Studio Custom

First thing I noticed, must feel weird under bends.

The best new band in the past decade IMO is Parabelle.

To simplify my life I have a dehumidifier that drains into my perimeter drain system so I never have to empty it for summer months. For winter, I have a humidifier that is tapped into a water line that is self feeding do I never have to fill it. Between the two, I'm between 45-55% always. Remembering to fill or empty those was a PIA and impossible when away from home.

Far cry from his original $3,000 listing. Told him then it was an 1985 and he told me I don't know what I'm talking about.

Original SS I: 24.75" scale length, ssh, equal horns, 22 frets Second generation SS I: Same as above but 24 frets SS II: 25.5" scale length, SH only, 22 frets, non-equal horns

That's what Rafer X usual to these days.

Ibanez not only provide free gear but also paid endorsers, neither of which Hamer did.

Scale length is why I sold my give virts.

Wasn't Paul long gone by the time Virts were invented? And while I was told there were 22 Virts, I believe we have confirmed there are more like 30. Either way, it certainly isn't 10 in total.

You're taking something from the "sterile, digital realm" and turning it back into a "living thing" by sending it through the tubes? So you're not really opposed to the Axe FX at all. I'm opposed to people saying "the Axe FX sounds JUST LIKE a tube amp" without actually providing any real techincal proof that such a statement is accurate - again, show me the full signal waveform of both tube and Axe, side-by-side, on a quality spectrum analyzer, and we'll talk. Otherwise, I'm hearing marketing hype and that's it. Feel free to miss out, it's fine by me. The ability to sculpture each part of each song as you would in the studio is awesome. Your loss.

That day passed with the Axe II. I dunno - tube output and dynamics is another variable to the 'dark-art' equation that I'm not sure the sterile, digitial realm can bring to the table. To me, a tube amp is a 'living-thing' that offers different expressions dependent upon careful tube selection and bias adjustments - a single computer algorithm has captured all-that? I doubt it. It's good enough for many international acts including Metallica and U2.Fair enough, but it is obviously not good enough for the majority of recording artists.... yet. Since there are a million such artists I believe you are correct. However maybe you've hesrd of s few that have: http://www.fractalaudio.com/artists.php

That day passed with the Axe II. I dunno - tube output and dynamics is another variable to the 'dark-art' equation that I'm not sure the sterile, digitial realm can bring to the table. To me, a tube amp is a 'living-thing' that offers different expressions dependent upon careful tube selection and bias adjustments - a single computer algorithm has captured all-that? I doubt it. It's good enough for many international acts including Metallica and U2. Those guys have either RACKS AND RACKS of signal processing (Edge) or massive diode-clipping distortion chunka-chunka (Metallica) who play in venues where 'quality' audio is sacrificed upon the alter of raw volume - the nuance of tubes is absolutely lost in those signal chains. I don't see anyone lining-up to dump their Dumble (if they have one) for a pile of microchips. Until I see full-spectrum signal replication on a high-sampled spectrum analyzer, side-by-side, and there is zero difference in signals between a tube amp and a digital amp-modeler, I remain sceptical that this technology is ready for prime-time and we should all just walk-away from tubes 'today'. When people said regular 35mm camera film was "dead" after digital photo technology came along, they didn't realize that you STILL had to run your digital images through hours-and-hours of Photoshop 'tweaking' to get some of the effects that using different camera film emulsions gave you - there is a trade-off in moving to 'new' tech. With digital tech, your creative freedom is bound by whatever the chip-maker and the software programmer are willing to write code for and give you - if 'they' don't write that nuance into their algorithms, you don't get access to it, and you could lose that analog dynamic/nuance forever. Now, maybe your ears/eyes don't see or hear the difference - your palate is not that refined. A McDonalds hamburger tastes the same as a Wendy's burger to you, I dunno. But to others, there is a big difference. I have on my desk next to me a custom-made, tube-powered headphone amplifier - for my ipod. This little blue MO-FO, when the JJ tubes get warm, is absolutely amazing. So in summary you've never played an Axe and have no idea what you're complaining about, but your camera experience and generic prejudice is good enough to roll with this.

That day passed with the Axe II. I dunno - tube output and dynamics is another variable to the 'dark-art' equation that I'm not sure the sterile, digitial realm can bring to the table. To me, a tube amp is a 'living-thing' that offers different expressions dependent upon careful tube selection and bias adjustments - a single computer algorithm has captured all-that? I doubt it. I agree with all of that. And I am so biased toward tubes that I think an amp would have to be not just as good, but clearly superior to a tube amplifier in tone and response. Unfortunately, it's just human nature to really have to be absolutely gobsmacked to move on from tools we hold dear and have served us well over the years. Kind of an argument from authority there. What Kirk Hammett and the Edge use really doesn't matter much to me when I am the one playing through the gear. When people with access to anything, and cost is no object, choose to use gear in front of 100,000 fans I'd take that an endorsement over yours, no offense. And since neither of you probably have tried the unit, your likely talking in antiquated generalities.