste and creativity can give the player a great pallet of tones
to choose from, that still don't sound like an acoustic guitar.
From: Steve <sefstrat@aol...>
Subject: Re: Effects on acoustic guitars
Date: 17 Jun 2002 02:43:24 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
>There has been a lot of discussion on the group lately on the use of
>various effects units with "acoustic" guitars. I don't want to sound
>like a fanatical purist (as I'm certainly not one) but surely this
>defeats the whole concept of an acoustic guitar. I have soundboard
>pickups in two of my guitars and a UST in another, but I only use them
>for recording, and then try to use the sound without effects. If I
>want a sound other than that produced by one of my acoustics, then I
>use an electric, and then feel free to tamper with the sound as much
>as I like. Michael B
>
On live gigs, I use two effects on my acoustic at times...at other times, none
at all.
I use reverb or a touch of delay at times, so that the guitar matches the sonic
space of the vocal.
And sometimes I use a touch of a very slight, slow chorus (a TC Electronics)
for a spacious feeling.
SEFSTRAT
music webpage: http://members.aol.com/sefstrat/index.html/sefpage.html
From: JS <jefsu@earthlink...>
Subject: Re: Effects on acoustic guitars
Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2002 03:37:34 GMT
Organization: EarthLink Inc. -- http://www.EarthLink.net
>And sometimes I use a touch of a very slight, slow chorus (a TC Electronics)
>for a spacious feeling.
...And there is nothing quite like the TC chorus.
Jeff S.
From: David Kilpatrick <iconmags2@btconnect...>
Subject: Re: Effects on acoustic guitars
Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2002 11:13:28 +0000 (UTC)
Organization: Icon Publications Limited
Steve wrote:
>>There has been a lot of discussion on the group lately on the use of
>>various effects units with "acoustic" guitars. I don't want to sound
>>like a fanatical purist (as I'm certainly not one) but surely this
>>defeats the whole concept of an acoustic guitar. I have soundboard
>>pickups in two of my guitars and a UST in another, but I only use them
>>for recording, and then try to use the sound without effects. If I
>>want a sound other than that produced by one of my acoustics, then I
>>use an electric, and then feel free to tamper with the sound as much
>>as I like. Michael B
>>
>>
>
> On live gigs, I use two effects on my acoustic at times...at other times, none
> at all.
>
> I use reverb or a touch of delay at times, so that the guitar matches the sonic
> space of the vocal.
>
> And sometimes I use a touch of a very slight, slow chorus (a TC Electronics)
> for a spacious feeling.
>
I do exactly the same thing with a Boss AD-5 - slight reverb, slight stereo chorus.
It overcomes nasty room acoustics and makes the guitar sound to the
audience the same way it does in a very good listening environment.
David
From: Bob Dorgan <dorgan@fltg...>
Subject: Re: Effects on acoustic guitars
Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2002 09:13:30 -0400
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com
"Steve" <<sefstrat@aol...>> wrote in message
news:<20020616224324.27317.00000552@mb-fg...>...
> >There has been a lot of discussion on the group lately on the use of
> >various effects units with "acoustic" guitars. I don't want to sound
> >like a fanatical purist (as I'm certainly not one) but surely this
> >defeats the whole concept of an acoustic guitar. I have soundboard
> >pickups in two of my guitars and a UST in another, but I only use them
> >for recording, and then try to use the sound without effects. If I
> >want a sound other than that produced by one of my acoustics, then I
> >use an electric, and then feel free to tamper with the sound as much
> >as I like. Michael B
> >
>
> On live gigs, I use two effects on my acoustic at times...at other times,
none
> at all.
>
> I use reverb or a touch of delay at times, so that the guitar matches the
sonic
> space of the vocal.
>
> And sometimes I use a touch of a very slight, slow chorus (a TC
Electronics)
> for a spacious feeling.
>
>
That's pretty much the formula for the James Taylor sound.
My rule for ANY effect on acoustic:
Twiddle with it so that it sounds "just right" to you.
Back it off 10%.
Play on.
Bob Dorgan
From: Hojo2x <hojo2x@aol...>
Subject: Re: Effects on acoustic guitars
Date: 17 Jun 2002 19:32:58 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
Bob Dorgan summed it up rather neatly when he wrote:
>My rule for ANY effect on acoustic:
>Twiddle with it so that it sounds "just right" to you.
>Back it off 10%.
>Play on.
To which I would add: if you like the resulting sound on two specific songs,
either drop it from one or else never play the two songs in the same set.
Less is more.
Wade Hampton Miller
Chugiak, Alaska
From: foldedpath <mbarrs@REMOVE-NOSPAM...>
Subject: Re: Effects on acoustic guitars
Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2002 21:38:07 GMT
Organization: Giganews.Com - Premium News Outsourcing
"Hojo2x" <<hojo2x@aol...>> wrote in message
news:<20020617153258.00520.00002152@mb-mc...>...
> Bob Dorgan summed it up rather neatly when he wrote:
>
> >My rule for ANY effect on acoustic:
> >Twiddle with it so that it sounds "just right" to you.
> >Back it off 10%.
> >Play on.
>
> To which I would add: if you like the resulting sound on two
> specific songs, either drop it from one or else never play the
> two songs in the same set.
>
> Less is more.
Wade,
I respectfully disagree. Sometimes more is more. :-)
There are too many different styles of music, and too many
players with different approaches to reduce it down to rules like
this. What works on a folk music or bluegrass stage is going to
be different from what works for player doing rock, blues, jazz,
or alternative music. We all may come to RMMGA because we love
acoustic guitars, but we sure play a lot of different styles of
music on these guitars.
For some players, effects are just a subtle way to enhance the
overall quality of the sound system. For other players, the
effects are an integral part of the guitar sound. I'm thinking of
Michael Hedges here. I sat 6 feet away from him in a small room
once, and he had an effects-drenched sound on his guitar. Lots of
chorus and delay, plus a magnetic soundhole pickup on his guitar
so it wasn't a pure acoustic sound to begin with. The level of
effects was what many people here would probably consider
overdone. But combined with his playing style, it was a
wonderful sound. A purist might object and say that it wasn't
an acoustic sound, but it sure didn't sound like an electric
guitar to me either. It just sounded like an "extreme acoustic".
I don't remember myself thinking at the time that he was
overdoing the effects. Who are we to say that Hedges shouldn't
have used the same effects for two songs in the same set? Hedges
knew exactly what he wanted his guitar to sound like. If you have
a strong vision about your guitar sound, then you don't need to
follow rules like those above, which are basically designed to
avoid upsetting the audience. Sometimes it's good to upset the
audience. ;-)
I can predict a comeback answer.... that for every Hedges there
are thousands of wankers who abuse their chorus pedals. And
that's true, but I still don't know how you can give advice to
someone about the use of effects as a general rule, without even
knowing what type of music they're playing. Somewhere in that
crowd of wankers there may be a proto-Michael Hedges, or
proto-Bill Frisell, or proto-David Torn, who should be encouraged
to explore the more extreme limits of guitar sound. The other
chorus-abusing wankers in the crowd will eventually learn what's
appropriate for their style of music, or else they won't be able
to find an audience for what they do.
Variety is the spice of life. The world would be a boring place
if all our guitars spoke with the same voice.
Mike Barrs
From: MKarlo <mkarlo@aol...>
Subject: Re: Effects on acoustic guitars
Date: 18 Jun 2002 00:01:46 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
Mike Barrs wrote some good comments on effects, then concluded:
>Variety is the spice of life. The world would be a boring place
>if all our guitars spoke with the same voice.
I think you nailed it with "guitars spoke". That's what I want to hear is the
guitar "speaking" as much as possible, not some box from T.C. or Lexicon et al.
I'm not nearly as impressed with somebody whose sound is saturated witheffects, as I am with someone whose playing is crisp, accurate, and musical
without them.
Once we add that stuff to a discernable degree, we cease playing just an
acoustic guitar. I realize when we just plug it in, we do likewise to some
extent. But one of my goals along with many others who've expressed likewise
is to get my plugged-in guitar to sound as natural as possible.
The quest continues, though I'm much closer with my latest setup.
Mitch
From: foldedpath <mbarrs@REMOVE-NOSPAM...>
Subject: Re: Effects on acoustic guitars
Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2002 01:23:20 GMT
Organization: Giganews.Com - Premium News Outsourcing
"MKarlo" <<mkarlo@aol...>> wrote in message
news:<20020617200146.05926.00000882@mb-mw...>...
> Mike Barrs wrote some good comments on effects, then concluded:
>
>
>
> >Variety is the spice of life. The world would be a boring
place
> >if all our guitars spoke with the same voice.
>
> I think you nailed it with "guitars spoke". That's what I want
to
> hear is the guitar "speaking" as much as possible, not some box
> from T.C. or Lexicon et al. I'm not nearly as impressed with
> somebody whose sound is saturated with effects, as I am with
> someone whose playing is crisp, accurate, and musical
> without them.
>
> Once we add that stuff to a discernable degree, we cease
playing
> just an acoustic guitar. I realize when we just plug it in, we
do
> likewise to some extent.
It's more than just "some extent". :-) By plugging in, you
completely change the nature of the instrument. You're no longer
playing an acoustic guitar, you're now playing an
acoustic-electric hybrid where everything in your signal chain
becomes an effect. Your pickup is an effect, your preamp is an
effect, your choice of speakers are sound effects. You may not be
using some box from T.C. or Lexicon, but everything connected to
your guitar is still "some box" that's affecting the sound.
Why is adding in a little digital simulation of a reverberant
room space any worse than slicing out a tiny portion of your
guitar's natural tone with a pickup, and then shoving it through
a paper speaker cone? I don't get that. This is ALL artificial
sound. The way many of us use effects is an attempt to make it
sound a little more natural, with chorus, delay and reverb (in
moderation) which help restore some of the "juice" you hear in a
pure acoustic performance.
I guess this is just a personal taste thing, but many of the solo
fingerstyle guitar albums that I've heard recently, have been
recorded so dry that they make my skin itch. I want to hear it a
little more wet, a little more juicy. If you don't have a good di
gital FX unit, or you're philosophically opposed to that, then at
least find yourself a good acoustically resonant space and record
there with microphones. Put a little life into the sound!
> But one of my goals along with many others who've expressed
> likewise is to get my plugged-in guitar to sound as natural as
> possible. The quest continues, though I'm much closer with my
> latest setup.
That's a noble (if impossible) goal; to try to reproduce the
natural, unplugged acoustic sound perfectly with amplification.
But I think it's also a noble goal to take a sound that is
unnatural to begin with, and then run with it... piling on even
more effects, if it sounds good to the artist for a particular
style of music.
I guess this will always be a contentious topic in an "acoustic"
newsgroup! But it's fun talking about it. :-)
I'll exit with a RA clip from the amazon.com page for Jerry
Douglas' latest album "Lookout for Hope". This clip is from the
"Little Martha" track. I think it's a good example of an artistic
use of effects in the service of the music. This is not what a
Dobro sounds like unamplified. Douglas is intentionally choosing
an effect here (probably multitracked part-doubling or track
shifting, but it might also be chorus) because he thinks it's
right for the song:
<http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/clipserve/B000065CHD001001/104
-0335571-5520773>
Is that "acoustic music"? I don't know, but I like it. It's
juicy.
Mike Barrs
From: Hojo2x <hojo2x@aol...>
Subject: Re: Effects on acoustic guitars
Date: 18 Jun 2002 18:48:45 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
Hey, Mike -
I think that to a certain extent we're talking at cross-purposes. To my mind,
what you're doing is "getting the sound," not playing with effects for their
own sake.
What I'm talking about is deliberately adding distortion and other overt
effects to an acoustic instrument's signal chain in order to achieve a
specific, dramatic sound for a song here and there.
It's something I want the audience to notice. I'm doing it for musical
reasons, or maybe showbiz reasons, not to make things more "natural."
Sometimes I LIKE things unnatural.
But it needs to be done sparingly when you take the approach I'm talking about.
As for your efforts to get the acoustic sound more "juicy," more power to you.
I dislike the sound of acoustic guitars recorded in heavily carpeted rooms - it
makes them all sound like archtops or Ovations or something else that's
sonically uninspiring.
I like to let things ring a little bit. Sometimes the room cooperates, and
sometimes it does not. So I have no philosophical opposition to getting the
sound the way you want it.
It's just easy to overdo, which is why Dorgan's advice about scaling things
back once you think you've got it is often a good idea.
Wade Hampton Miller
Chugiak, Alaska
From: Greg N. <yodel_dodel@yahoo...>
Subject: Re: Effects on acoustic guitars
Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2002 15:28:58 +0100
MKarlo wrote:
> ... what I want to hear is the guitar "speaking" as much as
> possible, not some box from T.C. or Lexicon et al.
On the other hand, many people (especially we here in RMMGA land) tend
to over-emphasize the "quality" of sound and how it relates to the
quality of the music. To me, it is the notes that make the music, not
so much the sound of a particular instrument. Al Di Meola uses an
Ovation, Chet Atkins played a solidbody electric nylon, for chrissake.
Both are very inferior choices from an acoustic fidelity standpoint. My
Django Reinhard recordings, being re-releases of 1940s shellac 78s are
crap, if you solely judge the sound quality. But in all cases, the
debatable sound does not take away one iota from the musical quality of
their work.
> I'm not nearly as impressed with somebody whose sound
> is saturated with effects, as I am with someone whose
> playing is crisp, accurate, and musical without them.
I think a certain amount of effects is necessary for a plugged in
acoustic guitar, even if the pickup produced an absolutely true 100%
unaltered (except for the volume) equivalence of the unamplified guitar
(which no pickup ever does).
For when you plug in, you only amplify the instrument, not the ambience
of the room. As a result, all amplification makes the sound unnaturally
dry and cramped. A bit of "artificial" ambience, consisting of either
chorus, reverb, or delay, or a suitable mix of them, only helps to get
things back to feeling more "natural".
Obviously, it is wise not to overdo.
As for me, once I found that suitable mix, I stuck with it. For every
gig, for all tunes.
Greg N.
--
http://peepmatz.coolhaus.de
http://www.neatone.com
From: MKarlo <mkarlo@aol...>
Subject: Re: Effects on acoustic guitars
Date: 18 Jun 2002 22:32:05 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
>On the other hand, many people (especially we here in RMMGA land) tend
>to over-emphasize the "quality" of sound and how it relates to the
>quality of the music. To me, it is the notes that make the music, not
>so much the sound of a particular instrument. Al Di Meola uses an
>Ovation, Chet Atkins played a solidbody electric nylon, for chrissake.
>Both are very inferior choices from an acoustic fidelity standpoint. My
>Django Reinhard recordings, being re-releases of 1940s shellac 78s are
>crap, if you solely judge the sound quality. But in all cases, the
>debatable sound does not take away one iota from the musical quality of
>their work.
>
>> I'm not nearly as impressed with somebody whose sound
>> is saturated with effects, as I am with someone whose
>> playing is crisp, accurate, and musical without them.
>
>I think a certain amount of effects is necessary for a plugged in
>acoustic guitar, even if the pickup produced an absolutely true 100%
>unaltered (except for the volume) equivalence of the unamplified guitar
>(which no pickup ever does).
>
>For when you plug in, you only amplify the instrument, not the ambience
>of the room. As a result, all amplification makes the sound unnaturally
>dry and cramped. A bit of "artificial" ambience, consisting of either
>chorus, reverb, or delay, or a suitable mix of them, only helps to get
>things back to feeling more "natural".
>
>Obviously, it is wise not to overdo.
>
>As for me, once I found that suitable mix, I stuck with it. For every
>gig, for all tunes.
>
>Greg N.
Good comments, all. One clarification. My operative word was "saturated". I
actually use a Lexicon rack unit to do just what many of you are suggesting,
adding just a little bit of effect to liven up the sound. But it's almost
undetectable unless you have a very discerning ear. It's the obvious use of
effects that dominate the character of the sound that I don't care for on
acoustics. But it's very much a TEHO kind of issue.
Mitch
| AC power for guitar effects [6] |
|---|
From: Steve Comeau <notcomeaus@comcast...>
Subject: AC power for guitar effects
Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2002 10:07:11 GMT
Organization: Giganews.Com - Premium News Outsourcing
Folks,
How do you power your guitar effects from AC? Is there really something
special about the AC adapters sold by the effect manufacturer? My gut tells
me no.
I want to use a Radio Shack universal AC adapter for a Boss pedal. Of
course I'll select the proper jack, polarity and voltage setting. Anyone
have any problems with those?
All the best,
Steve
From: Jay Brown <troubleman@erols...>
Subject: Re: AC power for guitar effects
Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2002 06:39:48 -0400
Steve,
It really does depend upon the effect. Modern digital stuff pretty much
needs a clean power supply that's in the ballpark as far as output. Clean is
the operative work here - most hate a fluctuating power supply, and that's
what the higher priced power supplies deliver that the cheapie ones don't.
Vintage effects and older stuff, especially the analog stuff, can be a
different story. This is especially true of the effects from the 60's and
70's. Those effects that were built around carbon batteries as a power
source can be finicky. I have an ancient Fuzz Face (Dallas Arbiter) that
doesn't like batteries that put out too much juice. Modern alkaline and
lithium batteries can actually put out more than 9V. That Fuzz Face actually
likes 7-8V, much like you would expect from the old Ray-o-Vac carbon
batteries. They never put out 9V. Personally, I'd strongly recommend
spending the bucks and getting a VHT Valvulator (about $200). It delivers
clean power to multiple effects, and it really, really cleans up your signal
between them as well. You'd be surprised how much of an effect line-loading
can have, once your total/combined length of cable gets beyond 15-20 feet.
