Conference napalm::guitar

There's a crucial difference between audio and guitar, and to a lesser extent,
PA:  Audio, i.e. like home stereo gear, is REPRODUCING sound.  A guitar rack
is CREATING sound.  One has a reference to be measured against.  The other does
not.

In creating music it all comes down to one and only one thing: taste.  Do you 
like it or not?  Can you live with the price because you like it more or not?

If you like peddles better than a rack, that's the end of the discussion.  If
Coop likes his rack better, no discussion there either.  I like mine straight
into the amp, nobody's ever tried to talk me out of it.

I can offer EE opinions about either, but don't really think they amount to 
much.

JMO, of course, :)

Will

    
    	"We all know" that the Audiophile people can be a little extreme
    with their theorys, "pooges" and levels of integrity. I mean, does
    your guitar sound different since you installed those gold plated
    input jacks on your amp? How about since you re-wired your speaker
    cabs with Lexus Delta-Sigma Silver "Music Conduit" wire, at $45/ft?
    
    	On the otherhand, some of the circuit suggestions posed by Jay
    in his 1994 string probably do result in perceptable sonic differences
    and these had their origins in "Audio" circuits. Specifically, the
    capacitor bypass suggestions. So, yes, some of the Audio theory
    and practice does indeed carry over into Guitar-land.
    
    	Personally, I think the "seperates vs integrated" issue is an
    overgeneralized principle used mainly as sales hype. An intergrated
    unit *can* be designed with performance as good as the seperates.
    Generally, it's better to go with seperates in Audio because of
    the reason you mentioned (isolation, the best integrated units aside)
    and you can better "mix 'n match" sonic characteristics/signatures
    to yield a particular "sound" *you* happen to like. This same idea
    could apply to the "all in one" gear in guitar; maybe the flanger
    sound sucks compared to that old Countryman phase shifter you once
    owned - and now wish you never sold to the guy in Colorado for $25.
    
    	I've never heard sound reinforcement done with "mega audiophile
    quality" stuff at a live performance. I know I can hear the difference
    between piping the sound of my CD player through the board, the
    compressor, the graphic EQ (all set "flat") vs piping it straight into 
    the amp. That's exemplifying the "minimalist" theory of Audio, which 
    says that the least number of "things" a signal has to go through,
    will give the best sound et al. So, maybe Will has got something there 
    when he goes "straight into his amp" as he says.
    
    	Joe

    A cliche answer perhaps, but one again has to state that it depends
    upon the application.
    
    With my integrated unit I can go between VERY different sounds at the
    touch of ONE pedal.
    
    Can you do that with separate pedals?
    
    If you're the kind of guitarist that sticks mainly two sounds like
    "rhythm" and "lead" and don't change your effects while your playing,
    fine, but if you're not.  Those analog pedals simply aren't even
    an option.
    
    Now you CAN integrate MIDI separates (and with something like a
    Scholz Octopus even CERTAIN non-MIDI separates), but that adds
    complexity, more things to carry/setup/etc.
    
    I like my GP-8 because essentially its ONE piece with 8 effects in
    it.  I would MUCH rather carry the GP-8 than an 8-10 space rack of
    separates.
    
    Now when I record, it's a different story.  I really PREFER the reverb
    of my SRV-2000 to the reverb builtin some other combos I have and
    thus I use that almost exclusively (when it happens to work which is
    close to never).
    
    So, the answer is (as it usually is) "it depends on what you're doing
    and what you're needs and preferences are".
    
    

    First of all, I asked for opinions from hardware gurus, but this should
    be open to anyone.  Just wanted to clear that up...
    
>There's a crucial difference between audio and guitar, and to a lesser extent,
>PA:  Audio, i.e. like home stereo gear, is REPRODUCING sound.  A guitar rack
>is CREATING sound.  One has a reference to be measured against.  The other does
>not.
    
    I haven't been out of tech school so long to forget about the
    electronic laws and fundamentals that BOTH share.  I think .2 touched
    on this a little bit.

>In creating music it all comes down to one and only one thing: taste.  Do you 
>like it or not?  Can you live with the price because you like it more or not?
    
    It seems to me that there is more.  There's a trend among some of the
    pros and gigging bands from here to LA to go with dedicated effects
    units.  I think there is more to it than it just sounding better.  For
    example, why does it sound better?

>If you like peddles better than a rack, that's the end of the discussion.  If
>Coop likes his rack better, no discussion there either.  I like mine straight
>into the amp, nobody's ever tried to talk me out of it.

    I think all of us would us rack devices given the right price and
    opportunity.  I'm not really pro-pedal or anti-rack, but it isn't the
    issue here anyway.
    
>I can offer EE opinions about either, but don't really think they amount to 
>much.

    Will, I'd like to hear your EE opinions.  These dedicated rigs sound
    good for a reason and I'm curious about what some designers are doing
    that other companies are not doing.
    
    Mike

    
    
    Maybe you can say that a using a rack of dedicated effects is better if
    you were to use the 'best' of everything, a top of the line harmonizer
    for instance say $3000 dollars would surely be a better effect than a
    combination harmonizer,chorus,distortion for $300, I agree with the
    point made that you could build your $3000 harmonizer into the same box 
    as a $4000 sampler etc,etc.....but would there be a market?
    
    I imagine that if money were no object to any of you....you would have
    a rack filled with separates......all the best ones.
    
    J

    Re: -1
    
    ...but the racks aren't setup that way.  We're talking stuff like the
    Boss CE-300, Digitech RDSx000 delays, etc.
    
    Mike

I think one point is that multi effect units go for the lots-of-bang-for-the
buck.  High priced seperates probably are designed as cost-no-object.

If you have the money, the seperates probably sound better, becaused they
weren't compromised on.  The multi units probably had to be at some point.

I thought my DSP-128+ sounded great when I had it.  I would rather have had
it than a set of peddles to reproduce the same effects.  It seemed less noisy,
20-20K freq response (that I don't think many peddles have), etc.  But then
I never heard the state of the art seperates.  But on a per dollar basis, I 
liked the 128 better than equivilant peddles.

re: straight in

When I put anything, and I mean anything, either in the FX loop or in front
of the preamp, there is an audible difference in the crispness of my guitar.
It is minute in some cases (like a wah-wah when it's switched off).  I can 
hear a difference when I use a longer or shorter cord going straigt in.  My
10 foot cord sounds a bit brighter than my 30 footer, both made by myself of
the same raw cable.

And with something like the 128 in the FX loop switched into bypass mode, 
like it's supposed to not be there, it's a big difference.  At least when you
first make the change.  

My ideal clean sound would be something like Strat -> Boogie MK-IIC with a 
zero length cord.  I want ALL the sound.  Every finger slideing, everything.
Because you can always take away, but you can never recreate it out of nothing.

I don't use much in the way of effects, but I would have to say that just like
in the high-high end audio, the seperates are better.  Not because the multis
can't be, but because the design philosophy one would take for each would 
differ.  People don't sit around and say "let's build the greatest chorus in
the world and put it in the same box with blah, blah..."  they say "let's build
the greatest chorus in the world."  Period.  So you get seperates.  When you
add in other concerns, your energies are split between the two or more goals,
so the basic functionality suffers, because there's only 24 hours in a day 
and you only have so long to get the thing to market.


Blah, blah, blah... I don't know where this is going  :)

Will

    I don't think that seperate componant necessarily give a better sound,
    just a different sound.  I do not think it's useful applying audio
    engineering standards to musical equipment because there are too many
    subjective factors that come into play.
    
    Van Halen for many years used a busted up MXR flanger because that was
    the one that sounded right to him.  I defy you to find ANY high quality
    rack mount effects unit that will make the same sound as an old analog
    MXR flanger.  High quality is not the issue.  If you were to take the
    circuit for that MXR flanger and upgrade all the componants to audio
    specs and redesign it to eliminate the distortion and noise, it
    wouldn't sound the same and many people wouldn't like it nearly as
    much.
    
    I have heard many seperate componant rack based rigs (some of them
    mine) and have never heard one that sounded as good to my ears as my
    one piece Marshall JCM900 amplifier.  I consider the new Marshalls to
    be the best sounding amps on the market, bar none, and you'd be hard
    pressed to convince me that a seperate componant rig is going to sound
    as good to me.
    
>    It seems to me that there is more.  There's a trend among some of the
>    pros and gigging bands from here to LA to go with dedicated effects
>    units.  I think there is more to it than it just sounding better.  For
>    example, why does it sound better?
    
    I think you're skirting the whole point.  Why it sounds better is
    irrevelant, it's *if* it sounds better.  If you personally like it
    better, then it's better.  There's no debate. 
    
>    I think all of us would us rack devices given the right price and
>    opportunity.  I'm not really pro-pedal or anti-rack, but it isn't the
>    issue here anyway.
    
    I completely disagree.  
    
    Money for equipment is probably not an issue for people like Eric
    Johnson, yet you go watch him play and he's got a buncha little stomps
    in front of him (in the same rig with a Eventide H3000, one of the
    highest priced effects units available).  He uses what sounds good to
    him.  Everyone's got their own favorite sound.
                            
    Money for equipment is a relatively small concern to me at this point
    in time (since my tastes just don't run toward massively expensive
    equipment), yet I choose to use a Boss CE-2 chorus stomp rather then a
    rack mount unit.  I own two different rack mount units which do chorus
    effects right now and have heard countless others.  The CE-2 makes a
    sound that I like, it's easy to use, and it doesn't break my back
    carrying it around.
    
