| Effects units for acoustic setups |
|---|
From: Tom Loredo <loredo@spacenet...>
Subject: Re: Effects units for acoustic setups
Date: Tue, 10 Jun 1997 18:39:15 -0400
Organization: Cornell University
Howdy-
I definitely disagree with the idea that using effects is a
"contradiction in terms" in this setting. As soon as you plug
in, you've given up "the purity of tone of an acoustic guitar."
And when you listen to an acoustic guitar acoustically, you
are hearing not only the guitar, but also the room. So as
minimum, adding a bit of reverb to a plugged-in tone is probably
taking a step closer to what you hear acoustically rather
than away from that ideal. Just playing through a PA will
add some reverb from the room you're playing in, but depending
on the room, it may not be an attractive addition.
Also, by being plugged in you have the option of going for
an intentionally non-pure sound. For example, you may want
to use chorusing or filtering or delay effects to create
soundscapes that just aren't possible acoustically. This
may not be "acoustic," but that's not to say it isn't valid.
With a programmable device (or even a device that just has
a bypass switch!), you have the option of switching from
tones that are as realistically acoustic as possible, to things
that are less so. That's the game I play.
Regarding suggestions, I'd suggest you look for used gear.
I'd steer away from the original Quadraverb or Quadraverp GT
or Plus; I had a QV (sold it recently) and it was a great box
when it came out 8 years ago or more, but there's lots better
in that price range now.
Boxes that come to mind include the Lexicon LXP-1 and LXP-5.
Both are 1/2 rack space units, so together on a rack shelf
they fill one space. The former is predominantly a reverb
box, the latter is predominantly a delay/chorus type of box.
Programming is somewhat limited (unless you get the optional
MRC programmer), but quite adequate, though if you want to
change programs with a MIDI footswitch rather than by turning
knobs, this is probably not the way to go (and remember you'll
have to carry around the footpedal, too). I have an LXP-1,
and like it a lot; the reverb quality is at least as good
as that of a Quadraverb 2 to my ears; the folks on rec.audio.pro
(who have more golden ears than mine) think it's much better.
I do not have the LXP-5, but have heard very good things about
it. On the used market the typical price of each is $225 - $250.
Don't pay more than $250. I got my LXP-1 via a post on
rec.audio.pro or rec.music.makers.marketplace; be prepared
to wait a month or so if you want one.
I also have a Quadraverb 2. It sounds very good, and is
incredibly easy to program. Got a great review for both sound
quality and programability in Recording magazine, though
reports by the rec.audio.pro gurus are less laudatory. In a
live setting it's a nice box, though. The used prices I've
seen span $400 - $600, with $450 -$500 being pretty typical.
Several folks have raved about the Digitech Studio Quad (or
something like that), and it's gotten good reviews in the
magazines. Its principle virtue is that you get 4 independent
processors in one rack space. This gives you lots of flexibility.
For example, you can use one for delay effects (echo or chorus)
and another for reverb, and still have two left to patch into
your mixer for ambient reverb for your vocals or bandmates.
It costs just over $100 per processor (ie, $400); I haven't seen
many on the used market; that's the new price.
If you want something very cheap and very portable, consider
the Alesis Nanoverb for reverb. Nothing but rave reviews from
Recording, *Electronic Musician*, EQ, and even recently
in *Acoustic Guitar*. I cannot vouch for it myself, but I've
seldom seen such unanimity in reviews. List price is about
$179, and when I was looking into this about 6 months ago,
they weren't selling for much below that 'cuz demand has been
high. I think this box is 1/3 rack space or smaller.
The MPX-1 has gotten great reviews, as you mentioned. However,
it's at least twice the price of all these other options.
If you were using this device in a recording setting, it may
very well be worth it; I'll attach a recent post from rec.audio.pro
explaining why. In a live setting, I'm not so sure. I'd love
to have one, though!
Good luck, and let us know what you choose!
Peace,
Tom Loredo
| ZOOM 504 - is this effect any good? [2] |
|---|
From: Kelley <kelley@mail...>
Subject: Re: ZOOM 504 - is this effect any good?
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 1998 01:10:02 -0500
Organization: IDT
hi,
I just bought one of the 504's for a Guild D-55 I play.. I am not impressed
at this time. I have not used a multi-effects/programmable processor
before, so it may just be a learning curve issue...
But I don't like the pre-programmed effects...Haven't really figured out how
to do all the adjustments yet, though.... The thing is, with so much packed
into a little box, with few controls, figuring it all out is a
brainbuster....
If I did it over again, I would buy a processor with multi-pedals and a
larger more visible display and instructions....
FWIW,
Kelley
<bayoujim@hotmail...> wrote in message <6gomvu$mki$<1@nnrp1...>>...
>I am considering the purchase of a ZOOM 504 for my Martin 000-28 guitar
with
>fishman bridge pick-up.
>
>Is this a good effect?
>
>Thanks.
>
>/ManOh
>
>-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
>http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
From: John Griffin <jgriffin@spectranet...>
Subject: Re: ZOOM 504 - is this effect any good?
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 1998 17:23:59 GMT
Organization: Bell Solutions
In article <6gomvu$mki$<1@nnrp1...>>, <bayoujim@hotmail...> wrote:
>I am considering the purchase of a ZOOM 504 for my Martin 000-28 guitar with
>fishman bridge pick-up.
>
>Is this a good effect?
>
>Thanks.
I have been using one for over a month now. The effects are really great
and can be edited to your own taste.
I do have one major beef. My favorite patches are C3, B1 and A2. It is
almost impossible to get from one to the other quickly. Instead I have to
scroll through a whole series of patches. I wish I could choose to have
the three adjacent to each other so one or two clicks gets me to where I
want to go.
The feedback control is probably OK unless you suffer from really
high-pitched feedback as I do. I use an Audio Technica ATM15a mic, which
can pick up these screeches like crazy, but the feedback control does
nothing to squash them. It seems to work fine on lower pitched howls and
razz-berries.
The built in tuner is a nice feature, but it is pretty hard to see the
flashing LED to be of much use on the fly.
In summary, it is an excellent product for the price, but there are
probably other units that can do a better job for a lot more money.
Good luck...
John G.
| Need opinions on ZOOM 504 [2] |
|---|
From: Hojo2X <hojo2x@aol...>
Subject: Re: Need opinions on ZOOM 504
Date: 11 Jul 1998 07:11:10 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
To answer the original question, I think
the Zoom 504 is an incredible deal for
the money. A friend who plays electric
loves his.
What you'll always find in this sort of
situation is that players who use effects
tend to fall into two camps: those guys
who can't get enough whistles and
bells, and who love to tinker with their gear and spend hours programming it;
and guys like me, who want a
handful of really good sounds that are
easily and quickly accessed.
This isn't to cast any sort of aspersions
on the guys on the other end of the
spectrum, but it seems to me that you
can do a lot with a little. I remember
reading an interview with Steve Miller
in GP Magazine when he was at the
height of his popularity. He said,
essentially, was that what audiences
want is a good song and some nice
hooks and a good rhythm, but that
they were not nearly so much into
the lead guitar as most lead guitarists
THINK that they are.
The same principle applies to guitar
distortion devices, I think: they're
novelties, and should be applied
sparingly.
I remember a Ricky Skaggs concert
years ago in Chicago - the opening
act was some local country bar band.
The lead guitarist had his guitar run
through a phase shifter (never one of
my favorite effects) and he used it on
every song. After about six songs, my
buddy said "I think that guy's gettin'
his money's worth outta that damned
phase shifter...."
Of course, with a fancy multi-effect box
you can be jackrabbiting all over the
tonal map, not just stuck on one sound. But my point is that those devices can
easily become a means unto themselves.
You can get a lot of sounds out of that 504.
It's a great deal - I've tried it and liked it.
Of course, I'm playing acoustic instruments
through it, so I only use effects now and
then in the course of a show - just to add
a little ambience, or to shake things up a
little bit when they need to be shaken.
A full bore electric player might want
more sounds, eventually. But you
couldn't start with a better unit.
I'm planning to buy a 504 myself here
soon, to replace an older, more limited
multi-effects board that takes up more
space and does less stuff.
Wade Hampton Miller
From: alec martin <busker@zen...>
Subject: Re: Need opinions on ZOOM 504
Date: Sat, 11 Jul 1998 12:51:47 GMT
Organization: buskers ball
Blimey so not just guitars are dearer over here!
I have a Zoom 504 and I think it's an essential piece of kit for anything
other than the most 'purist' guitar player.
Some of the simulations are very good and as someone said they are all
programable.
Plus when you put it through a PA system it balances the impedence.
Plus it's almost worth it for the advantage of having an onstage tuner.
Only fault is that there are so many possible variants other than the
factory settings you could spend days getting just what you want.
I was particularly impressed by the 'Air' setting which simulates a piezzo
pickup being miked up. It is absolutely brilliant for finger picking
styles.Plus if you ever do any slide, the dobro simulations are quite good.
If there are some effects you can't use, simply reprogramme them to one's
you can.
Alec
http://www.zen.co.uk/home/page/busker
Jason Cowperthwaite <<jcowpert@umd5...>> wrote in article
<<35A636AD.EB4285C5@umd5...>>...
> I am considering buying a ZOOM 504 acoustic multi-effects pedal andwas
> wondering if anyone out there has tried this product yet. It is priced
> rather reasonably ($109) and was wondering if it was worth every cent or
> more, or if its an overpriced piece of crap.
>
> Thanks for your help,
> Jason
>
>
| volume stomp box recommendations please |
|---|
From: Tom Loredo <loredo@spacenet...>
Subject: Re: volume stomp box recommendations please
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1998 14:40:56 -0400
Organization: Cornell University
Howdy-
You might also consider getting a compressor. A compressor is basically
an automatic volume knob that turns down by itself when you play louder.
A number of players use them in a live, amplified setting (Phil Keaggy
comes to mind; he uses a 1-rack-space DBX compressor; I don't recall
which model). The simplest ones basically have one knob that controls
the "amount" of compression (DBX sells a 1/2 rack space model like this);
fancier ones let you control when the compression cuts in (Threshold),
how drastically it affects the volume (Ratio), and how quickly it
turns it down when things get loud (Attack) and how slowly it lets
the volume come back up when you get softer again (Release).
Although I don't presently use it with my acoustic guitar, I would
strongly recommend the RNC Compressor (RNC = Really Nice Compressor).
This is a 1/3 rack space unit hand made by Mark McQuilken and his
wife and sold for the ridiculously low price of under $200 (ridiculous
because of the incredible sonic quality of the unit). I have never seen
a piece of signal processing gear get the kind of rave reviews this
little box has gotten, both in rec.audio.pro and in the music press
(the EQ review was the most favorable review I've ever read for a
piece of signal processing gear). I've been using one on vocals
(my own and as a soundman for others) for several months now, and I'm
very happy with it. It has a "SuperNice" mode that is said to be
particularly nice for acoustic guitar use.
More info at http://www.fmraudio.com/
I emphasize that I have not myself yet used it with my guitar, so
I'm not speaking first hand about that specific application. But
I hope to afford a second one for this use, and have heard good
experiences by others.
Peace,
Tom Loredo
| Anybody use a Zoom 504 acoustic pedel? |
|---|
From: yettoblaster <sayetter@pacbell...>
Subject: Re: Anybody use a Zoom 504 acoustic pedel?
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 1998 13:47:11 -0700
Organization: Pacific Bell Internet Services
RobertH446 wrote:
>
> Have not had an opportunity to try the zoom acoustic simulator. anybody use one
> of these?
>
> bob
Hi Bob,
Yeah, I had one of those for a little while here lately. As you'd expect there's alimit to what you can do with chorus and frequency tailoring in a box. I bought
one to try with a magnetic soundhole pickup on a flat-top, but the best "acoustic"
guitar tone I got was with a Telecaster. Something about the sustain.
