new zoom processors
Saw these things in a spotlight review of a Music123 catalog: http://www.samsontech.com/products/productpage.cfm?prodID=1854&brandID=4
Some pretty nice specs (look at the S/N ratio)! Seems that it'll work like the RP series, where amp modeling and stompbox are in one place. From the sound of it, the internal processers are sickeningly fast as well.
Very interesting! Here's a comment I found at one reseller (emphasis added):
I wonder if anyone is going to buy into that claim anymore, considering with what limited and intermittent luck users have been able to get a good sound out of the MFX series on the market up until now (recently, specifically). Nevertheless, I'm curious to see whether there's any difference with this new one... or if it's just more speaker compensation mumbo-jumbo.
But someone is definitely not only watching the competition, but listening to what the public wants to hear! It becomes especially clear when you see the nicely-outlined, well-diagramed manual.
Some pretty nice specs (look at the S/N ratio)! Seems that it'll work like the RP series, where amp modeling and stompbox are in one place. From the sound of it, the internal processers are sickeningly fast as well.
Very interesting! Here's a comment I found at one reseller (emphasis added):
Zoom G2.1U Guitar FX Pedal w/USB and Cubase LE
Price: $169.95
The Zoom G2.1u takes guitar multi-effects to the next level Conventional floor-type multi-effect processors are designed to sound good when they are plugged into a guitar amp. Modeling processors are designed for recording in line. Until now, there was no product that could handle both scenarios with equal finesse.Introducing The G Series from Zoom. Each G Series Pedal offers two algorithms: One for live and one for recording. The sound you created at practice or in the studio can now be brought straight to the stage. Or take the sounds you worked out during a rehearsal and apply them seamlessly in the recording studio. Your creative scope has suddenly doubled.
I wonder if anyone is going to buy into that claim anymore, considering with what limited and intermittent luck users have been able to get a good sound out of the MFX series on the market up until now (recently, specifically). Nevertheless, I'm curious to see whether there's any difference with this new one... or if it's just more speaker compensation mumbo-jumbo.
But someone is definitely not only watching the competition, but listening to what the public wants to hear! It becomes especially clear when you see the nicely-outlined, well-diagramed manual.
Comments
Does anybody know of their current status? The ideas behind the product seem like an FX junkies dream...
http://www.modesoundworks.com/index.php
healthy competition has always been a good tang!
Where's the G9.22tt? I can't seem to find it anywhere...
Would someone kindly point me to it?
thanks.
But all things considered, I'm guessing I'll wait until a 32-bit A/D/A with higher processing rates is released (my recorder has a 44-bit internal pipeline, hopefully 64-bit standalone units begin surfacing in a few years). Unless there's more to the story than appears to the naked eye, these Zoom things are middle ground at this point, and current GNX/XTL/GT/ToneLab users are unlikely converts for the market.
- Ilia
I dont think a seperate algorithm can produce accurate results for all users's cabs etc, because the the algorithm doesnt take any of the users equipmments special needs/property's etc coz playin through a 1x15 is a whole lot different to a 4x12.
What we really need is an effects pedal that you can tell it what type of speakers you are playing through.
Or even better (if this is possible) a \"automatic speaker compensation\" in which, say, you play your desired tone that was recorded direct through one port and the same recorded tone but mic'd through a cab and then into another port on the effects and the unit adjusts the eq etc to match the desired tone. :? not sure bout this but it could be possible...
Here is what is needed... A guitar amp that is 100% colorless, and a cabinet with transparent speakers/sonic abilities and an enclosure that can automatically change from a 8x12, 4x12 to a 2x12, to a 1x8..with each preset change...isn't that what we have expected all along...or thought that's what modeling can do?? If the real world can't do it, why would a modeler be able to? In this case..modeling does exactly what it is supposed to.. unless you have the utopian cabinet and amplifier I just described. That's just not ever going to happen..
