It is currently Mon Mar 16, 2020 10:58 pm

All times are UTC - 7 hours



Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 121 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 9  Next
Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 9  Next

What type amp do you take to a gig?
Non-modeling amp, Tube or SS, w/ cabinet 40%  40%  [ 12 ]
Modeling Amp w/ cabinet (Mustang and like) 27%  27%  [ 8 ]
Modeling Amp wo/ cabinet (footswitch or rack etc.) 3%  3%  [ 1 ]
Non-modeling amp w/modeling pedal(s) and FX 13%  13%  [ 4 ]
Other 17%  17%  [ 5 ]
Total votes : 30
Author Message
Post subject: Re: Modeling or non modeling for gigging.
Posted: Sat Jan 31, 2015 4:50 am
Offline
Roadie
Roadie

Joined: Sat Oct 27, 2012 12:11 am
Posts: 299
Lightnin MN wrote:

I'm sure you're aware of the growing appreciation of analog music on LPs because it has more 'Life' (for lack of a better word) than digitally mastered music.

cheers!


It's only a matter of time until we see a growing appreciation for cathode ray tube TV's over flat screens given this "vintage" love-fest fad going on. I knew that old Zenith in my garage still had some life left in it!!! :lol:

_________________
Gibson Les Paul Standard
Gibson 335
Gretsch G5420T
Fender American Strat
Martin GPCPA1 Plus Grand Performer
Fender Mustang IV v.2


Top
Profile
Fender Play Winter Sale 2020
Post subject: Re: Modeling or non modeling for gigging.
Posted: Sat Jan 31, 2015 10:51 am
Offline
Rock Star
Rock Star
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 08, 2013 8:50 pm
Posts: 4602
Location: ˚ɷ˚
dunedindragon wrote:
It's only a matter of time until we see a growing appreciation for cathode ray tube TV's over flat screens given this "vintage" love-fest fad going on. I knew that old Zenith in my garage still had some life left in it!!! :lol:


You'd be surprised to know that CRTs are still used for many types of professional work, in part because resolution changes don't cause jaggies and allows for analog zoom, and in part because of higher color correctness.
An LCD might have a bigger color gamut, but it doesn't allow for gradual adjustment, so you lose a substantial amount of in-between colors by calibrating it.
So in some parts of the medical profession and darkroom work, CRTs are still being bought and used. Not the cheap ones most people used, but high grade.
And records? Not going into the analog vs. digital debate, did you know that they are used for long-term storage and time capsules, because they don't degrade in a couple of decades, like CDs and hard drives are prone to? Heck, there are even a couple of gold records floating out of our solar system that will last for millions of years.
Dot matrix printers too are still sold and used. Not only because you can print on strike-through forms, but because they support immediate line printing instead of page printing. I run a server that has a dot matrix printer, printing out the connection information of anyone who connects through the raw device - a hacker could wipe any logs stored locally or prevent them going to other machines, or kill a print server that generates pages of text, but can't un-print a line of text on physical paper.

In general, disruptive technologies tend to be "90% solutions". I.e. they are improvements for 90% of the cases, but not the last 10%. So that some people continue to use the old technologies isn't just due to nostalgia, but sometimes use cases that most people don't think of.

And yes, there are things I can do with a tube amp and analog drive pedal that can't yet be done with solid state and/or digital solutions, including very precise control of the break-up by using the volume and tone controls on the guitar and adjusting the attack, or stand at the edge of feedback from the amp, playing the feedback like a theremin. With a solid state or PA, that quickly turns into a horrible squeal instead of a shimmer and growl.

That said, I have nothing against digital or solid state - they have their use cases, which are turning into the 90%. But they don't cover the last 10%, which we should not forget. 90% is never good enough.


Top
Profile
Post subject: Re: Modeling or non modeling for gigging.
Posted: Sat Jan 31, 2015 4:37 pm
Offline
Rock Star
Rock Star
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2009 4:50 pm
Posts: 7998
Location: ʎɹʇunoɔ ǝsoɹ pןıʍ
I used to gig in a cover band with a Line6 AX2-212 and at the time I thought it was a great tool because I could get reasonably close to virtually any tone I wanted to emulate. I stopped using it about 10 years ago when I got back into tube amps and pedals. Modelling amps can get you close to the sound you want but not all the way. Usually the deficiencies are related to tone dynamics. I find they sound like a recorded version of the sound you want. They don't jump out of the amp at you the way a real amp does. For high gain compressed tones they are a little more suitable than for vintage style clean tones. Trying to sound like James Hetfield is relatively easy with a modelling compared to getting a nice Robert Cray style spanky chime. The breathiness and dynamic response just aren't there.

