PlanetZ forums - scopeusers.com

stardust wrote:I heard 'crosstalk' at least regarding phone calls.

our network cable analyzer also uses "crosstalk" as term for "übersprechen" of wire pairs that are not shielded properly and thus introduce signal leakage between them. though, of course, utp does not have shielded pairs, the cable quality itself decides upon being certified for several applications, (near and far end) crosstalk being just one of the factors.

-greetings, markus-

krizrox wrote:...You guys have really good ears though. I'm impressed. That scares me I see I can't bullshit anyone around here Gonna have to work harder...

well, it's not that difficult with so much info ahead and non-switching channels
btw did you happen to get the STW A100 ?
my memory may fool me, but I have a faint idea you mentioned it once, sometime ago.
If you'd send the POD track through a little bit of 5m room (say 25%), I bet noone could distinguish it from the real thing anymore

cheers, Tom

Hi Tom. I don't know what the STW A100 is. I don't recall mentioning it.

Getting back to DynaTube - one area where I've used it a lot is I'll split the guitar signal and record a clean track (along with the amped track) and then run the clean track back through Dynatube to create a second layered track. It works beautifully for that. I can usually sneak that past a client without too much fuss.

This also works really well with the Pod Pro. The Pod Pro has a clean output on the back and I'll run that in addition to the processed track. Really thickens up the guitar sound (and it's easy).

Hi,

comparing dynatube with a pod is not a very fair comparison.

A POD is a multi effects unit, with amp/cab simulation, mostly focused for the average guitarist willing to do some home recording..
Never seen many pros using it out there,
It does many things and it does them decently.

Dynatube is a highly specialized amp/cab simulation, mostly aimed to recording professionals or music producers. It does one thing, and it does it incredibly well.

A better comparison would be a pod against a fully fledged scope setup with a compressor, dynatubes, distorition, wah wah, chorus, reverb, delay, eq and so.. Depending to the needs either would be better.
Scope not surprisingly will sound much better but it needs lots of tweaking and knowledge.. The pod will not sound as nice, but you press a button and it works.

The Pod is also more practical to play live than a scope system (although Jimmy could argue on this point ^^)


my 0.2 cts

"I would like to hear some opinions bout how the CW's Dynatube's compete with those other intresting guitar Vst-plugins like NI's Guitar Rig or Line 6's Gearbox. "

That was the thread-basis. Before I judge the quality of a software-product (or a certain aspect (I think in this case the simulation-quality)) I listen to it & before I compared Pod & dynatube I couldn't know which Amp simulation (without regarding effects - cause I have scope with loads of great effects) sounds better. I think it is an intersting question to compare those different software attemts on simulating guitar sounds.

Although making this unfair (all those companies claim to be highend in their attemt on guitarsoundsimulation, so why unfair anyway?) comparison I've heard no voice that attested dynatube loosing this comparison. Interesting. It might in some cases be a matter of taste, O.K.. Although Pod having lots of other effects if I had to decide I would rather like to have a dynatube. Just dynatube with no additional effects. Only from my point of view the sound of the simulation itself makes up 99% importance. For that sounds there are for sure different tastes... but I think most in here stated, that Dynatube is much more realistic. Wow... winning an even unfair comparison...

As both, Dynatube and Pod-simulations run on sharcs I think this comparison was very interesting, because I'd like to have a pedal, with a great sound like dynatube... owning Pod as pedal & dynatube as Scopedevice for myself I found, that if there would come any dynatube hardware (may it with or without effects) I'd buy it immediately, cause Pod simply doesn't fit my needs 100% soundwise although there is a nice workaround in adding a real tube overdrive/distortion which (in my opinion) cures the worst soundaspects with Pod (demo mp3s may follow in 2 weeks...)

Let's keep up this thread, to make the whole world see, that scope does not only have the best routing, effects & synthesizers (I for sure forgot some things) but also the best guitar simulation


Martin

rdavidovich wrote:Hi,

comparing dynatube with a pod is not a very fair comparison.

A POD is a multi effects unit, with amp/cab simulation, mostly focused for the average guitarist willing to do some home recording..
Never seen many pros using it out there,

The Pod is also more practical to play live than a scope system (although Jimmy could argue on this point ^^)


my 0.2 cts

Huh? You must not get out much. The Pod is one of the most widely used and visible guitar amp simulators in the world. It's been used on more albums than anyone could even mention. I was recently watching a Foreigner live DVD (from Germany I think) and saw a Pod in one of the guitar racks on stage. It's possible they were just using it for effects but to say it's just for average guitarists is just plain silly and untrue.

