On whether a modeling rack unit might make more sense than an amp...

[Duncan113]

So, as I've been sitting here reading about the Axe FX II and listening to samples of it on youtube, I've been wondering if that or a less expensive unit of this kind might actually make more sense in my situation than buying an amp, as I had previously been planning to do. For a start, I don't gig anymore, it's strictly living room jamming and computer recording. Second, though the accuracy of the amp and cab models will vary from unit to unit, there are some pretty darn good ones out there, and I already have a pair of KRK studio monitors for speakers. Third, a rack unit is am (and yes, I said is am) smaller and lighter than a big arse'd amp. Fourthly...what was fourthly? Oh yeah, Taylor Swift still has a nice ass.
Thoughts? Opinions? Old copies of Newsweek?

[Jazz P Bass]

Yup, I would have to agree. "Taylor Swift still has a nice ass'.
As to the main post, if you are into 'modeling amps' a pedal makes more sense to me.
If the pedal breaks, you still have an amp.
This fact seems to elude manufactures these days.

[Duncan113]

Yup, I would have to agree. "Taylor Swift still has a nice ass'.
As to the main post, if you are into 'modeling amps' a pedal makes more sense to me.
If the pedal breaks, you still have an amp.
This fact seems to elude manufactures these days.

Hm, a good point. About Taylor's ass, I mean, not the pedal. :-0 But seriously...Which pedals am you alluding to? The usual suspects one would find on a guitarist's pedalboard or some storied modeling pedals?

[Jazz P Bass]

I hate to admit it but Line 6 (ugh) has some nice pedals.
I really cannot say, I just fix them.
It surely is a matter of preference.
I guess what you are up against is the guy who wrote the code.

[Duncan113]

I hate to admit it but Line 6 (ugh) has some nice pedals.
I really cannot say, I just fix them.
It surely is a matter of preference.
I guess what you are up against is the guy who wrote the code.

I'd rather be up against Taylor Swift's ass.
I actually owned that there Line 6 Pod X whatever the hell it's called unit when it first came out, and promptly sold it. You're right, though, about the pedals, as I do use their compressor and chorus pedals. Me got me an Empress Superdelay thingy, too, and one o' them Tube Screamers. They sit next to a cheeky POG2, which in its own slutminded way swaggers next to a Cathedral reverb unit. What I's been trying to decide is whether to drop some more dosh on one o' them amplifiers, see? Like, per'aps, a Laney Ironheart or an Engl or, as I suggested in another thread, a Marshall what am with to get some o' them vintage tones with.

[Steve Conner]

Well, in my experience of the software industry, it's not uncommon for code to be written by an ass. Probably not Taylor Swift's though.

A modelling unit could work well for you. I do all my recording with a low-powered valve amp and a SM57, but that's mainly because I like to use the same setup for jam sessions and gigs.

The Axe-FX is probably pretty damn good if you can afford it, maybe even the best digital modeller. You just need to check that you have the same taste in music as the guy who programmed it.

[kg]

[km6xz]

Are you really in need of modeling other people's sounds? If you are not covering songs for a living where sounding like different records is needed, why not just use your amp and enjoy what you can create from it? If you are the only one hearing it, it does not have to impersonate some recording. Modeling does that, it does not reproduce the transfer function of the amp, but of a particular recording that is used as its reference. The amp being modeled sounds good because the recording was done by a good player or else no one would bother copying its characteristics. Pick any amp you wish, plug in any guitar and put it into the hands of a wannabee player and there is no way you would want to emulate that sound.
Keeping it simple so you can explore your own sound and what you can do with the playing + amp + guitar + acoustic space combo.

Regarding Taylor Swift, she seems like a pleasant enough girl in the media, don't know her, but really, she is not THAT hot. She has a similar characteristic I see of American girls coming here on vacations; poor posture and presence. Walking down a busy sidewalk here or any cultured stylish city of the world, and she would be ignored. The typical girl walking next to her would be elegant, fit, poised and stylish. Juan will confirm that, in B.A., or anyone in Milan or here in St Petersburg. Just average girls, sane normal girls next door will generally have style, poise, fitness and form that western guys go gaga over because it is so out of the norm for their community. The photo above is not flattering at all but is common in lack of attention to detail and posture that seems to be the rule. At least she is not fat.

[Mark Hammer]

A friend of mine has an Axe FX and gave me a quick tour through the possibilities one day. He has replaced his previous rig with the Axe FX and some powered speakers, or the PA. I have to say it is pretty friggin impressive and provides a LOT of possibilities.

You CAN use it for canned sounds if you want, but you don't have to. Whether the amp emulation nails what you like is a matter of taste. But my friend has gone through a variety of very good amps, and finds his AxeFX to be a rather complete solution.

