New Boss GT-10

[Sille]

New Boss GT-10

http://www.bossus.com/gear/productde...41&ParentId=46

http://www.sonicstate.com/news/shownews.cfm?newsid=5982


or

http://www.thestompbox.net/forum/showthread.php?p=39547#post39547

P.S.Is this the right place for this kind of post?

[Scali]

Still 44.1 KHz...
Sounds like yet another rehash of the same stale old technology, just like the GT-8 was, which I totally hated because it had absolutely nothing to do with guitar amps. I think I'll pass, again.

[Viscolex]

well it definitely got a better user interface than a GT-8 :D

GT-8 was like a damn aeroplane control thingy!

[Stew]

After my experience with the GT6 I wouldn't even look at this to become remotely interested. I tmay be the best thing since sliced bread but I ain't going to touch another Boss multi in my lifetime.

[petermoran555]

Not a fan of the sound, but Rob Marcello is AWE-some.

[daveyravey]

I have to laugh at the video.
It does this does that........ & makes you tea & toast at 7am !
Does it make you a better player ???

[Viscolex]

I have to laugh at the video.
It does this does that........ & makes you tea & toast at 7am !
Does it make you a better player ???

lol, i'd buy one if it made me a better player :P

[daveyravey]

:lol: they'd sell millions of them

[Guitarpima]

Looks like a nice unit. 44.1 still? What's wrong with that? Unless your making music for the masses, it's enough. It does 24bit. I don't like it as much as the Digitech version though. It has more options.

[Scali]

44.1 KHz is why most digital processors have tonesuck. They'll eat away your treble. The GT-6 and GT-8 were terrible tonesuckers... and since this is still a 24/44.1 unit, I doubt they've improved that aspect.
The Zoom G9.2tt was the first unit I've tried that actually sounds perfectly transparent in the effect loop of my amp. Gotta be the 96 KHz, because the G9.2tt isn't a terribly expensive unit... I've had more high-end units that sucked more tone... they all had a thing in common: 44.1 KHz.

[Shep]

Pod X3 Live FTW! lol

[rubberducke101]

I really like the look of it from the video, but then again i havent had much experience with pedals etc and not so sure about the whole KhZ thing, i mean i know the higher the better but not sure Y?
i like the on board loop phraser as well looks really good

[Scali]

Well, to make a long story short... The theoretical maximum frequency that you can represent with a sampling rate of X Hz is exactly X/2 Hz. This is known as the Nyquist-limit or Nyquist frequency.

So at 44.1 KHz, the theoretical maximum you can get is 22.05 KHz. This is slightly above the reach of the human ear.

However, looking closer at the Nyquist frequency, it's obvious that this frequency can only be a blockwave, because you only have two samples, and no data between them, so no additional detail.
Basically what this comes down to, is that as the frequencies get closer to 22.05 KHz, more detail gets lost... you will get aliasing.
To try and compensate for that, they will usually use a filter for the higher frequencies and cut them off completely at 20 KHz... Thing is, that the frequencies in the audible range are still affected somewhat, from the filtering and the sampling.

Now you might say that CDs are only 44 KHz aswell, and they sound just fine... Thing is, CDs are not recorded at 44 KHz, they are not processed at 44 KHz, and they are not mixed at 44 KHz. Everything is done at 96 KHz or even 192 KHz, and then it is downsampled and filtered at the end, so that as much of the detail of the sound is preserved on the CD.

Because the Zoom G9.2tt processes everything at 96 KHz aswell, it also delivers a much cleaner signal, especially in the higher frequencies where you usually noticed that the treble was getting sucked out a bit.
You only have to play a Zoom G9.2tt for a few seconds to realize what you've been missing all those years.

(yea I studied Information Technology with signal processing and all that :))

[Stew]

Scali how does the POD xt live sample to? to my ears is it very good and i am happy with it where as the GT6 I had before was aweful. The sound was very fake. There was no character of my guitars shining thorough at all and it never ever sounded like a guitar to me.

[Scali]

I'm not sure, Line6 doesn't disclose such technical specs. I suspect that it's either 44.1 KHz or 48 KHz, because they use processors that are quite dated by now (not sure if the X3 has new processors, can't find anything on them).

But I'm talking about using a processor in the effect loop of a tube amp, not so much about using the unit as a preamp.
I've used 44.1 KHz units and even 31.25 KHz units that had a pretty 'realistic' feel and tone. I guess that's more about the analog circuitry they use, and the algorithms.
In fact, I recorded my Zombo challenge part with my 10 year old Zoom 8080 :)
It's only 18 bit, 44.1 KHz... The sound isn't all that detailed, but it feels nice to play through it, it responds well to what you're doing.

