The eMailer's question was, why would I spend $300 (or whatever) on some kits, when I can buy a $400.00 amp that has tons of effects and even lots of different amp models.
First of all, let me say that I'm not an "Analog Snob" and I don't think I have a unbalanced bias against digital effects, as many might be thinking that I would have. I have lots of good digital gear and I even use some of it from time to time ;-) Anyway here was my answer to the question (slightly edited):
It depends on who you are and what you like - in sound and in touch and feel. The amp modeling and digital multi-effects units are great, but some players feel like there is something missing when they play them. I don't know how to explain this in words, but I do think that there are times when there is something missing in some of the digital sounds. A good player can actually "play" an analog effect, there's a certain knack for getting a great sound out of it. But a digital effect usually plays itself.
It hit me as I wrote that last line..."That's it!" There really is a way to "play" an analog effect, but a lot of digital effects don't have that playability. I'd love to hear your comments. Maybe I'm missing some of the finer points of the digital effects.
I want to close by saying that I didn't post this blog to try to sell kits. Analog, digital, who really cares, it's 99.9% player and 0.1% gear isn't it? In the long run it's the music that counts. I just want to put it out there and see what you think about analog. Bob Moog had some interesting things to say about analog sound in the DVD movie "Moog"
http://www.moogmusic.com/detail.php?main_product_id=205
Check it out if you haven't seen it. It got a lot of bad reviews, but I liked it, it was all live footage(not a narrator overdubbing the course of events showing photos) so a lot of Bob telling and sharing stories. The short segments with Keith Emerson and Rick Wakeman (two of my musical favorites when I wa s a teen) were icing on the cake for me!
20 comments:
I try to be open to new things, I will say that when digital recordings first started coming out I pretty much hated what I was hearing. They've gotten better. I do find it interesting that we're using tube technology from 50 or 60 years ago to make some of our digital stuff sound better. I'm thinking of building a tube buffer to drive my effects chain.
Snub me if you want, I decided to try a Variax guitar and have been pretty happy with what I'm hearing. For the money I think it's a miracle of modern technology. I guess my ears are the ultimate test on these things. I do run the Variax through analog pedals that I've built off of this site, and then into a tube amp I built. I use a digital delay/reverb in the effects loop of the amp.
Long story short, I guess I'm kinda happy with a mixture of both worlds. (I STILL HATE TO HEAR DIGITAL DRUMS LIVE OR RECORDED !)
Ted
great topic!
for the past ten years my main amp has been an ac-15. at one point i owned a line 6 flextone two. i dialed in the ac-15 patch and a/b'd the two amps. same exact sound with almost the same exact response. although i dislike referring to line 6 products as 'digital,' they are...and they're darn good. i traded the flextone [to help out a friend] for a line 6 dl-4. i had the privilege to a/b a lot of the original delay effect [units] and they sounded almost dead on...good effects for live playing and most recorded playing.
with all that said, [by the way, i am not a vintage-guy] no digital patch will sound like an original early 60's strat through an original ts-808 into an original '59 tweed 4x10 bassman. i was lucky to be at guitar center on the right day; when a manager friend pulled me aside and said i had to check it out!
i think that with all the technology we have these days, we should take full advantage of the tools that are being manufactured and use the best of both worlds. try running an ts-808 through the line 6 dl-4. i know a guy [that is a professional producer/guitarist] who runs an original ts-808 intro a rack of digital delay units and into two '50's tweed champs [in stereo]. what a lush sound!
mix and match the best of both worlds!
my motto has also been: 'there are no bad sounds if the sound is used in the right context.'
lastly, don't buy too much gear. find what works, and stick to it. hungry people need to eat.
I think part of the problem that this argument springs from is that digital gear has been hamstringed from much of its potential by being stuck in the role of modeling retro analog gear. I don't see many modeling amps out there with a dozen original patches; it's mostly patches for classic amps like Vox, Marshall, etc. It's not really fighting on even ground. Such are the demands of the market I suppose.
