Fair enough. It's a bit different for me. When I'm playing live I use multi-channel amps, and I know the amp so well that I'm at a place where really I just have to deal with the master volume most of the time. There are some sections in our songs where I will adjust the level of a particular channel, but that's not a balance thing so much as it being written into the song.
6.9" x 5.6" Delay Pedal - Great!
6.9" x 5.6" Chorus Pedal - Awesome!!
6.9" x 5.6" Reverb Pedal - Killer!
I doubt it, but it’ll definitely offer more options to people at lower price points. I don’t really see the captures as a main selling point of a QC but maybe that’s just me.Neural DSP must be shitting their pants right about now.
I doubt it, but it’ll definitely offer more options to people at lower price points. I don’t really see the captures as a main selling point of a QC but maybe that’s just me.
I would say this might demonstrate to companies like Line 6 that a profiling solution doesn’t need to be tethered to the actual device using the profiles. I think it makes a lot of sense to do the capturing on a computer rig and just exporting to the destination device later.
Genuinely curious what amps people are using that existing models just don’t do justice to and the only viable solution is to use a capture of it.
wouldn’t modelling do this easily and with all the benefits of being able to fine tune settings/levels/gainstaging of each one?I could imagine some, just wouldn't know whether the capturing process would be able to actually work properly. Thing of, say, your guitar signal being split by a crossover, running into two amps with, say, the lower portion of the signal running into some rather clean-ish amp to keep things tight while the higher portion could be sent to some creamier overdriven amp. As said, no idea whether the current capture options would be able to get that right, but it'd be worth a try.
I've got a Diezel VH4 and Marshall Satriani JVM as you know, and both of those are in the Axe FX III. But they don't really sound the same to me. Sometimes I prefer the models, but most of the time I prefer my amps. Using the tonematch block can get closer, but yes, if I could, I'd run profiles on the Axe3, no question - assuming they were accurate to my real world amps.and as a follow up, if you could create a patch using existing (component) modelling tech that sounds indistinguishable to the capture, would you rather use that?
Genuinely curious what amps people are using that existing models just don’t do justice to and the only viable solution is to use a capture of it.
I get that matching tones with modelling isn’t really a fun or rewarding process and profiling does it with ease, but I’d be amazed if you couldn’t match them to the point that it was indistinguishable. But whether that’s worth the ballache and trial and error is another matter which is understandable. I’m also not really considering the live aspect as much because I never play live, and I’d be a lot more confident about matching recorded tones than ones running through a power amp.So I guess it comes down to... you have a thing.. you love the sound of it.... you want to replicate it as much as possible ???
“it’s perfect for me and everyone else is exactly the same as me or they’re wrong “
I think you will have the REVV in AX3 shortly apparently the guys at Revv finally sent Cliff a Generator a couple of weeks agoPut it this way, if I wanted to add Revv Red from Helix to the Axe III, I'd throw a Stomp into the fx loop of the Axe III. I'm not specifically precious about capturing or profiling. Often times I prefer component modelling.
Orrrrrrrlllllyyyyyyyyy ???? I missed that!!I think you will have the REVV in AX3 shortly apparently the guys at Revv finally sent Cliff a Generator a couple of weeks ago
I wish my missus complained that my dick was too big.
Alas, she's also grumbling about needing a few extra inches.
I'm only going to be tentatively, barely excited about this possibility. From November 2020:Orrrrrrrlllllyyyyyyyyy ???? I missed that!!
I doubt it, but it’ll definitely offer more options to people at lower price points. I don’t really see the captures as a main selling point of a QC but maybe that’s just me.
wouldn’t modelling do this easily and with all the benefits of being able to fine tune settings/levels/gainstaging of each one?
I think it makes a lot of sense to do the capturing on a computer rig and just exporting to the destination device later.