_________________
Image
Just think of how awesome a guitar player you could have been by now if you had only spent the last 10 years practicing instead of obsessing over pickups and roasted maple necks.


Top
Profile
Post subject: Re: Modeling or non modeling for gigging.
Posted: Sat Feb 07, 2015 12:14 pm
Offline
Amateur
Amateur

Joined: Sat Apr 21, 2012 6:39 pm
Posts: 154
BMW-KTM wrote:
Modelling amps can get you close to the sound you want but not all the way. Usually the deficiencies are related to tone dynamics. I find they sound like a recorded version of the sound you want. They don't jump out of the amp at you the way a real amp does. For high gain compressed tones they are a little more suitable than for vintage style clean tones. Trying to sound like James Hetfield is relatively easy with a modelling compared to getting a nice Robert Cray style spanky chime. The breathiness and dynamic response just aren't there.


There is this. You can spend a lot of time getting sounds on a modelling amp, and think it sounds very close to the "original," but then you fire up the original to compare, and find out that the model sounds lifeless in comparison. But for a bar band, it may very well be "close enough."

My biggest worry in using a modeling amp live is durability. My tube amps have been grinding it out for 40-50 years, tossed around, driven hard for hours at a time, and never miss a beat. I always have a spare set of tubes in the chance that one breaks or goes bad.

With a modeling amp, the output circuit is an IC. I've had horrible luck in other devices with IC output devices frying if driven hard. How will modeling amps hold up when driven hard, in a hot sweaty club, with no circulation, under the stage lights? I don't have much confidence, and the middle of a show isn't when I want to find out.

There's also the plastic input jacks to worry about, plus the increased chance that the typically horrible AC you find in bars will give you any number of random problems.

_________________
1963 Princeton
1965 Twin Reverb
1968 Bandmaster
1970 Champ
1983 (?) Musicmaster
2012 Mustang III
West Grande (x2)
Acoustic G60-T
Marshall JTM 60


Top
Profile
Post subject: Re: Modeling or non modeling for gigging.
Posted: Sat Feb 07, 2015 1:05 pm
Offline
Aspiring Musician
Aspiring Musician
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2012 4:31 am
Posts: 582
Location: Woonsocket, R.I.
I'm one lucky SOB when it comes to gigging amps. First of all, I own a 1988 Fender Studio 85 which I refitted with a Eminence Texas Heat speaker and I also have a 1996 , Fender Roc-Pro 700 which I just got back today after having it repaired by my Bassist who did a outstanding job on it. Our drummer , has a Crate XT 120 , a Fender Deluxe 112 , and a FM 112R which we use at both practice, and for gigs, so we leave our personal amps at home. I use the FM 112R and our other guitarist uses the Deluxe 112 . The Crate is there as a backup just in case one of the amps develops any problems. For a while, I did consider getting a Mustang II or III but decided against it because, I like the pure tone from the amps we are using and really don't need the hassle involved with programing a modeling amp.


Top
Profile
Post subject: Re: Modeling or non modeling for gigging.
Posted: Sat Feb 07, 2015 2:09 pm
Offline
Roadie
Roadie

Joined: Sat Oct 27, 2012 12:11 am
Posts: 299
thompal wrote:
There is this. You can spend a lot of time getting sounds on a modelling amp, and think it sounds very close to the "original," but then you fire up the original to compare, and find out that the model sounds lifeless in comparison. But for a bar band, it may very well be "close enough."

My biggest worry in using a modeling amp live is durability. My tube amps have been grinding it out for 40-50 years, tossed around, driven hard for hours at a time, and never miss a beat. I always have a spare set of tubes in the chance that one breaks or goes bad.

With a modeling amp, the output circuit is an IC. I've had horrible luck in other devices with IC output devices frying if driven hard. How will modeling amps hold up when driven hard, in a hot sweaty club, with no circulation, under the stage lights? I don't have much confidence, and the middle of a show isn't when I want to find out.

There's also the plastic input jacks to worry about, plus the increased chance that the typically horrible AC you find in bars will give you any number of random problems.


That's odd because most people I know tend to worry about the durability of tube amps more than solid state. There certainly is a lot more heat from a tube amp and it clearly is much more fragile given the electronics and mechanical aspects of the reverb units.