I had to laugh at a guy who suggested his Vetta sounds like a 65 Twin..sorry...it's never going to happen. the Vetta does not disable to monaural amp mode with only one 1x12 with an automatic door on the back of the cabinet to simulate the open back Fender...nice sound...but not even close! It wouldn't surprise me that one day cabinets will have electronic designs that actually swicth from 2x12, 1x12, or 4x12 functionality...rotating out from Greenbacks to V30's would be a trick to see though! Computers and transparent headphones, monitors give us this virtual notion that modeling processors can make any amplifer sound the same as it's virtual replication.. well, that's virtual reality but modelers will never be able to change the physical and sonic characteristics of all those different amps and cabinets we own...mush less use in our live rigs.
The only way to create uniformity with a modeler, is to build and sell an amp and colorless cabinet we all would have to buy to go with it.
OK, some people will say, a GNX acoustic model played into a pair of studio monitors sounds like a recorded acoustic, not like an actual acoustic (for an example). That's true, but when you're on a large enough stage with enough of a crowd to have noise, you have to have the acoustic amplified - and so for live application you'll end up hearing a representation of it, and so a modeler can create such a representation without having an actual acoustic. Not the best example necessarily, but when you're talking about modeling an amplifier, I would think the same logic applies.
Because, when it comes down to it, I like to use the Line 6 approach: \"Close your eyes, and does it do the trick?\" Sometimes it does, other times not - but eventually it will for the majority of the time. This is also taking into account that we now have a generation growing up with modelers and modeled tones, so it's an illusion that people will soon learn to live with. Perhaps not the hardcore tube-rig crowd, but those coming in their footsteps - likely, I'd say.
Man, so many parallels to other things that have gone from analog/manual to electronic/modeled...
Photography
Graphic Design
Natural Media/Fine Art
Telephones
Televisions... etc. - you name it.
In every single case, eventually - digital matured to a level where traditionalists no longer had any reason to stick to the old technology/methods. They can now do more with less, accurately, faster, and with far better consistent quality. Some still hang onto the old way of doing things - but the old school membership is getting smaller.
The digital/modeling technology of our beloved MFX is gathering momentum and acceptance. Part of the equation is a good matched output rig... FRFR just seems to be the best option right now. But I see modeling speakers and clean poweramps popping up here and there - those might be just what we need next.
I do like the idea of a digital cabinet that has 2x12\" woofers, a mid and a good horn... and has the modeling logic built in to alter the voicing of the speakers from 1x8 through 8x12... open/close back - and beyond.
I've no doubt that it could be done. I am just not smart enough to make it happen.
Anyway - enough ramblin'.
i feel ashamed, look away
To comp every rig as such, you have to have an amplification rig similar to that of the ones used like near field monitors. Every difference in any guitar amp will add or remove the tone represented by the patch of another amp rig. That's where most users miss what modeling does. They say it stinks live, but it really just simulates exactly what it would sound like if you connected any Fender to a Marshall... The modeler digital or not..is accurate. The user can't get past the fact that their amp rig is responsible for the varaibles. Very simple if you think about it as it is.
whew! I'm only going to concentrate on perfecting a few for live use for now.
your counselling has always been appreciated 3456
D.
http://www.soundclick.com/bands/pagemusic.cfm?bandID=433798
How do you compare this thing to a GNX?
If you want a colorless cabinet, Modeling 12's are a great way to go and have minimal coloring in the design of voice coil and paper on the cone.. Modelers and modeling amps take on a whole new dimension and much less tweaking of your guitar amp is needed.
Zoom, has taken a slightly different approach to their ZNR application. From what I hear, they went for a more transparent cabinet modeling and pre tweaked for use. It's not adjustable. ZNR is a reduction technique for noise and artifacts between amp model variables. Nice sounds though.. I was always impressed with the 505 a while back! The MRS recorders and amp models in the 1044 were pretty impressive. They do great on drum machines..a while with guitar amp modeling and I think they can be contenders... unfortunately, they beckon the lower end market as always! I'm looking forward to the 9.1tt..(something like that)
http://www.imuso.co.uk/ProductDetail.asp?StockCode=EG00896
Mesa 50/50
Mesa 90/90
Mesa Simul 120
Peavey 30/30
Peavey 50/50
Samson Servo 120 (low power SS)
Behringer EP1500 ( Pa type SS amp)
Now, get a cabinet with a couple or 4 (if halfstack) Modeling 12's (Eminence) speakers. Connect for 8 ohms impedance
Now the GNX gets to be the preamp...you control the volume. The modeling 12 speakers are flat in comparison to any other guitar speaker made to date. This is the absolute best way to yield the modeling tone of any guitar amplifier combination when live. All other amps, guitar speakers albeit Celestions, JBL, Bubinga, Tone Tubby, etc will COLOR THE GNX tone.. remember..the GNX model simulates the ALREADY COLORED amp..coloring it more with guitar amps..not the greatest solution...and will almost always require tweaking of the original presets to use live. This will be the same no matter which multieffect pedal is used..ZOOM, GNX, POD, Boss..any of them.
