It is currently Mon Mar 16, 2020 8:41 am

All times are UTC - 7 hours



Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 38 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
Author Message
Post subject:
Posted: Sat Sep 25, 2010 8:35 pm
Offline
Amateur
Amateur

Joined: Sat Sep 18, 2010 2:39 pm
Posts: 155
Musicmaster2 wrote:
Not Fender's style to re-brand shovelware. They must have developed their own guitar-friendly DAW similar to Guitar Tracks.

Re the $200 difference: My Mustang II sounded like cold, digital crap with my RGX A2 (w/hot alnicos but very bright). But awesome through my Aslin-Dane 330 clone (warm, phat HBs).

So now I'm back more convinced that the Mustang engine is the same as the G-DEC 3's. Which is to say: excellent.

But Fender never answers me about this.

They did manage to rebrand pieces of wood with strings attacked :)
I always thought shovelware was 20000 Roland sounds on a CD :?
With the economy on the brink, Mustangs are going to be the last great hope (read affordable) for some. If 5 thousand Mustangs sell in the short run, there
will be lots and lots of questions. Quoting Danny Devito from 'The Rainmaker',
gazzZZZILLLions! :shock:
Cheers


Top
Profile
Fender Play Winter Sale 2020
Post subject:
Posted: Mon Sep 27, 2010 11:40 am
Offline
Aspiring Musician
Aspiring Musician

Joined: Sun May 09, 2010 6:41 pm
Posts: 621
Re-badging is the correct term, which Fender doesn't do. They just leave the 3rd-party app's brand right on it, the honest thing to do.


Top
Profile
Post subject:
Posted: Mon Sep 27, 2010 2:12 pm
Offline
Amateur
Amateur

Joined: Sat Sep 18, 2010 2:39 pm
Posts: 155
There is nothing inherantly dishonest with one business buying another,
and using the new assets under any name they choose. And most sizable business transactions of that nature are publicly announced, with nothing to hide, and press coverage to be gained. Choosing to retain names of purchased assets is a business, not a moral decision. It can also be part of a business purchase contract, again, business dealings, not moral high ground.
Cheers


Top
Profile
Post subject:
Posted: Mon Sep 27, 2010 5:02 pm
Offline
Aspiring Musician
Aspiring Musician

Joined: Sun May 09, 2010 6:41 pm
Posts: 621
Couldn't disagree more. Tell the customer what it is, don't just slap your name on somebody else's possibly old app and pretend it's yours and brand new. Far too many companies do that.

Kudos to Fender for bundling 3rd-party software, and telling us exactly what it is and who made it. Anything else invites moral hazard.


Top
Profile
Post subject:
Posted: Mon Sep 27, 2010 6:52 pm
Offline
Amateur
Amateur

Joined: Sat Sep 18, 2010 2:39 pm
Posts: 155
Way back when I mentioned as an example, Fender buying a now possibly abandware DAW (Traction) that once was very popular and productive, and FIXING the bugs, giving it new life. Nothing shady about doing that, and possibly quite cost effective for someone entering the crowded DAW market.
I never hinted that such a deal be clandestine, it would be absurd, DAW users
would know in minutes if not seconds what took place, nothing possibly could be gained by such futile nonsense. On the other hand, Traction owners now in the lurch, would be delighted if a reputable company purchased it from Mackie, and FIXED the bugs, publicly moving ahead with developement.

"Kudos to Fender for bundling 3rd-party software" of course,

but what business owner is stupid enough to fraudulently bundle any 3rd party software, when software reveals what it is the very first time it is deployed?

If a company sells out, the assets honourably belong to the new owner.
Whether veiled in secrecy, or announced on national news, its business,
and the details are hashed out in the contract ahead of time.
Cheers


Top
Profile
Post subject:
Posted: Tue Sep 28, 2010 2:44 pm
Offline
Aspiring Musician
Aspiring Musician

Joined: Sun May 09, 2010 6:41 pm
Posts: 621
It can be highly misleading to the consumer to rebrand an existing product, or even carry over a brand under completely different auspices and circumstances. The consumer thinks it's buying something new, and is enjoined from properly evaluating a product that if they had known what it really was they could have scoped it out properly.

VHT is not the same company it was, major personnel changes. Most would buy on the old rep, not being aware of the radical alteration. And that's a non-informed consumer buying into something different from what the brand has always sold.

All too often companies are bought out and the brand is maintained, but under extreme duress. Loud Technologies now owns Mackie, Crate, and several other previously established brands. Things are not the same at all, but few realize this.

Sure it's "legal". So were all the credit default swaps and re-branding of the toxic sub-prime assets that costs so many their life savings.

There's legal. Then there's ethical and being fair and honest with the consumer.

Fender has a terrific record in this regard, and it appears to be maintained now. I'm sure if they picked up Tracktion they'd be totally transparent about it. And would never cut users off at the knees like Loud/Mackie did. But that's Loud Technologies for ya. Nuf said.


Top
Profile
Post subject:
Posted: Tue Sep 28, 2010 3:13 pm
Offline
Amateur
Amateur

Joined: Sat Sep 18, 2010 2:39 pm
Posts: 155
Well said! And the real estate shenanagins are still going on :evil:
Bail out the big players, tap the small players on the wrist, why would they
bother to change their ways!

Cheers :)


Top
Profile
Post subject:
Posted: Wed Sep 29, 2010 1:22 am
Offline
Aspiring Musician
Aspiring Musician

Joined: Sun May 09, 2010 6:41 pm
Posts: 621
Yeah, not much has changed from a few years ago. And it was feeling like Fender was going over to the dark side when they suddenly raised prices significantly across the board a couple years back.

But they wised up and lowered them again, then brought the wildly popular XD series for very little cash, and now the almost embarrassingly inexpensive but excellent Mustangs.

Fender went to school on the G-DEC series, learned to go USB, not midi, learned from L6 to support deeply: editing software, recording software, quality jamtrax, star presets, direct record, etc.

The Mustang wouldn't be the coolness it is without the G-DEC series being the test mule for the concept.

You can even buy the Mustang II for around $175 some places, free shipping, no tax. And you don't even need a gun to pull it off.


Top
Profile
Post subject:
Posted: Wed Sep 29, 2010 10:19 am
Offline
Amateur
Amateur

Joined: Sat Sep 18, 2010 2:39 pm
Posts: 155
I used a couple spectral analyzers last night to compare the Mustang
headphone output to a hardware rack fx line-out, kept the volume close to -24 db, and I couldn't see or hear a conclusive difference on similar wild and clean patches. Once the arbitrary stomp/rack placement limitations in FUSE are removed, (and the gui streamlined, installer quirks removed, full soundbank loading implemented etc) I think it will be better than high-end VSTs for traditional guitarists needing sounds. The cost of a soundcard and DAW easily buys a Mustang 2, if one had to choose, or a pair of Mustang1s if you broke your headphones :wink:
Cheers


Top
Profile
Post subject:
Posted: Wed Sep 29, 2010 10:34 am
Offline
Aspiring Musician
Aspiring Musician

Joined: Sun May 09, 2010 6:41 pm
Posts: 621
I'd have to agree. Not a big fan of plug-in modeling and EFX anyways. If you think in strictly computer terms, your $175 has just bought you external custom DSP-based modeling and EFX processing and all the software to run it along with a low-latency ASIO USB interface. Thus saving valuable CPU cycles for the rest of your DAW's operations.

Oh, and there's a free 2-channel/multi-presets 40-watt amp with a good 12" speaker and built-in tuner thrown in for free. In case it might come in handy for something.


Top
Profile
Post subject:
Posted: Wed Oct 06, 2010 10:25 am
Offline
Professional Musician
Professional Musician

Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2008 6:28 pm
Posts: 1956
Musicmaster2 wrote:
So what are the hardware (DSP) and software (Cyber Engine II) differences? Or are they exactly the same core elements apart from the specific emulated amps?


I hope I'm wrong but this is Fender intelectual property... I doubt that they would ever release that kind of info.


Top
Profile
Post subject:
Posted: Fri Oct 08, 2010 4:15 pm
Offline
Aspiring Musician
Aspiring Musician

Joined: Sun May 09, 2010 6:41 pm
Posts: 621
Got an email from a Fender rep who said yes, they basically use the same modeling tech.


Top
Profile
Post subject:
Posted: Sat Oct 09, 2010 4:39 am
Offline
Amateur
Amateur

Joined: Fri Oct 01, 2010 7:43 pm
Posts: 191
What does the G-DEC have that the Mustang doesn't?

I'm unsure if maybe I should get a G-Dec for the higher quality components(presumably) and extra features.


Top
Profile
Post subject:
Posted: Sat Oct 09, 2010 12:38 pm
Offline
Amateur
Amateur

Joined: Sat Sep 18, 2010 2:39 pm
Posts: 155
Electric Mistress wrote:
What does the G-DEC have that the Mustang doesn't?

I'm unsure if maybe I should get a G-Dec for the higher quality components(presumably) and extra features.

Hi, based on reading and not usage, the gdec appears to be more
self contained, using memory cards for extra storage, with access to
more created preset sounds than than a Mustang. So a cover band
guitarist might need this. The line-out is handy for live PA connections.

Someone spending most of their amp time with a computer involved,
may not need the extra gdec features as much, and find enough control
and creative usage with a Mustang.

If you hate fiddly things, and love simplicity, the Mustang and Fuse
combo may be better, but if you're not phased by led menus, and
anticipate building a preset library in the hundreds, and using it
for performing, a gdec may be needed.
Cheers


Top
Profile
Post subject:
Posted: Sat Oct 09, 2010 8:30 pm
Offline
Hobbyist
Hobbyist

Joined: Thu Sep 23, 2010 5:33 am
Posts: 55
First off... I have a GDEC3 and love it!

As for the differences:

GDEC3 has -

LCD screen for tweaking presets that means any option can be changed on the amp itself.
Built in looper. Great way to record riffs and then save them to the SD.
Built in band tracks.
More amp models and effects than the Mustang (even with Fuse software).
Build in SD card slot for storing backing tracks, recorded riffs and presets.
More presets on the Amp (100, but effectively unlimited with SD card).
Presets matched to band tracks.

Mustang has -

More watts than the comparable GDEC3 (15 vs 20 and 30 vs 40).
Gain bass and treble control making it much easier to tweak presets.
Likewise mod and delay/reverb effects have there own knobs.
Not all amp and preset options can be changed on the amp.
Limited to 26 presets on the Amp at one time.
Can use band tracks via Aux in (Note the band tracks from the GDEC3 can be downloaded from the fuse site!)
HALF THE PRICE of the comparable GDEC3.


So there are good things about both amps.

I think the Mustang would probably be the way to go if I didn't already have a GDEC3. Its cheaper and the knobs make it much easier to tweak. However while the mustang can easily play band tracks from a ipod etc, the built in ones on the GDEC are nicely match to a preset for that track. This is great way to experience styles that you may not play often.


Top
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 38 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

All times are UTC - 7 hours

Fender Play Winter Sale 2020

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] 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: