"I hate POD's" Here's why modelers suck...

[Scott Peterson]

.....or don't suck.


In the Amps and Cabs Paul owns a place where he puts on live bands. Supplies a boutique level back line (Matchless amps among others) and has made a few threads pointing out that POD's suck and every player that uses one, in his experience, sounds like crap. His conclusion is that the fault lies in the POD.

I answered him many times, but felt that this post copied below makes my point the best. It struck me that with so many folks, especially here on this board (ahem!:D) hating on POD's because, well, just because(!) that'd it be a good topic. So here we are and here we go (note that this was directed to Paul, but the feelings and opinions expressed are universal to the topic):

The folks that hate this gear or that gear are blaming the gear. Well, I've heard and been in tons of bands with killer players that don't have a frecking clue about how to get a good sound. Mesa is often the worst "offender" I've personally come across because it is easy to dial in tones that suck with the controls that they offer.

(NOTE: This here's my moral!) That doesn't mean Mesa amps suck.

It means that guys haven't spent the time or effort to work on their sound as much as their chops. And it is NOT Mesa, or Line 6's fault.

Guys approach POD's like they are 'amps' and dial in sounds. Here's a newsflash - they are NOT amps. They are entire rigs. A preset is a full blown from the pedals to the amp to the cab to the speakers to the mic to the room. It's the rig and the space you are in.

Now stop for a second and think about how much effort you've put into your room, sound system and backline you supply. It's a huge thing. And that's before you put in the pedals, cables and get into the fine tuning of speakers, effects and settings, etc..

Now look at the POD - It's the whole shooting match from the first pedal (or virtual pedal) to the sound in the room. It's far more complicated than 'dialing it in like an amp' because when you dial in an amp, it's only one part of the puzzle.

It's taken me years of working, recording and playing out with POD's before I truly feel I've GOT something really good. And I am a very serious 'tone' guy that has ears, focuses on the band sound/mix and how I fit into the given context and the needs of the song.

You have seen/heard hundreds of players that don't have ears, that don't have chops, and/or don't have the sound. That's your point. My point is that it is not the tools they use. Modeler's are the easiest for folks to rip on because they are - by FAR - the hardest to dial in given the complexity of what you trying to do. Every preset is a full blown rig.

I hope that illustrates a bit more clearly what I am saying. I don't need/want/care to change your opinion. I'd just like for your perspective to change. It isn't modelers, or amps, or pedals, or guitars. It isn't the gear. It IS operator laziness, ignorance and/or error.

When a baby is in the crib and happens to sneeze when the wind blows the curtains; the baby might assume that the curtains moving caused their sneeze. Ahh, but we know that to not be the case because we have a much deeper understanding and perspective than the child. Does that illustrate it better?

[David B]

Hi Scott, thanks for the share, I have a couple of Pods and have my own opinions as well, to keep it short. "Modelers" are tools that either fit your job/function, or they don't, no harm done either way. I am not sure if Modeling is always the same thing from company to company, is it always the same electronic/scientific technique, or just the same marketing? Whatever it is that is being called "modeling" is still early in development, I use it as a "quick tool", it is my guitar tool when I need something quick.

The power of the modeling CPU and digital conversion is just not up to the par of my good to excellent proven analog tools at this time, regardless of hours invested flipping through sub-menus, but my analog rigs can't hold 128 quick tones to lay down an idea when it strikes either, or if I am on a session that needs 12 different tones and has a very small budget and "relaxed" audio requirements. I like modeled delay, reverb, chorus etc, but amps, effects and speakers are still dodgy (lack punch and plastic sounding), I bet this improves as CPU power gets cheaper and methods of listening and creating a model get better.

A pod is just another tone tool, use it if it works for you, and if it does not, jump up and down and p*ss on it at TGP :D...or not!

It isn't modelers, or amps, or pedals, or guitars. It isn't the gear. It IS operator laziness, ignorance and/or error.



I like the idea of being able to blame the operator when gear is sounding less than stellar, Scott has outlined this clearly enough, now please get with it! :D:roll

Anybody want to buy a couple of Pods to help my fund for the next round of modelers?...Pods are little computers, remember how much computers sucked for the first few years? look at computers now!

[drolling]

And there are also some bone-simple modelers out there that routinely get dissed by players who refuse to work with them.

That little purple JimiHendrix pedal from DigiTech, for example; It's got the whole shootin' match, from 'virtual' floor pedals (wah, fuzz, 'vibe, etc..) to amp sims (Marshall, Fender) thru' mic'd cab models & studio plate reverb in a compact package w/very few adjustable parameters.

Plug that sucker into your prized '63 Vibroverb and you'll get some of the gawd-awfullest sounds you've ever heard - guaranteed!

Try to *fix* it w/a few booteek pedals (EQs, boosters, etc.) and it'll just get worse, trust me.

But run that baby into a PA, sampler or DAW, and you'll have a credible emulation of several of Jimi's classic rigs - both live & in the studio! Takes all of 30 seconds to set up & it sounds good every time..

The M-Audio BlackBox's another one (and thanks again for hipping me to it, Scott!). A streamlined unit that bundles a drummachine w/a bunch of wacky filters & a few dozen amp simulations - How does it sound thru the lead channel of your vintage Marshall stack?

Really, really, really crappy.. Unbelieveably bad, actually.

I've got mine mounted on a mic stand, hooked up to a cheap Alesis floor controller & plugged straight into my laptop - a compact, powerful system that I carry onto the plane, a travel guitar in my other hand.

As long as I don't try to force these tools do jobs they weren't designed for, I'll always be OK..

[danel59]

I agree completely with Scott. I have been through all 3 versions of the Pod 1,2,XT and still have the XT as well as GT-8. It has only been recently that I have starting working closely with it that I have been getting sounds that work for me and as Scott says work is the operative word. I play in a number of cover bands and to be honest when I tried nailing the recorded tone. It worked but not really worked for me. People could say it sounded spot on but yes there was something missing. I have since started working more with the XT and have worked on getting tones that work and sound good to me. I can fit these into the songs I am playing and it still works and alot of people don't hear the difference other they see that the player seems to be more into it, due to the fact that said player is more comfortable playing in his sound and feel. I had a coworker who has good ears come up behind me as I was tweaking my XT through a keyboard amp using a Dumble clean patch and he was amazed because he thought I was playing through my Fuchs ODS.

I still think the whole modelling issue is in its infancy and through time will improve. I think we are at the point much like the keyboard players were back in the 80's with all of the new digital keyboards coming out. At first they weren't accepted generally except for those that spent the time to understand the layout and worked at getting sounds that "worked" for them.

Anyways that's my two cents worth

Dan

[CocoTone]

This should be interesting....:munch

On a more serious note, I tried a Pod, and also the Vox Valvtronix. The Vox blows the Pod away in both simplicity to use, as well as tone. But the biggest thing for me , was the feel of the Vox. It reacted more like a real amp, plus you could use it for reahearsals, if the room wasn't too big.
I had to futz around too much with he Pod, which makes you pissed off, which is not conducive to making good vibes for good tunes. Dig??

BUT,,,,YMMV:p

CT.

[dosmun]

I don't own any modelers (besides a Pandora PX-4 which is just a practice tool for me but does work great for that.) but I have heard guys using them that sounded awesome. It is like any piece of gear. You have to learn how to use it and know how to achieve good tone. I would bet that a lot of players that bitch about modelers probably have a hard time dialing in a good tone with just about anything.

[derek_32999]

I bought a V-amp 2 from a guy that was using it into a fender hotrod deville (it sounded terrible through my HRDeville)

I used it with a crappy old SS peavey using the power amp input on the amp that bypasses all of the tone controls/tonestack. Sounded just like the amps it was modeling. The response to picking/pedals etc wasnt amp like, but it is what it is. MY brother uses that setup now to practice and it works excellent. :dude

[59Vampire]

apparently iwas unable to convey my thoughts so if i pissedoff anyone i aapologize

[guitarpkr67]

you are neglecting the fact that not everyone who plays the guitar has 13 thousdand posts here, gigs, or gives a rats ass about your
OPINION. I myself do gig and jam. gig once a month, jam 4-6 x a month. practice: everyday. I have a wife (hopefully for not much longer ) and 2 kids. hmmm... how does one pratice whiule working 75 hours a week and having a family? headphones of course. And what do i use a s a sopurce? my pod. instead of putting something down, why nor explain that while it does not work for YOU it might work for others.


Did you even read the post? I haven't seen anyone put down the pod in this thread.

[andyland6]

The problem with ALL modelers is latency.
9 milliseconds for a POD to make sound?
Thats a lotta time...Tracks recorded feel sloppy, and lack punch, even if you play ahead of the beat to compensate.

For my money, I'll stick with an "old school" Tech 21 Trademark 10 (BTW- works GREAT for super-low volume, everybody else is asleep jamming) or Sans Amp for a sound engine. Sounds and FEELS like an amp.

I have seen the beast...and it's number is 667 -Andy Baylor

[PatchCord]

I have found that those that have failed in "Tweaking 101" say modeling sucks :D

[Scott Peterson]

The problem with ALL modelers is latency.
9 milliseconds for a POD to make sound?
Thats a lotta time...Tracks recorded feel sloppy, and lack punch, even if you play ahead of the beat to compensate.

For my money, I'll stick with an "old school" Tech 21 Trademark 10 (BTW- works GREAT for super-low volume, everybody else is asleep jamming) or Sans Amp for a sound engine. Sounds and FEELS like an amp.

I have seen the beast...and it's number is 667 -Andy Baylor

POD XT's latency is 2ms.

[David B]

It is really strange that much talk of modeling devices lump them all together, as though modeling is either a perfect or imperfect marketing of "analyze and attempt to reproduce" devices. They are not reference devices, they differ wildly in quality, like all audio toys.

The presets from the manufacturer should at least get in the neighborhood of the amp that its marketing implies on the display screen, so a Vox should at least sound "Vox like" and Bassman "Bassman like" and so on, like the same "real amp" would on a showroom floor (classic amp still needs to be dialed in). If the device designers and marketers can't at least be bothered to come up with verisimilitudes of these classic devices, then guitar players can't be expected to have a deeper investment time wise in said "Modeling marketed" device. User friendly is important to people who have dishwashers, automatic transmissions etc...A device has to show promise and take the time a person has to invest, into account if that devices creator does not want it to "suck" in the "would be" buyers eye.

Expectations are the key, people who actually believe the marketing of "modeling" could come up short, or just be the "hook line and sinker" type that thinks they now have a bunch of classic devices for $200. Modelers can sound nice, but you don't actually have all those classic amps, speakers, effects etc...You have someones sonic/marketing opinion of what those devices sounded like, that opinion is at the mercy of the analyzing devices, this can be visual aids and audio aids alike. I don't care personally for "looking at sound", mics are a smaller part of the sound of "listening" feeding mics into software is even further removed from a human listening experience, but can have merits for those that need the help.

Every audio device I know of is an experience of listening and then trying to recreate something heard or imagined, and in this instance something also seen on a video screen, so all devices could use the marketing "modeling", we have even seen a few builders tout "analog modeling"...the term modeling really sells, because it has a large group of followers who believe an "audio picture" has been taken and then rendered functions as a tweak-able audio device complete with perfect pictures of tonal and harmonic parameters.

Some "modeling devices sound very nice (UAD!!!) some suck like many other audio toys, commitment and talent of builders/designers still matters.

I agree with the post that latency that is beyond standard analog electronics then "sound through air" is unacceptable, most PC software rigs are just not enjoyable by me.

I just built a bridge modeler, any takers?:)

[chemical69]

as a usability professional in the software field, I disagree on one point. It IS the fault of the manufacturer. Too often, products are made with little thought as to how the user interface should be designed. Controls are not intuitive and they do not make it straightforward for a user to achieve his/her goals. We, as users, often blame ourselves for our ineptitude, letting the manufacturer 'get away' with sub-par user interface standards. Even instruction manuals (which nobody reads) should reflect a user-centered design approach.

hope this makes sense and I don't sound like a sanctimonious a$$.

[Anywho]

I would also like to express my support for my particular favorite brand of electronics and clearly illustrate that I don't need/want/care for your useless opinion or perspective. I would also like to remind everyone that they are ignorant, lazy, and incompetent.
Thank you.

[CocoTone]

I would also like to express my support for my particular favorite brand of electronics and clearly illustrate that I don't need/want/care for your useless opinion or perspective. I would also like to remind everyone that they are ignorant, lazy, and incompetent.
Thank you.


Hey!!! You can't say stuff like that with only 18 posts!!!!:mad:



:NUTS

CT.

[Scott Peterson]

Hey!!! You can't say stuff like that with only 18 posts!!!!:mad:



:NUTS

CT.

Yes he can, he's being satirical.

The knee-jerk of most cats is, "Modeling sucks." There's no debate, no arguing, no amount of clips or demonstrations to show them it doesn't. My point is that perhaps backing up from the knee-jerk reaction would point to the 'WHY' of that; and he's making light of all of it.

That's fine man.

I don't want/need to covert anyone. It'd be nice if they stepped back and thought about it, but hey, it's cool.

[aleclee]

It means that guys haven't spent the time or effort to work on their sound as much as their chops. But I thought tone was in the hands?!? :jo

[DigitalTube]

I've owned most of the POD models, and other modeling units, to me they're a tool to get the job done, they can sound very decent after some programming, but it's the same with tube amps, you have to have the right tubes, bias them properly, know how to set it up in order to make it sound great, so as far as modeling units right now I own the Axe-Fx and it works for me, but I still have my main tube amps, so whatever is needed for the job is what I use and I welcome any new digital processors from Line 6, Fractal Audio, H&k and others as they make life easier for me.
Just my opinion..

[David B]

Yes he can, he's being satirical.

The knee-jerk of most cats is, "Modeling sucks." There's no debate, no arguing, no amount of clips or demonstrations to show them it doesn't. My point is that perhaps backing up from the knee-jerk reaction would point to the 'WHY' of that; and he's making light of all of it.

That's fine man.

I don't want/need to covert anyone. It'd be nice if they stepped back and thought about it, but hey, it's cool.

