| Acoustic Effects Pedal? [5] |
|---|
From: Peter A. Collin <pcollin@rochester...>
Subject: Acoustic Effects Pedal?
Date: Fri, 03 Jan 2003 22:10:10 GMT
Organization: Road Runner
My brother was asking me to ask you fellas if you could suggest a good
all-around acoustic effects pedal? You know, with chorus, delay, flange,
phase, whatnot? I have a peavey delta stomp that is OK but it isn't great.
Suggestions?
Peter Collin
From: Scott McAllister <scott.mcallister@worldnet...>
Subject: Re: Acoustic Effects Pedal?
Date: Fri, 03 Jan 2003 22:43:10 GMT
Organization: AT&T Worldnet
The Yamaha AG stomp is a nice pedal. It doesn't have all the effects you
mentioned, but the chorus, delay, and reverb sound good, plus it has a 5
band notch filter that automatically finds the offending frequency and cuts
it. The other features are (i) mic modelling (not too bad, but not the cure
all to a lousy pickup sound that Yamaha claims) and (ii) partial parametric
eq. A bit pricey - I think you can find them on ebay for around $325 or so,
but a good all around unit.
Scott
"Peter A. Collin" <<pcollin@rochester...>> wrote in message
news:6TnR9.66655$<eq2.16937543@twister...>...
> My brother was asking me to ask you fellas if you could suggest a good
> all-around acoustic effects pedal? You know, with chorus, delay, flange,
> phase, whatnot? I have a peavey delta stomp that is OK but it isn't
great.
> Suggestions?
>
> Peter Collin
>
>
From: tpp <powerst@ix...>
Subject: Re: Acoustic Effects Pedal?
Date: Fri, 3 Jan 2003 18:56:18 -0500
Organization: MindSpring Enterprises
Hi Peter,
I asked this same question about two months ago, and I got many helpful
responses. Some suggested the Yamaha AG Stomp, so I checked it out. It's
nice, but I want some form of overdrive or distortion, and the AG does not
have it.
After looking around at the possibilities, I decided to go with individual
pedals (DOD or Boss) for delay, compression, distortion, etc., because I can
swap out each pedal as I go through this process of trying them out.
Tom
"Peter A. Collin" <<pcollin@rochester...>> wrote in message
news:6TnR9.66655$<eq2.16937543@twister...>...
> My brother was asking me to ask you fellas if you could suggest a good
> all-around acoustic effects pedal? You know, with chorus, delay, flange,
> phase, whatnot? I have a peavey delta stomp that is OK but it isn't
great.
> Suggestions?
>
> Peter Collin
>
>
From: Yorkshireman <himself@NOSPAM...>
Subject: Re: Acoustic Effects Pedal?
Date: Sat, 4 Jan 2003 00:25:58 -0000
I'm very happy with my AG Stomp.
Overdrive and distortion for acoustic
guitar..............................er.....................why
Chris
"tpp" <<powerst@ix...>> wrote in message
news:av57ut$e77$<1@slb3...>...
> Hi Peter,
>
> I asked this same question about two months ago, and I got many helpful
> responses. Some suggested the Yamaha AG Stomp, so I checked it out. It's
> nice, but I want some form of overdrive or distortion, and the AG does not
> have it.
>
> After looking around at the possibilities, I decided to go with individual
> pedals (DOD or Boss) for delay, compression, distortion, etc., because I
can
> swap out each pedal as I go through this process of trying them out.
>
> Tom
>
> "Peter A. Collin" <<pcollin@rochester...>> wrote in message
> news:6TnR9.66655$<eq2.16937543@twister...>...
> > My brother was asking me to ask you fellas if you could suggest a good
> > all-around acoustic effects pedal? You know, with chorus, delay,
flange,
> > phase, whatnot? I have a peavey delta stomp that is OK but it isn't
> great.
> > Suggestions?
> >
> > Peter Collin
> >
> >
>
>
From: Yorkshireman <himself@NOSPAM...>
Subject: Re: Acoustic Effects Pedal?
Date: Sat, 4 Jan 2003 11:35:37 -0000
> >
>
> My first thought was:...effect pedals for acoustic.....er......why? ;)
>
> R
>
Yes I get your point. I use the Stomp very sparingly and not at all if the
venue is good enough. The mic modelling doesn't match the real thing
although it's very good at it. It does improve the sound from the matrix in
my HD28, the guitar I use live most frequently. The Olson and OM42PS are
reserved for special occasions.
For recording the Stomp opens up more mixing options. The Olson has a Baggs
LB6X and AKG mic installed. So I am experimenting with recording the LB6
through the Stomp with stereo output to my recorder, a third track for the
internal mic and 2 further channels for external mics. Still working at this
so no results to show yet. Hoping to save enough cash for a pair of AKG 451s
which should be really interesting although I think they might make the
Stomp redundant.
I do think that if you are (like me) a singer/guitarist then sound variation
is sometimes more important than pure acoustic sound.
Chris
| electro acoustic [4] |
|---|
From: Choc <chocpooch@yahoo...>
Subject: electro acoustic
Date: 17 Jan 2003 00:53:04 -0800
Organization: http://groups.google.com/
Is is possible to use electro acoustic with effects pedals. Or am i
missing the point totally, and electro acoustic is just to boose the
volume of sound from the acoustic.?
I'm trying to find some middle ground between buying an acoustic and
and electric, I want the playability of an acoustic but the groovy
effects of an electric!
thanks for any input.
choc.
From: Sleepy Fingers Jones <persistent_offender@NOSPAM...>
Subject: Re: electro acoustic
Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2003 09:21:50 +0000
On 17 Jan 2003 00:53:04 -0800, <chocpooch@yahoo...> (Choc) wrote:
>Is is possible to use electro acoustic with effects pedals. Or am i
>missing the point totally, and electro acoustic is just to boose the
>volume of sound from the acoustic.?
>
>I'm trying to find some middle ground between buying an acoustic and
>and electric, I want the playability of an acoustic but the groovy
>effects of an electric!
>
>thanks for any input.
>choc.
In a word, yes, although you will find that some effects make more
meaningful sounds than others. Ie, you might find a phaser or looper
more useful than a fuzzbox.
Plenty of people here using effects both to give their live stuff
another dimension (loopers) and to get interesting sounds.
Pete
From: Dave Hallsworth <david.hallsworth@wadham...>
Subject: Re: electro acoustic
Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2003 11:20:36 -0000
Organization: Oxford University, England
Depends on the quality of effect you want....
I have just bought a zoom 504II acoustic peddle - a lot of people don't like
the zooms, but for someone like me on a budget, they work pretty well. The
have all the usual chorus, reverb, compression, etc, but also have a nice
de-amping effect to make the guitar sound more natural, as well as something
called 'air' which models a microphone setup instead of undersaddle (works
well on my Ovation). If you did go for this, I would advise you to put it
through the effects loop of your amp, as it can be a little noisy when
inline and has a tendency to really sap the volume.
On a more pricy note, my Dad has just bought a Digitech digital delay peddle
for his Taylor, which sounds absolutely fantastic - especially for looping.
That was £99, and the Boss at about £150 sounds even better.
Dave
From: vibrajet <juvenal@juvenal...>
Subject: Re: electro acoustic
Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2003 14:34:55 GMT
Organization: PenTeleData http://www.ptd.net
"Choc" wrote...
> Is is possible to use electro acoustic with effects pedals. Or am i
> missing the point totally, and electro acoustic is just to boose the
> volume of sound from the acoustic.?
Yes, it can work fine.
Firstly, there are many variants of electro-acoustic guitars, from acoustic
guitars with natural-sounding pick-ups, to hollow-body electrics.
In my experience, many effects are looking for a fairly hot output from the
guitar. I find that it helps to add a clean boost pedal right out of the
guitar, to beef up the output a little.
This clip is a nylon-string acoustic with a B-Band pick-up played through an
effect pedal:
http://www.juvenal.com/adren01.mp3
Timothy Juvenal
| Microphone on-off footswitch? |
|---|
From: Joe Jordan <jjordan@hotpop...>
Subject: Re: Microphone on-off footswitch?
Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2003 18:01:36 GMT
Organization: MediaCom High Speed Internet
Joe Jordan wrote:
>misifus wrote:
>
>>Joe Jordan wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>Hi Ralph,
>>>
>>>The more I look at it, the more it makes sense to try
>>>modifying a Cough Drop. I found a technical data sheet for
>>>the Cough Drop:
>>>
>>><http://www.procosound.com/downloads/datasheets/cd.pdf>
>>>
>>>It had occurred to me that maybe the Cough Drop used some
>>>sort of fancy opto-mechanical switch or something, but it
>>>appears that the switch is just a simple momentary SPST
>>>wired into a circuit similar to the one on the Web page
>>>that I referenced to keep it from popping when the #2 and #3
>>>leads are shorted to mute the mic. Ought to just be a matter
>>>of finding a comparable non-momentary switch and replacing
>>>the momentary one.