It was a bit noisy for recording too. Kinda fun but mostly an "effect" not asubstitute for a mic'd guitar, though it was the loudest acoustic emulation I've
ever been able to get onstage.
Gettin' there, but not there yet IMHO.Regards,
-SteveYetter-
| Cheap reverb, cheap 8-) |
|---|
From: Tom Loredo <loredo@spacenet...>
Subject: Cheap reverb, cheap 8-)
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1998 17:46:46 -0400
Organization: Cornell University
Hi folks-
This isn't directly an acoustic topic, but I know some of you are
into effects so I'm passing it along....
Folks on rec.audio.pro have posted in the last week or so that
Alesis is blowing out their desktop "Wedge" reverb unit for $99.
A month or so ago, you probably would have had to pay over $300
for this little box. It offers reverb and a few other delay-based
effects in a small desktop box with sliders that let you control
the effects parameters. This box is not thought highly of in
rec.audio.pro, and even at this low price some folks there think
it's only good as a doorstop. Still, some who have expressed
distaste for it are saying that for $99 it's worth having around,
especially if you roll off the highs in the wet signal. Some tips
on how best to use it are in threads on rec.audio.pro. I have not
used it and do not plan on getting one, but thought some of you
might like to know.
If any of you pick one up, let us all know what you think of it
before they all disappear!
Peace,
Tom Loredo
| Cheap reverb, cheap 8-) |
|---|
From: Tony Beltran <beltran@skypoint...>
Subject: Re: Cheap reverb, cheap 8-)
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1998 20:12:18 -0500
Organization: SkyPoint Communications, Inc.
I usually don't include entire posts in my followups,
but I could not have said it better...I second everything
positive said about the Wedge.
Tony
Joseph12 wrote in message
<<1998082000240400.UAA16554@ladder03...>>...
>
>i don't know why this box isn't liked much, it's actually a great bargain;
@
>$100 it's really a steal. I've had many digital reverbs over the years,
>nothing very expensive, but I've had:
>Alesis Microverb III - sold it years ago
>Lexicon LXP-1 - very good sounding but not very tweakable (yeah you can
with
>MIDI, but....) the Wedge is very good sounding too (got rid of the Lexicon
last
>year)
>ART Effects Network - pretty good sounding, good user interface, the Wedge
has
>a good interface too.
>I think the reverbs in the Wedge are the best of the bunch of digital boxes
>I've used. The delays in this box alone are worth the $100, I think; come
to
>think of it so is the Leslie effect; for guitar, though, the chorus &
reverb
>are probably more appropriate. And all parameters are editable, you can
dig in
>deep if you want, if you don't, there are about 200 setups out of the box
with
>room to store those that you edit too.
>There you have it, don't give this box a bad name because Alesis decided it
>wasn't selling in sufficient numbers.
>It wasn't the sound of the effects that caused the sluggish sales, it was
the
>design, people want rack effects in studio gear, this is a tabletop box.
>Check it out, I bought two of them; for $200 there's not a better deal,
really.
>
>
| Acoustic Pedals [2] |
|---|
From: SteveY <sayetter@pacbell...>
Subject: Re: Acoustic Pedals
Date: Fri, 18 Sep 1998 18:06:52 -0700
Organization: Pacific Bell Internet Services
Mike Ingram wrote:
>
> I'd like to use my Tele but have the option of a more acoustic sound.
> Anyone have
> experience with the acoustic simulator pedals (e.g. Boss)?
I had a ZOOM 504 Acoustic pedal for a while. Worked good with a Tele. They are
actually tone shaper/chorus type pedals, but are fun in stereo. I liked mine
better'n any piezo I ever heard. Never heard a Boss.
-SteveY
From: Michael Blanton <mbblanton@mad...>
Subject: Re: Acoustic Pedals
Date: Sat, 19 Sep 1998 01:27:56 -0400
Organization: EarthLink Network, Inc.
Mike-
Ditto on what Yetto said, except I have a Strat and it works very well
thru a Fender Princeton Chorus, I can get some fantastic acoustic
effects. The 504 is fairly inexpensive ($89-$119) and is very much worth
the $. test drive one at your local store if you can and then find
something to compare it to. Good luck.
MBB
Mike Ingram wrote:
> I'd like to use my Tele but have the option of a more acoustic sound.
> Anyone have
> experience with the acoustic simulator pedals (e.g. Boss)?
| Multi effects for acoustic |
|---|
From: Lee Priest <lwpriest@mindspring...>
Subject: Re: Multi effects for acoustic
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1998 16:31:23 -0600
Organization: MindSpring Enterprises
Howdy. I use a DOD Acoustic 1 Guitar Preamp and FX processor ($239 from
Musician's Friend) attached between my Alvarez Yairi WY-1 and Crate CA60D.
The pedal actually has 4 pedals on it, one for bank changes and 3 for
changes within that bank. Neatest thing is, that there are 33 different
combinations from the factory, plus 33 self programmable combinations to
give the biggest range of fun sounds I've found so far. Also has a tuner
built into it. Needless to say, I like it. Another thing I do with it is
to plus my guitar into it, run a cord from the headphone out plug, into my
computer sound card mic in and go direct into my computer for Cakewalk
recording with the pedal effects. Anyway, I'm real happy with it so far for
$239.
-----Original Message-----
From: peatea <<email@snugcove...>>
Newsgroups: rec.music.makers.guitar.acoustic
Date: Friday, October 02, 1998 9:20 AM
Subject: Re: Multi effects for acoustic
>In article <<36132aba.1518456@news...>>, <g.masino@mbox...>
>(Giovanni Masino) wrote:
>
>> Hi fellow guitar lovers,
>> I'd like to buy a multi-effect well suited for acoustic guitar, within
>> the 300$ range. Any advice?
>> Thanks
>> Jo
>> Giovanni Masino
>
>Most effects devices provide distortion or overdrive which do not enhance
>the sound of an acoustic guitar. I suggest that you try a good Chorus
>pedal and a good EQ (graphic equaliser). These things sound great on an
>acoustic.
| Multi-Fx for an Acoustic [6] |
|---|
From: David Futrell <DFutrell@Lilly...>
Subject: Re: Multi-Fx for an Acoustic
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1998 10:26:00 -0500
Organization: Eli Lilly and Company
> Does anybody have any experience of Zoom 504
I have one of these, and I like it very much. About half of the effects are
really nice, a few are flat awful. It's easy to use and has a pretty good
built-in tuner. It's definitely worth the money.
David Futrell
Indianapolis
From: Adrian Legg <Commercial-free@speech...>
Subject: Re: Multi-Fx for an Acoustic
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1998 15:56:52 +0000
Organization: *
<<markb@sni-epc...>> wrote:
> My Vagabond has a Martin Thinline Gold active pickup - I think its a Fishman
> in disguise. Loads of output, but could take some EQ and compression. I'd
> also like to play with a bit of reverb, delay, chorus ...
>
> I'd rather have one small box that does the lot than have a rack full or a
> sprawl of stomp boxes.
++snip++
Yup. Me too. But I think there is often a problem with multi-fx units
and acoustic, and it relates to the buffering between stages, which
seems frequently to be quite limited bandwidth. That might not show up
on electric so much, but with any kind of full frequency signal from an
acoustic becomes very noticeable. I'd love to cut down on short cables
and dry joints, but I haven't come across anything that didn't cut big
chunks off the original sound, and that includes some quite high end
stuff.
Besides, if one section of an fx chain goes down, with stomp boxes it's
not a complete disaster.
--
The address is spurious - spam clogs the mailbox when I'm away.Contact info: http://www.roe.ac.uk/mjpwww/legghead.htm
From: Leebert <lwpriest@mindspring...>
Subject: Re: Multi-Fx for an Acoustic
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1998 09:19:06 -0700
Organization: MindSpring Enterprises
I have a DOD Acoustic 1 and I'm real happy with it. It gives you lots of
factory presets (30) plus user programmed fx (30) so you can get a lot out
of it. There are also lots of ticks between each setting giving you a wide
range of choices for the application of the effect (little to a overkill).
I use the headphone jack out the back alot which masks the natural guitar
sound (as in recording straight into a source without a mic), so I can hear
exactly what the recorder is going to hear (for practicing without the
recorder). I have had no problems with it and often use it between my
computer sound card and my guitar to go straight in to the mic input on the
sound card for Cakewalk recording.
I tried the other fx pedals you mentioned, but found the DOD to be more
flexible. The electric ones were fun, but they didn't seem to be able to
give me the tone that I wanted when played through an amp. I'd rather just
get an electric guitar if I want to sound like that. Good luck and enjoy
the hunt.
<markb@sni-epc...> wrote in message <72hh4s$67f$<1@nnrp1...>>...
>My Vagabond has a Martin Thinline Gold active pickup - I think its a
Fishman
>in disguise. Loads of output, but could take some EQ and compression. I'd
>also like to play with a bit of reverb, delay, chorus ...
>
>I'd rather have one small box that does the lot than have a rack full or a
>sprawl of stomp boxes.
>
>Does anybody have any experience of Zoom 504, DOD AcousTec and Ibanez PT-?
>multi-Fx units that they'd like to share.
>
>How about the non-acoustic things like Korgs Pandoras (I and II) or AX1G?
Can
>they be persuaded to sound good with acoustics?
>
>--
>Mark Bluemel - UK-based Unix/Oracle Consultant
>Guitar/Bass/Calling www.meltingpot.demon.co.uk/skim
>
>-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
>http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
From: <dave@lone-wolf...>
Subject: Re: Multi-Fx for an Acoustic
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1998 16:52:04 GMT
Organization: Deja News - The Leader in Internet Discussion
In article <72hh4s$67f$<1@nnrp1...>>,
markb@sni-epc.co.uk wrote:> My Vagabond has a Martin Thinline Gold active pickup - I think its a Fishman
> in disguise. Loads of output, but could take some EQ and compression. I'd
> also like to play with a bit of reverb, delay, chorus ...
>
> I'd rather have one small box that does the lot than have a rack full or a
> sprawl of stomp boxes.
>
> Does anybody have any experience of Zoom 504, DOD AcousTec and Ibanez PT-?
> multi-Fx units that they'd like to share.
>
> How about the non-acoustic things like Korgs Pandoras (I and II) or AX1G? Can
> they be persuaded to sound good with acoustics?
>
Mark, Been down this road once or twice. First, it was an array of Boss
stompboxes (chorus, eq, phase shifter, verb/delay), but ultimately their
noise floor is just too high (esp for recording). I still use 'em for my
electric, but not for acoustic. My Fender Acoustasonic Jr. amp has a good
chorus and a passable reverb, but you are limited in variety. The good thing
about the amp is it's FX loop so I searched for a few small, compact items,
that not only would add to the guitar's sound, but other instruments (esp.
voice) as well -- mind you, this is for home recording primarily.
What I use now is an Alessis Nanoverb (about $160 list, paid $100) in the FX
loop to speakers or line out to mixing console. The Nanoverb is 18-bit
digital, 16 presets including 9 reverb rooms/halls/plates, non-linear reverb,
rotary, chorus, delay, flange, and some combinations of chorus & delay. You
select the strength of the in/out/mix of signal and
depth/frequency/intensity/length of the effect. 1/3 rack space, turn knobs
on front. 1/4" stereo or mono in and out. No programming degree required,
but also, you can't preset your settings for instant recall as on, say, a
Zoom 504, so it may be limited for quick-change stage needs. It does,
however, quadruple duty with electric guitar, electric keyboard, Linn drum
and vocals as needed. Provided your input signal is quiet to begin with, it
adds no audible noise to your signal.
Something to give a try while you're checking out the variety of units out
there.