I spent 15 years working on/off sales in music stores, music gear buying tends to be pretty emotional, stuff gets tossed aside quickly that does not create distinction or separate itself in a positive way, but "knee jerk" is different, it is not emotional, it is habit....so...

You have to wonder how a response of habit (as in Knee jerk) to audio gear comes to pass...any "knee jerkers" care to comment on response habit came to be? What other equipment category has this instant response? I seem to remember Dumble threads bringing out Knee jerkers in polar directions....but this aint that thread...:AOK

[TieDyedDevil]

I'm a recent convert to the digital world after several "false starts". I believe it might stick this time. Here are some thoughts based upon what I've learned, as well as some reactions to comments in this thread.

1. If you're going to use a modeler for live work, it'll sound better through a full-range flat-response system like a PA, powered speakers or keyboard amp. 2. Don't run a modeler through a guitar amp and expect to get usable results. Think about what you're doing: combining the tone shaping of the modeler with the tone shaping of the amp. There's no way that the modeler can compensate for what your amp is adding...

3. Latency is a red herring. Sorry, but two or three milliseconds latency (which is typical for a modeler) is equivalent to taking a step toward or away from your amp. Can you hear that? There may be something that makes you feel disconnected from your playing when you use a modeler, but it sure as heck isn't latency.

4. You need plenty of power in your full-range, full-response amplification system. There are several reasons for this; if anyone's interested I'll post a link to an article I wrote on the subject. Bottom line is that you'll need about 300 watts of clean amplification for your modeler if you're used to playing through a 50-watt tube amp. Fortunately solid-state amplification is lightweight and inexpensive.

5. You really must approach a modeler on its own terms, just like you would any other amplifier. Don't be seduced by the seemingly unlimited possibilities offered by having lots of parameters to tweak. Just like a "real" amplifier, a modeler will have its own inherent behaviors that you must either adapt to or walk away from.

6. Spend plenty of time in the store to find out whether you can make a modeler work for you. If you can't nail at least one great sound in the store, chances are you're not going to do any better once you pay for the modeler and take it home. There's a big learning curve to climb to evaluate a modeler in the store. It's not like walking up to an amp with five or six knobs and making a reasonable evaluation in five minutes. Take advantage of vendors' web sites to download and study the manual before you go to the store. And don't be afraid to spend as much time as you need figuring out the modeler in the store.

7. Don't get carried away with "sound design". Just because you can access multiple amp models at the tap of a toe doesn't mean that you should. Start with one great base tone and add effects to modify that tone.

[Scott Peterson]

But I thought tone was in the hands?!? :jo

Tone is in the hands. The care we take in our choices in gear and how we setup that gear is how we get that tone into the ears of the listeners.

It's all just part of the chain. (So quit pulling mine!) :D (Ave's fans, pfft!) :D:D

[Ben C.]

It isn't modelers, or amps, or pedals, or guitars. It isn't the gear. It IS operator laziness, ignorance and/or error.
...Or preference.

[Atmospheric]

Not only Mesa amps, but most pedalboard-based rigs I actually hear in real life sound like dogshit. Usually, too many pedals into a crappy (or sometimes not so crappy) amp, lots of signal loss through lots of (sometimes crappy) interconnects. Oh yeah, most of these guys have every "holy grail" <DIST | OD | DELAY | CHORUS | CLEANBOOST> you could imagine and they still... sound like DOGSHIT. Invariably, lots of nasty midrange honkiness, no low end, treble cranked way too high. In my personal experience, maybe 20% of guys I actually hear live in real life seem to know to make pedals sound good. The rest are in exercise in form over substance (this is SUPPOSED to the fast ticket to holy grail tone, I guess it must be).

Isn't a POD just the ultimate tone tool in the sense that you can create whole virtual rigs with NO (none, zip, zero, nada, bubkis) signal loss due to interconnects or mismatched impedances (no worrying about whether that Germanium fuzz has to go before or after the wah, etc.). Don't even get me started on the folly of running delays into the front end of a combo. That just never sounds right to my ears (I can't stand distortion on my echo tails). So much of the pedal-based world is "damned if you do; damned if you don't." PODs deftly sidetrack most of those connectivity issues - put effects wherever they sound best in the signal chain, even change the location for EACH patch - try THAT with a pedalboard sometime.

The last time I owned a major pedalboard, I had more than $1200 in it (fewer than 10 pedals as I recall). IMHO, a PODxTLive for $400 new out the door is a steal.

[Scott Peterson]

I'm a recent convert to the digital world after several "false starts". I believe it might stick this time. Here are some thoughts based upon what I've learned, as well as some reactions to comments in this thread.

1. If you're going to use a modeler for live work, it'll sound better through a full-range flat-response system like a PA, powered speakers or keyboard amp. 2. Don't run a modeler through a guitar amp and expect to get usable results. Think about what you're doing: combining the tone shaping of the modeler with the tone shaping of the amp. There's no way that the modeler can compensate for what your amp is adding...

3. Latency is a red herring. Sorry, but two or three milliseconds latency (which is typical for a modeler) is equivalent to taking a step toward or away from your amp. Can you hear that? There may be something that makes you feel disconnected from your playing when you use a modeler, but it sure as heck isn't latency.

4. You need plenty of power in your full-range, full-response amplification system. There are several reasons for this; if anyone's interested I'll post a link to an article I wrote on the subject. Bottom line is that you'll need about 300 watts of clean amplification for your modeler if you're used to playing through a 50-watt tube amp. Fortunately solid-state amplification is lightweight and inexpensive.

5. You really must approach a modeler on its own terms, just like you would any other amplifier. Don't be seduced by the seemingly unlimited possibilities offered by having lots of parameters to tweak. Just like a "real" amplifier, a modeler will have its own inherent behaviors that you must either adapt to or walk away from.

6. Spend plenty of time in the store to find out whether you can make a modeler work for you. If you can't nail at least one great sound in the store, chances are you're not going to do any better once you pay for the modeler and take it home. There's a big learning curve to climb to evaluate a modeler in the store. It's not like walking up to an amp with five or six knobs and making a reasonable evaluation in five minutes. Take advantage of vendors' web sites to download and study the manual before you go to the store. And don't be afraid to spend as much time as you need figuring out the modeler in the store.

7. Don't get carried away with "sound design". Just because you can access multiple amp models at the tap of a toe doesn't mean that you should. Start with one great base tone and add effects to modify that tone.

I'll agree with you mostly, but disagree on some points.

Atomic = tube guitar amp for modelers. Not truly full range. Makes it better, no bull, no hype. True 50 watts 6L6 power designed for modeling to bring it real live. Not a keyboard amp, not an acoustic amp, not a PA amp. A guitar amp. It's an entirely important thing. I've been down the road with PA, Keyboard and Acoustic amps. I've tried a lot of high end tube power amps. Atomic is the Ace in the hole here. It changes the landscape.

I agree with you on most of the other points - just because you CAN do something does not mean you SHOULD do it. I've got 8 banks of 4 presets each; I can cover 90% of everything across alt-country/funk/R&B/pop and rock that I do.

Latency is what I hear a lot too from folks flaming on modelers; and I ask them how close they play to their amp. If they are 3-5 feet away, they are getting more latency than the POD XT.

Great discussion guys!!

I am off the grid till probably tomorrow now, and I shudder to think what direction this might end up... but so be it!

[aleclee]

Tone is in the hands. The care we take in our choices in gear and how we setup that gear is how we get that tone into the ears of the listeners.

It's all just part of the chain. (So quit pulling mine!) :D (Ave's fans, pfft!) :D:DSorry, Scott. I just get tired of the dogmatic "EVH would still sound like EVH through a Pignose" arguments.

IMO, tone is in the hands

As long as those hands are acting in concert with ears
As long as those ears are providing data to a brain that has some notion of how to manipulate the timbre of the gear being played
And the player has some idea of the desired timbre
And the player has the sense to dial in the rig under conditions that resemble those of a "performing" situation.

[Ben C.]

MLT - I've heard more POD-based rigs sound like absolute dogshit than pedal-based rigs. You can make either one crappy if you don't invest the time to learn how to use your tools, and additionally don't have the experience of using them in a band setting.

Lots see the PODs as a convenience tool and don't spend enough time trying to make it sound better. I think they're ok, I don't prefer them, but there's nothing wrong with them either. Calling it the 'Ultimate Tone Tool' is a bit of a stretch though ;) . Wait- a humungous stretch. :AOK

I remember when stuff like the Digitech GSP21 (or some of the ART stuff) was touted as the 'Ultimate Tone' device .. ha! Just because something eliminates patch cables in favor of running your guitar through a computer doesn't automatically make it the 'ultimate'.

-Ben

[Atmospheric]

I'll agree with you mostly, but disagree on some points.

Atomic = tube guitar amp for modelers. Not truly full range. Makes it better, no bull, no hype. True 50 watts 6L6 power designed for modeling to bring it real live. Not a keyboard amp, not an acoustic amp, not a PA amp. A guitar amp. It's an entirely important thing. I've been down the road with PA, Keyboard and Acoustic amps. I've tried a lot of high end tube power amps. Atomic is the Ace in the hole here. It changes the landscape.


I use a Mesa 20-20 power amp with stereo Avatar 1-12 G12H30 cabs. I can't crank the volume any higher than 10:00. It's dang loud. Plus, the guitar cabs roll off at just the right point to my ears. I turn off AIR and use the PXTL combo pwr amp global setting. Then, if I use studio direct mode, those same sounds work great direct with in-ears (I use both modes extensively on a daily basis).

I really hate SS ampification, even though I own a Thunderfunk bass amp. SS clipping is just plain nasty. Tubes just handle situations much more gracefully and musically. Tube power amps as back end for a modeler are sublime.

This is all my .02; YMMV (especially if it's working for you; don't change on my account).

[Atmospheric]

other than me that uses a PXTL live. It's just not trendy or cool. So I don't get much of an opportunity to hear PODs done badly.

I guess I did hear Randy Travis's guitar player sound really bad through one once.

You are right about one thing... the MD at church intially balked at the idea of me running a POD direct. They were already using in-ears and always telling me to choke the life out of my GT Soul-O 75 rig, so I argued for a chance to give it a try. The MD has since told me that I'm the only guy who got a POD to sound really good in his context. Yes, first thing I did was wipe all the factory presets. The basic rig I use sounds very much like my GT Soul-O 75 (I use the Soldano SLO model a lot - both are essentially hotrodded Marshals).

We'll just have to agree to disagree, and hopefully... not become disagreeable about it.

Be well.

MLT - I've heard more POD-based rigs sound like absolute dogshit than pedal-based rigs. You can make either one crappy if you don't invest the time to learn how to use your tools, and additionally don't have the experience of using them in a band setting.

Lots see the PODs as a convenience tool and don't spend enough time trying to make it sound better. I think they're ok, I don't prefer them, but there's nothing wrong with them either. Calling it the 'Ultimate Tone Tool' is a bit of a stretch though ;) . Wait- a humungous stretch. :AOK

I remember when stuff like the Digitech GSP21 (or some of the ART stuff) was touted as the 'Ultimate Tone' device .. ha! Just because something eliminates patch cables in favor of running your guitar through a computer doesn't automatically make it the 'ultimate'.

-Ben

[AndyZ]

Scott, I'm glad you posted this. This is something I've been professing since I started using Line 6 gear in 1999. I got to the point where I think I was so linked into Line 6 and then Atomic, I think most people thoiugh I worked for the companies, thus making my statements seem more like propganda for the companies than as a product user. So I laid back from my soapbox. I'd do clips or post clisp using stuff and most folks again would miss the content and say, "The band sucks", "I hate that type of music", or "that will never sell", rather than listen to the point of the post.

I should say now I won't stop professing modelling gear, but I'm sure glad there are others like you who are held in high esteem saying what I have been for years.

And on the flip side I myself still own traditional tubes amps and still use them. But like you said, the Atomic/PODxt combination is surely hard to beat these days.

[Matt Gordon]

Check out this guys solo http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a3gi6p-5h-4 Pretty sure its a POD or equiv. Also check out Scott Lerner's "Bluetude" at http://www.scottlernermusic.com/music/Bluetude.mp3 good stuff. But I still love a tube amp and analog pedals! :horse :munch

[waxnsteel]

As far as the full range system stuff goes, that's what you need IF you want to use the cab/room simulation. IIRC Scott uses a guitar amp-ish thing, so he's not modeling speakers and cabs - and that works for him. If you were to use that stuff, a full-range system with plenty of headroom will get the as much as you can out of those aspects of a modeler.

[disaster]

I don't think I've ever tried to directly copy someone's tone- I'm always after something unique that sounds good to me. In that respect, my POD is invaluable. It supplies me with the building blocks (and lots of them, at that) and hopefully creativity does the rest.

[odourboy]

One point I'll add (sorry if it's already been said - if so, I missed it) is that some of this POD stuff goes down very nicely on to tape - better than I can do in my basement music room with cheap mics etc. I guess it's the 'total environment' modelling thing including the mics and the room. Cerrtainly wouldn't claim that it's studio quality, but it beats my basement quality.

[Crunchyriff]

I'm one of those guys that it's all about "whatever WORKS for me".

That said, When you see today's landscape scattered with so many different modelers, both analog AND digital, to choose from, the obvious question is: "what were they intended to do"?

Replicate analog/Tube amps, and perhaps:

"Take amplified music to the next level"....but that next level doesn't always go up.

IF you are trying to sell a modeler, one would think that a company would be tabling their very best face in audio examples to sell their product... especially since these folks design the stuff.

I'm sorry, but nothing I've heard by Line6/Pod to this day approximates ANYTHING within reason that I'd be happy to plug into. Period. You don't know how much I wish it weren't the case.

Latencey? Pfft. I think digital "Jitter" might be a more viable argument.

Put it this way- when CD's first came out (along with the first gen of players in car stereo) They sounded atrocious. Just hideous. Then "oversampling" became a buzzword. Technology has progressed since then, and now, 23 years later, what was once hideous to my ears, now is "tolerable". I'll still take vinyl anyday, but I put up with the convenience of CD's and iPods.

