Re: [Harp-L] RP355/amp comparrison

[Boris Plotnikov <ploboris@xxxxxxxxx>]

Richard, anyway that 200$ tube amp have speaker and makes harmonica louder
besides effect, while Digitech RP is only FX and modeller unit and need an
amp with a speaker anyway. So to compare price/functionality/quality add
another 200$ for a keyboard amp.
I absolutely shure, that not any modeller will be as good as real tube amp
for basic tone. But it's extremely hard and expensive to compete FX
functionality of multi-fx units.
I think it's not multi-fx vs amps point. Each have pro's and con's. I
finally understand that I love anologue tone for my real acoustic and
amplified playingm when I play harmonica like an acoustic or electric
harmonica. But otherwise I really like functionality of multi-fx for crazy
effects if I wish to play harmonica like other instrument.


2013/9/10 Richard Hunter <turtlehill@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>

> Jerry Deall wrote:
> <So we've all seen the comb debates, cover plate debates, amp comparison,
> etc......
> <I'd like to hear a blind comparison between an RP and some good harp
> amps.  Same mic, same player(s) with the equipment behind a <screen.
> <
> <What do you say Richard, next SPAH?
>
> I'd be glad to do a side by side comparison of the RP to a traditional
> harp amp or three, at SPAH or any other suitable gathering. Note that this
> would essentially be a test of the RP's ability to model a certain set of
> sounds--i.e. traditional amped blues sounds--which is of course important,
> but only one of the things an RP can do.  You can't duplicate the full
> range of sounds an RP can make without a delay, reverb, vibrato, phase
> shifter, pitch shifter, chorus, flanger, envelope filter, vibrato, rotary
> speaker, etc., etc., all of which would add well over a thousand dollars in
> cost, and a lot of floor space, to any "traditional" setup.  If we compare
> the RP (or any other decent amp modeler, such as a POD HD or Zoom G3) to a
> "traditional" setup in terms of price for performance, the amp modelers
> would slay the traditional setup instantly.  You can't buy a decent tube
> amp all by itself for much less than $200--which is twice the retail price
> of a Digitech RP155, and over si!
>  x times the price of that device used in good condition--and that amp
> would be a 5 watt amp barely suitable for live performance in a room
> seating 50-80 people, minus the reverb, delay, and other FX that come with
> a modeler (not to mention the USB recording interface included with most
> modelers).
>
> In short, the ONLY dimension on which a traditional setup can compete with
> a decent amp modeler is on the basic amped tone, and it's by no means clear
> that the traditional setup is the clear winner on that dimension either.
>  So I suggest that any comparison include the respective price of the
> setups.  If I wanted to be cruel, I'd include weight and portability in the
> comparison as well, since these are also factors that a performing musician
> must deal with on every gig.   (It would be cruel because just about any
> modeler out there can be carried on board an airplane in a shoulder bag,
> which you couldn't do with even a 5 watt tube amp unless you disassembled
> it first.)
>
>  If I wanted to be extra cruel, I'd suggest that the comparison look at
> versatility as well.  In other words, if we want to do a real comparison,
> let's include all the stuff where a traditional setup can't compete at
> all--in other words, all the stuff that goes beyond Chicago blues.  Let's
> get the traditional setup out of its comfort zone and see what happens.
>
> Beyond that, my main condition for a comparison is that the RP has to be
> powered by something as powerful as the biggest tube amp used in the test.
>  Most people perceive a "louder" sound as a "better" sound--that's the
> logic behind the heavy compression that's used on most modern commercial
> recordings.  I won't participate in any comparison in which the amplifier
> behind the RP is underpowered compared to the competition.  (A reasonably
> powerful PA system will do the job.)
>
> By the way, I forgot to add one important name to the list I provided in
> response to Greg Heumann of "internationally known" players using amp
> modelers.  That name is Peter Ruth, who's used a Peavey Transformer 112
> amp, which features extensive amp and FX modeling, in his performances and
> recordings for something like a decade now.   I liked Peter's sound on that
> amp on his ukelele recording project so much that I went out and bought
> one; I've since decided that I prefer the sound (and the convenience) of
> the RP to the Transformer.  That aside, the Transformer illustrates the
> price for performance argument clearly: when it was introduced, it offered
> power, tone, and FX at less than half the price of a comparably powered
> tube amp alone.  Anyone here care to argue that Peter's tone isn't good
> enough for prime time?
>
> Along those lines, if anyone is interested in buying a Transformer 112
> with the latest update chip from Peavey, please contact me offlist.  The
> amp is in showroom condition, and works perfectly in every function.  I'm
> selling because I don't use it, and it's a waste of a very nice amp to have
> it sitting in my studio.
>
> Thanks, 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
>
>


-- 
Thanks, Boris Plotnikov
http://borisplotnikov.ru