--db--
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
From: Nick Naffin <takenote@interlog...>
Subject: Re: Multi-Fx for an Acoustic
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1998 13:37:10 -0500
Organization: Take Note! Promotion
<dave@lone-wolf...> wrote:
>
I've used a Nanoverb too (for a recording, mind you), and I thought ithad a lot of bang for the buck. As to the original question, one other
problem I see with multi-fx is that I've always found at least one weak
link in the chain, i.e. maybe the compressor is not bad, but the chorus
sucks, or something along those lines. On stage I currently use a Boss
AD5 (which could actually pass as a multi, considering it has a
reasonably good EQ section, reverb, 'acoustic' and 'mic' simulators, and
chorus), an RV3 reverb/delay stomp box, and, sometimes, the PS3 pitch
shifter/delay pedal (I don't like chorus on acoustic-electric, so on
very rare occasions I use the pitch shifter; and sometimes the delay,
depending on the room). If it's a come-as-you-are gig (folk festivals
etc.), I just use the RV3; but then, my workhorse Ovation sounds pretty
cool to begin with.
If you want small and portable, why don't you check out those littleZoom tricorders you clip on your belt? I seem to remember The High
Strung One touring with one of those, remarking he's too cheap to pay a
roadie and too lazy to carry stuff around.
NN--
**************************************************************
NICK NAFFIN
acoustic guitarist
toronto, canada
http://www.interlog.com/~takenote/nicknaffin.htm
cd: 'music from the sacred grounds/northern breeze
contact: <takenote@interlog...>
*************************************************************
From: Adrian Legg <Commercial-free@speech...>
Subject: Re: Multi-Fx for an Acoustic
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1998 23:00:27 +0000
Organization: *
Nick Naffin <<takenote@interlog...>> wrote:
> an RV3 reverb/delay stomp box,
I did the RV3 for a bit after a Zoom period. I had high hopes for the
combination of echo and reverb, and was prepared to put up with the
discolouration in the reverb, and the slightly too short echo for the
logistical ease of it. But the first lot of sockets fell to bits in a
month, and the second followed shortly after and it was way too hard to
get back-up on the road. When the second one broke I came across a
second-hand Peavey reverb pedal (now discontinued - shame) somewhere
along the road and bought it. It has a nice out of phase stereo and some
long trails - and really good chassis mount sockets. I dug out an
ancient DD2 which I'm still using with it, and I just had those sockets
replaced after heaven knows how many years (Leroy Aiello in Mando
Bandits - a helpful chap and nifty with an iron).
The Zooms were good for flying ( I was doing quite a lot at the time),
but I had to really whack up the top and bottom end because so much got
lost on the way through, so in the end the compact idea was defeated by
having to use extra eq's, and sometimes a resensitised BB Stinger. The
last one was a 9000; there was one before I think I must have given away
- can't remember the number, it was black, had sliders on the front, and
belt loops that broke off. I think the reverb was pretty rough; better
on the 9000 but still too short. I found the slightly too short echo
times started pushing my tempos up too fast.How either of these compare
wuth current stuff I haven't a clue, but it's still budget gear isn't
it ?
I think the s/n ratio was probably good because the Ovation pick-up
gives such a huge belt. I had a lot of trouble with noise in the Zooms
when I had to do something with magnetic pick-ups (Duncan Alnico 2s).
>and, sometimes, the PS3 pitch
> shifter/delay pedal
Mine is a PS2 - all the socket problems I had (rapid plastic fatigue on
a copy of a copy of a Switchcraft) happened with the shift to Taiwanese
manufacture. I really liked it, but couldn't get the tuning consistently
right for a doubling sound. I used to use the octave drop, but found it
needed a lot of compression before it to give a consistent sound
(slightly out of tune rather than intermittent farts). When it worked it
sounded a bit like a Welsh choir humming along in the background.
The best use I had of it was in an o.t.t. period when I used three
separate pick-ups, two separate fx chain stereo signals on volume pedals
and a mono bug in the middle to retain harmonic detail, all into a small
mixer. I think the Zoom period was a reaction to the final crisis when I
couldn't remember how to wire it all up....the PS2 is now in the junk
box.
I'm using a Boss bass graphic (with Switchcraft open frame sockets - the
originals lasted a month) and a CS3 - I picked up a couple of s/h
Japanese ones during a clinic tour when I got to sniff through the s/h
bins around the country.
I still swear by the old tc Dual Parametric, but don't need to use it
with the current guitar. Fishperson make a good current alternative.
The CS3 is quite interesting - it seems to buffer ok straight off the
pick-up when it's off, but doesn't take off too much high end.
I found quite severe buffering losses occurred on some quite surprising
gear - an Ensoniq, for example. I think a lot of those things probably
work fine as mixer outboards when only a small percentage of the signal
is going through them.I took a look at some Lexicons too, but they
didn't look like they'd hold up for long on the road. That crap socket
period affected a lot of gear...
So I think I'm for the sprawl of stomp-boxes, but I'm not sure how much
noise a compressor is going to bring up from a thin-line buffer-amp - I
found it a problem with any pre-amp.
Sorry this is so long - look on the bright side, I'll be away working
again soon.
:-)
The address is spurious - spam clogs the mailbox when I'm away.Contact info: http://www.roe.ac.uk/mjpwww/legghead.htm
| Effects Units for Acoustic [3] |
|---|
From: Ashley <nospamkate.d@virgin...>
Subject: Re: Effects Units for Acoustic
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1998 08:37:07 GMT
Organization: Nihil Records
The Korg G2 acoustic guitar processor is a great little unit with
everything you could want. I've used them with a marshall acoustic
soloist, a Gallien Kruger 250ML combo and fender twin reverbs and they
sound excellent. They're relatively inexpensive (2nd hand) and i would
suggest a 2nd hand one as opposed to a new one.
keep thrakin'
ashley
On Tue, 15 Dec 1998 01:51:40 -0500, Richard Gumm
<<103432.3511@CompuServe...>> wrote:
>I am solo fingerstyle guitarist and am very interested if someone
>has a recommendation here. I looking to purchase an effects
>unit. The features I wanted are really minimal, but its fidelity
>that I am more interested in. A little Chorus and maybe some EQ
>enhancement activatied by a foot pedal. Any body have any
>experience here??
for loads of kottke concert video's/audio tapes
http://freespace.virgin.net/kate.d
From: <chrisc@blueridge...>
Subject: Re: Effects Units for Acoustic
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1998 12:08:10 GMT
Organization: Deja News - The Leader in Internet Discussion
In article <#KwDfd$J#<GA.315@nih2naaa...>>,
Richard Gumm <103432.3511@CompuServe.COM> wrote:> I am solo fingerstyle guitarist and am very interested if someone
> has a recommendation here. I looking to purchase an effects
> unit. The features I wanted are really minimal, but its fidelity
> that I am more interested in. A little Chorus and maybe some EQ
> enhancement activatied by a foot pedal. Any body have any
> experience here??
>
I use the Boss AD5 and unequivically recommend it. Roland also has a new Boss
AD3 model out which is cheaper. It provides reverb, chorus, feedback squelch,
EQ and a "mic" simulator.
Chris
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
From: Ben Han <benhan@nospam...>
Subject: Re: Effects Units for Acoustic
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1998 15:11:53 GMT
Organization: Monmouth Internet
Hi Richard,
I've tried several acoustic guitar effects units, including the Korg
G2, ART Acoustic, DOD Acoustic One and Zoom 504. The unit I would
recommend is to you the ART Acoustic. It is very reasonably priced
(you should be able to find it under $200). It is housed in a sturdy
metal case, not plastic. It has clean sounding minimal effects and a
DI output. You can find out a little more about this product at:
http://www.artroch.com/126/126desc.htm
Good luck.
Ben Han
<benhan@nospam...>
On Tue, 15 Dec 1998 01:51:40 -0500, Richard Gumm
<<103432.3511@CompuServe...>> wrote:
>I am solo fingerstyle guitarist and am very interested if someone
>has a recommendation here. I looking to purchase an effects
>unit. The features I wanted are really minimal, but its fidelity
>that I am more interested in. A little Chorus and maybe some EQ
>enhancement activatied by a foot pedal. Any body have any
>experience here??
| Effects pedals and gadgets |
|---|
From: Josh Henderson <joshh@ciaccess...>
Subject: Re: Effects pedals and gadgets
Date: Sun, 20 Dec 1998 18:07:30 GMT
Organization: Shaw FiberLink Ltd. Toronto
Tony,
I'm also in the market for acoustic effects/preamps/pickups and here's what
I've found.
NO effects box will make your guitar sound "more acoustic" (those who use
bridge saddle pickups know what I mean). Either use a mic or buy an acoustic
amplifier.
Korg used to made a G3 effects processor for acoustic guitar. I'm not
certain whether they still make these or not.
DOD makes Two effects processors for acoustic. The cheaper one is called
Acoustec and has chorus and its derivatives, a noise filter, limited EQ,
reverb, and some harmonizers. I'm not sure what the expensive version has on
it.
Hope this helps you out. Let me know if you find something that you think
would be worth buying.
Josh
| Zoom 504 Acoustic?????? [6] |
|---|
From: Graham Campbell <gocampbell@worldnet...>
Subject: Zoom 504 Acoustic??????
Date: 10 Jan 1999 04:10:26 GMT
Organization: AT&T WorldNet Services
Anybody out there have any input on this effects box for the acoustic
guitar? I bought one to give give some variation in sound on my Yamaha
elec/acous. Of the 24 (I think) effects that are in it from the factory,
there are only about a half dozen that sound right on my guitar. At least 8
or 10 of the effects sound like the strings are bouncing off the neck or
something. Maybe I am doing something wrong here, but I get the feeling
that I pissed away a hundred bucks for very little. Any opinions/feedback
would be appreciated.
GC
From: Ed <akagi@bigfoot...>
Subject: Re: Zoom 504 Acoustic??????
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1999 16:38:16 +0800
Organization: Singapore Telecommunications Ltd
Graham Campbell wrote:
> Anybody out there have any input on this effects box for the acoustic
> guitar? I bought one to give give some variation in sound on my Yamaha
> elec/acous. Of the 24 (I think) effects that are in it from the factory,
> there are only about a half dozen that sound right on my guitar. At least 8
> or 10 of the effects sound like the strings are bouncing off the neck or
> something. Maybe I am doing something wrong here, but I get the feeling
> that I pissed away a hundred bucks for very little. Any opinions/feedback
> would be appreciated.
>
> GC
ed> I've got a 504 and it suits my purposes for amusement. It mostly depends on
what you want to use it for? I know it works very well with electric guitars.. I
think you must ignore the factory settings and experiment with the box to get
what you want.. for me I use mostly the de-amp settings because I run my
acoustic off an electric amp and that works pretty well. The 12-string setings
are also pretty good though my favourite is the dual guitars setting.The
question still remains..what do u want that little box to do?
From: <rjand@ix...>
Subject: Re: Zoom 504 Acoustic??????
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1999 13:36:35 GMT
Organization: ICGNetcom
On Sun, 10 Jan 1999 16:38:16 +0800, Ed <<akagi@bigfoot...>> wrote:
>
>
>Graham Campbell wrote:
>
>> Anybody out there have any input on this effects box for the acoustic
>> guitar? I bought one to give give some variation in sound on my Yamaha
>> elec/acous. Of the 24 (I think) effects that are in it from the factory,
>> there are only about a half dozen that sound right on my guitar. At least 8
>> or 10 of the effects sound like the strings are bouncing off the neck or
>> something. Maybe I am doing something wrong here, but I get the feeling
>> that I pissed away a hundred bucks for very little. Any opinions/feedback
>> would be appreciated.
>>
>> GC
>
Graham,
I use a Lexicon dual channel processor. It is very flexible and has
tons of effects (chorus, reverb of many, many types, flange, delay,
pitch bend, echo, etc., etc.) Has many presets but is programmable to
exactly what you want.
It will deliver stereo sound and you can dial the mix of processed and
source sound at any level you want.
I use just a very light "dusting" of some chorus and delay or pitch
plus reverb to give just a very slight sparkle of sound on top of a
Taylor guitar with built in Fishman electronics.