I'd just like for your perspective to change.For me, Scott, it will change when the product meets my expectations, and ONLY then.

It isn't modelers, or amps, or pedals, or guitars. It isn't the gear. It IS operator laziness, ignorance and/or error.I take strong, (yet friendly) exception to this statement, Scott. As a pro musician who has played for over 3 decades I certainly am not lazy, or ignorant. I'm around this stuff all the time. I just cut a new album at one of the world's top 10 recording studios, that has at least 50% all-digital guitars on it. Guitar, Q-base, console, outboard gear, etc....WAY beyond the quality (and price point, mind you) of POD/Line6. That said, I'm only happy with the dirt guitars when they are mixed/layered with my live tube amp tracks. They still have a long way to go in this dept. They don't sound right without the real deal mixed in- to my ears, anyway. Clean guitar seems to get some more grace in this dept.

So now we come to the last claim- "Error" What is error? That somebody allegedly doesn't know how to manipulate said gear- or is it error that one person hears something differently than another (or doesn't hear it at all); or is 'error' the adjective being exchanged for the word "taste"? For example I hate brussel sprouts & asparagus. I've tried to "aquire a taste for them", for a number of my adult years. No way-Jose it isn't ever gonna happen. Nothing will get me away from the table quicker than to set a plate of that in front of me. Now- Let's say you LOVE both those vegetables, and say I 'have no taste'- I'm 'in error'. That might stand up... only until we agree on some other food we both love. Gee, guess I had taste after all. So where is the 'error'?

As far as "proper implementation" for POD/Line6 rig being a full-range PA type sys...yes I've heard that numerous times. Funny thing is, the most 'legitimate' rock guitar sound I've ever heard done with a digital modeler were some tracks Mark Abrahamian recorded. IIRC he ran a line6/POD into the front end of a Metropolis SLP100 kit amp. Pretty impressive. I could live with it IF I had to, but I would not be satisfied with it.

I think digital "jitter" may be part of the reason, maybe not. Anyway, that's my $.25 on the issue.

:)

[Srvwannab]

Not to hijack the thread with a which is better question, but has anybody on the board tried the Johnson J-Station? If so, how does it compare tone-wise to the Pod? ~Thanks.

[Oddos]

I don`t really hate Pods. Getting a good sound is no problem. The problem comes when it doesn`t sound like me, cause those things don`t respond to my personal touch and signature at all. Versus a good tube amp, that does very little else.

[Ben C.]

We'll just have to agree to disagree, and hopefully... not become disagreeable about it.

Be well.
I agree to disagree ;)
And it's not that PODs sound bad or anything, it's just that I don't want to use the sounds in there. It's like saying which amp is better - A Rivera M100 or a Vox AC30... they're different and some people will go one way, and some another.

-Ben

[jazzguitarplay]

the pedals/amps/guitars dont make the player, the player makes the gear. Theres some gigs i wont take my main rig and pedal board out on, when i play out at the beach, i dont want sand and dirt to mess up my stuff so i bring my boss gt-3, no amp, right into the p/a system, ive never had one person come up to me and tell me my sound sucks, yea ive spent some time editing patches and pre sets but its made me realize that most time its for us the players, of course theres no sub for the real thing, tube amps and botique gear, it pushes us and our creative level to new heights but modelers have there place and there not going away anytime soon

[stairs]

I'm one of those guys that it's all about "whatever WORKS for me".

That said, When you see today's landscape scattered with so many different modelers, both analog AND digital, to choose from, the obvious question is: "what were they intended to do"?

Replicate analog/Tube amps, and pehaps:

"Take amplified music to the next level"....but that next level doesn't always go up.

IF you are trying to sell a modeler, one would think that a company would be tabling their very best face in audio examples to sell their product... especially since these folks design the stuff.

I'm sorry, but nothing I've heard by Line6/Pod to this day approximates ANYTHING within reason that I'd be happy to plug into. Period. You don't know how much I wish it weren't the case.

Latencey? Pfft. I think digital "Jitter" might be a more viable argument.

Put it this way- when CD's first came out (along with the first gen of players in car stereo) They sounded atrocious. Just hideous. Then "oversampling" became a buzzword. Technology has progressed since then, and now, 23 years later, what was once hideous to my ears, now is "tolerable". I'll still take vinyl anyday, but I put up with the convenience of CD's and iPods.

For me, Scott, it will change when the product meets my expectations, and ONLY then.

I take strong, (yet friendly) exception to this statement, Scott. As a pro musician who has played for over 3 decades I certainly am not lazy, or ignorant. I'm around this stuff all the time. I just cut a new album at one of the world's top 10 recording studios, that has at least 50% all-digital guitars on it. Guitar, Q-base, console, outboard gear, etc....WAY beyond the quality (and price point, mind you) of POD/Line6. That said, I'm only happy with the dirt guitars when they are mixed/layered with my live tube amp tracks. They still have a long way to go in this dept. They don't sound right without the real deal mixed in- to my ears, anyway. Clean guitar seems to get some more grace in this dept.

So now we come to the last claim- "Error" What is error? That somebody allegedly doesn't know how to manipulate said gear- or is it error that one person hears something differently than another (or doesn't hear it at all); or is 'error' the adjective being exchanged for the word "taste"? For example I hate brussel sprouts & asparagus. I've tried to "aquire a taste for them", for a number of my adult years. No way-Jose it isn't ever gonna happen. NOthing will get me away form the table quiker than to set a plate of that in front of me. Now- Let's say you LOVE both those vegetables, and say I 'have no taste'- I'm 'in error'. That might stand up... only until we agree on some other food we both love. Gee, guess I had taste after all. So where is the 'error'?

As far as "proper implementation" for POD/Line6 rig being a full-range PA type sys...yes I've heard that numerous times. Funny thing is, the most 'legitimate' rock guitar sound I've ever heard done with a digital modeler were some tracks Mark Abrahamian recorded. IIRC he ran a line6/POD into the front end of a Metropolis SLP100 kit amp. Pretty impressive. I could live with it IF I had to, but I would not be satisfied with it.

I think digital "jitter" may be part of the reason, maybe not. Anyway, that's my $.25 on the issue.

:)

i like these thoughts. i like the way of aproach

[JeffD]

Although I've recorded a little for fun with a POD v2.0, playing live with one is not something I've tried. Haven't worked at getting a good live tone with one. Nevertheless, they seem to record a fairly decent sound, IMHO. With work demands, there are many days where the only time for me to play (if any at all) is after the wife and kiddo are asleep. I've had fun practicing and recording stuff with one then, and haven't kept anyone awake. The link in my signature has a tune recorded with a POD v2. (See "Pod People"). I was happy with the tone on that for what it is. I've found that getting a good sound on the POD requires a low level input. I use a Barber Tone Press compressor, set to give just a little compression, but also set to reduce the line level significantly.

About the latency thing, it hasn't bothered me at least for recording purposes. Can anyone tell me what the latency time is on the POD v2? Scott, I read you post that it was 2 ms on one of the newer versions.

[John Phillips]

I'm sure I won't convert anyone either, but my opinion is...

Digital modeling sounds bad. (To me.) It just does. It's not the 'feel', response, settings - or operator error. EQ'ing or running it through an amp, a PA or anything else I've tried does not fix it. Yes, I do know what I'm doing - I can dial in a usable sound on almost any cheap piece of junk analog solid-state amp, or pedal (even DI'd)... but not on any digital modeler I've ever played. It's not in the settings, it's in the basic structure of the sound itself.

If you can't hear the difference (which is not at all to say you have poor hearing or mine is superhuman), I can't really explain it any better than that.

I'm actually very happy playing analog solid-state, but if it ever comes to the day when there's no choice other than digital, I'll give up playing electric guitar. Seriously.

[journo]

Hi,

I have been using modellers now for many years and while it started out as a neccessity it is now my preferred tool to get my tones on track. I actualy find I can make better music with my present modeller of choice, the Boss GS-10, than I can with my amps. This is, I realize, that I am less expert with miking my amps than I am programming my modeller.

I'm quite sure a lot of people who listen to the fairly large number of tracks I have posted in the Soundclips section think my tone is of less quality than what we hear recorded by such great guitarists like Mike Landau, Scott Henderson, Larry Carlton, Robben Ford, Pat Matheny, Steve Farris, etc. At the same time a lot of people actually tell me I have a great recorded sound. While I'm happy about the latter what it really comes down to is that when you want to make music is that you choose equipment that supports your very own musical vision.

Regarding modellers as a whole they all sound awful, in the state they are shipped from the factory. I have tried every modeller on the market (except the Axe-Fx) and they all sound bad when I go through the factory patches. The first thing I do is to turn of every effect except a slight amont of reverb. Some modellers sound really crappy whatever I do with them at that point and I have an extensive experience with modellers. Now some can sound OK but lack dynamics. My favourite so far is the Boss GS-10 as it reminds me of a good tube amp in sound feel and dynamics. The funny thing is that although it has a large number of amp models I only use 2!!! The warm clean amp gets 95% of my time both for really warm and clean stuff but also for Stevie Ray type sounds and Larry Carlton and Robben Ford style sounds. The other model is a Marshall Plexi type amp that I have modded (yes the Boss GS-10 lets you mod a few of the digital models and that's a lot of fun).

With this I'm definitely not saying I'm sounding like these esteemed masters but I definitely get in the ballpark to the degree that I feel the inspiration to actually play which is very important. My Boss GS-10 makes me want to play more, write better tunes and record stuff. I also learn more and more and the GS-10 sounds better every week.

Now, having touted the GS-10 I must also say that I do use a lot of analog pedals in front of it. It takes pedals very well and I enjoy the pedals into GS-10 combination very much. Right not I just love a Suhr Classic into a Eternity on through a Fulldrive 2 and then into the GS-10. An Edwards SA-118 (excellent 335 clone) into a Barber Burn Unit EQ into the GS-10 is another source of joy.


In case anyone wants to hear some stuff I'll be more than happy to post links to show what make my ears happy. Then you can decide if my words have any meaning for your musical journeys.

Cheers,

Mats N

[TieDyedDevil]

I spent 15 years working on/off sales in music stores, music gear buying tends to be pretty emotional, stuff gets tossed aside quickly that does not create distinction or separate itself in a positive way, but "knee jerk" is different, it is not emotional, it is habit....so...

You have to wonder how a response of habit (as in Knee jerk) to audio gear comes to pass...any "knee jerkers" care to comment on response habit came to be? What other equipment category has this instant response? I seem to remember Dumble threads bringing out Knee jerkers in polar directions....but this aint that thread...:AOK

Hmm, not sure I see a clear distinction between emotion and habit, but I'll give this a shot. I've refused to consider, at various times over the past eight years:


any amp that wasn't a Boogie
any amp that didn't use tubes
any guitar that wasn't a Gibson
any pedal that wasn't true-bypassAre those knee-jerk reactions? From my perspective, I believe that they are. I've since moved on to Fender amps, don't play a Gibson, use mostly buffered pedals, and have recently adopted digital modelers through solid-state amplification.

Why? Because my perspective has changed. Because I've given other brands and other technologies a chance and have discovered that with a bit of work (not really any more, all things considered, than the effort I put into any of my previous rigs) I can get a great sound out of just about anything.

My tone has not gotten worse. But my rig has become more consistent and easier to transport; these were the goals that came to the fore once I understood how to get the tone I want.

I still have preferences, of course, but I could have found myself in my current position with respect to gear several years ago had I not entertained preconceived notions about certain kinds of gear.

[TieDyedDevil]

As far as the full range system stuff goes, that's what you need IF you want to use the cab/room simulation. IIRC Scott uses a guitar amp-ish thing, so he's not modeling speakers and cabs - and that works for him. If you were to use that stuff, a full-range system with plenty of headroom will get the as much as you can out of those aspects of a modeler.

That's a good point. Thanks for clarifying the distinction.

My modus operandi is to consider my "rig" to be the guitar and the GT-8. Amplification is separate. I want to be able to use my own or plug into someone else's house system and get consistent results. Thus my emphasis on a FRFR system...

[TieDyedDevil]

I don`t really hate Pods. Getting a good sound is no problem. The problem comes when it doesn`t sound like me, cause those things don`t respond to my personal touch and signature at all. Versus a good tube amp, that does very little else.


Well, this is why I said that one must approach a modeler on its own terms. I prefer a certain kind of response from my rig. My preferences are based upon having played nothing but a Vibro-King for the past four years. My guitar into a Vibro-King "sounds like me". If I plug into a Twin Reverb or a Dual Rectifier, I'm still playing a tube amp but I'm no longer getting the response I expect from my rig.

So it's not just the technology, it's what the technology does.

It took me several hours to get a good sound from my GT-8. I worked on that in the store before I spent my money. I've spent time with other modelers and couldn't find the sound I wanted, so I didn't buy them. Like I said before, the presence of lots of parameters to tweak is no guarantee that there's going to be some combination of settings that will make the modeler behave in a way that works for you.

[TieDyedDevil]

I'll agree with you mostly, but disagree on some points.

Atomic = tube guitar amp for modelers. Not truly full range. Makes it better, no bull, no hype. True 50 watts 6L6 power designed for modeling to bring it real live. Not a keyboard amp, not an acoustic amp, not a PA amp. A guitar amp. It's an entirely important thing. I've been down the road with PA, Keyboard and Acoustic amps. I've tried a lot of high end tube power amps. Atomic is the Ace in the hole here. It changes the landscape.


I did give the Atomic some consideration, but decided to see how far I can go without the tube technology. I always have my Vibro-King to fall back on should I decide that this is a dead-end.

I'm only a couple months into this experiment, but so far I'm quite pleased with running a GT-8 through a FRFR system.

[TieDyedDevil]

Lots see the PODs as a convenience tool and don't spend enough time trying to make it sound better. I think they're ok, I don't prefer them, but there's nothing wrong with them either. Calling it the 'Ultimate Tone Tool' is a bit of a stretch though ;) . Wait- a humungous stretch. :AOK


Calling anything The Ultimate is just hyperbole, anyhow. It pays dividends to reserve a healthy amount of skepticism for any claim made by any vendor.