Given that perspective, digital is really doing a great job competing. I have a digital echo box, a Line 6 Echo Park, which has modeled settings for tape, analog, or digital delay. Somewhat ironically, I prefer the warmth of the tape and analog settings over the "pure" digital one. Digital has gotten to the point where it can even model the analog vs. digital argument to my satisfaction.
mattbot,
Ha! I've been thinking along these lines since the early 1980's when, for the first time, low cost digital keyboards started hitting the market. Here's this incredibly versatile digital gear (synths), and everyone is just using the factory preset patches. To be fair, maybe because it's also fairly complicated to design an original digital synth patch that sounds good. My wife and I were in a store the other night and some pop-type music was playing, most of which I had never heard before. I could tell my wife the time-frame a song was recorded, just by recognizing some of the digital synth patches they were using.
So now we have all this incredible digital guitar effect gear that can only emulate a bunch of analog gear. It is a very sad fact that the market defines such a limited palette from a technology with such wide open possibilities.
About Digital Processors Trying to Emulate Analog Distortion (applies to all kinds of overdrives, distortions, fuzzes, compressors and wah-wah, less for echos and delays)
I have to do it, almost don't have the time, but for the sake of the guitar, i have to tell you all the truth friends... Digital vs Analog is not a question, is a tragedy... It is a tragedy that this question exists at all.
I have lost YEARS of the best moments in my life wasting my time with digital processors. I'll be honest, quite interesting experience, but almost never reached that kind of "nectar" (if you forgive me for using these kind of terms) that is inside of us and that all of us wants to savour each time when we grab the guitar, especially if we want to let go ourselves to play crazy solos that only we understand...
Milliseconds, they say, almost nobody can notice, right! I could not notice, but I could FEEL it, destroying my ride, destroying one of the most precious things I've discovered, the letting go of oneself on the guitar.
Sorry for giving you a personal view rather than a slideshow of the facts, but I'm not a scientist and I've wasted too much time by now playing with signal processors.
DON'T WAST YOURS... Buy a Marshall, buy some analog pedals, buy whatever you want, don't buy digital processors, don't kill the guitar.
Digital processors are good for making some weird things, "planned music", they are OK for experimenting and giving some strange edge to what you're doing but NEVER REPLACE your analog pedals or heads or preamps with a no-matter-how-shiny digital processor board.
Dom
One aspect of this that never seems to get addressed is manipulation of settings. I've gone from pedals to Line6 Pod and back to pedals (this time ones I built, either ggg kits or lately from scratch). Analog certainly has an advantage in tone but to me the real advantage is in the tweaking.
It is much easier to experiment and dial in different settings when everything is a pot rather than a digital counter accessible through a menu or worse via your computer's USB port. This is why I pretty much bring out every trimpot and resister I might want variable into an external pot (I will concede this was a really bad idea with the bias trimpot on the Deluxe Electric Mistress Flanger pcb). I'd rather have a pedal with half a dozen knobs I can manipulate to blend settings over a tiny lcd screen and "up/down" cursor keys.
What gets me is that this COULD be done on digital pedals, but nobody ever does it seems.
I've been playing since 1976, mostly bass. I'm a stickler for tone. The last year I've been using a Line 6 Variax 5 string bass. The things I discern compared to "analog basses" about the digital models aren't actually the digital part, but the artifacts of the piezo pickups. There is a "puh" quality to the attack of many notes, particularily when playing with fingers. I didn't like this aspect initially, but have come to appreciate it.
I've got digital amps. I've a Behringer that I can match nearly exactly to my Mesa Dual Rectifier.
Anyone who has ever heard a Stevie Ray Vaughn CD has heard a digital reproduction of a tube amp.
Digital is just another tool. This is all just entertainment and all the guitars, amps and effects are just our toys and playthings, and for some tools for work while providing entertainment for others.
For me, the huge difference is replication vs. playing. With replication, something may sound like the real thing, but it will never play like the real thing if it isn't the real thing. It's a question of mimicking or being real. As a musician, it may make all the difference between being a mere replicator or a creatice force.
A digital piano may sound close to a real piano. What one hears may even be virtually indistinguishable from a real piano as long as it is played in a certain way. But whoever is playing it will never really feel he/she is playing a real piano. Even sound waves being reproduced by a series of surround speakers will still never match the multitude of vibrations and sensations one would get from touching vibraiting keys, sitting in front of real resonating wooden sound boards, real strings, real frames. A real piano will always be harmonically richer than a digital piano.
By the same token, at first notes, a vari-ax may fool a listener into believing he is hearing a Telecaster or a 335. But listen carefully, and certain of the natural wood sounds generated by genuine interaction of soundwaves with live instruments in real settings will be always be missing. And the player will certainly not feel the instrument, the vibrations against his/her body, the unique response of the fretboard and wood that comes with each instrument design.
All CDs do are replicate what SRV felt, what he was immersed in. I seriously doubt he would have played like he did if he was using a POD with headphones. He played the way he did because he felt the full force and potential of his instrument (I define instrument as a combi of guitar, pedals, amps, speakers, etc.) and became one with it, with the sound he was experiencing.
Bottom line for me, when we feel differently, we play differently. Music isn't a one-way street where our brain tells our fingers what to play and out comes the music. It's also bio-feedback. When we experience sound in its completeness, it affects our fingerwork, and our playing is more wholesome. We can always develop ways to work around the limited feel of digital replications and simulations, but the micro-seconds of delay in response, the artifical sustains, the lack of richness, etc, will always influence us and limit our interaction with the instrument and real sound environment.
The vintage sounds so many of us guitarists like are created by signals and soundwaves which compress and clip in certain ways due to a multitiude of factors from tubes to alnico speakers. When you play through such analog set ups, you experience the music very differently than through say a POD plugged into a solid-state amp. IMO, digital technology cannot possibly match the intricacies of genuine instruments point for point, and there IS a difference.
I've tried everything from racks to pedals, analog to digital, solid state to tube, etc. in search of good tone. I have been playing for 35 years as a professional, in a variety of genres: Funk, Fusion, Blues, Jazz, Rock, Country, Bluegrass, African, Kurdish Folk, Algerian Raï, etc. My conclusion is that digital technlogy has its limitations, and therefore limits my creativity. When I play thru my ideal of analog equip, I "sing" a lot more. When I go digital, I unconsciously compensate for lack of decent-sounding sustain by playing more notes less musically.
Having said all that, for the record:
In my home studio play thru my ideal analog set up. But I'm a sucker for technology and reducing the amount of things I have to lug around. For that reason, I've compromised. On gigs, I've taken to using a POD, but always with a tube amp.
/Zak
www.zakkeith.com
For me, the huge difference is replication vs. playing. With replication, something may sound like the real thing, but it will never play like the real thing if it isn't the real thing. It's a question of mimicking or being real. As a musician, it may make all the difference between being a mere replicator or a creatice force.
A digital piano may sound close to a real piano. What one hears may even be virtually indistinguishable from a real piano as long as it is played in a certain way. But whoever is playing it will never really feel he/she is playing a real piano. Even sound waves being reproduced by a series of surround speakers will still never match the multitude of vibrations and sensations one would get from touching vibraiting keys, sitting in front of real resonating wooden sound boards, real strings, real frames. A real piano will always be harmonically richer than a digital piano.
By the same token, at first notes, a vari-ax may fool a listener into believing he is hearing a Telecaster or a 335. But listen carefully, and certain of the natural wood sounds generated by genuine interaction of soundwaves with live instruments in real settings will be always be missing. And the player will certainly not feel the instrument, the vibrations against his/her body, the unique response of the fretboard and wood that comes with each instrument design.
All CDs do are replicate what SRV felt, what he was immersed in. I seriously doubt he would have played like he did if he was using a POD with headphones. He played the way he did because he felt the full force and potential of his instrument (I define instrument as a combi of guitar, pedals, amps, speakers, etc.) and became one with it, with the sound he was experiencing.
Bottom line for me, when we feel differently, we play differently. Music isn't a one-way street where our brain tells our fingers what to play and out comes the music. It's also bio-feedback. When we experience sound in its completeness, it affects our fingerwork, and our playing is more wholesome. We can always develop ways to work around the limited feel of digital replications and simulations, but the micro-seconds of delay in response, the artifical sustains, the lack of richness, etc, will always influence us and limit our interaction with the instrument and real sound environment.
The vintage sounds so many of us guitarists like are created by signals and soundwaves which compress and clip in certain ways due to a multitiude of factors from tubes to alnico speakers. When you play through such analog set ups, you experience the music very differently than through say a POD plugged into a solid-state amp. IMO, digital technology cannot possibly match the intricacies of genuine instruments point for point, and there IS a difference.
