The Gear Forum designs a next-gen digital modeler!

[Foxmeister]

Irrelevant. They can't do the things I mentioned.

No. What appears to be irrelevant is your opinion, because that is how you choose to respond to other people's opinions just because they may not agree with you.

 

[Orvillain]

 

[Sascha Franck]

To some degree you can do this in the Boss GT and even the HX Stomp.

No. On all devices you'd run out of switches and CPU juice. And you still wouldn't be able to deal with things even remotely as freely.

 

[Sascha Franck]

No. What appears to be irrelevant is your opinion, because that is how you choose to respond to other people's opinions just because they may not agree with you.

This is NOT about whether you agree or not.
I said "you can't do XYX with modelers" and it's provable. How in the world do you even think about not agreeing with a fact? Are you a flat earther, too?
Then vou come up with "modelers can do this!" - but that had never to do with what I was saying.
It's like:
"I would love a pizza!"
"But you can get coffee!"
"But I'd rather have something to eat."
"I don't agree!"

 

[Foxmeister]

This is NOT about whether you agree or not.
I said "you can't do XYX with modelers" and it's provable. How in the world do you even think about not agreeing with a fact? Are you a flat earther, too?
Then vou come up with "modelers can do this!" - but that had never to do with what I was saying.
It's like:
"I would love a pizza!"
"But you can get coffee!"
"But I'd rather have something to eat."
"I don't agree!"

Ok, so now you are just gaslighting.

Right at the very outset you said:

Talking about sort of mimicking the analog world: Given that pretty much every guitarist on earth has gotten their mouths watering when seeing all those elaborated Bradshaw, Cornish and whatever rigs, isn't it quite astonishing that to this day there's NOT ONE modeler allowing you to recreate any such a setup? I mean, in some aspects, they're not even remotely getting into the ballpark. Why is that?

You asked questions and asked for opinions, and when you get them you change the rules of the game.

No, I'm not a flat earther, but you are a dishonest interlocutor.

 

[Sascha Franck]

Right at the very outset you said:

Glad you quoted it yourself. Because that's 100% provable. The fact that you didn't manage to read properly, let alone reading the example I was coming up with later on, is likely saying more about you than about me.
Did you adopt these tactics from the other place?

dishonest interlocutor.

How pathetic. You should possibly look up the meaning of "dishonest". And I thought English was your native language.

 

[Foxmeister]

How pathetic. You should possibly look up the meaning of "dishonest". And I thought English was your native language.

Any honest interlocutor can see that at no point did I disagree with your "provable facts" in this discourse, but perhaps you can point out "exactly* where I did?

Pathetic is asking for opinions and then dismissing and strawmanning them when you don't like them.

 

[Sascha Franck]

Any honest interlocutor can see that at no point did I disagree with your "provable facts" in this discourse, but perhaps you can point out "exactly* where I did?

You were jumping into this discussion with this:

Modern modellers can already do far, far more than the vast majority of rigs from 40 years ago could do.

There are also lots of things that modern modellers can do that the rack rigs you are referring to cannot do.

And that's completely irrelevant regarding what my postings were about. So you either didn't read them properly or didn't understand them. Pick your poison.

Apart from that, it seems that quite some folks wouldn't mind having some of the functionalities I'm proposing, regardless whether that includes you or not.
May I ask: Do you gig often? And if so, what kinda gigs?

 

[the-trooper]

So, in your book it's a good thing that modern modelers can't even remotely do what rigs could 40 years ago?

Not really fair. You stated one example of something some elaborate rig could do (no idea if todays modelers can or can not do it). One example is hardly "not even remotely".

From what I've read, here and in previous posts and topics, you seem to have very specific needs, like, something a handful of people would use. If those needs aren't met your posts take on "it's total crap" tone. You're using modelers so I'm sure you're not thinking that way, but that's how it reads.

One specific example isn't "modern modelers can't even remotely do what rigs could 40 years ago".
And by some answers here, it seem modelers can do it, if remotely.

 

[Sascha Franck]

Not really fair. You stated one example of something some elaborate rig could do (no idea if todays modelers can or can not do it). One example is hardly "not even remotely".

If that is one of the things I need, it's absolutely fair.

 

[Sascha Franck]

And by some answers here, it seem modelers can do it, if remotely.

No, they can't. With a FAS unit you can get closer but not even really close. The others fail completely.

 

[Sascha Franck]

And fwiw, it should be obvious that I haven't remotely been talking about sounds or routings or whatever. This is 100% about handling. And regarding that, my statements are provably true.

 

[Foxmeister]

And that's completely irrelevant regarding what my postings were about. So you either didn't read them properly or didn't understand them. Pick your poison.

Why not include the whole of the post?

Modern modellers can already do far, far more than the vast majority of rigs from 40 years ago could do.

There are also lots of things that modern modellers can do that the rack rigs you are referring to cannot do.

Personally, I don't even think it is a case of being a "good thing" or a "bad thing" - for many, myself included, it is an entirely irrelevant thing.

YMMV of course, and that's fine, but I don't think the big players in the modelling scene are going to lose any sleep over this particular issue.

This was in response to the question you posited in this post:

So, in your book it's a good thing that modern modelers can't even remotely do what rigs could 40 years ago?

The third paragraph, the one you conveniently *ignored*, directly answers this question *with my opinion*.

The first two paragraphs give some context to that particular opinion.

Now, I ask once again, please point out *exactly* where I did not agree with a provable fact?

May I ask: Do you gig often? And if so, what kinda gigs?

You may ask and I will answer - no I don't gig at all.

Now may I ask - how is that relevant here?

(Hint: I can already guess with some certainty where you are going to go with this, and I rather suspect another logical fallacy is incoming!)

 

[Sascha Franck]

And fwiw #2: I wouldn't even have to mention big rigs of the past. No current modeler is even able to do what I can do with my mediocre pedalboard.

 

[Sascha Franck]

You may ask and I will answer - no I don't gig at all.

Now may I ask - how is that relevant here?

Because then you likely don't have much of an idea about gig relevant features. And no, that's not a logical fallacy.

 

[Foxmeister]

Because then you likely don't have much of an idea about gig relevant features. And no, that's not a logical fallacy.

And there we have it!

Now, I'll ask one final time : please point out *exactly* where I did not agree with a provable fact?

 

[Sascha Franck]

Now, I'll ask one final time : please point out *exactly* where I did not agree with a provable fact?

Wrong question.
"Why do you hijack a discussion with irrelevant content?" would be a better one.

 

[Sascha Franck]

And well, re: appeal to authority - ok. Whom would you trust when it comes to features relevant to live playing? Someone playing live or someone not doing so?
Besides, the "appeal to authority" argument only applies in case someone doesn't come up with some hard facts but just with him/her being an authority. Not the case here.

 

[Foxmeister]

Wrong question.
"Why do you hijack a discussion with irrelevant content?" would be a better one.

So you not going to answer the question I posited?

I'll take that as an admission that you can't.

P.S. I wasn't aware this was your personal forum and thread and that you get to decide the terms of discourse. For that, I truly apologise!

 

[Sascha Franck]

So you not going to answer the question I posited?

No. It's all in the context. You disagreed on something you don't know much about or aren't interested in. And then you came up with some "but modelers can do this and thst". Talk about gaslighting, hm?