That said, options are the one thing that a modeler will give you that a traditional rig won't without incurring extra costs. You still should be able to get your one or two great sounds out of a modeler before you'll consider the purchase, just like you should try out a tube amp before you buy it. But once you get those one or two great sounds out of a modeler of your choice, there's a huge potential for additional sounds that you can get to with no more effort than navigating the UI.

[TieDyedDevil]

I really hate SS ampification, even though I own a Thunderfunk bass amp. SS clipping is just plain nasty. Tubes just handle situations much more gracefully and musically. Tube power amps as back end for a modeler are sublime.


That's the most important difference between SS and tube amps: Tubes handle overload gracefully, while SS sounds like crap if you push it too hard. It takes a lot of SS power to keep up with a 50-watt tube amp. As best I can tell, you need at least 5x the power.

I now have two 300-watt FRFR systems for my GT-8, neither one of which can reproduce the SPLs of my 60-watt Vibro-King. (Which is OK, because I don't ever use the full volume of the VK...)

When Line6 first came out with the Vetta I was invited to an in-store preview with the sales staff and a Line6 rep. The rep made a big deal about how much headroom their amps had over and above the advertised rating. At the time I thought he was full of it. Now I realize that he at least had the right idea, irrespective of whether the product actually delivered (something which I am not able to judge for myself).



FWIW, here's the text of the article that I wrote on the subject of power requirements for FRFR systems to be used with modeling preamps:



Now that I've started playing my guitar through a modeling processor my amplification has changed as well. I'm using a "full-range, flat response" (FRFR) amplification system. This simply means that the amplification system is a sound reproduction system that doesn't add any significant coloration of its own to the sound. Examples of FRFR systems include PAs and keyboard amplifiers.


My FRFR system is a 300-watt portable PA. Yes, that's right... I wanted to play at lower volumes, so I went from a 60-watt tube amp to a 300-watt PA system.


How can that possibly make any sense?


Don't get taken in by wattage ratings. The perceived loudness of an amp depends upon the power, the overall frequency response of the system (including the speakers) and the efficiency of the speakers.


Guitar speakers are very efficient and emphasize the midrange frequencies to which our ears are most sensitive.


Full-range PA speakers can spec out as efficient as guitar speakers. However, they have a flatter, more balanced frequency response than guitar speakers. The midrange peak that gives guitar speakers their "punch" and "cut" doesn't exist on full-range speakers.


It has been a while since I've looked at home stereo speakers, but my recollection is that they're not as efficient as PA and guitar speakers. Also, they're almost certainly not designed for continuous high-powered operation.


Speaker efficiency is measured in dB/W at 1M from the speaker under certain standardized test conditions. The rating is an average of the efficiency as measured at many frequencies. The efficiency of a guitar speaker at very low or very high audio frequencies is negligible, but the efficiency at certain midrange frequencies (typically around 2KHz) is much higher than the average efficiency rating of the speaker.


Even within the range of frequencies put out by a guitar (from 80 Hz up to the speaker's high limit, typically somewhere around 5 KHz) the output for a given input will vary by frequency over a range of 10 dB or more. To put that into perspective, a 10 dB change in speaker efficiency is equivalent to a 10-times factor in amplifier power!


Look at this another way... The difference between the rated (average over all frequencies) efficiency of a guitar speaker and the actual efficiency at the (approximately) 2 KHz peak response can be in the range of 5 to 10 dB. That's like driving a flat-response speaker with a flat-response power amp that's three times (5 dB) to ten times (10 dB) more powerful than your guitar amp, using a graphic EQ with 2KHz boosted by the magnitude of the guitar speaker's peak.


Still not clear? OK, let's try this. To get comparable volumes from a FRFR system, you're probably going to need five to ten times the amount of power that you'd expect from your guitar amp. And that's only if you play clean all the time. If you push the output stage on a modern tube guitar amp, it's possible to get highly-distorted power at roughly twice the rated output of the amp. This isn't true of all tube amps: it depends upon a lot of factors. But it's a good rule of thumb, and the reason why we tend to use speakers rated at one-and-a-half to two times the power rating of a tube guitar amp. So let's revise that earlier statement: depending upon how hard you push your tube amp, a comparable FRFR rig is going to need anywhere from five to twenty times the power rating of your tube guitar amp in order to get a comparable volume level in the room!


Let's put some numbers to that... If you're used to playing through a fifty-watt guitar amp, you're going to need a FRFR system rated somewhere between 250 watts and 1,000 watts! Does that "higher powered" FRFR system still look like a great value for the money?


My personal experience bears this out. I replaced my Fender Vibro-King with a GT-8 and a Yamaha STAGEPAS 300 PA. The Vibro-King is rated at 60 watts. The PA is rated at 300 watts. The PA, even when pushed to just below clipping, is noticeably quieter than the Vibro-King. That works out OK for me since I didn't need or use the Vibro-King's flat-out volume. But if I did want significantly more volume I'd need a much bigger PA. Doubling the perceived volume takes a 6 dB to 10 dB increase in power, which is a factor of four to ten. (Yes, there's a range. Remember that we're dealing with perceptions and not with actual measurements.)


Does that means I'd have to use a 1,200 watt PA if I wanted to double my volume? Yes and no... If all other things were equal, yes. But the STAGEPAS is an integrated system and I don't know the efficiency of its speakers. I can infer something about their efficiency by working backwards from the specs that tell me about the maximum output power (300 watts) and maximum SPL (112 dB at 1M). Let's do some approximation based upon the following:

3 dB is approximately 2x power,
5 dB is approximately 3x power, and
10 dB is 10x power. First I need to know the dB difference between 1 watt and 300 watts. There's a factor of three and two factors of ten. Decibels are additive, so 300 watts is 25 dB more than 1 watt.


Now I can infer the efficiency of the speaker by assuming that Yamaha's "maximum SPL" rating of 112 dB at 1M is based upon the full 300-watt output power. So if we reduced the output power to 1 watt we'd expect that the SPL would drop by 25 dB to 87 dB. And that figure, 87 dB/1 W at 1M, is the efficiency of the STAGEPAS speakers. Not great, but not unexpected for a compact full-range speaker...


A larger, heavier PA speaker would typically be 10 dB more efficient than the STAGEPAS speakers. Remember that 6 dB to 10 dB is equivalent to a perceived doubling of volume. So I could double the volume of my rig by keeping my 300-watt Yamaha amp and substituting a pair of speakers rated at 93 to 97 dB/W efficiency. Of course that would probably more than double the weight of my PA while quadrupling its size. Win some, lose some...


The point of this rather lengthy exercise, though, is to show you how wattage alone is insufficient to predict the volume of a FRFR rig. Using conventional power amps and PA speakers, you're going to need at least a 250-watt amp to get the same perceived volume that you'd get from a 50-watt tube amp. That's not a bad thing, it's just the way the physics works out.


Anecdotally, a guitarist I used to play with ran his modeler through a pair of the big Roland keyboard amps (180 watts per side, IIRC) and he could hold his own quite nicely; that was an insanely loud band, too.
The upside of all this is that clean solid-state amplification is lightweight and inexpensive. Furthermore, because both your amp and speaker are full-range devices, all of your tonal coloration comes from the modeler. This is the way that modelers are designed to be used (assuming that you're using the amp sims and not just the effects).

[TieDyedDevil]

The MD has since told me that I'm the only guy who got a POD to sound really good in his context. Yes, first thing I did was wipe all the factory presets.


I think it's very important to try to find your sound in a modeler as opposed to a preset sound that's "not so bad". Think about what people are really doing when they judge (or worse: use) a modeler based upon its presets. It's like taking an amp and a bunch of FX out of their boxes, hooking them up, and without changing any controls from their out-of-the-box settings making a judgements about the suitability for your own purposes.

[TieDyedDevil]

I'm one of those guys that it's all about "whatever WORKS for me".

That said, When you see today's landscape scattered with so many different modelers, both analog AND digital, to choose from, the obvious question is: "what were they intended to do"?

Replicate analog/Tube amps, and perhaps:

"Take amplified music to the next level"....but that next level doesn't always go up.

IF you are trying to sell a modeler, one would think that a company would be tabling their very best face in audio examples to sell their product... especially since these folks design the stuff.

I'm sorry, but nothing I've heard by Line6/Pod to this day approximates ANYTHING within reason that I'd be happy to plug into. Period. You don't know how much I wish it weren't the case.



It's a marketing approach which has apparently been very successful for Line 6. They emphasize modern sounds and endorsements from modern players. If that's your musical touchstone, great. If not, then Line6's marketing probably won't appeal to you.

[TieDyedDevil]

Regarding modellers as a whole they all sound awful, in the state they are shipped from the factory. I have tried every modeller on the market (except the Axe-Fx) and they all sound bad when I go through the factory patches. The first thing I do is to turn of every effect except a slight amont of reverb. Some modellers sound really crappy whatever I do with them at that point and I have an extensive experience with modellers. Now some can sound OK but lack dynamics. My favourite so far is the Boss GS-10 as it reminds me of a good tube amp in sound feel and dynamics. The funny thing is that although it has a large number of amp models I only use 2!!! The warm clean amp gets 95% of my time both for really warm and clean stuff but also for Stevie Ray type sounds and Larry Carlton and Robben Ford style sounds. The other model is a Marshall Plexi type amp that I have modded (yes the Boss GS-10 lets you mod a few of the digital models and that's a lot of fun).


I've tried a bunch of modelers, too. The POD in various incarnations, the Vox stuff in various forms, some of the lower-end Korg units, and several of the Boss units (GT-6, GS-10, GT-8). I've also played some of units that may or may not be considered "true" modelers: the Fender Cyber-series amps and some of the Tech21 units. They're all different. Some are better than others. Most of them get along better with certain tones and styles of playing than others.


I could never get along with the Line6 stuff. I could never find a satisfying clean tone.

I actually owned a Tonelab for a while, but I made the mistake of judging that based upon the Vox-y and Fender Tweed tones, which I don't really have that much use for. The Fender blackface tones are not that great on the Tonelab...

My first exposure to Boss was the GT-6. I couldn't get a likeable clean tone. That put me off of Boss for a while despite the fact that the GT-8 came out shortly after I tried the GT-6. I tried the GS-10 at the same time I tried the Vox Tonelab. I liked the sound of the GS-10, but didn't particularly care for the I/Os. Live and learn...

When I finally tried the GT-8 (two years after its release), it was because there really wasn't anything else that I hadn't considered. I ended up spending quite a bit of time in the store learning how to program the GT-8, and found out that it has some sounds that I can use. I spent some more time learning how to create patches and set up controls for things like Leslie speed.

What I really like about the GT-8, though, are the custom amp models. I don't recall the details exactly, but you can independently adjust the distortion on the high and low frequencies. That's a big deal for me, because I like to have some hair on the high notes while the low notes stay clean.

[TieDyedDevil]

Digital modeling sounds bad. (To me.) It just does. It's not the 'feel', response, settings - or operator error. EQ'ing or running it through an amp, a PA or anything else I've tried does not fix it. Yes, I do know what I'm doing - I can dial in a usable sound on almost any cheap piece of junk analog solid-state amp, or pedal (even DI'd)... but not on any digital modeler I've ever played. It's not in the settings, it's in the basic structure of the sound itself.

If you can't hear the difference (which is not at all to say you have poor hearing or mine is superhuman), I can't really explain it any better than that.

I'm actually very happy playing analog solid-state, but if it ever comes to the day when there's no choice other than digital, I'll give up playing electric guitar. Seriously.


John, I actually agree with you up to a point. Modelers do sound different. I wouldn't say "bad", but perhaps that's just a difference in the way we hear things...

I have had to adjust my playing to get the best response from a modeler. But that's the same as with any other amp. They're all different, like snowflakes... ;)

[Atmospheric]

In my limited real-world sampling, I've heard perhaps 3 pros attempt to play live with a modeler: one good (Adrian Belew), one not-so-good (whomever plays guitar in Randy Travis' band), and a local jazz/fusion pro who is a good friend of mine who usually sounds at least decent with his Line 6 stuff.

However, every year I hear perhaps up to 100 guys play live with pedalboards. MOST pedalboard rigs I have heard live sound like dogshit. Probably about 80%. The VAST MAJORITY of guys buy holy grail whatever and have no idea how to make it really sound good but because pedals (especially boutique) are cool, no one says anything. I'm talking some major guys. I think they guy with Beck sounds like dogshit. I think Frusciante sounds like dogshit. At least 4 out of every 5 guys I personally hear (either on TV or in person), sound like dogshit and most of them use pedals. I suppose that's the point with some of these guys ;-)

Now, I have heard guys really nail pedalboard rigs. Phil Keagy used to get gorgeous sounds out of his (using Boss pedals into a Yamaha SS combo!) but it's the exception, not the rule IMHO, YMMV and all that crap.

So my informal sampling of real-world sound is modelers = about 67% sound decent or better; pedalboard rigs about 20% on a good day actually sound GOOD.

Personally, I don't care if there's a little rat on a freakin' treadmill inside a modeler. I prefer mine live to my tube amps and pedals.

I'd like to add that I did cringe years ago when I heard that Mike Campbell was touring with Line 6 stuff. That's sacrilege. Mike Campbell into an AC30 is just how it should be IMHO.

John, I actually agree with you up to a point. Modelers do sound different. I wouldn't say "bad", but perhaps that's just a difference in the way we hear things...

I have had to adjust my playing to get the best response from a modeler. But that's the same as with any other amp. They're all different, like snowflakes... ;)

[tot_Ou_tard]

... the MD at church intially balked at the idea of me running a POD direct. ................The MD has since told me that I'm the only guy who got a POD to sound really good in his context.
Ummm...what do you mean by MD? I'm thinking Medical Doctor, but somehow it must be integral to church. So it must be....Master of ummm....I got nothin'. I have trouble enough keeping up with all the gear acronyms.

Excellent thread, I'm enjoying all of it. :AOK

[jezzzz2003]

I dont know how anyone can honestly say that modellers sound good.
I really dislike them, they just sound terribly fake to me, allthough I do like natural power tube compression at high volumes, modellers dont sound anything like that.
Some of us like em, some of us dont.
Thats me done.