[benwave]

Scali ...When you say that 96khz is so much better then 44.1khz, don't you think they also know that at Rolands ?
Its not so big of a deal to make it 96khz by a firm as Roland.. Hell if Zoom can do it anyone can do it.
An apparently they don't feel the need to change to 96khz

So perhaps a normal person don't hear the difference.

[Steve Zane]

Looks like a really nice machine, I'll have to go try it before judging it.

As far as frequencies I can say they sound good to me.

[Scali]

Scali ...When you say that 96khz is so much better then 44.1khz, don't you think they also know that at Rolands ?
Its not so big of a deal to make it 96khz by a firm as Roland.. Hell if Zoom can do it anyone can do it.
An apparently they don't feel the need to change to 96khz

As far as I know, Zoom is the only company that develops its own DSPs. Could be the reason why Zoom is the only one with a 96 KHz DSP in the consumer guitar market.
Software like Guitar Rig and Amplitube can do 96 KHz aswell if your soundcard and CPU allow it. You can tell the difference.
96 KHz DSPs are actually quite common in home theatre systems from companies like Denon, Sony, Pioneer etc these days.

[Steve Zane]

Looks like a really nice machine, I'll have to go try it out and see how it sounds.It's hard to tell from a video.

As far as frequencies goes...I don't think the Gt's series lack of high frequencies. You just have to know how to set the tones. There is also a sub Eq that gives you another range of frequencies and also the global eq's..you just have to know how to use it before saying that the unites sounds bad.

Been having a GT-8 for the past 1 1/2 and I totally love it.

[Scali]

Post removed

[Steve Zane]

I don't think you even own a good tube amp with an effect loop, so you've probably never actually tried the GT-8 in the way I use my effects.
It's not about eq'ing either... In fact, the point is that if you set the whole unit to 'bypass', the sound should sound about as clear as it does when you bypass the effect loop on the amp itself, and run the preamp directly into the poweramp.

This is where you notice the tonesuck. The effect unit will colour your sound, and you have to end up eq'ing in extra treble to maintain the original sound colour of your amp.. at the cost of a distorted signal and added noise.
It's not just Boss... I've used a Lexicon MPX-100 for years, which is a pretty good multifx... but it still sucked treble, because it was only 44.1 KHz.


First of..what do you know about me never owning a good tube amp???lol

I use to be in bands and yes I did have a tube amp..the tube amp I use to have was a Marshall JMC 2000. And when I go jam with my buddies this is still the amp I'm using with the GT-8 and frankly the tone doesn't suck to my ears so I guess personally it doesn't bother me..and most not bother many others too.

I went and tried the g9.2tt and I can say it's a great unit.. some sounds where better than the GT-8 but I also prefered some sounds in the GT-8. I think the clean sound is better on the GT-8 than the G9.2tt. I really love the lead tone on the G9.2tt and I think it's richer and warmer than the GT-8.

So for me I guess to have both would be the best thing, but that's costly..

[Scali]

Post removed

[Steve Zane]

Did you use the 4-cable method?



Uhh, when you use the 4-cable mode you don't use the preamp sims on the unit anyway, so what's your point?
It's not about that.

I think you don't know what I'm talking about.
Also 'tonesuck' is about the unit colouring the sound as it passes through... not about whether the resulting tone 'sucks' or not. In fact, in some cases you actually want to suck out some of the treble to make the sound more mellow...

I think you want a war again when I don't want one.

My point is that the Gt's series are good for me..if you don't like them than it's ok,that's your choice buddy.

I've been using the Gt-8 and it does the job for me.

I also like the G9.2tt, I'm not saying that it is a bad unit. For me they are both good machines and it depends what you want for a sound.

I totally respect your opinion and if you hate boss than you hate boss and that's the way life goes.

[Stew]

Probably if truth be told there will never be a perfect system Boss, Line6 and Zoom in paricular at least all seem to be striving to make there next units better and better each time. When they do make the all singing all dancing system please let me know especially when it comes under £400. :lol:

[Scali]

It's not about brands though, I just hate 44.1 KHz. I personally owned both Zoom and Lexicon 44.1 KHz products... same problem.
I've also tried other brands, like TC Electronics and Boss, same problem.

[Steve Zane]

One thing I have to say that I'm a bit desapointed with boss is that they still didn't add the XLR's on the unit..Damn, what are they waiting for???

[Stew]

One thing I have to say that I'm a bit desapointed with boss is that they still didn't add the XLR's on the unit..Damn, what are they waiting for???have they added USB? I used to hate with my GT6 having to write down patches then dial in the settings.

[Steve Zane]

Yes the GT10 has now the usb and SPDIF. The GT-8 only had the SPDIF

But the XLR's are a must I just don't get why they didn't think of that yet?

[Steve Zane]

I will go try the new GT-10 at my local music store and I will let you guys know if there is improvement or not.

[Scali]

have they added USB? I used to hate with my GT6 having to write down patches then dial in the settings.

I think they used the midi ports on the GT-6 and GT-8 to transfer settings between unit and PC?
The G9.2tt does that aswell, even though it has USB.
The USB is only used for audio on the G9.2tt.

[Steve Zane]

have they added USB? I used to hate with my GT6 having to write down patches then dial in the settings.

To bad you didn't use the GT manager software which made things more easy :)

[daveyravey]

What's SPDIF ??
Sounds like something a drunk would say :lol:

[Stew]

I think they used the midi ports on the GT-6 and GT-8 to transfer settings between unit and PC?
The G9.2tt does that aswell, even though it has USB.
The USB is only used for audio on the G9.2tt.I Ok I see that was it i never could figure out where a midi would go into the back of my PC as one didn't exist. I suppose a logical thing may even be to have a camera style memeory card that can plug into your pC to have drivers/firmware update and backing up/downloading patches

[Scali]

What's SPDIF ??
Sounds like something a drunk would say :lol:

Sony/Philips Digital InterFace.

It's a standard way of transferring digital audio over coaxial or optical cables.

[Steve Zane]

I removed my post because Scali's explanation is better.

[Scali]

I Ok I see that was it i never could figure out where a midi would go into the back of my PC as one didn't exist. I suppose a logical thing may even be to have a camera style memeory card that can plug into your pC to have drivers/firmware update and backing up/downloading patches

Some soundcards have midi ports on them (used to be a standard feature of Soundblaster cards, but it required a cable that plugged into the 15 pin joystick port, which was sold separately), and you can get USB midi interfaces pretty cheap these days.

[Stew]

To bad you didn't use the GT manager software which made things more easy :)
Steve i had that but would i be right in saying it showed you on screen the settigns but i didn't ahve any way of midi connecting so had to dial in the settings. I love the POD where you simply click on save on screen and Bob's your auntie its in your POD.

[daveyravey]

Thanks guys, i now understand something :lol:

[Stew]

Some soundcards have midi ports on them (used to be a standard feature of Soundblaster cards, but it required a cable that plugged into the 15 pin joystick port, which was sold separately), and you can get USB midi interfaces pretty cheap these days.
ah looks like i just didn't do enough research then as I could have used it to more effect oh well too late by about 2yrs lol

[Steve Zane]

Steve i had that but would i be right in saying it showed you on screen the settigns but i didn't ahve any way of midi connecting so had to dial in the settings. I love the POD where you simply click on save on screen and Bob's your auntie its in your POD.

That is strange..I didn't that trouble..I don't know what say???

[bluesgeek]

I believe the Pod XT is 48Khz, not sure if the X3 is higher but I don't think they've improved the chips - just added another one. Why anyone sticks a modeler in an fx loop and expects it to be transparent is beyond me :lol: You'd have more hope sticking a Trifle in there, or a sponge pudding. But what does it matter? Once the drummer kicks in, no-one notices....

[Scali]

I believe the Pod XT is 48Khz, not sure if the X3 is higher but I don't think they've improved the chips - just added another one. Why anyone sticks a modeler in an fx loop and expects it to be transparent is beyond me :lol: You'd have more hope sticking a Trifle in there, or a sponge pudding. But what does it matter? Once the drummer kicks in, no-one notices....

Sounds like you haven't heard of the 4-cable method either?
Modelers are just the current generation of multifx, and the idea of the 4-cable method predates digital modeling altogether.
The idea is simple: some effects have to go before the preamp, others have to go after the preamp. By adding a loop to the multifx unit, you can connect your tube amp in a way that you use its preamp while using effects from the multifx.
This requires the multifx to be transparent in sound, else there's little point of using your preamp in the first place.
You basically use your multifx as if it's a rack unit connected to the effect loop, and a bunch of pedals in front of the amp (mostly wah, compressor, booster, that sort of thing).
The actual amp-modeling section on the unit is bypassed, and only the effects are used.

Why people would use a modeler when they have a good tube preamp, is beyond me.

[bluesgeek]

yes I've heard of it - but then I predate digital modelling - and use it with my pedalboard which has 'proper' pedals, uses good cables and 7 true-bypass loops - if I use one of my valve amps that has an fx loop - most of them don't. My Pod X3 remains on the desk for practice use and quick recording, where it belongs.

[Scali]

Yes, but your Pod X3 isn't designed for this.
The Pod X3 live is, as is the Zoom 8080, G9.2tt and the GT-6, 8 and 10.
They even throw midi switching into the equation... this makes your 4-cable setup integrate seamlessly with the presets of the unit.

So I hope you now see what I mean... I don't expect a Pod X3 to sound transparent... but the loop-part of the X3 live (or the other units), where the preamp will be connected, should be. Goes for everything that you'd want to stick in the effectloop.

[Six]

Why people would use a modeler when they have a good tube preamp, is beyond me.

Perhaps it's because a good tube amp is only capable of producing two or three goods sounds, this can be limiting for a guitarist wishing to emulate many different players tones, say for example someone who is in a covers band playing tunes from ten different bands.
Of course it is a different story altogether for a big name artist who simply must have his/her own unique tone but that doesn't apply to the vast majority of us.

[Scali]

Perhaps it's because a good tube amp is only capable of producing two or three goods sounds, this can be limiting for a guitarist wishing to emulate many different players tones, say for example someone who is in a covers band playing tunes from ten different bands.
Of course it is a different story altogether for a big name artist who simply must have his/her own unique tone but that doesn't apply to the vast majority of us.

I doubt it. As long as you use the right effects, you'll only need three basic sounds really... Clean, crunch and lead.
With a good setup you can fine-tune your gain with the volume on the guitar, allowing you to seamlessly cover the whole range from clean to mega hi-gain with just a single setup.

But what I really meant to say is: If you're going to be using a modeling preamp anyway, why bother buying an expensive 3-channel tube-amp? Just using a ValveState poweramp and a good cab would give you the same results, for example. And you're not putting a good preamp to waste that way.
That was the point I was driving at: If you buy an expensive tube amp, the idea is that you like the tone it's giving you, right? So you don't want the effects to screw up that tone, and you certainly don't want to bypass the preamp altogether and replace it with a modeler which is merely trying to emulate the real thing that you already have.

[Six]

I see what you're getting at now and that's a fair comment, however, there are times when a modeller is more convenient to use i.e. in the confines of a small home-studio, whereas the nice big juicy tube-amp may be permanently set up in the bands practice room.

Ultimately I would love to own a really hot tube amp, like a Cornford Hellcat for example, but the POD XT Live would continue to be used more often due to the convenience.

[daveyravey]

You have to annoy yer neighbours sometimes Six...... it's our devine right

[Steve Zane]

I see what you're getting at now and that's a fair comment, however, there are times when a modeller is more convenient to use i.e. in the confines of a small home-studio, whereas the nice big juicy tube-amp may be permanently set up in the bands practice room.

Ultimately I would love to own a really hot tube amp, like a Cornford Hellcat for example, but the POD XT Live would continue to be used more often due to the convenience.

I couldn't agree more with you on this one. Honestly..yes I prefer a tube amp sound,but a modeler is more practical for me. I use many different sounds and effects. I guess if you are an original band with a signature sound than you're good with one or 2 sounds.

If you are a cover band you will never have all the tones that you will cover.There is much more choice with a modeler.

[ZappaFan]

I think I will reserve judgement until I have tried one.

As for the 44.1 khz issue, i dont think it really causes that much of an issue, especially as we then convert most of our stufff down to crappy MP3's anyway.

[Scali]

I see what you're getting at now and that's a fair comment, however, there are times when a modeller is more convenient to use i.e. in the confines of a small home-studio, whereas the nice big juicy tube-amp may be permanently set up in the bands practice room.

Ultimately I would love to own a really hot tube amp, like a Cornford Hellcat for example, but the POD XT Live would continue to be used more often due to the convenience.

Indeed, same here, I often used my Zoom 8080 and later G9.2tt for recording, because it's easy to set up, and gives consistent results, unlike mic'ing up a tube amp.

[Scali]

As for the 44.1 khz issue, i dont think it really causes that much of an issue, especially as we then convert most of our stufff down to crappy MP3's anyway.

Well, if you compare my mic'ed up recordings with the Zoom 8080 vs the G9.2tt over the same amp, with the same guitar... you can hear that basically the entire amp sounds different because of the extra noise and tonesuck in the signal path.
You can't compare it with MP3 really... With the 4-cable method you are adding noise and distortion before amplifying it thousands of times. Distortion is all about adding harmonics to the original sound.. You simply get different harmonics and dynamics when there's more noise and less treble/detail in the signal. Your amp doesn't sound like your amp.