I think it sounds good and everyone who hears it seems impressed ... I
believe it retails for around $200 (or even less, not sure).
rob
>ed> I've got a 504 and it suits my purposes for amusement. It mostly depends on
>what you want to use it for? I know it works very well with electric guitars.. I
>think you must ignore the factory settings and experiment with the box to get
>what you want.. for me I use mostly the de-amp settings because I run my
>acoustic off an electric amp and that works pretty well. The 12-string setings
>are also pretty good though my favourite is the dual guitars setting.The
>question still remains..what do u want that little box to do?
>
>
From: Cathy Horner <jhorner@crosslink...>
Subject: Re: Zoom 504 Acoustic??????
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1999 09:07:25 -0500
I bought one to for the same reason, amusement, and for the tuner. I don't
much care for the factory settings, they sound too saturated and processed.
So I plan to tweek them a little. Since I play solo and with one guitar
usually, I'm hoping I can find taste-ful effects to use once in awhile so I
can sound different during long gigs, keeping the performance interesting.
Cathy
http://www.crosslink.net/~jhorner/
Ed wrote in message <<369866F8.7F7A39E1@bigfoot...>>...
>ed> I've got a 504 and it suits my purposes for amusement. It mostly
depends on
>what you want to use it for? I know it works very well with electric
guitars.. I
>think you must ignore the factory settings and experiment with the box to
get
>what you want.. for me I use mostly the de-amp settings because I run my
>acoustic off an electric amp and that works pretty well. The 12-string
setings
>are also pretty good though my favourite is the dual guitars setting.The
>question still remains..what do u want that little box to do?
From: SteveYetter <flyeagle@earthlink...>
Subject: Re: Zoom 504 Acoustic??????
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1999 05:32:35 -0800
Organization: EarthLink Network, Inc.
Actually, I think it's a pretty cool unit. The factory does max out the presets
to give you an idea of what it's capable of, but it is fully programmable for
your own taste in nuances.
Using it with a Telecaster, which adds quite a bit of sustain, helpful onthose chorus settings, I achieved the best ever amplified acoustic sound, at
concert volume rock & roll.
An electric guitar will overload the front end a little though. With amagnetic pick upped flat-top it was fine. Not perfect, mind you, but pretty
good.
I eventually realized I wanted more sustain than acoustic guitars are"sposed" to have, onstage, so now am comfortable with either an archtop
electric, or a Telecaster, depending on material, sans ZOOM pedal.
-SY
Graham Campbell wrote:
> Anybody out there have any input on this effects box for the acoustic
> guitar? I bought one to give give some variation in sound on my Yamaha
> elec/acous. Of the 24 (I think) effects that are in it from the factory,
> there are only about a half dozen that sound right on my guitar. At least 8
> or 10 of the effects sound like the strings are bouncing off the neck or
> something. Maybe I am doing something wrong here, but I get the feeling
> that I pissed away a hundred bucks for very little. Any opinions/feedback
> would be appreciated.
>
> GC
From: John/Valerie Griffin <jvgriffin@mail...>
Subject: Re: Zoom 504 Acoustic??????
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1999 17:11:07 -0500
Organization: Still Point
In article <77997i$<8mb@bgtnsc03...>>, "Graham Campbell"
<<gocampbell@worldnet...>> wrote:
>Anybody out there have any input on this effects box for the acoustic
>guitar? I bought one to give give some variation in sound on my Yamaha
>elec/acous. Of the 24 (I think) effects that are in it from the factory,
>there are only about a half dozen that sound right on my guitar. At least 8
>or 10 of the effects sound like the strings are bouncing off the neck or
>something. Maybe I am doing something wrong here, but I get the feeling
>that I pissed away a hundred bucks for very little. Any opinions/feedback
>would be appreciated.
>
>GC
I have used one for a considerable time now. I use it two ways: with my
Peavey 112 Ecousic in the effect loop, and with my Tascam multi-track
recorder; also in the effect (1) loop.
With the Peavey, there is no way of adjusting the level of effect you
want, so I move between three or four patches according to the music I
play,
With the Tascam, there are ways of adjusting the level of effect you want
in any given track, so I leave it on A2 (which seems to be a super-chorus
setting) and adjust the level on the Tascam track settings.
One caution: All Zoom Effects Pedals tend to have a fairly high level of
hiss. This is not critical for stage performance, but for recording it can
be annoying. With the Tascam, I rarely use the full-bore effect setting -
I crank it back quite a bit, so the hiss really doesn't become a problem
when I record.
Griff
| Zoom 505 [2] |
|---|
From: Mick <mickh@mule...>
Subject: Re: Zoom 505
Date: 19 Mar 1999 11:43:16 GMT
Organization: Wantree Development
jolnick <<olnick@bigfoot...>> wrote:
> Walt,
> Zoom stuff, especially the 505, tends to be very noisy. Lots of hiss
> under some circumstances. Also, some of the 505 effects aren't bad to
> mess around with, but they get annoying after a while. The 12-bit A/D
> conversion/processing makes for a rather 'digital' or synthetic sound.
> With the guitar amp simulator & multiple distortions (most of them
> rather harsh at that), the 505 was probably designed more for electric
> guitars.
> It's a cheap unit, though. Fun to mess with some effects if you
> haven't before. But definitely not pro quality. I wouldn't record
> anything to be released to the public with it.
> But if you just want some reverb/chorus (which might be all you need
> for acoustic work), you might want to check out the Lexicon MPX100, or
> the Alesis Nanoverb. Especially the Lexicon. Much better stuff for
> not much more money. Neither one can do the bizarre things that the
> 505 can, but it seems to me that you're more likely to keep using them
> down the road.
> Boss also makes some nice acoustic guitar processors, although they
> are a little more expensive.
> Joe
I agree totally, i have found them to be a little noisy for my liking
MH
--
--------------------
Michael Hanna
<support@wantree...>
Wantree Support
From: Ed <akagi@bigfoot...>
Subject: Re: Zoom 505
Date: Thu, 18 Mar 1999 19:21:37 +0800
Organization: Singapore Telecommunications Ltd
ed> I have a Zoom 504. Its the so called 'acoustic model' of the 505. It has
de-amping and feedback supression features that allow your Electric Amp to
duplicate the sound of an acoustic better. In reality, it works OK..but not
that great. What's good is that it provides decent Reverb and Chorus..among
other settings (like Room size settings) for a little $100 box. :) Overall
I'd say I'm happy with mine.. its fun to play with if that counts for
anything :)
Walt Puryear wrote:
> Anybody have any experience/comments re: effects boxes like ZOOM 505 for
> acoustic guitars? How is this unit for tuning? Are the effects a waste
> of time? All feedback appreciated
| Compression suggestions [2] |
|---|
From: Tom Loredo <loredo@spacenet...>
Subject: Re: Compression suggestions
Date: Tue, 13 Apr 1999 14:42:31 -0400
Organization: Cornell University
Howdy-
An outstanding 1/3-rack-space compressor that has received the
most laudatory reviews from press and users of any piece of
electronic gear I've ever seen is the $200 RNC compressor
hand-built by Mark and Beth McQuilken (great folks!). Do a
DejaNews search on rec.audio.pro to get user reactions.
You can order it direct from them:
http://www.ITRstudio.com/marktest.jpg Mark at the bench
http://www.ITRstudio.com/bethlaff.jpg Beth at the bench
(these were just posted on rec.audio.pro and I couldn't
resist reposting them; there's a current thread there on
the role the beer bottles play in the RNC's success!)
I have one and like it a lot, though I use it mostly on vocals.
It's a stereo compressor, but both channels are permanently
tied together so you cannot use it as a dual mono comp.
Peace,
Tom Loredo
Subject:
Compression suggestions Date: 12 Apr 1999 18:06:50 -0800 From: jkiparsk@reed.edu (DownBelowJack) Organization: Reed College Newsgroups: rec.music.makers.guitar.acoustic
Anybody have any suggestions regarding a good cheap compression unit
(preferably under $200, but flexible if necessary). The situation is this:
Flatiron bouzouki (yes, I know this is the guitar group, but there's not
much bouzouki players out there) with a Fishman pickup into a Baggs
Para Acoustic into the board. The thing sounds great when I'm playing
melody lines, which is the bulk of the set, but I do about four songs a
night and a couple of sets of tunes where I strum chords, and the
thing just shouts. It's not a problem in an acoustic setting, but when I
plug it in the difference in volume is rather extreme- to the point where
I drown out the rest of the band and my voice. Changing the levels isn't
an option, because several of the songs segue into sets of tunes, and I
I suppose I could use a volume pedal, but it's tricky enough to get the
levels right from the stage, I wouldn't want to have something else to
think about in that mix.
So I'm thinking compression (unless there's a better solution)- any
suggestions?
-jon
From: <dave@lone-wolf...>
Subject: Re: Compression suggestions
Date: Tue, 13 Apr 1999 18:48:19 GMT
Organization: Deja News - The Leader in Internet Discussion
Jon, As Mick said in his post, try a compressor out before you buy one. It
may not be the answer. If it IS, the ART tube comp and the Alessis NanoComp
come in at around $100 +/- $20 bucks or so, and they're "OK" in my book.
What's even more preferred (EVERYONE WHO HAS EVER USED ONE LOVES IT) is the
RNC, "Really Nice Compressor", available from FMRAudio
(http://www.fmraudio.com), and it's $199. Mark McQuilken
(mailto:<mark@fmraudio...>) may even be able to help diagnose your dilemma.
A stab in another direction which may or may not be the answer, and is a tad
over your budget would be a combo acoustic amp, specifically, the Fender
Acoustasonic, Jr. ($350-$400). It's "String Dynamic" function cures the
condition you appear to describe. The "presence" (as defined in our FAQ) of
each individual string can get lost in the mush of all the strings played
together. This dial seems to 'compress' each string's tone such that they
don't compete with each other, reducing the incoherent 'jangle' to a
well-balanced multi-tone signal. The compressors mentioned above could
compress the entire sound and not have the surgical precision the
Acoustasonic Jr. might give.
The amp idea also changes your live rig setup, which is another factor to deal
with, however, the Fender does have lineout capabilities. Hope this helps and
gives you some avenues to explore.
Best,
Dave
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
| ACOUSTIC GUITAR PROCESSORS Opinions? [2] |
|---|
From: North Glasgow Colleg <library@ngcb...>
Subject: Re: ACOUSTIC GUITAR PROCESSORS Opinions?
Date: Tue, 22 Jun 1999 08:03:43 GMT
Organization: (Posted via) U-NET Internet Ltd.
I've just swapped my DOD Acoustic 1 for a Boss AD3 and I'm most
impressed. I did consider the AD5, but AD3 is much simpler to use on
stage and has the benefit of built-in chorus, which is the only effect
I really need. I'd certainly recommend it.
All the best,
Chris Rogers;
Kagan.
Ken Cree wrote:
>Any feedback on acoustic processors?
>Im using the Zoom stomp box which sounds fairly good but what about
>the others...like Boss.
From: Adrian Legg <Commercial-free@speech...>
Subject: Re: ACOUSTIC GUITAR PROCESSORS Opinions?
Date: Tue, 22 Jun 1999 08:52:04 +0000
Organization: *
<Ken> wrote:
> Any feedback on acoustic processors?
Just one overall caveat with multi-fx - they tend to reduce bandwidth,
cutting some of the tonal breath out of a guitar. I think this shows
particularly with piezo pick-ups. I'd suggest an a/b box and a full
range p.a. to check for it.
--
The address is spurious - spam clogs the mailbox when I'm away.Contact info: http://www.roe.ac.uk/mjpwww/legghead.htm
Occasional tab. & pics. www.legg.u-net.com
New web-site on the way www.adrianlegg.com
| Lexicon, Digitech, or Intellifex? [2] |
|---|
From: Michael <m.wong@bigfoot...>
Subject: Re: Lexicon, Digitech, or Intellifex?