>>>
>>>Joe
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>I found the same sheet, I think. It answered my question, too. It
>>looks like the switch itself is just an ordinary, screw-on sort of
>>thing. You should be able to find a latching replacement at Radio
>>Shack, or elsewhere.
>>
>> -Ralph (if nothing else, you could graft an old headlight dimmer
>>switch in there. It would certainly hold up to the use, and it wouldn't
>>be noisy or anything <g>)
>
>Yeah, right. <g>
>
>OK, I've ordered a Cough Drop. I'm going to test it to make
>sure it works OK with my mic, and then will see about
>changing out the switch. I'll report back when I know more.
>
>It really does seem to me like this is something that
>anybody who uses a mic part-time but doesn't have a sound
>man ought to have.
OK, I've got the CoughDrop here now, and it doesn't look
like it's going to be easy to just change out the switch. It
appears that the "muting circuitry" (composed of a 47KOhm
resistor parallel to the switch and 100 micro farad
capacitor in series to the switch-resistor combination) is
built into the switch housing itself. Inside the box it's
just wires running from the input and output connectors and
the switch housing.
The switch appears to be made by Carling, part no. 9623,
although that part no. doesn't show up in their online
database. The switch is mounted through what appears to be a
small circuit board, with a black plastic case approximately
1/2" x 3/4" attached below (covering the circuitry, I
assume).
Looks like I'm going to have to spend a little time on the
hobby sites to learn how to build my own.
Joe
--
Joe D. Jordan
Mobile, AL
| Small rack unit for FX [10] |
|---|
From: <please@nospam...>
Subject: Small rack unit for FX
Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2003 08:08:12 GMT
Organization: None
Hello. I've been avoiding rack-mounted gear for a while now
because I don't want to carry a rack in addition to my pedal
board. The pedal board is beginning to be a bit ridiculous with
its collection of preamps, EQs, FX pedals, volume pedal and DI
boxes piled vertically as well as spread horizontally that seems
to be a side-effect of the number of instruments I like to play.
I'd like to replace some of the effects with a rackable
processor and move the preamps into the rack as well (they will
require a shelf).
Do any of you have favorite small rack units that are especially
easy to carry around?
Thank you.
Al Sato
--
Reply to al_guitar "at" clifftopmusic "dot" com
From: MKarlo <mkarlo@aol...>
Subject: Re: Small rack unit for FX
Date: 27 Jan 2003 16:28:57 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
I found a 3-space rack by SKB called IIRC the Roto-Rack. It's not as deep as a
standard rack, which makes it perfect for typical AC guitar stuff. It's hard
plastic and tuff, but light. Found it used for $30 American.
If your writing about an actual FX unit, I use the Lexicon MPX100, when I use
any FX at all (rare). It's more than adequate, and used to go new for $199.
IMO. YMMV. ETJ.
mk
From: Joe Jordan <jjordan@hotpop...>
Subject: Re: Small rack unit for FX
Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2003 17:26:43 GMT
Organization: MediaCom High Speed Internet
MKarlo wrote:
>I found a 3-space rack by SKB called IIRC the Roto-Rack. It's not as deep as a
>standard rack, which makes it perfect for typical AC guitar stuff. It's hard
>plastic and tuff, but light. Found it used for $30 American.
>
>If your writing about an actual FX unit, I use the Lexicon MPX100, when I use
>any FX at all (rare). It's more than adequate, and used to go new for $199.
I think the MPX100 has been replaced by the MPX110. I'm kind
of in the early stages of trying to decide on a
multi-effects unit, and am thinking about the MPX110 and the
TC Electronics M300. Both are about the same price and
appear to have roughly the same functionality.
Anybody have a clear recommendation? Any other contenders in
this price range (about $200 street) I should be
considering?
Joe
--
Joe D. Jordan
Mobile, AL
From: George Gleason <g.p.gleason@worldnet...>
Subject: Re: Small rack unit for FX
Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2003 19:14:02 GMT
Organization: AT&T Worldnet
"Joe Jordan" <<jjordan@hotpop...>> wrote in message
news:<9upa3v8gkia268e586l2a2m0omu15hi4ev@4ax...>...
> MKarlo wrote:
>
> >I found a 3-space rack by SKB called IIRC the Roto-Rack. It's not as
deep as a
> >standard rack, which makes it perfect for typical AC guitar stuff. It's
hard
> >plastic and tuff, but light. Found it used for $30 American.
> >
> >If your writing about an actual FX unit, I use the Lexicon MPX100, when I
use
> >any FX at all (rare). It's more than adequate, and used to go new for
$199.
>
> I think the MPX100 has been replaced by the MPX110. I'm kind
> of in the early stages of trying to decide on a
> multi-effects unit, and am thinking about the MPX110 and the
> TC Electronics M300. Both are about the same price and
> appear to have roughly the same functionality.
>
> Anybody have a clear recommendation? Any other contenders in
> this price range (about $200 street) I should be
> considering?
>
I find lexicons easier to use
George
From: vibrajet <juvenal@juvenal...>
Subject: Re: Small rack unit for FX
Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2003 20:04:47 GMT
Organization: PenTeleData http://www.ptd.net
> Anybody have a clear recommendation? Any other contenders in
> this price range (about $200 street) I should be
> considering?
I really like the Lexicon Vortex. Downsides are it only has 16 presets and
16 user patches, you can't use a foot pedal to access the morphing feature,
and it isn't MIDI capable. But each patch or preset actual has two effects,
and A and a B. You hit the footswitch and it morphs between the two
effects, the A & the B effect. So you could have delays go crazy, or a
panning phaser speed up, etc.
It's the darndest thing ever!
Timothy "never metamorphosis I didn't like" Juvenal
From: foldedpath <mbarrs@NOSPAM...>
Subject: Re: Small rack unit for FX
Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2003 14:44:22 -0800
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com
"Joe Jordan" <<jjordan@hotpop...>> wrote in message
news:<9upa3v8gkia268e586l2a2m0omu15hi4ev@4ax...>...
> MKarlo wrote:
>
> >I found a 3-space rack by SKB called IIRC the Roto-Rack. It's
not as deep as a
> >standard rack, which makes it perfect for typical AC guitar
stuff. It's hard
> >plastic and tuff, but light. Found it used for $30 American.
> >
> >If your writing about an actual FX unit, I use the Lexicon
MPX100, when I use
> >any FX at all (rare). It's more than adequate, and used to go
new for $199.
>
> I think the MPX100 has been replaced by the MPX110. I'm kind
> of in the early stages of trying to decide on a
> multi-effects unit, and am thinking about the MPX110 and the
> TC Electronics M300. Both are about the same price and
> appear to have roughly the same functionality.
>
> Anybody have a clear recommendation? Any other contenders in
> this price range (about $200 street) I should be
> considering?
If it were me, I'd go for the TC, but reverbs are one of those
things where people vary in their opinions. For example, contrary to
George's experience, I find Lexicon's clumsy to use. I think TC has
a more logical, friendlier interface. This is based on experience
across multiple units, not just the ones you're talking about here.
These lower-end reverbs from both companies are basically
dirt-simple and easy to use. It's with the LCD panel models where
you really get into the TC advantages in user interface (IMO).
Lexicon has a signature "lush" reverb sound, so if that's what you
like in a reverb, then go Lexicon.
I like TC reverbs because they sound a bit more like natural spaces,
to my ear. The more hyped Lexicon sound is great for rock or dance
music, but I think the TC is more complementary for solo acoustic
guitar, or sparse acoustic band arrangements. But that's just me.
One other thing.... IIRC, the Lexicon MPX100/110 has a master output
volume control, which makes it more useful if it's sitting in a
linear signal chain and it's the last thing before a power amp. The
M300 has no master output level, so it works best in an FX loop
where you're controlling master volume further down the chain.
Mike Barrs
From: foldedpath <mbarrs@NOSPAM...>
Subject: Re: Small rack unit for FX
Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2003 14:38:18 -0800
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com
"Stephen Boyke" <<sdelsolray@attbi...>> wrote in message
news:BA5A9939.1B155%<sdelsolray@attbi...>...
> in article <g0q93vssj78fcvpek9iv91akeiqeukspl0@4ax...>,
<please@nospam...> at
> <please@nospam...> wrote on 1/27/03 12:08 AM:
>
>
> I use a 4-rack space unit that is basically a reinforced
> nylon bag, with shoulder strap. Easy to carry around, etc.
Is that a "PRO TEC" case?
I was looking at these recently (online, not in person). If it's not
a PRO TEC, what brand is it?
Mike Barrs
From: HL <sweefmy@singnet...>
Subject: Re: Small rack unit for FX
Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2003 00:35:41 +0800
Organization: Singapore Telecommunications Ltd
> Do any of you have favorite small rack units that are especially
> easy to carry around?
