BOSS GT-1000 Firmware version 4.00

[ian_dissonance]

I’m going to ask here, but is anyone using the internal wave pedal or the input source to modulate effect parameters? I also have some questions about the output options that aren’t apparent from the manual or any of the test videos I’ve seen. I love my Helix, but I’m kind of annoyed that 10 years in and Boss STILL has better control modulation options. Can I use the the “input” control to say, have the pitch shift go from +3 to -12 as the sound decays? Can the XLR outputs be separated from the volume control for use in a system that needs a consistent output level at one point and then use the 1/4” outs as an adjustable output?

 

[Jarick]

If Boss included all the algorithms from their 500 series effects and fixed the block limitations, the GT-1000 would be a KILLER effects unit.

 

[laxu]

If Boss included all the algorithms from their 500 series effects and fixed the block limitations, the GT-1000 would be a KILLER effects unit.

Their approach to what is included in anything is so weird. IR-2, IR-200, GT-1000, GX-100 don't even have all the same amp models where the older units might never got a model found on a newer unit.

 

[laxu]

My glass bowl: With X amps they are setting course to the only feasible survival for modeling imo. A) we are close to the point where comparing real to modeled is no longer interesting (“yeah yeah, we know it sounds the same”)..so good modeling of existing amps is a commodity, nothing you can make the difference with to a customer. B) Capturing tech is a far more economical method to copy an amp…as soon as “the controls work the same” is either implemented, or the market decides that it was a silly requirement to begin with…what does modeling still bring to the table?

With modeling and capturing of real stuff being a commodity…the only way to sell something…is to sell something the other don’t have: your own interpretation of what an amp should sound like. Wtf…boss on the front of the market?

I think the focus is way, way too much on the amp modeling. I have seen far less comparisons between the effects in these units, even though there's plenty of differences in those.

For captures there's a few groups of users:

• Those with legitimate usecases where capture tech works best.
  • "I want to turn my big tube amp rig into a digital fly rig."
  • "I want to make it easy to record with my favorite tube amp sounds."
  • "I want to conveniently switch between my big amp collection, each amp with my favorite settings."
• Those who want instant gratification, so a preset sound made by someone else that they have to at best tweak minimally works. These are the ones who also get excited by e.g NeuralDSP plugins providing great tones out of the box by just picking the right preset.
• Those who have a collector mentality so "every amp ever made can be captured" is enticing. Traditional modeling has this group of users as well, always crying for new amp models without ever exploring the existing ones to their fullest.

I think it's much harder to sell a concept like what Boss does - to treat the digital amp models as their own thing, with their own sound.

The idea that your digital modeler provides the tone and feel of some expensive boutique amp you've never tried, and cannot afford, is much easier to sell. Fractal and Line6 guys have said in the past that they'd rather make their own models, instead of painstakingly replicating existing real amps, but the real amp models concept sells better. The tide is turning as e.g new Line6 custom models are generally well received.

Funnily enough, my BluGuitar rig is not too far off from the capture concept. I don't have any access to the actual tone stack of its channels, those are fixed internally. The EQ on the unit works more like a post-EQ: low/high shelf filters + 600 Hz midrange filter. They don't interact either like a tone stack does. But I don't feel like I'm missing anything because just those 3 knobs have way more range than any amp tone stack so it's easy to dial it to sound good.

 

[KingsXJJ]

Their approach to what is included in anything is so weird. IR-2, IR-200, GT-1000, GX-100 don't even have all the same amp models where the older units might never got a model found on a newer unit.

IR-2 and IR-200 sucks IMO.

V4 1000Core we’ll see. Katana Waza Artist 1x12 MKIII? Bring it!

 

[Sascha Franck]

IR-2 and IR-200 sucks IMO.

I don't think they're a huge success, either. No idea whom Boss wanted to convince with these - or rather: it's obvious whom they wanted to convince, but IMO it's as obvious why that failed.

 

[laxu]

To me…a downloaded DI profile is pretty much the same as using a model:

- You get “a” starting point with the knobs at 12…you dial them, and you stick an IR to it.
- You download/select one you think matches your sound…based on whatever you heard live/recording.

The only difference is that the knobs don’t exactly behave like the captured amp…some see that as a con, to me it’s a pro…cause I can predict what they do
+ you get all the adv you listed…
I honestly can’t think of a good reason why modeling analog stuff will be here in the future…especially once the controls also can be “measured”…which seems very doable tbh…sweep the knob…and measure the consequence…

For me captures suck when you have to rely on other people's captures. It's the same kind of trial and error game as figuring out the right IR file. I do not enjoy the process of trying to find something that works for me by essentially shooting in the dark.

So for me both movable mic cab systems and component modeling is more intuitive to work with because I understand how to use both of them, and what to expect when I turn knobs or move a mic. At the same time component modeling is more than good enough to provide satisfying results, so I see no reason to engage with captures unless I have a number of amps that I can capture myself and be in full control of the whole thing.

NAM developer seems to have been working on capturing parameters, but there hasn't been anything on that since last January. The idea behind his solution is to reduce the dataset needed because you end up with a ton of data if you take even a one channel, 6-8 knob amp and try to represent it on say a 10 notch scale for every possible knob permutation. Tone stacks are interactive so just "treble does this at 6/10" is not enough to model it.

 

[laxu]

I don't think they're a huge success, either. No idea whom Boss wanted to convince with these - or rather: it's obvious whom they wanted to convince, but IMO it's as obvious why that failed.

IMO both products look great on paper.

IR-2 is a very compact pedal, and has a good feature set for something that small.
IR-200 has the benefit of a screen to make preset management work well, enough knobs to be easy to use, a few reverb options...

Both fail because they don't include the best stuff from the GT-1000. Especially the IR-200 should be just the amp block from the GT-1000, with all the same features, models and quality.

Imagine if a HX Stomp was using PODXT models, or Fractal FM3 used Axe-Fx 2 models. That's what Boss is basically doing with their smaller units, only the GT-1000 Core got it right by being like the flagship, but smaller.

 

[KingsXJJ]

IMO both products look great on paper.

IR-2 is a very compact pedal, and has a good feature set for something that small.
IR-200 has the benefit of a screen to make preset management work well, enough knobs to be easy to use, a few reverb options...

Both fail because they don't include the best stuff from the GT-1000. Especially the IR-200 should be just the amp block from the GT-1000, with all the same features, models and quality.

Imagine if a HX Stomp was using PODXT models, or Fractal FM3 used Axe-Fx 2 models. That's what Boss is basically doing with their smaller units, only the GT-1000 Core got it right by being like the flagship, but smaller.

The Core is the only one I kept. Glad I did with the recent update.

 

[ChordInversion]

Their approach to what is included in anything is so weird. IR-2, IR-200, GT-1000, GX-100 don't even have all the same amp models where the older units might never got a model found on a newer unit.

I've been a Roland/BOSS fan for a long time, and I've grown to just grin and bear it when it comes to this rather odd choice. If they made the higher end products a superset of the lower end ones, that would at least make sense. But no, it's just this weird Venn diagram of seemingly random additions and omissions.