Date: Tue, 13 Jul 1999 19:40:34 -0400
Organization: Global Network Services - Remote Access Mail & News Services
Hi Mitch,
Out of the 3 you mentioned the Rocktron unit is
the most transparent 'verb unit. The Lexicon is rather
limited, kind of like an over-glorified NanoVerb.
You'll have more tweakability with the Rocktron
and quieter operation. I'm currently using an older
ART MultiVerb rack unit, that and if I'm lazy, I'll
use a Boss RV-3 in the efx loop of my Acoustaconic.
Sounds like a killer rig, Taylor 800 series and the SWR
California Blonde:)
-Michael-
MKarlo wrote:
>
> Good day group. I have an opportunity to pick up one of these three effects
> processors for about the same price: a Lexicon MPX100, a Digitech Studio 200,
> or a Rocktron Intellifex (used of course). I'm playing a Taylor 8 series
> through a SWR Cali Blonde and want something to go into the FX loop that will
> give me nice, clean, and simultaneous chorus/delay/reverb. Any thoughts,
> opinions, or experiences with these would be greatly appreciated.
>
> Enjoy the Journey,
> Mitch
From: McCollum <mccollum@netshel...>
Subject: Re: Lexicon, Digitech, or Intellifex?
Date: Tue, 13 Jul 1999 18:05:31 -0700
Organization: Posted via RemarQ, http://www.remarQ.com - The Internet's Discussion Network
Mitch,
I just purchased a Lexicon MPX 100 and I know the guy that designed it and
for a basic reverb unit, you're not going to get anything better without
spending over $2000. Lexicon is the sound that everybody else tries to copy
and this unit, for the price, is unbelieveable. I also use an Alesis Q2,
but mostly for chorusing and pitch-shifting. While the reverbs on the
Alesis are real good (through a reliable source), I know that they were
patterned after a Lexicon unit. They just don't have the natural feel that
the MPX 100 has. I've heard the Rocktron and, while a great unit and very
programmable, it is better suited to an electric guitar sound rather than an
acoustic guitar. And it's also quite a bit more expensive. The whole thing
about acoustic guitars is that you want the reverb to be just enough there
that it creates an atmosphere or a feeling that your in a special room, but
not enough to swim in it. Most people think that having all that
programmability is going to be a great thing. What they find is that it can
cut into their playing and recording time. They would much rather be
playing than messing with electronics.
I have the pleasure of building guitars for some heavy duty recording
musicians, such as Roger Hodgson (formerly of Supertramp), and Mark Mancina
(who just finished the Tarzan soundtrack with Phil Collins). I have hung
out in their studios, and they've come to my house and heard their guitars
demo'd through my rack. And every time we do this, everybody wants to know
the components of the rack because its exactly what they're looking for.
And especially without spending a ton of money. So I guess I would let
their appreciation of the Lexicon unit act as my recommendation --
especially at $250.
If you're interested in what my rack consists of, let me know.
Hope this helps,
Lance McCollum
McCollum Guitars
http://www.svlg.org/member/mccollum
MKarlo wrote in message <<19990712212013.10120.00000359@ng-ca1...>>...
>Good day group. I have an opportunity to pick up one of these three
effects
>processors for about the same price: a Lexicon MPX100, a Digitech Studio
200,
>or a Rocktron Intellifex (used of course). I'm playing a Taylor 8 series
>through a SWR Cali Blonde and want something to go into the FX loop that
will
>give me nice, clean, and simultaneous chorus/delay/reverb. Any thoughts,
>opinions, or experiences with these would be greatly appreciated.
>
>
>Enjoy the Journey,
>Mitch
| Acoustic effects [3] |
|---|
From: MKarlo <mkarlo@aol...>
Subject: Re: Acoustic effects
Date: 22 Aug 1999 03:16:13 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
I just acquired a Lexicon MPX100 processor and I'm enjoying it very much. It
does all the basics in true stereo and can do dual effects in mono. I almost
always leave it on the Chorus/Delay setting. I get 16 different versions of
the dual effect running into the FX loop on my amp and I set the effects level,
again on the amp, just enough to fatten up the sound. I have a great spring
reverb on the amp to add to it. Its a wonderful combo, for the less the price
of Boss chorus and delay pedals. Its a rack mount processor. Check out the
great reviews on this and many other effects for acoustic guitar at
Harmony-Central.com
Enjoy the Journey,
Mitch
From: Brian Rost <brost@synnet...>
Subject: Re: Acoustic effects
Date: Thu, 26 Aug 1999 09:19:18 -0400
Organization: 3Com Corp.
> Jonathan <<jonathan.watts1@virgin...>> wrote in article
> <7pmlk6$hm8$<2@nclient13-gui...>>...
> > I play an acoustic (Takamine), with an AER acoustic amp which has
> on-board
> > digital reverb and delay, The amp's effects are great but, I am
> interested
> > to know if there are any good F/X pedals / processors on 'the market' for
> > acoustics ?
Boss, DOD both offer multi-effect pedalboards for acoustic guitar. Some
links:
http://www.rolandus.com/PRODUCTS/MI/BS_CPPTD.HTM#AD-3
http://www.rolandus.com/PRODUCTS/MI/BS_SP.HTM#AD-5
http://www.dod.com/Products/Multi_Effects/Set_AcousTec.html
Of course, almost any regular electric guitar effects can be used as
well.
--
Brian Rost 3Com Corp. 508-323-2029 brost@3com-ne.com*********************************************************************Playing the bass is like dancing the limbo: how low can you go?*********************************************************************
From: Brian Rost <brost@synnet...>
Subject: Re: Acoustic effects
Date: Thu, 26 Aug 1999 14:59:17 -0400
Organization: 3Com Corp.
Charles Thomas wrote:
>
> Purpleman wrote:
> >
> > It kind of destroys the purpose doesn't it?
>
> Apparently you've never heard Tim Reynolds with Dave Matthews. ;-)
>
Acoustics with effects is hardly new. John Martyn was using fuzzboxes
(!!!) and tape loops back around 1971 on records like "Solid Air" and
"Inside Out" to pretty dramatic effect. Hell, I still have some home
recordings lying around that I did using a phase shifter and tape delay
back in 1980.
--
Brian Rost 3Com Corp. 508-323-2029 brost@3com-ne.com*********************************************************************Playing the bass is like dancing the limbo: how low can you go?*********************************************************************
| Chorus! [11] |
|---|
From: John Zyla <zylaNOSPAM@joymail...>
Subject: Chorus!
Date: 22 Aug 1999 18:13:02 -0500
Organization: Zyla Guitars
Hi fellow rmmga peoples,
I'm going to be buying a chorus effect, and want everybody who own's
one to please give me their opinions of that they own, pros and cons!
I've not decided whether I want a stomp box or a rack mount unit or
whatever, so everybody please comment!
Thanks so much,
John Zyla
From: McCollum <mccollum@netshel...>
Subject: Re: Chorus!
Date: Sun, 22 Aug 1999 17:01:30 -0700
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com
John, how much money you got ! That will be the major factor.I will list
them in order
TC electronics 2290 rack 3,000 $
lexicon pcm 90 rack 2,000
Alesis Q2 rack 700
Roland srv-330 rack 1,000
TC foot pedal 290 $
I own an Alesis and a Lexicon mpx 100 and am real happy . But if I did this
for
a liveing it would be the 2290 !!!Lance
John Zyla wrote in message <<37c08370.23430053@news...>>...
>
>Hi fellow rmmga peoples,
>
>I'm going to be buying a chorus effect, and want everybody who own's
>one to please give me their opinions of that they own, pros and cons!
>I've not decided whether I want a stomp box or a rack mount unit or
>whatever, so everybody please comment!
>
>Thanks so much,
>
>John Zyla
>
>
From: SEFSTRAT <sefstrat@aol...>
Subject: Re: Chorus!
Date: 23 Aug 1999 01:55:05 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
>I'm going to be buying a chorus effect, and want everybody who own's
>one to please give me their opinions of that they own, pros and cons!
>I've not decided whether I want a stomp box or a rack mount unit or
>whatever, so everybody please comment!
>
>Thanks so much,
>
>John Zyla
>
IMHO, nothing rachmounted touches the TC Electronics rackmount, but it's very
expensive and does a lot of things you don't need for acoustic.
The TC Chorus pedal is arguably "the" standard. It's extremely quiet, is the
most transparent chorus I've heard, and doesn;t mess with your guitar's basic
tone. If you like James Taylor's sound, you've heard it.
Steve
SEFSTRAT
webpage: http://members.aol.com/sefstrat/index.html/sefpage.html
From: <novac@pacbell...>
Subject: Re: Chorus!
Date: Sun, 22 Aug 1999 19:26:58 -0700
Organization: SBC Internet Services
>
> The TC Chorus pedal is arguably "the" standard. It's extremely quiet, is the
> most transparent chorus I've heard, and doesn;t mess with your guitar's basic
> tone. If you like James Taylor's sound, you've heard it.
agree that the tc is a great pedal with the cleanest sound you'll find-i
sold mine because i finally found it to be TOO clean, if that's
possible-i wanted a little bit of grunge thrown in there, and the tc has
NONE.-one reason it sounds the way it does, is that it has a very broad
frequency range, like a hi-fi-unlike other chorus pedals.
the boss ce-2 can work fine, i'm using a danelectro cool cat which is
ok.
if you want pristine, get the tc and be done with it.
From: MKarlo <mkarlo@aol...>
Subject: Re: Chorus!
Date: 23 Aug 1999 03:35:17 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
As I mentioned elsewhere, I really am enjoying the Lexicon MPX 100 I picked up
(thanks to Lance and many others who shared their expertise and experiences on
effects), and its chorus effects are truly nice. However, I have to admit if
all you want is chorus, then the TC unit is truly in a class by itself. The
pedal I mean, not the rack mount. Sure, the rack mount is The Grail of
chorusi, but for that kind of money, I mean, my gosh, I'd invest in something
truly wonderful. Like a '59 Framus. Or something.
Enjoy the Journey,
Mitch
From: BNmartin54 <bnmartin54@cs...>
Subject: Re: Chorus!
Date: 23 Aug 1999 01:57:21 GMT
Organization: CompuServe (http://www.compuserve.com/)
Chorus - how sweet it is. IMHO a dash of chorus along with a touch of reverb
helps to put some "flavor" into the overall sound mix. I suppose I'm no longer
a Puritan, or a Fundamentalist for that matter. But nevertheless, as is the
case with all ingredients, too much can ruin the taste.
As to brands - I've used both a Boss pedal and an Alesis nanoverb. TheBoss
pedal seems more than adequate for most general use i.e. a church or coffee
house setting. However, I'm partial to the Nanoverb. Used Nanoverbs aren't
too hard to come by and they have good spacial (left-right) stereo
differentiation if you're going into two amps or two channels. In addition,
there's a bunch of other stuff on a Nanoverb that isn't on a generic chorus
pedal.
That's my $0.02 worth. Take it for what its worth.
Regards,
Bob
>I'm going to be buying a chorus effect, and want everybody who own's>one to please give me their opinions of that they own, pros and cons!
From: Adam Robertson <rastus@mindspring...>
Subject: Re: Chorus!
Date: Mon, 23 Aug 1999 15:25:47 GMT
Hey John,
Like I said in another recent thread, I really like my AlesisQuadraverb Plus. (If you get just the plain Quad, you can upgrade it
to the Plus with a new IC. Email me if you want me to send you one of
my spares.) It's a good clean rackmounted unit with lots of different
stereo effects. You can pick up a used one for about $200. Good
luck.
Have a good'n,
Adam
From: Tom Loredo <loredo@spacenet...>
Subject: Re: Chorus!