Are you referring to rack cases for fitting rack-mountable equipment? I was
researching this topic late last year. Most of the products available can be
categorized as either 1) Soft bags; or 2) Hard cases.
Soft bags will be easier to carry around as they often come attached with a
shoulder sling. However, IMO they don't offer much protection from bumps,
falls etc.
Hard cases... uhm.. there's a wide range of them available... ranging from
cheap moulded-plastic cases to mil-spec flight cases. Usually, plywood is
used for the better cases. Some hard cases are shock-mounted. That means,
the housing has a built-in mechanism to minimize any shocks to the equipment
mounted in the case - essential for delicate gear.
Hard cases are typically heavier, but offer alot more protection than soft
bags - especially important during transport and load in/out. They are also
stackable and easier to organise in the car trunk. (I wouldn't stack
anything on top of a soft bag.)
Have you decided on a soft bag or a hard case? Do you know many rack units
you will need?
Some links:
http://www.casetechnology.com/
http://www.moderncase.com/racks.htm
http://www.skbcases.com/product/pro_audio/rack_mount.html
just for fun... http://www.funklogic.com/mainfunk.htm
FYI, I decided on an SKB 3U shallow rack. It was cheap (abt USD55?) and it
shows. The case cover is not a perfect fit on the case and the rubber tubing
that acts as a seal between the cover and case is peeling off... I'll have
to fix that with some glue. Otherwise, I'm very happy with the case. It's
easy to stuff into the trunk and it offers some protection for my gear. It's
pretty light too. I can stack it on top of my amp for the gig, or I can
place in on the ground. If space is limited, I can even leave it in
"standing" vertically. I also put some "fragile" stickers on the exterior of
the case. The 2 units in the case are already pre-wired in the rear (MIDI,
Effects send/return, and power) All I need to do at the gig is to plug in
the power, plug in the guitar, plug in the floorboard for the efx unit and
connect the unit to the amp/mixer... Ok.. that's a lot of cable work ;p
Hope this helps.
John Swee
From: Tom Loredo <loredo@astro...>
Subject: Re: Small rack unit for FX
Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2003 15:06:33 -0500
Organization: Cornell University
foldedpath wrote:
>
> Lexicon has a signature "lush" reverb sound, so if that's what you
> like in a reverb, then go Lexicon.
>
> I like TC reverbs because they sound a bit more like natural spaces,
> to my ear. The more hyped Lexicon sound is great for rock or dance
> music, but I think the TC is more complementary for solo acoustic
> guitar, or sparse acoustic band arrangements. But that's just me.
FWIW, this is the opinion most commonly expressed about TC vs. Lex
reverb on rec.audio.pro. However, folks there make these comments
about the more expensive units, and feel that the cheaper units don't
fare as well.
Peace,
Tom
From: Tom Loredo <loredo@astro...>
Subject: Re: Small rack unit for FX
Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2003 15:14:01 -0500
Organization: Cornell University
HL wrote:
>
> http://www.skbcases.com/product/pro_audio/rack_mount.html
>
> FYI, I decided on an SKB 3U shallow rack. It was cheap (abt USD55?) and it
> shows. The case cover is not a perfect fit on the case and the rubber tubing
> that acts as a seal between the cover and case is peeling off... I'll have
> to fix that with some glue. Otherwise, I'm very happy with the case.
I have one of these, too, and am mostly happy with it. If you know what
you are going to mount in it, make sure you measure your gear and make
sure it can fit in it. It is shallow, so some deep rack units will not
fit. Though all of my gear fits, I do sometimes have the problem that
the back door won't fit if I leave connectors plugged in (switching
to right angle connectors would probably fix this). Also, it's shallow
enough that there isn't room in the case for a power strip and the
wall warts & line lumps that my gear needs, so I end up having to carry
that separately in a back pack. This stuff could conceivably fit in
a deeper rack unit.
I saw an add recently for a small rack unit that had wheels and a
telescoping handle, like carry-on baggage. I think it's the
SKB RollX series:
http://www.skbcases.com/product/pro_audio/rollx.html
If I were starting over, I might go with one of these. They are
deeper than the shallow racks, so they might let one keep all the
cables and power supplies hooked up, allowing for an easier and
quicker setup & tear down.
Peace,
Tom
| Soft Case for FX Rack [3] |
|---|
From: George Gleason <g.p.gleason@worldnet...>
Subject: Re: Soft Case for FX Rack
Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2003 15:01:23 GMT
Organization: AT&T Worldnet
"Lumpy" <<lumpy@digitalcartography...>> wrote in message
news:b165io$vqcn8$<1@ID-76024...>...
> Stephen Boyke wrote:
> > ...I use a 4-rack space unit that is basically
> > a reinforced nylon bag, with
> > shoulder strap. Easy to carry around, etc.
>
> Stephen -
> Could you discuss your soft case/bag? Brand,
> model, size good/bad points etc?
I have one from Odyssey 4 space both ends open extra zippered storage on one
end
wood box in codura nylon bag good product bought it at Daddy's JunkyMusic about 65$
lots of people make these Gator, pro-tec, Odyssey
George
From: Stephen Boyke <sdelsolray@attbi...>
Subject: Re: Soft Case for FX Rack
Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2003 16:00:50 GMT
Organization: AT&T Broadband
in article b165io$vqcn8$<1@ID-76024...>, Lumpy at
<lumpy@digitalcartography...> wrote on 1/28/03 6:48 AM:
> Stephen Boyke wrote:
>> ...I use a 4-rack space unit that is basically
>> a reinforced nylon bag, with
>> shoulder strap. Easy to carry around, etc.
>
> Stephen -
> Could you discuss your soft case/bag? Brand,
> model, size good/bad points etc?
>
> tia -
>
> lumpy
> --
> http://www.digitalcartography.com/cd.htm
>
>
Sure. 4 rack spaces, zippers front and back which go 3/4 the wayaround. Front and back faces fold underneath when using unit. The
Manufacturer is "Modern Case Company." I bought it at Brownell Sound, a pro
audio shop here in Portland, OR. Thing only weighs about 4 pounds or so
empty. Sturdy inserts. I've got a Pendulum SPS-1 preamp, TC Electronics
M2000 effects and Hafler P3000 power amp in it. I carry the whole thing
over my shoulder with the shoulder strap. I believe I paid about $80 for
it.
No complaints about it except that when folding the front and back facesunder the unit, it doesn't sit exactly horizontal: it wants to lean forward
slightly and point towards the floor. Easily remedied with a folded
newspaper, etc. as a shim.
--
Stephen T. Boyke
From: Stephen Boyke <sdelsolray@attbi...>
Subject: Re: Soft Case for FX Rack
Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2003 16:02:26 GMT
Organization: AT&T Broadband
in article b165io$vqcn8$<1@ID-76024...>, Lumpy at
<lumpy@digitalcartography...> wrote on 1/28/03 6:48 AM:
> Stephen Boyke wrote:
>> ...I use a 4-rack space unit that is basically
>> a reinforced nylon bag, with
>> shoulder strap. Easy to carry around, etc.
>
> Stephen -
> Could you discuss your soft case/bag? Brand,
> model, size good/bad points etc?
>
> tia -
>
> lumpy
> --
> http://www.digitalcartography.com/cd.htm
>
>
Forgot to mention. It also has a zippered pouch on the top 16" x 8" x3" (deep). Holds cables, etc.
--
Stephen T. Boyke
| Variax Acoustic Modelling [2] |
|---|
From: JPAltes <jpaltes@aol...>
Subject: Variax Acoustic Modelling
Date: 28 Jan 2003 13:30:07 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
Some reviews of the Line 6 Variax are appearing at Harmony Central. One of the
claims to fame of this guitar is some sort of revolutionary modelling of
various acoustic guitars, including a Gibson jumbo, and others. They even claim
to have a decent bango and sitar sound (for those chomping at the bit to do
Dueling Bangos with Ravi Shankar). Wonder if any of you folks noodled with
this at the recent NAMM show?
Patrick Altes
From: Nigel Tucker <ntucker@btinternet...>
Subject: Re: Variax Acoustic Modelling
Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2003 16:52:23 +0000 (UTC)
Organization: BT Openworld
The UK magazine www.guitarist.co.uk recently ran an issue with cd sound
samples of the Variax. Some were laughable, and some were very good. Try to
find a back issue or search the site
| Percussive techniques for loopers |
|---|
From: foldedpath <mbarrs@NOSPAM...>
Subject: Percussive techniques for loopers
Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2003 18:24:41 -0800
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com
I fool around with a looper, so I try to keep up on the "Looper's
Delight" mailing list:
www.loopers-delight.com/list/LoopList.html
I don't have time to read and participate in the real-time list, but
I read through the web archive every month to see if there's
anything interesting.