[TieDyedDevil]

Musical Director

[tot_Ou_tard]

Musical Director
Thanks!

[Josh O]

I've tried the modeling route a few times myself but I just wasn't digging it. I've had two incarnations of the POD, 1.x and then I tried 2.x and I really tried to dig them but I just couldn't. The 1.x series had a pretty bad delay when switching presets with the floorboard. The 2.x series seemed to fix that but I just didn't like how it didn't react like an amp to picking dynamics, rolling back the guitar volume to clean up, etc. I felt I spent a pretty good amount of time tweaking them but not coming up with results I liked. When I had 1.x which was probably 7 years ago now, I was going to use it as an amp and ran it through the Marshall Valvestate 120/120 stereo power amp and Marshall 2x12 I had at the time. I had been using a Boss GT-5 and it sounded great through the power amp but when I used it for direct record, it was the thinnest sounding thing you've ever heard, the COSM technology at that time definetely wasn't geared towards direct record and I spent months tweaking the hell out of that thing. With POD 1.x, it sounded good direct and through headphones but sounded pretty lame through the power amp. I ended up ditching it and my love affair with tube amps began.

A couple of years later, my band was always playing direct into the mixer, so in walks POD 2.x. I bought it specifically for this and it served it's purpose well for a year but I was still not happy with it's lack of dynamic touch plus my pedal collection was starting to blossom which is why I went with the Koch Pedaltone.

I think if I wasn't all set in the amp department and direct record, I'd give the POD XT or POD Live through the Atomic amp a whirl. Every once and a while the fleeting thought goes through my head to dump it all and get a Vetta halfstack or just the other day, I was seriously thinking about the Fender Cyber Twin SE but I've lost my desire to tweak beyond turning my amp knobs. I guess I've just gotten lazy!!!!!

[OldSchool]

When a baby is in the crib and happens to sneeze when the wind blows the curtains; the baby might assume that the curtains moving caused their sneeze. Ahh, but we know that to not be the case because we have a much deeper understanding and perspective than the child.


That's deep. Allow me to go meditate on that for a while..........anyone got any incense? :hiP

[Moe45673]

I think Rolands almost nailed the modelling thing on their Cube amps. The Cube 60 is so good that I forget it's a modeller

I would love to be in some weird sonically experimental band that creates soundscapes and use a GT-8, though. That would be unreal.

FWIW, I used to own a PodXTLive and hated it, but i've seen people get great tone out of their flextone IIIs who love em

I should add, as a sidenote, that I use 10+ pedals into a solid state marshall AVT amp and get incredible tone and feel. I just met a professional guitarist that I only met once before, a year ago, and although the dude can play circles around me, he remembered me thanks to my tone and what I used to get there :D

[LSchefman]

>>I'm sure I won't convert anyone either, but my opinion is...

Digital modeling sounds bad. (To me.) It just does. <<

I tend to agree with this. But let me put some perspective on it:

For 20 or so years, I have written and produced music for TV ads, various film and TV projects, etc. I am not a guitar player by trade; I'm mostly a keyboard guy and studio rat. I play guitar as one of my instruments. But I'm passionate about my studio work and equally passionate about guitar.

I have developed an awful lot of expertise in digital audio, including synth programming, software programming, digital sampling, digital recording, use of plug-ins, digital editing and mixing, etc. I've used every kind of synthesis out there, and even had the very first commercially available modeling instrument, the Yamaha VL-1 (over 5 grand when it came out), later the Korg Prophecy; I've owned digital synths, analog synths, digital samplers, and of course modelers. I own most of the better software synths and samplers as well. I'm very experienced at programming everything from old fashioned modular synths with patch cords right up to current offerings.

I never use presets. I always create my own patches. I am NOT lazy, nor am I technically challenged in this area. If you think tweaking a pod is complicated, try tweaking an old ARP with modules connected with patch cords in the heat of a session. Most guys can't even get it to make a sound unless they understand modular subtractive synthesis.

Scott's right, latency isn't the problem with modeling; but it's still not quite real-sounding. Unlike triggering a sample, modelers have had a problem with making the attack portion of a note convincing. This includes software synth modelers, in my experience (incidentally, I like software synth modelers but WTF, they aren't supposed to sound real, they're synths!). And the sounds of the models, as good as they are, aren't really quite perfect.

For someone who depends on sound for a living, I can't depend on them to give me what I want. Yet. Maybe their time will come, though I think it's ultimately going to take a different approach that hasn't yet reached the commercial market.

I've had all the PODs. I wanted to like them. Really wanted to like them. Because when I'm in a hurry on a project, they're a heck of a lot lighter to move around than an amp, and I'm old with a bad back.

But I found them just a little off, for my purposes. I don't like the way they sit in a track with other instruments. Something's missing, to my ear. This despite both good intentions and lots of effort by an experienced audio tweaker type guy.

I could get them to sound ok...but I couldn't get them to sound great.

If someone here has been satisfied with his or her attempts at creating good modeled sounds, bravo! Couldn't be happier for you.

But they just don't work for me, in my projects.

So I continue to go the tried-and-true route of sticking a mic in front of a speaker, getting a good tone, and hitting "record".

I actually prefer the sound of a good transistor amp to a modeler. Anyway, this is not a personal attack on anyone, just my 2 cents.

Have a great weekend all! :)

[loudboy]

It's taken me years of working, recording and playing out with POD's before I truly feel I've GOT something really good.

That you could get in about 30 seconds by plugging into a good Marshall, Fender or Vox...

I guess my point is that while modelers have their place, I've yet to encounter one that wound up being easier to tweak in than a decent regular rig.

I understand operator error and laziness, but why make it harder/more expensive on yourself?

It's just me, but I don't want to play through ANY rig that demands that kind of attention. I may be missing out on something, but I've always been able to tell whether or not an amp is a "keeper" within about 20 seconds of turning it on. I've never been happy with an amp that took any fussing with - for me, it's either happening or it isn't...

For a while I had my "cover band rig", which was a small pedalboard w/OD, chorus, wah, delay and lead boost, a G&L Legacy w/mini-humbucker in the bridge and a few clean amps in the 20-50W range. Never had a problem getting whatever tone was needed and always got compliments on my sound...

In side-by-side tests this rig, which cost <$1000, including guitar and the Marshall 4010 combo, completely held its' own against a Bogner Shiva, a Guytron and a Matchless SC-30.

I haven't heard your rig, but Im sure it sounds very nice. Each to his own...

Loudboy

[TieDyedDevil]

I guess my point is that while modelers have their place, I've yet to encounter one that wound up being easier to tweak in than a decent regular rig.

I understand operator error and laziness, but why make it harder/more expensive on yourself?


Fair question. I can answer for myself. (I think I know what Scott's going to say, as the question has been answered before.)

I spent a lot of time trying to find a good-sounding rig that's easy to carry. My best tube rig weighs in the neighborhood of a hundred pounds (amp, guitar and pedalboard). I strive to carry everything in one trip so I don't have to have a helper when I'm moving gear. With the tube rig I used a luggage cart to help with the carry, but negotiating uneven ground and stairways was still a PITA.


I finally gave up on trying to get great sound and low weight out of a tube rig. There are certain laws of physics that you just can't violate. So I started checking out digital rigs, not really expecting much...

There is a learning curve with a digital rig, and it is not as easy to tweak as a simpler tube rig. You'll get no argument from me on that score. But the curve isn't as steep as you might imagine. I learned everything I need to know about my GT-8 in about seven hours. Is that a lot of time? Hell, I've spent that much time researching tube brands... Add in all the time I've spent researching, designing and tweaking pedalboards and that seven hours to master a modeler seems pretty good to me.

Even the tweaking isn't that big a deal. The GT-8 puts all the important parameters on individual knobs. I keep things simple so that I can tweak on the fly if needed. You don't have to run a modeler that way, but I don't see any benefit in making things more complex just because they can be more complex.


But back to my original point about finding a good sounding rig with an easy carry. I'm happy with the sound I'm getting from my GT-8 patch. (Yes, one patch is enough. I spent the previous four years playing through one amp; one good modeled amp works just fine for me.) My "core rig" is now my guitar plus a ten-pound modeler. If I need to provide my own amplification (a rare occurrence in local venues) I can bring one of my own full-range systems (a mini PA or a keyboard amp) at the cost of adding another forty or fifty pounds to my carry. The total carry weight is still considerably less than my tube rig...

[tonewave]

I did a european tour a couple years ago where I had to use a modeler/amp box of some sort due to the constraints of the gig, no amp on stage.
I spent a lot of time with the pod, great fun big distorted sounds, ultra cleans, but its the in between that it just fell apart. That wonderful clean on the edge of break up sound that we all love and know, no dice.
I spent a long time tweaking trying to get that sound working and I discovered a 'flat line' frequency that was always present in the sound. No matter what I tried to dial out I couldn't touch this hi-mid narrowband frequency. Just always there.
Then I went through the other sounds and I could hear it there too, no mistaking it. Thats when I found the 'sound' of the pod itself.
So I passed on getting it and used a lexicon mpxg2 with an artpac tube comp/pre in the insert and zvex sho in front, got me there with flying colours.
so thats my little modeller story....

[Grap]

The standard pro rig around here is a modeller of some type, usually a Pod XT Live, through a rented JC 120, although some might use a Boss GT-8 or a Pod XT/2.0 with the floorboard. They might have a Marshall stack for show, but you can bet there's a modeller running into or around it :)

[John Phillips]

The standard pro rig around here is a modeller of some type, usually a Pod XT Live, through a rented JC 120, although some might use a Boss GT-8 or a Pod XT/2.0 with the floorboard. They might have a Marshall stack for show, but you can bet there's a modeller running into or around it :)If I had to play where you are (and assuming I wasn't allowed other pedals), I'd just go straight into the JC-120, and use the distortion on it. Yes, I'm well aware of the reputation the JC-120's distortion has... but I've used them, and I can make them sound very good. The only slight problem is that the EQ (which is very sensitive) setting for the best distortion sound is not quite the same as that for the best clean sound... although that's the same with some tube amps too.

This perfectly illustrates the difference, I think :). With the Roland, it's an EQ issue, and you can dial in good or bad sounds. With the modelers I've played, it isn't - they all sound bad, no matter what you do to them. They all sound inherently the same to me, too - I don't really hear the difference between earlier ones or newer ones, or between (eg) the Vox and the Line6, or whatever. Obviously the settings are different, but they all sound like modelers.

[jonnyrock]

I love these modeller threads. More than any other topic they bring out the righteousness of all. Everyone has a strong "and right opinion". Now for my right opinion...

i think of my pod xt as the sound of my amp in the next room with a mic on it. To me it sounds really good. i a/b it 2 tones ive recorded through my amp in studios and it sounds close. close enough to sound like theres a different mic on my amp. in fact i really like putting the sound of my real amp hard left and the sound of the pod hard right.

check out my myspace sight and tell me which guitars are using real amps and which are using pods. i dont think many could.

BUT. and its a big butt. lol.

It helps to have owned alot of the great amps these devices model. Also the amount of eq used by our top engineers & mixers cannot be underestimated as a HUGE part of the guitar sound. Guitars are basically shaped (eq) to whatever they need to be to fit the track. Has anyone checked out the waves SSL plugins with Chris Lord-Alges presets. Instant green day no matter if your using a pod or marshall.

But using the pod live is a different story. Ive tried the atomic, and full range speakers and it just doesnt happen for me. I know the punter couldnt tell the difference but as others have said its the feel. And when your doing lotsa gigs you start doing it for yourself ie: tone becomes important for your own sanity. I mean imagine playing brown eyed girl everynight and using a pod. Ugghh.

For some reason the pod sounds much better to me at home through my small monitors than through 15"powered wedges. Lucky Ive got a stage guy to carry my ac30 in and out of gigs.

ok next.

[Sid]

I guess it all depends on how you use modellers...

when I had a GT-8,I ran into the PA or keyboard amplifiers to get a good tone....Scott is right...you have to use it like you're using a whole rig.....and especially for modulation related stuff its great..its all about the tone you are after...if you are playing metal...you can do realy well with a multi effector...take opeth...running gt-8s into laney...or marty friedman running the gt-8 into a pa..

But if you're looking for a guitar tone thats more vintage...or something that allows your playing to stand out...where ur particular about the kind of dynamics you get and the organic nature of the sound...a modeller is just not for you....I wanna get tones like jimi hendrix,scott henderson,govt mule,jimmy page....the multi effectors just didnt cut it for me....i felt the tones i was getting were sterile..and I knew how to dial in the effects....hours and days interacting with people on forums for the modellers i knew exaclty how to get the best outta the modellers...and for a lotta uses it was great.....but its not what i need....when i play through a multi effector..i dont feel im playing a guitar...and ive owned a lot of em from zoom to pod to boss to digitech...I got the best tones outta the digitech....

I would say that modellers can be good for practice and recording...but thats about it....

heres a quick eg:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lefTs0nqpnM

now anyone who has seen frank gambale playing through an actual amp knows the difference....ive seen him play connected into nothing but a jcm900 and i was floored:RoCkIn

[CocoTone]

When I see Jeff Beck, or Clapton, or Gibbons, or Landau, or Paisley, or any guitar god known for his awesome tone, feel and touch, step onstage and use a Pod, or something digital instead on an amp, THEN I'll know that they have arrived. Til then, you guys can spout off all you want, but your not gonna convince me that they can replace what is a known commodity. Dig?:cool:

CT.

[Seegs]

Some random thoughts...

I've used modellers live and for recording scratch tracks for songwriting demos etc...I have always created my own patches...

I have also used the Bombfactory sansamp emulator and amplitube for recording...

I much prefer the Johnson J-Station to the pod and all of the others I have tried...I have recorded some nice guitar tracks for demos with it...

I also got tired of it and sold it I have not missed it one bit...

I have never liked how modellers sit in the mix or feel live...I have eq'd them to where they sound great at soundcheck and when the band comes in I disappear...I have corrected the eq. to sit in the band mix but still in all the times when I have used them live playing was no fun...

then there is the feeling...I won't even get started here...

and while I agree that they have their uses...I also wholeheartedly agree with John I would rather give up guitar playing then play through a modeller live again...

for me guitar playing is and has always been about fun and never about convienence..even when I did it fulltime I would rather haul a Superreverb and large pedal board around at 4am than play through a modeller...

