Page 1 of 2
#1
Just before sleeping, I thought guitar in algebra:

Guitar + Amp + Pedal = One Versatile Sound

Guitar + Pedal + Audio Interface + Laptop + VST + Speakers = Millions of sounds + digital manipulation!

Does anyone use setup of this kind?
#2
Thousands of people use that setup, and it really is amazing versatile. Those of us who don't are the ones who never heard a sound we liked that way. Plus, a lot of (read: most) laptops are going to add some latency, which is incredibly frustrating when you're playing even if the audience can't hear it.
Money beats soul every time.

Money beats soul...every time.

Money...beats soul...every...goddamn...time.
#3
There are people who use that setup, especially when they're recording or when they need to practice quietly (with headphones rather than speakers).

It isn't death to amps though. People will still want the authentic tone that a real amp gives.

People will also want to be able to take their guitar & amp to practices/gigs without having to hook up all the equipment you listed each time.

My usual setup is similar to your first option, but I don't have the pedal (most of the time), just guitar-cable-amp. This is the Only True Guitar Setup
Gibson LP Traditional, LP GT, LP Studio, SG Standard x2
Barber Tone Press > EHX Worm >TC Polytune > MXR Custom Badass 78 > EXH Glove > EHX East River Drive > Zoom G3 > TC Spark Mini Booster
Laney VC30
Marshall TSL602
Jet City JCA22H
.
My SoundCloud
#5
I don't want a million sounds manipulable in a trillion parameters if none of them actually react or move air like a real amp. The software is getting better all the time but there's a lot to be said for being able to plug in and make excellent sounds the first time, every time.
#6
Amp Sims and VSTs sound nowhere near as good as tube amps. Death to amps? No.

Miking and recording a good tube amp, while not as convenient, sounds far better than digital anything.
#7
Quote by Roc8995
I don't want a million sounds manipulable in a trillion parameters if none of them actually react or move air like a real amp. The software is getting better all the time but there's a lot to be said for being able to plug in and make excellent sounds the first time, every time.

This x a large number. They'll have to pry my tube amps out of my cold dead fingers.
Gilchrist custom
Yamaha SBG500
Telecasters
Randall RM100 & RM20
Marshall JTM45 clone
Marshall JCM900 4102 (modded)
Marshall 18W clone
Fender 5F1 Champ clone
Atomic Amplifire
Marshall 1960A
Boss GT-100


Cathbard Amplification
My band
#8
Quote by Roc8995
I don't want a million sounds manipulable in a trillion parameters if none of them actually react or move air like a real amp. The software is getting better all the time but there's a lot to be said for being able to plug in and make excellent sounds the first time, every time.


So regular speakers<amps?
I thought amps got their sounds through speakers.

And latency always applies, even to high end laptop+external audio cards?
#9
I'm not sure what you're trying to ask. Amps have speakers. Not a lot of people run their DSP through a quad of Greenbacks. That's part of the equation, but not all of it. The digital programs I've used so far just don't play like a real amp. They can sound close, but it's like watching a concert on TV - it's not even remotely the same as being there, and no matter how far you turned the volume up, you'd never mistake one for the other.
#10
He means that the overall sound is the interaction of the amp with speakers designed for guitar. To do that with your proposed setup means simulating all of that. Those simulations are getting better but why simulate something when the real thing is readily available and easier and more convenient to use?
Gilchrist custom
Yamaha SBG500
Telecasters
Randall RM100 & RM20
Marshall JTM45 clone
Marshall JCM900 4102 (modded)
Marshall 18W clone
Fender 5F1 Champ clone
Atomic Amplifire
Marshall 1960A
Boss GT-100


Cathbard Amplification
My band
#11
Quote by Roc8995
I'm not sure what you're trying to ask. Amps have speakers. Not a lot of people run their DSP through a quad of Greenbacks. That's part of the equation, but not all of it. The digital programs I've used so far just don't play like a real amp. They can sound close, but it's like watching a concert on TV - it's not even remotely the same as being there, and no matter how far you turned the volume up, you'd never mistake one for the other.


I get what you're saying. Isn't there a way to process the actual amp's signal digitally?
#12
I sell, among other things, laser tape measures. ****ing laser tape measures. You shoot a laser, and it tells you how far the point it hits is away from the unit, within a sixteenth of an inch accuracy. You would think this would kill tape measures... But it never will. Some guys just want to 'feel' the tape in their hands.

There's infinite situations like this where technology has made something nearly obsolete but people still hang on to the old tradition. Amp sim technology hasn't made amps obsolete yet, but even if it does people will still want them.

Will my amp work after an EMP?
Quote by Cathbard
Quote by Raijouta
Unless its electronic drums.