I ran across the following post in the January '03 archive, and I
thought it was exceptionally interesting and useful. It's about ways
to beat on your guitar and simulate percussion instruments, written
by a musician who owns and plays guitars but is mainly a drummer.
I'm in that same category... I'm a drummer faking it as a guitar
player, so I can relate to this stuff.
The ideas here require a preamp/EQ that allows instant
(footswitchable) changes in EQ parameters, but there may be ways
around that, if you don't have this hardware.
Reconstruct the URL if my newsreader breaks it when posting:
<www.loopers-delight.com/LDarchive/200301/msg00052.html>
Have fun!
Mike Barrs
| Help w/solo gig equipment [8] |
|---|
From: robohop <rjand@ix...>
Subject: Help w/solo gig equipment
Date: 6 Feb 2003 07:11:48 -0800
Organization: http://groups.google.com/
Looking for help on getting together some tools to enhance live solo
performance.
1. Loopers: Anyone using these regularly and successfully? Jeff,
you mentioned using one ... easy to use, effective, recommended brands
or important features to look for/avoid?
2. Midi/digital sound: I need a starting point here .... I'm a
neophyte. I use a footswitch to kick a digital drum machine on and off
... but I know there's a great big next step. Can anyone steer me to
a starting point of information to begin understanding how to apply
the technology?
Very much appreciate the input, as always,
rob anderson
From: <jshermannospam@lorainccc...>
Subject: Re: Help w/solo gig equipment
Date: Thu, 06 Feb 2003 15:16:15 GMT
On 6 Feb 2003 07:11:48 -0800, <rjand@ix...> (robohop) wrote:
>Looking for help on getting together some tools to enhance live solo
>performance.
>
>1. Loopers: Anyone using these regularly and successfully? Jeff,
>you mentioned using one ... easy to use, effective, recommended brands
>or important features to look for/avoid?
Yep. Twice per month live now for the last 6 months or so. Use it on
nearly every song now and I don't even have to fo focus too much
anymore. I think its pretty easy and very fun, too. See also Barr
(Electrix Repeater, I believe), Dorgan (Boomerang) and Thaxter (Boss
LoopStation like mine). Wonder who else? Wanna talk here or
offline? Its not fully on-topic.
Can't help ya with midi, though. There's a solo act newsgroup that
has a lot of keyboard players talking about that stuff. Never makes
any sense to me,.
Sherm
From: Bob Dorgan <dorgan@fltg...>
Subject: Re: Help w/solo gig equipment
Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2003 10:18:03 -0500
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com
"robohop" <<rjand@ix...>> wrote in message
news:<f9b4d395.0302060711.63a44d01@posting...>...
> Looking for help on getting together some tools to enhance live solo
> performance.
>
> 1. Loopers: Anyone using these regularly and successfully? Jeff,
> you mentioned using one ... easy to use, effective, recommended brands
> or important features to look for/avoid?
>
> 2. Midi/digital sound: I need a starting point here .... I'm a
> neophyte. I use a footswitch to kick a digital drum machine on and off
> ... but I know there's a great big next step. Can anyone steer me to
> a starting point of information to begin understanding how to apply
> the technology?
>
> Very much appreciate the input, as always,
> rob anderson
Rob,
if you post the question at alt.music.makers.soloact,
you'll get some pretty good advice on the midi question.
Crusty bunch, but helpful if you're not thin skinned.
Bob Dorgan
From: Paul M. Sanders <pms@sgi...>
Subject: Re: Help w/solo gig equipment
Date: Thu, 06 Feb 2003 10:23:27 -0500
Organization: Silicon Graphics Inc., Mountain View, CA
robohop wrote:
>
> Looking for help on getting together some tools to enhance live solo
> performance.
Hey Rob,
I just started a solo gig myself and I've been considering some of the
same things.
>
> 1. Loopers: Anyone using these regularly and successfully? Jeff,
> you mentioned using one ... easy to use, effective, recommended brands
> or important features to look for/avoid?
I use the Line6 DL4 stompbox. It has a looper function, but you only get
about 12 seconds of loop. I use it for a few things:
* Lay down a chord progression and solo over it.
I do this to ease folks into a set and sortof blend in to the atmosphere
before they have to hear my raspy voice :)
* Loop some accompanying percussion, like a shaker or a tamborine, or
maybe just a muted chucka-chucka strum. Careful with this though. It's
got it's own life and if you hit the wall, the looper keeps going and
things get messy. I've not started using so much of that YET as I'm
still getting comfortable with the gig. But, it's a trick that's up my
sleeve to come out more and more.
>
> 2. Midi/digital sound: I need a starting point here .... I'm a
> neophyte. I use a footswitch to kick a digital drum machine on and off
> ... but I know there's a great big next step. Can anyone steer me to
> a starting point of information to begin understanding how to apply
> the technology?
I don't do backing tracks personally. I don't believe in them. The
extend of a backing track I'd use is the looper. Many folks DO use them
and I'm sure you'll get input on it.
On that note, I'll elaborate a little more on the looper thing though.
I WOULD like to have a looper that I can store multiple loops with to
recall so I have something clean and ready to go that I can call up on
demand. I'd like to be able to maybe loop a conga pattern in the studio
and take it out to the gig. The Line6 doesn't have this. One loop, it's
gone when you do another one, or turn the thing off. More "honest", but
less flexible.
On a different subject, but wrt solo performance, I just rigged up a
pretty nifty in-ear monitoring system I thought I'd share with you.
I'd been using a floor wedge hooked to the monitor poweramp out of my
Mackie 808S. The place I'm playing is a bit tight on space, so I wanted
to eliminate all that.
Most in-ear systems are pricey because they have limiters and other
"features" that really aren't necessary for one guy who can control his
own levels.
I got this Rolls personal monitor mixer for about $70, and a pair of
Sure in-ear headphones, for about $80. These are the phones that go with
the Sure in-ear monitoring system, but you can buy them seperately.
This is a fairly cost effective setup and it's very simple and easy. I
just send the monitor line out from the mixer to the line in on the
Rolls box, and dial in the level of the headphone out. It's golden.
Good luck with your gig.
Paul
>
> Very much appreciate the input, as always,
> rob anderson
--
If at first you don't succeed, keep on succin' till you DO succeed- Kerley, The Three Stooges
From: Amostagain <amostagain@aol...>
Subject: Re: Help w/solo gig equipment
Date: 06 Feb 2003 16:03:28 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
>robohop wrote:
>>
>> Looking for help on getting together some tools to enhance live solo
>> performance.
>
>Hey Rob,
>
>I just started a solo gig myself and I've been considering some of the
>same things.
>
>>
>> 1. Loopers: Anyone using these regularly and successfully? Jeff,
>> you mentioned using one ... easy to use, effective, recommended brands
>> or important features to look for/avoid?
>
>I use the Line6 DL4 stompbox. It has a looper function, but you only get
>about 12 seconds of loop. I use it for a few things:
You probably know this but if you put it in 1/2 speed mode to start with you
can get
twice the length.
From: Dick Thaxter <rtha@loc...>
Subject: Re: Help w/solo gig equipment
Date: Thu, 06 Feb 2003 13:11:44 -0500
Organization: Library of Congress
"Paul M. Sanders" wrote:
> robohop wrote:
> >
> > Looking for help on getting together some tools to enhance live solo
> > performance.
>
> Hey Rob,
>
> I just started a solo gig myself and I've been considering some of the
> same things.
>
> >
> > 1. Loopers: Anyone using these regularly and successfully? Jeff,
> > you mentioned using one ... easy to use, effective, recommended brands
> > or important features to look for/avoid?
>
> I use the Line6 DL4 stompbox. It has a looper function, but you only get
> about 12 seconds of loop. I use it for a few things:
>
I've had one of these before I got the Boss Loopstation. It actually does
28 seconds using the half-speed option. But that still wasn't enough. With
the Boss, I can do a whole verse/chorus and play it back (actually you get
up to five minutes). I've never bothered with stored loops, but you can
store up to 10. I really just use it as a practice device, but it's very
addictive.
Dick Thaxter
>
> * Lay down a chord progression and solo over it.
>
> I do this to ease folks into a set and sortof blend in to the atmosphere
> before they have to hear my raspy voice :)
>
> * Loop some accompanying percussion, like a shaker or a tamborine, or
> maybe just a muted chucka-chucka strum. Careful with this though. It's
> got it's own life and if you hit the wall, the looper keeps going and
> things get messy. I've not started using so much of that YET as I'm
> still getting comfortable with the gig. But, it's a trick that's up my
> sleeve to come out more and more.
>
> >
> > 2. Midi/digital sound: I need a starting point here .... I'm a
> > neophyte. I use a footswitch to kick a digital drum machine on and off
> > ... but I know there's a great big next step. Can anyone steer me to
> > a starting point of information to begin understanding how to apply
> > the technology?
>
> I don't do backing tracks personally. I don't believe in them. The
> extend of a backing track I'd use is the looper. Many folks DO use them
> and I'm sure you'll get input on it.
>
> On that note, I'll elaborate a little more on the looper thing though.
>
> I WOULD like to have a looper that I can store multiple loops with to
> recall so I have something clean and ready to go that I can call up on
> demand. I'd like to be able to maybe loop a conga pattern in the studio
> and take it out to the gig. The Line6 doesn't have this. One loop, it's
> gone when you do another one, or turn the thing off. More "honest", but
> less flexible.
>
> On a different subject, but wrt solo performance, I just rigged up a
> pretty nifty in-ear monitoring system I thought I'd share with you.
>
> I'd been using a floor wedge hooked to the monitor poweramp out of my
> Mackie 808S. The place I'm playing is a bit tight on space, so I wanted
> to eliminate all that.
>
> Most in-ear systems are pricey because they have limiters and other
> "features" that really aren't necessary for one guy who can control his
> own levels.
>
> I got this Rolls personal monitor mixer for about $70, and a pair of
> Sure in-ear headphones, for about $80. These are the phones that go with
> the Sure in-ear monitoring system, but you can buy them seperately.
>
> This is a fairly cost effective setup and it's very simple and easy. I
> just send the monitor line out from the mixer to the line in on the
> Rolls box, and dial in the level of the headphone out. It's golden.
>
> Good luck with your gig.
>
> Paul
>
> >
> > Very much appreciate the input, as always,
> > rob anderson
>
> --
> If at first you don't succeed,
> keep on succin' till you DO succeed
>
> - Kerley, The Three Stooges
From: foldedpath <mbarrs@NOSPAM...>
Subject: Re: Help w/solo gig equipment
Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2003 11:00:21 -0800
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com
"Paul M. Sanders" <<pms@sgi...>> wrote in message
news:<3E427DEF.FD4DE034@sgi...>...
> I WOULD like to have a looper that I can
> store multiple loops with to recall so I have
> something clean and ready to go that I can
> call up on demand. I'd like to be able to
> maybe loop a conga pattern in the studio
> and take it out to the gig. The Line6 doesn't
> have this. One loop, it's gone when you do
> another one, or turn the thing off. More
> "honest", but less flexible.
The best looper for doing this was the Electrix Repeater, which is
unfortunately out of production. They sold in the neighborhood of
$450 when new (towards the end, last summer), and they turn up on
Ebay every now and then. There may still be a few left in stock at
places like Guitar Center, or some smaller music stores.
The Repeater stores loops on a compact flashcard as normal .wav
files. So not only do you have TONS of looping time (limited only by
the size of the flashcard), but you can easily transfer loops back
and forth to a computer using a simple CFC card reader. It's not
quite as easy as I'm making it sound... there is some hand-massaging
that needs to be done in a wave editor to transfer loops smoothly
back into the Repeater, but it can be done. I use it mostly in the
other direction; as a way to archive ideas I come up with on the
looper on my PC, so I can work with the tracks in my usual recording
setup.
The Repeater is a 4 track looper, the only multi-track/stereo looper
that was ever made. That has some interesting performance
possibilities, which I am mostly ignoring at the moment because I
don't have a Midi control pedal yet (and time to fool with the
programming). With the multitrack feature you can do things like arm
track 4 and preset it for a 1 octave downward pitch shift on
playback. Now record a single note bass line on your lower strings.
When you hit the Stop Record/Start Looping switch, you'll suddenly
hear what sounds like an upright string bass on track 4, and then
you can loop other parts on the remaining three tracks, as well as
playing live over all 4 loops.
I'm really just scratching the surface with this thing, but it's a
great toy. It's also a great practice tool, and I think it helps
improve my timing. A looper will tell you exactly how well you're
able to maintain a consistent beat (or not, in my case). If you see
a Repeater on Ebay at a good price, it's worth picking up. I bought
a spare one last summer, as soon as I heard the company was going
under.
Mike Barrs
From: foldedpath <mbarrs@NOSPAM...>
Subject: Re: Help w/solo gig equipment
Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2003 11:21:03 -0800
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com
"robohop" <<rjand@ix...>> wrote in message
news:<f9b4d395.0302060711.63a44d01@posting...>...
> Looking for help on getting together some tools
> to enhance live solo performance.
>
> 1. Loopers: Anyone using these regularly and
> successfully? Jeff, you mentioned using one ...
> easy to use, effective, recommended brands
> or important features to look for/avoid?
See my other post about the Repeater. I'm not using it in public
performance, but I might at some point. Once you get past the
technical issues in using loopers (like being able to consistently
hit the #$%& footswitch exactly on the downbeat), there are some
musical issues to deal with.... like how to avoid running into "the
wall" that Paul mentioned. That's the point where a single built-up
loop gets away from you, and just turns into a wall of noise. I use
my looper in a fairly conservative way.... just bass lines, rhythm
guitar backup under single note solos, or as a way to play duet
pieces (one of the most effective ways of using a looper, if you
play solo fingerstyle music). I try to stay away from the "ambient"
use of looping to build soundscapes. That can be fun, but it's
usually more fun for the player than the audience.
The big limitation I keep running into, is the inability to program
the looper to follow somethig like an AABA song format, where the B
section is a different number of bars. To do that with my current
looper, I'd have to switch into recording a new loop for the B
section, then kick the looper back to playing the recorded A section
loop when I'm done with the B section. It can be done, but it's a
lot of foot-dancing, and I don't have the right Midi pedal to set
this up smoothly at the moment. So everything I'm doing with the
looper is basically songs in the format A,A,A,A..... which is kind
of boring, or else a song where I'll play through the AABA sections
as one long, single loop. This works, sort of... but I miss the
ability to loop just the middle section of a song for extended,
arbitrary length solos.
Bailing out of a loop at the end of a song is tricky, especially if
you've built up a bunch of looping parts. When you stop the extra
sounds and go to strictly live playing, it can be a very abrupt
transition. It can make your live guitar playing sound kind of
anemic, by comparison. So for some songs it's a good idea to fade
out of the loop, instead of just stopping it. And that can involve a
bunch of extra hardware (like a mixer or extra volume pedals) if
your looper doesn't support fading the loop playback as a native
function.
Anyway, those are just a few thoughts about looping. I admire
players who are able to integrate a looper smoothly into a live
performance. I'm still struggling with that.
Mike Barrs
| Opinions: Yamaha AG Stomp [3] |
|---|
From: Sleepy Fingers Jones <persistent_offender@NOSPAM...>
Subject: Re: Opinions: Yamaha AG Stomp
Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 22:50:03 +0000
On Mon, 17 Feb 2003 17:06:40 GMT, "Scott McAllister"
<<scott.mcallister@worldnet...>> wrote:
>I had one for a while. It was a nice unit. The effects were great and the
>modelling was a good feature.
Wouldn't that be great...an acoustic modelling amp?
You stomp, and it sounds like a Martin, stomp again and it sounds like
a T****r, again and again it sounds like a Leach, or a Tippin or...
....God help us, a Takamine..
P
From: foldedpath <mbarrs@NOSPAM...>
Subject: Re: Opinions: Yamaha AG Stomp
Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 17:36:58 -0000
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com
"HL" <<sweefmy@remove...>> wrote in
news:b2smrb$u40$<1@reader01...>:
>
> "Sleepy Fingers Jones" <<persistent_offender@NOSPAM...>> wrote
>
>> Wouldn't that be great...an acoustic modelling amp?
>>
>> You stomp, and it sounds like a Martin, stomp again and it sounds
>> like a T****r, again and again it sounds like a Leach, or a Tippin
>> or...
>>
>> ....God help us, a Takamine..
>
> Check out the Line 6 Variax.
> <http://www.line6.com/Variax/index.html>
>
> It models guitars (electric and acoustic) as well as a sitar and a
> banjo...
>
> I haven't tried it myself but I've heard good stuff abt it.
>
> Cheers,
> John Swee
We might get there eventually. I'd never bet against what's possible with
computers, eventually. But there's still a long way to go.
I have what is probably the best modeler for "synthetic acoustic
instruments" -- the Roland VG-88. It includes COSM models for 12 string
guitar, sitar (in the new 2.0 OS upgrade), banjo, and nylon string guitar,
in addition to all the heavy electric guitar stuff. I haven't heard the
sitar yet, because I'm still using the older OS. The 12 string is okay in a
mix, but it still has a very electric edge to the sound. It works better
when set up with other patch parameters as a Rickenbacker electric guitar
simulation, and that one is eerily close to the real thing. The banjo model
is pathetic. It's worse than any electric banjo you've ever heard.
Of all the acoustic models in the VG-88, the nylon string is probably the
closest to the real thing, if you do some heavy user editing to the factory
patches and set it up for your specific guitar. But it still only sounds a
little like a Gibson Chet Atkins solidbody nylon string guitar with a piezo
pickup. It's good in a mix with other instruments, but not something you'd
use as a solo instrument in a recording. You might get away with it for
live playing in situations where you'd use a Gibson CEC or Godin Multiac
nylon, but it's still not quite as good.
This is the best the technology can do right now. For what it does, I think
it's pretty impressive. We're probably 10-15 years away from digital models
that are indistinguishable from actual acoustic instruments, and it might
take even longer than that. Right now I think digital modeling of electric
guitar bodies and amps is about 75-80%% of the way there, and that's good
enough to use for gigging, and some recording applications (unless you're a
diehard tube amp purist). But acoustic guitar models are nowhere near that.
P.S. I haven't heard the Line 6 Variax, but since it can't address each
string individually like the VG-88, or be used with real hollowbody or
acoustic guitars to get more "wood" in the tone, I doubt that it's much
improvement (if any) on what the VG-88 can do. In fact, I think the Variax
is a dumb idea, because it ties you down to one proprietary guitar instead
of being a modeling system that can work on any guitar. But I guess it
might appeal to people who want an off-the-rack solution, and who don't
want to get into the deeper realms of modeling.
--
Mike Barrs
From: foldedpath <mbarrs@NOSPAM...>
Subject: Re: Opinions: Yamaha AG Stomp
Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 19:56:05 -0000
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com
whirligig <<look@this...>> wrote in news:01HW.BA7838740001F7930D388CB0
@news.claranews.com:
> On Tue, 18 Feb 2003 17:36:58 +0000, foldedpath wrote
> (in message <<Xns932661CDBED75mbarrsNOSPAMnightvie@216...>>):
>
>>[...]
>> I have what is probably the best modeler for "synthetic acoustic
>> instruments" -- the Roland VG-88.
>
>
> Is there a Sound Diver patch for this, Mike? I see a VG8 and VG8S in the
> 3.0.4 Install list, but not VG-88
>
>
> Adrian
>
>
> --
> www.adrianlegg.com
>
I don't think I've ever heard of a Sound Diver patch for the VG-88, but the
best place to ask would be the VG-8/VG-88 user's group:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/vg-8/
There is a $20 patch librarian software app for the VG-88, but I think it's
Windows only, and all it does is let you do is archive and re-arrange your
patch setups on a computer. It's not a full patch editor. Here's the URL:
http://www.mediachance.com/midisys/vg88/index.html
The situation with 3rd party tools for the VG-88 is a little shaky right
now, because Roland just released the 2.0 OS update with new patch
parameters and COSM models. It will probably be a while before we see any
real 3rd party software tools for the latest OS.
BTW, the patch structure for the VG-88 actually isn't very difficult to
deal with on the box itself. It's much easier than programming synth
patches, since this isn't really a synthesizer. And you can do a normal
Midi sysex dump to a computer for archiving patches.
I hope this helps.
--
Mike Barrs
| Question For Effects Gurus - Tom Loredo (maybe)? [8] |
|---|
From: Amostagain <amostagain@aol...>
Subject: Re: Question For Effects Gurus - Tom Loredo (maybe)?
Date: 14 Feb 2003 23:32:14 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
>
>Okay,
>Who knows where different effects boxes should be placed in
>the sound chain and why? I admit it, I just never played around
>with effects enough to learn this stuff. Maybe there aren't even
>any rules for this. Maybe it's just whatever you think sounds
>best. If that's the case, that's cool too. So, here's the real
>question though. I know that chorus is essentially a delay,
>but to obtain the BEST chorus sound that I can, should it be
>in front of or behind another delay (or say a spatial expander)?
>Is there something scientific here or is it just whatever sounds
>best to your ears?
>
>If you use a chorus and a delay, what order do you run them in?
>
>Thanks in advance...
>
>Keep Picking,
>
>Steven Dillon
>
>http://www.stevendillon.com
>http://mp3.com/stevendillon
>
No guru here but I have owned a Spatial Expander & a buttload of FX..........no
rules, experimentation is key but there's definitey some things that have been
tried & true. TC Spatial Expander went first because it's a GREAT stereo
split..........& that's done alot with the TC 1210 in folks racks. It's been
known to go last but most of the time it's first because of the split.
It depends if you want to delay your chorus or chorus your delay .......series
speaking that is.....but you can also be parallel guy as many racks are & send
to all theFX at once with a line mixer but if you go in series with a 1210
Expander that's real cool first. Lots of racks go to the 1210 first then into a
mixerL&R and send from there to your other FX(delays) blah blah blah.Can 'o
worms offically opened.
Me at:
http://www.geocities.com/mondoslugness
From: foldedpath <mbarrs@NOSPAM...>
Subject: Re: Question For Effects Gurus - Tom Loredo (maybe)?
Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2003 23:45:19 -0000
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com
"Steven Dillon" <<laswd@earthlink...>> wrote in news:%Yd3a.8663$4F3.434425
@news2.east.cox.net:
> Okay,
> Who knows where different effects boxes should be placed in
> the sound chain and why? I admit it, I just never played around
> with effects enough to learn this stuff. Maybe there aren't even
> any rules for this. Maybe it's just whatever you think sounds
> best. If that's the case, that's cool too. So, here's the real
> question though. I know that chorus is essentially a delay,
> but to obtain the BEST chorus sound that I can, should it be
> in front of or behind another delay (or say a spatial expander)?
> Is there something scientific here or is it just whatever sounds
> best to your ears?
>
> If you use a chorus and a delay, what order do you run them in?
>
> Thanks in advance...
There are no hard and fast rules. You should use anything that sounds good
to your ears, and some players get some very interesting effects by using
things in the "wrong" order.
Here's my take on how to do it, for best results with acoustic guitar
(electric guitar is a whole 'nother thing):
1. Preamp. You need that initial gain boost to a healthy line level, and
you need an impedance buffer if you're using a passive pickup. Your EQ is
normally done here too.
2. Compressor (if you're using one, and I usually don't).
3. Chorus. I would put chorus ahead of delay, because I think of chorus as
something that's similar to an EQ effect. In addition to the swirly effect
and synthetic stereo, it alters your basic sound, adding some higher
frequency overtones... maybe as a result of the phase effects? Tone-
changing effects usually go ahead of time-based effects, like delay. Try
using chorus after the delay if you want, but I think it works best the
other way around.
4. Delay. This goes ahead of reverb, because you normally want reverb tails
on the delayed notes, not delay on the reverb echoes (which are already
delayed).
5. If you're using a sonic enhancer, like a BBE effect, I'd put it here.
Others might disagree.
6. Reverb goes last.
If you're running a full stereo PA, then you should be running a dual-
engine FX processor starting with step #3 (chorus), since that's your first
opportunity to synthesize a stereo effect.
--
Mike Barrs
From: Geoff Arnold <geoffrey.arnold@sun...>
Subject: Re: Question For Effects Gurus - Tom Loredo (maybe)?
Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2003 16:12:52 -0800
Organization: Sun Microsystems Inc., Mountain View, CA
Steven Dillon wrote:
> Okay,
> Who knows where different effects boxes should be placed in
> the sound chain and why?
There is an order to this universe of sound manipulation. A compressor would come first. Reason
being that it will level out your sound.
Second would be a wah-wah, should you need such a thing.
If you use any kind of filtering, like an envelop modifier or such, that would come next.
Third would be a delay device because now your sound is groomed to receive such treatment.
Chorous or flanger would always come after a delay because of the nature of the effect you are
wishing to create. Putting delay after chorous disrupts the sweep of the chorous (or flange) and so
ruins the "dreamy" effect chorous/flangers create.
However, you can always break those arbitrary rules and put it together the way you want, too.
It is the nature of the creative to dispense with the rules. Right Mr. D?
--fletch
From: Steven Dillon <laswd@earthlink...>
Subject: Re: Question For Effects Gurus - Tom Loredo (maybe)?
Date: Sat, 15 Feb 2003 13:22:53 GMT
Organization: Cox Communications
"Geoff Arnold" <<geoffrey.arnold@sun...>> wrote in message
news:<3E4D8604.4010801@sun...>...
>
> It is the nature of the creative to dispense with the rules. Right Mr. D?
>
Rules? We don't need no stinking rules! ;-)
Yes, as a matter of fact, I believe that wholeheartedly! Do what works,
to hell with the rules. I was hoping for a scientific reason that one way
was "better" than the other. Which, I believe, you have answered by
indicating that delay after the chorus disrupts the sweep. I'm getting such
a good sound with the pitch modulation and chorus after the delay, that
I haven't even wanted to try it the other way around - if it's better before
the delay, I might just have a heart attack right on the spot. I can't even
believe how good my new box sounds. I will say though, for the record,
that it really did not come to life until I started running it in stereo.
The
mono out almost seems to lose the signal while creating the effect.
Thanks for the knowledge!
Keep Picking,
Steven Dillon
http://www.stevendillon.com
http://mp3.com/stevendillon
From: Amostagain <amostagain@aol...>
Subject: Re: Question For Effects Gurus - Tom Loredo (maybe)?
Date: 15 Feb 2003 13:45:19 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
Steve wrote:
>> It is the nature of the creative to dispense with the rules. Right Mr. D?
>>
>Rules? We don't need no stinking rules! ;-)
>
>Yes, as a matter of fact, I believe that wholeheartedly! Do what works,
>to hell with the rules. I was hoping for a scientific reason that one way
>was "better" than the other. Which, I believe, you have answered by
>indicating that delay after the chorus disrupts the sweep.
I don't particularly agree with that..........delays last before verb can be
very good thing. YMMV but have course.
Depends on the situation.
I'm getting such>a good sound with the pitch modulation and chorus after the delay, that
>I haven't even wanted to try it the other way around - if it's better before
>the delay, I might just have a heart attack right on the spot. I can't even
>believe how good my new box sounds.
What's the new box?
Me at:
http://www.geocities.com/mondoslugness
From: Steven Dillon <laswd@earthlink...>
Subject: Re: Question For Effects Gurus - Tom Loredo (maybe)?
Date: Sat, 15 Feb 2003 18:29:38 GMT
Organization: Cox Communications
"Amostagain" <<amostagain@aol...>> wrote in message
news:<20030215084519.27792.00000360@mb-bj...>...
> <snip>
> What's the new box?
>
TC Electronics SCF. I'm starting to find some settings that are really
nice and it is bringing some life back to the sound I've been
fighting with for months now! I borrowed another Ultrasound and
so now I've got 2 of them (at least until I have to give it back) so
that I can hear the effects in stereo. Like I said, the difference between
the stereo and mono is huge! The delay is a setting on my Q20 named
St. Paul's. I believe it is an attempt to model the sound inside the
cathedral - best delay I've ever heard (it's almost transparent because
the decay is so smooth - it just makes your guitar sound bigger). That
one setting uses up the entire processor - no other effects can be
combined with it inside the Q20 (and this is a rack mount we're talking
about) so I've been searching for a way to get some chorus added in
to sweeten the sound a tad. The pitch modulator is even better sounding
than the chorus (but not for every tune - for some of them it's just a
little
too much). The chorus seems to dampen the sound a little where the PM
is accentuating the lows and the highs. When your sound brings a smile
to your face, then you know you're on to something! :-)
Keep Picking,
Steven Dillon
http://www.stevendillon.com
http://mp3.com/stevendillon
From: Amostagain <amostagain@aol...>
Subject: Re: Question For Effects Gurus - Tom Loredo (maybe)?
Date: 15 Feb 2003 18:46:43 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
Steve Dillon wrote:
>"Amostagain" <<amostagain@aol...>> wrote in message
>news:<20030215084519.27792.00000360@mb-bj...>...
>> <snip>
>> What's the new box?
>>
>TC Electronics SCF. I'm starting to find some settings that are really
>nice and it is bringing some life back to the sound I've been
>fighting with for months now! I borrowed another Ultrasound and
>so now I've got 2 of them (at least until I have to give it back) so
>that I can hear the effects in stereo. Like I said, the difference between
>the stereo and mono is huge! The delay is a setting on my Q20 named
>St. Paul's. I believe it is an attempt to model the sound inside the
>cathedral - best delay I've ever heard (it's almost transparent because
>the decay is so smooth - it just makes your guitar sound bigger). That
>one setting uses up the entire processor - no other effects can be
>combined with it inside the Q20 (and this is a rack mount we're talking
>about) so I've been searching for a way to get some chorus added in
>to sweeten the sound a tad. The pitch modulator is even better sounding
>than the chorus (but not for every tune - for some of them it's just a
>little
>too much). The chorus seems to dampen the sound a little where the PM
>is accentuating the lows and the highs. When your sound brings a smile
>to your face, then you know you're on to something! :-)
>
>Keep Picking,
>
>Steven Dillon
>
>http://www.stevendillon.com
>http://mp3.com/stevendillon
Okay, well lots of people have those last in line on pedalboards because you
naturally split to 2 amps that way. So going after everything is logical
especially if the other stuff is mono - stereo makes a difference for sure with
the TC Chorus. I was thinking more of a rack set up since you mentioned the
Spatial Expander(TC 1210) which is a slightly different animal & I still like
that in front of stuff to split to other stereo stuff but now I'm rambling.
Have fun
Me at:
http://www.geocities.com/mondoslugness
From: Tom Loredo <loredo@astro...>
Subject: Re: Question For Effects Gurus - Tom Loredo (maybe)?
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2003 13:57:59 -0500
Organization: Cornell University
Hi Steven-
Chiming in late here....
I think the only "rule" is that anything with gain should be as early
in the signal chain as possible to maximize your signal/noise. This
would include any preamp, as well as a compressor and even distortion,
if you're considering that.
For the other effects, it's really a matter of taste. However, keep in
mind that many effects are designed to mimic in some way a natural
phenomenon, and so the most natural sound will come from putting those
effects in the order in which they occur in nature. Of course, there's
nothing saying you should be going for the most natural overall sound
(that's one of your creative choices), but if you are, think about
the "mimicry" of the devices.
So, for example, chorus mimics what happens when multiple instruments
or voices sing together. Physically, this happens right after
the source, but before interaction with the room. So chorus most
naturally fits after stuff like compression, EQ, or distortion, but
before the room/space-based effects. Delays mimic the early reflections
that happen in a large space, and so should follow the chorus but
come before the reverb, which mimics later, multiple and blended
reflections.
So with this line of reasoning, I'm with Andy regarding position of
the chorus in the chain. Also, every multieffects box I've encountered
that had modulation, delay, and reverb effects in a hard-wired order
has the chorus-delay-reverb order. In the end, though, do whatever
makes a sound you like.
Peace,
Tom
| E-mail humor: New Guitar Effects Pedals |
|---|
From: Hojo2x <hojo2x@aol...>
Subject: E-mail humor: New Guitar Effects Pedals
Date: 21 Feb 2003 19:36:33 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
Some of the RMMGA regulars are already using these: Fred Shrimer's wife got him
one of these new "Bandpass Filters" because she suspected him of playing guitar
only so he could pick up "some of those thick-ankled gals" at their local Dutch
Reformed Church....
whm
New, Improved Guitar Effects Pedals
Blame Shifter...Shifts guitar player's mistakes down an octave so the
audience thinks the bass player did it.
Fluff Box...Filters out excess musical substance
Depander...Removes overplayed cover tunes from songlist
Overjive...Makes Hootie songs sound like Parliament
Feedback Eliminator...Silences constructive criticism from audience
members
Depressor...Transposes any song into E minor
Noise Filter...One input jack, no output.
Bandpass Filter...Prevents drummer from "coming on" to female vocalist
| Volume Pedal with Fishman Active - Help [4] |
|---|
From: Waxwing <waxwing1@hotmail...>
Subject: Volume Pedal with Fishman Active - Help
Date: 25 Feb 2003 14:37:16 -0800
Organization: http://groups.google.com/
What I don't know - I know little about electronics. (Not sure the
difference between Hi-Z and Low-Z, balanced and unbalanced, active and
passive.)
What I do know - I have a Martin D-28 with Fishman Acoustic Matrix
Natural I and a Ernie Ball Mono Volume Pedal. I get little adjustment
on the volume. For 95% of the travel of the pedal it is quiet or off.
The remaining 5% is LOUD. I typically run straight into a line in on
a mixer at church, my home mixer or my Acoustasonic Jr.
What I need to know - Anything I can do to the volume pedal to make it
work with my pickup without buying a new pedal. Spend as little
additional money as possible.
OR if this is the wrong pedal, what would work? I really like the
quality of the Ernie Ball but having bought one in the past few months
(that I can't return) I'm not sure I can spend another $100 but I'm
open to suggestions.
Thanks!
- John
From: Tom Loredo <loredo@astro...>
Subject: Re: Volume Pedal with Fishman Active - Help
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 18:15:00 -0500
Organization: Cornell University
Waxwing wrote:
>
>
> What I do know - I have a Martin D-28 with Fishman Acoustic Matrix
> Natural I and a Ernie Ball Mono Volume Pedal. I get little adjustment
> on the volume. For 95% of the travel of the pedal it is quiet or off.
> The remaining 5% is LOUD.
It's not an impedance issue exactly. It is the taper of the pot used
in the EB pedal. I have the same problem with the stereo EB pedal.
With the mono pedal, you may have a way out. I believe that model
has a switch that lets you change the taper. Give that a try if you
have it; it should be behind the jack area under the foot plate.
Unfortunately the stereo pedal doesn't have this switch.
Other than that, folks have reported having good success with keyboard
volume pedals. They have a lower impedance than guitar pedals, but since
you have an active pickup (i.e., you are using the output of a preamp
as your signal), you don't need to worry about the pedal impedance as
long as it's at least several kohms (as it is for keyboard pedals).
Let us know what works! In particular, I'd really like to know if
the mono pedal's taper switch solves this problem.
Peace,
Tom
From: Waxwing <waxwing1@hotmail...>
Subject: Re: Volume Pedal with Fishman Active - Help
Date: 25 Feb 2003 19:39:33 -0800
Organization: http://groups.google.com/
Thanks, Tom. I tried switch awhile back and it does not work. I
received an e-mail from Ernie Ball tech support. They said that the
mono pedal is meant for passive pickups (though their web-site says
active, it is a mistake.) He said the taper switch won't show much
difference, if any, due to the active pickups. He suggested the
Stereo 25K ohm pedal. Since they also have a keyboard pedal, I may
take the guitar to a local superstore that has both (and some others)
so I can try them all out. It may be awhile but I'll report back when
I have something. I also sent an e-mail to Fishman to get their
opinion.
- John
Tom Loredo <<loredo@astro...>> wrote in message news:<<3E5BF8F4.CD850943@astro...>>...
> Waxwing wrote:
> >
> >
> > What I do know - I have a Martin D-28 with Fishman Acoustic Matrix
> > Natural I and a Ernie Ball Mono Volume Pedal. I get little adjustment
> > on the volume. For 95% of the travel of the pedal it is quiet or off.
> > The remaining 5% is LOUD.
>
> It's not an impedance issue exactly. It is the taper of the pot used
> in the EB pedal. I have the same problem with the stereo EB pedal.
> With the mono pedal, you may have a way out. I believe that model
> has a switch that lets you change the taper. Give that a try if you
> have it; it should be behind the jack area under the foot plate.
> Unfortunately the stereo pedal doesn't have this switch.
>
> Other than that, folks have reported having good success with keyboard
> volume pedals. They have a lower impedance than guitar pedals, but since
> you have an active pickup (i.e., you are using the output of a preamp
> as your signal), you don't need to worry about the pedal impedance as
> long as it's at least several kohms (as it is for keyboard pedals).
>
> Let us know what works! In particular, I'd really like to know if
> the mono pedal's taper switch solves this problem.
>
> Peace,
> Tom
From: Jeffrey Cohen <nospam@ever...>
Subject: Re: Volume Pedal with Fishman Active - Help
Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003 09:35:19 -0500
Organization: Bell Sympatico
I get pretty good results with a Morley Pro Series volume pedal, same
pickup, similar guitar.
Jeff
Waxwing wrote:
> What I don't know - I know little about electronics. (Not sure the
> difference between Hi-Z and Low-Z, balanced and unbalanced, active and
> passive.)
>
> What I do know - I have a Martin D-28 with Fishman Acoustic Matrix
> Natural I and a Ernie Ball Mono Volume Pedal. I get little adjustment
> on the volume. For 95% of the travel of the pedal it is quiet or off.
> The remaining 5% is LOUD. I typically run straight into a line in on
> a mixer at church, my home mixer or my Acoustasonic Jr.
>
> What I need to know - Anything I can do to the volume pedal to make it
> work with my pickup without buying a new pedal. Spend as little
> additional money as possible.
>
> OR if this is the wrong pedal, what would work? I really like the
> quality of the Ernie Ball but having bought one in the past few months
> (that I can't return) I'm not sure I can spend another $100 but I'm
> open to suggestions.
>
> Thanks!
>
> - John
| Looping and sampling survey [4] |
|---|
From: <please@nospam...>
Subject: Looping and sampling survey
Date: Sun, 09 Mar 2003 22:43:48 GMT
Organization: None
Hi, everyone.
I've recently obtained a delay pedal that does a small amount of
sampling as one of its delay functions. It's gotten me very
interested in more elaborate looping. I know that some of you
are using the Boomerang or the Boss Loop Station and maybe some
others. What products do you use and what are the benefits
relative to the others? I like the Boomerang and Loop Station
for their large amount of memory (4 and 5 minutes,
respectively). I know there has been some discussion of this on
this and other newsgroups and I've googled those already. I'm
looking to buy something to use for solo and duo gigs so it has
to be road-worthy. If you have any tips to offer on how to use
these products, that would be good, too. I know that Jeff
Sherman's using the Loop Station, and maybe Dorgan's using the
Boomerang.
Thanks very much.
Al Sato
--
Reply to al_guitar "at" clifftopmusic "dot" com
From: Russell Letson <rletson@cloudnet...>
Subject: Re: Looping and sampling survey
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 03:00:24 GMT
Organization: Onvoy
He should have showed up in a Google search, but I'll still point you
to Steve Cloutier, who has been performing and recording with looping
and a guitar synth for several years. Look at his website at
cloutier.org and maybe drop him an e-mail. He does some very nice
stuff with the looping--notably a one-man version of "Bye Bye Blues"
as an homage to Les Paul.
From: Dick Thaxter <Richard.Thaxter@verizon...>
Subject: Re: Looping and sampling survey
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 12:22:44 GMT
<please@nospam...> wrote:
> Hi, everyone.
>
> I've recently obtained a delay pedal that does a small amount of
> sampling as one of its delay functions. It's gotten me very
> interested in more elaborate looping. I know that some of you
> are using the Boomerang or the Boss Loop Station and maybe some
> others. What products do you use and what are the benefits
> relative to the others? I like the Boomerang and Loop Station
> for their large amount of memory (4 and 5 minutes,
> respectively). I know there has been some discussion of this on
> this and other newsgroups and I've googled those already. I'm
> looking to buy something to use for solo and duo gigs so it has
> to be road-worthy. If you have any tips to offer on how to use
> these products, that would be good, too. I know that Jeff
> Sherman's using the Loop Station, and maybe Dorgan's using the
> Boomerang.
>
> Thanks very much.
>
> Al Sato
>
> --
> Reply to al_guitar "at" clifftopmusic "dot" com
Al,
Are you using a Line 6 Delay Modeler? That's how I got hooked onlooping. Hardly ever used any of the delay functions and ended up
buying a Boss RV-3 to do delay and reverb while the Line 6 was reserved
for looping. With the half-speed option, the 28-seconds available was
just not enough for recording whole verses, let alone verse-chorus.
Moved up to the Boss Loopstation a couple of years ago maybe whenthey first came out. Now it's permanently part of my electric rig. I
use two amps and a volume/pan pedal. I don't use any pre-recorded
loops--although I may put some in there for my son when he gets an
audition CD for guitar jazz band next week. So I just use the "live"
loop. The one drawback to the Loopstation is when you want to record
something and immediately start playback and overdub. You have to stomp
twice and you can't get it cleanly--you'll miss a beat or two on the
overdub.
I don't plug in my acoustics much at home so I don't do much loopingwith them.
Dick Thaxter
From: David Kilpatrick <iconmags2@btconnect...>
Subject: Re: Looping and sampling survey
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 12:45:07 +0000 (UTC)
Organization: Icon Publications Limited
<please@nospam...> wrote:
> Hi, everyone.
>
> I've recently obtained a delay pedal that does a small amount of
> sampling as one of its delay functions. It's gotten me very
> interested in more elaborate looping. I know that some of you
> are using the Boomerang or the Boss Loop Station and maybe some
> others. What products do you use and what are the benefits
> relative to the others? I like the Boomerang and Loop Station
> for their large amount of memory (4 and 5 minutes,
> respectively). I know there has been some discussion of this on
> this and other newsgroups and I've googled those already. I'm
> looking to buy something to use for solo and duo gigs so it has
> to be road-worthy. If you have any tips to offer on how to use
> these products, that would be good, too. I know that Jeff
> Sherman's using the Loop Station, and maybe Dorgan's using the
> Boomerang.
>
I've heard some wonderful stuff from David Allison and others, but on
trying a Boomerang,
realised that much of the wonder was due to the assorted of additional
effects, midi pickups etc added to it. I owned mine for about three
months, tried it just once in public.
It is strictly a solo obsession, with very limited appeal for working
with other musicians. The Boomerang was so sensitive to input/output
impedances and levels that it was a real pain to use with anything
except one particular guitar; apart from that, it was good fun and a
worthwhile experience, but I could not use it for any of my normal
material and had to write 'loopable tunes' to go with it - either that
or repeat a longish piece twice, the second time round doing extra bits!
Have a listen to 'Ropes of Sand' on my mp3.com page - that was written
as a loop background pattern, but actually this recording was done by
overdubbing. That way, some variety is retained in the backing pattern.
But it worked really well as my only performable loop piece. I think
that if I wanted to do this, I would actually be better recording a
minidisk backing track, and playing that while doing the solo over the
top. Not as 'live' as looping, so more fake - but better.
David