You lose signal strength, high end, and clarity. The Valvulator fixes all of
that, and kills the hum/buzz associated with line loading.
probably more info than you wanted.....
peace,
jb
"Steve Comeau" <<notcomeaus@comcast...>> wrote in message
news:jDDP8.10346$<8i1.663592@bin2...>...
> Folks,
>
> How do you power your guitar effects from AC? Is there really something
> special about the AC adapters sold by the effect manufacturer? My gut
tells
> me no.
>
> I want to use a Radio Shack universal AC adapter for a Boss pedal. Of
> course I'll select the proper jack, polarity and voltage setting. Anyone
> have any problems with those?
>
> All the best,
>
> Steve
>
>
From: David Kilpatrick <iconmags2@btconnect...>
Subject: Re: AC power for guitar effects
Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2002 11:27:53 +0000 (UTC)
Organization: Icon Publications Limited
Steve Comeau wrote:
> Folks,
>
> How do you power your guitar effects from AC? Is there really something
> special about the AC adapters sold by the effect manufacturer? My gut tells
> me no.
>
> I want to use a Radio Shack universal AC adapter for a Boss pedal. Of
> course I'll select the proper jack, polarity and voltage setting. Anyone
> have any problems with those?
>
I just bought a 1.67amp 9v adaptor because I wanted to power half a
dozen units (the standard multi-outlet one is only 450mA!).
Mistake - it is a) unregulated - can surge like hell when switched on
b) unearthed and unshielded - massive earth loop hum when used with
portable amp not earthed itself, or with more than one effect pedal.
Roland, Boss etc adaptors are regulated, shielded, grounded properly,
and have low noise generation.
It only takes one crappy AC-9v adaptor in your signal chain to put hum
into the system, or produce an unwanted surge. Unregulated 9v adaptors
can produce over 12v actual or as low as 6, depending on what you plug
into them.
I do use independent adaptors but they are generally just as expensive
as the purpose made ones and are always regulated, grounded, shielded.
NB: it matters even more with minidisk players, 3v, 4.5v etc gear.
David
From: Tom Loredo <loredo@astro...>
Subject: Re: AC power for guitar effects
Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2002 17:32:18 -0400
Organization: Cornell University
Jay Brown wrote:
>
> It really does depend upon the effect. Modern digital stuff pretty much
> needs a clean power supply that's in the ballpark as far as output. Clean is
> the operative work here - most hate a fluctuating power supply, and that's
> what the higher priced power supplies deliver that the cheapie ones don't.
David Kilpatrick wrote:
>
> It only takes one crappy AC-9v adaptor in your signal chain to put hum
> into the system, or produce an unwanted surge. Unregulated 9v adaptors
> can produce over 12v actual or as low as 6, depending on what you plug
> into them.
Well, there is some truth in these remarks, but I think some points
are worth making.
First, AC power supplies are by nature unregulated. And even many
devices that have DC power supplies include a filter and additional
regulation in the device itself.
I don't think one can safely make a rule about this stuff, but I
offer the following as a guideline. If your device uses a DC power
supply and/or a power supply with more than two connections (e.g.,
a DIN or RJ style jack, as are used by Alesis and Rane for example),
then stick with the manufacturer's supply. But if the device uses
an AC adapter with a standard 2-connector jack (coaxial power jack
or mini phone jack), then the device must have its filtering and
regulation onboard, and it is likely that an off-the-shelf regulator
will work fine for you.
If the device requires a DC supply, but is a small device (1/2 rack
or stomp box) and uses a standard connector (coaxial or mini phone),
chances are you'll do fine with any name-brand DC supply with the
proper connector and equal or slightly larger current or wattage
rating. I've done this with no problems. But if you can get the
manufacturer's supply, get it. It's hard to tell what will work
for sure without knowing how much additional filtering and regulation
is in the device.
I've followed these guidelines for years and never had problems.
Peace,
Tom Loredo
From: Steve Comeau <notcomeaus@comcast...>
Subject: Re: AC power for guitar effects
Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2002 03:08:29 GMT
Organization: Giganews.Com - Premium News Outsourcing
Thanks to everyone who offered their experience and advice.
As it turns out, I needed to use a Boss AC adapter for my CH-1 Super Chorus.
The Radio Shack universal AC adapter introduced a nasty hum with this pedal
even though it works fine with my Boss RV-3 delay pedal. Go figure.
So I trucked out to Sam Ash and bought the Boss PSA-120 AC adapter. Problem
solved.
All the best,
Steve Comeau
"Steve Comeau" <<notcomeaus@comcast...>> wrote in message
news:jDDP8.10346$<8i1.663592@bin2...>...
> Folks,
>
> How do you power your guitar effects from AC? Is there really something
> special about the AC adapters sold by the effect manufacturer? My gut
tells
> me no.
>
> I want to use a Radio Shack universal AC adapter for a Boss pedal. Of
> course I'll select the proper jack, polarity and voltage setting. Anyone
> have any problems with those?
>
> All the best,
>
> Steve
>
>
From: Steve <sefstrat@aol...>
Subject: Re: AC power for guitar effects
Date: 19 Jun 2002 15:06:46 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
<<Thanks to everyone who offered their experience and advice.
As it turns out, I needed to use a Boss AC adapter for my CH-1 Super Chorus.
The Radio Shack universal AC adapter introduced a nasty hum with this pedal
even though it works fine with my Boss RV-3 delay pedal. Go figure.
So I trucked out to Sam Ash and bought the Boss PSA-120 AC adapter. Problem
solved.
All the best,
Steve Comeau>>
For my electric pedalboard rig, I had a local electronics/amp/engineering whiz
build a power supply for me. Then he removed all of the backs from all of the
effects pedals, and screwed the pedals directly to a steel sheet in my
pedalboard. He concealed the power supply beneath that steel sheet. He then
hardwired all of the pedals to the power (no plug-in jacks).
No hum. At all. Quiet. And bulletproof.
SEFSTRAT
music webpage: http://members.aol.com/sefstrat/index.html/sefpage.html
| Boomerang [3] |
|---|
From: Jeff <strdap@webtv...>
Subject: Boomerang
Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2002 16:32:34 -0400 (EDT)
Organization: WebTV Subscriber
Hi, anyone here familiar with the "Boomerang" phrase sampler? Is it easy
to use (idiot proof) ? Does it sound best recorded or live thru an amp ?
etc,, Thanky,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, Jeff
From: David Kilpatrick <iconmags2@btconnect...>
Subject: Re: Boomerang
Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2002 22:37:02 +0000 (UTC)
Organization: Icon Publications Limited
Jeff wrote:
> Hi, anyone here familiar with the "Boomerang" phrase sampler? Is it easy
> to use (idiot proof) ? Does it sound best recorded or live thru an amp ?
> etc,, Thanky,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, Jeff
>
Sound is pretty lo-fi, best through a standard mono guitar amp. It is
not really that good for recording, can be noisy, and the levels (in/out
and overdubbing) are not especially easy to get perfect.
but it's great fun.
David
From: foldedpath <mbarrs@REMOVE-NOSPAM...>
Subject: Re: Boomerang
Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2002 23:04:23 GMT
Organization: Giganews.Com - Premium News Outsourcing
"David Kilpatrick" <<iconmags2@btconnect...>> wrote in message
news:<3D18F080.7070207@btconnect...>...
>
>
> Jeff wrote:
>
> > Hi, anyone here familiar with the "Boomerang" phrase
> > sampler? Is it easy to use (idiot proof) ? Does it sound
> > best recorded or live thru an amp ? etc,,
> > Thanky,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, Jeff
> >
>
>
> Sound is pretty lo-fi, best through a standard mono guitar
> amp. It is not really that good for recording, can be noisy,
> and the levels (in/out and overdubbing) are not especially
> easy to get perfect.
>
> but it's great fun.
I don't have a Boomerang, but I notice that it's selling for
basically the same price as the Electrix Repeater at
www.8thstreet.com. For the same money, I think the Repeater is a
better looper/recorder.
I have the Electrix Repeater, and it's a great looper. it records
loops on flashcards, so you can move the audio up to your PC,
which means it can double (sort of) as a 4-track recorder. The
sound quality is pretty good (16 bit/44.1k) but that requires
carefully balancing your I/O levels. For the same price as the
Boomerang, I think the Electrix Repeater is a much more capable
looper. A few drawbacks -- it doesn't come with a footswitch;
you'll need to get a $40 Digitech TRS pedal to get the basic
start/stop functions, and it's another $130 or so for full Midi
control with a Behringer programmable Midi pedal. And you'll have
to puzzle out Midi messages to get that working. This is a plus
for the Boomerang over the Repeater. You'll also want more memory
on the flashcard for the Repeater... that's another $50-$80 for a
128mb card. But still, for the same entry-level price as the
Boomerang, I think it's a better looper.
You can get more user reviews on both these loopers (and
everything else out there now) here:
http://www.loopers-delight.com/tools/tools.html
And I'll second what David said about loopers... they are GREAT
fun! Also great practice tools, especially if you do any single
note soloing over chords. A looper will also tell you exactly how
good (or bad) your sense of time is.
Mike Barrs
| Help Requested on Echoplex [2] |
|---|
From: Paul Wieland <paulwieland@prodigy...>
Subject: Help Requested on Echoplex
Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2002 22:08:17 GMT
Organization: Prodigy Internet http://www.prodigy.com
Hello All,
I bought a Gibson Echoplex looper several months ago and it's a blast. It's
got to be one of the most confusing things I've ever tried to learn, but
it's really taking me on some good rides. (I could really use a seminar or
two on using it, but that's a different thread).
The Echoplex has one 1/4" input and one 1/4" output. I'm running a Fishman
pocket blender in and then out to a p.a.
What I'd like to do is run more than one instrument or voice into the
Echoplex. My music store said simple, use your effects loop on the p.a.
However...I checked and there isn't one.
Can someone give me advice on how ro accomplish this?
Thanks in advance,
Paul
From: Fill X <mothra666@aol...>
Subject: Re: Help Requested on Echoplex
Date: 29 Jun 2002 15:58:27 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
You would need a send on your pa, but it's not that simple. The echoplex is low
impedence to accept a guitar. Often sends from pro eqipment are line level
which will kill the echoplex with gain going into it, in which case you'd need
a backwards direct box or impedence matcher like a Re-Amp.
If you want to do this you don't need to have an effects loop labeled "effects
loop" you just need a send a a channel to bring it back on.
P h i l i p
______________________________
"I'm too fucking busy and vice-versa"
- Dorothy ParkerNAWCC member 0151958
| Electrix Repeater to be discontinued [4] |
|---|
From: Tom Loredo <loredo@astro...>
Subject: Electrix Repeater to be discontinued
Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2002 18:29:01 -0400
Organization: Cornell University
Hi folks-
IVL Technologies Discontinues Electrix Product Line
http://www.harmony-central.com/News/2002/IVL-Discontinues-Electrix.html
I just learned of this over on RAP. I know there are some
Repeater fans on this group so I thought I'd pass along the
news. Sad that an innovative company is biting the bullet
so quickly. I wonder if what happened with the Lexicon JamMan
will happen with the Repeater---the JamMan didn't sell well
for several years, so Lexicon pulled it. A few years later
it was a hotter item, and they started selling used for more
than the new price....
Peace,
Tom Loredo
From: foldedpath <mbarrs@REMOVE-NOSPAM...>
Subject: Re: Electrix Repeater to be discontinued
Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2002 00:06:35 GMT
Organization: Giganews.Com - Premium News Outsourcing
"Tom Loredo" <<loredo@astro...>> wrote in message
news:<3D2CB52D.F7B24D8C@astro...>...
>
> Hi folks-
>
> IVL Technologies Discontinues Electrix Product Line
>
http://www.harmony-central.com/News/2002/IVL-Discontinues-Electri
x.html
>
> I just learned of this over on RAP. I know there are some
> Repeater fans on this group so I thought I'd pass along the
> news. Sad that an innovative company is biting the bullet
> so quickly. I wonder if what happened with the Lexicon JamMan
> will happen with the Repeater---the JamMan didn't sell well
> for several years, so Lexicon pulled it. A few years later
> it was a hotter item, and they started selling used for more
> than the new price....
Yeah, I heard that a few days ago on the Electrix-sponsored web
site forum. FYI, Electrix is still keeping the company web site
up for user-to-user info and support, and they say they're still
honoring warranty repairs... although I don't know about
long-term repairs. The Repeater has a funky dedicated external
power supply with a nonstandard connector, and we're trying to
get Electrix to give us some info about the wiring and electrical
specs, in case anyone's power supply goes south.
I've considered picking up a second one out of the remaining
stock, just so I'll have a backup until someone else brings this
kind of product out on the market again. I can't believe they
couldn't make this a success. It was half the price of the
Echoplex and it did 4 times as much as anything else in the
hardware looper market. Oh well. It was probably a combination of
bad timing in a sagging economy, and not enough marketing budget.
Very few people outside the Looper's Delight mailing list ever
heard about it.
Mike Barrs
From: foldedpath <mbarrs@REMOVE-NOSPAM...>
Subject: Re: Electrix Repeater to be discontinued
Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2002 03:32:01 GMT
Organization: Giganews.Com - Premium News Outsourcing
"David Enke" <<putw@mindspring...>> wrote in message
news:agiroi$38d$<1@slb3...>...
> Mike, Tom,
> how do these things compare to the Boomerang and the Boss
RP-20?
> These are the only two I've played around with.
Electrix still has the product page up, so you can see the main
features:
http://www.electrixpro.com/products/index.html
Here are the main reasons why it was so special:
1) It recorded 4 independent tracks of loops, or 2 linked stereo
tracks. There are NO other stereo loopers, or 4-track loopers.
Imagine looping a bass line on one track (including automatic
pitch-shifting down an octave), rhythm guitar part on track two,
thumping your guitar for a drum track on track three, then loop a
lead guitar part on track four. And you can still play your live
guitar against all that. I don't actually do all of that, but
it's fun having all those tracks available. Mainly I use it as a
stereo looper, since that's how my signal chain hits the looper.
But one day I'm going to try and get a little deeper into it.
2) The record time wasn't limited by RAM. The Repeater writes
from the A/D converter directly to a compact flashcard, so your
looping/recording time is limited only by the size of the
flashcard.
3) Because the loops were recorded as standard .wav files on a
flashcard, it also doubled (sort of) as a 4-track recorder for
archiving song ideas. It's super-easy to transfer loops or
recorded song ideas to your computer with a cheap USB flashcard
reader. Or as an alternative, it also has a SP/DIF digital
stereo output for hooking up to a computer sound card.
The only close competition was the Echoplex (now distributed by
Gibson), and that was a lot more expensive, it was mono only, had
a much shorter looping time, and no easy way to interface audio
to a computer. It doesn't even begin to compare to the
lower-priced stuff like the Boomerang and RP-20. That's older
RAM-based technology.... mono only, limited looping time, no easy
way to transfer audio back and forth to a computer.
Electrix is (was?) a small outfit in Victoria BC (Canada). I'm
sorry to see them go... but maybe something good will rise from
the ashes.
Mike Barrs
From: David Enke <putw@mindspring...>
Subject: Re: Electrix Repeater to be discontinued
Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2002 10:10:31 -0600
Organization: MindSpring Enterprises
Thanks Mike,
it looks great. The one thing I didn't like about the Boomerang was its
tendency to get really noisy as loops were stacked. It looks like this one
gets around that by using separate processors.
I might try to locate one and try it out.
David Enke
Pick-up the World
www.pick-uptheworld.com
<pickups@rmi...>
719-742-5303
"foldedpath" <<mbarrs@REMOVE-NOSPAM...>> wrote in message
news:R_6X8.78197$<Im2.3335541@bin2...>...
> "David Enke" <<putw@mindspring...>> wrote in message
> news:agiroi$38d$<1@slb3...>...
>
> > Mike, Tom,
> > how do these things compare to the Boomerang and the Boss
> RP-20?
> > These are the only two I've played around with.
>
> Electrix still has the product page up, so you can see the main
> features:
>
> http://www.electrixpro.com/products/index.html
>
> Here are the main reasons why it was so special:
>
> 1) It recorded 4 independent tracks of loops, or 2 linked stereo
> tracks. There are NO other stereo loopers, or 4-track loopers.
> Imagine looping a bass line on one track (including automatic
> pitch-shifting down an octave), rhythm guitar part on track two,
> thumping your guitar for a drum track on track three, then loop a
> lead guitar part on track four. And you can still play your live
> guitar against all that. I don't actually do all of that, but
> it's fun having all those tracks available. Mainly I use it as a
> stereo looper, since that's how my signal chain hits the looper.
> But one day I'm going to try and get a little deeper into it.
>
> 2) The record time wasn't limited by RAM. The Repeater writes
> from the A/D converter directly to a compact flashcard, so your
> looping/recording time is limited only by the size of the
> flashcard.
>
> 3) Because the loops were recorded as standard .wav files on a
> flashcard, it also doubled (sort of) as a 4-track recorder for
> archiving song ideas. It's super-easy to transfer loops or
> recorded song ideas to your computer with a cheap USB flashcard
> reader. Or as an alternative, it also has a SP/DIF digital
> stereo output for hooking up to a computer sound card.
>
> The only close competition was the Echoplex (now distributed by
> Gibson), and that was a lot more expensive, it was mono only, had
> a much shorter looping time, and no easy way to interface audio
> to a computer. It doesn't even begin to compare to the
> lower-priced stuff like the Boomerang and RP-20. That's older
> RAM-based technology.... mono only, limited looping time, no easy
> way to transfer audio back and forth to a computer.
>
> Electrix is (was?) a small outfit in Victoria BC (Canada). I'm
> sorry to see them go... but maybe something good will rise from
> the ashes.
