RE: [Harp-L] Jaming/Gigging on harmonica with a Multi-Effect processor

[Buck Worley <boogalloo@xxxxxxx>]

Hello Richard-
I have no doubt that you are good at what you do, both performing and creating harp patches for the RP355. I actually enjoy reading a lot of your posts and replies. 
 
Please allow me to clarify a couple of statements that may have been misconstrued:
 
I DID get the Line 6 patch programmed and I am still using it at church. It's a great unit and using my "clean harp" patch takes some load off of the sound engineer and he loves it too! Also I use a VC so he doesnt have to "chase" me. He just sets my channel flat and I take it from there.
 
I am never completely "so happy" with anything. As most of us harp players, I am always on the quest for better tone. The reason I bought the Zoom was to get a copy of Cubase and to experiment with an effects console which I had never done before (other than the Line 6 which is the one that looks like a kidney bean; the old one with no footswitching). Since then I have plugged into some others and they always sound too processed.
 
The original poster seemed to come across as being uncertain of which effects route to take. I simply voiced my opinion. I have the right to do that and so do you. If our opinions differ, well, let's just agree to disagree.
 
I am a purist and own or have owned a 1959 Bassman, '66 Bassman, 1959 Champ, SF Champs, '66 Princeton, '65 Princeton, '64 and '65 Deluxe Reverbs, Silvertones, Alamos, Magnatones, Zoos and many other vintage amps. I have dozens of vintage mics and I have never owned a clone, RI or kit unit. I've been performing since the 1970s professionally and have a long list of legitimate credentials under my belt including a ton of session work. I'm not bragging. All this is just so you know that I'm not just regurgitating things that I have read or seen on youtube as so many folks do.
 
The intention of the reply to the OP was that one does not need a bunch of gadgets. There are plenty of folks hawking this or that on these forums so I thought that I would offer a little "balance".  
 
As far as my statement on being "obligated" to do something, I do not feel obligated to anything. In fact, IMHO, youtube audio does not do great amps and effects justice. I base my equipment choices on plugging in to the actual unit and then decide.
 
Sure, I agree that the Zoom or RP would be easier to manage on a flight. I have actually done that rather than trust baggage handlers with my Echoplex EP2 which is my favorite effect. I have never heard any digital or analogue unit that comes close to a real tape delay.
 
Also, it is a fact that many Nashville session players are trading in their RP355s and building multi FX devices (I did not know if the OP would know what that term was, thus my "huge classic stomp box" term) and yes they put them on airplanes in well built road cases.
 
To state that this or that is "the future of amplification" sounds like what CBS said when they purchased Fender and brought in the disastrous solid state line which nearly put Fender out of business.
 
Also, I dont sell anything on harp forums, so I do not display all my contact info. Dont take that personally. To each their own.
 
Regards,
Buck Worley  
 
> Date: Sat, 12 Mar 2011 23:47:39 -0500
> From: turtlehill@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> To: harp-l@xxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [Harp-L] Jaming/Gigging on harmonica with a Multi-Effect processor
> 
> Buck Worley wrote:
> >After purchasing a Zoom g9tt2?? or something like that, I spent hours and hours reprogramming >guitar pre-set patches to harmonica settings. What appealed to me about this unit is that it has >an AB channel each with its own 12ax7. It does have some nice analogue stuff. So, I tried lots of >amp models, EQ settings, a zillion effects; rotary, octave down, a million reverb and echo types >and on and on and on...
> > 
> >Maybe I should have gone the RP55 route and then spent another grand on the custom patches being >hawked for sale on this forum but the end result would probably be the same as the Zoom, except >way more expensive. These units are easy to program, once you get the hang of it. I have been >doing it since they handed me an old Line 6 POD at church years ago and even though all the amp >modeling stuff was cool for a guitar, I needed a clean harp patch and had to program it myself. 
> >
> >So, after all this experimenting with effects consoles, I have switched back to a small EQ and >delay stomp box(es) and just plug and play. Much less headache for me. Much better sound. Much >less "processed sound"! BTW: dont forget you tone comes from you, not a bunch of electronic >gizmos. 
> > 
> >Also, I think it is noteworthy to mention that here around Nashville, I have noticed that the >guitar players have now evolved past the effects console phase and are going back to putting >together huge stomp box boards with all their favorite classic pedals. I think the day of the >effects console is nearing it's end. Unless Richard can come up with a patch for that :D
> 
> Sorry you couldn't get your Line6 or Zoom to do the job for you, and of course delighted that you're so happy with your sound now.
> 
> I think that when you're telling people that some setup sounds great (or not), there's an obligation to provide a link to a recording so everyone can decide for themselves how great it sounds. I frequently post examples of my work recorded with various FX so people can hear for themselves what the effects I use sound like. (You can find almost all of them at http://www.hunterharp.com/category/hunters-music/recorded-performances-live-and-otherwise/.) I don't think there's any other way to evaluate someone's comments on the way gear sounds. 
> 
> I've recorded and released two CDs of solo harmonica recorded with no more effects than reverb and delay, and I agree that sound comes from the player. Guitar players can do what they want, but if you're going to have a huge stomp box board with lots of classic pedals on it, what's the difference between that and an "FX console" (first time I've heard that term, I presume you mean a multi-FX device?) in terms of the sounds you can get? I can take my RP355 in a shoulder bag on an airplane; can you do that with a huge stomp box board? 
> 
> In terms of the relative expense of these devices, you've got it completely backwards. Your Zoom G9 2TT sells new for $299 right now on musiciansfriend.com. A Digitech RP355 loaded with my patch set sells new for $225: $200 for the Digitech, and $25 for my patches. So I really don't get your comment that "Maybe I should have gone the RP55 route and then spent another grand on the custom patches being hawked for sale on this forum but the end result would probably be the same as the Zoom, except way more expensive." In point of fact, the end result would have been about 25% less expensive than your Zoom, and you'd have saved the many hours you put into programming sounds you didn't like into the Zoom.
> 
> I agree that it's not easy to program current devices like the Line6, the Zoom, and the Digitechs for harp. They are in fact designed for guitar, and it takes a lot of time to figure it the right settings for harp. But these devices, or some generation to follow, are the future of amplification. And if you take the time to set them up right, which I do, they sound great with harp. Or so my clips sound to me. 
> 
> Regards, Richard Hunter
> 
> 
> 
> 
> author, "Jazz Harp" 
> latest mp3s and harmonica blog at http://hunterharp.com
> Myspace http://myspace.com/richardhunterharp
> Vids at http://www.youtube.com/user/lightninrick
> more mp3s at http://taxi.com/rhunter
> Twitter: lightninrick