stomp box vs multi
- Thread starter Bender
- Start date
Lazarus1140
New member
Re: stomp box vs multi
I had a muti-effects processor. It was useful for jammin' late at night with headphones on. I tried on several occasions to use while playing out and it sucked so bad I let some kid borrow it and eventually told him to just keep it.
Part of the thrill of stompboxes is noy just the superior tone, but the endless search for the next one.
I had a muti-effects processor. It was useful for jammin' late at night with headphones on. I tried on several occasions to use while playing out and it sucked so bad I let some kid borrow it and eventually told him to just keep it.
Part of the thrill of stompboxes is noy just the superior tone, but the endless search for the next one.
Re: stomp box vs multi
both?
for the swingin' blues band, I use pedals. For the solo ambient stuff, there aren't any single pedals that give me as many sound shaping options as a GT-Pro, and there are no pedal loopers as deep as the Echoplex Digital Pro. I use a rack synth too, triggered by the guitar. I don't mind programming (I actually like it), but I am not out to replicate classic guitar sounds at all.
both?
for the swingin' blues band, I use pedals. For the solo ambient stuff, there aren't any single pedals that give me as many sound shaping options as a GT-Pro, and there are no pedal loopers as deep as the Echoplex Digital Pro. I use a rack synth too, triggered by the guitar. I don't mind programming (I actually like it), but I am not out to replicate classic guitar sounds at all.
JordanM82
New member
Re: stomp box vs multi
Man I guess I will be the odd man out here...
I just bought a Vox Tonelab LE and I think the Tone is very, very good. However (yes this is the disclaimer) it was very complicated to setup and learn. Once you have your banks and patches (programs in the Tonelab) setup it is easy to use. You can get a variety of sounds that are not half-bad.
That being said, pedals, typically just sound better; but they are a one trick pony. Versatility is the name of my game and thats what I need for when I play so the multi fits my need.
(second disclaimer, I have yet to play live with the Tonelab so I will see how it really performs this Sunday and post an update).
(third disclaimer, it took me hours, of tweaking and setup and reading the manual to get the sounds I wanted and to get them sounding good. It is complicated and thats from someone who is a computer virus researcher for a living)
too many disclaimers, buy yourself some stompboxes...
Man I guess I will be the odd man out here...
I just bought a Vox Tonelab LE and I think the Tone is very, very good. However (yes this is the disclaimer) it was very complicated to setup and learn. Once you have your banks and patches (programs in the Tonelab) setup it is easy to use. You can get a variety of sounds that are not half-bad.
That being said, pedals, typically just sound better; but they are a one trick pony. Versatility is the name of my game and thats what I need for when I play so the multi fits my need.
(second disclaimer, I have yet to play live with the Tonelab so I will see how it really performs this Sunday and post an update).
(third disclaimer, it took me hours, of tweaking and setup and reading the manual to get the sounds I wanted and to get them sounding good. It is complicated and thats from someone who is a computer virus researcher for a living)
too many disclaimers, buy yourself some stompboxes...
thespricket
New member
Re: stomp box vs multi
If i had the money and patience to deal with every analog stomp box effect i would like to use in a multi effects unit, I would. But for me it just seems more practical to use a Multi Fx for me. I like the freedom that you get from the plethora of bells and whistles at your feet. It really just depends on the model of the box you're using, some are easier to use live than others.
another thing that makes multi fx more practical is that if your amp goes kaput at a gig you can always use the multi fx and go DI into a pa or another amp.
*let the record show that i do own a handful of analog stomp boxes, as i think multi fx are really only good for the few mod effects they have and delays as well. But i do have a separate wah and overdrive.
If i had the money and patience to deal with every analog stomp box effect i would like to use in a multi effects unit, I would. But for me it just seems more practical to use a Multi Fx for me. I like the freedom that you get from the plethora of bells and whistles at your feet. It really just depends on the model of the box you're using, some are easier to use live than others.
another thing that makes multi fx more practical is that if your amp goes kaput at a gig you can always use the multi fx and go DI into a pa or another amp.
*let the record show that i do own a handful of analog stomp boxes, as i think multi fx are really only good for the few mod effects they have and delays as well. But i do have a separate wah and overdrive.