Date: Mon, 23 Aug 1999 14:38:38 -0400
Organization: Cornell University
John-
I have an Alesis Q2 that I sometimes use for chorus. I'm not thrilled
with it, though. Actually, I should qualify that---I'm not thrilled
with the factory programs. I've done some tweaking of the programs,
but haven't spent a lot of time with this particular issue, so it
could be that it's possible to get a good chorus sound out of it.
But for my tastes it's too thin sounding. By thw way, although the
new price may be near the $700 Lance quoted (very handy list, by
the way---thanks, Lance!), these are readily available used right
now for about $400 (even seen them $350 or so). There are some
pretty good reverbs in this box, and it is easy to program---very
usable display.
As for pedals, Phil Keaggy has been using a Boss Super Chorus
lately with his Olson (which uses a Baggs Duet with LB6 pickup
and internal mic), and it sounds good.
Peace,
Tom Loredo
From: Bernie Murtaugh <bernie_m@my-deja...>
Subject: Re: Chorus!
Date: Mon, 23 Aug 1999 22:25:20 GMT
Organization: Deja.com - Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
John,
I use a Boss Chorus Ensemble (CE5, I think) stomp box. It has outputs
for direct and modified signal. It also has hi and lo cut filters
which seem to let me get the tone just right.
I play in a church environment and use the pedal to add a little
richness and shimmer to a dry piezo setup. I've been really satisfied
with it, but am not familiar with some of the other equipment
mentioned. I paid about $150 at GC.
Bernie Murtaugh
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
From: <mikecloud@my-deja...>
Subject: Re: Chorus!
Date: Mon, 23 Aug 1999 22:55:24 GMT
Organization: Deja.com - Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
In article <<37c08370.23430053@news...>>,
zylaNOSPAM@joymail.com (John Zyla) wrote:>
> Hi fellow rmmga peoples,
>
> I'm going to be buying a chorus effect, and want everybody who own's
> one to please give me their opinions of that they own, pros and cons!
> I've not decided whether I want a stomp box or a rack mount unit or
> whatever, so everybody please comment!
>
> Thanks so much,
>
> John Zyla
>
>
John:
Add my name to the list of those who really like the TC Electronics SCF
pedal. I've tried most other chorus pedals including the Carl Martin
Chorus xII, and IMHO nothing comes close to the TC unit.
Mike
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
From: Dave Brichler <dave@lone-wolf...>
Subject: Re: Chorus!
Date: Mon, 30 Aug 1999 15:27:52 GMT
Organization: Deja.com - Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
In article <<37c08370.23430053@news...>>,
zylaNOSPAM@joymail.com (John Zyla) wrote:>
> Hi fellow rmmga peoples,
>
> I'm going to be buying a chorus effect, and want everybody who own's
> one to please give me their opinions of that they own, pros and cons!
> I've not decided whether I want a stomp box or a rack mount unit or
> whatever, so everybody please comment!
>
> Thanks so much,
>
> John Zyla
Hi John,
I have a few in my arsenal, which I like/use in the following order:
1.The onboard chorus in my Acoustasonic Jr. (or my Princeton Chorus).
Full & lush or subtle as a whisper. Good separation & quiet. It does,
however, (like the rest of these, and unlike the TC, color your tone a
bit).
2.Boss CH-1 Super Chorus pedal. I really like this as a 'mono' chorus
with my Tele. Yes, I know it's an oxymoron, but try it sometime. In
stereo mode, it's (to me) a bit 'dirtier' tonewise than #1, but the
fullness and subtleties can be had.
3.Zoom 505 (same chorus as the 504). Sorry, it just doesn't grab me as
being anything more special than 1 or 2.
4.Alessis Nanoverb. Emphasizes the highs, perhaps to compensate for the
mid/low effect of many chorii, however, it gives a thinner sound in the
process, and worse, the phase shift can be so extreme (a few semitones
between channels), I begin to question whether I'm in tune.
Deemphasizing the depth leads to a rapid loss of the separation.
I don't own one, but have had the pleasure of hearing the TC that Steve
describes, and, yes, it's quite transparent and gives a great effect.
My experiences only,
Your mileage may vary,
Dave
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
| Acoustic effects - compression |
|---|
From: <ajackson@vision...>
Subject: Re: Acoustic effects - compression
Date: Mon, 30 Aug 1999 04:46:56 GMT
Organization: Deja.com - Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
> A good compressor works wonders with acoustic/electric guitars.
> Pt
--------------------------------------------------------
I'm interested in hearing about the use of compressors (stompbox,
rackmount) in enchancing acoustic/electric guitar sound.
Larry Fishman (Guitar Shop March 1998) says you have to be careful with
compression on AE guitars, because acoustic players are sensitive
to "the dynamics and nuances" of the acoustic instrument, and "it can
be dangerous supressing the dynamics of acoustic instruments".
In view of this
1. Do compressors improve the AE guitar sound?
2. What particular aspects of the sound do they benefit, and is there a
downside?
3. What sort of compressors eg. is a Boss stompbox compressor good
enough to do the job?
Andrew Jackson
Tasmania, Australia
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
| Lexicon MPX100 for accoustic??? [5] |
|---|
From: David Ingram <david@opti-tech...>
Subject: Re: Lexicon MPX100 for accoustic???
Date: Tue, 2 Nov 1999 11:23:46 -0800
Organization: Teleport Inc.
<jwest98@my-deja...> wrote in message <7vnb7t$aqd$<1@nnrp1...>>...
>I need a high quality rack mount effects/reverb/ambiance unit for
>accoustic use that is affordable. Any opinions or suggestions on the
>Lexicon or other units would be much appreciated! I can't afford the
>high-end Lexicon stuff.
>
>Thanks in advance!
>Ja
I have the MPX 100, and I think it's a phenomenal value for the money. For
live applications, my acoustic signal comes from a Taylor 410 into which is
mounted a Highlander under the saddle and a Sunrise in the soundhole. These
go to a Rane AP 13 where they are blended to mono and sent on to the Lex. I
mostly use variations of the dedicated reverb and delay patches. You can
also run two effects at once, but I feel the quality goes down a little bit,
because unlike higher end Lex units with a dedicated DSP for reverb and one
for other stuff, there's only one DSP chip for everything. Overall pros -
simple to operate, top-quality effects, smooth MIDI implementation if you
need it. Cons... you can only save 16 user-customised presets. This is
workable, but I have to make compromises. Plus for some reason you can save
just about every parameter EXCEPT "mix" with the preset. I find this to be a
pain in the ass because I would run the mix level lower on some of the
lusher reverb patches than I would on a delay, for instance, or run a
tremolo in full-wet position. Control of the mix parameter can be mapped to
a MIDI continuous controller, but there's hardly any point to that as you'd
only need to move it once, and it wouldn't be very reproducible... Finally,
there's a 1.5-2sec lag between triggering a patch change either via MIDI or
front panel and the time when the effect kicks in. This lag pretty much
prevents you from playing through a patch change live - you'd want to stop
playing and give it a moment.
Hope that helps - David Ingram
From: Troubleman (Jay Brown) <troublemanNOtrSPAM@rocketmail...>
Subject: Re: Lexicon MPX100 for accoustic???
Date: Tue, 02 Nov 1999 12:13:09 -0800
Organization: http://www.remarq.com: The World's Usenet/Discussions Start Here
'Tis part of the rig: Taylor 714CE, ancient Morley volume pedal,
MPX100, and an Akai Headrush echo, all run through and around an SWR
California Blonde amp with a Blonde on Blonde powered ext cab. For the
money I don't think there's a better choice out there. I use it fairly
lightly - just a seasoning. I wish it had more places for user patches
to be stored. That said, I probably use about 4-5 of my own; the rest
are variations off of that to fit a given situation. Now that I've
another guitar which will have a different pickup system, I'll might
use more patches..... then again probably not.
jb
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
From: David Kilpatrick <david@maxwellplace...>
Subject: Re: Lexicon MPX100 for accoustic???
Date: Wed, 03 Nov 1999 00:03:47 +0000
Organization: Icon Publications Ltd
find yourself a 1992-ish ART Multiverb Alpha II Midi - they sell
cheaply, were one of the first 24-bit units (1U high rackmount), have a
phenomenal range of ambient effects with a tiny sampler (1 sec!) plus
tuner, pitch shifter, harmoniser, 128 presets and you can program as
many of your own - plus a built-in preamp with both input and output
gain sliders, clipping/overload lights, true stereo in and stero out AND
a 9v DC output socket to run all your other pedals and stuff! I got mine
(240v only) for around $100 s/h. For some reason they are not
fashionable, mainly because they have no overdrive, distortion or any of
the crap which electric guitarists need. DK
<jwest98@my-deja...> wrote:
>
> I need a high quality rack mount effects/reverb/ambiance unit for
> accoustic use that is affordable. Any opinions or suggestions on the
> Lexicon or other units would be much appreciated! I can't afford the
> high-end Lexicon stuff.
>
> Thanks in advance!
> Ja
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
From: Michael A. Wong <mwong1@attglobal...>
Subject: Re: Lexicon MPX100 for accoustic???
Date: Wed, 3 Nov 1999 07:12:39 -0500
Organization: Global Network Services - Remote Access Mail & News Services
I have a 1992-ish ART Multiverb Alpha (non-2.0)
that I've had since...well...1992-ish:)
While this unit is very flexible and much more
programmable than the Lexicon MPX100
I don't think the reverbs sound nearly as good as the Lexicon
patches. For the price the MPX100 is hard to beat.
Downside being flexibility and user presets.
(Like anyone really needs 128 presets:)
-Michael-
David Kilpatrick <<david@maxwellplace...>> wrote in message
news:<381F7BDA.35E4050C@maxwellplace...>...
> find yourself a 1992-ish ART Multiverb Alpha II Midi - they sell
> cheaply, were one of the first 24-bit units (1U high rackmount), have a
> phenomenal range of ambient effects with a tiny sampler (1 sec!) plus
> tuner, pitch shifter, harmoniser, 128 presets and you can program as
> many of your own - plus a built-in preamp with both input and output
> gain sliders, clipping/overload lights, true stereo in and stero out AND
> a 9v DC output socket to run all your other pedals and stuff! I got mine
> (240v only) for around $100 s/h. For some reason they are not
> fashionable, mainly because they have no overdrive, distortion or any of
> the crap which electric guitarists need. DK
>
> <jwest98@my-deja...> wrote:
> >
> > I need a high quality rack mount effects/reverb/ambiance unit for
> > accoustic use that is affordable. Any opinions or suggestions on the
> > Lexicon or other units would be much appreciated! I can't afford the
> > high-end Lexicon stuff.
> >
> > Thanks in advance!
> > Ja
> >
> > Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> > Before you buy.
From: hank alrich <walkinay@thegrid...>
Subject: Re: Lexicon MPX100 for accoustic???
Date: Wed, 3 Nov 1999 09:41:26 -0800
Organization: secret mountain
David Kilpatrick <<david@maxwellplace...>> wrote:
> find yourself a 1992-ish ART Multiverb Alpha II Midi - they sell
> cheaply, were one of the first 24-bit units (1U high rackmount), have a
> phenomenal range of ambient effects with a tiny sampler (1 sec!) plus
> tuner, pitch shifter, harmoniser, 128 presets and you can program as
> many of your own - plus a built-in preamp with both input and output
> gain sliders, clipping/overload lights, true stereo in and stero out AND
> a 9v DC output socket to run all your other pedals and stuff! I got mine
> (240v only) for around $100 s/h. For some reason they are not
> fashionable, mainly because they have no overdrive, distortion or any of
> the crap which electric guitarists need. DK
Another reason they're "not fashionable", IMO, is that compared to a
Lexicon MPX100 they sound like refried garbage. 24 marketing bits, oh
yeah. It's so easy to write an ad. <g> Advances in processing power over
the intervening years are what make an MPX100 so much more lovely
sounding than the Lexicon Alex it replaced in the lineup. There's no
comparison fidelity-wise between the ART boxes (any of them) and the
contemporary Lexicon units.
