klm09

Members
  • Content Count

    139
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About klm09

  • Rank
    Goomba (+100)

Profile Information

  • Location
    Finland

Converted

  • Real Name
    Mikko Nousiainen
  • Occupation
    Student
  1. While I don't use much low gain tones or bluesy stuff, one thing that helps to get a good tone like that with the Pod is to put something before the amp model, like an external distortion or compressor stomp set up to boost the signal somewhat. Or putting in a similarly configured stomp model in the stomp effects slot in the Pod, if nothing else is being used there.
  2. Man, I was refreshing the Prop's website like every 5 minutes for an hour before they announced that thing at NAMM. (They had a NAMM show schedule at their website where there was a "technology preview" slated for 5 PM). That thing looks and sounds hawt, can't wait. Also, I'm dying to see what else is going to be new in the next version. EDIT: I was thinking about Thor after making this post, and I realized that it'd be delicious if they included a supersaw osc type as one of the selectable types. Like the one on them newfangled Virus's, 11 stacked saws with variable detuning...
  3. Funny, I just put Ubuntu on my old comp last weekend. I'm probably going to stick to Windows for audio stuff though.
  4. How much time did you use to tweak the Pod and was it the XT or some previous incarnation? Also, how did you have it set up at the gigs? Going straight to PA? You wouldn't happen to have the patches you used still at your disposal? I'm just wondering, because I'll be the first to admit that the Pod takes a fair bit of tweaking to get to sound as good as it can sound, and to hear you say it was nowhere as good makes me believe that a better tone could have been had. Different strokes for different folks and all that, but still. Speaking of latency issues, if you have a budget / gaming oriented soundcard that doesn't support ASIO drivers, you're likely to get significantly less latency recording direct from the Pod into the computer, like 5 ms. This latency is not dependant on your computer either, as all the processing is happening in the Pod, your sequencing software is only reading a stream of data from the USB input. So basically, unless you can go below 5 ms with your soundcard, you're going to get less / better latency from the Pod.
  5. It's not just a case of them sounding like the real thing, it's also a case of them sounding real. The models in the GT-8, from what I've read and heard, don't sound as dynamic and live as the ones in the Pod XT. So it's kind of like playing the same song on a good keyboard piano patch, and a real grand piano. The first might come close, but the second is going to be more expressive. The keyboard has more "features" (GT-8 = more, better effects + better effects routing), but the grand piano does the piano sound REALLY well in comparison (Pod XT = better amp models). Mind you, the effects in the Pod XT are still good, the ones in the GT-8 are just better. Boss makes basically the best effects in the business.. there are several effects in the Pod that are actually based on Boss products. However, if you're going to be recording music with your computer, you can basically achieve the same flexibility of effects routing in your recording software, if it supports VST effects, for example. The Pod XT is capable of reamping over it's digital USB connection. What that means, is that you can record your part so that you hear your guitar tone going through the amp model and any effects you have enabled in the Pod XT, but it's actually recording the clean, unprocessed guitar sound. Then, after you're done recording, if you want effects pre-amp, put any effects in any configuration you want that your recording software supports, and them reamp the signal through the Pod XT, which basically means playing the track back, and recording what the Pod outputs to a different track. If you want effects post-amp, just record your part and add them in the software to the recording. Obviously, you're going to need to get the effects from somewhere (there's loads of great free stuff on the net), and it probably won't be as easy as dialing up the effect you want on the GT-8's panel. But good amp models, or even decent ones, are something that you can't get for free as VST's. The recording quality in the Pod XT is basically perfect, if you use the USB connection to record to software (thus bypassing your soundcard). The analog outputs are also pristine, but I've never used them to record, just to output to my stereo system. I'd imagine the outputs on the GT-8 are good as well, but remember that if you're recording analog, the quality of the inputs on your soundcard (or other recording device) are just as important. Ok, I ended up typing way more than I intended to, but I just love my Pod! Sorry if I sound like an ad. IMO, the Pod XT is a better purchase, but I own one, and have never actually played through a GT-8..
  6. It can, but basically you'd need to be either: 1. Using the modelling amp as a power amp & cab, ie. bypass the modelling in that. If the modelling amp does not have a full range speaker, you'd need to either turn off the cab modelling in the PODxt or then use an output compensation setting built into it. 2. Turn off the amp (and cab) modelling in the PODxt and use it for the (pre-amp) effects, and use the modelling amp for the amp modelling. 3. Make patches on the PODxt that sound good in combination with the modelling amp. This would probably involve cranking the highs and tweaking like mad. It'd probably be fairly difficult to actually get a good sound, or a sound that's better than the 2 pieces in gear on their own. So, basically, you're going to have to compromise something. Either use the amp modelling on only one of the two, or then make special patches for the combination.
  7. Still nothing. Well, what'd you think of the WIP I posted?
  8. Yeah, they made a completely new set of better, more accurate models for the PODxt, as they used a more powerful DSP chip in it.
  9. I tried that, but still nothing. I don't even get a 404 or anything, absolutely nothing loads. Oh wait, I just tried and it gave me a "Could not connect to remote server". Damn it this is really irritating.
  10. I second that. I have a PODxt, and it's great. If you have any specific questions about it, fire away! EDIT: Speaking of the modeling, making the amp models is a very complicated process involving a lot of signal analysis and number crunching to get, basically, a mathematical model of how a given amp responds when it's sent a certain type of signal. Line 6 have their own method of doing this, and BOSS have their own method and each company makes their own models. So they're not the same. Comparing the amp models from a technical point of view is a case of apples and oranges to an extent.. both aim for the same end, but the means are different. From a playing point of view, due to the underlying technology, the models in the PODxt are regarded to be subjectively better. This is because the process that Line 6 use results in a more accurate, life-like model. Your mileage may vary.
  11. I still can't access the project forums.. am I the only one?
  12. I got a WIP of Final Act up on the project forums, which seem to be down right now..? But anyway, project d00dz check it out.
  13. klm09

    Sandwich recipe

    BREAD COMPONENT CAVITY SIMULTANEOUS TOASTING SANDWICH DELIVERY TOOL
  14. I'd just like to add to my previous post that a condenser mic is going to sound better, more live and transparent than a dynamic like the SM57 due to better frequency response, especially at the high end. However (if I've got my mic types correct), very loud sounds can damage a condenser mic. A dynamic you can plonk down in front of pretty much anything and it can probably handle the SPL's. As a rule of thumb, you don't want to use a condenser to close mic something that you wouldn't put your ear up against, like loud amplifiers, a snare drum... so in terms of what instruments an SM57 can handle, it's more versatile, but a good condenser will sound better on stuff it's suited for.
  15. Yeah, I can see why you'd want to use something other than Reason for the sequencing, if you're using Reason for the sounds. Reason's sequencer is a bit crap to be honest. I like it, personally, but it's not exactly feature rich. But with something like Cubase, like I said above, I think it'd be a bit of a waste of effort. Unless those two programs give you some functionality that you can't get with Cubase or whatever.