BURN THE WITCH!!!!!
#13
Yes there is. It's a bit like synthesizing a saxophone. There are synths out there that sound close enough to fool you but a real sax can be played in a way that leaves no doubt in your mind that it wasn't a synth.
Gilchrist custom
Yamaha SBG500
Telecasters
Randall RM100 & RM20
Marshall JTM45 clone
Marshall JCM900 4102 (modded)
Marshall 18W clone
Fender 5F1 Champ clone
Atomic Amplifire
Marshall 1960A
Boss GT-100


Cathbard Amplification
My band
#14
Quote by ingames
I get what you're saying. Isn't there a way to process the actual amp's signal digitally?

There's a way to process naked women digitally and yet people still prefer the real thing.

Well, most of them. Cath is probably not going to like this analogy as much.
#15
Gilchrist custom
Yamaha SBG500
Telecasters
Randall RM100 & RM20
Marshall JTM45 clone
Marshall JCM900 4102 (modded)
Marshall 18W clone
Fender 5F1 Champ clone
Atomic Amplifire
Marshall 1960A
Boss GT-100


Cathbard Amplification
My band
#17
Quote by Cathbard
Yes there is. It's a bit like synthesizing a saxophone. There are synths out there that sound close enough to fool you but a real sax can be played in a way that leaves no doubt in your mind that it wasn't a synth.


Why don't we get off the traditional guitar tones and onto something more like

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZwUL-MSFGBw

ie in credits it says -" Adrian Belew – texture generating guitars"
Yes, it must be engineered to shit.

But what if you could recreate such sounds live?
That's what I'm talking about.
#18
I see your cacophony of noise and raise you something musical:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4O_YMLDvvnw

Why not get away from traditional sounds? It sounds good

Some of us actually like ermmm .... guitar. Why don't you just take up keyboards and be done with it?
Gilchrist custom
Yamaha SBG500
Telecasters
Randall RM100 & RM20
Marshall JTM45 clone
Marshall JCM900 4102 (modded)
Marshall 18W clone
Fender 5F1 Champ clone
Atomic Amplifire
Marshall 1960A
Boss GT-100


Cathbard Amplification
My band
#19
I personally find the guitar/bass/drums/occasional keyboard band.. boring.

ie why not use samples of Bitches Brew trumpets, NiN drum machines, Mr Self Destruct distortion, heavy dubstep synths... Put them in the mixer, drive them through distorted amps, and see what we make?

Traditional music will never be replaced. Granted.
I'm just looking for evolution, ie

Led Zep brought in the 21st century

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fkP3urtYCkc
#20
Well I think you have your answer. Some of us like guitar and aren't looking to make it sound like a synthesizer. If I want synthetic sounds I'll fire up my keyboards.
Gilchrist custom
Yamaha SBG500
Telecasters
Randall RM100 & RM20
Marshall JTM45 clone
Marshall JCM900 4102 (modded)
Marshall 18W clone
Fender 5F1 Champ clone
Atomic Amplifire
Marshall 1960A
Boss GT-100


Cathbard Amplification
My band
#21
Ok, so you like music that requires a computer. That's fine. That doesn't mean DSPs sound better for the applications the rest of us are talking about.

You're not even talking about the equipment for amplifying guitars any more. You're just talking about making electronic music. That's fine, but it's not relevant to what anybody else here is talking about.
#22
Daft Punk is the best classic rock band of all time.

Also I'd rather have a second Holocaust than listen to a single dubstep track.

For serious.
Everyone is entitled to an opinion.

Feel free to express yours so I can make an informed judgement about how stupid you are.
#23
Quote by bubb_tubbs
Daft Punk is the best classic rock band of all time.

Also I'd rather have a second Holocaust than listen to a single dubstep track.

For serious.

Can we limit this Holocause to, like, serial rapists with cancer? Because I think the Jews have died enough.
Money beats soul every time.

Money beats soul...every time.

Money...beats soul...every...goddamn...time.
#24
Quote by Roc8995
Ok, so you like music that requires a computer. That's fine. That doesn't mean DSPs sound better for the applications the rest of us are talking about.

You're not even talking about the equipment for amplifying guitars any more. You're just talking about making electronic music. That's fine, but it's not relevant to what anybody else here is talking about.


I am talking about the application of the guitar in electronic music.
I think that is pretty relevant despite being contrary to other people's music tastes, which is irrelevant to what this thread is about.
#25
Quote by AeolianSeventh
Can we limit this Holocause to, like, serial rapists with cancer? Because I think the Jews have died enough.

Nope. Gotta be a proper one to illustrate just how awful dubstep really is.
Everyone is entitled to an opinion.

Feel free to express yours so I can make an informed judgement about how stupid you are.
#26
Quote by bubb_tubbs
Daft Punk is the best classic rock band of all time.

Also I'd rather have a second Holocaust than listen to a single dubstep track.

For serious.


As a tall blonde catholic I second this motion.

1977 Burny FLG70
2004 EBMM JP6
2016 SE Holcolmb
#27
Quote by ingames
I am talking about the application of the guitar in electronic music.
I think that is pretty relevant despite being contrary to other people's music tastes, which is irrelevant to what this thread is about.

