Page 3 of 4
Posted: Wed Apr 19, 2006 9:23 am
by voidar
MD69:
Have you experienced with lower master volumes?
I find the sims fearly dynamic.
Posted: Wed Apr 19, 2006 9:49 am
by MD69
Hi Voidar,
Yes I had to tweak a bit to adjust the level to assumed amp reaction. I just say that the simulation along the dynamic range do not react consistently for someone who use his string attack to modulate his sound. On medium attack (where the crunch begin to appear) I get a "granular" sound wherea on stronger attack I get a "power amp" saturation sound (you know, when the amp begin to roar
).
From now on, my test are done with a Robben Ford connected to the POD PRO input, and the unprocessed output connected to the scope board.
I than test with my LP Custom 57 reissue (this guitar have a lot of "bottom", and make the Low end roll a bit with the POD sim), ... and then with my GUILD artist award (this one is .... gorgeous).
cheers
Posted: Wed Apr 19, 2006 11:47 am
by voidar
Well, I don't have the nice guitars you have at my disposal, but I feel I can dynamically play those clean/crunch amps quite well.
Do you mean you don't like this "granular" sound you get? I am not quite sure what you mean.
I would try without going through the POD Pro. There is a AD/DA-stage involved. You don't have any nice preamp with DI at your disposal?
--
On a different note. After paring a simulanalog tube-screamer with the dynatube (in XTC) I'd say I'd like some pedal models from Creamware
<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: voidar on 2006-04-19 12:53 ]</font>
Posted: Wed Apr 19, 2006 1:03 pm
by MD69
On 2006-04-19 12:47, voidar wrote:
Well, I don't have the nice guitars you have at my disposal, but I feel I can dynamically play those clean/crunch amps quite well.
Well, a good guitar don't make you a good guitarist ... they just don't forgive your mistake
Do you mean you don't like this "granular" sound you get? I am not quite sure what you mean.
I begin to have a better mental image. I feel like the preamp stage "distort" too soon relative to the amp stage which make the sound granular before the amp stage glue everything nicely. This make your sound a little bit uneven on some strokes. I should add that a chorus and a delay behind glue everything.
I would try without going through the POD Pro. There is a AD/DA-stage involved. You don't have any nice preamp with DI at your disposal?
The unprocessed sound output is before the AD (just as the external FX loop is after the DA, in the analog domain). I'll add a preamp after Easter's hollidays though.
--
On a different note. After paring a simulanalog tube-screamer with the dynatube (in XTC) I'd say I'd like some pedal models from Creamware
Or Celmo ... Anyway with some tweaking, the stocks auto wha, master chorus, Delay, phaser, flanger gives some convincing results. I'll have to check my Celmo's spring reverb with it (even if it is not THAT close!).
Forgot to say that for that price it is a good deal anyway!!
Cheers
<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: MD69 on 2006-04-19 14:21 ]</font>
Posted: Wed Apr 19, 2006 2:06 pm
by astroman
On 2006-04-19 12:47, voidar wrote:
...I would try without going through the POD Pro. There is a AD/DA-stage involved. You don't have any nice preamp with DI at your disposal?...
of course worth a try, but then I wouldn't be too puristic under all circumstances...
I found my humble Korg PX4 pretty nice in coop with Celmo's guitar amp sim - some interesting combinations.
No Dynatube here yet, but I've heared enough to buy it anyway, tnx Bosone
btw if the 'true' rectifier sound is so difficult, why not cheat with a pedal ?
(had a peek at a few circuit diagrams - that's really simple stuff)
cheers, Tom
Posted: Wed Apr 19, 2006 2:40 pm
by MD69
Hi,
For the tweak heads : FT preamp + JM cabinet => HIWATT (basic early Pink Floyd sounds)
it is also interesting to layer Dynatube with POD sounds
<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: MD69 on 2006-04-20 00:09 ]</font>
Posted: Wed Apr 19, 2006 3:27 pm
by voidar
Almost skipped right past your answer there
MD69 wrote:
I begin to have a better mental image. I feel like the preamp stage "distort" too soon relative to the amp stage which make the sound granular before the amp stage glue everything nicely. This make your sound a little bit uneven on some strokes. I should add that a chorus and a delay behind glue everything.
Hmm. What model are we talking of here?
Perhaps you can get the dynamics you want by lowering the input? The FT and VX don't have gain-controlls after all.
Understand, I wasn't very impressed with my purchase at first either, and I wish I didn't have to, but with a small amount of pre/post-processing I feel it can't be beat.
Posted: Wed Apr 19, 2006 3:51 pm
by MD69
Hi Voidar,
Sorry forgot to tell you : I was speaking of FT : "the only amp which clean your sound more clean than clean".
