Most pros you see using pedals may also be using processors behind the scenes.

Your goal should be to use what sounds good to you. But with that said the feeling that I get is that you would be happier with the GT6 for now. It has all the effects built in and it looks like fun and you want have to deal with cables to connect everything. I don't have one though.

I have a GT-5 or 6 or 3 and I think it is pretty handy. In my guitar rig I use it almost exclusively for delay, modulation effects, the occasional reverb, and the occasional odd noise. I think it nice to be able to step on one button to change everything, rather than several pedals at once. But some people don't like having to program beforehand and prefer loose pedals instead.
I also use the GT for recording guitarists' scratch tracks direct along with the drummer without having an amp bleeding in.

brooke wrote: Is there a disadvantage to using multi-effects processors live or is the reason mainly because bands have accumulated so many pedals over the years?

IMHO there's no real disadvantage to using either. I think that the multi-effect processors are great. However the fact that they do so many things is a good thing, and at the same time there downfall. Because it's hard enough to get that one certain distortion sound (pedal) that sounds great on guitar. Then you have to look just as hard for the "right" chorus or delay pedal, or reverb stomp box, or tube screamer, or octave doubler, that sounds good and not like a fisher price toy.
Now try to put all the best into one machine and have all the guitarist around the world agree that all the sounds are the best. Sorry...that's NOT gonna happen.
So my point is this, that buying each pedal seperate only ensures that you will have the "correct" chorus sound, that is (in your mind) perfect. Same with the distortion issue, and other phycoacoustic effects.
So as a result, alot of guys go out and buy all seperate pedals. Then they know they are getting "what they want". Sure it takes more time, and cost more money, but if you/they want it a certain way, or you/they want the perfect setup, that's the way to go.

you will not find a multieffects processor that can do all these pedals

Nice! 8-)
What's that knob do? :-?

that one goes bzzzz
and this one goes gzzz

Ohh, then I'm gettin one of those! 8)

redbort wrote: you will not find a multieffects processor that can do all these pedals

All those pedals put together couldn't do most of the stuff I do with my multi-FX:

:wink:

I used to own some of those Digitech units, the TSR24-S and a Vocalist. Both were (please don't take this the wrong way) cheap sounding and were pretty much the Fisher price sound that I was suggesting to stay away from.
Not that all rackmount gear sounds as bad (cheap) as the Digitech gear.
Now, IIR I'm not trying to say ANYTHING bad about you or your gear. I just don't think you will find people on this site that will agree that Digitech is good, well built, quality sounding gear.
I hope IIR's setup sound's great, I'm not trying to start a flame here.
Here's some of what I remember about rackmount multi-effects processors
1) Load time between presets (about 1/2 a sec. maybe as long as 1 sec. on the larger programs)
a)this makes a problem, esp when doing live shows and having to load presets during a song, with the 1 sec. sound clip missing, while the program loads the new program
b)Redbort's pedal setup will not have this problem (there's no presets to load)
c)Also too many pedals in series is bad as well, (say more than 5 or 6 or so)
2)Analog pedals Vs. digital processing
a)most (not all) digital distortions SUCK (I see IIR is using a Mesa pre for his distortion---most likey because the distortion out of the multi-effects processor is not that good)
b)almost all analog gear sounds better when compared to digital (esp when talking about guitar gear)
c) there's not a true bypass feature's on the rack mount gear, so the guitar's sound will be effected even with no effects, or even when on bypass (not a true bypass mind you)
d) with digital prcoessors: your signal must go from analog to digital and back to analog and that's before it's even gone to your guitar amp :shock:

Now there is rackmount gear out there worth having, but I'm talking about stuff like the Eventide 4000 series or better.
I didn't even like the Lexicon MPX-1 unit I owned, as much as alot of other pedals for guitar.

Pre Amp wrote:
1) Load time between presets (about 1/2 a sec. maybe as long as 1 sec. on the larger programs)

Eh?? Nothing like it! About 1/10th of a second at most I reckon. The only thing I miss is the ability to leave a delay repeating after switching to a dry patch.

Pre Amp wrote: 2)Analog pedals Vs. digital processing
a)most (not all) digital distortions SUCK (I see IIR is using a Mesa pre for his distortion---most likey because the distortion out of the multi-effects processor is not that good)

Actually the Mesa is the power amp, and I consider that more important than the pre when it comes to distortion sounds..

I do agree that digital distortion isn't too hot.. fortunately the Digitech Valve FX in my rack has a 12AX7 in the analog pre-amp section, and yes it does glow without the aid of backlighting LEDs :) A good tip for any other owners out there: Use the (analog) compressor gain to drive the input of the valve stage harder, you get a much better "in-between" crunch sound that responds beautifully to playing dynamics :D

Pre Amp wrote: c) there's not a true bypass feature's on the rack mount gear, so the guitar's sound will be effected even with no effects, or even when on bypass (not a true bypass mind you)
d) with digital prcoessors: your signal must go from analog to digital and back to analog and that's before it's even gone to your guitar amp :shock:

On the contrary: the "no digital" algo is the one I use for most "normal" sounds ;)

Pre Amp wrote: Now there is rackmount gear out there worth having, but I'm talking about stuff like the Eventide 4000 series or better.
I didn't even like the Lexicon MPX-1 unit I owned, as much as alot of other pedals for guitar.

Hmm. Apart from "no digital" there are 33 possible effects configurations, most of which include parallel routings, and all offer full control over internal mixing. (Check the [[url=http://[/URL]="http://www.digitech…"]user manual[/]="http://www.digitech…"]user manual[/] ) The EQ (which is always available regardless of the FX algo chosen) is four band, fully parametric and all bands span the entire frequency range allowing a possible 60dB boost if they are all stacked at the same frequency!!

In addition, up to 10 MIDI controllers can be assigned to any parameter, including all the internal mixer levels and pans and the EQ parameters, with full control over minimum & maximum values. This allows me to do subtle things like assign my pre amp drive parameter to one expression pedal and the delay level to another, or design my own pseudo filter effects.. or other things that would blow your mind if I described them!

And I can switch between the wildest delayed-whammy-pitchshifted-detuned madness to a classic smoky valve sound with a single press of a footpedal 8)

IIRs wrote: Actually the Mesa is the power amp, and I consider that more important than the pre when it comes to distortion sounds..

I do agree that digital distortion isn't too hot.. fortunately the Digitech valve FX in my rack has a 12AX7 in the analog pre-amp section, I Use the (analog) compressor gain to drive the input of the valve stage harder, you get a much better "in-between" crunch sound that responds beautifully to playing dynamics

Well at least I was right about one thing :lol:
That's cool it has the 12AX7 in it. I do remember that model (w/ the tube in it). ---I never owned that model----not that Digitech hasn't made 4 million different types of multi-effects processors over the past 20 years.
So the Mesa is a power amp? Wow, I cant believe it fits in a single rack space. Do you mind if I ask the wattage? And if its tube? Or solid state?

All valve (EL84) rated 20 watts per channel, but to be honest its louder than I have ever needed it to be so far, and cuts through a mix better than the 50wpc marshall I used before it. I love that amp, it sounds great at any volume but at stage levels it sings!

There are some issues I have with the Digitech unit: some of the parameters are a bit too quantised for good realtime control for example, and the wah effect isn't that hot I must confess :lol: Fortunately I have a favorite EQ setting which sweeps 2 narrow boosts through the mid frequencies while adjusting the gain of the other two (which are set as broad low & high tone shapers) .. after years of tweaking I have a patch that sounds warm & plummy with the expression pedal fully back, progresses through various degrees of growl as I push it forward, and finally sounds glassy and transparent fully up.. and if I waggle it about it adds expression in a much more subtle and satisfying way than any wah I ever tried 8)

I would like a 24 bit version too.. but to be honest, if I set the gain staging properly I don't hear that big a difference between "no digital" and the effected sound (the Mesa amp still sings!)

I suspect it didn't do too well with most guitarists, as it is pretty complex to program.. don't even think about setting up a complex chain from scratch without the manual, as all internal mixer parameters are labelled "7 x 2 mixer gain 3" etc and you need the diagrams to have any clue what that actually controls :roll: Fortunatly I am also an audio engineer so I am comfortable with "Q" parameters on EQs! :lol:

But the thing is part of my sound, and (at least until Digitech release an otherwise identical 24-bit version) I will not be swapping it.. certainly not for a pile of rusty old pedals like that picture above! ;)

IIRs wrote: .. certainly not for a pile of rusty old pedals like above!

I dig those pedals (not to be argumentive). There is one pedal that looks like they used it back in Vietnam.

I was careful to follow that comment with a wink. ;) Though I think there are a couple just there to make the collection look bigger! How exciting is a tuner after all, and who the hell needs 2 of them? :lol:

Yeah, I can't recommend a multieffects unit for its distortion capabilities. Some of them can get a decent lead tone, but typically suck for good chunky articulate rhythm tones. I see nothing wrong with using a multieffects unit for digital reverbs, delays, flangers, and etc. though.
I have tried one of those Digitech pedalboards with the pretty tube in them, and I wasn't really digging the distortion tones even still. It's gotta be a decent amp's gain channel for me.

BTW redbort: I would NOT wanna have to carry all those pedals around to gigs and stuff.

I have a crunch sound thats totally "clean" when I stroke the strings gently, but rocks like Angus Young if I hit a power chord! I need to drive the input of the valve section hard to achieve this however.. I think replacing the valve helped too (Current one says "Fender" on it iirc)

I don't know about the modern Digitech valve units, but the 12AX7 in mine is not starved, it glows properly and gets very warm!

Hmmm
To be honest
Id rather/do own a pile of rusty old pedals.
granted the possibilities which you can swtich between instantly in patches with multi effects are more vast ; and a good reverb, will generally come in something 19 inch shaped....

Other than that no multi effects sound anywhere near as good as stompboxes TO MY EARS and to most other guitarist ears. Nothing sounds like a stompbox in all its glorious analog noise like a stompbox.... oh yeah and it is possible to have patches of sorts, if you buy true bypass loopers as made by robert keeley.

Just my two errr pence
no flaming please!! lol
we're all guitarists after all!

Other than that no multi effects sound anywhere near as good as stompboxes TO MY EARS and to most other guitarist ears

I think there are two reasons:

1. Lots of nasty cheap multieffects units on the market.

2. Most guitarists can't even program a VCR!

:wink:

Why not use both? Each has their pros and cons but they can co-exist happily. Just get a midi controlled switching system like the Digital Music Ground Control or similar units by CAE or Axess Electronics. Makes using your favorite analog pedals and rack gear very easy, plus with multiple loops they make all your effects "true bypass". :D

http://www.axess-electronics.com/
http://www.voodoolab.com/gcontrolpro.htm
http://www.customaudioelectronics.com/

i cant use pedals ... because i lose them ! seriously, after losing two times the same pedal I stuck to the racks ...

btw the lexicon MPX-G2 is awesome, too bad they discontinued it, I have two in my rig and it rocks

Not much of a guitarist, so tell me. The amp that the pedals run into, would play a very vital part in the sound. Pedals do not have preamp or speaker emulation.

If one is touring, unless he is carrying his amp with him, and it is miced proper, there is no saying how his tones gonna sound at a particular venue. With modellers, like the GT6, this is an area where consistency can be mantained.

Sidhu

If one is touring, unless he is carrying his amp with him, and it is miced proper, there is no saying how his tones gonna sound at a particular venue. With modellers, like the GT6, this is an area where consistency can be mantained.

Yeeeah consistantly poo!
lol
yeah good point on the use of both Jimi! i think this is how most of the guys with a lot of money do do it.

I think the rack effects and stomps are very differenet sounds, and granted programming a rack unit is a fucking night mare compared to just turning a knob and its done...... what i really want is a gig rig
yum

Jimi_London wrote: Why not use both? Each has their pros and cons but they can co-exist happily.

I agree, I love the highend sound quality that a nice rackmount processor can give to a signal. And stomp boxes always have "something" that the rackmount units don't.
For instance, an auto wah (or wah wah preset on a digital processor) SUCKS.
I'd much rather have a nice wah pedal. That's just one instance. There are several.
Like the SansAmp stuff. Great pedals
I also like my T.C. Electronic pedal (Chorus/flanger)
(my 2 centz)

Pre Amp wrote:
For instance, an auto wah (or wah wah preset on a digital processor) SUCKS.
I'd much rather have a nice wah pedal.

I won't argue with that! :lol: Actually I have persuaded an analog synth boffin friend to make me a foot controlled valve bandpass filter.. should be ready in a few weeks 8)

Too COOL! 8)
If you want to please post a picture, I'd love to see the finished product.

Hey, you know...I was told that when you hook too many foot pedals (like maybe 7 or 8 or so) into each other that the signal can become "reversed biased" for lack of better words.
And that the signal will actually loose strenght because of the resistance of ALL the pedals (back to back to back to back)
I did find a guitarist one time that used a Hughes & Kettner Valvulator. (I don't even know if H&K still make the valvulator anymore)
He said he needed it because he ran so many pedals. And that the potential is no longer what it was, with so many pedal in series.
From what he said, the Valvulator helps direct the signal.
Any thoughts?

Pre Amp wrote: Too COOL! 8)
If you want to please post a picture, I'd love to see the finished product.

I'll post pics and mp3s when its done. :)

Meanwhile, [="http://www.platinumears.com/CrunchPatch.mp3"]here's a clip of my crunch sound[/]="http://www.platinum…"]here's a clip of my crunch sound[/] while I change my playing dynamics (I don't even touch the guitar volume!) The power amp doesn't add as much grunt as it would at stage levels (this is "stay friends with neighbours" level) but you can hear the valve pre-amp in my multi-FX do its stuff.

and a challenge: do [[url=http://="http://www.platinum…"]this[/]="http://www.platinum…"]this[/] with stomp-boxes! (the squeeking in the background is my foot controller, it needs some WD40..)

:D

Very nice!

I need to get some of that Digitech gear :oops:
I like both clips!