Chow,
Seegs

[BJF]

Hi,

Variax,pod and in-ear do not make me feel warm and fuzzy inside............

The one thing I most enjoy about live amplifiers is the feedback it creates so sound resonates and balances on feedback which gives feeling of controlling a beast. To this day I remember the first time I experienced that at the age of 12.

In a world of keyboardplayers, pods, variaxes and in ear get to be more the thing to use and when the last drummer has exploded the drummachine can compose the songs.:eek:

Sure pods are tools and they may have their place, but honestly if I thought these were the rulers of the future I'd start growning roses this beautiful day.:cool:

Just some thoughts from a pedal- and amp designer:Devil

Have fun
BJ
Affiliations
www.bjfelectronics.com
www.mpamp.com

[cottoneyedjoe]

Actually, Jeff Beck used a Pod for most of his last two albums. Also, Robben Ford used one for a good portion of the Blue Moon album.

Now, that has about a million bucks worth of eq on it and about a million bucks worth of tube preamps on it. Plus all of the processing money can buy.

The Edge uses a Pod in his signal chain. As a matter of fact he uses two. Strictly for effects routed through his Vox amps.

To each his own. They work in the studio for me, but not in a live context. I have used one strictly for effects though.
To me, I just love the sag of the rectifier tube and awesome power tube distortion. No modeller can copy that 100% when you are comparing them side by side in a live situation.

However, in a recording situation, what many players do is use both. Many of the demo tracks are recorded at home on a Pod, and some of those parts are kept, while the overdubs are done on the tube amps. If you make the technology work for you it can be a great thing.

[Sid]

Jeff Beck did use a Pod through the jcm2000 for some demos and robben ford used the pod on "sometime love" to record the extra fuzzy guitar playing the riff...but as been mentioned before...its in no way "their sound":BEER

[cottoneyedjoe]

Just remember Jeff Beck, Robben Ford, David Gilmour (I could go on....) would sound just like themselves even if you put them through a transistor radio.

I guarantee they could get a monster tone out of it. Their "sound" comes from attitude, charisma, and fingers....

The POD doesn't make a bit of difference. Neither does the Marshall, Dumble, or anything else...

It kinda makes this debate pointless doesn't it? To each his own. The one thing the POD doesn't have is the sag of the power tubes which gives any tube amp that 3d quality.

That is why I use the POD as a practice tool and the amp for the gig!

[TieDyedDevil]

Hi,

Variax,pod and in-ear do not make me feel warm and fuzzy inside............

The one thing I most enjoy about live amplifiers is the feedback it creates so sound resonates and balances on feedback which gives feeling of controlling a beast. To this day I remember the first time I experienced that at the age of 12.


Yup. I love feedback, too. Obviously you're not going to get it if you have no stage volume, but that's a function of using IEMs - not whether you use a modeler or not.

[Sid]

Just remember Jeff Beck, Robben Ford, David Gilmour (I could go on....) would sound just like themselves even if you put them through a transistor radio.

I guarantee they could get a monster tone out of it. Their "sound" comes from attitude, charisma, and fingers....

The POD doesn't make a bit of difference. Neither does the Marshall, Dumble, or anything else...

It kinda makes this debate pointless doesn't it? To each his own. The one thing the POD doesn't have is the sag of the power tubes which gives any tube amp that 3d quality.

That is why I use the POD as a practice tool and the amp for the gig!huh

well if it did work that way i wonder why these artists spend hudreds of 1000s of $$ on the dumble and the marshalls if they could get the monster tone outta a 200$ POD...go figure


ever tried feedback through a modeller...i have....its not pretty:puh

[TieDyedDevil]

When I see Jeff Beck, or Clapton, or Gibbons, or Landau, or Paisley, or any guitar god known for his awesome tone, feel and touch, step onstage and use a Pod, or something digital instead on an amp, THEN I'll know that they have arrived. Til then, you guys can spout off all you want, but your not gonna convince me that they can replace what is a known commodity. Dig?:cool:

CT.

Yah, I get it. Can't say that I'm particularly interested in following in the footsteps of "guitar gods", though... I'd rather find my own way.

To each his own, eh?

[orogeny]

I used to own a Mesa Mark-III. That bitch had some righteous tones. I wasn't a big fan of the reverb (as I like fenders), but that bitch had some tone! MOFO! I got lucky. I started to get gigs. I got a LOT of gigs. I started to HATE carrying 60 pounds in a small brick up and down stairs and ramps and. . . you know.

Someone gifted me a DRRI for like 375 bucks. It was a different tone, FOR SURE. Somehow, it seemed it was more MY tone (strats DO love it, you know). I missed the high gain channel. I missed the eq. Man, that was a beautiful EQ. It actually did what you told it to.

We were still gigging MORE AND MORE and rehearsing more and more. I started to worry about my Deluxe Reverb, especially going up and down the stairs at rehearsal. I came into a wee bit of cash and bought a Blues Junior and used it for a couple of months in rehearsal while using the Deluxe Reverb at gigs. After awhile, I realized my favorite sounds were in the Blues Junior. I could and can and do really push this little baby. It's all I really need to please up to 150 people in a room up to half the size of your average gymnasium. I've never even needed to mic it much. My Deluxe sits in my practice room in the basement. What do you do at a gig when your amp craps out though? Luckily it's never happened, but the thought of bringing a second amp was out of the question. I am also the soundguy, so I have two JBL eon1500s and a powered head and speaker stands and cables and. . . in my Hyundai Elantra. Second amp? NOT happening. THEEEEEEEEEEEN, I got a Digitech RP300a. Crap? Sort of? It's made like crap, for sure. I should mention I got it for 75 bucks new. NEW. THAT makes a big difference, for sure. Sounds like crap? Nope. Sounds pretty close to a POD FOR WHAT I USE IT FOR. I spent a couple of hours with it (and my PA. . . this is where the luck really comes together. . . I use it with MY PA). I found a patch I liked and started subtracting what I didn't like. The short of this long and sortofunrelated story is: I can now carry a laptop case with my Digitech to the gig JUST IN CASE. I run my pedals in front of the digitech and simply use it as an amp/cab simulator into some 15 inch JBLs.

PODs don't suck. Neither do the Digitech versions. Use 'em for what you need 'em for. My lead player uses his POD in the studio. I won't let him use one for MY sound, but that is MY preference. I prefer the sound and feel of a speaker moving air behind my ass or back, but I'll take it through the PA and monitors if I have to. . . with a tone loss, for sure, but it WILL get me through a gig, I am certain. . . and them drunk fools up front who don't care about my tone as much as they do my songs. . .. .they don't know the difference. Then again, I am also lucky enough to be a better singer than guitar player.

. . . for what it's worth.

[Sid]

the biggest problem i feel witha POD is that when i play through one..I dont feel im playing a guitar through a nice amp...it doesnt inspire me at all:D

[KLINKDETROIT]

I will be selling my pd 2.0 after getting some AMT pedals. They just sound more real. I like the pods versatility and features but for amp like tone the AMT tends to record better tones that actually do not sound transistor like. If that makes any sense.

[kovachian]

I will be selling my pd 2.0 after getting some AMT pedals. They just sound more real. I like the pods versatility and features but for amp like tone the AMT tends to record better tones that actually do not sound transistor like. If that makes any sense.That's a shame really, you'll be missing out on a whole world of genuine tube tones with an Atomic.

http://www.g66.eu/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=276&Itemid=61

Who wants to buy my Vetta HD?:drool

[cottoneyedjoe]

I will quote Bill Kirchen: ( Bill is a MONSTER tele player)
"I think a certain amount of what you develop as a guitar player, like your tone, is in your mental attitude and your hands, rather than an instrument. That's why I try to discourage gearheads from getting too lost in that... Sure Lonnie Mack had a Magnatone, but I saw him with a Roland Jazz Chorus. Fine. It still sounds just like Lonnie Mack."

I would think if Robben Ford did use a Pod he would sound just as good.
It is not what you play. It is what you do with it. If we went on the principle of a million dollars worth of equipment, rock and roll wouldn't be here. :BEER

[Sid]

I will quote Bill Kirchen: ( Bill is a MONSTER tele player)
"I think a certain amount of what you develop as a guitar player, like your tone, is in your mental attitude and your hands, rather than an instrument. That's why I try to discourage gearheads from getting too lost in that... Sure Lonnie Mack had a Magnatone, but I saw him with a Roland Jazz Chorus. Fine. It still sounds just like Lonnie Mack."

I would think if Robben Ford did use a Pod he would sound just as good.
It is not what you play. It is what you do with it. If we went on the principle of a million dollars worth of equipment, rock and roll wouldn't be here. :BEER

so then again...why doesnt robben ford use a pod...stops and wonders:D

[TieDyedDevil]

so then again...why doesnt robben ford use a pod...stops and wonders:D


If you didn't have to schlep your own gear, what would you use? ;)

[kovachian]

When I see Jeff Beck, or Clapton, or Gibbons, or Landau, or Paisley, or any guitar god known for his awesome tone, feel and touch, step onstage and use a Pod, or something digital instead on an amp, THEN I'll know that they have arrived. Til then, you guys can spout off all you want, but your not gonna convince me that they can replace what is a known commodity. Dig?:cool:

CT.So if a highly revered pro uses something digital on stage will it still count if CocoTone hasn't seen the "god" using it? Lemme guess; if I show pics of famous musicians using modelling amps/digital whatever then you'll just bounce back with some feeble retort along the lines of "Yea well he's no Clapton or Page and frankly I never cared for him anyways.",

It's how naysayers typically respond in countless threads I've seen on various boards, so if my prediction is wrong please let me know.

[Scott Peterson]

Well, this thread devolved into the typical, "Digital sucks." and "Digital doesn't suck." Which is to be expected I guess.

My goal wasn't to go that route, again. I cannot and will not (and want not) to 'convert' anyone to modelers. Or change minds.

My goal with this thread was to illustrate that there is more creating patches with digital modelers than simply dialing it in an amp.

Again - and it doesn't matter what modeler we are talking about - they are NOT AMPS!!!!!!!!!!!

They are everything from your guitar back to the actual room you are playing in. And guys still - even all over this thread (both the pro vs. the con on this) focus on the AMP sound.

Guys, that's only one part of the puzzle. Getting a patch right is simply not that easy. It's dialing in the whole freaking shooting match.

And that's why ignorance or operator error is the main culprit for 'bad digital' in this time and age. Sorry I offended the one guy with that.

But any given current generation modeler *CAN* sound and FEEL damn good if you take the time and effort to not simply understand it, or dial in the 'amp' sound but to create the rig you use.

I know I am skipping personal preference, and many of the anti-modeler guys can/will simply use that to dismiss modelers. That's fine. But be real about it (and many have) and I'm fine. It's a big world, and it takes all kinds to make it spin.

Even the 'analog amp' tube snobs all hate each other's 'analog amp' the other tube snobs love. The hating of something other than what you have or want to have is pretty universal. If you want it? It's the best thing ever. If you own it? It's the best thing ever. If you are not interested in it? It sucks. Welcome to the Internet! :D

Why should one consider all this important in any way? For live work I can have one amp, one extension cab, one cord, one guitar and one footpedal back to the amp (with one cable). AC hook-up on the backline, one outlet needed. I have every effect, silent tuning, tap tempo on all my time based effects, clean boost on every single 'channel' of my 'amps'; with the range of tones from clean to scream with every flavor I need. I can tweak on the fly if needed, sound better at lower volumes if the clubowner yells at the band and I HAVE to turn down. My backup 'rig' is a footpedal I can either run into the amp or direct to FOH if I 'had' to and I give nothing up options wise. I can make one (maybe too tops) trips to/from the car for load in and out.

With a tube rig, and let's not kid ourselves here (I've owned a LOT of them from Matchless, Guytron, Rivera, Bogner, VHT, THD, GT, Fender, Marshall, Vox and on and on) you need to choose your amp and dial it in. That means bias, tubes and cables. You need to choose your extension cabs (and or at least the speakers even if you choose a combo). Your choice of effects is limited to what you can afford, your expertise in setting up a board and dialing it all in (some effects work with some amps, not with others) and creating the AC tap from the front of the stage for the thing - or your run a AC tap off an extension cord to the back line. If you use something like the G-System from TC, you still need a separate rack enclosure to house that setup. More stuff, more stuff that can break down, more stuff to lug, more stuff to insure, more stuff for thieves to rip off.

I can take my gig rig into my house and play silently into headphones. My backup 'rig' (XT Live pedal) is a clone of my XT Bean, so I can leave it at home between gigs and have my whole setup at my feet for practice and silent stuff or crank it up in my powered monitors at home if I want. Or I can pull out my "A" gig rig and have at either silently or at full volume. With the computer hook-up, it is a few seconds to clone one to the other if I've made changes for whatever reason.

As for the tone and feel - there's another thread I started about that; and yes, I will eventually do some clips. (I am limited by my work schedule to do them at volume).

The point of this thread wasn't to take the "I hate digital" and face off against the "I love digital" and go from there. I was cute with my thread title, I know, but the first post was the meat of the message - you cannot approach a POD (or whatever modeler) like a 'pseudo-amp' it's a 'pseudo-RIG' from the effects back to the room (or wherever you stop the chain to the analog world).

[Sid]

If you didn't have to schlep your own gear, what would you use? ;)

maybe acoustic guitar..or the tambourine:BluesBros

[Zero]

I've only once plugged into a POD. We were recording and the studio had one there and I said, "I'll just use this." Rather than set up my amp+cab+pedals. I thought it was great...until the other guitarist did his track, with a real, cranked up tube amp. The POD sounded like a damn TOY in comparison. Which it kind of is, with that cheesy plastic casing. I never paid them any mind after that.

