klm09

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.

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...

Funny, I just put Ubuntu on my old comp last weekend. I'm probably going to stick to Windows for audio stuff though.

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.

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..

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.

Still nothing. Well, what'd you think of the WIP I posted?

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.

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.

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.

I still can't access the project forums.. am I the only one?

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.

BREAD COMPONENT CAVITY SIMULTANEOUS TOASTING SANDWICH DELIVERY TOOL

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.

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.

Something just occured to me, if the Guitar Suite doesn't have built in cab emulation (does it?) and sounds buzzy and whatever you could use SIR (http://www.knufinke.de/sir/index_en.html) and grab some cab impulse responses from for example Noisevault (http://noisevault.com/nv/). You could probably get a better tone out of it that way.

If you just want to record acoustic instruments, a cardioid condensers mic might be better than a SM57. If you want to close mic like brass or do amplified electric instruments, go with the SM57 or something similar.

Heh, ok I see you edited your post. I'm sure there are some people that do their sequencing in either of those programs and export to something else for the sounds, but.. honestly, if you don't need really extensive notation style sequencing, a DAW like Cubase or Sonar can probably provide you with the sequencing capabilities you need by itself.

I only have personal experience with the PodXT, but the general consensus about the Boss GT-8, Vox ToneLab and the Line6 PodXT seems to be: The Boss GT-8 has lots of effects with great routing possibilities, but the amp models aren't anywhere near the PodXT. Has an effects loop, with built in effects possible before or after the loop, so can easily be used just for the effects in conjunction with an amp or another modeller. Basically, sounds best when used as a multieffects unit. The Vox ToneLab is better for cleans and crunch tones than the PodXT (I guess it's the tube magic at work there; the ToneLab has a built in tube in the preamp section I believe), but falls short on high gain tones when compared to the PodXT, sounding mellower than modern rock / metal stylings might require. Plus, it only has a handful of different amp models and effects when compared to the PodXT. So basically you get less flexibility, but potentially better tones if the narrower palette of sounds caters to your needs. The PodXT is the go-to unit for high gain tones out of the current modelers available on the market. It has potentially 78 guitar amp models and 29 bass amp models IF you spend more money on the model packs (a factory PodXT has 42 guitar amp models if freely upgraded to the latest firmware version). A variety of effects, but limited routing (most effects can either be pre or post amp, and they have a fixed order). All in all, it most likely has what you need in the amp department, but the effects and routing might be lacking if you want pre and post EQ, and to be able to switch around the order of your effects (before the amp, chorus is always before delay, for example). As a side note, you'll want to use fairly hot pick ups in your guitar, or alternately put in some booster or distortion stomp warming up the signal before the PodXT to get the best tone out of it. If you have further questions about the PodXT in particular, I'll be glad to answer them. EDIT: Oh, and why I wrote about those 3 units in particular is because they are the 3 foremost stand alone hardware modelers on the market right now. What I mean by stand alone is that they don't have a built in speaker and do have built in cab emulation, so you can just plug in headphones, a full spectrum PA speaker, or hook it up to some recording device and you're good to go.

The PodXT is one excellent piece of gear. I have one myself with some add ons (model packs in Line6 lingo), and IMHO, you can't go wrong with one. Plus, you can record the output from that digitally over USB, so you don't even need a soundcard at all to record it; the PodXT acts as an external soundcard when you use it like that. Just trying it out you might not be blown away (a lot of the presets sell it short), but once you know your way around it and become familiar with the amp, cab and effect models, you can get basically any tone you could possibly want out of it, or at least something that's 98% there.

Less DDMMYY, more YYMMDD YYMMDD doesn't work so great with years that are less than the 13th of a given century, ie. 2013 for this century, since anything less has 144 dates that could be confused with the MMDDYY or DDMMYY system. Then from there until the 32nd year, there are again 144 dates that can be confused with the DDMMYY system for a total of 288 for the DDMMYY system (if I got my logic right). Since most people use either DDMMYY or MMDDYY, YYMMDD is confusing 'til about 30 years from now.

In Reason 3 (don't know about 2), you can save your song, and then open the browser and look for the song you just saved. If you highlight it, it'll then tell you the length of the song. Oh cool, I wasn't (consciously) aware of that.

Heh, for me it's the exact opposite! I hate seeing the sequencing for only one sample at a time and having to toggle between channels, with no possibility for non-quantized notes. To me, the sequencer is so much easier and quicker, as long as it's in the drum lane view, so you can only see piano roll "notes" corresponding to the ReDrum channels, labeled with the sample filenames. Using the regular piano roll is annoying though.

Ever heard of the DDMMYY date system? You know, the one that the rest of the world uses? Ok, sorry, I don't need to be asinine. On topic, that's a pretty cool sale, several of those cds have been reviewed in Sound On Sound, and were given 4 or 5 out of 5 scores, IIRC.

That would be the song Final Act, right? Just to be sure. Also, if you have trouble hitting the deadline, talk to me: I'm open for negotiations (so long as the entire project isn't trying to negotiate with me at the last second, ). That's the one! Deadlines, ok, good to know. Let's see when they loom closer.