    Greg

    
    Some engineering reasons why rack mount units *can* sound better (note
    that this doesn't say that they *do*, that's still subjective):
    
    1.  Good clean power supply.  You can source more current than a 9V
    battery, therefore drive more circuitry, and have more headroom by
    using higher DC voltages (like +/- 15 VDC).  Also usually quieter than
    stompo boxes using AC adapters.
    
    2.  Room for more stuff.  Like for instance, discrete circuitry vs.
    integrated, more memory, etc.  
    
    						Brian

>     -< I don't understand the argument, if it sounds better it's better >-

    Maybe I'm not being clear.  If it sounds better, okay, but how?  What's
    being done to separate a unit from comparable units?  If a chorus pedal
    sounds better than a chorus in a rackmounted multieffects device, are
    the other electronics hindering the rack chorus?
    
>    I don't think that seperate componant necessarily give a better sound,
>    just a different sound.  
    
    Does a signal have to be colored more to sound better?  Can't a pure
    signal sound better?  Or are other units just as clean as separates?
    
    >I do not think it's useful applying audio engineering standards to 
    >musical equipment because there are too many subjective factors that 
    >come into play.
    
    Musical equipment IS audio engineering!
    
>    I think you're skirting the whole point.  Why it sounds better is
>    irrevelant, it's *if* it sounds better.  If you personally like it
>    better, then it's better.  There's no debate. 
    
    Depends on your point of view.   I'm not debating anything, just
    curious on why some things sound better than others.
    
>    equipment), yet I choose to use a Boss CE-2 chorus stomp rather then a
>    rack mount unit.  I own two different rack mount units which do chorus
    
    Could it be the designers of those rack units focused on another making
    another effect great?  Or are all the electronics generating noise
    that's interfering with the chorus?
    
    Mike

>    Maybe I'm not being clear.  If it sounds better, okay, but how?  What's
>    being done to separate a unit from comparable units?  If a chorus pedal
>    sounds better than a chorus in a rackmounted multieffects device, are
>    the other electronics hindering the rack chorus?
    
    Ok, I understand better what you're talking about now.  I guess what I
    objected to was taking the basic premise that any seperate componant
    system was better then any integrated system.  However, I still think
    that it's so subjective that you couldn't consistantly find two
    different players that would agree that any given effects unit sounds
    *better*.  Some people like the Roland RCE chorus's, some like the
    Microverb's, some like stomp boxes. 
    
    Now maybe if you're just talking about effects (and not amps and
    preamps) then perhaps that can be true (depending on what you pick for
    the effects), but I don't think it necessarily applies for
    amps/preamps.
    
    Even for effects, there are factors to be considered other then pure
    sound.  Convenience, portability, ease of use, price...
    
>    Does a signal have to be colored more to sound better?  Can't a pure
>    signal sound better?  Or are other units just as clean as separates?
    
    Isn't that what we're we're talking about here, the subtle "coloration"
    of an electric guitars signal as it's processed?  If there were no
    coloration of the signal, then all effects units that did the same
    thing would sound the same, right?
    
    If you're talking about amps, then I say "yes", it *has* to be colored
    to sound good.  I don't like a pure clean sound, it's very cold
    sounding to me.
    
    I also feel this way about many effects units, many of the ones that
    are extremely clean have a "sterile" sound to them.  Makes me think of
    surgical steel (no Mike, not the Phoenix based band from a few years
    back that used that name ;^) and I don't like that in a guitar sound. 
    I consider the complete lack of sound coloration to be a certain form
    of coloration in itself.  There are many chorus/flange type units which
    I don't like for this exact reason.  I have an ADA DDL which I don't
    like the chorus from because it's too sterile sounding.
    
>    Musical equipment IS audio engineering!
    
    Sort of, but it's totally different in my mind from the mentality used
    in audio reproduction equipment.  In that vein, cleaner is better,
    signal coloration is bad, distortion is unacceptable...
    
    Witness the example of speaker preference.  JBL speakers are generally
    very clean and difficult to induce speaker based distortion in.  Many
    people refuse to use them because of this.  Celestion speakers are
    known to distort the signal easily, especially the low wattage rated
    models.  These are the favorite speakers of many guitarists because of
    this.  By strict audio reproduction standards, their level of
    distortion is unacceptable, but we're not talking about audio
    reproduction here, we're talking about audio *creation* here!
    
>>    equipment), yet I choose to use a Boss CE-2 chorus stomp rather then a
>>    rack mount unit.  I own two different rack mount units which do chorus
>    
>    Could it be the designers of those rack units focused on another making
>    another effect great?  
    
    My personal opinion is that this is because those rack mount units
    don't color the sound as much (or in the same way) and don't sound good
    to me because of that.  It's not that they do anything else better,
    they just don't do that one thing the way I like it.  I'm sure someone
    else would have a different subjective opinion.
    