For the MB, I'll have to see what I can do with it (XTC user here!), but that kind of sound are not my cup of tea. For me the ultimate MB sound relate to ... the Mark 1
PS: there is a solution whose name is ... six strings
cheers
<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: MD69 on 2006-04-19 16:53 ]</font>
Posted: Wed Apr 19, 2006 11:03 pm
by Lima
On 2006-04-19 16:27, voidar wrote:
Understand, I wasn't very impressed with my purchase at first either, and I wish I didn't have to, but with a small amount of pre/post-processing I feel it can't be beat.
Maybe it's not intendeed to give you a "final perfectly mastered" sound.
I belive that when recording a piece every track needs a kind of post processing (at least when mixing).
Just an idea.
<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Lima on 2006-04-20 00:04 ]</font>
Posted: Wed Apr 19, 2006 11:15 pm
by bill3107
cool guys ! i will give my opinion once i try it. Just waiting for my activation key...
Jo
Posted: Thu Apr 20, 2006 1:43 am
by Shroomz~>
The news of Dynatube is spreading thanks to Z'ers
Check out this thread at <a href="
http://www.johnlsayers.com/phpBB2/viewt ... ers.com</a>
Hopefully Roman won't mind me pointing that one out
Posted: Thu Apr 20, 2006 1:57 am
by katano
Hopefully Roman won't mind me pointing that one out
no problem, man
cheers
roman
<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: katano on 2006-04-20 02:58 ]</font>
Posted: Thu Apr 20, 2006 6:15 am
by voidar
On 2006-04-20 00:03, Lima wrote:
Maybe it's not intendeed to give you a "final perfectly mastered" sound.
I belive that when recording a piece every track needs a kind of post processing (at least when mixing).
Just an idea.
Yeah, I am aware of this too, which is cool. But I don't recognize the MB model as this "mushy" in real-life. Most likely it's due to the way they modelled it - in "spongy"-mode - which I find a terrible decision. It doen't fit with the marketing:
"The Mesa/Boogie is the fierce, sonic bulldozer, giving the awesome and uncompromising roaring sound of metal - quite literally."
But what did they do?:
"On the actual amplifier, you can switch between using either two 5U4 tubes or Silicon Diodes. We're into tubes, so the simulated Dual Rectifier has the Rectifier select switch set to the "Tube" mode. We think it sounds better that way."
"We're into tubes (...)" - that's just ignorance really.. :/
The tube-rectifiers are not sufficient enough to supply the amount of current needed for tight bottom-end, which is why no-one into metal would use it! It's diode-rectifiers all the way.
But I have already pointed this out.
Posted: Thu Apr 20, 2006 10:44 am
by garyb
in that case, use a boss distortion up front and have all that grind you want.
Posted: Thu Apr 20, 2006 2:27 pm
by katano
Yeah, I am aware of this too, which is cool. But I don't recognize the MB model as this "mushy" in real-life.
The problem with the "mushy" sound is fact. but you can't compare the sound out of a mesa stack and a huge 4x12 cab with a miked guitar sound of the same stack. and played through your studio monitors with 6 or 8 inch wooooofer
clear you would never be able to get enough power and a tight bottom
question is: <b>how does the sound fit in the mix?</b> in my oppinion: very well with some tuning of course...
and dynatube is not an amp simulation but a MIKED amp and cab simulation. this brings me to the question: <b>what mik was used for modelling dynatube?</b>
my brother uses a mesa triaxis and 2:90 with a marshall 1960 cab. next question: <b>can I get the same sound with this rig like the one used in dynatube MB?</b>
cheers
roman
<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: katano on 2006-04-20 15:33 ]</font>
Posted: Thu Apr 20, 2006 2:32 pm
by Mr Arkadin
Hhhm, well Line 6 have just updated the Podxt with new amps, cabs and wahs and also created a bass pack, which is what i was hoping Dynatube would have, so it looks like i'll be sticking to my Pod for a while longer, but i'll certainly be seeing how this develops (i'd still like to use it on synths, B2003 etc).
Posted: Thu Apr 20, 2006 2:37 pm
by katano
good idea! has anyone tried to play a bass with dynatube? any bass players out there who could do this little test?
Posted: Thu Apr 20, 2006 4:03 pm
by valis
It would be nice if they added some bass combinations as time goes on. Especially nice as bass is a primary focus for the music I do
Posted: Thu Apr 20, 2006 5:59 pm
by wayne
Me want SVT + 8x10 sim
Posted: Thu Apr 20, 2006 8:14 pm
by powerpulsarian
How would you say the amp models compare to Guitar Rig (which is currently my choice)?