When were you going to bother to mention that this thread was about the application of the guitar in electronic music? You certainly didn't say anything about it in the first post. It seems silly to declare that the only relevant topic now.
#28
Quote by Roc8995
When were you going to bother to mention that this thread was about the application of the guitar in electronic music? You certainly didn't say anything about it in the first post.


Isn't it obvious?
Neglect.

Now, can we get on with said matter? I'm talking about live digital manipulation of the guitar.

I don't feel like I'm breaking new ground. Surely someone must have attempted this before.
#29
No. It's not obvious at all. We have dozens of threads every day about DSPs and VSTs, and none of them are about electronic music. They are about reproducing guitar sounds with a digital setup, which is not even remotely the same thing. Why you thought that we should assume you were talking about a thing we never talk about is beyond me.
#31
Quote by ingames
I personally find the guitar/bass/drums/occasional keyboard band.. boring.

ie why not use samples of Bitches Brew trumpets, NiN drum machines, Mr Self Destruct distortion, heavy dubstep synths... Put them in the mixer, drive them through distorted amps, and see what we make?

Traditional music will never be replaced. Granted.
I'm just looking for evolution, ie

Led Zep brought in the 21st century

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fkP3urtYCkc


First off taking samples is just rehashing older ideas and often trying to do so much with it (so as to put your artist mark on it) that the final product is just a wall of noise and off beat tempos. Off beat tempos are good at times, Mastodon or Rush for example, but I feel everything you've linked has no vibe to it. Trying things new at the cost of doing things right IMO.

The idea of a four piece band may be boring, but saying the ideas a four piece band comes out with are boring, is ridiculous. And thus saying that you only want to do samples because this idea is boring to you shows to me you're switching styles for the wrong reason. Most things we rely on in life aren't innovative anymore but they work so we continue to use them. Not every new thing is an innovation that makes the former obsolete. Why aren't there flying cars already, or millions of people with Segues? We don't need them. Why do musicians stick to a format? Cuz it works for them.

There is so much interesting stuff coming out today by 3-10 piece bands it's astonishing. Personally, I'm tired of people qualifying music like it's a GPU or something. There is no question that a tube amp is a better option for many legitimate musicians.
Gear:

Fender Strat
PRS SE Custom 24
Agile AL-3100

Jet City JCA50H
Randall 2x12 wV30s
Last edited by evmac at Feb 17, 2012,
#32
Three pieces are the most innovative in my experience.
Quote by Cathbard
Quote by Raijouta
Unless its electronic drums.

BURN THE WITCH!!!!!
#33
Quote by tubetime86
Three pieces are the most innovative in my experience.

Truf, though most of my favourite bands are four-piece.
Everyone is entitled to an opinion.

Feel free to express yours so I can make an informed judgement about how stupid you are.
#34
One Piece is my personal favourite. Here's their latest album:




TS, if you want to get really experimental and apply guitar to electronic music, there's dedicated guitar-synths as well as special pickups and midi-converters which you use to play ACTUAL synthesizers with your guitar. Like, you can plug the midi-converter into your computer and use virtual instruments with it, or you can plug it into your favourite old analog synth or anything else that works with midi. All the sounds you could ever want, knock yourself out.

Actual guitar/amp modelling software is often just that - it models the tones of guitars, more or less successfully, so maybe it's not what you are looking for.

The Misa Digital Kitara is also very interesting, imo.
#35
Quote by bubb_tubbs
Truf, though most of my favourite bands are four-piece.

kinda figured you for a triumph and rush fan.

also this thread is funny.

death to amps lol.

Quote by ingames
Just before sleeping, I thought guitar in algebra:

yeah stop that.
I wondered why the frisbee was getting bigger, then it hit me.
Last edited by gregs1020 at Feb 17, 2012,
#36
I'm actually not a terribly big fan of either.
Everyone is entitled to an opinion.

Feel free to express yours so I can make an informed judgement about how stupid you are.
#37
Quote by bubb_tubbs
I'm actually not a terribly big fan of either.

they rule.
I wondered why the frisbee was getting bigger, then it hit me.
#38
Quote by gregs1020
they rule.


+1

2112 fo life
Gear:

Fender Strat
PRS SE Custom 24
Agile AL-3100

Jet City JCA50H
Randall 2x12 wV30s
#39
Negative. Geddy Lee's voice makes me want to murder small animals with an eggbeater and some perseverance.
Everyone is entitled to an opinion.

Feel free to express yours so I can make an informed judgement about how stupid you are.
#40
I've kind of got a thing recently for mixing electric guitar with classic strings quartet (upright, cello, 2 violins) and drums with orchestral percussion added in to it, that would be a 6 piece, maybe even add a sax in....
Epiphone Les Paul Plus Top
Jet City JCA5212RC (SLO Modded)
Ibanez WD7 Wah
Mad Professor Sweet Honey Overdrive
TC Electronic Flashback Triple Delay
TC Electronic Trinity Reverb
Page 1 of 2