The Pod - Yes, No?

A DG-Stomp should cost you next to nothing.

I've tried sticking the Big Muff direct into the mixer, and it just sounds... dead. Not like it's supposed to sound at all. I've been using the onboard distortion on Cubase, which has a good sound, but you have to cut the volume so much to get it to blend with the rest of the track, it's effectively useless.

On my 4-track, I used to be able to get the best distorted guitar ever, just by overdriving the input (apparently Brad Laner used the same 4-track as a distortion pedal for ages, because it gives such good fuzz) - actually, maybe I could dig out the 4-track and use that as a pre-amp!

http://www.native-instruments.com/index.php?guitarrig2_us&ftu=dbf8245b63&flash=7

i did this with the thing.
http://www.redbulldozers.com/music/thegame2.mp3

i didn't play it too well but the guitar sounds pretty decent anyway

http://www.engadget.com/2004/12/11/music-thing-zvex-nano-head/

the pod is ok. (all it is is software tho...) i suppose if you're going to use tons of effects after the fact it won't matter as much, but for something thats supposed to sound like a real amp is kinda weak. also, overdriving mic preamps with a guitar is an old trick, but a pretty solid one.

I would recommend the Weber MASS attenuator. Then you can crank your amp and record through the line out. No software, just tubes getting pushed hard. The only difference between it and the sound of a real amp is that there's no speaker. Granted, that makes a difference, but not as big of one as you'd think unless you're a purist.

2) I don't think my amp has a line out!

I really dislike the distorion tones on the pod. Not because they are bad, per se (we'll call that a matter of opinion), but due to it's popularity, I've heard them on way too many recordings in the last few years.

I wouldn't use the distortion tones on the pod, I would use my own effects pedals - but a Big Muff just does not sound good direct, hence why I want a warming amp emulator.

If that's the case, then I'd get something a lot less intrusive and full of gizmodgery. There ought to be several speaker simulated direct boxes that should do the trick/cost less.

Actually, have you tried using a standard direct box with the Big Muff, or are you just running directly out of the Muff into your laptop? This could all be a line/instrument level mismatch issue...

Don't own a DI box, I'm not that posh. But a speaker emulator might be the thing - I just liked the pods because a band I was roadieing for was using them on a live radio show, and they sounded fab.

A lot of problems/caveats coming from the people wary of guitar amp simulators stems from impatience. (A lot of it from superstition and snob attitude, too.) You work with them for a year or two, learn their strengths and weaknesses like anything, and suddenly you can dial in tones.

I work mostly with vintage hard rock and blooz rock sounds and the Adrenalinn has really good sets for that. The Twin emulation is great as is its Fender Bassman. The two old Marshalls (JTM 45 and Super Lead) and a Matchless Chieftain also work good. That's about all I need, maybe even a little more. (When the Adrenalinn 1.0 updated to 2.0, part of it was an obvious effort to compete with POD which had a much larger amp library. Version 2.0 included the same number, but I found personally that the extras were unneccesary, the first dozen was more than enough.) They work like real amps turned up loud. Turn down the volumne at the guitar, the tone cleans up. Good sensitivity to pick dynamic.

So I trust them. Got to the Adrenalinn best. The mojo that went into its presets is considerable. If you trust them, and start tracking, you find they actually do sound like they're advertised to in a classic rock-style recording, for instance. I became loathe to screw with them much, which is the opposite of what you read on Harmony Cetnral reviews where loads of seeming dopes always attest that factory presets delivered in the POD and its colleagues are useless or awful sounding. I'm for the opposite of that received wisdom.

I have yet to hear an emulator that sounds good with a fuzz pedal in front of it though. The Pod sounded crap with any distortion/od/fuzz pedal I tried with it. Maybe I was missing something, but it didn't even come close to the sound of a fuzz through a real amp, and my normal fuzz set up is a Frantone Cream Puff through a Deluxe Reverb. I play with relatively clean amps and overdrive them with pedals, so I was hoping the Pod would let me do something similar, and it didn't so much. That's why I finally turned to things like the Weber or DI boxes.

i would recommend the Weber Mass unit, because

1. i've got the mini-mass and it allows me to crank the amp at reasonable volumes

2. the DI (so i've heard on another thread on this forum) sounds tremendous - this is because it's running through a dummy speaker coil that vibrates just like a normal one but produces no sound, so you get a similar effect - more so than you would through regular speaker/cabinet simulation. it's that much closer to the real deal.

The input of the Adrenalinn can be finicky. With Adrenalinn 1.0 it was a real issue. It had a narrow range and clipped digitally until you got the hang of it. The company fixed it in the revision.

I use the POD XT, or can use it. I don't so much because I get bogged down in twiddling the reverbs, cabinet choices, "air" and software microphone sonic choices. The Adrenalinn is flexible and has a lot of twiddle to it, particularly if you want to use its sequencers. But the basic amp emulations don't let you get carried away flipping software switches.

I've never had issues with thin sound unless I want thin sound.

As for the arguments between software / hardware and etc. they were what happened with the keyboard industry between 30 and 40 years ago, and in the end - the software has won... same in fact can be said for analogue vs. digital recording - the snobbery has gone away because there are now very few people left alive that can remember it at all (that was a joke - I am over 40 after all, I have "grown up" with the changes).

It is only now that technology has allowed the speed of DSP to enable a guitar (or other instruments that emit a complex tonal signal and not a simple digital / switched signal).

I suppose I am just a gadget freak... it all reminds me of an argument I had many years back - where the opposing party indicated that processors and software would never replace dedicated hardware only solutions... today, even your toaster has an embedded processor.

So don't kid yourselves, any multi-effect stomp box (and even the single effect ones) is exactly the same, the software is just running on an embedded chip instead of the PC - with a DSP solution running the same algorithms and samples.

One possibility, if you're really wedded to the sound of your amp but cannot crank it due to volume issues, is to build an isolation box for it.

b-b-but digital fx boxes = software. the only difference is that it's housed in its own little box instead of your laptop.

musicians and teihr "mojo"...