I've tried everything from racks to pedals, analog to digital, solid state to tube, etc. in search of good tone. I have been playing for 35 years as a professional, in a variety of genres: Funk, Fusion, Blues, Jazz, Rock, Country, Bluegrass, African, Kurdish Folk, Algerian Raï, etc. My conclusion is that digital technlogy has its limitations, and therefore limits my creativity. When I play thru my ideal of analog equip, I "sing" a lot more. When I go digital, I unconsciously compensate for lack of decent-sounding sustain by playing more notes less musically.
Having said all that, for the record:
In my home studio play thru my ideal analog set up. But I'm a sucker for technology and reducing the amount of things I have to lug around. For that reason, I've compromised. On gigs, I've taken to using a POD, but always with a tube amp.
/Zak
www.zakkeith.com
For me, the huge difference is replication vs. playing. With replication, something may sound like the real thing, but it will never play like the real thing if it isn't the real thing. It's a question of mimicking or being real. As a musician, it may make all the difference between being a mere replicator or a creatice force.
A digital piano may sound close to a real piano. What one hears may even be virtually indistinguishable from a real piano as long as it is played in a certain way. But whoever is playing it will never really feel he/she is playing a real piano. Even sound waves being reproduced by a series of surround speakers will still never match the multitude of vibrations and sensations one would get from touching vibraiting keys, sitting in front of real resonating wooden sound boards, real strings, real frames. A real piano will always be harmonically richer than a digital piano.
By the same token, at first notes, a vari-ax may fool a listener into believing he is hearing a Telecaster or a 335. But listen carefully, and certain of the natural wood sounds generated by genuine interaction of soundwaves with live instruments in real settings will be always be missing. And the player will certainly not feel the instrument, the vibrations against his/her body, the unique response of the fretboard and wood that comes with each instrument design.
All CDs do are replicate what SRV felt, what he was immersed in. I seriously doubt he would have played like he did if he was using a POD with headphones. He played the way he did because he felt the full force and potential of his instrument (I define instrument as a combi of guitar, pedals, amps, speakers, etc.) and became one with it, with the sound he was experiencing.
Bottom line for me, when we feel differently, we play differently. Music isn't a one-way street where our brain tells our fingers what to play and out comes the music. It's also bio-feedback. When we experience sound in its completeness, it affects our fingerwork, and our playing is more wholesome. We can always develop ways to work around the limited feel of digital replications and simulations, but the micro-seconds of delay in response, the artifical sustains, the lack of richness, etc, will always influence us and limit our interaction with the instrument and real sound environment.
The vintage sounds so many of us guitarists like are created by signals and soundwaves which compress and clip in certain ways due to a multitiude of factors from tubes to alnico speakers. When you play through such analog set ups, you experience the music very differently than through say a POD plugged into a solid-state amp. IMO, digital technology cannot possibly match the intricacies of genuine instruments point for point, and there IS a difference.
I've tried everything from racks to pedals, analog to digital, solid state to tube, etc. in search of good tone. I have been playing for 35 years as a professional, in a variety of genres: Funk, Fusion, Blues, Jazz, Rock, Country, Bluegrass, African, Kurdish Folk, Algerian Raï, etc. My conclusion is that digital technlogy has its limitations, and therefore limits my creativity. When I play thru my ideal of analog equip, I "sing" a lot more. When I go digital, I unconsciously compensate for lack of decent-sounding sustain by playing more notes less musically.
Having said all that, for the record:
In my home studio play thru my ideal analog set up. But I'm a sucker for technology and reducing the amount of things I have to lug around. For that reason, I've compromised. On gigs, I've taken to using a POD, but always with a tube amp.
/Zak
www.zakkeith.com
I switched to a Line 6 Variax 5 string bass after 40+ years of playing good to excellent basses. I'm a stickler for tone and intimately understand the "feel" of an instrument and amp. I use a very high fidelity SS rig but have used vintage SVT's, combinations of SS and tube during my biamp days, as well as SS, digital and tube preamps and power amps.
The difference between my analog basses and the Variax have to do with the piezo artifacts and no limitation of fundamentals on lower notes (compared to magnetic pickups that generally DON'T reproduce the fundamentals of the low E and below.)
The type and age of string comes through as does palm muting, dynamics etc.
The ADVANTAGES such as reproduced fundamentals, string to string evenness, and immense variety certainly offset any "advantages" a standard, analog bass have. (I can't think of one at the moment.) There ARE differences but the digital bass trumps the real deals. (and I own or have owned many of the real deals.)
You make many good comments but let me tell you, I PLAY my instrument, and the notes and tones produced are not "replications" but the very notes and tones I play.
Digital pianos do not have the sympathetic vibrations of surrounding strings, but some newer ones do a good "replication."
I might say that the LACK of the sympathetic vibrations is desirable in a group or recording situation. The digital piano may offer a "perfected" piano tone, and one may look at many of the nuances of a real piano as negatives, not positive aspects.
We had an expensive grand at church that I tuned and maintained. It was a complete pain and required monthly tuning (northern Wisconsin weather changes), and the also rather expensive Roland digital we bought to get around the problems with the real piano was a BIG step up. Professional players who played there often would choose the digital after comparing the two.
Tuning was just one problem. Due to the acoustics of the room, the piano was acoustically too loud in front and couldn't be heard in back. Miking picked up the pedal noises, other instruments and although could be heard in back, became too loud in front. The low string tone was inconsistant with the middle and upper string tones.
The digital sidestepped all these problems.
I love tubes, but I'm not adverse to advances in technology.
I've worked on pianos and tuned pianos for years. At my last church, we had a beautiful, very expensive grand piano.
I hated the thing. Mic'ing was a bear as it would pick up the pedal noises, the damper mechanism. I realize that sympathetic vibrations of the strings not being played added to the complexity of the tone...something that digital pianos didn't have. Plus this particular piano needed tuning every month...a factor of changing weather and humidity in northern Wisconsin. (We did use a humidifier on the piano.)
We also had a $4k Roland weighted keyboard. I'm here to tell you that the digital was superior to the grand in every way except appearance. Tone, feel, etc. No variation in the tone from one end of the keyboard to the other, no false harmonics, no hammer noise and even the absence of sympathetic vibrations made the tone clearer, more precise and easier to listen to.
Plus the versatility and lack of tuning needed made use of it over the grand a no-brainer.
I play bass mainly. I have three Precision basses, two alder, one basswood. The P model in the Line 6 sounds and feels better than any of the three P basses I have.
No missing fundamentals of the low strings, no string to string changes in tone, far more versatility in tone, but still the P bass tone.
The 3 P basses I have all sound different from each other, due to pickup and wood differences, bridges, tuners, etc. But again, there is nothing about the P basses that make me want to choose them over the Line 6.
I have a lot of vintage equipment, and I love it all. But in the end, I'll use whatever gets the tone I'm looking for. I've been a nut for versatility since the mid 70's, and have modded guitars and basses since then, to get what I was looking for.
I'm a new guitar player, long time listener FWIW.
I play a classical and a 2007 American Standard strat. Started out with a Line 6 spider 3fx amp and it is ok. Next got a SS Marshall Master Reverb 30. It sounds good to my ears and plays better. Then I got a cheap 5W Valve junior copy from thomann.de
The valve amp is a revelation, it feels as if the sound comes straight from my guitar and fingers. Just like the classical it is immediate and alive.
I like both digital and analog sounds in other people's music but don't like the feel of the line6, maybe because it has some digital processing delay. I dunno if that's why.
Analog vs Digital, the musicians debate of the century. I'll keep this short and give you my 2 cents relating to this topic. Two questions come to mind when reading all these comments. First is, If I had 100% digital effects plugged into my Fender Twin Reverb, would'nt the end result be and analog/tube output? So realistically speaking, it doesnt matter what comes in to the amp cause it's all being amplified by tubes hence giving you that tube sound we all crave.
Second, if I were to go to a studio and record a song with 100% analog effects and tube amps the end result would be that all that sound still has to go through some sort of digital processing to get mixed and recorded? So the end result there would be that everyone listening to that song whether it be at home, in their car, at work, etc. are all listening to a digital recording of analog equipment through their cd's, satelitte, mp3 players.
I guess what i'm trying to say is that the only time I can truly enjoy the sound and feel of analog equiptment is when i'm playing live, and I try to play live as much as possible cause it not only sounds good, it feels great.
In conclusion, this debate to me is moot. If it sounds good and it feels right, it doesnt matter what it is. Digital or analog, all that is simply a matter of individual taste.
"There is a time for everything..."
I wasted years in the 90's messing with digital stuff that seemed "handy" (no broken patch cables, or empty batterys etc) But it took me far too long to realize why my earlier "punch","eire" and "directness" disapeared when I sold my analog gear...
But when we recorded our new stuff recently, there are loads of GuitarRig guitars. And they sound great. Digital works great in the computer for recordings etc but I would never use it live.
Analog=live
Digital=recordings
The difference is all about playing the gear and the gut feeling it create. Just as you wrote...
Someone said that since the digital signal is being amplified through a tube amp, the end result is analog... At least that's the way I understood him.
Natural sounds are also comprised of ultra and sub-harmonics that cannot be registered via the human ear. However - those harmonics are heard by our body! Have you ever had the feeling someone was looking at you - only to discover that you were right? You were "hearing" with your body!
Digital cannot capture those ultra, and sub harmonics... Never have - never will!
The next time you pick-up a CD - look for the DDD, ADD, AAD designation. I good example of a completely digital (DDD) recording is Metallica's "AJFA" CD. COLD! COLD! COLD!
Analog electronics process signals naturally, due to the physics of the devices and circuits used. They are pretty simple to build and understand.
Digital electronics on the other hand play back recorded files or digitally manipulate the input in a rigid mathematical way which makes the output a little artificial.
I would prefer analog electronics any day. Digital electronics are not good when used in the intitial stages of music production as they remove the aestheics of the instrument to some extent.
Hello, I just want to say my first Half Stack I purchased was a Line6 SpiderIII Head with a stock Line6 cab. I'm in a band so i play live all the time and record. The amp defenitely does its job. One thing though is my other guitarist has a vintage blue voodoo head and cab Crate. Its analog of course. When play my Line6 Head through his cab, My line6 head sounded much better than his. Now I have a Peavey 5150 as well. It sounds amazing too so coming from someone who has both Analog and Digital. I believe a digital head can be just as original(if you actually mess with the tone and sound of the head) as an Analog amp. Good things about digital amps is that theres less weight(most of the time) than an analog amp, and theres effects and pedals that can be easily applied, but when they do break for any reason, you usually cant fix it yourself due to it being a computer. Good things about the analog amps, they are original and have more of that organic sound, but if your looking to purchase a footswitch or pedal, itll cost you more especially when buying tubes, hardware pieces and so on.....Love for both is where I'm at and always will be. Its personal preference....not what is "cooler" or "new"
I agree with DOM, eventually most people will probably migrate to analog whenever they feel the need of better quality sounds.
Digital stompboxes are really nice and technology has evolved so much that nowadays a $250 effects pedal can pretty much simulate about 12 heads, 10 cabinets plus 70 effects copying the most desired analog pedals, including all their tweaks and knobs. My case. My digital effects pedal helps me create any sound I want for general purpose.
But when I need to REALLY have the true sound of a famous pedal it just won't do. It just doesn't "breathe" in my opinion. Maybe this is what technical dudes call "dynamics". AND, also the relation between effects. A digital stompbox will never be able to present the real combination between effects - analogs effects in a chain affect each other in a way that digital cannot simulate.
Well, I got here because I just recently spent the same $$ of my digital stompbox (Digitech RP350) in one single overdrive pedal (FullDrive 2 Mosfet), and again that same amount to mod an old CryBaby. I could NEVER EVER reproduce those sounds in digital.
Which means now I'll need to buy a few other analog pedals, cause I also discovered that the digital stompbox cannot really understand the signal of analog pedals in the same chain, ruining the sound of my modded wah for instance.
My opinion: digital is good for overall purposes, beginners and all-in-one solutions. Cheaper, lighter and thanks to new technology, really good sounding.
BUT eventually most people will migrate to analog one day (and will be more expensive).
The conversation for years was "Solid State VS Tubes." The conversation has changed to "Analog VS Digital."
I remember the first digitally mastered record albums. I bought the first two, the first being a Ry Cooder album in the 80's and the second a Fleetwood Mac album. Cooder's album was exceptional and the Fleetwood Mac album was very good. Pristine sound...great mixing.
I remember going to the NAMM show in 1983. Drum machines were everywhere (along with slapped bass.)
The early digital drum machines were 8 bit. They did wear on you the longer you listened. Today's digital drums are far different as the resolution has advanced.
Heck, any CD or MP3 you hear, you are hearing digital drums, regardless of the real drum set used. The recording is digital.
As an authorized Line 6 tech, let me tell you, brk, that the amp is digital. There are some analog/IC chip and transistor stages on the input and output, but the signal path, and modeling is all digital.
Post a Comment