Who cares?
I'll have to agree with D. Alexander on a lot of issues concerning the MFX pedals.
I can guarantee you that the person in the front row of the venue you are gigging has no clue what a Marshall Stack or a Fender Tweed or a humbucker is and certainly doesn't give a rat's @&&.
You know what else? I've been playing the guitar for close to thirty years and even I don't know the difference. Mainly because for the first 20 some-odd I just played classical and acoustic. It wasn't until I was overheard playing one day while I was tuning the Praise & Worship team's guitarist's axe and was asked to join the team did I even use any amplification to start with. After playing an amplified Ovation thru the house PA (FRFR) for a couple of months I decided to get my first electric guitar. (not even two years ago). And soon to follow was my first MFX which, after much research, happened to be a RP200A.
I was in awe of the things you could do with that simple pedal sound-wise.
However, it was not very practical playing live for obvious reasons so I traded it in for a GNX2 which I just recently sold after another upgrade to the GNX3K. All these upgrades were mainly inspired by functionality, not sound quality of the effects. That was surely a bonus but not the real reason I used to convince my wife that I needed another pedal.
To be honest, I really don't use any of the factory presets. I DO use them to get me close to what I like to here, what sounds good to me, what turns my crank.
I am getting to a point here and it is this....
ALL of the pedals out there (I would imagine) today have the ability to make a guitarist very excited about playing music. Some are easier to tweak than others. We know that. Some are better for recording than others. And obviously, some effects will be different from pedal to pedal, manufacturer to manufacturer, model to model. Here I go again... I'm going to miss the point.
The point is....
Who cares? Only us. Nobody else knows the difference.
I, like D. Alexander, was blessed to not have all that crap about what this amp and that cabinet sounds like to start with. But I know what sounds good. And, more importantly, I know what sounds good to me. And if I like it hopefully someone else will like it.
I don't understand why people want to sound like someone else anyway.
It's just like the guitars themselves. They all sound different. I don't have a MAINSTREAM axe like Fender, Gibson etc, etc. I chose a Godin because I liked the way it felt and sounded to me. Besides ... It's a better made guitar for the money. Robert Godin's company has been making necks and bodys for Fender and Gibson for over 30 years.
A few years back we bucked the Vinyl to CD paradigm. It's all CD's now ain't it?
Guys are complaining about too much fuzz in a certain amp model only to add the Fuzz stomp effect later on in the chain.
One thing is certain though. I am so happy I chose Digitech. I just sold my year and a half old GNX2 to a guy that just bought a Zoom pedal (I don't know what model number) and he is much happier with the GNX2. But you know what? If he hadn't of been able to get the GNX2 at such a good price he would still be using the Zoom and still having a lot of fun.
You know, my Pastor plays an Ibenez thru a Digitech pedal and I think it sounds like crap. But he likes it. The congrigation seems to like it so...
Who cares?
Get the one that works for you. This comparing BS will go on forever anyway.
A little side note... I really like the ability of using someone elses time and energy of creating different settings and am very interested in trying some of the Super models or what ever you call them.
Out of all the possibilities there are with these things I still onl
I sure am happy I chose Digitech though. They make a really fine pedal. Tough as nails. Not like the Zoom one my friend has.
Have fun guys!
Terie
On top of that, sampling rate has nothing to do with bit rate. Sampling rate is the number of 16- or 24-bit pieces of information stored per second of sound, so the two are not even dependent on each other. A/D/A conversion is better off with a higher sampling rate, since there's no amplitudal (bit-wise) manipulation at this stage; whereas a processor is more powerful with a higher processing bit rate, since it will have to manipulate data and could use a more microscopic scale to work with.