[CocoTone]

So if a highly revered pro uses something digital on stage will it still count if CocoTone hasn't seen the "god" using it? Lemme guess; if I show pics of famous musicians using modelling amps/digital whatever then you'll just bounce back with some feeble retort along the lines of "Yea well he's no Clapton or Page and frankly I never cared for him anyways.",

It's how naysayers typically respond in countless threads I've seen on various boards, so if my prediction is wrong please let me know.


What is your point exactly??

CT.

[Scott Peterson]

I've only once plugged into a POD. We were recording and the studio had one there and I said, "I'll just use this." Rather than set up my amp+cab+pedals. I thought it was great...until the other guitarist did his track, with a real, cranked up tube amp. The POD sounded like a damn TOY in comparison. Which it kind of is, with that cheesy plastic casing. I never paid them any mind after that.

You didn't mean to I suppose, but you've made my point.

Again, it isn't just the sound of the amp. Nor an amp. It's a rig. There is no way, none, that someone not familiar with the thing, not working with the thing can step up and nail a full blown rig with it from the get go.

With some one else's guitar rig? Sure, it's a rig. It's been dialed in, it's been 'put together'. Maybe not by you, maybe not for you; but you spin some knobs and have at.

A POD isn't an amp. You can't, no matter what they market it as, no matter what your perception of it is, just plug-n-play. There is too much to consider. If you are going full blown modeling and recording direct, you not only have to dial in the effects, the preamp, the power amp, the speakers, the mic placement but also the room you are interacting with. That's one hell of a tall order, even if you have an hour. If you know the tool deeply, you can spin it up just as fast as you could if you plugged into a new amp.

But check out how much fiddling guys do with a new tube amp. They swap tubes, speakers, speaker cabs. They try different guitars with it. Check their EQ settings; over hours, weeks, months it'll be changing this and that. It's isn't as 'plug-n-play' as often assumed on the Internet.

Now back up and look at my main point again. The POD isn't an amp. It's the WHOLE rig. From effects, preamp, poweramp, speakers, cabinet, mic choice, mic placement and room. That's a complexity of things to build in a preset that goes FAR beyond dialing in an amp.

Oh, and the POD is metal. Not plastic. :D

[Atmospheric]

Anyway, on that other thread, I mentioned that my conversion to using a modeler has been somewhat reluctant and that I'm not sure I would have the balls to NOT use a tube amp in certain situations entirely because modelers are so un-hip.

I need to re-think that. Why wouldn't I use what I think sounds and works the best for me, regardless of what some snob might think?

Well, this thread devolved into the typical, "Digital sucks." and "Digital doesn't suck." Which is to be expected I guess.

My goal wasn't to go that route, again. I cannot and will not (and want not) to 'convert' anyone to modelers. Or change minds.

[David B]

They are everything from your guitar back to the actual room you are playing in. And guys still - even all over this thread (both the pro vs. the con on this) focus on the AMP sound.

And that's why ignorance or operator error is the main culprit for 'bad digital' in this time and age. Sorry I offended the one guy with that.

But any given current generation modeler *CAN* sound and FEEL damn good if you take the time and effort to not simply understand it, or dial in the 'amp' sound but to create the rig you use.



These three comments I will have to respectfully and attempt to urbanely disagree with. A modeler is a Modeler, for better or for worse. A modeler is not amp-speakers room etc, no more than toy army men are an actual army. Each system component can be models as a way to represent sound on the buyer/players ears or eyes, but they are simply representations. If the modeled speakers were in any way a real speaker, it could then make a actual sound...but a modeler needs an amplifier and a speaker of some sort....but this thread outlined that with agreement on all sides.


"Ignorance of the operator" statement is hyperbole and nothing more, and sure to get a few people "hopping", this could be said about ever piece of equipment ever made....but it would not be true. Digital does not mean good or bad, it is a design, not execution of a design. In the end like all equipment, some is worth the time and some not, this forum exists because some gear is better than others and some people have opinions about it. The blame game is just not really needed, it only inflames...if you have no vested interest, don't oversell.

The third comment about "any given current generation modeler" should be strictly looked at as Scott's opinion from his ears empirical point of view, otherwise this thread could go down the tubes quickly. I don't agree with this comment (again nicely with respect), I have heard both good quality and poor quality modeling devices, some are simply not worth the investment of time or $$, and some I cannot live without...modeling is not indicative of quality or reference..."*CAN* sound and FEEL damn good if you take the time and effort to not simply understand it" , I can't imagine using this line to convince a customer that my devices are perfect and they (the customer) need to make the change. I am guessing that Scott's ears are happy with all current modeling devices (with understanding and tweaking), that is quite a statement...my ears do not share this opinion, and I certainly have a reputation for being able to understand and tweak equipment...even having been on a few beta teams for modeling gear...but I can't get on this bus.

Everybody is entitled to their opinion, try to take it lightly and ignore the "blame assignment", it really is OK to simply not like a piece of gear without it being a personal failure of mind or ability.

[David B]

Now back up and look at my main point again. The POD isn't an amp. It's the WHOLE rig. From effects, preamp, poweramp, speakers, cabinet, mic choice, mic placement and room.

It is a preamp Bingo!!!!! you win! :dude

It is not a poweramp (except headphones).

It is not a speaker (can't make a sound!)

It is not a cabinet (you can't put anything in it).

It is not a mic (go ahead, talk into it). :)

And it is not a room (stand in it) :jo

The marketing if a powerful force, the POD is a preamp that asks people to look at their parameters from a different mindset (and that is ok), but it is their respectable marketing of the parameters and not fact...those devices are verisimilitudes...that means they are not real.

It is ok to buy into the fantasy, otherwise Marvel comics would be gone...

[loudboy]

But check out how much fiddling guys do with a new tube amp. They swap tubes, speakers, speaker cabs. They try different guitars with it. Check their EQ settings; over hours, weeks, months it'll be changing this and that. It's isn't as 'plug-n-play' as often assumed on the Internet.


When I get an amp, I'll put all the tone controls at "5", turn it up 'til it's the right volume and play. If it doesn't sound good to me, I'll take a pass on it. I've found that no amount of tweaking will change the initial "curb appeal" for me. It can make subtle variations, but it's NEVER turned a dud into a keeper, or vice-versa, and I've had a LOT of amps.

I had a great JCM800, w/NOS Mullards in it. One finally died, so I had to go with some new tubes - I had my tech put in whatever it was he liked, for tone/reliability, bias it correctly and off I went. Did it sound different? Marginally, but after about 1 song, I couldn't tell anymore. The amp still sounds great...

I have a tech who's VERY good at doing what needs to be done to an amp to make it sound really nice, as well as be roadworthy. He's also a very pragmatic, no "voodoo" kind of guy. I'll take him whatever amp I've found, he'll go through it and when I get it back, I'll plug into it and smile...

Unless something breaks, that's all I ever do to them.

I use Canare wire for cable, George L's on my pedalboard and I'm good to go.

I've also found, through 30+ years of gigging. running sound and recording, that the guys who are the fussiest about their rigs, usually have tone that doesn't work in a band setting and don't have much to say, musically. Of course there are exceptions, but in general I'll take the guy w/the average rig who plays his ass off over the corksniffer/tweaker.

There's a famous story Steve Lukather tells, about doing a session w/David Lindley. Lukather had his cartage bring in all his racks and guitars, and Lindley walks in w/a lapsteel and a beatup Tweed Deluxe. Lukather said said he knew he was in big trouble... <g>

Loudboy

[Sid]

I completely agree that modellers need to be tweaked a lot to sound good...ive heard some really bad patches...that being said...the POD is one of the easiest to program as compared to say the gt-8 or the gnx....atleast that was my experience...the gt-8 had a hellish learning curve....

but in all that ive tried....i'll give the example that the best attempt at getting a marshall rock tone with a modeller < the worst sound ive really got with an actual marshall...

similarly for a lot of the other preamp models....so if ur looking to get that amp tone....u shouldnt really expect an amp modeller to be as good as the amp itself...

yea it can be made to work....yea its a backup....but i think comparing an amp to amp modeller is useles....and no i dont believe that it all comes from the players hands.....the tone and the feel of the amp means a lot to the player and affects his playing....

this is the worst i have ever seen of gambale
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lefTs0nqpnM

[Scott Peterson]

These three comments I will have to respectfully and attempt to urbanely disagree with. A modeler is a Modeler, for better or for worse. A modeler is not amp-speakers room etc, no more than toy army men are an actual army. Each system component can be models as a way to represent sound on the buyer/players ears or eyes, but they are simply representations. If the modeled speakers were in any way a real speaker, it could then make a actual sound...but a modeler needs an amplifier and a speaker of some sort....but this thread outlined that with agreement on all sides.


"Ignorance of the operator" statement is hyperbole and nothing more, and sure to get a few people "hopping", this could be said about ever piece of equipment ever made....but it would not be true. Digital does not mean good or bad, it is a design, not execution of a design. In the end like all equipment, some is worth the time and some not, this forum exists because some gear is better than others and some people have opinions about it. The blame game is just not really needed, it only inflames...if you have no vested interest, don't oversell.

The third comment about "any given current generation modeler" should be strictly looked at as Scott's opinion from his ears empirical point of view, otherwise this thread could go down the tubes quickly. I don't agree with this comment (again nicely with respect), I have heard both good quality and poor quality modeling devices, some are simply not worth the investment of time or $$, and some I cannot live without...modeling is not indicative of quality or reference..."*CAN* sound and FEEL damn good if you take the time and effort to not simply understand it" , I can't imagine using this line to convince a customer that my devices are perfect and they (the customer) need to make the change. I am guessing that Scott's ears are happy with all current modeling devices (with understanding and tweaking), that is quite a statement...my ears do not share this opinion, and I certainly have a reputation for being able to understand and tweak equipment...even having been on a few beta teams for modeling gear...but I can't get on this bus.

Everybody is entitled to their opinion, try to take it lightly and ignore the "blame assignment", it really is OK to simply not like a piece of gear without it being a personal failure of mind or ability.

Hi David,

Disagreement is fine and encouraged. But in this case you are oversimplifying my statements IMHO.

I'll clarify and frame my points - and disagree with you.

If you are using a POD to record direct and/or play direct out to FOH then indeed you are working with modeled effects, modeled preamp, modeled power amp, modeled speakers and cabs, modeled mic choice, modeled mic placement and modeled room ambiance. To state that it is a preamp, and a preamp only, is indeed not correct in a subjective and/or objective way. It's simply MODELED that way with all those parameters to consider, choose and use (or not).

While you can and may treat it like a preamp, that will almost universally fail. It'll sound like crap and all the negative anti-digital guys will sigh a satisfying, "whew, I told you so..." sigh.

But the fact remains, like it or not that the POD (not speaking for other modelers at this point) does in fact - objective fact - take all those elements into it's makeup of a 'preset' or 'patch'.

That doesn't mean you need to like it, enjoy it, or hate it - but you have to acknowledge that indeed those are what it offers.

That's my point. Like the results or not of the end 'thing'; it is not a preamp. It is not an effect pedal. It is not 'just' this or that. It is designed and allows you, heck it forces you, to create the entire rig from effects to room and *everything* in between.

Hence my ignorance statement; you assume or think of the POD as a preamp, it isn't. It might function in a rig in that manner due to the way you need to physically hook it up, but that's the issue at hand here. It is NOT simply a preamp. Don't take the operator error or ignorance personally, and not assume that if you magically 'get it' from me or something that'll you'll agree with me on the tool at hand in a sonic sense. That's hyperbole. And pulling my points and statements out of context.

And you have a assumption that I am happy with all the current generations of modelers, I've never said that; not anywhere and not at anytime. I am happy with the current generation POD XT.

And David, I am not selling anything nor debating/discussing this to convince anyone of anything. I am trying to broaden the understanding and scope of folks that dismiss it out of hand, and those that view a POD as an "amp" or simply a "preamp"; it is not that simple an equation. That's my goal here. Nother more or less, I have no connection to any companies goods or services being discussed here. Don't take that impression away from this at all.

And just to touch on your first point, I have an entirely other thread focused on my approach to making modelers work for me and that includes removing the modeled mic, speakers and cab from the equation to reach a place where I am happy. Like you probably could agree with me, it is redundant to have modeled elements to the rig that are already 'there' in a real rig. But that's another thread.

[orogeny]

Not to hijack the thread, but I thought the playing was pretty good. I don't understand why he didn't just use a boss OD-3 (or any ole dirt pedal you like) with a JC-120 though. . . . that tone sounds pretty darn processed. . . too much pedal, not enough amp. That is quite an amp he's supposed to be playing through. . . then again, maybe we are getting a direct signal from the GP-20, as opposed to a microphone in front of the cabinet. . . .

this is the worst i have ever seen of gambale
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lefTs0nqpnM[/quote]

[Scott Peterson]

It is a preamp Bingo!!!!! you win! :dude

It is not a poweramp (except headphones).

It is not a speaker (can't make a sound!)

It is not a cabinet (you can't put anything in it).

It is not a mic (go ahead, talk into it). :)

And it is not a room (stand in it) :jo

The marketing if a powerful force, the POD is a preamp that asks people to look at their parameters from a different mindset (and that is ok), but it is their respectable marketing of the parameters and not fact...those devices are verisimilitudes...that means they are not real.

It is ok to buy into the fantasy, otherwise Marvel comics would be gone...

Just to further illustrate the point in my post above this one - when I have made modeling work for me, I have removed the redundent elements - modeled vs. real - to make it work. And it works. But 'verisimilitudes' or not, they are elements. Of a whole. Hence my point. :D

[clothwiring]

So I played my Roland Cube 60 all night Friday at a gig. Guitar > Cube nothing else. And you know what, I had a good tone. Granted it's not my main rig's tone but it did the job and well...let's see, basically the pay I got that night paid for a third of what the Cube cost me. In this case the modeler didn't suck at all, it did the job I needed and will have paid for itself in about 3 gigs time.

[David B]

So we have opinions and perspectives and a hope that some can be seen as facts or point...ahh, the banal.

The day is short, this thread is long and now redundant, but I do have sound clips of me playing through one of my two PODS that would knock your socks off...and I thought of it as a preamp when I set it up...Heresy! :-)

I agree to disagree/agree on some points, but not others...no need to get detailed, that's just more worms.:AOK

We are at the point of Spiderman VS. Superman...

