Re: [Harp-L] RP355/amp comparrison

[Mike <mikefugazzi@xxxxxxxxx>]

Boris makes a great point.  You have to amplify the pedals.  You also have 
to consider the needs of the player.  I run without an amp, but I have to 
use a powered speaker still...which is an amp, technically.  I also have 
one 10" speaker compared to a 4x10 Bassman cab.  I also have to dial in the 
effects, which is often harder than using an amp.  I run into the problem 
of everything NOT be voiced at all to harmonica relative to a "harp 
amp"...I mean, there are pros and cons to either.

The math in terms of savings is also iffy...

I just jumped on MusiciansFriend.com:

A brand new Behringer B210D powered 1x10" speaker runs $199.99.  A new 
RP255 is $149.99.

A brand new Fender Champ X2 runs $349.99.

A brand new Pro Jr runs $419.99

A brand new Fender Princeton Reverb runs 949.99

Those are all comparable to a digital rig with PA speaker - including 
overall sound quality.  I did shop new, but I also did take a very cheap 
powered speaker.  My personal rig, which is all pedal based, and NOT all 
digital runs at least as much as a good harp amp...and it is questionable 
how much easier it is to transport.  I still have to carry a pedal board 
and speaker.  

The benefit to the digital stuff like the RP255 is flexibility of sounds, 
but that isn't everyone's priority.  I would contend, though, that a lot of 
pedal based recordings sound just as good as amps - or at least can.  The 
big difference is in feeling air move on stage, IMO.





On Tuesday, September 10, 2013 7:55:58 AM UTC-5, Boris Plotnikov wrote:
>
> 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 <turtl...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <javascript:>> 
>
> > 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 
>