Can modelling amps create the future ?

Fretwired

impmann said:

Plus I read on a forum the other day (so it must be true!!) that folks are now actively searching out "old school" modelling units (such as the original, "script logo" Pod II) as they sound "better"... yeah, dry that out, you can fertilise a lawn...

@impmann The original script logo POD 2 does sound better than the later block logo models.

This all kicked off years ago. Bill Nelson of Be Bob Deluxe fame used a POD 2 for years in his studio and playing live. One day he dropped his unit [scroll logo] and damaged it although it still worked. He went out and bought a replacement [block logo model] and ported his patches. They sounded different .. not as warm. In frustration he contacted Line 6 and was told that there were changes in manufacturing processes and the processors used between the original scroll logo version and the block logo version which meant they didn't sound the same. I think Line 6 put a comment on the website to that effect.

He then bought an HD500 but thought it was a move backwards - he didn't really like the tones. A friend lent him an Axe FX and he recorded an album using his POD 2 and the Axe FX. In the end he bought an Axe-FX unit.

I still use my old scroll logo POD 2 .. it's easy to get a great tone. The HD 500 is just more complicated. There are people who seek out the old POD 2 and the Pro units.

I disagree with the comment about the 1980s. There's lots of great new music around and plenty of new metal bands have abandoned valve amps preferring to generate their tones digitally.

impmann

Actually its not quite that clear cut. There are block logo PodIIs with the Motorola Chip (the later model that was alluded to above - denoted by "MPD" at the beginning of the serial number) and there are block logo PodIIs with the early type chipset.

I have both here... I think Bill Nelson must have bat ears. :-)

Fretwired

impmann said:

Actually its not quite that clear cut. There are block logo PodIIs with the Motorola Chip (the later model that was alluded to above - denoted by "MPD" at the beginning of the serial number) and there are block logo PodIIs with the early type chipset.

I have both here... I think Bill Nelson must have bat ears. :-)

Here's the statement from the Line 6 website, so there must be something in it - Bill's a perfectionist. Lovely bloke:

Q: What is the difference between the original POD/POD 2.0 and the newer POD 2.0?
A: The most obvious differences are the display now have a different 3-digit LCD display and the POD is now labeled 'FBV' above the RJ45 connection to show compatibility with the FBV series foot controllers. These newer POD 2.0's are not compatible with the older FB4 or Line 6 Floor Board controllers. The newer POD 2.0 also has a different processor from the original and is not upgradeable via EPROM chip. Also, because of this new processor, the modelling of this POD 2.0 may sound slightly different that an original POD 2.0.

jpfamps

An interesting selection of opinions.

In my view the main benefit of the digital modelling systems is the extreme flexibility they give, allowing the use to access a wide variety of pre programmed tones.

When the POD came out many of the pit player in the West End started using them as they solved a lot of problems (MDs complaining about the volume from an amp for example).

For some players the flexibility of modelling amps is of less benefit and a more "traditional" set up is preferred.

I find some of the attitudes in this thread strange however, especially with regard to "innovation".

Making strange or "untraditional" noises from a guitar may be deemed "innovative" to some, but keys players have had this capability since the 70s.

Guitar players do seem unique amongst musicians in their obsession with gear, often to the point where the actual music seems incidental to the exercise.

Voxman

jpfamps said:

Guitar players do seem unique amongst musicians in their obsession with gear, often to the point where the actual music seems incidental to the exercise.

Hold on....you mean I'm meant to make MUSIC with my gear?!  Nah, far too radical a concept - it'll never catch on, especially when we could be here bitching instead!  

)

Nomad

jpfamps said:

I find some of the attitudes in this thread strange however, especially with regard to "innovation".

Making strange or "untraditional" noises from a guitar may be deemed "innovative" to some, but keys players have had this capability since the 70s.

It's all a matter of perspective. If we accept that amp voicing is a natural consequence of the technology available when acoustic guitars were no longer loud enough, things started changing when we got reverb, delay, tremolo and especially wah. Since then, there has been an ever-widening gamut of trick ways to manipulate the signals coming out of our waggly-wire oscillators. As I said in an earlier post, we're already synth players.

Edit to add: Keys players have been doing it since the 30s. The Hammond organ was originally a pipe organ synthesiser.

jpfamps

Nomad said:

jpfamps said:

I find some of the attitudes in this thread strange however, especially with regard to "innovation".

Making strange or "untraditional" noises from a guitar may be deemed "innovative" to some, but keys players have had this capability since the 70s.

It's all a matter of perspective. If we accept that amp voicing is a natural consequence of the technology available when acoustic guitars were no longer loud enough, things started changing when we got reverb, delay, tremolo and especially wah. Since then, there has been an ever-widening gamut of trick ways to manipulate the signals coming out of our waggly-wire oscillators. As I said in an earlier post, we're already synth players.

Edit to add: Keys players have been doing it since the 30s. The Hammond organ was originally a pipe organ synthesiser.

Actually the synth dates back to the 19th century, although it was purely mechanical.

The first electronic  synth was probably the theremin (although of it isn't a keyboard).

What I was trying to articulate was the ability to program and manipulate synth sounds only really started to become feasible in the 70s, and asking how "innovative" doing this using a guitar rather than a keyboard is.

Drew_TNBD

Katzenklavier

Nomad

jpfamps said:

What I was trying to articulate was the ability to program and manipulate synth sounds only really started to become feasible in the 70s, and asking how "innovative" doing this using a guitar rather than a keyboard is.

I'd say it's not especially innovative at all. I remember having an analogue and MIDI gizmo attached to the guitar in the early 90s, which fed into some sound module/synthesiser thing - could play strings, flutes, pads, you name it. Further back (early 80s perhaps), I'm pretty sure I plugged a guitar into a mate's Korg MS20, using the guitar as a source oscillator for the synth's filters and other trickery to modify.

I don't see a lot of distinction between that Korg analogue synth and the traditional guitar pedal board. The board is more modular and doesn't have features that are quite as fundamental, like a separate LFO that can be patched into some filter to modify its behaviour temporally (but most guitar "filter modules" tend to have their own LFOs built in, so maybe the distinction is moot). Also don't see much in the way of envelope filters or waveform shaping for guitar.

The integrated guitar gizmos like the Line 6 stuff and AxeFX seem to me to be just that - integrated versions of the little boxes, often with a load of patch storage options thrown in for good measure. Not dissimilar to the keyboard synths of today - or guitar pedals like the TC Nova Drive and Nova Delay, or even semi-integrated guitar systems where the sound modules are still discrete boxes, but there's a patching and switching system that's used to call up specific combinations on demand.

I think one has to be careful using terms like "synth sounds". What does that really mean? What is a synthesiser?