Audio work for audio professionals beckons...off to work!

Please proceed!:)

PS: Don't let the bastards bring you down.:-)

[stratzrus]

I've had a Pod XT Live for a few months now and feel that it has great potential but I'm just beginning to scratch the surface.

I think Scott is right that to get the most out of an XTL you have to spend some time working with it, and I'll readily admit, I'd rather be playing than screwing around with sub-menus.

As a result, I have not spent seven hours learning how to use it, but instead have taken some basic presets and tweaked them on the fly saving any results that I considered "improvements".

After three months I have five patches that I like (and space for many more).

The modeler vs. tube arguement doesn't have a lot of appeal for me. I just grab whatever I want to hear at the moment. Often it's the XTL but sometimes its the BFDR, BFSR or the Rivera KHR 100.

All are different and have their place.

It's hard to argue with the premise of Scott's original post. In order to get the most out of a modeler you have to spend some time with it. If you don't, good results are improbable.

stratzrus

[kovachian]

What is your point exactly??

CT.The point is in my post, read it again.

[Scott Peterson]

In order to get the most out of a modeler you have to spend some time with it. If you don't, good results are improbable.

stratzrus

+1 man. That's the point. Nobody that plugs in and just goes trying to make it work on other's presets will ever be happy. It takes a lot of time and work to get there, and it's like building an entire rig and sussing it out. It takes time and effort.

[Scott Peterson]

We are at the point of Spiderman VS. Superman...

Depends who is who. :D

PS: Don't let the bastards bring you down.:-)

WORD! :D:D

[BAN]

I've had modelers around since the first POD. I've owned pretty much all the PODs (not the new floor PODs, though), the Boss GT8, Digitech GNX 3k and I've tried (and returned) all the others (Vox, newest Zooms, newest RPs).

I dug their versatility, but I always ended up selling them after several months for the exact reasons that Scott rightly mentions---the time you need to spend with them to tweak them.

I still have two modelers lying around, namely a Pandora for travel and the Boss Micro BR, which has some modeling capability. But, really, they just sit there most of the time (all the time for the Boss. damn menus).

More than anything else, modelers, for me, are the physical proof that I continue to willfully ignore the fact that I am not a tweaker. I want to be, I strive to be, and I buy things hoping I'll be, but it just never works out.

I guess that's why the only modelers that really worked for me over the long haul have been the Cubes. I could dial in a good sound with the Cube 60 in no time (sold to fund pedals for my tube amp). And I can dial in great tones with my Microcube in seconds. So easy---no menus, no futzing ... just playing and enjoying.

If someone were to make a modeler (non-combo) with that ease of use and those (to my ears) superior tones, I'd buy it in a heartbeat. Maybe allow some deeper editing if needed, but have all the necessary tools to get up and running with some great tone right there in front of you in full-on WYSIWYG fashion.

This is a good thread, by the way.

BAN

Uh, having said all that, and continuing to ignore what I know about myself, I look forward to checking out the new Tonelab ...

[orogeny]

If someone were to make a modeler (non-combo) with that ease of use and those (to my ears) superior tones, I'd buy it in a heartbeat. Maybe allow some deeper editing if needed, but have all the necessary tools to get up and running with some great tone right there in front of you in full-on WYSIWYG fashion...

Ditto on the Cube 60 comment. I was blown away by its sound and ease of use. If you could put THAT in a pod or digitech or a. . . whatever, I'd buy it right quick. Stooopid easy for the lazy in us all. LOVE the phaser, by the way. Just like my early Phase 90 in an a/b test. Takes pedals very well too. Excellent clean tones. Not so excellent dirt tones, but it takes pedals really well. . . .

[revgsmall]

good thread Scott, I know you have used these tools with good success. I still have the first version of the Pod and I have utilized it on my last three cd's. No one yet can accurately guess when I used the Pod versus a traditional amp/mic set up.

I have not had good success for live work but then again I haven't put in the hours on it, versus my conventional live set up either.

We have way too much snobery here and not enough constructive critiquing on equipment and even players. We also pick on the "big boys" alot just to make us little boys feel better. If I were say Carlos Santana and read what some of us have written I wouldn't come to this page to share anything.

[Scott Peterson]

Ditto on the Cube 60 comment. I was blown away by its sound and ease of use. If you could put THAT in a pod or digitech or a. . . whatever, I'd buy it right quick. Stooopid easy for the lazy in us all. LOVE the phaser, by the way. Just like my early Phase 90 in an a/b test. Takes pedals very well too. Excellent clean tones. Not so excellent dirt tones, but it takes pedals really well. . . .

Not to turn this into a Cube 60 thread (we've already got one of those) but I have and own and have gigged my Cube 60. Both alone by itself and with pedals. Fantastic little amp, modeler or not.

[CocoTone]

Modellers are great practice tools, and for those that need to use some sort of headphoes for vol purposes, a great practice option. So is the Fender Champ. A great practice amp/tool, or a recording amp, but leaves a lot to be desired in a live situation. My 2 cents.

CT.

[BAN]

Not to turn this into a Cube 60 thread (we've already got one of those)

Agreed, but why are there so few (any?) options for simple WYSIWYG modelers?

[Memorex]

I've owned dozens of amps over the years, but at the age of 57 and with my back problems, the only amp I'll take out of the house anymore (and the only one I still own) is a 1982 Fender Super Champ I've had all these years. Mic'ed into a PA, it sounds great, it's all I need for a Blues jam. For recording, I also have Guitar Rig, which is cool software, and I have a Vox Tonelab SE. Which one do I use the most? Tonelab SE right into my soundcard baby, and it's by far the most fun to play through. It sounds almost as good as any amp I've ever owned, and better than many of them. It has better effects than any pedalboard I've had the time and money to put together in the past, and with the editing software, creating patches is easy.

I can understand why some guys don't like modelers. The factory patches always suck, you have to be a real tweaker to get into one of these things. And you have to fine tune every patch for every guitar you use through them. So, unless you have the time and patience for that, forget about it.

But at my age, big rigs and pedalboards are a thing of the past.

[POD Buster]

Tube amp w/ analog pedals = Driving a Ferrari 100 mph with the wind blasting through your hair.

POD = Same as above but doing it on a Sony Playstation

[Scott Peterson]

Tube amp w/ analog pedals = Driving a Ferrari 100 mph with the wind blasting through your hair.

POD = Same as above but doing it on a Sony Playstation

With a name like "POD Buster" well, there you are. :D:D

[Ariel Pozzo]

Very late to this party...but I'd like to add my five cents.
I've been thru all of Boss GT series pedals and all of the POD versions.
These days I use a GT8 for touring and some recording.
Yes, I have a pedalboard full of analog boutique pedals and tube amps and such. But that stuff is only used when playing very large venues that can be reached by ground...I cannot fly with this stuff anymore, hence the GT8 plus a rental amp is m rig most of the time.
And you know? I love it.
I recorded most of my second solo CD with a GT6 and I love the tone I got.
Modelers are spanning a new range of tones, you should not use them to emulate vintage stuff...use them to generate your new, fresh tones. I really like what I get....and one more thing...you MUST be a computer-oriented person, you MUST like programming stuff, to fully appreciate and use these modelers, they are NOT for analog people, like those guys who couldn't program their VCRs.
There's something for everyone out there. Vintage analog guys won't bulge, but there's a whole lot of open-mind, willing to dig into new territory-type guys out there who will exploit their modelers to the max.
And you wouldn't want to know how many of those new CDs coming out were actually recorded using nothing but modelers...;)...and they DO sound great.

[Dickie Fredericks]

Say what you will... Its just my opinion that PODS suck. If you want a Marshall buy a Marshall. If you want this or that effect/amp/mic whatever... Buy it.
To me everyone Ive ever heard playing a POD sounds the same as the last guy I heard playing a POD.
Having said all that, the other guitar player in our band uses a POD as his preamp. Whatever... still sucks.
I do see the blessing of the POD though in certain cases. Maybe you cant tote that half stack into church or whatever and this makes it easy on a jam session or whatever.
I dont want to see it as backline though...

Use it if you want. Im just not going to. BTW, Ive heard some good sounds through the POD. They just sounded like everyone else though...

[Spellbound]

I think you should be sucked i mean banned for using the word "Suck" in your title.

[Scott Peterson]

Here's something that'll reset the bar.

Imagine a world where there are boutique no-compromise, never been done at this level don't-call-it-modeling.... modeling.....

... www.fractalaudio.com (http://www.fractalaudio.com)

I am on the waiting list. POD? What POD? :D

[Scott Peterson]

I think you should be sucked i mean banned for using the word "Suck" in your title.

Frankly I agree with you. Made you look though, eh? :messedup

[Spellbound]

maybe it will get me sucked? it is an interesting thread , the only exposure to modellers i have though is my RP2000. I have been on a 2 month approximate playing hiatus and i just fixed my six year old left hand injury!!

[Gryphon]

maybe it will get me sucked? it is an interesting thread , the only exposure to modellers i have though is my RP2000. I have been on a 2 month approximate playing hiatus and i just fixed my six year old left hand injury!!

Not to sidetrack the thread....but congratulations on your hand!
What type of hand injury did you have and how did you get it fixed?

[Spellbound]

umm its hard to describe what kind of injury it was ive had extensive dr treatment and physical therapy nothing worked. what worked was finding a way to stretch out the upper bank of muscles in the palm(under the knuckles). it also had to do with having abnormal muscle pains from having depression.

[JeffD]

Here's something that'll reset the bar.

Imagine a world where there are boutique no-compromise, never been done at this level don't-call-it-modeling.... modeling.....

... www.fractalaudio.com (http://www.fractalaudio.com)

I am on the waiting list. POD? What POD? :D

Scott when you get this I'd love to hear a detailed report. Bet lots of others would too.

[orogeny]

Here's something that'll reset the bar.

Imagine a world where there are boutique no-compromise, never been done at this level don't-call-it-modeling.... modeling.....

... www.fractalaudio.com (http://www.fractalaudio.com)

I am on the waiting list. POD? What POD? :D

Reset the bar?

Or. . . don't drink at the bar for a loooooooooooooooooong time?

1800 bucks?

That's my reset-my-amp-and-pedalboard kind of cash. . . at least for us poor folks.

With 1800 bucks I could get a boutique amp and spend another 800-1000 on pedals?!?!?!?

Yes. . . you can find Alessandro Working Dogs for under a grand.

Can't wait to hear it though
:rotflmao

[-Analog-]

I dont like Line6 just because they take Names Like FENDER, Gibson, or Marshall, sample those pieces of gear, rename it British classic, or Flametop or Blonde twang, Line 6 merely EXploits what other guitar/pedal/amp manufactures have strived 50
-100 years to perfect. LIke the Variax, It has a 12 string rickenbacker setting or the 66 Gibson J200 setting, thats just wrong.

[Scott Peterson]

Reset the bar?

Or. . . don't drink at the bar for a loooooooooooooooooong time?

1800 bucks?

That's my reset-my-amp-and-pedalboard kind of cash. . . at least for us poor folks.

With 1800 bucks I could get a boutique amp and spend another 800-1000 on pedals?!?!?!?

Yes. . . you can find Alessandro Working Dogs for under a grand.

Can't wait to hear it though
:rotflmao

It's not $1800; it's $1350. The Yahoo store price it shows is wrong.

And hell, that's what some cats around here pay for a OD pedal and a vibe; so there you are.

[jazzguitarplay]

the biggest problem i feel witha POD is that when i play through one..I dont feel im playing a guitar through a nice amp...it doesnt inspire me at all:D

I work for a couple local studios in my area, doing tv jingles, one only wants me to bring my modeler [ gt-3 ], the other has tube amps. it depends on the situation. There both different but ultimatly its the hands and mind that counts, not the equipment. If I have a choice ill always set up a tube amp with boutique pedals but not everybody cares, they just want sound and they dont care where it comes from, as long as you can play and give them what they want, quickly. But for me, if i have a choice, theres nothing like the connection of a human body and a tube amp, its almost like playing woodwind or brass instruments, you can feel and hear what your playing, not so with modelers, but they have there place in various situations. Keep practicing and you'll realize whats the most important thing , what we have to offer as musicians and artists

[orogeny]

It's not $1800; it's $1350. The Yahoo store price it shows is wrong.

And hell, that's what some cats around here pay for a OD pedal and a vibe; so there you are.

Ah, sigh, so true. . . .

I don't know why, but I am sort-of shocked that YOU would pay such a price. Then again, I don't know you from Adam. . . . or Eve. .. . though they were good friends once. . . . . that's still like. . . 5 or 6 pods. . . !!!

[Ariel Pozzo]

Say what you will... Its just my opinion that PODS suck. If you want a Marshall buy a Marshall. If you want this or that effect/amp/mic whatever... Buy it.
To me everyone Ive ever heard playing a POD sounds the same as the last guy I heard playing a POD.
Having said all that, the other guitar player in our band uses a POD as his preamp. Whatever... still sucks.
I do see the blessing of the POD though in certain cases. Maybe you cant tote that half stack into church or whatever and this makes it easy on a jam session or whatever.
I dont want to see it as backline though...

Use it if you want. Im just not going to. BTW, Ive heard some good sounds through the POD. They just sounded like everyone else though...

Why are you so defensive? maybe you're scared simulators may end up turning all your amps and pedals into worthless old stuff??
If you cannot extract a great sound out of a simulator, nor your friends can...that doesn't means everybody else couldn't. I cannot fly a 747, but I won't go around saying Jumbos are junk and we all should fly Ford TriMotors.
I can get great tones out of a simulator, and I don't sound like everybody else. But a guy with a Strat, a ts9 and a Fender amp will certainly sound VERY close to every other SRV wannabe out there.
Peace.

[BadHorsie01]

For what it's worth I use a POD XTLive for recording (into PC) and gigging (into FX return of a mesa boogie mkIII simul class combo then 2 2x12 cabs) and, even though it took almost 2 weeks (total rehearsal hours) to get all the sounds the way I wanted them, I would not be without it now. After 16+ years playing guitar I finally get the sounds and feel I've been looking for.