As for celebrity derrieres, I'll try and hike it up a notch by citing Leonard Cohen: "It was only when you walked away I saw you had the perfect ass. Forgive me for not falling in love with your face or your conversation."

[Jazz P Bass]

Didn't the Contours (& also J Giles) have a song like that?
'First I look at the ass'.
Or was it 'purse'?

[J M Fahey]

Considering the very specific and limited use, bedroom playing and going straight into the PC, a modeler box can give very good results.
They fail miserably when they are plugged into a small combo or practice amp and the user selects, say, the "Metallica into 6 Dual Rectifier heads into 12 4 x 12" Vintage 30" simulation, simply because his 30 W SS amp can't emulate 600W Tube Power and even less 1 cheap 10" in a small open back box can't emulate 48 12" heavy efficient speakers. No way.
That's why these boxes often get an (undeserved) bad name.
But if you use them to Record (straight into the PC) and then listen to the result through your Monitor speakers, the result can be very good.
"Real thing" is better, of course, but not by a degree of magnitude, and it also requires a good mic, good mic technique, a proper room to record, an experienced technician, etc.
A couple friends of mine, with Oscars and Grammies under their belts, tour America end to end regularly testing bands to sign up with major labels.-
They go everywhere with a notebook with Protools, a red bean shaped POD and a couple favorite microphones.
They rent Recording Studios where they go, but that's some core equipment they can count on.
Impressive results.
They can't waste too much time testing sound in different studios, rooms, amps, etc. so they prefer to have something consistent and repeatable everywhere.
They test 30/40 bands per trip, then the 2 or 3 lucky selected ones travel to LA for the definitive recording, but I have listened to some of the "demos" and they were incredible.
The "hand of the cook" has a lot more influence than the actual recipe or even the ingredients used.

[km6xz]

I am not sure why a producer would want to change a band to generic sounds when the whole reason to look for new acts is to find a style that has commercial value. Commercial value is based on many factors but one prime one is not being easily confused with another artist. Being technically good means very little to the recording industry if the results can be ambiguous as to who it is. A label does not invest in a product that does not have its own identifiable style that transcends songs. Think of all the singers or guitarists who have been able to create an enduring career. Technically many are not great but they are stylists who can take a song and many the audience think it is their own, or who has a style that is their trademark. That is marketable. This city for example is crawling with highly trained talented singers that could sing technically, better than any of the current popular artists but that is not commerically viable since they have been trained for technique, performance and stage craft to optimize the opera or composer's intent, not create a separate identity for themselves. They can sing anything put in front of them but mixing them up and pulling one out of a hat would not be easy to tell apart. Broadway, or cruise ship entertainment troupes or Las Vegas can use that sort of skilled talent but not record labels.
What a label is looking for it a unique product style that can be passed from project to project for the duration of the contract or longer, so there is a continuity between albums even if the material is completely different. Why bother hunting around the country for a unique band if you smash their uniqueness and give them a generic sound that any kid with a credit card can impersonate? Makes no sense unless they are looking for raw material to make a pop act out of as a "studio project". But there is no need to search for that raw material. If the maker of that digital box stops making it, does the band stop being a band?
If their search is for song writers, they are doing it the amateur way. Amateur song writers and producer wannabees think they need to "produce" song demos with all the embellishments and tricks they hear on finished records. Maybe that is why they are still amateurs. I get song demos constantly that all have one thing in common, they are arranged and produced by a non-producer-non-arranger-non-vocal-arranger- programmed by a non-drummer or non-horn player. A producer looking for a song that his artist can make so believable that it must have been that artist's song and emotional statement, he is not looking for full arrangements, that is what he and his artists will add. The real problem is that a song that is fully embellished with horn parts and wild rhythm sections can't be "unheard" very easily. It is hard to hear the song in the producers own internal imagination WITHOUT that useless garbage added by amateur song writer/"producers". A serious song writer who expects to make a living from it, writes a song that recorded raw, just simple vocals and a melody instrument of generic style. THAT is easy to imagine how the arts would put their personal stamp on it to sound as if they believe and mean it. It is often vocal tracked with the opposite gender of who the song is intended for so the artist's own character is not influenced by the demo track vocal.
So I am still at a loss as to why someone would go to the trouble of finding unique bands and then make them intentionally non-unique with modeling and computers? Sure, computers might be appropriate but the group would have used them if it was their signature sound in the first place.

[J M Fahey]

Dear km6z, in this particular post maybe you missed the point.

