Automation vs Tap Dancing

[sleewell]

less tap dancing is always better when playing live

my struggle right now is that im using amp gain with a pedal in the loop of my QC. its the best dirt tone i have found.

but if i need to go to clean i have to hit my QC and the amps foot switch. id love to get it down to one click but also dont wanna make the setup any more complicated

 

[HotRats]

less tap dancing is always better when playing live

my struggle right now is that im using amp gain with a pedal in the loop of my QC. its the best dirt tone i have found.

but if i need to go to clean i have to hit my QC and the amps foot switch. id love to get it down to one click but also dont wanna make the setup any more complicated

Maybe I don't understand what you're doing but can't you use the QC to switch amp channel?

 

[sleewell]

Maybe I don't understand what you're doing but can't you use the QC to switch amp channel?

the QC cannot directly switch amp channels using TRS cables without a MIDI controller.

its really not a huge deal lol, we dont use cleans that much. just always feels like its something you know hahaha, always that next hurdle you wanna try to overcome. i wanna keep things as simple as possible though.

 

[dk_ace]

I like to have a manual mode and an automated mode.

For live use, I’m generally trying to keep things automated with one button to push per song part as long as I can program that quickly and easily for a set. I also have a gain boost and a volume boost available for ad hoc stuff if I need a little more of either.

For general playing, early rehearsals, etc or when things get off script in a live context I use manual mode. I want a ton of sounds quickly available with my feet to try out new ideas cover a lot of ground.

I spend most of my time in that manual mode. The time that counts the most is the automated stuff though.

The power and simplicity this gives me is one of the main things that keeps me in digital modeling. Trying to get this in a traditional board and cover all the sounds I like to use requires a pretty massive footprint, not to mention the cash, cabling, power, headaches, etc. A massive G3 powered rig is something I kick the tires on from time to time, but the juice never seems worth the squeeze to me.

I don’t see myself going back to tap dancing ever. If I had to have a non-automated rig for live use, I’d just deal with having a lot less sounds available before I’d do a lot of tap dancing again. Something like two gain boxes, judicious use of guitar controls, a mod pedal, and delay and reverb with the mix on an expression pedal. I could totally make that work, but it would be less fun than what I have today.

D

 

[HotRats]

the QC cannot directly switch amp channels using TRS cables without a MIDI controller.

its really not a huge deal lol, we dont use cleans that much. just always feels like its something you know hahaha, always that next hurdle you wanna try to overcome. i wanna keep things as simple as possible though.

Oh I see. Not having amp control out on board is kind of a deal breaker for me, because I surely don't want to buy and bring more stuff just to switch between 2 channels.

 

[Dave Lewis]

Tap dancing is dangerous If you keep falling in the sink or bath.
Pedal switchers are great .
The less programming of things the better for me.

 

[Sascha Franck]

Oh I see. Not having amp control out on board is kind of a deal breaker for me, because I surely don't want to buy and bring more stuff just to switch between 2 channels.

As I've never been much interested in the QC, I didn't know about that, but seriously: WTF? How do you release a flagship multieffects device for guitar players, ideally suitable to work in as many situations as possible without at least a simple amp CTL output? I could understand things might not work well with amps requiring momentary switches to change channels, but the vast majority of amps still just needs a simple open/close switch for channel selection and it should be absolutely trivial to add such a switching circuit to any modeler.
It's also a lot easier to deal with than anything MIDI where you might have to map program changes, assign CC values <64 or >64 to work and what not if you wanted to control things from within a single patch.
If I was still using amps and wanted to switch channels, not having this option on my modeler would be a showstopper for me, no less.

 

[HotRats]

As I've never been much interested in the QC, I didn't know about that, but seriously: WTF? How do you release a flagship multieffects device for guitar players, ideally suitable to work in as many situations as possible without at least a simple amp CTL output? I could understand things might not work well with amps requiring momentary switches to change channels, but the vast majority of amps still just needs a simple open/close switch for channel selection and it should be absolutely trivial to add such a switching circuit to any modeler.
It's also a lot easier to deal with than anything MIDI where you might have to map program changes, assign CC values <64 or >64 to work and what not if you wanted to control things from within a single patch.
If I was still using amps and wanted to switch channels, not having this option on my modeler would be a showstopper for me, no less.

I agree with you. The absence of the amp conltrol out is wired and, as far as I know, even the fractal fm9 doesn't have one


I guess the idea behind the QC and FM9 is to be a modeller and not a multi fx unit. You can use it as a multi fx but it's not his strenght.
The Helix, for example, has always been presented both as modeller and as a mult fx/brain of your rig.

While I might understand the resoning for the QC it's hard for me to understand the choice for an FM9 since fractal have been used as multi fx since ever.