    The CE-2 is an analog unit, but I like the way it sounds.  The digital
    ones don't sound the same to me.  This is the same reason EVH gave for
    using the old MXR flanger.
    
>    Or are all the electronics generating noise
>    that's interfering with the chorus?
    
    No, like I say, I think it's because they're NOT generating noise (or
    cropping the frequency range somewhat, or inducing some tiny bit of
    distortion, or changing the signal in some way).
    
    Greg

>      -< Now I understand what you're asking, but it's always different >-
    
    Good!  I was getting ready to enroll in "Communication Skills" ;-)
    
>    the effects), but I don't think it necessarily applies for
>    amps/preamps.
    
    I agree.  It helps to have quality components in your amp, but you want
    to generate distortion and/or color at the amp stage.
    
    As a consumer in search of some level of signal integrity, we have
    signal to noise ratios and frequency bandwidths to compare in various
    units.  Is there anything else that we should look at that tells us
    that the signal isn't colored any further than what we adjust on the
    parameters?
    
    Mike

    
    	Probably the biggest revelation is that there's nothing to *look
    for*, only that which is there to *listen to*. I think G_H hit it square
    when he said this is music creation, echoing .1 in that different
    things will be important vs the "reproduction" realm.
    
    	Of course, the subjective term "warmth" is applicable to both
    audio reporduction and guitar amplification and there's even correlation
    between amp designs in these two fields - namely "tubes". Therefore,
    some of the same things can be important to both!
    
    	When anyone has all the factors completely sorted out, let me
    know! ;')
    
    	Joe

re: musical widgets vs. audio widgets

In the rack effects game, (not guitar preamps etc.) it's the same as audio 
engineering these days. For example my quadraverb is a 20-20khz extremely
low distortion box. My intellifex is a 5-30khz, big s/n ratio, very low 
distortion box. Digitec, ART etc. all make auidiophile quality effects
processors. The reason is that some folk use them on the guitar/keyboard
rigs, others use them in their pa effects loops and yet others use them in
the studio.

Is a rack better? It's probably more versitile provided you get the necessay
tools to manipulate them, ie: midi pedal, expression pedal etc. On the other
hand I find most if not all digital chorus devices leave me less then fully
satisfied. I once had a analog chorus that sounded better than any other chorus
I've ever heard bar none (electra, an off brand to boot), since it died I've
been using digital ones since their already in my rack...

I find that many/most of the players I hear with rack effects or whatever tend
to mix their reverbs etc. too heavy and they dissappear in the mud ten feet
away. To me, drier mixes (not totally dry) sound better. But as Greg said
it's what you hear that's important.

dbii

    re: .14 (Dave Bottom)
    
    Dave, what digital chorus are you using now?  I thought you had a
    MIDIverb II and liked the chorus on it.
    
    Re: never having heard a digital chorus that sounded as good as
    your old analog.  Have you heard a Boss RCE-10 run in true stereo?
    
    Most people who have heard them become "believers" very quickly.
    They really are exceptional IMHO.

I quit using the MVII a year or more ago (it's dedicated to my drum machine now)
I was using the quadraverb which was much better than the MV up until I got 
the intellifex. The intellifex has more control than the Quad had, but I've 
been kinda busy and haven't spent enough time programming it to give up or get 
a good chorus yet. (the intellifex allows you to put between 4-8 individually 
set up/mixed chorus's running in parallel, the presets are so heavily mixed 
that they need serious help).

I haven't heard the roland, no one within an hour's drive of augusta is a 
roland/boss dealer so I don't get much exposure to those products. Not that
I'm that interested, my previous experiences with Roland's customer service 
was such that I deliberately avoid their products anyway. A roland box would
have to be very special before I'd buy it.

I think the main advantage of a rack vs. say the A5 type approach is the 
ability to pick and choose which units you can afford to buy/would use.

dbii

    Re: .0
    
    Your question about isolation misses the boat.  While boxes like the
    GP-8 chain together separate effect cirucits in the analog domain, most
    digital multi-effects consist of an A/D stage, a DSP and a D/A stage. 
    The "effects" are nothing but software routines.  This is why most of
    the digital boxes don't have effect loops to allow patching in external
    effects, something the GP-8 offers.  After all, the only place to patch
    in a loop is before the A/D or after the D/A.
    
    So once you get into digital processing, there is no "sonic integrity"
    issue, although as mentioned before, a DSP that only has to do one
    thing may do it beter than a DSP trying to do 6 other things at the
    same time.  Also, some high-end sudio digital effects now offer true
    digital I/O, so only the first and last link in the effects chain need
    to do A/D or D/A conversions, and if the source or destination is
    digital tape, then even those conversions aren't needed.
    
    						Brian