--
hank - secret mountain
Note: the rec.audio.pro FAQ is at http://recordist.com/rap-faq/current
Read it and reap!
| Echoplex v Boomerang [4] |
|---|
From: Tom Loredo <loredo@spacenet...>
Subject: Re: Echoplex v Boomerang
Date: Fri, 05 Nov 1999 13:36:47 -0500
Organization: Cornell University
Gerardo-
I haven't used either of these devices, so I can't offer you any insight
into their performance. However, I don't believe it's true that the
Echoplex is out of production. This has been brought up in the
newsgroups before, and my recollection is that production was changing,
but the device would still be made. This is also the word at Looper's
Delight, which is the place to go for this kind of info:
http://www.annihilist.com/loop/loop.html
Their Echoplex page discusses this rumor:
http://www.annihilist.com/loop/tools/echoplex/echoplex.html
Note that the Echoplex is much more expensive and more complicated
to operate than the boomerang, but is also said to have better
sound quality and more capabilities.
Peace,
Tom Loredo
From: Carlos Alden <calden@iea...>
Subject: Re: Echoplex v Boomerang
Date: Fri, 05 Nov 1999 13:32:05 -0800
Organization: Verio
My band just bought a used boomerang, and it is a blast to use. I will
attest to the sound quality, though. It gets grainy fast, and when you
start to layer stuff it gets mushy quickly. However, for just laying
down a single riff then improvising over that, it is great. At about the
same price is the Lexicon Jam Man, which is supposed to have better sound
quality but be a bit trickier to use, especially live, than the
Boomerang. You can find reviews of the Jam Man on the Harmony Central web
site.
Carlos
--
Check out my web sites!
THE CELTIC NOTS: http://celticnots.com/
THE NEW CRITERION BANJO ORCHESTRA: www.arias.net/~ncbo
From: Lyle Caldwell <caldwell@bellsouth...>
Subject: Re: Echoplex v Boomerang
Date: Fri, 5 Nov 1999 14:20:45 -0600
Check out http://www.line6.com/products/stomper.htm
I've heard these at NAMM, and they should be shipping any day now (just
appearing in catalogs).
Seriously, the closest you can come to a really good echoplex (most
echoplexes out there are in terrible shape) and it works every time.
You can do all the cool echoplex tricks, too, like "bumping' the flange etc.
--
Lyle Caldwell
Psionic Music
Composer, Producer, Arranger
<caldwell@bellsouth...>
"Gimme some money" - David St. Hubbins
Gerardo & Kelly Hernandez <<g.khernandez@mindspring...>> wrote in message
news:7vv3qh$u6u$<1@nntp6...>...
> I tried to buy the echoplex but apparently is no longer made. I heard
about
> the Boomerang (digital delay). Are they pretty similar? does anybody
have
> any experience with it?
> I want it to play rythm and loop it around while I play lead.
> Thanks
> Gerardo
>
>
>
From: Tom Loredo <loredo@spacenet...>
Subject: Re: Echoplex v Boomerang
Date: Mon, 08 Nov 1999 15:26:16 -0500
Organization: Cornell University
Lyle Caldwell wrote:
>
> Check out http://www.line6.com/products/stomper.htm
The looping/sampling capability of the delay modeler is 14 seconds,
far less than the "serious" looping devices (JamMan, Boomerang,
Echoplex). 14 seconds is a long time for standard digital delay
effects, but not long at all for looping/sampling.
> Seriously, the closest you can come to a really good echoplex (most
> echoplexes out there are in terrible shape) and it works every time.
> You can do all the cool echoplex tricks, too, like "bumping' the flange etc.
The Echoplex people are discussing in this thread is the Oberheim
Echoplex looper/sampler, not the old Echoplex. See the links
mentioned earlier for info about it. It is a shame that it has
the same name as the older device.
Peace,
Tom Loredo
| boomerang [4] |
|---|
From: David Ingram <david@opti-tech...>
Subject: Re: boomerang
Date: Mon, 8 Nov 1999 09:26:21 -0800
Organization: Teleport Inc.
Bob Dorgan wrote in message <<3826FDE8.2945@epix...>>...
>I bought a used Boomerang Phrase Sampler that was advertised on Harmony
>Central, and spent a few hours playing with it last night.
>The unit is extrememly user friendly, but I got mixed results as far as
>sound quality on the same pieces at the same settings.
>Confusing to say the least. Does anyone have any experience in using
>these in a live performance setting?
>Bob Dorgan
I use one of these extensively for live work. Yep, they're a little finicky.
I obtain best results with the input gain switch set to LINE (you really
want a pre in front of this anyway, esp. for acoustic, so you should have a
line level signal going to it) and with the TRIM knob at about 12 o'clock.
But I also have the luxury of using a MIDI switching system from Digital
Music Corp which lets me cut the Boomerang out of the signal path completely
when not needed (the 'rang is in serious need of a true bypass switch, IMO.)
Basically, watch your clipping indicator, and make sure the above switches
and knobs are returned to the proper positions - if you don't have the 'rang
secured to a board, these things move around easily in transit. Also, listen
to the background noise of the 'rang, and play around with the trim knob and
level switches, in case a different setting is optimal for your set-up - try
to find the best setting for decent output when the volume wheel as at 50%
without getting excessive noise.
Good luck... David Ingram
From: Troubleman (Jay Brown) <troublemanNOtrSPAM@rocketmail...>
Subject: Re: boomerang
Date: Mon, 08 Nov 1999 10:54:34 -0800
Organization: http://www.remarq.com: The World's Usenet/Discussions Start Here
> Thanks David.
> I'll try this out tonight.
> I had a ball with this thing last night, and at times the tone
> quality
> was quite good.
> I'm hoping to use this on a few numbers, but not extensively for
> perfomances.
> Bob Dorgan
They work well for electric guitar, especially an overdriven tone. For
acoustic you've gotta be really careful as to your input levels. I
thought about using one instead of my Lexicon JamMan because of it's
loop/sample size (Lexicon max is 32 seconds). After A/Bing them I
decided to stay with the JamMan. Lexicon stopped making them and
they've taken on a life of their own as "vintage" devices, but if you
find one at a reasonable price - buy it. If you don't need multiple
overdubs and can live with 24 seconds of loop time - consider an Akai
Head Rush. It's an AC powered stompbox that doubles as a digital and
analog-tape-simulated echo/delay. It's not quite as hi-fi as the
Lexicon either (and doesn't do the trippy backwards playback thing
either, but Lexicon never skimps on anything they do. That said - I
reeeeally like mine. Maybe Akai will come out with one that provides a
longer delay time...
peace,
jb
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
From: Michael A. Wong <mwong1@attglobal...>
Subject: Re: boomerang
Date: Tue, 9 Nov 1999 07:02:06 -0500
Organization: Global Network Services - Remote Access Mail & News Services
Hi Bob,
I just bought a Boomerang last weekend myself.
So far i've been running it through the efx loop
of my Mesa Boogie and playing my electric.
I have noticed a pretty wide degree of variance in the
sound quality of samples. One loop will sound fairly
authentic while another will sound kind of cheesy.
I have not had a chance to play with some alternate signal paths
but I'm hoping I can find a set up that will be suitable for my acoustic rig
which I have not had a chance to try yet.
On the plus side I find it VERY easy to use and the 4 minute
looping is absolutely astounding. As far as a practice tool
to be able lay down verse and chorus chord changes,
layer bass lines, fills and then solo on top of it is really
very cool.
-Michael-
Bob Dorgan <<d77737@epix...>> wrote in message news:<38270ED3.67DA@epix...>...
> David Ingram wrote:
>
> > I use one of these extensively for live work. Yep, they're a little
finicky.
> > I obtain best results with the input gain switch set to LINE (you really
> > want a pre in front of this anyway, esp. for acoustic, so you should
have a
> > line level signal going to it) and with the TRIM knob at about 12
o'clock.
> > But I also have the luxury of using a MIDI switching system from Digital
> > Music Corp which lets me cut the Boomerang out of the signal path
completely
> > when not needed (the 'rang is in serious need of a true bypass switch,
IMO.)
> > Basically, watch your clipping indicator, and make sure the above
switches
> > and knobs are returned to the proper positions - if you don't have the
'rang
> > secured to a board, these things move around easily in transit. Also,
listen
> > to the background noise of the 'rang, and play around with the trim knob
and
> > level switches, in case a different setting is optimal for your set-up -
try
> > to find the best setting for decent output when the volume wheel as at
50%
> > without getting excessive noise.
> >
> > Good luck... David Ingram
> Thanks David.
> I'll try this out tonight.
> I had a ball with this thing last night, and at times the tone quality
> was quite good.
> I'm hoping to use this on a few numbers, but not extensively for
> perfomances.
> Bob Dorgan
From: David Kilpatrick <david@maxwellplace...>
Subject: Re: boomerang
Date: Mon, 08 Nov 1999 17:35:44 +0000
Organization: Icon Publications Ltd
Bob, if you don't like it, I will buy it. Is it the 2Mb model or the
newer 4Mb model? First of all, Boomerang is very lo-fi compared to
Lexicon JamMan. It is not really suitable for trying to lay blended
acoustic guitar on to itself unless you're happy with an audible
difference between the 'live' track and the Boomerang. As it layers the
sound, each layer degrades a bit.
David Allison demonstrated how to use this at a workshop I attended. He
used no fewer than three pickup sources on his Lowden, including a midi
guitar synth. The Boomerang was used for one particular source at a
time, with swell (volume) pedals to allow feeding into the Boomerang,
while some of the main playing bypassed the Boomerang entirely. It was
quite complex, pushing the Boomerang footpads and using the midi and the
volume pedals in sync with playing. He also uses a Jam Man at the same time...
My use for a Boomerang would be pretty much like Allison's - using the
in-guitar microphone, build up a rythm track by slapping and knocking
the guitar body (Allison also holds a shaker just in front of the sound
hole), put some bass in, maybe some vague drones or chords; then let the
Boomerang hold the rythm/chord sequence you have laid down. Start
playing the main material over the top of this, but not through the
Boomerang. Use a swell pedal to bring in the in-guitar mike
periodically, layering slight changes and additions (a two-footed
operation) which can include new rythm changes, singing into the sound
hole, wind noises, anything you like.
Because the Boomerang is repeating maybe a 30-second layered multitrack
of lo-fi rythm and ambient drones and chords, the quality is not
critical. Your main playing stands out above this very clearly. The fade
out it is capable of, left to its devices and repeating its loop, is
impressive. Overall, you can get to sound a bit like an acoustic version
of very early Pink Floyd when Barrett was using the azimuth corordinator
and the tape loops.
David Allison says each performance is unique with the Boomerang and
because of relative volumes as you layer the sound it never quite works
the same way twice. He also says that slight timing errors add to the
complexity of the result, putting things out of phase over a long
period. Sometimes he exploits this.
Me? I'm currently using a Boss DD-1 digital delay with 800 millisecond
'hold' to create a rythm pattern on the guitar body via a mike and a
reverb, and run it behind instrumentals, occasionally letting the pedal
up to fix blips of chord hits into the rythm. Very crude, but it still
sounds good for a solo guitarist!
Bob Dorgan wrote:
>
> I bought a used Boomerang Phrase Sampler that was advertised on Harmony
> Central, and spent a few hours playing with it last night.
> The unit is extrememly user friendly, but I got mixed results as far as
> sound quality on the same pieces at the same settings.
> Confusing to say the least. Does anyone have any experience in using
> these in a live performance setting?
> Bob Dorgan
| What DSP is best for acoustics? [2] |
|---|
From: SEFSTRAT <sefstrat@aol...>
Subject: Re: What DSP is best for acoustics?
Date: 09 Nov 1999 01:50:43 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
benlago said:
>..I want UR opinion on this. I getting back into playing acoutic guitar
>in a worship group and wish to enhance the sound of it through an
>effects processor.
