Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[rabidgerry]

There is someone buying rack gear sure, but honestly.  I'm one of two guys in my local scene I know using rack stuff.  Now some probably are in the woodwork, but honestly, that says something to me.  People are all about amps at the minute.

Music shops where I am, no rack gear or rack knowledge except the rental place I mentioned.

It doesn't bother me that there is no love for rack really or it's not in vogue should I say, it's their loss after all not mine.  I probably wouldn't buy rack stuff if my local shops had it anyways, because I'd get it cheaper online and have a better selection online.

[Harley Hexxe]

Chamai.

    If you're talking with the young sales clerks, of course they don't have a clue. They weren't even an idea in their mother's jeans back then

[Chucky]

I always thought of ADA as pioneers in their field.
The MP-1 was a revolution the same way the POD from Line 6 made its own revolution...
So in this regard, I feel that it wouldn't be a good decision for ADA to start going backwards and produce
old designs, even though as great as they were.
But I feel they are trying to keep being themselves and offering new twists.
The MP-1 channel pedal for an example or the APP preamp which seems to use some uncommon technology.

So I expect and hope that ADA will know its actual rebirth by designing yet another trend setting product,
maybe as shocking as the MP-1 was back in its day...Why not?

[Griphook]

I'd love to have an Combination of a Power-Amp and Speaker-Sim, simultaneously usable and some fancy features.

Or a Remake of the old products, because the current parts won't get any younger, but more and more faulty with time...

[Harley Hexxe]

Or a Remake of the old products, because the current parts won't get any younger, but more and more faulty with time...

    I believe they are counting on that so you'll discard the old stuff in favor of buying the new bling!

[Griphook]

Then I will tell them something like "Why not both"

MIDI is still not dead yet, but Non-PA-Rack-Equipment nearly is, isn't it?

[Harley Hexxe]

Yes, almost.

  I'm not giving up mine though, it sounds too good.

[vansinn]

IMHO, calling 19" rack gear and MIDI a dead horse is kindof the same as what happened in the mid 1990's, and yet, rack gear returned.
I agree that just currently, by far most non-pro players don't use it; however, a good number of [semi] pro's do - just check how many use things like the Digitech GSP-1101, the rack version of the Masonic-looking German toaster, the Fractal Audio devices, and the rack versions of the Torpedo.
I often see discussions about rack gear over at sevenstring.org, though I'll agree most setups do revolve around amps and pedals.

As such, I think any producer will/should/must evaluate which type of market specific gear is intended to cater to: The amateur/semi-pro, the touring semi-pro/pros, the studio-centric market..
It really shouldn't be too difficult designing gear where the electronics is laid out to be easily retro-fitted to both pedal layout and rack.

[Harley Hexxe]

Sinn,

     I'm not saying it's a dead horse. What I'm saying is that as far as rack gear for guitar systems like ours is practically nil. I don't know about the Digitech because I've never tried one, but the Fractal Audio is a modeller. Depending on the controls you are given in these types of units, You can get some cool tones, but the truth is, they aren't a true reproduction of the real thing, they are different. The newest hot thing on the market now seems to be the Kemperer Profiler, which comes in both the toaster and rack version. Supposedly, you can sample all your favorite vintage amps into it, and take it to any gig and have all your tones there in one compact unit. A pretty cool idea, but my question would be this: After you sample the sound of your favorite Marshall '59 Plexi for example, what happens if you tweak it a little? Does it tweak like the Marshall, or does it tweak differently according to the Kemperer controls?

    Even with rack mount preamps, it's not the same. If you recall, several years ago, I reproduced my favorite tones that were in my 1967 Vox combo before I got rid of it. I put these tones in my MP-2's. Now, while I got good results with the tones I was recreating, if I go to tweak them a little, it doesn't respond like the Vox, it responds like the MP-2 which is different. I'm not saying it's bad, I'm only saying it's different.

     Harley

[PrimalScream91]

I find it interesting that we live in a time where amp/ pedal builders are trying to add their own spin to classic circuits, but no-one has tried to make a clone of the MP-1. I'm aware that the electronics are different from that of a Plexi, but with the schematic, knowledge, and time, it's probably doable.

[vansinn]

Well.. the thing with copying specifically the MP-1 and bringing such a device to market is that it is almost purely a preamp.
I don't think too many manufacturers would have the itch to try marketing a purebred preamp, because they would read the market trend - and I believe rightly so - that customers will likely want build-in effects, and suddenly it's a much different [development] game.
Just look at the differences in complexity between the MP-1 and the MP-2, at least when considering analog implementations..

Due to the costs of complex analog circuitry, by far most complex modern devices gets implemented in digital - which has the benefit of being post-upgradeable through firmware updates.

Now, this doesn't preclude designing a hybrid analog/digital device, featuring, say, the whole preamp, pre-EQ and wah section in analog (and of course with tubes), combined with a digital effects section, just.. who'll take the plunge..?

[Harley Hexxe]

I find it interesting that we live in a time where amp/ pedal builders are trying to add their own spin to classic circuits, but no-one has tried to make a clone of the MP-1. I'm aware that the electronics are different from that of a Plexi, but with the schematic, knowledge, and time, it's probably doable.

   I beg to differ. There have been many followers since the introduction of the MP-1 in 1987, and all of them have been well known and established companies that have been around for a long time. In 1987, we only saw the ADA MP-1 as far as rack mounted preamps, but in the following year, Fender introduced a solid state rack mount two channel switching preamp based on it's R.A.D. combo amps at the time, and Marshall also introduced a solid state rack mount preamp, based on one of it's combo amps at the time. Neither one impressed anyone. Also, Rocktron and Scholtz R&D brought out their first rackmount preamp offerings. Soldano also introduced the X-77 switchable two channel preamp based on their SLO-100 preamp section. By 1989, every amp builder had a rack mounted preamp on the market and each one of these had their own spin on what a preamp should be.
   Ultimately, the trend for rack gear fizzled in the 90's as it required some thought to select and build a good quality rack amplification system, which unfortunately, most guitar players hate to do. Marshall ultimately developed the JMP-1, which was their best selling rack mount preamp. Fender on the other hand did develop a prototype tube preamp, and integrated tube power amp, ( RP-1 and RA-1) in a rack mounted format, but they didn't make it to production. Instead, Fender opted to stay with something they were best known for in amplification and that led to the introduction of the Cyber-Twin Amp. Basically, it was a programmable preamp using two 12AX7 tubes, with the ability to store amp tones and effects into preset banks. The main difference being you just dialed in the knobs to get the sounds you wanted, and saved them. The user interface was just more friendly with the amp knobs instead of membrane switches like we use on the MP-1, MP-2, etc.
   Once again, even though this was easy to use, the purists like to argue that it's not a real amp, so even that was discontinued a few years ago. So you see, they did build preamps, and amplifiers based on the MP-1 designs with their own spins on them. It's just not a popular choice with the simple-minded guitar player who wants a guitar, a cable and an amp, and just turn it up and go.

    Harley

[Kim]

^ What he said. 

But what's really funny is the guitarists who can't seem to get a grip on a simple preamp/fx unit/poweramp system controlled by a midi controller....but instead use a multi-tiered pedalboard so big it's articulated with rear-steer with 50 pedals on it, because that's so much easier.  Lol

[Dante]

^ What he said. 

But what's really funny is the guitarists who can't seem to get a grip on a simple preamp/fx unit/poweramp system controlled by a midi controller....but instead use a multi-tiered pedalboard so big it's articulated with rear-steer with 50 pedals on it, because that's so much easier.  Lol

I couldn't agree more. I think it's hilarious to hit three pedals after a solo, but I see it. taptaptap 

[vansinn]

Well, to be a touch fair to the pedal board: It does present an easily overviewed graphical representation of all those cool gadgets, simply because of all the different shapes and colors
Plus, when one single effect doesn't behave as wanted, it'll be nicely easy to swap that pedal for another. In a new color. Kindof like buying new shoes

Else, I'll agree to agree with the rest of your agreements on agreeing to agree. On the sanity of MIDI programmable setups, that is..
Reflecting on Kim's comment on not being able to handle the MIDI setup, it could be as simple as not being able to visualize the effects chains [hidden from plain sight] within that multi-multi programmable box.

This is actually how I in general see our modern western society derailing: That the peoples seems to have less and less memory of their history as a peoples, and prefer something around them that's easily and immediately recognizable.
I wonder if I'm on the wrong on this, or if there's a connection between the lack of understanding the virtual MIDI setup and the dummyfication of the masses..   Mmnn.. did I (as usual) take it a Bit to far?