Last edited:
wahwah
GumbyLoveologist
Re: stomp box vs multi
I have a general rule of thumb that anything that takes a lot of tweaking to get a good sound is most likely a POS. That goes for pedals, rack gear, multi fx, and software. Conversely, if you plug it in and find yourself instantly inspired, and as you make adjustments it just gets better, then there's a good chance it's a winner.
I used to do reviews for a music magazine, and they would send me all of the various multi fx units from Boss/Roland, Yamaha, Digitech, Zoom etc, all the usual suspects. These things would arrive and I would familiarize myself with their interfaces, listen to the presets and think, yeah ok, this is why there haven't been too many Japanese guitar legends. They would have the ubiquitous "can of bees" overdrive sounds and the washed out "if we slap enough reverb, chorus and delay on at the same time, can you still tell that I can't really play?" multi fx patches. So I would get to work from scratch and start building patches. After a couple of hours of tweaking, I would start thinking "yeah, maybe this thing is ok, maybe I can get something out of this." Then I would tweak some more, get it sounding better, and start thinking "Wow, maybe I can replace my analog pedals with this one unit."
Then I would perform what I call the "acid test." I would unplug from the unit, and plug straight into a tube amp, or into a couple of analog pedals. Then, without fail, my next thought would be "Oh well, that's three hours of my life I can't get back. What was I thinking?" What happens is that your ears become accustomed to the substandard tones coming out of these things, and you start to become convinced that they are much better than they really are.
The most fundamental problem is that generally, the cheap AD/DA converters in multi effects units distort and destroy the nuance of the dynamics being sent from the guitar. That equates to diminishing the integral tone of the instrument into an approximation, and then reconstructing it in crappy fashion, ready to be amplified. So now we have amplified crap. That's what I hear when I listen to multi fx units. Sure, they can perform tricks and offer one step versatility that is difficult to achieve with analog pedals, but at the expense of tone. For some, that is an exchange that they are prepared to make, because their trippy effects are actually the center of their performance. But if the center of your performance is your guitar playing, and what you really need is a good selection of great sounds, then the analog pedal route is the way to do it.
I know the "purists" will say, "no man, pedals suck, I just go straight into the amp," but most of these purists are unheard of and only play for the birds in the trees outside their house. They can afford to be "purists" because they are not relying on their diversity of sounds to make a living, or at least, work with others in a band environment, playing a variety of songs and styles which require more than one sound. Amongst professionals, you will find the vast majority using analog pedals. Amongst the absolute legends of guitar, you will find the vast majority using analog pedals. This is not by accident. This is not coincidence. This is because good analog pedals sound better than any multi fx unit.
Cheers..................................wahwah
I have a general rule of thumb that anything that takes a lot of tweaking to get a good sound is most likely a POS. That goes for pedals, rack gear, multi fx, and software. Conversely, if you plug it in and find yourself instantly inspired, and as you make adjustments it just gets better, then there's a good chance it's a winner.
I used to do reviews for a music magazine, and they would send me all of the various multi fx units from Boss/Roland, Yamaha, Digitech, Zoom etc, all the usual suspects. These things would arrive and I would familiarize myself with their interfaces, listen to the presets and think, yeah ok, this is why there haven't been too many Japanese guitar legends. They would have the ubiquitous "can of bees" overdrive sounds and the washed out "if we slap enough reverb, chorus and delay on at the same time, can you still tell that I can't really play?" multi fx patches. So I would get to work from scratch and start building patches. After a couple of hours of tweaking, I would start thinking "yeah, maybe this thing is ok, maybe I can get something out of this." Then I would tweak some more, get it sounding better, and start thinking "Wow, maybe I can replace my analog pedals with this one unit."
Then I would perform what I call the "acid test." I would unplug from the unit, and plug straight into a tube amp, or into a couple of analog pedals. Then, without fail, my next thought would be "Oh well, that's three hours of my life I can't get back. What was I thinking?" What happens is that your ears become accustomed to the substandard tones coming out of these things, and you start to become convinced that they are much better than they really are.
The most fundamental problem is that generally, the cheap AD/DA converters in multi effects units distort and destroy the nuance of the dynamics being sent from the guitar. That equates to diminishing the integral tone of the instrument into an approximation, and then reconstructing it in crappy fashion, ready to be amplified. So now we have amplified crap. That's what I hear when I listen to multi fx units. Sure, they can perform tricks and offer one step versatility that is difficult to achieve with analog pedals, but at the expense of tone. For some, that is an exchange that they are prepared to make, because their trippy effects are actually the center of their performance. But if the center of your performance is your guitar playing, and what you really need is a good selection of great sounds, then the analog pedal route is the way to do it.
I know the "purists" will say, "no man, pedals suck, I just go straight into the amp," but most of these purists are unheard of and only play for the birds in the trees outside their house. They can afford to be "purists" because they are not relying on their diversity of sounds to make a living, or at least, work with others in a band environment, playing a variety of songs and styles which require more than one sound. Amongst professionals, you will find the vast majority using analog pedals. Amongst the absolute legends of guitar, you will find the vast majority using analog pedals. This is not by accident. This is not coincidence. This is because good analog pedals sound better than any multi fx unit.
Cheers..................................wahwah
Re: stomp box vs multi
i think it can go both ways though- John Mclaughlin just toured with just his laptop running Amplitube into the PA and it sounded wonderful. Robert Fripp's complete signal chain is rackmount digital gear, and Adrian Belew uses modeling amps.
I think the mistake may analog-philes make is plugging into these devices and trying to sound like a 68 Marshall or a Super Reverb. I look at it differently- if I were after those sounds, I'd get that gear in the first place.
I think Multi's really shine when you create something new which forces you to think differently about your stock licks and phrases- maybe it inspires you to come up with sounds no one has ever heard. Programming (to me, the more control, the better) is an art in itself. I realize not all guitarists want to do that, though.
Really, it is about the right tool for the job. It is true- most guitarists ever want to do is sit down an rock out. Get an amp, a few pedals and be done with it.
I love the control and the possibilities of making my guitar sound nothing like a guitar sometimes, though.
i think it can go both ways though- John Mclaughlin just toured with just his laptop running Amplitube into the PA and it sounded wonderful. Robert Fripp's complete signal chain is rackmount digital gear, and Adrian Belew uses modeling amps.
I think the mistake may analog-philes make is plugging into these devices and trying to sound like a 68 Marshall or a Super Reverb. I look at it differently- if I were after those sounds, I'd get that gear in the first place.
I think Multi's really shine when you create something new which forces you to think differently about your stock licks and phrases- maybe it inspires you to come up with sounds no one has ever heard. Programming (to me, the more control, the better) is an art in itself. I realize not all guitarists want to do that, though.
Really, it is about the right tool for the job. It is true- most guitarists ever want to do is sit down an rock out. Get an amp, a few pedals and be done with it.
I love the control and the possibilities of making my guitar sound nothing like a guitar sometimes, though.
JB_From_Hell
Jomo's Nimions
Re: stomp box vs multi
If you say so. Shall I post the David Gilmour rig pic again, where it shows him using a bunch of digital delays and whammy pedals, or the Jeff Beck quote where he describes one of his album's tones being based on a Line 6 amp?
Derek Trucks would probably giggle about the "purist" comment, too.
You say that if something requires a lot of tweaking, it's a pos. I say you likely lack the patience or creativity to tweak.
And the beauty of it is, in the end we're both right
If you say so. Shall I post the David Gilmour rig pic again, where it shows him using a bunch of digital delays and whammy pedals, or the Jeff Beck quote where he describes one of his album's tones being based on a Line 6 amp?
Derek Trucks would probably giggle about the "purist" comment, too.
You say that if something requires a lot of tweaking, it's a pos. I say you likely lack the patience or creativity to tweak.
And the beauty of it is, in the end we're both right
dystrust
Well-known member
Re: stomp box vs multi
I don't know if I can respond to the poll because the question is a lot more complicated. If it were floor based multi-effects vs. individual stomp boxes, I'd choose stomp boxes because 99% of those floor units are cheap pieces of crap. Otherwise it comes down to the sounds you're trying to make. IMO nothing does better reverb / delay than a rack effects processor. On the other hand, my favorite phase shifter is an MXR Phase 90. Each type of device has its uses.
I guess my answer is: "Either can be good, and you get what you pay for."
I don't know if I can respond to the poll because the question is a lot more complicated. If it were floor based multi-effects vs. individual stomp boxes, I'd choose stomp boxes because 99% of those floor units are cheap pieces of crap. Otherwise it comes down to the sounds you're trying to make. IMO nothing does better reverb / delay than a rack effects processor. On the other hand, my favorite phase shifter is an MXR Phase 90. Each type of device has its uses.
I guess my answer is: "Either can be good, and you get what you pay for."
M
MrHeavyMetal
Guest
skyydogg01
Active member
Re: stomp box vs multi
oh, contrare!
I think that stomp boxes are more tweakable. You can dial in EXACTLY what you want (within the confines of the pedal design), whereas with multi efx, you're given this much delay or this much delay and nothing in between.
ya feelin' my flow here?
oh, contrare!
I think that stomp boxes are more tweakable. You can dial in EXACTLY what you want (within the confines of the pedal design), whereas with multi efx, you're given this much delay or this much delay and nothing in between.
ya feelin' my flow here?
JB_From_Hell
Jomo's Nimions
Re: stomp box vs multi
No. My multi-fx units have dials, just like my stomps, and they allow me to adjust the different parameters just like the stomps.
For the record, I'm not talking about some cheap-o Zoom box, but stuff like a POD XT Live, Boss GT-6 or 8.... stuff like that. Comparing stomps that a pro would use to a $50 Zoom 505 (or Digitech RP100 or whatever) is pretty absurd, and those are the only ones I've encountered that don't give you (at least) as much tweakability as a stomp.
No. My multi-fx units have dials, just like my stomps, and they allow me to adjust the different parameters just like the stomps.
For the record, I'm not talking about some cheap-o Zoom box, but stuff like a POD XT Live, Boss GT-6 or 8.... stuff like that. Comparing stomps that a pro would use to a $50 Zoom 505 (or Digitech RP100 or whatever) is pretty absurd, and those are the only ones I've encountered that don't give you (at least) as much tweakability as a stomp.
wahwah
GumbyLoveologist
Re: stomp box vs multi
Show me the stuff where Gilmour and Beck derive the majority of their tones from multi effects processors, and you'll have a point relevant to this thread. Otherwise, these guys are using digital technology (not multi fx processors!) for specific purposes. For example, digital delays for long delay times...a necessity. That's why companies like T-Rex spend so much time in R&D to make their pedals sound as close to analog as possible, and then charge accordingly. There is no analog Whammy pedal, otherwise you could be sure that Gilmour would be using it. Could you also explain how the Whammy pedal is relevant to the issue of multi effects processors? Beck did some of his demos with Line 6, and then liked the takes so much and didn't want to have to redo them. Show me where Jeff Beck uses Line 6 live. One or two tracks in a 40 year career might not be the best example to demonstrate your point.
There are several guitarists who have made huge careers without pedals. They include the likes of Angus and Malcolm Young and BB King. They haven't needed any, because they have one trademark sound that they have brilliantly integrated into every piece of music they have made. It's a great sound, but the point is, they don't need diversity in a live performance setting. And that's why I used the term "vast majority." Last time we discussed this, I posted a list of guitar players who use analog pedals. It probably isn't necessary to go over it again. Suffice to say, it constitutes the "vast majority" of guitar playing legends.
Feel free to provide a list of pro players who use multi effects processors to generate their fundamental tone. Mincer got that list started with the likes of Fripp, Belew and McLaughlin, however in each case, it was either rackmount processors, amp modellers or computer based modelling software. Also in the case of Fripp and Belew, these are guys who are renowned for stretching the bounds of guitar noises and who are deliberately moving as far away as possible from traditional tones. This is, as Mincer rightly pointed out, a great thing. But it's not going to serve the "vast majority." Try turning up to an audition for a local Rock/Blues/Funk/Pop/Ska/Reggae/Punk/Grunge/Metal/Country band with your multi effects processor and a bunch of Frippesque patches and a looper.
Cheers................................wahwah
If you say so. Shall I post the David Gilmour rig pic again, where it shows him using a bunch of digital delays and whammy pedals, or the Jeff Beck quote where he describes one of his album's tones being based on a Line 6 amp?
Derek Trucks would probably giggle about the "purist" comment, too.
You say that if something requires a lot of tweaking, it's a pos. I say you likely lack the patience or creativity to tweak.
And the beauty of it is, in the end we're both right
Show me the stuff where Gilmour and Beck derive the majority of their tones from multi effects processors, and you'll have a point relevant to this thread. Otherwise, these guys are using digital technology (not multi fx processors!) for specific purposes. For example, digital delays for long delay times...a necessity. That's why companies like T-Rex spend so much time in R&D to make their pedals sound as close to analog as possible, and then charge accordingly. There is no analog Whammy pedal, otherwise you could be sure that Gilmour would be using it. Could you also explain how the Whammy pedal is relevant to the issue of multi effects processors? Beck did some of his demos with Line 6, and then liked the takes so much and didn't want to have to redo them. Show me where Jeff Beck uses Line 6 live. One or two tracks in a 40 year career might not be the best example to demonstrate your point.
There are several guitarists who have made huge careers without pedals. They include the likes of Angus and Malcolm Young and BB King. They haven't needed any, because they have one trademark sound that they have brilliantly integrated into every piece of music they have made. It's a great sound, but the point is, they don't need diversity in a live performance setting. And that's why I used the term "vast majority." Last time we discussed this, I posted a list of guitar players who use analog pedals. It probably isn't necessary to go over it again. Suffice to say, it constitutes the "vast majority" of guitar playing legends.
Feel free to provide a list of pro players who use multi effects processors to generate their fundamental tone. Mincer got that list started with the likes of Fripp, Belew and McLaughlin, however in each case, it was either rackmount processors, amp modellers or computer based modelling software. Also in the case of Fripp and Belew, these are guys who are renowned for stretching the bounds of guitar noises and who are deliberately moving as far away as possible from traditional tones. This is, as Mincer rightly pointed out, a great thing. But it's not going to serve the "vast majority." Try turning up to an audition for a local Rock/Blues/Funk/Pop/Ska/Reggae/Punk/Grunge/Metal/Country band with your multi effects processor and a bunch of Frippesque patches and a looper.
Cheers................................wahwah
Last edited:
Re: stomp box vs multi
hehe! i did, and got the gig! i think they liked the fact it didn't sound like 'insert blues guitar cliche here', but no matter.
honestly with that gig, i don't use the multi effects, although i do use a looper for some ambient stuff-
you can take this guitarist out of the laboratory....
hehe! i did, and got the gig! i think they liked the fact it didn't sound like 'insert blues guitar cliche here', but no matter.
honestly with that gig, i don't use the multi effects, although i do use a looper for some ambient stuff-
you can take this guitarist out of the laboratory....
Re: stomp box vs multi
LOL, I have to say I thought the exact same thing. No disrespect for Fripp or Belew etc, but I'm not sure those guys really have "good" tone. one of the papers I shoot for covers alot of experimental, post rock and noise bands. I see lots of multifx units and honestly can't say any of them ever sounded "good" to be. Weird yes, creative maybe, but certainly not rich, lush and vibrant.
I remember last time I saw Kenny Wayne Shepard. Simple board with some really nice modded analog pedals. You couldn't help but be struck with how good his guitar sounded. So rich and full, you could hear every note.
Now yes part of it is his hands of course, but theres simply no way he'd sound the same through a digitech RP series multi-fx box.
LOL, I have to say I thought the exact same thing. No disrespect for Fripp or Belew etc, but I'm not sure those guys really have "good" tone. one of the papers I shoot for covers alot of experimental, post rock and noise bands. I see lots of multifx units and honestly can't say any of them ever sounded "good" to be. Weird yes, creative maybe, but certainly not rich, lush and vibrant.
I remember last time I saw Kenny Wayne Shepard. Simple board with some really nice modded analog pedals. You couldn't help but be struck with how good his guitar sounded. So rich and full, you could hear every note.
Now yes part of it is his hands of course, but theres simply no way he'd sound the same through a digitech RP series multi-fx box.