In our band's case we've all gone to solid state for our gigging amps for exactly that reason. We move this equipment every week and in a number of cases over hundreds of miles in a trailer. We've had zero failures of any amp which we could never say about the tube amps. The biggest advantage has been the consistency of tone and volume every time we play which was never the case with the tube amps. This has been over a three year period so even should I have a catastrophic problem at some point, I'll gladly pay for a new one as I would have easily gotten my money's worth out of the original $400.

As far as the various tones, I've had no problem with it, and certainly our audiences haven't. I suppose someone with the ears of a bat might be able to tell the difference, but so far I've never come across any double-blind comparison test that could statistically make the case that people can consistently pick out a tube tone over the modeled tone. In a large number of cases, in fact, the modeled amp gets chosen as the tube amp.

But I realize this discussion will not likely be resolved since it really comes down to personal preferences and beliefs. Kind of like the discussion about Harley Davidson motorcyles. Other than the V-Rod (which is not considered a traditional Harley) the motorcycles don't excel over more modern designs in any functional category (performance, price, comfort). But you'll never convince any owner that anyone could ever design anything better than their 100+ year old design.

_________________
Gibson Les Paul Standard
Gibson 335
Gretsch G5420T
Fender American Strat
Martin GPCPA1 Plus Grand Performer
Fender Mustang IV v.2


Top
Profile
Post subject: Re: Modeling or non modeling for gigging.
Posted: Sat Feb 07, 2015 3:36 pm
Offline
Rock Icon
Rock Icon
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2010 12:48 am
Posts: 26417
Location: Tombstone Territory
dunedindragon wrote:
That's odd because most people I know tend to worry about the durability of tube amps more than solid state.


Allow me to provide some perspective...... :wink:

Fifty years from this very day you'll still find vintage Fender tweeds, brownfaces, blackfaces, and silverfaces available on Ebay. They'll still operate as designed and they'll be very very expensive.

On that same day you'll be hard-pressed to find even one functional solid-state Fender amp from this era on Ebay, or any of Fender's contemporary modeling amps that still work. They will have all long since been deposited in landfills due to the lack of replacement parts. The paltry few that may survive will do so only by cannibalization of other junked amps that died for various and sundry reasons.

That's the fact and everyone should draw their own conclusion.

Personally, I never bet the ranch on planned obsolescence.

Arjay

_________________
"Here's why reliability is job one: A great sounding amp that breaks down goes from being a favorite piece of gear to a useless piece of crap in less time than it takes to read this sentence." -- BRUCE ZINKY


Top
Profile
Post subject: Re: Modeling or non modeling for gigging.
Posted: Sun Feb 08, 2015 3:44 am
Offline
Roadie
Roadie

Joined: Sat Oct 27, 2012 12:11 am
Posts: 299
Retroverbial wrote:
Allow me to provide some perspective...... :wink:

Fifty years from this very day you'll still find vintage Fender tweeds, brownfaces, blackfaces, and silverfaces available on Ebay. They'll still operate as designed and they'll be very very expensive.

On that same day you'll be hard-pressed to find even one functional solid-state Fender amp from this era on Ebay, or any of Fender's contemporary modeling amps that still work. They will have all long since been deposited in landfills due to the lack of replacement parts. The paltry few that may survive will do so only by cannibalization of other junked amps that died for various and sundry reasons.

That's the fact and everyone should draw their own conclusion.

Personally, I never bet the ranch on planned obsolescence.

Arjay


It's always a bit tricky predicting the future:

"There is not the slightest indication that nuclear energy will ever be obtainable. It would mean that the atom would have to be shattered at will." – Albert Einstein, 1932

"We don't like their sound, and guitar music is on the way out." – Decca Recording Company on declining to sign the Beatles, 1962

"This 'telephone' has too many shortcomings to be seriously considered as a means of communication. The device is inherently of no value to us." – Western Union internal memo, 1876

"Reagan doesn't have that presidential look." – United Artists executive after rejecting Reagan as lead in the 1964 film The Best Man

"Rail travel at high speed is not possible because passengers, unable to breathe, would die of asphyxia." – Dr. Dionysius Lardner, 1830

"I think there is a world market for maybe five computers." – Thomas Watson, chairman of IBM, 1943

"X-rays will prove to be a hoax." – Lord Kelvin, President of the Royal Society, 1883

"Everyone acquainted with the subject will recognize it as a conspicuous failure." – -Henry Morton, president of the Stevens Institute of Technology, on Edison's light bulb, 1880

"The horse is here to stay but the automobile is only a novelty—a fad." – -The president of the Michigan Savings Bank advising Henry Ford's lawyer not to invest in the Ford Motor Co., 1903

"Television won't last because people will soon get tired of staring at a plywood box every night." – -Darryl Zanuck, movie producer, 20th Century Fox, 1946

"No one will pay good money to get from Berlin to Potsdam in one hour when he can ride his horse there in one day for free." – King William I of Prussia, on trains, 1864

"There is no reason for any individual to have a computer in his home." – -Ken Olson, president, chairman and founder of Digital Equipment Corporation (DEC), in a talk given to a 1977 World Future Society meeting in Boston

"If excessive smoking actually plays a role in the production of lung cancer, it seems to be a minor one." – -W.C. Heuper, National Cancer Institute, 1954

"The wireless music box has no imaginable commercial value. Who would pay for a message sent to no one in particular?" – -Associates of David Sarnoff responding to the latter's call for investment in the radio in 1921

"There will never be a bigger plane built." – – A Boeing engineer, after the first flight of the 247, a twin engine plane that holds ten people

"How, sir, would you make a ship sail against the wind and currents by lighting a bonfire under her deck? I pray you, excuse me, I have not the time to listen to such nonsense.” — Napoleon Bonaparte, when told of Robert Fulton’s steamboat, 1800s

“The idea that cavalry will be replaced by these iron coaches is absurd. It is little short of treasonous.” — Comment of Aide-de-camp to Field Marshal Haig, at tank demonstration, 1916

"I must confess that my imagination refuses to see any sort of submarine doing anything but suffocating its crew and floundering at sea.” — HG Wells, British novelist, in 1901

"The world potential market for copying machines is 5000 at most.” — IBM, to the eventual founders of Xerox, saying the photocopier had no market large enough to justify production, 1959

“The Americans have need of the telephone, but we do not. We have plenty of messenger boys.” — Sir William Preece, Chief Engineer, British Post Office, 1878

"It'll be gone by June." – Variety Magazine on Rock n' Roll, 1955

"And for the tourist who really wants to get away from it all, safaris in Vietnam" – -Newsweek, predicting popular holidays for the late 1960s.

“When the Paris Exhibition [of 1878] closes, electric light will close with it and no more will be heard of it.” – Oxford professor Erasmus Wilson

A rocket will never be able to leave the Earth’s atmosphere.” — New York Times, 1936

_________________
Gibson Les Paul Standard
Gibson 335
Gretsch G5420T
Fender American Strat
Martin GPCPA1 Plus Grand Performer
Fender Mustang IV v.2


Top
Profile
Post subject: Re: Modeling or non modeling for gigging.
Posted: Sun Feb 08, 2015 4:33 am
Offline
Professional Musician
Professional Musician
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 12, 2007 4:18 pm
Posts: 1921
Location: Upstate, NY
I think just about everything has been covered here. However, the previous band I was in our guitarist used a Mustang II for awhile before finally upgrading to a Blues Jr. He was astounded at the difference in dynamics and the DEPTH of sound. Even as a bassist who used to play a really nice hybrid head, I am so glad I finally went back to all tubes. So for me. In my opinion. I believe that when you're at the point where you feel you KNOW your sound, and what you want to put out there as an artist. Then the choice becomes about the quality of the sound you are putting out there. However, that's not me dissing modelling amps. He asked me if I thought he should get rid of the Mustang. I told him quite simply that the only way I could see getting rid of it was if he absolutely needed the money. Modelling amps I think are a great tool for guitarists at a bunch of different experience levels. They allow you to try any number of amp/pedal/effects combinations without investing any money. Even if you've been playing a long time and have a tube rig as your gigging rig. If you run into territory you want to experiment with. The modelling amps can give you what the solid state approximation of that set up will sound like. Then you know what adding the real tube depth and response can give you as the finishing touch. For younger guitarists or people just starting out. You've probably got dozens of classic tones you love in your head. The modelling amps give you the ability to find your way to those tones, and in the end YOUR tone before having to make the big investment into the tube amp you will use to get YOUR tone. Just my take. In the end. If you and the audience are happy with what they are getting out of a modelling amp. Then that's all that matters.

_________________
http://www.reverbnation.com/casanovafrankensteinandthevoodoomachine
https://www.facebook.com/CFandtheVM

2012 Fender Custom Shop 55 Precision Bass
2012 Fender American Vintage 57 Precision Bass RI
2014 Fender Super Bassman and Bassman 100T/410 Neo


Top
Profile
Post subject: Re: Modeling or non modeling for gigging.
Posted: Sun Feb 08, 2015 3:00 pm
Offline
Rock Star
Rock Star
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 08, 2013 8:50 pm
Posts: 4602
Location: ˚ɷ˚
Is it just me, or are the graphics for polls still horribly broken after the upgrade? On two different browsers and two different OSes, I see several pages tall gradient grey bars under each other, and I have to hunt for the actual numbers in all the scrolling. Anyone else seeing this?

And in case anyone wonders what the heck I'm babbling about, here's what the poll looks like (scaled to a quarter of its size) in Firefox in Linux and Waterfox in Windows (i.e. 64-bit Gecko based browsers):

Image


Last edited by arth1 on Sun Feb 08, 2015 3:27 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Top
Profile
Post subject: Re: Modeling or non modeling for gigging.
Posted: Sun Feb 08, 2015 3:16 pm
Offline
Aspiring Musician
Aspiring Musician
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 05, 2013 8:03 am
Posts: 575
Location: In the Land of "Stratocaster"
arth1 wrote:
Is it just me, or are the graphics for polls still horribly broken after the upgrade? On two different browsers and two different OSes, I see several pages tall gradient grey bars under each other, and I have to hunt for the actual numbers in all the scrolling. Anyone else seeing this?

I can't speak for any other browsers but... I'm using Chrome... everything on the site (including polls) displays fine...

_________________
★ ★ ★ ★ ★


Top
Profile
Post subject: Re: Modeling or non modeling for gigging.
Posted: Sun Feb 08, 2015 3:24 pm
Offline
Aspiring Musician
Aspiring Musician
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 05, 2013 8:03 am
Posts: 575
Location: In the Land of "Stratocaster"
TheKingofPain wrote:
I think just about everything has been covered here. However, the previous band I was in our guitarist used a Mustang II for awhile before finally upgrading to a Blues Jr. He was astounded at the difference in dynamics and the DEPTH of sound. Even as a bassist who used to play a really nice hybrid head, I am so glad I finally went back to all tubes. So for me. In my opinion. I believe that when you're at the point where you feel you KNOW your sound, and what you want to put out there as an artist. Then the choice becomes about the quality of the sound you are putting out there. However, that's not me dissing modelling amps. He asked me if I thought he should get rid of the Mustang. I told him quite simply that the only way I could see getting rid of it was if he absolutely needed the money. Modelling amps I think are a great tool for guitarists at a bunch of different experience levels. They allow you to try any number of amp/pedal/effects combinations without investing any money. Even if you've been playing a long time and have a tube rig as your gigging rig. If you run into territory you want to experiment with. The modelling amps can give you what the solid state approximation of that set up will sound like. Then you know what adding the real tube depth and response can give you as the finishing touch. For younger guitarists or people just starting out. You've probably got dozens of classic tones you love in your head. The modelling amps give you the ability to find your way to those tones, and in the end YOUR tone before having to make the big investment into the tube amp you will use to get YOUR tone. Just my take. In the end. If you and the audience are happy with what they are getting out of a modelling amp. Then that's all that matters.


I'm experiencing very much the opposite in regards to the "Depth" thing... I'm using an MIII amplifier... with the Celestion in it... This thing responds like a friggin Tube Amp... The "Depth" is there... granted... some of the models are not as good as others... ALL of the Fender models are like playing the real deal... and those are the one's I find myself using the most...

I've played lots of Tube Amps in the past... Actually, I've only used Tube Amps for years... The reason I went with the MIII is because it IS like playing a Tube Amp... I don't know the deal with the MII's but... if you're looking for a good modelling amp (SS amp) that's responds like a Tube Amp... has Depth and is responsive to your playing dynamics... you cant go wrong with a Mustang III or higher.. they really are that good.

_________________
★ ★ ★ ★ ★


Top
Profile
Post subject: Re: Modeling or non modeling for gigging.
Posted: Sun Feb 08, 2015 3:48 pm
Offline
Rock Icon
Rock Icon
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2010 12:48 am
Posts: 26417
Location: Tombstone Territory
And the MIII will deliver those dulcet tones for a half century or more, right?

:roll:

That'll be the day.