My friends do not take a killer band and force them to record with a POD , but on the contrary they tell each of the around 40 bands they audition in every trip: "ok, you have 3 studio hours to show me your thing". Period.
They are not paid to make a poor band sound good but to discover the raw diamonds in the mud.
And they have to sift through a lot of mud.

This is *exactly* the same as when a Film or Theater Director auditions actors ; they *definitely* will not mount a full production, with make up, hair styling, clothes, lighting, etc. to *test* them. No way.
They will give them a line or two, while dressed in whatever clothes they came in, under a bare bulb hanging from the ceiling, listen to them for, say, 5 minutes, and say "thanks, we'll call you (you know what that means ) ..... NEXT!!"
Either they "have it" or they do not.

To put things in perspective:

1) they typically travel 20.000 KM per trip, end to end from Canada to Argentina and Chile, renting studio space in the cities they visit, not much time to waste.
And the Record Labels they hunt talent for, trust them.
Most artists they brought have been hits, goor breadwinners for the Companies, plus they have personally received *lots* of awards.

Heavyweights in Film, Producing and commercial Advertising music too.

2) some of their career:

Filmography
She Dances Alone (1981)
Amores perros (2000)
The Insider (1999) - features his song, "Iguazu".
21 Grams (2003)
Salinas grandes (2004) (TV)
The Motorcycle Diaries (2004)
North Country (2005)
Yes (2005) - features his song, "Iguazu".
Brokeback Mountain (2005) Academy Award for Original Music Score
Fast Food Nation (2006) - features his song "Iguazu".
Babel (2006) Academy Award for Original Music Score
Into the Wild (2007) - features his song "Picking Berries".
I Come With The Rain (2009)
The Sun Behind the Clouds: Tibet's Struggle for Freedom (2009)
Nanga Parbat (2010)
Biutiful (2010)
Dhobi Ghaat (2010)
On the Road (2012)
The Last of Us (2012/2013) - video game



Academy Awards: (A.K.A "Oscars")
2005: Best Original Score – Brokeback Mountain
2006: Best Original Score – Babel

BAFTA Awards:
2004: Anthony Asquith Award for Film Music – The Motorcycle Diaries
2006: Anthony Asquith Award for Film Music – Babel

BMI:
On June 13, 2008, Gustavo Santaolalla was honored as a BMI Icon at the 15th annual BMI Latin Awards. The BMI Icon award is bestowed on creators who have had a “unique and indelible influence on generations of music makers.”[2]

Golden Globe Awards:
2005: Best Original Song – "A Love That Will Never Grow Old" from Brokeback Mountain

Grammy Awards:
2004: Best Latin Rock/Alternative Album – Cuatro Caminos (producer)
2009: Grammy Award for Best Latin Pop Album: La Vida... Es un Ratico (producer)

Latin Grammy Awards:
2000: Best Rock Album – Revés/Yo Soy (producer)
2001: Best Rock Solo Vocal Album – Fíjate Bien (producer)
2003: Record of the Year – "Es Por Ti" (producer)
2003: Album of the Year – Un Día Normal (producer)
2003: Best Pop Instrumental Album – Bajofondo Tango Club (producer)
2004: Best Alternative Music Album – Cuatro Caminos (producer)
2005: Best Rock Solo Vocal Album – Mi Sangre (producer)
2005: Producer of the Year
A Contraluz by La Vela Puerca
Bajofondo Tango Club Presenta A: Supervielle by Supervielle
Celador De Sueños by Orozco and Barrientos
Cristobal Repetto by Cristobal Repetto
Guau! by Arbol
Mi Sangre by Juanes
The Motorcycle Diaries: Original Motion Picture Soundtrack
13 by Javier García
2006: Best Tango Album – Café De Los Maestros (producer)
2008: Record of the Year: "Me Enamora" (producer)
2008: Album of the Year: La Vida... Es un Ratico (producer)
2008: Best Male Pop Vocal Album: La Vida... Es un Ratico (producer)

Nominations

BAFTA Awards:
2005: Anthony Asquith Award for Film Music – Brokeback Mountain

Golden Globe Awards:
2005: Best Original Score – Brokeback Mountain
2006: Best Original Score – Babel

Grammy Awards:
2007: Best Compilation Soundtrack Album for a Motion Picture, Television or Other Visual Media – Brokeback Mountain: Original Motion Picture Soundtrack (producer)
2008: Best Compilation Soundtrack Album for a Motion Picture, Television or Other Visual Media – Babel: Original Motion Picture Soundtrack (composer)

3) now *only* their awards as producers (which includes the talent hunting I mentioned):

And as Recording Engineers:

[Ward]

Oh geezus, mine's bigger than yours. What the hell.

[kg]

Oh geezus, mine's bigger than yours. What the hell.

i have a feeling you missed the point too.