>
> Mike Barrs
>
>
| Acustic guitar thru J-Station?? [3] |
|---|
From: jazu <jazu@estart...>
Subject: Acustic guitar thru J-Station??
Date: Sun, 14 Jul 2002 23:17:16 -0700
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com
Hi
I'm trying to run acoustic thru JS.
I plug mic but it doesn't work. Do I need to have some preamp? What about
soundhole pickup? Would it need pramp too?
thanks
jazu
From: Michael James Richard Brown <rockon02@senet...>
Subject: Re: Acustic guitar thru J-Station??
Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2002 18:11:03 +0930
On Sun, 14 Jul 2002 23:17:16 -0700, "jazu" <<jazu@estart...>> wrote:
>Hi
>I'm trying to run acoustic thru JS.
>I plug mic but it doesn't work. Do I need to have some preamp? What about
>soundhole pickup? Would it need pramp too?
>thanks
>jazu
>
Jazu.
I've tried my acoustic with PUTW #27 and endpin preamp through my J
Station and found it dissapointing. The same applies to other SBTs. In
fact I don't use it for acoustics any more (though it is excellent for
electrics). I put my acoustics straight into the mixer. I have a
Yamaha archtop with a mag pickup and a pz. I tried the pz through the
J Station, and didn't like the results, but haven't put the mag on
that through the J Station yet. My G&L ASAT Special Custom sounds
great through the J Station.
Michael B
From: psongman <psongman@hotmail...>
Subject: Re: Acustic guitar thru J-Station??
Date: 18 Jul 2002 18:15:12 -0700
Organization: http://groups.google.com/
I play my Washburn acoustic thru the J-station at church and at home
for demos. You need to make your own sys file that sounds like an
acoustic. I have one if you'd like, there are about 3 or 4 banks that
can be tinkered with. Best to do it with the computer though, easier
to adjust, OK, later, Psongman
Michael James Richard Brown <<rockon02@senet...>> wrote in message news:<<0hq7jugc6eobmei56nq5siml7mnqmh46lt@4ax...>>...
> On Sun, 14 Jul 2002 23:17:16 -0700, "jazu" <<jazu@estart...>> wrote:
>
> >Hi
> >I'm trying to run acoustic thru JS.
> >I plug mic but it doesn't work. Do I need to have some preamp? What about
> >soundhole pickup? Would it need pramp too?
> >thanks
> >jazu
> >
>
> Jazu.
> I've tried my acoustic with PUTW #27 and endpin preamp through my J
> Station and found it dissapointing. The same applies to other SBTs. In
> fact I don't use it for acoustics any more (though it is excellent for
> electrics). I put my acoustics straight into the mixer. I have a
> Yamaha archtop with a mag pickup and a pz. I tried the pz through the
> J Station, and didn't like the results, but haven't put the mag on
> that through the J Station yet. My G&L ASAT Special Custom sounds
> great through the J Station.
> Michael B
| Acoustic guitar that sounds electric [10] |
|---|
From: Rene Forgues <datch78@yahoo...>
Subject: Acoustic guitar that sounds electric
Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2002 14:20:28 -0400
Organization: Bell Sympatico
Hi!
Anybody here have an idea how to make an acoustic guitar sounds like an
electric one? Is it possible first?
I've heard about ReValver which is a kind of virtual amplifier.
Thanks in advance! :)
From: gozy <gozy@hotmail...>
Subject: Re: Acoustic guitar that sounds electric
Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2002 19:31:41 GMT
Organization: Cox Communications
Usually people are tearing their hair out trying to go the other way. Why
not get a magnetic sound hole pickup and plug it into a standard guitar amp.
That ought to get you close.
"Rene Forgues" <<datch78@yahoo...>> wrote in message
news:WBiZ8.10888$<Db.510053@news20...>...
> Hi!
>
> Anybody here have an idea how to make an acoustic guitar sounds like an
> electric one? Is it possible first?
>
> I've heard about ReValver which is a kind of virtual amplifier.
>
> Thanks in advance! :)
>
>
From: Gorblimey <persistent_offender@yahoo...>
Subject: Re: Acoustic guitar that sounds electric
Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2002 00:27:17 +0100
On Wed, 17 Jul 2002 19:31:41 GMT, "gozy" <<gozy@hotmail...>>
wrote:
>Usually people are tearing their hair out trying to go the other way. Why
>not get a magnetic sound hole pickup and plug it into a standard guitar amp.
>That ought to get you close.
>
Or, for that matter, if the acoustic has any kind of onboard pickup,
just stick it through an electric guitar amp with a pre-amp and volume
control.
P
--
Pete
From: Troubleman (Jay Brown) <troubleman@starpower...>
Subject: Re: Acoustic guitar that sounds electric
Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2002 06:49:59 -0400
It really depends upon the guitar and pickup. If you run a magnetic
sound-hole pickup through a modeling amp or pre (Line6 Pod maybe?) it can
be done. It's not gonna sound like a Strat through a Marshall stack, but
it'll do as a faux electric in a pinch. Piezos and STBs don't work to well
for this.
peace,
jb
"Rene Forgues" <<datch78@yahoo...>> wrote in message
news:WBiZ8.10888$<Db.510053@news20...>...
> Hi!
>
> Anybody here have an idea how to make an acoustic guitar sounds like an
> electric one? Is it possible first?
>
> I've heard about ReValver which is a kind of virtual amplifier.
>
> Thanks in advance! :)
>
>
From: Rene Forgues <datch78@yahoo...>
Subject: Re: Acoustic guitar that sounds electric
Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2002 11:09:34 -0400
Organization: Bell Sympatico
Thanks for replying... :)
As you can see, I'm not a real musician. My girlflriend plays acoustic
guitar and she would like to try an electric one and I'm looking for a cheap
solution.
Anybody sucessufully plugged a guitar a its soundcard with a software amp?
How it works? I checked on the net for software Amp and some of them, like
ReValver, seems great... Anyone tryed it?
Rene Forgues
From: MrGraceful <mrgraceful@aol...>
Subject: Re: Acoustic guitar that sounds electric
Date: 18 Jul 2002 16:10:37 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
>My girlflriend plays acoustic
>guitar and she would like to try an electric one and I'm looking for a cheap
>solution.
If this is the reason you're looking for an electric, running an acoustic
through an amp is a bad solution. An electric guitar is an entirely different
instrument than an acoustic.
Seems to me that the best, cheapest solution would be to purchase something
like a Squire Strat Pack or the new Epiphone Basher pack. You acn find them
both for well under $200 and they'll have everything you need to get you
started: guitar, amp, tuner, picks and a strap and probably even chord books as
well.
-Rich.
From: Jeffrey Cohen <cohenj@umich...>
Subject: Re: Acoustic guitar that sounds electric
Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2002 11:17:09 -0400
Organization: Bell Sympatico
A relatively cheap solution would be (assuming that your guitar has any
sort of pickup installed) to run your acoustic guitar through a Johnson
J-Station modelling pre-amp (about $150.00 on the street). I've done this
and the thing sounds just about like any electric (possibly better) and you
can make it sound like many different amps, with affects. Oddly enough,
with my Fishman Matrix III pickup, there are no impedance matching problems
and it sounds great.
I've seen guitarists in both Moxy Fruvous and Bare Naken Ladies use this
approach (not neccessarily with a J-Station) to great success. You're
watching this guy play a Martin D-18 and it sounds like he's wailing on an
SG running through a Marshall amp. It's a wierd affect, since people tend
to listen with their eyes as much as their ears.
JC
Rene Forgues wrote:
> Hi!
>
> Anybody here have an idea how to make an acoustic guitar sounds like an
> electric one? Is it possible first?
>
> I've heard about ReValver which is a kind of virtual amplifier.
>
> Thanks in advance! :)
From: Michael James Richard Brown <rockon02@senet...>
Subject: Re: Acoustic guitar that sounds electric
Date: Fri, 19 Jul 2002 17:00:24 +0930
>If this is the reason you're looking for an electric, running an acoustic
>through an amp is a bad solution. An electric guitar is an entirely different
>instrument than an acoustic.
>
>Seems to me that the best, cheapest solution would be to purchase something
>like a Squire Strat Pack or the new Epiphone Basher pack. You acn find them
>both for well under $200 and they'll have everything you need to get you
>started: guitar, amp, tuner, picks and a strap and probably even chord books as
>well.
>
>-Rich.
And a halfway decent soundhole pickup will cost you as much and not
sound as good. Michael B
From: Dick Thaxter <rtha@loc...>
Subject: Re: Acoustic guitar that sounds electric
Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2002 14:40:40 -0400
Organization: Library of Congress
Jeffrey Cohen wrote:
>
> I've seen guitarists in both Moxy Fruvous and Bare Naken Ladies use this
> approach (not neccessarily with a J-Station) to great success. You're
> watching this guy play a Martin D-18 and it sounds like he's wailing on an
> SG running through a Marshall amp. It's a wierd affect, since people tend
> to listen with their eyes as much as their ears.
>
I remember seeing the Sam Bush band a few years ago which was Sam on acoustic
and electric mandolin, plus an electric bass, and an acoustic guitar. For one
real uptempo blues number the acoustic guitarist stepped on a pedal and sounded
like a cranked blackface fender amp. Didn't go up close to see what he was
plugged into.
Dick Thaxter
From: Carl McIntyre <McIntyrePickup@worldnet...>
Subject: Re: Acoustic guitar that sounds electric
Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2002 22:38:30 GMT
Organization: AT&T Worldnet
Yep, it's very possible,
Here's what I have in my personal guitar. It's complicated.I have a Collings D2H with our #GF-30 Acoustic Feather, and
one of our older SBG-01s on the other leg of the stereo jack. I
could certainly do without the older unit, but it does make the
signal fatter because it is a different sound. The Feather is so
clean that I only use a little bit of the SBG-01. I have installed a
second jack in the guitar and fitted it with two of Lindy Fralin's
strat pickups. Mr. Fralin's pickups are just super electromagnetics.
If I had it to do over, I would go with the Feather and only oneof the Fralins in the soundhole. This would simplify the set up greatly
and make it possible to get by with just one endpin jack. I made a
custom piece of ebony that fills the soundhole and the strat pickups
are mounted in this. They are on completely different circuits that
utilize both legs of the other endpin jack. The ebony plug doesn't
do much for the acoustic sound of my guitar but I am always using
an amp when I use this particular guitar. If I were only using one
electric pickup, I could have mounted it in a simple bar like the Dean
Markley in hole units and it probably wouldn't have toned my guitar
down nearly as much acoustically. I run the acoustic pickups through
a Presonus Acousti-Q preamp and then into a Centaur 60 watt acoustic
amp. I run the electric pickups through a Boss volume pedal and then
into a couple of effect pedals. An Ibanez delay and a DOD FX 69B
grunge pedal. The electric pickups are then run to a 1960 Fender
Princeton. I also use two L.R.Baggs preamps on the electromagnetics,
one for each pickup.
I use a Digitech Genisis I on the acoustic leg for effects like chorus,flanger, delay, etc. The entire acoustic leg of my set up is mounted in
a custom cabinet that I built to hold it all, even the amp. The whole
cabinet weighs about what a Fender Twin does. It's on wheels and
can be rolled like a hand truck. The electric amp is separate.
I play a lot with a comtemporary praise and worship band so Imostly play acoustic. There are times when I need an electric sound.
When I do, I just step on the volume pedal and the electric circuit kicks
in. I'm usually playing a break when I'm in the electric mode so it over-
rides the acoustic sound enough that it sounds purely electric. When I
step on the grunge pedal, people are amazed that I'm playing an acoustic
guitar. I have a good friend that plays a mid 60s strat and he came in the
other day and was in total disbeief that my acoustic sounds just like his
old strat.
If you are thinking of a similar set up, it is important to use pickupsthat have adjustable pole pieces because they need a lot of adjustment
to accomodate the bronze strings. My friends are calling my new set up
the CollingsCaster. I couldn't be happier with the new set up on my
guitar because I get the best of both worlds and only have to carry one
guitar. God bless.
Carl McIntyre / McIntyre Acoustic Pickups
Rene Forgues <<datch78@yahoo...>> wrote in message
news:WBiZ8.10888$<Db.510053@news20...>...
> Hi!
>
> Anybody here have an idea how to make an acoustic guitar sounds like an
> electric one? Is it possible first?
>
> I've heard about ReValver which is a kind of virtual amplifier.
>
> Thanks in advance! :)
>
>
| Advice re: cheap chorus for A/E [2] |
|---|
From: JPAltes <jpaltes@aol...>
Subject: Advice re: cheap chorus for A/E
Date: 25 Jul 2002 13:20:02 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
I have a Boss AD-3 which I really like, but I think it took a power surge
(lightening?) and got messed up somehow. I want to send it out for repair, but
need to get an effects box for interim use..... the AD-3 offered chorus and
reverb, but really I was just using the chorus.
Any suggestions for a $100 interim item...Boss CE-5 pedal, or even a Zoom
multi-effects pedal?
Patrick Altes
From: Boddekker <boddekker@yahoo...>
Subject: Re: Advice re: cheap chorus for A/E
Date: 25 Jul 2002 13:58:03 -0700
Organization: http://groups.google.com/
If you're thinking cheap but effective, Danelectro makes a mini chorus
pedal (Milkshake) for $30 - 40 retail, and a bigger one (Cool Cat)
with a higher price point.
For $99 you could go to Muscan's Fr*end and get their current web
special, a Danelectro Bass Pack that includes their mini tuner, 7 band
eq, compressor, reverb and chorus, all in a case that doubles as a
pedal rack. Why the bass model? Well, their "acoustic pack" runs
$149... and has all the same pedals. That's what I call marketing.
boddekker
| Which entry-level Chorus/Reverb for A/E guitar? [3] |
|---|
From: JPAltes <jpaltes@aol...>
Subject: Which entry-level Chorus/Reverb for A/E guitar?
Date: 25 Jul 2002 16:28:19 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
I tried to post this before (excuse me please if the previous post shows up
too....)... am sending my Boss AD-3 to the shop and need to buy an (cheaper)
effects box to use in the interim.
Zoom 504? Some chorus stompbox? Ideas?
Patrick Altes
From: Steve <sefstrat@aol...>
Subject: Re: Which entry-level Chorus/Reverb for A/E guitar?
Date: 25 Jul 2002 16:37:31 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
>I tried to post this before (excuse me please if the previous post shows up
>too....)... am sending my Boss AD-3 to the shop and need to buy an (cheaper)
>effects box to use in the interim.
>
>Zoom 504? Some chorus stompbox? Ideas?
>
>Patrick Altes
Take a look at the ART FX-1. $100 or so, lots of effects, decent combined
effects, and some parameter control.
SEFSTRAT
solo webpage: http://members.aol.com/sefstrat/index.html/sefpage.html
band webpage: www.timebanditsrock.com
From: David Kilpatrick <iconmags2@btconnect...>
Subject: Re: Which entry-level Chorus/Reverb for A/E guitar?
Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2002 17:49:16 +0000 (UTC)
Organization: Icon Publications Limited
JPAltes wrote:
> I tried to post this before (excuse me please if the previous post shows up
> too....)... am sending my Boss AD-3 to the shop and need to buy an (cheaper)
> effects box to use in the interim.
>
> Zoom 504? Some chorus stompbox? Ideas?
>
Korg Pandora. No choice. You want something which will still be useful when you get
your AD-3 back. The Pandora is a tuner, metronome, beat box, phrase
sampler and headphone amplifier plus a moderately good multi-FX unit,
and on mine I have programmed five different chorus levels, five delays,
five echoes etc all of my own adjustment, to suit acoustic-electric playing.
Once your AD-3 comes back the Pandora (which is like a minidisk player
in size) won't just be a redundant replacement, it will be something to
do all its other jobs and keep in the guitar case.
David
| any opinions on TC Electronics G-Major? |
|---|
From: HL <sweefmy@singnet...>
Subject: any opinions on TC Electronics G-Major?
Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2002 01:39:33 +0800
Organization: Singapore Telecommunications Ltd
Hi,
I'm considering getting a G-Major to fill up my 3U rack (currently 2U is
taken up by a Line 6 Pod Pro).
I plan to use the G-Major with my Larrivee C-09 (mainly reverb and chorus)
and my electric guitar (single/single/hum/fishman powerbridge).
Anyone has had first-hand experience with a G-Major?
Thanks.
John Swee
| Acoustic vs. Electric Compression? [5] |
|---|
From: Sherm <jshermannospam@lorainccc...>
Subject: Acoustic vs. Electric Compression?
Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2002 15:57:46 GMT
Do the demands differ?
--- or ---
Could you/should you apply compression to a pickup-equipped acoustic
with a rock and roll stomp box?
Thanks anybody.
Jeff
From: foldedpath <mbarrs@REMOVE-NOSPAM...>
Subject: Re: Acoustic vs. Electric Compression?
Date: Fri, 2 Aug 2002 11:27:33 -0700
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com
"Sherm" <<jshermannospam@lorainccc...>> wrote in message
news:<3d48076b.8798242@news...>...
> Do the demands differ?
>
> --- or ---
>
> Could you/should you apply compression to a pickup-equipped
> acoustic with a rock and roll stomp box?
Are you talking about recording or live playing? For recording I
try never to use compression on acoustic guitar when it's
featured as a solo instrument. But I might use compression to
make a background track sit right in the mix.
For live playing, I can't think of a reason why I'd want
compression on acoustic guitar, unless (again) it was for a
background rhythm guitar part that needed the dynamics flattened
out a little to sit in the mix. Compressors will also exaggerate
any feedback problems you're having with an amplified acoustic
instrument.
In either case, if I did want compression I wouldn't use one of
those stomp box gadgets. They're designed for the narrower
bandwidth of electric guitar tone, so the frequency response
sucks and they tend to be noisy and hissy when run through a
full-range PA or acoustic guitar amp. What these boxes are good
for, is getting a nice tight electric rhythm guitar strum, or
helping to sustain a distorted lead tone... although if you need
this kind of help for a good lead tone, then something else is
not right in your setup.
So bottom line, I doubt you'd want to fool with this on acoustic
guitar. But that's just my opinion. If you do want to put a
compressor in your signal chain for some reason, then get one
that sounds good through full-range speakers, like an FMR/RNC
compressor.
Mike Barrs
From: Sherm <jsherman@lorainccc...>
Subject: Re: Acoustic vs. Electric Compression?
Date: Sat, 03 Aug 2002 12:11:20 GMT
On Fri, 2 Aug 2002 11:27:33 -0700, "foldedpath"
<<mbarrs@REMOVE-NOSPAM...>> wrote:
>For live playing, I can't think of a reason why I'd want
>compression on acoustic guitar,
Hey Mike:
I had to go find this in another thread where I'd posted to lumpy but
it'll tell you why I asked about this. Waddyathink?
Jeff
Gotcha. Thanks. I'm wondering mostly about the hows and whys of
compressing the guitar signal. Like what do you make it do and why?
What are the advantages you're looking for?
Been having a funny offline with Mr TarbabyTunes (Steve) about
cleaning up sloppy chops electronically. We agreed that improving
your playing is the preferred goal. ;-)
However, sometimes when you play single note phrases acoustically, a
sloppy attack or a slightly mis-fretted note still comes through. (It
might even occasionally be mis-interpreted by a listener as
'expressiveness'.) ;-) Playing through a pick-up can be different
--- notes can get completely lost and sloppy is just sloppy. Its like
they''re less forgiving than the wood alone. (Maybe I'm wrong, but
that's my impression.)
I've been using just a little touch of an old MXR Dynacomp on my Strat
for years but it seems useless on the Taylor. That's why I posted a
question the other day about the different demands of compressing an
electric compared to an acoustic.
Sooooooo . . . why and how, buddy?
Thanks, lump.
Jeff
From: Gary Hall <ahall@tusco...>
Subject: Re: Acoustic vs. Electric Compression?
Date: 2 Aug 2002 20:34:39 -0700
Organization: http://groups.google.com/
Jeff,
I can only recall seeing a few acoustic guitarists using compressors.
Jim Volk, a highly regarded acoustic picker who's based in Columbus
uses a little stomp box compressor to very good effect. (Looked like
a typical Boss stompbox to me.)
My Korg G2 preamp/effects board has compression which I presume is
intended for acoustic guitars since it's an acoustic guitar device. I
only use the compression (mixed with some chorus and plate reverb) on
three or four tunes where I want more sustain. They are all
light-touch, picking things. I don't use compression, chorus or reverb
with aggressive strumming since I need all the rhythmic clarity that I
can get.
I'll show you the G2 in October.
Gary Hall
<jshermannospam@lorainccc...> (Sherm) wrote in message news:<<3d48076b.8798242@news...>>...
> Do the demands differ?
>
> --- or ---
>
> Could you/should you apply compression to a pickup-equipped acoustic
> with a rock and roll stomp box?
>
> Thanks anybody.
>
> Jeff
From: Gary Hall <ahall@tusco...>
Subject: Re: Acoustic vs. Electric Compression?
Date: 3 Aug 2002 07:04:24 -0700
Organization: http://groups.google.com/
After thinking about it awhile, I also recall that Bill Dutcher
(another excellent fingerpicker based in Columbus) used compression
with his Daedalus amp. This was top-dollar stuff, though - Pendalum
perhaps. I've only seen Jim Volk and one or two others use a little
stomp box compressor. On the other hand, I've seen a lot of
multi-effects gizmos (like the Korg G2) and it's anybody's guess as to
how many of those players were mixing in compression with the other
effects.
I should mention that both Volk and Dutcher played very loudly, using
compression, without feedback problems. In fact, Jim Volk liked to
play so loudly (with bare fingers, no less) that it became a bit of an
issue with some of the patrons in the place where I'd booked him (a
campus bar where loud music is the general rule and the patrons aren't
known for their "sensitivity" to noise).
As for myself, I'll sometimes stomp on the compression/chorus/plate
reverb patch on the G2 if I'm picking along at a slow tune and find
that I need a volume boost mid-song. Other than that, though, I only
have three or four songs where I find compression helpful. It does
limit one's dynamic expression and muddy the waters when rhythmic
clarity is needed.
Gary Hall
| New Effects Processors? [3] |
|---|
From: MKarlo <mkarlo@aol...>
Subject: New Effects Processors?
Date: 09 Aug 2002 04:15:49 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
I haven't seen this topic for awhile, so I thought I'd ask. Anybody seen any
new ones out that are good quality (like a Lexicon), but in a small package
(like a Nanoverb).
Mitch
From: Ken Cashion <kcashion@datasync...>
Subject: Re: New Effects Processors?
Date: Fri, 09 Aug 2002 11:45:50 GMT
Organization: Datasync
On 09 Aug 2002 04:15:49 GMT, <mkarlo@aol...> (MKarlo) wrote:
>I haven't seen this topic for awhile, so I thought I'd ask. Anybody seen any
>new ones out that are good quality (like a Lexicon), but in a small package
>(like a Nanoverb).
Mitch, I have the Nanoverb in a recording console and I amperfectly satisfied with it. It doesn't seem to introduce any noise
with its more moderate affects...the more bizarre, the more muddled,
but this is getting pretty extreme, i.e., guitar sounding like organ.
The Nanoverb was discussed here and it was likened to pealingan apple when someone really wanted to peal a grape. This was a good
analogue but I only had an apple and so has worked OK.
Ken Cashion, Luddite
From: Tony Rairden <TRairNoden@fqSpamms...>
Subject: Re: New Effects Processors?
Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2002 13:29:51 -0400
Organization: WEBUSENET.com
You might check out the Korg Pandora PX-4 at
http://www.korg.com/gear/info.asp?A_PROD_NO=PX4--
It's electric-oriented, of course, but has a heck of a range of effects
available, and is very compact... It looked good enough to us that we
ordered some in... (But then, we've also ordered in electrics...)
Tony Rairden
First Quality Musical Supplies
www.fqms.com
"MKarlo" <<mkarlo@aol...>> wrote in message
news:<20020809001549.03348.00003139@mb-fg...>...
> I haven't seen this topic for awhile, so I thought I'd ask. Anybody seen
any
> new ones out that are good quality (like a Lexicon), but in a small
package
> (like a Nanoverb).
>
> Mitch
| E-bow, anybody use one? [9] |
|---|
From: Tom Loredo <loredo@astro...>
Subject: Re: E-bow, anybody use one?
Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2002 15:27:15 -0400
Organization: Cornell University
Phil Keaggy sometimes uses one.
I have one of the original ones (silver colored; turns on automatically
when a string vibrates under it). On my acoustic I can only reliably
get the 1st & 2nd strings to work with it (and that's a bit tough).
Phil does better, but is using a more recent model which perhaps is
more powerful.
Believe it or not, I have sometimes used mine in church---quietly
doubling the melody line of a sung Psalm.
Peace,
Tom Loredo
From: David Enke <putw@mindspring...>
Subject: Re: E-bow, anybody use one?
Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2002 13:28:11 -0600
Organization: MindSpring Enterprises
Hi Greg,
one of our local guitar heroes, Jaquie Gipson uses one on acoustic, and gets
some seriously psychedelic sounds from it. She has found the responce works
best on the B string, and has improved the performance by gluing a tiny Ndym
magnet (with putty) on the end of the fingerboard under that string. The
same can be done with the other strings, or if you have a magnetic soundhole
pickup this helps focus the magnetic field from the E-bow.
David Enke
Pick-up the World
www.pick-uptheworld.com
<pickups@rmi...>
719-742-5303
"Greg Z" <<gzinkman@YahooO...>> wrote in message
news:pdNb9.239503$<983.521682@rwcrnsc...>...
> I've heard some beautiful bass by Michael Manring with an e-bow,
> anybody ever use one with an acoustic 6 string?
>
> Greg Z
>
>
From: David Enke <putw@mindspring...>
Subject: Re: E-bow, anybody use one?
Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2002 14:14:19 -0600
Organization: MindSpring Enterprises
Oops,
I should mention there are some samples of Jaquie on our site. Look under
featured artists and check out 'Raven's Pharaoh.
David Enke
Pick-up the World
www.pick-uptheworld.com
<pickups@rmi...>
719-742-5303
"David Enke" <<putw@mindspring...>> wrote in message
news:akoh29$pbl$<1@nntp9...>...
> Hi Greg,
> one of our local guitar heroes, Jaquie Gipson uses one on acoustic, and
gets
> some seriously psychedelic sounds from it. She has found the responce
works
> best on the B string, and has improved the performance by gluing a tiny
Ndym
> magnet (with putty) on the end of the fingerboard under that string. The
> same can be done with the other strings, or if you have a magnetic
soundhole
> pickup this helps focus the magnetic field from the E-bow.
>
> David Enke
> Pick-up the World
> www.pick-uptheworld.com
> <pickups@rmi...>
> 719-742-5303
> "Greg Z" <<gzinkman@YahooO...>> wrote in message
> news:pdNb9.239503$<983.521682@rwcrnsc...>...
> > I've heard some beautiful bass by Michael Manring with an e-bow,
> > anybody ever use one with an acoustic 6 string?
> >
> > Greg Z
> >
> >
>
>
From: David Enke <putw@mindspring...>
Subject: Re: E-bow, anybody use one?
Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2002 14:19:03 -0600
Organization: MindSpring Enterprises
O.K., now I see the song is not on our site after-all. Hey, what do I know?
Here's the link to Jaquie's site where you can hear it:
http://www.jaquiegipson.com/sound_clips.htm
Boy, I sure know how to keep a thread going.
David Enke
Pick-up the World
www.pick-uptheworld.com
<pickups@rmi...>
719-742-5303
"David Enke" <<putw@mindspring...>> wrote in message
news:akoh29$pbl$<1@nntp9...>...
> Hi Greg,
> one of our local guitar heroes, Jaquie Gipson uses one on acoustic, and
gets
> some seriously psychedelic sounds from it. She has found the responce
works
> best on the B string, and has improved the performance by gluing a tiny
Ndym
> magnet (with putty) on the end of the fingerboard under that string. The
> same can be done with the other strings, or if you have a magnetic
soundhole
> pickup this helps focus the magnetic field from the E-bow.
>
> David Enke
> Pick-up the World
> www.pick-uptheworld.com
> <pickups@rmi...>
> 719-742-5303
> "Greg Z" <<gzinkman@YahooO...>> wrote in message
> news:pdNb9.239503$<983.521682@rwcrnsc...>...
> > I've heard some beautiful bass by Michael Manring with an e-bow,
> > anybody ever use one with an acoustic 6 string?
> >
> > Greg Z
> >
> >
>
>
From: Dan Carey <dcarey@cox...>
Subject: Re: E-bow, anybody use one?
Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2002 22:17:00 GMT
Organization: Cox Communications
I played with a friends e-bow a couple of times on my Lowden.
Verrrrrryyyyy strange sounds and worthy of some more experimenting.
I probably wouldn't pay the price just to play around, though.
But, maybe....
Seriously though, there were some 'dead' spots which can probably be
attributed to my inexperience with it. I consistently got better results on
the unwound strings.
Dan
"Greg Z" <<gzinkman@YahooO...>> wrote in message
news:pdNb9.239503$<983.521682@rwcrnsc...>...
> I've heard some beautiful bass by Michael Manring with an e-bow,
> anybody ever use one with an acoustic 6 string?
>
> Greg Z
>
>
From: Michael DeLalla/Falling Mountain Music <delalla@fallingmountain...>
Subject: Re: E-bow, anybody use one?
Date: Sat, 31 Aug 2002 08:40:32 -0400
Organization: Verio
I did a few years back, on my Christmas CD "There Is One Story and One Story
Only", on "Drive The Cold Winter Away". I actually wrote an "E-Bay quartet"
for the tune. Big fun!!
--
Michael DeLalla/Falling Mountain Music
http://www.fallingmountain.com
"Greg Z" <<gzinkman@YahooO...>> wrote in message
news:pdNb9.239503$<983.521682@rwcrnsc...>...
> I've heard some beautiful bass by Michael Manring with an e-bow,
> anybody ever use one with an acoustic 6 string?
>
> Greg Z
>
>
From: Hojo2x <hojo2x@aol...>
Subject: Re: E-bow, anybody use one?
Date: 01 Sep 2002 05:36:04 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
I've fooled around with E-Bows a few times, but never have been able to produce
much of anything audible on purely acoustic instruments.
David's suggestion about the magnets under the strings at the end of the
fingerboard was fascinating, though.
You know who made the most memorable use of an E-Bow, in my opinion, anyway,
was that 80s band from Glasgow, Scotland called "Big Country." They made their
guitars sound like BAGpipes, almost!
Very cool stuff....
Wade Hampton Miller
Chugiak, Alaska
From: Glen <me@here...>
Subject: Re: E-bow, anybody use one?
Date: Sun, 1 Sep 2002 18:20:18 +0100
Organization: ntlworld News Service
> You know who made the most memorable use of an E-Bow, in my opinion,
anyway,
> was that 80s band from Glasgow, Scotland called "Big Country." They made
their
> guitars sound like BAGpipes, almost!
Yeah, I really liked the sounds Stuart Adamson got with his ebow. Excellent
stuff.
Another guitarist who makes great use of the ebow is Malcolm Jones form the
Scots
band Runrig. He uses it quite extensively, particularly live, for some
really inspiring
and haunting pipey sounds.
Anyone who has never heard of Runrig - I would really recommend checking
them out!
Some really great melodies, and some of my favourite lyrics ever.
cheers
Glen
From: Tom Loredo <loredo@astro...>
Subject: Re: E-bow, anybody use one?
Date: Mon, 02 Sep 2002 14:34:05 -0400
Organization: Cornell University
Hojo2x wrote:
>
> You know who made the most memorable use of an E-Bow, in my opinion, anyway,
> was that 80s band from Glasgow, Scotland called "Big Country." They made their
> guitars sound like BAGpipes, almost!
Phil Keaggy's *Electric Guitar Style* video (alas, now out of print) has
a part in the middle where he spends about 7 or 8 minutes improvising
on a Yamaha SA2000 semiholowbody electric, fooling around with a digital
delay and an ebow throughout. My jaw still drops when I watch it!
Toward the end he does a version of "Amazing Grace" where, by careful
choice of the location of the ebow and which pickups he is using, he
gets an uncanny simulation of a bagpipe tone. He locks in a swelling
drone, and then changes the tone slightly to do the "Amazing Grace"
melody over the drone. It's amazing. Something similar later came
out on the reissue of his *Master and the Musician* CD; it has a bonus
track called "Epilogue/Amazing Grace" that is a sort of fantasia built
around "Amazing Grace," starting on acoustic guitar but moving to
electric and featuring the ebow version in the middle.
The tone is a bit less bagpipe-like on the CD, but the composition as
a whole is just gorgeous.
Peace,
Tom Loredo
| Reverb for acoustic amp [10] |
|---|
From: singer <singer@catfishmusic...>
Subject: Reverb for acoustic amp
Date: 15 Sep 2002 11:12:19 -0700
Organization: http://groups.google.com/
Sorry if this is a bit off the focus here but...
I run my old Martin through a Fender Acoustisonic Junior, and it has
just piss-poor reverb, even cranked all the way up. In the little
rooms I tend to play, a bit of reverb helps out.
Any advice on an effective and hopefully cheap solution? Maybe an
effects box to run it through? Or is this the wrong way to go?
Thanks.
From: Gozy <Gozy@Hotmail...>
Subject: Re: Reverb for acoustic amp
Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2002 11:48:36 GMT
Organization: Cox Communications
Best cheap solution I can suggest is a Zoom 504 or 505. $80 - $90, you can
put it in the signal chain or in the effects send/return loop, and adjust
the parameters to your taste. Check out www.musiciansfriend.com or
www.americanmusical.com. There are some others, but that's a starting
point.
From: Rolavine <rolavine@aol...>
Subject: Re: Reverb for acoustic amp
Date: 16 Sep 2002 15:19:53 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
>From: "Gozy" <Gozy@Hotmail...>
>Best cheap solution I can suggest is a Zoom 504 or 505. $80 - $90
Forget it these things sound terrible. I tried 3 different made for acoustic
guitar effect reverb things, they all stunk. The Yamaha AG stop may be better,
I only tried that in the store.
Rocky
Rocky
From: Gozy <Gozy@Hotmail...>
Subject: Re: Reverb for acoustic amp
Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2002 15:43:09 GMT
Organization: Cox Communications
Well, the kid wants cheap. The AG Stomp, last I looked was $500. Perhaps
your ear is better than mine, but I disagree about the quality. With
intelligent tweaking the Zooms are just fine for the application he
describes. It's best he go try one at a music store and decide for himself.
"Rolavine" <<rolavine@aol...>> wrote in message
news:<20020916111953.06981.00006145@mb-mv...>...
> >From: "Gozy" <Gozy@Hotmail...>
>
> >Best cheap solution I can suggest is a Zoom 504 or 505. $80 - $90
>
> Forget it these things sound terrible. I tried 3 different made for
acoustic
> guitar effect reverb things, they all stunk. The Yamaha AG stop may be
better,
> I only tried that in the store.
>
> Rocky
>
> Rocky
From: foldedpath <mbarrs@REMOVE-NOSPAM...>
Subject: Re: Reverb for acoustic amp
Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2002 09:10:26 -0700
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com
"singer" <<singer@catfishmusic...>> wrote in message
news:<fc7dbb0e.0209151012.69aef12f@posting...>...
> Sorry if this is a bit off the focus here but...
> I run my old Martin through a Fender
> Acoustisonic Junior, and it has just piss-poor
> reverb, even cranked all the way up. In the
> little rooms I tend to play, a bit of reverb
> helps out. Any advice on an effective and
> hopefully cheap solution? Maybe an effects
>box to run it through? Or is this the wrong
> way to go?
> Thanks.
That amp has a full stereo FX loop, if I'm not mistaken. If
you're going to upgrade the reverb, then I'd recommend a
dual-engine processor that you can insert in your FX loop. That
way you'll get the benefit of the amp's preamp and EQ ahead of
the reverb, and you can take advantage of the stereo power amp
section.
Here are a few options, starting with the least expensive:
* Alesis Nanoverb - $99 street price (1/3 rack size). This has
stereo in/out so it should work fine in the FX loop of your amp.
It's a somewhat "grainy" reverb (in my opinion, and compared to
the high-priced stuff), but it's probably better than what comes
in the Fender amp and doesn't cost much. You can also find old
Alesis Microverbs on Ebay for about $50, but the reverb algorithm
in the newer Nanoverb is slightly better. I used the older
Microverb for several years, tucked into the back of my acoustic
amp, because it sounded a lot better than the spring reverb that
came with the amp.
* Alesis Microverb 4 - $149 street. You're getting basically the
same reverb algorithm as the Nanoverb, but this also has delay
and chorus which you might find useful. It's bulkier though,
since it's a full-size 1 rack unit.
* Lexicon MPX 110 - $199 street. This sounds very good (much
smoother than the Alesis), and also has additional functions
besides reverb. The discontinued Lexicon MPX 100 model shows up
frequently on Ebay, and usually goes for $120-$140. So that's
another possibility.
Here are a few caveats to keep in mind, when shopping reverbs.
The differences in reverb quality between different units are
easier to hear on full range, high-quality speaker systems like
recording monitors or a good PA system. You may not be able to
hear these differences as clearly, with the speaker setup in a
compact acoustic guitar amp. If you can manage it, try to bring
your amp into a store that carries these different FX boxes, and
see if you can hear an improvement over the amp's built-in FX
with any of these models. It also depends on how "wet" you run
your sound. If you just use a tiny bit of reverb in the mix, then
it's harder to hear what a high quality FX processor can do, and
it may not be worth spending the extra bucks on a better one.
Mike Barrs
From: Rolavine <rolavine@aol...>
Subject: Re: Reverb for acoustic amp
Date: 16 Sep 2002 20:30:25 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
>From: "Gozy" <Gozy@Hotmail...>
>Perhaps
>your ear is better than mine, but I disagree about the quality. With
>intelligent tweaking the Zooms are just fine
Actually my ears are pretty shot, but I found the sound of the zoom, dod, and
even a Boss-Roland unit to be artifical, noisy and bad. And the Zoom was the
worst of the lot.
I think mbarrs has the better solution with the rack mount reverb units.
From: No Busking <nobusking@yahoo...>
Subject: Re: Reverb for acoustic amp
Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2002 20:43:07 GMT
> Sorry if this is a bit off the focus here but...
> I run my old Martin through a Fender Acoustisonic Junior, and it has
> just piss-poor reverb, even cranked all the way up. In the little
> rooms I tend to play, a bit of reverb helps out.
Are you sure that the effects are working properly? I don't own an
Acoustasonic Junior, but the few times I've messed around with one the
reverb was usable (not great, but appropriate for the amp).
From your description, it sounds like it's not adding much reverb to the
mix...something might be wrong.
- Mike Pugh
From: Jim's Mail <jcarp.1@starpower...>
Subject: Re: Reverb for acoustic amp
Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2002 17:57:27 -0400
I have the same amp. I finally took it back and they replaced the reverb
unit. It's a little better since the replacement, but not great. I find it
ok for my purposes, but if I got into effects in any way I think I would be
looking for something additional for the reverb.
Jcarp
> From: "No Busking" <<nobusking@yahoo...>>
> Newsgroups: rec.music.makers.guitar.acoustic
> Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2002 20:43:07 GMT
> Subject: Re: Reverb for acoustic amp
>
>> Sorry if this is a bit off the focus here but...
>> I run my old Martin through a Fender Acoustisonic Junior, and it has
>> just piss-poor reverb, even cranked all the way up. In the little
>> rooms I tend to play, a bit of reverb helps out.
>
>
> Are you sure that the effects are working properly? I don't own an
> Acoustasonic Junior, but the few times I've messed around with one the
> reverb was usable (not great, but appropriate for the amp).
>
> From your description, it sounds like it's not adding much reverb to the
> mix...something might be wrong.
>
> - Mike Pugh
>
>
From: MKarlo <mkarlo@aol...>
Subject: Re: Reverb for acoustic amp
Date: 16 Sep 2002 22:24:23 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
I tried:
-Boss RV-3 pedal (ok, but I don't like pedals)
-NanoVerb: passable; somewhat noisy, but pretty good bang/buck
-Zoom 504: sounded like pure cheese to me, AND it's a pedal
-Lexicon MPX100: Bravo! Sounds great, but, you'll need a rack.
From the description of your setup, I think I'd go NanoVerb. It'll sit easily
on your amp and no need for a rack and no pedals.
Mitch
From: Steve <sefstrat@aol...>
Subject: Re: Reverb for acoustic amp
Date: 17 Sep 2002 01:18:34 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
>Best cheap solution I can suggest is a Zoom 504 or 505. $80 - $90, you can
>put it in the signal chain or in the effects send/return loop, and adjust
>the parameters to your taste. Check out www.musiciansfriend.com or
>www.americanmusical.com. There are some others, but that's a starting
>point.
IMHO, Zoom makes a particularly metallic-sonding 'verb.
For about $100, check out an ART FX-1. Multieffects you can hold in your hand.
Decent 'verb and delay. Not made for switching on the fly; this is the kindof thing you set and forget.
Nice handy device, and cheap.
SEFSTRAT
solo webpage: http://members.aol.com/sefstrat/index.html/sefpage.html
band webpage: www.timebanditsrock.com
| So what does a compressor do on a acoustic guitar? [4] |
|---|
From: Gregory Michael <polyestered@yahoo...>
Subject: So what does a compressor do on a acoustic guitar?
Date: 1 Oct 2002 05:58:23 -0700
Organization: http://groups.google.com/
I have a way too big rack for my acoustic that I love. I'm thinking
about adding a compressor to the mix just because I read that a lot of
professionals use them on their acoustics. Can anyone explain what
this piece of equipment is for and how it would benefit my acoustic
rig? What are some good models to consider? Just curious...
thanks
greg
From: George Gleason <g.p.gleason@worldnet...>
Subject: Re: So what does a compressor do on a acoustic guitar?
Date: Tue, 01 Oct 2002 13:52:26 GMT
Organization: AT&T Worldnet
"Gregory Michael" <<polyestered@yahoo...>> wrote in message
news:<c754be59.0210010458.23aa9a3a@posting...>...
> I have a way too big rack for my acoustic that I love. I'm thinking
> about adding a compressor to the mix just because I read that a lot of
> professionals use them on their acoustics. Can anyone explain what
> this piece of equipment is for and how it would benefit my acoustic
> rig? What are some good models to consider? Just curious...
>
> thanks
>
a compressor will reduce the dynamic range your sound could achieve
it keeps you out of distortion by holding down the peaks of the signal
beacuse you do not have to adjust your input trim as softly(beacuse your
peaks are being "compressed" that means you can run a bit more gain
the advantage here is , softer passages are heard more clearly
if you are using a mic , your working distance is improved
the disadvantage is you bring your entire rig closer to feedback(beacuse
your AVERAGE level is greater)
also some find the lack of dynamic range a expressive liability, that is
they use all the dynamic range allowed to add artistic presense to thier
performance
is a compressor right for you
only you can tell
I use them for all the above reasons PLUS to minimize all the pops and
clunks a performance has(plugging/unplugging, whacking the mic with your
giutar,falling off your stool, drunks "singing' with you
a compressor is a tool but remeber even the cheapest hammer is better at
pounding in nails than the best screwdriver so pick your tools according to
what you expect them to do for you
George
From: Al Evans <al@tbtm...>
Subject: Re: So what does a compressor do on a acoustic guitar?
Date: Tue, 01 Oct 2002 14:16:50 GMT
Organization: Prodigy Internet http://www.prodigy.com
In article <<c754be59.0210010458.23aa9a3a@posting...>>, Gregory
Michael <<polyestered@yahoo...>> wrote:
> Can anyone explain what
> this piece of equipment is for and how it would benefit my acoustic
> rig? What are some good models to consider? Just curious...
George covered some of the basic effects of using a compressor. I think
it should also be mentioned that most ways of adjusting a compressor
will also lead to an increase in effective sustain. A compressor
reduces the higher levels, which makes the lower levels effectively
louder.
Depending on the kind of music you play, this can be a good or bad
thing.
--Al Evans--
From: George Gleason <g.p.gleason@worldnet...>
Subject: Re: So what does a compressor do on a acoustic guitar?
Date: Wed, 02 Oct 2002 02:03:29 GMT
Organization: AT&T Worldnet
"MKarlo" <<mkarlo@aol...>> wrote in message
news:<20021001190439.28501.00006104@mb-cm...>...
> >> Can anyone explain what
> >> this piece of equipment is for and how it would benefit my acoustic
> >> rig? What are some good models to consider? Just curious...
> >
> >George covered some of the basic effects of using a compressor. I think
> >it should also be mentioned that most ways of adjusting a compressor
> >will also lead to an increase in effective sustain. A compressor
> >reduces the higher levels, which makes the lower levels effectively
> >louder.
> >
> >Depending on the kind of music you play, this can be a good or bad
> >thing.
> >
> > --Al Evans--
>
> Funny. I was just going to ask this question myself. So based on that
last
> statements, who's the typical candidate? The thrasher who settles down
for a
> number or two? The psycho-acoustic type who slapping his guitar around?
>
>
the slapper
George
| Anybody else using mics onstage.... [6] |
|---|
From: foldedpath <mbarrs@NOSPAM...>
Subject: Re: Anybody else using mics onstage....
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2002 09:33:50 -0700
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com
"JD Blackwell" <<jdb5025@yahoo...>> wrote in message
news:USmt9.3056$<wm6.2952@nwrddc01...>...
>
> I like a little chorus and a touch of delay
> for dry rooms and maybe a little reverb.
> If it's going to work for me, it will have
> to be battery powered like the Raven
> Labs pre and small like a Nanoverb.
JD, I don't know if you're going to find any battery-powered FX
pedals that actually sound good, and don't mess up your clean tone.
Everything I've ever bought or auditioned in this area has
disappointed me. The models that can operate on dual battery or AC
power always sound better (cleaner) on AC power. Digital FX pedals
will also suck money out of your wallet in battery replacement
costs. They're real pigs for power.
Having said that, you might want to check out the Digitech RP-50,
which is going for about $70 at the usual places. It can use 6 AA
batteries as well as AC power. I haven't heard it in person, but the
specs look interesting, and that's a low enough price that you won't
get burned too badly if it doesn't work out in the long run.
Digitech reverb algorithms aren't exactly world-class, but it's in
about the same range as the Alesis stuff.
I've always just bitten the bullet and used AC-powered gear because
it sounds better, and I have a much wider range of choice in
equipment. Now that I'm using a rackmount looper, I'm stuck with a
small rack + AC-powered pedalboard setup anyway.
If you end up buying a battery-powered FX pedal, let us know how it
turns out.
Mike Barrs
From: JD Blackwell <jdb5025@yahoo...>
Subject: Re: Anybody else using mics onstage....
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2002 17:31:20 GMT
"foldedpath" <<mbarrs@NOSPAM...>> wrote in message
news:<urdjrmkv3bit31@corp...>...
> "JD Blackwell" <<jdb5025@yahoo...>> wrote in message
> news:USmt9.3056$<wm6.2952@nwrddc01...>...
> >
> > I like a little chorus and a touch of delay
> > for dry rooms and maybe a little reverb.
> > If it's going to work for me, it will have
> > to be battery powered like the Raven
> > Labs pre and small like a Nanoverb.
>
> JD, I don't know if you're going to find any battery-powered FX
> pedals that actually sound good, and don't mess up your clean tone.
> Everything I've ever bought or auditioned in this area has
> disappointed me. The models that can operate on dual battery or AC
> power always sound better (cleaner) on AC power. Digital FX pedals
> will also suck money out of your wallet in battery replacement
> costs. They're real pigs for power.
>
> Having said that, you might want to check out the Digitech RP-50,
> which is going for about $70 at the usual places. It can use 6 AA
> batteries as well as AC power. I haven't heard it in person, but the
> specs look interesting, and that's a low enough price that you won't
> get burned too badly if it doesn't work out in the long run.
> Digitech reverb algorithms aren't exactly world-class, but it's in
> about the same range as the Alesis stuff.
>
> I've always just bitten the bullet and used AC-powered gear because
> it sounds better, and I have a much wider range of choice in
> equipment. Now that I'm using a rackmount looper, I'm stuck with a
> small rack + AC-powered pedalboard setup anyway.
>
> If you end up buying a battery-powered FX pedal, let us know how it
> turns out.
>
I have a rack solely for my acoustic that's 4 spaces deep. I've pared it
down to a 2 space but I find that it's still a PITA to haul and setup if I'm
going to an open mic and since I don't have an onboard pre-amp the guitars
sound like crap if I just plug in direct. I'm not under any illusion that a
battery powered multi-fx will sound as good as a Lexicon or Eventide. I'm
hoping to get a useable sound without having to carry the rack and go
through the setup motions it requires. The RP-50 may be the trick. Thanks
for the heads up.
JD
From: <please@nospam...>
Subject: Re: Anybody else using mics onstage....
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2002 19:37:06 GMT
Organization: None
"JD Blackwell" <<jdb5025@yahoo...>> wrote:
>Yeah, if that RP-50 is worth a damn at all, it just may be the trick along
>with a Raven. No AC at all.
Most of the reviews of the MFX boxes that I read make statements like
it's worth it for the convenience but they are not as good as the
individual FX, yada yada. I wouldn't know, not having tried one of
the multiple ones. The nice thing about the multiple ones is that you
have "all" of the ones you'd normally use in a small package. The
nice thing about the individual ones is that you can find the good
ones and just take the ones you are really going to use to the gig. I
arrange my pedal board the day before, check the batteries, etc. I've
never used the complete set on any gig. A solo guitar or
guitar-plus-voice thing is different from a country band gig.
The other thing that works really well is a stomp box tuner like the
Boss TU-2. I know people complain about its relative lack of accuracy
but that plus ears is all I've ever needed. This tuner will live very
happily on the pedal board. Since I carry several instruments, this
is really good because I don't have to transfer my Intellitouch from
headstock to headstock. That makes the Intellitouch happier, too,
because it doesn't have to periodically hit the floor with enough
force to crack some part of it. Some MFX boxes also have tuners.
That would be useful.
Al
--
Reply to al_guitar "at" clifftopmusic "dot" com
From: <please@nospam...>
Subject: Re: Anybody else using mics onstage....
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2002 19:37:06 GMT
Organization: None
"JD Blackwell" <<jdb5025@yahoo...>> wrote:
>Yeah, if that RP-50 is worth a damn at all, it just may be the trick along
>with a Raven. No AC at all.
Most of the reviews of the MFX boxes that I read make statements like
it's worth it for the convenience but they are not as good as the
individual FX, yada yada. I wouldn't know, not having tried one of
the multiple ones. The nice thing about the multiple ones is that you
have "all" of the ones you'd normally use in a small package. The
nice thing about the individual ones is that you can find the good
ones and just take the ones you are really going to use to the gig. I
arrange my pedal board the day before, check the batteries, etc. I've
never used the complete set on any gig. A solo guitar or
guitar-plus-voice thing is different from a country band gig.
The other thing that works really well is a stomp box tuner like the
Boss TU-2. I know people complain about its relative lack of accuracy
but that plus ears is all I've ever needed. This tuner will live very
happily on the pedal board. Since I carry several instruments, this
is really good because I don't have to transfer my Intellitouch from
headstock to headstock. That makes the Intellitouch happier, too,
because it doesn't have to periodically hit the floor with enough
force to crack some part of it. Some MFX boxes also have tuners.
That would be useful.
Al
--
Reply to al_guitar "at" clifftopmusic "dot" com
From: Steve <sefstrat@aol...>
Subject: Re: Anybody else using mics onstage....
Date: 24 Oct 2002 00:22:19 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
>I have a rack solely for my acoustic that's 4 spaces deep. I've pared it
>down to a 2 space but I find that it's still a PITA to haul and setup if I'm
>going to an open mic and since I don't have an onboard pre-amp the guitars
>sound like crap if I just plug in direct. I'm not under any illusion that a
>battery powered multi-fx will sound as good as a Lexicon or Eventide. I'm
>hoping to get a useable sound without having to carry the rack and go
>through the setup motions it requires. The RP-50 may be the trick. Thanks
>for the heads up.
You will need to plug it in, but the little ART FX-1 might do ya for the open
mic kind of thing. Very small. OK for a little chorus or verb or delay.
SEFSTRAT
solo webpage: http://members.aol.com/sefstrat/index.html/sefpage.html
band webpage: www.timebanditsrock.com
From: JD Blackwell <jdb5025@yahoo...>
Subject: Re: Anybody else using mics onstage....
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2002 00:31:34 GMT
"Steve" <<sefstrat@aol...>> wrote in message
news:<20021023202219.18260.00000247@mb-ma...>...
> >I have a rack solely for my acoustic that's 4 spaces deep. I've pared it
> >down to a 2 space but I find that it's still a PITA to haul and setup if
I'm
> >going to an open mic and since I don't have an onboard pre-amp the
guitars
> >sound like crap if I just plug in direct. I'm not under any illusion that
a
> >battery powered multi-fx will sound as good as a Lexicon or Eventide. I'm
> >hoping to get a useable sound without having to carry the rack and go
> >through the setup motions it requires. The RP-50 may be the trick. Thanks
> >for the heads up.
>
> You will need to plug it in, but the little ART FX-1 might do ya for the
open
> mic kind of thing. Very small. OK for a little chorus or verb or delay.
I already have an ART acoustic pre/fx that works fine but it still needs AC.
I may experiment with it to see if it can be made to work with a 9v battery.
That still leaves me with single source amplification with dual sourced
guitars.
JD
| Impedance revisited; volume pedal in the loop [6] |
|---|
From: Dick Thaxter <richard.thaxter@mail...>
Subject: Impedance revisited; volume pedal in the loop
Date: Fri, 01 Nov 2002 21:49:48 GMT
Having nothing better to ask for for my birthday earlier this month, I
jumped on a referral some of my electric guitar buddies suggested.
Nashville's Guitar Heaven website was selling all of the Ernie Ball
Volume Pedal models for $119. I told the wife to get the Stereo/Pan
Volume pedal. She ordered the right one, they sent the wrong one. Now
I've got the right one and I'm playing with using as a pan pedal between
the Boss Loopstation output and the live output. Takes a little finesse
with the foot control, but it does a nice job at being able to balance
the loop output with what's being played live.
The E/B website has an explanation of the impedance of the various
models which range from 25K ohms to 500K ohms for the stereo/volume pan
pedal.
At any rate the 500K works fine between the loopstation and the
instrument input of whatever amp I plug into. The other input and
output bypass the loopstation and go to a second amp which plays the
live signal.
I don't remember what Sherm's signal path ended up being, but dare I
bring it up again? Oops, there it is.
Dick Thaxter
From: foldedpath <mbarrs@NOSPAM...>
Subject: Re: Impedance revisited; volume pedal in the loop
Date: Fri, 1 Nov 2002 15:23:45 -0800
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com
"Jim's Mail" <<jcarp.1@starpower...>> wrote in message
news:B9E86F82.183CB%<jcarp.1@starpower...>...
> I still haven't figured out if I have the right kind
> or not. Anyone care to help me out?
You want a volume pedal with a very high impedance (high Z), if it's
the first thing your pickup signal sees in the signal chain. Onboard
preamps will buffer the signal a bit, but it's still a good idea to
use a high-impedance volume pedal if it's the first thing you plug
into from the guitar..
You want a low-impedance volume pedal (sometimes called a keyboard
or synth volume pedal) if it sits further down the signal chain.
In theory, your main preamp and EQ system (somewhere outside the
guitar) is outputting a line level signal. So if you have a volume
pedal linked into a post-preamp FX unit or looper, it should be the
keyboard-type volume pedal that works at low impedance.
Check the input impedance specs of each piece of gear in your signal
chain. That will tell you how to match things at any stage along the
way. Generally speaking, you only want a high-Z pedal if it's the
first thing in the chain, and you want a low-Z pedal if it sits
further down the chain.
Mike Barrs
From: Sherm <jsherman@lorainccc...>
Subject: Re: Impedance revisited; volume pedal in the loop
Date: 2 Nov 2002 13:13:25 GMT
On Fri, 01 Nov 2002 21:49:48 GMT, Dick Thaxter
<<richard.thaxter@mail...>> wrote:
>I've got the right one and I'm playing with using as a pan pedal between
>the Boss Loopstation output and the live output. Takes a little finesse
>with the foot control, but it does a nice job at being able to balance
>the loop output with what's being played live.
I'm intrigued.
>I don't remember what Sherm's signal path ended up being, but dare I
>bring it up again? Oops, there it is.
Dare on, my friend! I've got a Boss FV50-L (for low imp.) volume
pedal on the LoopStation's output only, so I can fade out a loop or
reduce its volume slightly as needed. (You know how add'l layers
increase the volume?) I have the live signal split with an A-or-B
switch to 2 mixer channels, one set slightly louder than the other
(like as a lead boost).
I think this panning/balance idea of yours sounds like a better way to
go. Seems simpler. One touch. Any downside?
I wish the LoopStation had a wet/dry mix knob so you could make its
output only the recorded signal. I'd gladly trade that to Boss for
the reverse playback feature. ;-)
Sherm
From: T-bone <dorgan@fltg...>
Subject: Re: Impedance revisited; volume pedal in the loop
Date: Sat, 2 Nov 2002 08:34:44 -0500
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com
"Sherm" <<jsherman@lorainccc...>> wrote:
> I wish the LoopStation had a wet/dry mix knob so you could make its
> output only the recorded signal. I'd gladly trade that to Boss for
> the reverse playback feature. ;-)
>
The reverse playback feature is pretty worthless for most of us, but I can
imagine a 15 year old impressing the hell out of his buddies with it.
Other than that, I can't think of a use for it.
Bob Dorgan
From: Dick Thaxter <richard.thaxter@mail...>
Subject: Re: Impedance revisited; volume pedal in the loop
Date: Sat, 02 Nov 2002 13:50:58 GMT
Exactly my thoughts. I did hit it accidentally once and thought "What
the hell?"
Actually, on my Line 6 Delay modeler where you can sort of do it "live"
reverse is pretty cool. I can go nar nar nar dwee dwee OR eewd eewd
ran ran ran. Know what I mean, dude?
Dick
T-bone wrote:
>
> "Sherm" <<jsherman@lorainccc...>> wrote:
> > I wish the LoopStation had a wet/dry mix knob so you could make its
> > output only the recorded signal. I'd gladly trade that to Boss for
> > the reverse playback feature. ;-)
> >
>
> The reverse playback feature is pretty worthless for most of us, but I can
> imagine a 15 year old impressing the hell out of his buddies with it.
> Other than that, I can't think of a use for it.
> Bob Dorgan
From: Dick Thaxter <richard.thaxter@mail...>
Subject: Re: Impedance revisited; volume pedal in the loop
Date: Sat, 02 Nov 2002 14:02:16 GMT
Sherm wrote:
>
> On Fri, 01 Nov 2002 21:49:48 GMT, Dick Thaxter
> <<richard.thaxter@mail...>> wrote:
>
> >I've got the right one and I'm playing with using as a pan pedal between
> >the Boss Loopstation output and the live output. Takes a little finesse
> >with the foot control, but it does a nice job at being able to balance
> >the loop output with what's being played live.
>
> I'm intrigued.
>
> >I don't remember what Sherm's signal path ended up being, but dare I
> >bring it up again? Oops, there it is.
>
> Dare on, my friend! I've got a Boss FV50-L (for low imp.) volume
> pedal on the LoopStation's output only, so I can fade out a loop or
> reduce its volume slightly as needed. (You know how add'l layers
> increase the volume?) I have the live signal split with an A-or-B
> switch to 2 mixer channels, one set slightly louder than the other
> (like as a lead boost).
>
> I think this panning/balance idea of yours sounds like a better way to
> go. Seems simpler. One touch. Any downside?
>
Well it does take a light touch. It's easy to either boost the loop too
high or cut it off entirely without meaning too. Also I haven't exactly
worked out how to end these things gracefully, but I think with a bit of
practice it would work. I just like that I can get the levels right
even for practicing. I used to maybe reach down and fiddle with the
knobs, I mean no one in my basement cares if I miss a verse.
> I wish the LoopStation had a wet/dry mix knob so you could make its
> output only the recorded signal. I'd gladly trade that to Boss for
> the reverse playback feature. ;-)
>
> Sherm
>
Again, I'm always using two amps so I can set it so I don't get much of
the dry signal coming through the amp with the loopstation. I split the
signal upstream of the loopstation.
Here's the signal path guitar -> Barber tone pump -> Boss RV-3 (with
two outs) -> one to Loopstation then to volume pedal A side then to amp;
the other out from the RV-3 to volume pedal B side then to amp.
Actually the Ernie Ball website says that for panning one uses just the
A input. Since there was no manual or anything, I plugged into both A
and B ins and outs and that seems to work. BTW, with the switch set to
volume it acts like a simple volume pedal.
Then there's the mono volume pedal with an A/B switch which might also
do what you need.
The EB pedals are built like tanks.
Impedantly yours,
Dick
| Behringer DSP Shark...has anyone tried with acoustic guitar? [8] |
|---|
From: Twangchief <twangchief@charter...>
Subject: Behringer DSP Shark...has anyone tried with acoustic guitar?
Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2002 17:51:24 -0500
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com
I know that Behringer doesn't make super great products but has anyone tried
one of these?
I'm trying to get rid of feedback.
Thanks,
twang~~~~~~~~~~~
From: JimLowther <jimlowther@aol...>
Subject: Re: Behringer DSP Shark...has anyone tried with acoustic guitar?
Date: 12 Nov 2002 05:06:31 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
"Twangchief" <twangchief@charter...> wrote:
>I know that Behringer doesn't make super great products but has anyone tried
>one of these?
Yes.
>I'm trying to get rid of feedback.
Mine works for that.
I got it to get phantom power for an MXL 603 when recording on a Tascam 424 Mk
II, thinking the other aspects of the gadget would come in handy at some point.
Used it at a gig for feedback control and take it with me ever since.I willbuy a second one sometime in the near future.
Best wishes,
Dr. Jim Lowther
From: foldedpath <mbarrs@NOSPAM...>
Subject: Re: Behringer DSP Shark...has anyone tried with acoustic guitar?
Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2002 12:29:08 -0800
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com
"Joe Jordan" <<jjordan@hotpop...>> wrote in message
news:<ep81tu8hlt95cltu628o5uk54ejn3kscaj@4ax...>...
> How does the "renowned FEEDBACK
> DESTROYER circuitry" work, anyway? Is it
> essentially just a notch filter that somehow
> automatically seeks out the feedback frequency
> and cuts the EQ there?
That's basically what happens. During sound check, you train the
unit to find the feedback frequencies. It starts with a narrow boost
filter and ramps it up and down the frequency range, looking for
sudden increases in the signal. Then it stores each feedback
frequency in memory. There is more than one available filter, so you
can store multiple feedback points.
There is also a dynamic mode, where available filters roam around
the spectrum, looking for sudden feedback that might be caused by
something like moving a mic stand after the sound check.
> I'm mostly interested in it for live use, either
> for vocals (w/AKG 535 and a little bit of the
> built-in compression) or for miking a guitar and/or
> mandolin (w/Oktava MC012). I like the portability
> and multi-functionalness (another one of those
> technical terms <g>). A mic, a stand, a Shark,
> and a couple of cables, and you're a self-contained
> unit with a balanced feed to the house PA...
In theory this is very cool little box. What makes me nervous is
that it sells for $70. It's easy to get good-sounding digital
processing (feedback filters, delay, gate, compression) at a low
price these days, as long as you stay in the digital realm. But this
box squeezes your entire signal through a cheap mic preamp and a
cheap A/D-D/A digital conversion stage. I've never heard a
good-sounding mic pre and 24-bit converters at a price this low, but
maybe Behringer is working miracles here.
Try to audition one in a store if you can. Make sure it doesn't
muddy your sound too much.
You might also want to look into the Sabine FBX-Solo series. They
have a compact unit for $275 that does this feedback-killing trick.
Higher price doesn't always mean better quality, but that's often
the case.
Also be careful if you use other digital FX downstream in your
signal chain (digital reverb, loopers, etc.). It's not a good idea
to stack too many A/D-D/A conversion stages together.
Mike Barrs
From: Steve <sefstrat@aol...>
Subject: Re: Behringer DSP Shark...has anyone tried with acoustic guitar?
Date: 12 Nov 2002 23:22:04 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
>"Joe Jordan" <<jjordan@hotpop...>> wrote in message
>news:<ep81tu8hlt95cltu628o5uk54ejn3kscaj@4ax...>...
>
>> How does the "renowned FEEDBACK
>> DESTROYER circuitry" work, anyway? Is it
>> essentially just a notch filter that somehow
>> automatically seeks out the feedback frequency
>> and cuts the EQ there?
>
>That's basically what happens. During sound check, you train the
>unit to find the feedback frequencies. It starts with a narrow boost
>filter and ramps it up and down the frequency range, looking for
>sudden increases in the signal. Then it stores each feedback
>frequency in memory. There is more than one available filter, so you
>can store multiple feedback points.
>
>There is also a dynamic mode, where available filters roam around
>the spectrum, looking for sudden feedback that might be caused by
>something like moving a mic stand after the sound check.
Yeah. It works about a tenth as well as the Sabine Feedback Exterminator does.
SEFSTRAT
solo webpage: http://members.aol.com/sefstrat/index.html/sefpage.html
band webpage: www.timebanditsrock.com
From: JimLowther <jimlowther@aol...>
Subject: Re: Behringer DSP Shark...has anyone tried with acoustic guitar?
Date: 12 Nov 2002 21:40:02 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
Joe Jordan <jjordan@hotpop...> wrote:
>How does the "renowned FEEDBACK DESTROYER circuitry" work,
>anyway? Is it essentially just a notch filter that somehow
>automatically seeks out the feedback frequency and cuts the
>EQ there? Or does it do some sort of digital "presto
>change-o"? (I'm qualified to use technical terms like that
>because my first two degrees were in engineering <g>).
I answer this stuff hesitantly, as there has to be better folks than me on live
sound issues..
Mike Barrs did a good job describing how this thing is supposed to work. It is
supposedly better than traditional (analogue?) notch filters in having a
barrower notch (steeper slope). It can also dial out multiple frquencies. I
would rather not have to use it, but sometimes you run out of options.
I use mine on the vocals only. If possible, I would like to isolate the
troublesome channel and use it only on the one mic. I have had little problem
with feedback from guitar. The most common occurence I find myself using it is
an overly bright room with awkard resonances with little dynamic range for
vocals to be heard above instruments and not feedback. I usually do not use a
condenser in live situations, using AKG 535's. I am indifferent about the
535's, as it seems to me I have had more feedback situations with these than
other dynamic mikes (mostly EV ND 367a's) I have used. But I have only
recently been forced back into PA stuff, and my memory is not always to be
trusted.
Best wishes,
Dr. Jim Lowther
From: George Gleason <g.p.gleason@worldnet...>
Subject: Re: Behringer DSP Shark...has anyone tried with acoustic guitar?
Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2002 20:52:20 GMT
Organization: AT&T Worldnet
"Twangchief" <<twangchief@charter...>> wrote in message
news:<ut0d0g2m1csed@corp...>...
> I know that Behringer doesn't make super great products but has anyone
tried
> one of these?
>
> I'm trying to get rid of feedback.
>
> Thanks,
> twang~~~~~~~~~~~
>
here is one of the responses I posted on the subject of FBX type unitsa quick Google search will turn up hundreds of opinions
George
>you might as well ask for golden slippers that will walk you into heaven
with 18 nubile sex slaves by your side
the feedback busters are units of last resort for impossible situations like
a preacher with a omni lav who walks infront of the speakers
they really have no application in quality sound they just do not work
though the Sabine is by far the best of these
I owned the sabine and i use it MAYBE once a year
solid engineering beats fancy toys hands down every time
try to spend more time learning about why your getting feedback and how to
address it OFTEN the feedback busters are seen as the solution but it is
not it is like duct tape on a flat tire , it may get you by in a pinch but
it is nothing like having the system properly rung out and EQed
george gleason
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
>
From: Steve <sefstrat@aol...>
Subject: Re: Behringer DSP Shark...has anyone tried with acoustic guitar?
Date: 12 Nov 2002 23:26:20 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
<<"George Gleason" <g.p.gleason@worldnet...> wrote:
>the feedback busters are units of last resort for impossible situations like
>a preacher with a omni lav who walks infront of the speakers
>they really have no application in quality sound they just do not work
>though the Sabine is by far the best of these
>I owned the sabine and i use it MAYBE once a year
>solid engineering beats fancy toys hands down every time
>try to spend more time learning about why your getting feedback and how to
>address it OFTEN the feedback busters are seen as the solution but it is
>not it is like duct tape on a flat tire , it may get you by in a pinch but
>it is nothing like having the system properly rung out and EQed
Jim Lowther wrote:
<<<George:
I really can't disagree with you on this, but for us amateurs that often get
stuck with a haphazzard system in a funky room with little headroom and short
on time, these things have their place.>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Very much so. In my band, we use a Sabine FBX dead last, after EQ and before
the power amps for the stage monitor wedges (these contain only vocals and
sometimes acoustic guitar in our band). Works VERY well. Second-best thing to
having a dedicated monitor engineer at the side of the stage with
parametrics...actually reacts faster than an engineer to things like someone
holding a hat out in the wrong place (in front oif a mic), and so on. The ky's
in ringing the system befoe you start; get the filters to engage on the big
trouble point(s), then let the thing roam all night.
We don't use it on the FOH at all. No need.
SEFSTRAT
solo webpage: http://members.aol.com/sefstrat/index.html/sefpage.html
band webpage: www.timebanditsrock.com
From: stuart <stuartgordon_nospam@optushome...>
Subject: Re: Behringer DSP Shark...has anyone tried with acoustic guitar?
Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2002 16:52:38 +1000
I asked behringer about this once and that unit, despite the hype that it
gets, unofficially it is meant mostly for vocal stuff. So yes is probably
acceptable but not awesome quality for music.
Stuart
Sydney
"foldedpath" <<mbarrs@NOSPAM...>> wrote in message
news:<ut2p4r471sb380@corp...>...
> "Joe Jordan" <<jjordan@hotpop...>> wrote in message
> news:<ep81tu8hlt95cltu628o5uk54ejn3kscaj@4ax...>...
>
> > How does the "renowned FEEDBACK
> > DESTROYER circuitry" work, anyway? Is it
> > essentially just a notch filter that somehow
> > automatically seeks out the feedback frequency
> > and cuts the EQ there?
>
> That's basically what happens. During sound check, you train the
> unit to find the feedback frequencies. It starts with a narrow boost
> filter and ramps it up and down the frequency range, looking for
> sudden increases in the signal. Then it stores each feedback
> frequency in memory. There is more than one available filter, so you
> can store multiple feedback points.
>
> There is also a dynamic mode, where available filters roam around
> the spectrum, looking for sudden feedback that might be caused by
> something like moving a mic stand after the sound check.
>
> > I'm mostly interested in it for live use, either
> > for vocals (w/AKG 535 and a little bit of the
> > built-in compression) or for miking a guitar and/or
> > mandolin (w/Oktava MC012). I like the portability
> > and multi-functionalness (another one of those
> > technical terms <g>). A mic, a stand, a Shark,
> > and a couple of cables, and you're a self-contained
> > unit with a balanced feed to the house PA...
>
> In theory this is very cool little box. What makes me nervous is
> that it sells for $70. It's easy to get good-sounding digital
> processing (feedback filters, delay, gate, compression) at a low
> price these days, as long as you stay in the digital realm. But this
> box squeezes your entire signal through a cheap mic preamp and a
> cheap A/D-D/A digital conversion stage. I've never heard a
> good-sounding mic pre and 24-bit converters at a price this low, but
> maybe Behringer is working miracles here.
>
> Try to audition one in a store if you can. Make sure it doesn't
> muddy your sound too much.
>
> You might also want to look into the Sabine FBX-Solo series. They
> have a compact unit for $275 that does this feedback-killing trick.
> Higher price doesn't always mean better quality, but that's often
> the case.
>
> Also be careful if you use other digital FX downstream in your
> signal chain (digital reverb, loopers, etc.). It's not a good idea
> to stack too many A/D-D/A conversion stages together.
>
> Mike Barrs
>
>
| Effects Box |
|---|
From: Gozy <Gozy@REMOVEhotmail...>
Subject: Re: Effects Box
Date: Sun, 24 Nov 2002 21:52:02 GMT
Organization: Cox Communications
I have an older 504 for my acoustics and a 505II that I use with my
electrics. All I want for the acoustics is a touch of chorus, a touch of
reverb and a tuner. The 504 fills the bill and doesn't cost an arm and a
leg. The more complex effects tend to introduce a little noise. If you
want compression or plan to use the acoustic sim, for example, you might
want to look elsewhere. But for the money these are good gig boxes.
"Dave Hallsworth" <<david.hallsworth@wadham...>> wrote in message
news:arnr9s$hrk$<1@news...>...
> Anyone here tried the zoom 504 acoustic model? Any good, or is it the
usual
> 'load-with-effects-and-forget-quality'?
>
> Also, anyone tried the Digitech XDD digital delay box, and is it available
> in Britain?
>
> Cheers Guys,
> Dave
>
>
| Acoustic guitar processing [13] |
|---|
From: tpp <powerst@ix...>
Subject: Acoustic guitar processing
Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2002 06:15:40 -0500
Organization: MindSpring Enterprises
I am looking for advice choosing a effects processor for my acoustic guitar
setup which is a Larrivee D03, with a Fishman Acoustic Matrix pickup, and a
Strawberry Blonde amp (the guitar does not have an onboard processor).
Frankly, my eyes get crossed and blurry when I look at all the stuff that is
available; it's a little confusing.
What is hot among the acoustic players who play live? I confess to some
ignorance to the vernacular and the equipment that is available; however, I
probably want compression, chorus, flange, distortion, and built-in tuner.
Your guidance is appreciated.
Tom
From: Scott McAllister <scott.mcallister@worldnet...>
Subject: Re: Acoustic guitar processing
Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2002 11:48:53 GMT
Organization: AT&T Worldnet
I had pretty good luck with the Yamaha AG Stomp. It has a bunch of cool
usable effects, two of which being a five band notch filter that in cases of
feedback on stage would automatically find the offending frequency and cut
it, and a "microphone modeling" feature. This would ostensibly take the
sound from the pickup and make it sound like a condenser, dynamic, or tube
mic. While the sound was not like a miked guitar, it did sound quite nice
and took a lot of the harsh sound away from the pickup. Especially good for
under saddle pickups. The box also had a semi parametric eq. If I had
taken the time to learn how to use it probably would have been fun.
You can find these on ebay for aboutr $300 or so.
Hope this helps.
Scott
"tpp" <<powerst@ix...>> wrote in message
news:art0or$ag7$<1@slb2...>...
> I am looking for advice choosing a effects processor for my acoustic
guitar
> setup which is a Larrivee D03, with a Fishman Acoustic Matrix pickup, and
a
> Strawberry Blonde amp (the guitar does not have an onboard processor).
> Frankly, my eyes get crossed and blurry when I look at all the stuff that
is
> available; it's a little confusing.
>
> What is hot among the acoustic players who play live? I confess to some
> ignorance to the vernacular and the equipment that is available; however,
I
> probably want compression, chorus, flange, distortion, and built-in tuner.
>
> Your guidance is appreciated.
>
> Tom
>
>
From: David Kilpatrick <iconmags2@btconnect...>
Subject: Re: Acoustic guitar processing
Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2002 12:34:44 +0000 (UTC)
Organization: Icon Publications Limited
tpp wrote:
> I am looking for advice choosing a effects processor for my acoustic guitar
> setup which is a Larrivee D03, with a Fishman Acoustic Matrix pickup, and a
> Strawberry Blonde amp (the guitar does not have an onboard processor).
> Frankly, my eyes get crossed and blurry when I look at all the stuff that is
> available; it's a little confusing.
>
> What is hot among the acoustic players who play live? I confess to some
> ignorance to the vernacular and the equipment that is available; however, I
> probably want compression, chorus, flange, distortion, and built-in tuner.
>
Hunt down a Korg Pandora PX2. Should cost about $60 s/h. It has all this, in a box
just a little bigger than a normal tuner, and runs off two AA cells (the
later PX3 runs of AAAs which is a pain - I use rechargeable NIMHs for my
Pandora). It has a very accurate tuner, and a stack of memories which
let you program I think either 16 or 20 combinations of reverb, delay,
chorus, flange, compression, cabinet simulation and EQ adjustments.
Quality is a bit lo-fi if you use high levels of FX, but clean with
normal acoustic use. It has a good stereo output should you ever plug in
to a PA, and it has a headphone socket too which can make use for
'monitored practice' practical. It also includes a simple metronome and
rythm box (the later PX-3 has a bassline, but the stereo output is poor
- the echo ping-pong does not work correctly; it also has a phrase
sampler but this is awful in quality, and they crippled the stereo FX in
order to get this feature added).
Things I like about the PX2 is that is goes in the guitar case accessory
box, it can even slip into a shirt pocket, and it has an illumated
display. It really can go everywhere with you and do full chromatic
tuner job too. And for a seated acoustic guitarist, normally with a
table to hand, it looks a bit less inappropriate than having a foot
stomp box to do the same thing.
David
From: David Kilpatrick <iconmags2@btconnect...>
Subject: Re: Acoustic guitar processing
Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2002 17:25:00 +0000 (UTC)
Organization: Icon Publications Limited
Charles E. Rehberg Ed.D. wrote:
> David,
> Am I correct when you state "Should cost about $60 s/h" that you meant =
a used one
> should cost about 60 dollars plus the shipping. How long have they bee=
n out and where
> would be the best places to look for one? Any idea what they sold for =
new if the
> price you mentioned is for a used one like I think it is.
>=20
They sold new in the UK for =A399 which usually means new in the USA for =
$99 though our price is more oike $149. $60 or maybe at a pinch $80=20
would be a decent s/h price.
Look for 'Pandora' or 'Korg PX' on eBay I guess.
I have the original PX1 which sold me on the idea, I got the PX2 because =
it was much better, and kept the 1 because I could have one in each=20
guitar case. Then I got a PX3 and that sucked (it was about 30 per cent=20
more expensive). I used a stereo PA rig and half the stereo reverbs and=20
echoes were 'missing'. I returned it and grabbed my PX2 back off the=20
store before they sold it! There is a PX4 which I have not tried. In=20
fact I preferred the original PX1 to the PX3.
David
From: foldedpath <mbarrs@NOSPAM...>
Subject: Re: Acoustic guitar processing
Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2002 09:09:33 -0800
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com
"David Kilpatrick" <<iconmags2@btconnect...>> wrote in message
news:<3DE218C2.8010200@btconnect...>...
>
>
> Things I like about the PX2 is that is
> goes in the guitar case accessory
> box, it can even slip into a shirt pocket,
> and it has an illumated display. It really
> can go everywhere with you and do full
> chromatic tuner job too. And for a
> seated acoustic guitarist, normally with
> a table to hand, it looks a bit less
> inappropriate than having a foot stomp
> box to do the same thing.
David (and others here),
I understand the appeal of a compact FX unit that would fit in a
guitar case. But I'm curious about your comment on stomp boxes
looking "inappropriate" for an acoustic guitarist.
Do you think an audience has a negative opinion of stomp boxes on
the floor, when the sound is amplified anyway? What about a small
rack case sitting on the floor, or a nearby chair? Is that seen as
"geeky" or some other negative connotation by the audience?
I'm just curious what people think about this.
For people here who use a lot of effects, or a bulky setup like a
rack case -- do you try to keep that stuff as invisible as possible,
or do you not mind being associated with the gear as part of the
presentation?
Mike Barrs
From: Sherm <jshermannospam@lorainccc...>
Subject: Re: Acoustic guitar processing
Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2002 17:31:42 GMT
On Mon, 25 Nov 2002 09:09:33 -0800, "foldedpath"
<<mbarrs@NOSPAM...>> wrote:
>For people here who use a lot of effects, or a bulky setup like a
>rack case -- do you try to keep that stuff as invisible as possible,
>or do you not mind being associated with the gear as part of the
>presentation?
Doubt if anybody pays all that much attention, Mike. There's no
question for what I wanna do --- I really only wanna noodle (the
tunes are just vehicles) and if I can't loop then I can't noodle and
if I can't have gear on the floor then I can't loop.
I keep an 18" wide, 2-tiered pedal board on the floor in front of a
small monitor amp, a 50w U/S on each side and a mixer on top of a
little table formed from the lid of the pedal board on top of the gear
bag. I can reach the mixer easily from the stool and I have a little
space left to set stuff. Everything's functional, nothing's
extraneous so I guess that makes it all 'appropriate,' at least for
what I wanna do.
LOL. Of course, if a listener disapproves of what I do then yeah, its
all totally inappropriate. <g>
Sherm
From: David Kilpatrick <iconmags2@btconnect...>
Subject: Re: Acoustic guitar processing
Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2002 17:33:23 +0000 (UTC)
Organization: Icon Publications Limited
mike asked:
>
> Do you think an audience has a negative opinion of stomp boxes on
> the floor, when the sound is amplified anyway? What about a small
> rack case sitting on the floor, or a nearby chair? Is that seen as
> "geeky" or some other negative connotation by the audience?
>
> I'm just curious what people think about this.
>
> For people here who use a lot of effects, or a bulky setup like a
> rack case -- do you try to keep that stuff as invisible as possible,
> or do you not mind being associated with the gear as part of the
> presentation?
>
I think you get what I mean. John Renbourn, good example, uses a Boss
AD-3 which he usually plonks on a stool or table next to him, with an
in-line tuner. He previously used a DI box plus a Boss CH-5 or similar
chorus pedal, but often used the pedal by hand. I've seen him use it by
'foot' but since he normally cocks his right foot on to his left knee,
leaving only foot on the ground, he can't easily do mid-song changes.
I don't think a small rack on a chair near you is 'wrong' in feeling, I
just think that if you do use a Zoom pedal, people reckon you are
stomping on a preset to add effects. If you use the same effects exactly
using a hand controlled box sitting next to you, they think you are
precisely controlling the quality of your presentation!
I have a small Boss DD-3 or whatever echo pedal and don't think that
give a bad impression, but even so, I often place it for hand use not
foot. Apart from anything else, changing the settings is a hand thing
with these - knobs, no preset memory banks. And bending down
mid-performance to twiddle with something at floor level is strange
behaviour.
The Pandora can even be velcroed to your guitar strap or worn on your
belt with a little improvisation.
David
From: foldedpath <mbarrs@NOSPAM...>
Subject: Re: Acoustic guitar processing
Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2002 10:43:00 -0800
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com
"David Kilpatrick" <<iconmags2@btconnect...>> wrote in message
news:<3DE25EC1.5030107@btconnect...>...
>
<snip>
> I don't think a small rack on a chair near
> you is 'wrong' in feeling, I just think that
> if you do use a Zoom pedal, people reckon
> you are stomping on a preset to add effects.
> If you use the same effects exactly using a
> hand controlled box sitting next to you, they
> think you are precisely controlling the quality
> of your presentation!
That's interesting. I've never thought of it that way, but you're
probably right.
I read a monthly digest of the Looper's Delight mailing list. Most
of the people there are doing "ambient" stuff that I'm not into on a
musical level, but it's a good source of technical information.
Someone there recently described a live concert where a woman
performed a solo vocal and Midi percussion looping piece.... sort of
a music/poetry thing. She would record her vocals, slice and dice
them up as loops, then layer and build up textures. All of this is
being done in real-time while she's continuing to sing, so it's a
seamless performance. The interesting thing is that she used a
DrumKat (rubber drum pad Midi trigger) and drumsticks to send Midi
control messages to her looper, instead of the footpedal most people
use for this sort of thing. It made the process more obvious to the
audience, and made it seem more like she was "playing music" instead
of just triggering pre-recorded material. People who do live looping
often have a problem getting the audience to understand that it's
not a pre-taped presentation.
So that ties in with your idea about using your hands vs. feet. Of
course a guitar player can't do this, but it's an interesting idea,
I think.
Maybe we need some kind of light beam Midi controller, so we can
trigger loops by doing Pete Townsend windmill moves while we're
playing.
> I have a small Boss DD-3 or whatever echo> pedal and don't think that give a bad impression,
> but even so, I often place it for hand use not
> foot. Apart from anything else, changing the
> settings is a hand thing with these - knobs, no
> preset memory banks. And bending down
> mid-performance to twiddle with something
> at floor level is strange behaviour.
I guess it does break your rapport with the audience, compared to
reaching over to something on a chair beside you. It's almost like
turning your back on the audience. Interesting observation.
> The Pandora can even be velcroed to your
> guitar strap or worn on your belt with a little
> improvisation.
Ah, but does it come in colors so you can properly coordinate with
your stage attire? ;-)
Mike Barrs
From: Stephen Boyke <sdelsolray@attbi...>
Subject: Re: Acoustic guitar processing
Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2002 15:50:36 GMT
Organization: AT&T Broadband
in article art0or$ag7$<1@slb2...>, tpp at
<powerst@ix...> wrote on 11/25/02 3:15 AM:
> I am looking for advice choosing a effects processor for my acoustic guitar
> setup which is a Larrivee D03, with a Fishman Acoustic Matrix pickup, and a
> Strawberry Blonde amp (the guitar does not have an onboard processor).
> Frankly, my eyes get crossed and blurry when I look at all the stuff that is
> available; it's a little confusing.
>
> What is hot among the acoustic players who play live? I confess to some
> ignorance to the vernacular and the equipment that is available; however, I
> probably want compression, chorus, flange, distortion, and built-in tuner.
>
> Your guidance is appreciated.
>
> Tom
TC Electronics M 2000 is wonderful, and IMO the best bang for the buck,about $600-700 new (discounted), abut $500-$600 on eBay.
--
Stephen T. Boyke
From: Gary Hall <ahall@tusco...>
Subject: Re: Acoustic guitar processing
Date: 25 Nov 2002 15:36:08 -0800
Organization: http://groups.google.com/
"tpp" <<powerst@ix...>> wrote in message news:<art0or$ag7$<1@slb2...>>...
> I am looking for advice choosing a effects processor for my acoustic guitar
> setup which is a Larrivee D03, with a Fishman Acoustic Matrix pickup, and a
> Strawberry Blonde amp (the guitar does not have an onboard processor).
> Frankly, my eyes get crossed and blurry when I look at all the stuff that is
> available; it's a little confusing.
>
> What is hot among the acoustic players who play live? I confess to some
> ignorance to the vernacular and the equipment that is available; however, I
> probably want compression, chorus, flange, distortion, and built-in tuner.
>
> Your guidance is appreciated.
>
> Tom
Tom,
I like the Yamaha AG Stomp also, but it should be mentioned that it
doesn't provide flange or distortion. Also, I doubt that the Stomp's
limiter is what you had in mind when you said that you want
compression.
FWIW, I think that the Raven Labs "True Blue EQ" is a great device for
improving one's amplified tone - once you've learned to use it to the
best advantage. Interestingly, Raven Labs was started by the guy who
designed your Strawberry Blonde amp (Steve Rabe - if memory serves
correctly).
