Just buy one. You won't regret it.

[Johnny64]

I know,I know,this should be under the FX thread,but most seem to hang around here.

Just bought one of these ...




....and I have to say it really is fantastic. Even some of the OD sounds are cool.

Well impressed,especially considering the price.

Clickthe pic for demo,and then hit 'interactive'

[thetallcoolone]

Is that a new model?
I don't recall seeing it in the music shops around Montreal.

What kind of price are we looking at here?

[Johnny64]

Over here,they're just short of £200,and worth it IMO.


Seem to be around the $300 mark in the US.

[thetallcoolone]

Thanks for the info. I'll check it out. :)

[Plugger]

Anyone compared these to the Pod XT Live boards, or even to the Boss GT-6 or GT-8? I'm considering all of these, including the ME-50.

-Mark

[Kap'n]

T-B had one. I think he sold it.

[Tele-Bob]

It was a really great unit until I tried to gig with it.

How doth though sucketh? Let me count the ways. For where yonder bough breaks.......................

It's the same problem as always. They sound great at home and for recording, but that's about it.

[Plugger]

It was a really great unit until I tried to gig with it.

How doth though sucketh? Let me count the ways. For where yonder bough breaks.......................

It's the same problem as always. They sound great at home and for recording, but that's about it.

T-B, out of interest, which model did you have? The ME-50, or one of the other models mentioned above?

I find this hard to get my head around, that the units can sound good on recordings, but don't sound good live. Counterintuitive, to say the the least. Is it possible that they simply have to be tweaked differently for the different environments, rather than they simply don't work in a live environment? I mean, sound is sound...

-Mark

[hudpucker]

They sound great at home and for recording, but that's about it.

Considering that there are really only 3 uses for the unit (playing shows, playing at home/practice, and recording) I'd say that sounding 'great' in 2 out of 3 potential usages hardly means the unit 'sucks'...

[Offshore Angler]

Plugger, I'll step up. Bob is reffering to the unit's ability to cut through a mix. Most processor units just don't have the "cut" to push pass the drums and bass. I use an old Toneworks from time to time, but generally only on slow ballad type songs where the band is thinner and I can be heard.

But, the main thing is, if you like it and it inspires you, by all means use it. Anything that makes your playing more enjoyable is worhwhile.

Personally, I've found processors great for home practice, great for big venues with a sound system that you can plug it directly into, and great for a backup if your amp takes a dump at a club gig. But at the average bar sized gig where you play straight through the amp, they can be hard to deal with.

I will say the new generation BOSS stuff sounds great.

[Plugger]

Plugger, I'll step up. Bob is reffering to the unit's ability to cut through a mix. Most processor units just don't have the "cut" to push pass the drums and bass. I use an old Toneworks from time to time, but generally only on slow ballad type songs where the band is thinner and I can be heard.

OK, this makes sense. It sounds like the basic problem is compression of the dynamic range. You can get away with compressed dynamics when recording - it's even often desirable - but an overly compressed signal in a live situation will often sound like it's just disappeared. One of the most compressed effects is, of course, fuzz. Everyone who's tried to use a fuzz box live knows how tricky it can be to get the sound to "cut through", as you say. (I think someone recently called it the "magic disappearing effect".)

Maybe the compression on these digital fx boxes is by design, if they are mainly designed for recording. Or maybe it's a byproduct of cheap DSP (digitial signal processing). Maybe both. But at least it's clear where the problem lies.

So - now to the big question: Can you adjust the compression on any of these multi-fx pedals as a tweakable parameter? Perhaps the excessive compression is only a problem if you rely on the preset patches, and with some judicious programming you can work around the problem?

Enquiring minds want to know! :)

-Mark

[Kap'n]

Maybe the compression on these digital fx boxes is by design, if they are mainly designed for recording.

Actually, I think they're designed for bedrooms. 99% of all guitar stuff never even makes it to the basement/garage. If you're shooting for the mass market/big bucks, that's where you aim. Some of it's design, some of it's a happy byproduct of the technology. I think it's not just compression, but to steal a phrase from Hartke, transient attack, is what' missing from most boxes.

[added: The correct term for "transient attack" is slew rate, I believe.]

[Offshore Angler]

Kap'n is, again, right on. The noise gate built into almost every processor takes the edge off the attack. Add the quantization error of the DSP, and the "human factor" of the playing and the attack goes out the window.

That said, I do use them live, but in moderation. And the high-end stuff that most people never see actually sounds pretty good, but not too many guys playing for local money are going to invest in that kind of rig.

Another really good application for them is recording. Record your guitar part dry, and then push that track into the processor as you bounce it. You can search and find that perfect sound for the song that way.

[Plugger]

Yesterday I tried out a Boss ME-50 in a music shop. It might be unfair to say it sucked, but I certainly couldn't get it to not suck. You could hear the compression on almost every effect right off the bat -- you didn't have to put this in a live situation to see it really wouldn't cut it. It doesn't even cut it in the living room, as far as I am concerned.

But I also tried the AB thing with the Boss PW-10 modelling wah pedal. You'd expect this to be very similar in sound to the wah and distortion effects on the Boss ME-50 -- same Boss COSM technology, right? (At least they both have COSM written on the boxes.) Well, no...

It took some time to convince myself what I as hearing was real, but the Boss PW-10 sounds way better than the wah and distortion effects on the ME-50. No comparison, really. Night and day, chalk and cheese -- pick your favourite cliche. In fact, the Boss PW-10 was better than the analog Dunlop CryBaby -- a one-trick pony by comparison, and a noisy one trick pony at that. To be fair, the Dunlop unit is significantly cheaper, of course.

But to my ear at least, the PW-10 suffered none of the disadvantages supposedly inherent to the digital fx boxes, while retaining all the theoretical advantages. Great. I want one, and I suspect I will probably end up buying one. But here's the blindingly obvious question:

If they (Roland/Boss) can get the digital COSM technology to work well on the PW-10, why can't they get it to work on the ME-50? What engineering compromises are being made in the multi-fx boxes to make them sound comparatively poor, even when comparing Boss COSM technology with Boss COSM technology?

Is this poor quality sound seemigly inherent in the digital multi-fx boxes (yes, I believe now) simply the result of cost cutting engineering? Or is there a more fundamental technical reason for the limitations I was hearing? I'd really like to understand a bit more deeply what's really going on the digital fx world.

-Mark