MCCY wrote:Although making this unfair (all those companies claim to be highend in their attemt on guitarsoundsimulation, so why unfair anyway?)

Well, I might have misused the word.. My apologies for that.

What I meant is that it's like comparing apples and oranges.. not that the comparison advantages any of them out of the pits.

The pod counts among many features amp/cab simulators, but it's not it's main purpose.. It;s intended to be a flexible sound modeling tool for the guitarist. DT is only an amp/cab simulation and it's intended to be a high end tool for producers.

The pod shines better live, DT shines better in the studio..

It was not my intention to start a holy war or anything like that

krizrox wrote: Huh? You must not get out much. The Pod is one of the most widely used and visible guitar amp simulators in the world. It's been used on more albums than anyone could even mention. I was recently watching a Foreigner live DVD (from Germany I think) and saw a Pod in one of the guitar racks on stage. It's possible they were just using it for effects but to say it's just for average guitarists is just plain silly and untrue.

The pod is very widely used by average amateur guitarists like you or me. When you see the pic of a pro smiling right next to a pod, it's called "marketing"...


I've seen many pro set ups, and never saw one of them even close to a stage or a sound cabin. Pros don't use modelling that much because the sampling alters the original soundwave, and you'll never, ever, ever, ever get the same sound as a chain of stomp boxes and good analog effects. Pros can afford to have 20 or 30 grand of equipment and 2 or 3 people to operate them.

The pod's principle is "I check the effects I need to apply, I overlap them and I calculate in real time how the final wave shape should look like..." This modelling proces always leaves a little "synthetic" taste to the sound and the original signal is not respected very much, no matter how good the quality is. Same happens with the Zooms, the Digitech RPs and others.

AFAIK, SCOPE does not do that. Each atom performs it's own treatments and the sound signals are modified sequencially in a chain, which is the same that happens in real hardware (SDK and DSP gurus please correct me here if I'm wrong)

We're exchanging opinions. That's just great. I like discussing.

"The pod counts among many features amp/cab simulators, but it's not it's main purpose.. It;s intended to be a flexible sound modeling tool for the guitarist. DT is only an amp/cab simulation and it's intended to be a high end tool for producers."

I just question, that Line6 would underline that in this way. Reading their informations they claim to have great amp/cab simulators to be used in studio, and I think it's very informative comparing them to others & which ones have which advantages/disadvantages. I see Amp simulation vs. Amp simulation not Äpfel v.s. Birnen. Of course DT is intended to be a high end tool for producers. I hope it's intention will someday be to serve guitarists on stage... That would be just one step with a hardware like ASB and a Controller like for Guitar Rig which of course claims also to be a highend tool for producers ... I at least think so.

Escept this little difference we seem to have the same opinion. And of course I'd like to start a holy war... no, I drop that idea...

Martin

MCCY wrote:We're exchanging opinions. That's just great. I like discussing.

We could also armwrestle to see who's right

MCCY wrote:I just question, that Line6 would underline that in this way. Reading their informations they claim to have great amp/cab simulators to be used in studio, and I think it's very informative comparing them to others & which ones have which advantages/disadvantages.

I wouldn't be amazed to find out that Line6 builds custom high end amp/cab simulators for studios, artists and producers, and they'd probably be very good...

MCCY wrote:I hope it's intention will someday be to serve guitarists on stage... That would be just one step with a hardware like ASB and a Controller

I tried to play "live" with the scope card and an ART X-15 midi foot controller.. Results were pretty good, excepting that changing presets can lead to short blackouts.. FX units are usually faster there.
The best combination I found was guitar -> compressor stomp box -> amp -> scope through FX loop
Tried using the amp's tube drive and the DT's and they did honorably well... The MB raging through 4 12" vintage 30's is definetly something not to miss...
combining the amp with the scope DTs gives them lots of meat

MCCY wrote:Escept this little difference we seem to have the same opinion. And of course I'd like to start a holy war... no, I drop that idea...

Great minds think alike

"We could also armwrestle to see who's right "

The best idea I've read for a long time on PlanetZ. We should ask John to implement armwrestling int he forums! Many conflicts would have been solved that way allready!

In a discussion it is often the case that nobody is right or wrong. I think you're right, with all you said... or lets say: you were not wrong with anything. It could be, as it is often the case, that both parties simply put emphasis on certain aspects...

Softube is quite buisy with realeasing for other platforms b.t.w.. Sadly no analog feedback for Scope so far. Even VST is there, if I got it right. So I bet they someday will go for a dynatube hardware box. Dynatube is simply too good not to be put in a stomp-box or rack-unit.

I'm too lazy to do the NI comparison... But I would believe you immediately if you'd say: "NI is just for amateur homecomputer-recorders, dynatube is more professional." So I could drop that comparison.

Martin

MCCY wrote:"We could also armwrestle to see who's right "

The best idea I've read for a long time on PlanetZ. We should ask John to implement armwrestling int he forums! Many conflicts would have been solved that way allready!

what about an implementation of singstar [tm] or guitar hero [tm] online? even more suitable to convince your opponent of what's your opinion, and a great entertaining factor for all readers

I think we can't compare amps simulations generally.
In my music I need clean guitars and Rock-Metal distorted guitars (marshall sounding)
I found guitar rig better than amplitube in clean guitars.
So I found Amplitube and Nomad Rock Amp legends better than other for "marshall sounding". Amplitube is more "fat" but a little more cruchy and noisy sounding than Rock amp legend.
I don't like Waves GTR 'couse is too much "digital" and less "analog" than others.
I always use only amp, case and mike simulation. I keep all other effects disabled. Keep it in mind for my question:

I wat to buy Dynatube JM for marshall-sounding rock-metal guitars.
Does anyone has compared it to Amplitube 2? How much DSP need?
I hate the demos absence...
thanks, bye

burdello wrote:I wat to buy Dynatube JM for marshall-sounding rock-metal guitars.
Does anyone has compared it to Amplitube 2? How much DSP need?
I hate the demos absence...
thanks, bye

I'm not a marshall fan, specially for metal guitars.. For that the MB is way better.. much more precise and edgy.. but that's my personnal taste

I have 'em both, the DT and Amplitube2, and AT is like a little toy compared to DT.. has lots of gizmos, but the amp/cab simulation is not as pure as the DT.. Besides, try to use AT2 in real time and you'll see the difference.

As for the DSP load, DTs are a little bit DSP hungry.. but with a 15 DSP board I can still run a DT, a 2448 mixer, comp, reverb and a couple of synths..

...by the way:
http://www.tcelectronic.com/vintage_amp_room_native.asp

rdavidovich wrote:... specially for metal guitars.. For that the MB is way better.. much more precise and edgy.. but that's my personnal taste

thanks, can you please listen to our number 12 (uomodonna) track on jamendo?

This is our sound, do you think it is more similar to JM or MB simulation?
I know, this is personal but your opinion can help me to save little money.
thanks

PS: how many istances of DT? I have 9 DSPs on my luna & Pulsar II cards

burdello wrote:thanks, can you please listen to our number 12 (uomodonna) track on jamendo?

This is our sound, do you think it is more similar to JM or MB simulation?
I know, this is personal but your opinion can help me to save little money.
thanks

PS: how many istances of DT? I have 9 DSPs on my luna & Pulsar II cards

I'll listen to it tonight and tell you which one would fit better according to my ears (at your own risk )

for the instqnces, it depends on what you are running at the same time.. I usually run only 1 instance of DT and many things around..

From what I could understand, a DT takes a bit less than 3 DSPs, so you should be able to run 2 instances, plus a mixer and a couple of effects.

rdavidovich wrote:From what I could understand, a DT takes a bit less than 3 DSPs, so you should be able to run 2 instances, plus a mixer and a couple of effects.

Thanks, I'll use one istance to monitor recordings, I'll record direct and clean guitars one by one. Than I'll process one by one and I'll mix audio tracks.
Probably I''ll use one istance by time.

For the choice of JM instead MB I entrust to your ears. Our sound is something like an old-style metal. I don't know how to explain it...
Good listening,
Andrea

get the bundle. for that price it's worth it.

burdello wrote:thanks, can you please listen to our number 12 (uomodonna) track on jamendo?

This is our sound, do you think it is more similar to JM or MB simulation?
I know, this is personal but your opinion can help me to save little money.
thanks

I listened to the tracks.. quite nice btw... pitty that in the mix the riff guitars are way too far and covered by the bass.

As for the sim, I'd personnally go for the MB.. you'll get more edge and bottom end than with the JM, and you seem to like that.. The JM will sound a bit too "round"... just be careful on the settings.. the "modern" drive can be a wild beast to tame.. but it's definetly worth the effort..
You should also try to set up the gain correctly according to your guitars (not to be tempted to crank it up), so that it doesn't get muddy.. I like to drive it just a little (4-5) so that it produces a nice rectified edgy tone.

To see what I mean check the difference between the "punk" and the "brutal" sound examples on the SC page.. one has much more bottom end and drive than the other...

You might also want to have a look at the dynatube bass AG... It's really worth money spent too.