:lol: :lol: :lol:

Arjay

_________________
"Here's why reliability is job one: A great sounding amp that breaks down goes from being a favorite piece of gear to a useless piece of crap in less time than it takes to read this sentence." -- BRUCE ZINKY


Top
Profile
Post subject: Re: Modeling or non modeling for gigging.
Posted: Sun Feb 08, 2015 6:03 pm
Offline
Professional Musician
Professional Musician
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 12, 2007 4:18 pm
Posts: 1921
Location: Upstate, NY
Strat-Slinger wrote:
TheKingofPain wrote:
I think just about everything has been covered here. However, the previous band I was in our guitarist used a Mustang II for awhile before finally upgrading to a Blues Jr. He was astounded at the difference in dynamics and the DEPTH of sound. Even as a bassist who used to play a really nice hybrid head, I am so glad I finally went back to all tubes. So for me. In my opinion. I believe that when you're at the point where you feel you KNOW your sound, and what you want to put out there as an artist. Then the choice becomes about the quality of the sound you are putting out there. However, that's not me dissing modelling amps. He asked me if I thought he should get rid of the Mustang. I told him quite simply that the only way I could see getting rid of it was if he absolutely needed the money. Modelling amps I think are a great tool for guitarists at a bunch of different experience levels. They allow you to try any number of amp/pedal/effects combinations without investing any money. Even if you've been playing a long time and have a tube rig as your gigging rig. If you run into territory you want to experiment with. The modelling amps can give you what the solid state approximation of that set up will sound like. Then you know what adding the real tube depth and response can give you as the finishing touch. For younger guitarists or people just starting out. You've probably got dozens of classic tones you love in your head. The modelling amps give you the ability to find your way to those tones, and in the end YOUR tone before having to make the big investment into the tube amp you will use to get YOUR tone. Just my take. In the end. If you and the audience are happy with what they are getting out of a modelling amp. Then that's all that matters.


I'm experiencing very much the opposite in regards to the "Depth" thing... I'm using an MIII amplifier... with the Celestion in it... This thing responds like a friggin Tube Amp... The "Depth" is there... granted... some of the models are not as good as others... ALL of the Fender models are like playing the real deal... and those are the one's I find myself using the most...

I've played lots of Tube Amps in the past... Actually, I've only used Tube Amps for years... The reason I went with the MIII is because it IS like playing a Tube Amp... I don't know the deal with the MII's but... if you're looking for a good modelling amp (SS amp) that's responds like a Tube Amp... has Depth and is responsive to your playing dynamics... you cant go wrong with a Mustang III or higher.. they really are that good.


All I know is what I can hear on stage in the mix. In the mix the Mustang was two dimensional. The Blues Jr was not. Again. If you can't hear the difference, then it certainly isn't worth the money, headache, or limitation of playing tubes. However, I know I can not only HEAR the difference, but as a bassist I can FEEL the difference in the mix. The same can be said on the bass end. A good hybrid sounds KILLER. Until it's followed by a band whose bassist is using a full tube rig. Now, if that difference doesn't matter. Then by all means. Don't do it, and stick with the Mustangs. Their versatility is definitely a HUGE bonus and makes them indispensable as a tool as I said above. More importantly. If you're playing to crowds who could care less, or playing music where it's not important (like high distortion metal or hard rock) then it certainly doesn't make much sense to bother.

_________________
http://www.reverbnation.com/casanovafrankensteinandthevoodoomachine
https://www.facebook.com/CFandtheVM

2012 Fender Custom Shop 55 Precision Bass
2012 Fender American Vintage 57 Precision Bass RI
2014 Fender Super Bassman and Bassman 100T/410 Neo


Top
Profile
Post subject: Re: Modeling or non modeling for gigging.
Posted: Sun Feb 08, 2015 6:05 pm
Offline
Professional Musician
Professional Musician
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 12, 2007 4:18 pm
Posts: 1921
Location: Upstate, NY
arth1 wrote:
Is it just me, or are the graphics for polls still horribly broken after the upgrade? On two different browsers and two different OSes, I see several pages tall gradient grey bars under each other, and I have to hunt for the actual numbers in all the scrolling. Anyone else seeing this?

And in case anyone wonders what the heck I'm babbling about, here's what the poll looks like (scaled to a quarter of its size) in Firefox in Linux and Waterfox in Windows (i.e. 64-bit Gecko based browsers):

Image



I'm in the same boat.

_________________
http://www.reverbnation.com/casanovafrankensteinandthevoodoomachine
https://www.facebook.com/CFandtheVM

2012 Fender Custom Shop 55 Precision Bass
2012 Fender American Vintage 57 Precision Bass RI
2014 Fender Super Bassman and Bassman 100T/410 Neo


Top
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 121 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 9  Next
Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 9  Next

All times are UTC - 7 hours

Fender Play Winter Sale 2020

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Solid Body Love Songs and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to: