From: someone@anywheret.net   
      
   "JimD"  wrote in message news:2018091221272743614-email@nowherecom...   
      
   > Fender could and has.  None really caught on.   And none could have.   
      
   I've seen it, and not making it with the same dimensions as the Twin sure   
   didn't help, because  while the  tube Twin is low to the ground, the solid   
   state 'version' is tall.   
      
   > See, it's not the " sound " that matters with people who'd buy those, it's   
   > the ...  um, what's the right word here ... the mystique.  Yeah, that's   
   > it, the mystique.  Some imagined " tube " sound that just can't be had   
   > with any other possible configuration of the amp. Sure, you could have   
   > some other magic tube sound from some other junky old amp, but that   
   > wouldn't be the same .. because ... it just wouldn't.   
      
   If Fender isn't up to it, maybe Behringer should take a crack at it...and   
   it'd sure cost a Lot less too!   
      
   > People who buy into that magic tube sound nonsense can't be reasoned with.   
   > They don't think.  They don't even use their ears.  They care only for one   
   > thing ... the fantasy perfection of the thing.  It's an idol to them. A   
   > golden calf that can't ever be improved.   
      
   Tubes are great when the objective is to deliberately overdrive them and   
   rich even harmonics are desired...but when the objective is efficiency, high   
   power, light weight, and ultra clean sound, NOTHING beats solid state!!!   
      
   Vacuum tube preamps and effects can always be used ahead of a solid state   
   amp!   
      
   > Make a solid state version ..... like hell you will :-)   
      
   I'd Love it!   
      
   > Thro in unreliable, and with inconsistant sound, and in almost constant   
   > need of maintance ......w and we have agreement.   
      
   My only experience with regularly using a tube power amp was the Crown amp   
   we used in our main console when I worked with loudspeakers - it worked   
   great every day and I don't recall it ever needing service, although we did   
   keep it 'tuned', but then that was just a part of calibrating the equipment,   
   which we did all the time anyway. Still, it was heavy and hot, with those   
   two big 6L6 tubes and two monster transformers...but fortunately, we didn't   
   move it around ;)   
      
   Still, solid state is SOOOOOOO much nicer!   
      
   But then, we were about sound REproduction, which requires Cleanness whereas   
   sound production is another matter and cleanness is not required.   
      
   > I can't hear any difference between my old Pod XT's simulations and the   
   > real effects of the same thing that I own.  And that's all it takes to   
   > convince me.  Don't even bother trying to tell you can hear a difference,   
   > because, even if you can, I can't, and so that's that.  If I can't hear a   
   > difference, I'm not dragging one of those old boat anchors around.   
      
   "A-B ing" things is always interesting...I used to do it all the time.   
      
   > I have about 6 ( again 6 ?  )  MXR DynaComps.  Old " script " ones worth a   
   > fortune on the collectors market, up to block letter with no LED, to block   
   > letters WITH the led.  They all sound different.  They should, they have   
   > different components in them.  So which would you compare the LINE6   
   > simulation too ?   Line6 talks about that in their manuals.   
      
   Line6 is pretty good about that, particularly if they specify it on the   
   switch settings.   
      
   > What Line 6 does is go out, buy one or so of whatever old unit they are   
   > simulating, model that, and call it a day.   
      
   I think they do a pretty good job of that.   
      
   > Now, you may not like the technology they use to model it.   
      
   I like the results and that's what counts.   
      
   > Ok. Maybe that isn't " perfect " either, but imperfect modeling of   
   > imperfect, inconsistant sound effects ... who cares. Not me.  Their " red   
   > compressor " model sounds enough like a real DynaComp to suit me.   
      
   They definitely put it in the proverbial "ballpark".   
      
   > The SM58 has a narrow, tailored response BY DESIGN.  It was made as a   
   > stage mic.  Not a studio mic.  The design criteria aren't the same.   
   > Sure, you could find fault with the 58 as a studio mic.  By the same   
   > token, using a real studio mic onstage will nearly always be a sonic   
   > disaster.   
      
   I'd be looking for something in a super cardioid 'condenser' mic...kind of   
   in between the extremes ;)   
      
   > Different tools for different jobs.   
      
      
   JimD   
      
   I've read enough reports on mics more suitable for specific voices and that   
   the SM58 is so popular because it's more of a one-size-fits-all design,   
   which does tend to make it a bit lackluster...or as the old saying goes:   
   jack of all trades, master of none.   
      
   Ouisie   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)