>I heard good things
>about the ART line of processors
> So what do U guys and ladies use??
Well, you dodn;t give us a price range.
IMHO, there is nothing close to TC Electronic's rackmount...but boy, is it
pricey!
That being said, I like TC's chgorus pedal for acoustic. Very transparent.
I have an ART acoustic processor (the double pedal thing), and it's OK. I gig
with it sometimes. The chorus is acceptable, the EQ is decent, and the boost
pad is nice (although meant for boosting solo lines, it's also just the perfect
thing for the difference between fingerpicked and flatpicked stuff).
Steve
Steve
SEFSTRAT
webpage: http://members.aol.com/sefstrat/index.html/sefpage.html
From: David Kilpatrick <david@maxwellplace...>
Subject: Re: What DSP is best for acoustics?
Date: Tue, 09 Nov 1999 10:49:41 +0000
Organization: Icon Publications Ltd
The great thing about the Korg Pandora II is that you can wipe out all
the presets, and enter a complete new set of your own purely acoustic
settings, and give them names. I have mine full of echoes, phase, chorus
and ambience presets. It is small enough to fit on your belt on in a top
shirt pocket and the built-in tuner is just accurate enough. The
metronome function is useful but the drum patterns are annoying.
I swapped my Pandora II for model III with running basslines. These are
even more annoying and quite useless, and so is the 'sample' function
which only works through the CD input so eejits with Strats can learn
slowed down rock riffs, doesn't work on the guitar input (ultra low
volume). The Echo setting on the model III goes up to 2000 millisecs (2
secs) delay, in controllable steps, which makes overlaid echo playing
possible, while the Echo on the model II is limited to a range of
presets which won't work as well. However, the model III stereo echo has
a problem - the echo only comes out of the left hand speaker. We tested
several units, and they were all the same. It fails to ping-pong between
the speakers. Mono PA or combo amp users would not notice this.
The model III has a much better noise suppression and the overall sound
is cleaner, BUT the stupid thing takes AAA size cells instead of AA, and
that it a reallt bad decision, given that if they wanted a small unit,
they could have opted for lithium CR2 or something which would at least
last an hour or two. AAAs have very little capacity and cost more than
AAs in most shops. Although I use a 9v adaptor most of the time, I find
battery running useful when I need it.
So, the Korg Pandora III went back to dealer and I recovered the Pandora
II he was selling for me. At least the echo ping-pongs properly in
stereo, and the loss of bassline and sampler functions are no big deal -
both are aimed at the moron market.
RainDance wrote:
> =
> > Well, you dodn;t give us a price range.
> >
> > IMHO, there is nothing close to TC Electronic's rackmount...but boy, =
is it
> > pricey!
> =
> Thanks for taking the time to replying Steve,
> =
> maybe I didn=B4t give enough details, the line of ART equipm. I was tal=
king about are
> the Midiverb and Microverb series...used they are around 150 to 200 buc=
ks...I heard
> something about Korg Pandoras Box and another little thingy calle POD..=
=2EU know
> anything about that??
> ...thanks a lot so far...;-))
> =
> Ben
| Pedals for Acoustic Gigs [3] |
|---|
From: daniel miau <d.miau@cqu...>
Subject: Re: Pedals for Acoustic Gigs
Date: Wed, 17 Nov 1999 13:34:48 +1000
Organization: Central Queensland University
what about a harmoniser/ pitch shifter type of effect. Again, the ones I've
heard, like the boss, sound terrible. Digital effects can be OK, but there can
also sound awful. Tremolo is something i would think of...
<arte@sover...> wrote:
> Keep the suggestions coming. This is very informative to me and others
> I suspect.
> I have some very nice reverb in my Trace Acoustic 50 R amp. So reverb
> is not what is needed.
> I am trying to give some diversity to my sound with a pedal. I used
> chorus in my electric days. My old Ibanez unit is fairly dead. The
> problem in Vermont is finding any of these units in a store. Must do
> my shopping via the web or catalog.
>
> Art
>
> On Tue, 16 Nov 1999 10:48:12 +0000, David Kilpatrick
> <<david@maxwellplace...>> wrote:
>
> >I guess this must be why John Renbourn played 75 per cent of his recent
> >concert I went to through a Boss CH-1 chorus unit. He really hates
> >acoustic tone! DK
> >
> >daniel miau wrote:
> >>
> >> i don't mind chrous for electric guitar--i've recently picked up a boss
> >> ce-1 which is brilliant--but chorusing acoustic instruments absolutely
> >> kills any delicate acoustic tone. IMO it's not a good acoustic sound. if
> >> you must 'effect' your sound maybe try a valve preamp or a reverb/delay
> >> unit, or something like the sansamp acoustic DI or LR baggs DI. happy
> >> shopping. i also wouldn't stick a boss cs3 in fromt of an acoustic guitar.
> >> i've tried that. it sounds terrible.
> >> regards
> >> daniel
> >>
> >> <mischultz@my-deja...> wrote:
> >>
> >> > Agreed. Harmony Central is a great place - perhaps the best place - to
> >> > browse. I've been pleased with the Rocktron Tsunami chorus as a
> >> > supplimental kind of thing. Not as violent or overpowering as the name
> >> > would imply, it's very much a hifi sort of sound, and well-suited to
> >> > acoustic instruments, I think. Worth a quick peek, at least.
> >> >
> >> > Michael
> >> >
> >> > Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> >> > Before you buy.
>
> Art Edelstein, 771 Bayne-Comolli Rd., East Calais, VT 05650-8095
> Homepage @ http://www.sover.net/~arte/
> Liberal Arts Major . . . Will Think For Food
>
From: Adrian Legg <Commercial-free@speech...>
Subject: Re: Pedals for Acoustic Gigs
Date: Wed, 17 Nov 1999 15:54:50 +0000
Organization: *
Steve <<sefstrat@aol...>> wrote:
>
> The Boss works decently IF you use it right. Most folks don't. You need to
> split your signal and give it TWO feeds.
>
> I have one in my electric rig pedalboard. Works well.
I haven't had a decent result from piezo through a pitch shifter without
heavy compression, even then the tuning gets pretty dubious. The octave
down sounded like a drunk Welsh male voice choir in particularly sombre
mood, and the octave up sounded Chipmunksy and out of tune.
Could you elaborate on the two feeds, Steve ?--
Contact info: www.adrianlegg.com
or http://www.roe.ac.uk/mjpwww/legghead.htm
From: Steve <sefstrat@aol...>
Subject: Re: Pedals for Acoustic Gigs
Date: 17 Nov 1999 20:10:55 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
>> The Boss works decently IF you use it right. Most folks don't. You need
>to
>> split your signal and give it TWO feeds.
>>
>> I have one in my electric rig pedalboard. Works well.
>
>I haven't had a decent result from piezo through a pitch shifter without
>heavy compression, even then the tuning gets pretty dubious. The octave
>down sounded like a drunk Welsh male voice choir in particularly sombre
>mood, and the octave up sounded Chipmunksy and out of tune.
>
> Could you elaborate on the two feeds, Steve ?
>
Sure.
The Boss Intelligent Harmonizer pedal ("Harmonist") has two inputs. One is for
the actual audio signal chain, and the other is a 'signal sensor' input.
Using an electric setup, I split the guitar signal coming into the pedalboard.
One side of the split is sent directly to the sensor input of the Boss pedal,
eben though it's actually third in line in the audio chain (the chain order
begins: compressor---> overdrive/distortion--> harmonizer). The other side of
the split goes through the pedalboard in 'normal' fashion, and through the
audio "in" of the Boss Harmonist unit.
Using an acoustic, I do the same thing, splitting the signal and providing a
completely clean and clear signal to the 'sensor' input, while routing the
audio signal through the usual chain.
This assists pitch recognition immensely.
You need to realize that this is only good for single notes, and that the
unit's tone on thirds and fifths above the played note is much better than it
seems to be for octaves. The farther removed the pitch, the less of a good job
the unit seems to do.
It is a bit better on electric than on acoustic; it does a credible Allman
Brothers impression using only one guitar.
Steve (SEFSTRAT)
webpage: http://members.aol.com/sefstrat/index.html/sefpage.html
| Effects for acoustic guitar? |
|---|
From: David Kilpatrick <david@maxwellplace...>
Subject: Re: Effects for acoustic guitar?
Date: Thu, 09 Dec 1999 23:23:03 +0000
Organization: Icon Publications Ltd
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------9701049D32FBE829E39AE5F1
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Having owned dozens of FX pedals, rackmounts and multi-units, following comments:
Expensive dedicated pedals, whether digital or analog, generally beat
multi-FX of the Zoom 505 type for clean sound, and acoustic guitar
demands a clean sound.
Reverb is very useful for vocals, but almost superfluous on my Lowdens
and I would imagine equally redundant with most guitars mentioned on
this group - the problem is stopping the things ringing, not helping
them! So reverbs if used are normally at a very low level, not strong.
A really top quality, almost imperceptible chorus can add something (ditto).
Short delays aren't much use, but if you are creative a really good 2
second max digital delay like the Boss DD-5 (Reverb/Delay) can enable
great fugue/etc effects (playing over your own phrases).
If you work with a stereo PA, then my comments on chorus and reverb are
changed slightly. The way these effects thicken up the sound in three
dimensions, when they are true stereo effects, makes a big difference to
stereo performance. Puts the audience 'inside the guitar'.
One of the best investments for the 'weekend' player is still the Korg
Toneworks Pandora 2 or 3. I like the 2 best, because it uses AA cells
not AAAs and has a better stereo echo-type delay. Useful points -
built-in electronic tuner which is reasonably accurate; built-in
metronome and some simple drum patterns (ugh!) for popular rythms, good
for learning with; feed-thru socket for your CD player, lets you plug in
a CD or minidisk etc and either play along for practice using
headphones, or use backing tracks (not my favourite) for gigs; fully
programmable so you can wipe out all the overdrive screamer settings and
put in your own controlled, sensible ambient reverb/delay/ etc presets;
slips in your pocket or sits beside you, easily clamped to a mike stand
or even mounted on your guitar itself, needs a hand to change presets
but unobtrusive unlike using a bank of pedals.
These little units are not very robust, and the sounds can be noisy if
you want strong FX, but generally for acoustic/electric you will use the
'level' and 'mix' at a modest setting, and the unit will then be
transparent with no hiss. The Pandoras also have some killer presets -
on the Pandora 1, the acoustic killerFX was 'Modern' (a great aerial
blend of EQ, reverb etc) and on the 2 and 3 it is called 'Air'. Trouble
is, if you switch to playing with 'Air' your guitar then sounds totally
dead when you turn the effect off! (When Greg Neaga saw mine at RMMGA UK
meet, he said 'Air? Right!' - you only have to own one to know why!).
Instant Michael Hedges without the hi-fi. 'Aqua' is another great
factory preset which sends a cascade of rythmic harmonics down the
background of your chords.
For low-cost units not much larger than a cigarette pack which slip into
the pick compartment of your guitar case, the Pandora models are a great
'invisible fix' when plugging into an unknown PA, let you practise with
headphone for very close involvement (this works), give you a free
tuner, a free metronome etc. You can leave the batteries in and plug
them into a standard 9v DC wallwart adaptor as well - no silly
non-standard fittings or voltages involved.
David Kilpatrick
Mark Douglas wrote:
>
> This may be an off-the-wall question, but does anyone have experience using
> effects devices on an acoustic guitar? I realize that there are many
> recording applications for the use of effects, but how about effects for
> your average weekend player? I just bought an acoustic amp with chorus and
> reverb, but passed on the upgraded model offering digital delay and other
> digital effects. Would electric guitar effects pedals such as the DOD and
> the ZOOM work effectively on an acoutic, or are there specific effect pedals
> for acoustic guitars? Thanks for any info anyone can provide.
>
> Mark