Gary Hall
From: MKarlo <mkarlo@aol...>
Subject: Re: Acoustic guitar processing
Date: 26 Nov 2002 02:48:51 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
Lexicon makes the MPX200, and I think it has all you want. It's a rack mount
unit and runs about $300 street. They make great, clean effects.
I remember asking this exact question about 2 years ago. Since then I've come
full circle and use little or no effects. Just when I want to sound like
something other than a pure acoustic.
km
From: d kulterer <kulte@gmx...>
Subject: Re: Acoustic guitar processing
Date: 28 Nov 2002 04:08:37 -0800
Organization: http://groups.google.com/
i am using and highly recommend the boss vf-1. it has amp models like
the pod, reverb, delay, chorus, phaser, eq (parametric,
semi-parametric, normal) etc etc.
i am using it for homerecording but with a midi-pedal you can also use
it for live gigs. its a half-rack sized unit.
i do not how much it is in the US but on ebay they are sold for
170-200 us$
this is not much for this unit's ability.
the reverbs are very very very good.
i suggest to read the reviews on harmony-central.
cheers,
d_kulterer
From: Jeffrey Cohen <cohenj@umich...>
Subject: Re: Acoustic guitar processing
Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2002 19:16:38 -0500
Organization: Bell Sympatico
I've been using the Boss AD-3 on stage to punch up my guitar's tone and control
feedback. It does a credible job on stage and doesn't cost too much. For the
money, the Yamaha AG-Stomp is probably a better and more versatile tool.
After a lengthy discussion with a young Turkish guitarist who was asking about
effects, I decided to record a bunch of samples using my AD-3. On reviewing
them with a critical ear, I can't say that I'm all that happy about the sounds.
Yet, on stage (I use it with a volume pedal), it seems to work well, giving me a
nice acoustic tone for rhythm work and a punchy lead sound when I hit the volume
pedal.
On the other hand, for one gig my batteries died and I ended up just plugging
into the PA (My dreadnaught has a Fishman Natural Matrix II with pre-amp) and
frankly it sounded almost as good.
Lately I'm of the mind that less is more. Perhaps a good quality preamp and
delay/reverb is all you (or I) really need? But I have to admit that the
feedback control on the AD-3 is nice.
Jeff
tpp wrote:
> I am looking for advice choosing a effects processor for my acoustic guitar
> setup which is a Larrivee D03, with a Fishman Acoustic Matrix pickup, and a
> Strawberry Blonde amp (the guitar does not have an onboard processor).
> Frankly, my eyes get crossed and blurry when I look at all the stuff that is
> available; it's a little confusing.
>
> What is hot among the acoustic players who play live? I confess to some
> ignorance to the vernacular and the equipment that is available; however, I
> probably want compression, chorus, flange, distortion, and built-in tuner.
>
> Your guidance is appreciated.
>
> Tom
| Loop Station [8] |
|---|
From: Rupert <mtrupe@angelfire...>
Subject: Loop Station
Date: 9 Dec 2002 13:39:19 -0800
Organization: http://groups.google.com/
Anyone here have a loop station? How have you used it and how do you like it?
From: Scott McAllister <scott.mcallister@worldnet...>
Subject: Re: Loop Station
Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2002 00:19:34 GMT
Organization: AT&T Worldnet
Bought one about 6 months ago to be able to play duets with myself, but
haven't used it much. A few times at home. Hope to use it a bit more.
It's pretty simple to use and I think with some practice it could become a
useful tool for stage use. Have to be careful about the volume settings.
The loops can be louder or softer than the original phrase if your're not
careful. Also, haven't had much use for the click track tempo drum thing.
More of an annoyance than anything else. Otherwise really straightforward.
"Rupert" <<mtrupe@angelfire...>> wrote in message
news:<34b55be9.0212091339.32db40ff@posting...>...
> Anyone here have a loop station? How have you used it and how do you like
it?
From: Sherm <jsherman@lorainccc...>
Subject: Re: Loop Station
Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2002 02:58:55 GMT
On 9 Dec 2002 13:39:19 -0800, <mtrupe@angelfire...> (Rupert) wrote:
>Anyone here have a loop station? How have you used it and how do you like it?
I've been using one for solo gigs for the last few months and its been
working out ok, I guess. I usually record an early verse/chorus cycle
while I'm singing and then let it playback for the rest of the
verses/choruses so I can play different accents, fills, and solos over
the basic changes.
You might want to look into some of the other brands and compare
features and prices before you buy anything. The Boss is certainly
simple enough to use. And its quiet and the reproduction's accurate,
enough for my needs, at least.
There's features on the Boss I don't use at all (e.g., click track,
slow down pitch correction, reverse playback, permanent storage), and
then there's several things that I wish it had but that it doesn't.
Barr uses something that has more capability, I believe. Forgot what
but he'll tell ya. Dorgan's got a Boomerang. Thaxter's got the Loop
Station. Not sure who else around here.
What's the plan for this thing? Gigging? Practice/Learning aid?
Sherm
From: foldedpath <mbarrs@NOSPAM...>
Subject: Re: Loop Station
Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2002 19:37:26 -0800
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com
"Sherm" <<jsherman@lorainccc...>> wrote in message
news:<3df55306.9527498@news...>...
> Barr uses something that has more capability, I believe.
> Forgot what but he'll tell ya.
Hey, you'd think I was a gadget geek who loved talking about this
stuff! Sheesh!!
The looper I use is an Electrix Repeater:
www.electrixpro.com/products/index.html
It has 4 independent tracks, and it records the loops as standard
16-bit .wav files on a flashcard. So it doubles as a scratch 4-track
recorder as well as a looper. I love it to death. In fact, I
recently bought a second one as backup. But it has a few downsides:
One big downside is that it was recently discontinued, and the
company folded (although their web site is still up). There may be a
few still left in inventory at Musician's Friend, 8thstreet.com, or
Guitar Center. They turn up on Ebay once in a while. Last selling
price was about $450 for new ones as they were being closed out. It
uses a funky nonstandard "line lump" power supply, and that's one
reason I bought a second one after I heard the company was folding.
I want to make sure I can still use this thing for a few years.
It's a rackmount AC-powered unit, not really meant for the floor. It
comes with NO control pedal at all. You can run it from the front
panel pushbuttons, but you really need footpedal control when you're
looping, and all pedals for this sucker are third party (they did
that to control costs). You can either buy a $30 mechanical 3-button
TRS pedal to control the basic looping functions, or dive into the
wonderful world of Midi control change programming with something
like the Behringer FCB1010 pedal. I'm still using the 3-button
mechanical pedal, because I know enough about Midi programming to
not want to mess with it unless I really HAVE to. Also, that's just
more crap to drag around.
The other high-end looper is the Echoplex Digital Pro, another
rackmount unit, but this one has an accessory dedicated control
pedal:
www.gibson.com/products/oberheim/ob2.html.
It's pricey -- about $800 with the pedal, and mono only. But at
least it's still in production. Before the Electrix Repeater came
along, the Echoplex was the king of the hill in live looper
hardware. It does has some advantages if you're doing complex,
layered "ambient" music, but the Repeater was a much better value
for the things most RMMGA'ers would use it for. Some people here own
both a looper and a portable minidisk or flashcard recorder, and
this thing covers both functions, in four tracks, no less! I can't
believe the company went bust and they couldn't sell more of them. I
think they shot themselves in the foot by bringing it out at a $750
price point to compete with the Echoplex, and by the time they
dropped the price to $450 to make it more attractive, it was already
too late. People who loop are a really tiny segment of the overall
music market. Electrix was a small company based in Victoria, B.C.
(Canada), and they just didn't have the advertising muscle to
compete with companies like Roland or Gibson (owner of the Echoplex
brand).
Here's a reference page on currently available loopers, for anyone
interested.
www.loopersdelight.com/tools/tools.html
The associated mailing list is also very good for tech tips,
although most of the musicians on the list are doing ambient,
soundscape-type music, so you might not relate that much to the
music-related threads:
www.loopersdelight.com/cgi-bin/wilma/LDarchive
Mike Barrs
From: Dick Thaxter <rtha@loc...>
Subject: Re: Loop Station
Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2002 12:49:59 -0500
Organization: Library of Congress
I don't gig with mine. But I use it nearly every day. I don't use it much with acoustics,
but with my electrics it's very addictive. I use it the same way Sherm does--record
verse/chorus and then play over it. I have a volume/pan pedal that lets me change the balance
between the amp that's playing back the loop and the other amp which I can hear the lead parts
on. I also do some songs where I'll record verse/chorus; overdub a bass part; play a lead
part over it.
Don't use the stored loops, or the click track or record loops from other than the instrument
source --you can bring in sound from a CD or mic or whatever.
The one drawback I see is that you have to punch the button twice to end loop and start
overdub. Other machines where you can do that with one punch let you not miss a beat when
overdubbing, say a bass part.
I used a Line6 Delay modeler before which had 28 seconds of repeat. Long enough for short
verses, but not long enough for verse/chorus. But that's not the primary function of this
pedal anyway.
Dick Thaxter
Rupert wrote:
> <jsherman@lorainccc...> (Sherm) wrote in message news:<<3df55306.9527498@news...>>...
> > On 9 Dec 2002 13:39:19 -0800, <mtrupe@angelfire...> (Rupert) wrote:
> >
> > >Anyone here have a loop station? How have you used it and how do you like it?
> >
> > I've been using one for solo gigs for the last few months and its been
> > working out ok, I guess. I usually record an early verse/chorus cycle
> > while I'm singing and then let it playback for the rest of the
> > verses/choruses so I can play different accents, fills, and solos over
> > the basic changes.
> >
> > You might want to look into some of the other brands and compare
> > features and prices before you buy anything. The Boss is certainly
> > simple enough to use. And its quiet and the reproduction's accurate,
> > enough for my needs, at least.
> >
> > There's features on the Boss I don't use at all (e.g., click track,
> > slow down pitch correction, reverse playback, permanent storage), and
> > then there's several things that I wish it had but that it doesn't.
> >
> > Barr uses something that has more capability, I believe. Forgot what
> > but he'll tell ya. Dorgan's got a Boomerang. Thaxter's got the Loop
> > Station. Not sure who else around here.
> >
> > What's the plan for this thing? Gigging? Practice/Learning aid?
> >
> > Sherm
>
> The guy at the music store told me Boss is the only company making
> one. I would like it just for the fun of it, mostly. Maybe to
> record. I saw a guy doing a gig a few weeks back with one. He would
> start out by tapping on his guitar to get the beat going, loop it, and
> play along with it. Sounded great. At one point he was harmonizing
> with himself, which was really cool. I don't gig, I just play because
> I love to, so I am not sure that it would be necessary, but I like
> getting new toys.
From: Nick Naffin <cantanker@takenotepromotion...>
Subject: Re: Loop Station
Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2002 15:02:56 -0500
Organization: Bell Sympatico
"Rupert" <<mtrupe@angelfire...>> wrote in message
news:<34b55be9.0212091339.32db40ff@posting...>...
> Anyone here have a loop station? How have you used it and how do you like
it?
Have it, used it to sketch ideas for tunes or arrangements, am using itlive for drones, bass licks, patterns and progressions to solo over. Like
it fine.
If you want to use it live, watch the quantification and volumesettings, and allow for ample practice using the pedal(s) on time.
Nick_______________________
www.nicknaffin.com
From: Jonathan Kendall (ihatespam) <jonathan_kendall@hotmail...>
Subject: Re: Loop Station
Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2002 20:38:55 -0600
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com
what's the one that phil keaggy uses? is it a boss? in any case, it's a
mindblower the way he uses that thing if you ever get the chance to see him
live. he'd even pick up his guitar and sing in the soundhole to the
internal mic to sing backup harmony vocals... he did percussion and bass,
and played rhythm, and then lead on top of that. crazy good.
jonathan
"Rupert" <<mtrupe@angelfire...>> wrote in message
news:<34b55be9.0212091339.32db40ff@posting...>...
> Anyone here have a loop station? How have you used it and how do you like
it?
From: Tom Loredo <loredo@astro...>
Subject: Re: Loop Station
Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2002 14:20:34 -0500
Organization: Cornell University
Jonathan Kendall wrote:
>
> what's the one that phil keaggy uses? is it a boss? in any case, it's a
> mindblower the way he uses that thing if you ever get the chance to see him
> live.
He uses two different ones---simultaneously! He uses a Lexicon JamMan
controlled by an RFX MidiWizard footpedal, and a Line 6 Delay Modeler pedal.
Before he owned these, he used to do short loops with a Roland SDE-3000
delay, whose "Playmate" function allowed this kind of a looping in a
somewhat clumsy way.
Peace,
Tom
| Loop Station (I'm selling mine if you're interested) ;') |
|---|
From: Steve Smith <csiamms@swbell...>
Subject: Re: Loop Station (I'm selling mine if you're interested) ;')
Date: 10 Dec 2002 04:46:06 -0800
Organization: http://groups.google.com/
<mtrupe@angelfire...> (Rupert) wrote in message news:<<34b55be9.0212091339.32db40ff@posting...>>...
> Anyone here have a loop station? How have you used it and how do you like it?
I've got one and I love it. I use it in the simplest way possible,
turning on the Autostart feature, building percussion loops, then bass
lines, then chords, then lead breaks. On some songs I plug in a mic
into the mic channel and play pennywhistle or vocalize over the other
stuff I laid down previously. Like any looping endeavor, your timing
has to be really solid or it will sound like a 3 1/2 legged dog
running. Actually, I'm ready to move up to a more fully featured
looper, so if you're interested, you can by mine for $200.00 and I'll
pay shipping.
Steve Smith
| Volume Pedal? [4] |
|---|
From: Jim's Mail <jcarp.1@starpower...>
Subject: Re: Volume Pedal?
Date: Sun, 29 Dec 2002 14:32:05 -0500
I ended up getting the Boss FV 50H volume pedal. I haven't used it much.
The couple of times I did use it was in a noisy bar and I couldn't hear
myself very well to be able to tell how well it worked.
I remember from a prior discussion that someone said one kind of volume
pedal works for acoustics and another does not. Do you remember that
discussion Jeff? Did we ever get to the bottom of that issue?
Jcarp
> From: <jsherman@lorainccc...> (Sherm)
> Newsgroups: rec.music.makers.guitar.acoustic
> Date: Sun, 29 Dec 2002 05:41:33 GMT
> Subject: Re: Volume Pedal?
>
> On Sat, 28 Dec 2002 22:09:25 -0500, "Doug Roberts" <<drobert@att...>>
> wrote:
>
>> My acoustic guitar has a piezo pickup, and I run it thru a Fishman DI box,
>> into my PA system. I'm looking for a simple volume pedal or switch to allow
>> a simple pre-set change in volume for when I'm playing fingerstyle vs.
>> strumming with a pick. I don't need or want effects, just a simple A/B
>> volume choice. Can anyone recommend a specific device?
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Doug Roberts
>
> I asked that once too. Folowing Mr. Gleason' s suggestion I use a
> simple A-or-B switch run to two sepaarte channels on the pa, both set
> identically except one is slighter louder than the other. It'd have
> to go after your fishman in the chain, though. Could get messy ---
> cables everywhere, possibly.
>
> But do you prefer pedals? Pearse makes a little box (a cable?) that
> gives you on-board volume at the endpin jack. How about that?
>
> I got a Boss volume pedal because I needed something small to fit in a
> pedal board but the Ernie Ball looks like a good way to go. Rugged
> and heavy duty and with a sensitivity knob to adjust the ratio of
> movement to change (the 'throw?'). Heavy though, btw.
>
> Sherm
>
>
>
>
From: Jeffrey Cohen <cohenj@umich...>
Subject: Re: Volume Pedal?
Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2002 10:07:55 -0500
Organization: Bell Sympatico
I use a Morley Pro Series volume pedal with a Boss AD-3 to control my Fishman
NaturalMatrix II pickup/preamp. I've also used the volume pedal without the
AD-3 with good results and would consider trying it with just an EQ instead of
the AD-3. The Morley is built like a tank. It has a control to set the volume
threshold, so that you can setup a very small differential, which seems to work
best in my acoustic band. I use to to step up the volume a bit for solos. This
setup works well for me.
Jeff
Doug Roberts wrote:
> My acoustic guitar has a piezo pickup, and I run it thru a Fishman DI box,
> into my PA system. I'm looking for a simple volume pedal or switch to allow
> a simple pre-set change in volume for when I'm playing fingerstyle vs.
> strumming with a pick. I don't need or want effects, just a simple A/B
> volume choice. Can anyone recommend a specific device?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Doug Roberts
From: Carlos Alden <calden3@msn...>
Subject: Re: Volume Pedal?
Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2002 08:53:06 -0800
in article <3E10614B.8793925C@umich...>, Jeffrey Cohen at <cohenj@umich...>
wrote on 12/30/02 7:07 AM:
> I use a Morley Pro Series volume pedal
>
> Jeff
I also have a Morley pedal. I really like the volume threshold adjustment,
because at the lowest setting it changes the gain by only a little bit at
the pedal's furthest throw. In other words, I don't have to worry about how
far to push the pedal to make a change. I push it all the way and can make
the gain change as much as I want with the threshold adjuster. It thus
functions as an A/B switch.
In the middle of performing I need this - I couldn't possibly think about
how far to push the thing - whoops - too far, too loud, now I have to back
off a bit - ooops - where's that chord change? - Oh dear, it's too soft now,
etc. etc.
Carlos
From: Frank Wiewandt <fwphoto@adelphia...>
Subject: Re: Volume Pedal?
Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2002 18:06:47 GMT
> I use a Morley Pro Series volume pedal ...
I use a Morley, too, the Little Alligator. It has worked well so far,
little if any noise & solidly built.
Good luck,
Frank Wiewandt