Old music tech that sucks
Certain older music tech is just plain awful. Let's talk about that.
There's the argument that no technology ever truly dies, and yeah I do agree with that sentiment. Everything I'm going to talk about below is being used by someone somewhere right now, but that doesn't mean the tech is good.
And now, on to the suck.
Wah-wah pedal
First up is the Dunlop Crybaby, a.k.a. the wah-wah. It has a factory "installed" glop of lubricant directly under the expression pedal. That's normal. Every new Crybaby and other pedal of this type is made like this, and that's what makes it suck. Not only will that lubricant get worn out quickly, but it will attract all sorts of dirt since it's obviously used on the floor.
If there were an award for most-high-maintenance pedal, the Crybaby would be it. I've owned two of these pedal types in the past. The Crybaby and the VOX V847A. Both were great at first... but then as the lubricant wore out, dirt started collecting on the inside and so on, they just completely wore out in record time.
These types of wah effects use 1960s tech that has barely changed over the years. When they start breaking down (and they will), all you get is a crackly, noisy, nasty and totally unusable effect. Oh, you can try to maintain one, but that's a fool's errand. Re-lube and use dust removal spray all you want, but it will be a total waste of time. All you'll be doing is delaying the inevitable.
Never buy one of these. It sucks.
If you want a wah effect, go digital or get an optical wah such as the Morley CLW. No lubricant to worry about on that one. Simple, very rugged, easy-to-maintain. That's how a pedal effect should be. Whether it's used at home or stage, that thing is built to be used.
Anything that uses a floppy disk
This mainly concentrates on synthesizers of the past be they full keyboards or the rackmount units like the Ensoniq ASR-10 rack configuration.
Floppies, whether 8", 5.25" or 3.5", are all bad. Every one of them. A floppy is the worst possible way to store data. Out of every media format you could possibly use, this is the one where you have the most chance of your data going corrupt and never being able to read it again.
And let's not forget about proprietary data formats. Many of these things wrote data that can only be read on that unit. Standard PC readable files? Ha! Not happening.
Three means of storing data existed with synths for the longest time. Compact cassette a.k.a. tape, floppies and flash memory. The compact cassette was first. For example, a Roland Juno-60 from the '70s could have patches stored and sent back via a tape deck. Floppies came after that, and then finally memory cards.
Tape was too slow and didn't hold that much data. Flash memory cards could barely hold any data, were ridiculously expensive and proprietary. The floppy was, at the time, the best of the 3 formats. It held a good amount of data, it was affordable and it had decent loading speed.
But that doesn't take away the fact that floppies are the worst.
Thankfully, there are those out there making retrofit options to junk the floppy disk drive and replace with a USB interface, many of which are drop-in solutions - if it's 3.5". For the 5.25" and decidedly ancient 8", sorry Charlie, you're out of luck.
Any used electronic drum kit
Take the Alesis Surge kit. Buying one of these new is totally okay.
But never get an electronic drum kit used.
The reason electronic kits used suck is because whether the sensors are still working properly or not is a total crapshoot.
In the way these things are made, each drum is obviously not made "all-or-nothing" style where you could easily detect a bad one if a sensor is failing. If a part of a drum is failing, you won't know that until you actually set the whole thing up first. That's a lot of wasted time and effort just to save a few bucks on something you'll ultimately have to immediately send back - if you can send it back.
If you get a kit like this, buy new. Yes, it will cost more. It's worth it.
Solid-state guitar combo amps from the '90s
I don't like tubes and I do champion modern digital modeling guitar amplifiers. But I also totally admit that solid-state guitar combo amps of the '90s really sucked.
During the '90s, I owned guitar solid-state combo amps by Fender, Marshall, Crate and Peavey. None of them were good. They couldn't project good volume and the speakers were terrible.
The bigger guitar amp heads that connected to cabinets were decent (particularly from Randall,) but where guitar combo amps were concerned, it was sad times for solid-state in the '90s.
If talking about bass and keyboard solid-state amps of the '90s, many of those were actually pretty good. They could project and had great clarity to them. But on the guitar side of things, '90s combo amps are definitely one to skip.
The only good thing I can say about '90s solid-state guitar combo amps is that they could take a good amount of punishment. They may not have been very loud for stage use, but they could take a drop and/or get knocked over and still work fine.
Were there any truly good solid-state guitar combo amps in the '90s? Yes. One of them is the Roland Jazz Chorus 120. It is often said that Roland is "the sound of solid-state" in the best possible way. The JC 120 is definitely a good amp. And very loud.
Multitrack recorders of the '90s
I'll round out this list by also going to the '90s again, this time concentrating on multitrack recorders.
The interesting this about this is that in the '90s, analog and digital multitrack recorders were sold side-by-side. Analog units used compact cassette and digital units used hard disks or Hi8 tapes.
Take the Fostex DMT-8, which had an original starting price of $1,995. And that was considered a great deal for what it offered at the time.
I personally used the Tascam 424 in the '90s. Two of them actually, as I wore the first one out.
Here are the problems with all multitrack recorders of the '90s:
If it's analog, the belts over time get stretched out or dried out and need replacing. The drive mechanisms themselves also simply wear out. Belts can be replaced fairly easily. Drive mech however... not-so easy.
If it's digital, the #1 issue is usually data storage. Specifically, running out of available memory to store recorded data and what to do about it.
The DMT-8 above is a classic example of this. It has an internal 540MB hard disk drive. Can you expand this? No. You must back up your data once that's filled up. How? S/PDIF connection to a DAT recorder. And how long did a full disk backup take? Over 45 minutes.
Another issue with digital recorders of the '90s was the learning curve. The Roland VS-880 is an example of this. RIDICULOUSLY difficult to use, with an interface so complicated it's enough to drive anyone to drink. There are video tutorials posted to YouTube from back in the '90s on how to use this thing, and they're between 90 minutes to TWO HOURS LONG just to show you how to use the VS-880.
Oftentimes, modern is better
I'm not saying everything we have today is perfect. But it's a lot better - and cheaper - compared to what we used to have.
Dashcams are not overkill
My soon-to-be latest adventures in GPS and dashcam tech with a little rectangle thingy.
On the way to me right now is a refurb Garmin DriveAssist 50LMT. I wanted it because it has a dashcam.
Now before I get into that, my preference in tech that I use for navigation in my car is actually very similar to the tech I prefer for guitar sound processing and effects. Over the years I've learned that the fewer the wires, the better, and the less bulk, the better. Whenever I have the chance to slim down things into the least components possible to get the result I want, I will go for it.
While there are tons of dashcams available, what I wanted was one that showed speed and GPS coordinates on-screen while recording video. As it turns out, the DriveAssist does that and provides navigation at the same time, so it ended up being the ideal all-in-one thing to go with. Otherwise, I would have had to get a separate dashcam, resulting in two electronic things on the dashboard instead of just one.
Why my sudden interest in dashcam?
It's actually not sudden. I've been thinking about it for a while now. I'm going to be putting in some significant travel time soon, so the time was right to just go for it.
I don't think dashcams are overkill in cars as long as it's done right.
Dashcam done wrong is when it's mounted on the glass, because that's illegal in 21 states. Even though it's legal in Florida to have GPS or a dashcam on the glass, that could change at any time. I've always used a disc and don't mount anything to the glass at all.
I also believe a dashcam done wrong is any unit that doesn't have on-screen speed and coordinates. Without those two very specific pieces of info on the screen, the benefit of having a dashcam is diminished quite a bit.
Will I be posting video from my dashcam once I get it?
Possibly, but I don't plan on it.
Maybe I'll post an unlisted video to YouTube and then show it an article here just so people can see what Garmin DriveAssist footage looks like.
Truth be told, the vast majority of dashcam footage on YouTube is just plain boring. Most of the time, people drive from A to B without any problems.
If I do post any footage, I'd try to get some scenic stuff so it's not a total bore-fest.
12 string Fender Stratocaster XII
This is definitely a model of Stratocaster you don't see come around very often.
The Fender Stratocaster XII has temporarily made a return as a made-in-Japan model. And yes, it sounds exactly like you think it would...
...but is it worth getting?
Well, for that it all depends on whether a 12-string electric guitar is usable to you or not.
Here's some truths when it comes to 12-string guitars:
The best usable (keyword there) 12-string guitar is, without question, the 12-string acoustic. And they're not expensive either, even when Fender makes it.
For example, the Fender CD-60SCE is priced very well. It's a total bargain for what it is, and it's also an acoustic-electric as well. So if you want that classic "heavenly" acoustic 12-string sound, it does not cost much at all.
When you apply a 12-string build to an electric guitar however, it's a totally different animal.
More often than not, the best usable tone on an electric with 12 strings is the bridge pickup because it has that 1960s hippie/folk rock flavor to it. And yes, the Strat XII totally has it. But that may be the only thing it's good at doing. It might be a one-trick pony in that respect.
Still, it is a Strat, sounds like a Strat, feels like a Strat, but with 12 strings instead of 6.
There is no tremolo system on this guitar, thank God. Believe me, that's a good thing. You don't want any sort of trem system on a 12-string electric.
Is this guitar FSR (Fender Special Run)? Oh, yes. The Strat XII to the best of my knowledge has never been a regular production model.
I consider the price of the XII fair, as it is a very atypical Strat build with the Fender name on it. And they typically hold their value well.
Oh, and there's something else that definitely needs to be said. This is far and above way cheaper than getting a Rickenbacker 12-string. That's the main competitor of this guitar, and the Fender is far and above the significantly cheaper and arguably better choice.
Looking back at 2000s guitar modeling amps
Sometimes timing is everything.
It's been a week since I traded out 2 guitars and an amp for a smaller and much tidier replacement amp, the Line 6 Spider V 60.
I can honestly say I'm happy with what I have. No regrets...
...but I'm keenly aware that what I did is not something I could have done even as little as 3 years ago.
Modeling amp tech at this point is pretty darned good. But there was a time when it wasn't. Early versions of digital guitar amps were expensive and had problems.
It's 2018 as I write this, and the Spider V line of amps from Line 6 didn't exist until 2016. And based on what I've seen, the V is definitely a significant improvement over the IV in all the right ways. But even so, the Spider IV series from Line 6 was pretty good.
However, if we rewind the clock back to 2000s, yeah, things were a bit weird then.
The example I'm going to use is the Fender Cyber-Twin. It is a 2x12 beast that was introduced all the way back in 2001. A later version came along later called the Cyber-Twin SE, but what I'm going to concentrate on here is the first non-SE model.
The Cyber-Twin was one of the most technically advanced modeling amps available at the time with a well-into-4-figures price tag. Fender claimed it wasn't a modeling amp, but I don't buy that at all. Yes, it was. It was big, it was heavy at over 50 pounds in weight, it was complicated, and sometimes it was unreliable.
Some owners of the first generation Cyber-Twin discovered the amp was not ready for prime time and had overheating issues. Not all Cyber-Twin amps exhibited this problem, but several did.
For those that didn't have a Cyber-Twin that overheated, they became frustrated with the operation of the amp because what Fender did with the control area was ridiculous. You had all the controls plus a few extra you'd find on a traditional amp and all the digital stuff on the top control area. This means you have 9 regular amp knobs, 4 digital knobs, and 12 buttons. Way, way too many controls.
What turned people off from this amp the most were the ridiculously complicated controls, the fact it was too loud for its own good and could not be played quietly (no way this could be played in an apartment), and the most damning thing: It didn't want to make you play your guitar.
When an amp is so annoying to use that it actually makes you put your guitar down, that's when you know it's a stinker. And that pretty much sums up 2000s digital guitar amp tech in a nutshell.
Where 2000s guitar tone digital modeling was concerned, the cream of the crop was rack units. Those were the processors that really sounded right. And that's exactly why I bought a DigiTech GSP 1101 back in the day. Later on when I parted with my 1101, I got the RP360 which has pretty much everything the 1101 had, except in a floor unit.
There's a whole swath of 2000s-era modeling amps from Fender, Peavey, VOX, Line 6 and a few others out there. A lot of people bought these things, and many still work.
Is it worth it to buy a 2000s digital modeling amp? No. If you already own one, that's a different story. But to actually seek one out really isn't worth the bother since newer models are so much better in every way.
Some amps are best left in the past.
Guitar modeling amps DO deliver what they promise
If you don't like the sound of your stock presets on your modeling amp or multi-effects pedal, you have nobody to blame but yourself.
If you ever listened to the guitar tone for Limelight by Rush, Alex Lifeson's guitar tone on that song is one of the best ever recorded because he does not use an over-trebly ratty sounding overdrive.
There are some modeling amps and multi-effects pedals that feature that exact sound as a preset. All you basically need is a guitar with bridge humbucker pickup, play the song, and you've got the tone...
...but the internet would tell you otherwise.
A longstanding complaint of all guitar modeling, be it in an amp or pedal, is that all factory presets regardless of who made the amp or pedal sound awful.
No, it doesn't sound awful.
The guys who program these things during development actually do listen to the original studio recordings, approximate what the tone sounds like, program it as a preset, test it many times until it's right, then send it out to production. The vast majority of the time, these programmers actually do nail it and get the sound right the first time.
The problem is the player and not the software.
Rewinding the clock back to the '90s for a moment, I'll talk about a multi-effects I unit I owned before for many years, the Alesis Quadraverb GT. That thing did just about everything well except overdrive/distortion. This was '90s early digital modeling tech, and it didn't sound right because of how new digital dist/od was at the time. The tech needed to get out there and mature.
Well, it has matured. In fact, it matured properly right around 2010. Virtual amps via PC software got the sound right first, then as the tech became cheaper and easier to produce, it trickled down into rack units, then to multi-effect pedals, then to amps.
And here we are. Now we have it all. And dopey guitar players (mostly metalheads) still complain.
Reminder: Most original studio guitar tracks of famous rock songs sound awful on their own
Flying High Again by Ozzy Osbourne is a good example of this. There are guitars in that song. Yes, guitarS. Plural. Very plural. Randy Rhoads had his guitars double, triple and sometimes even quadruple layered just to get them not sounding like total garbage - yet still do if you listened to them isolated. This tone is buzzy, ratty, muffled, overblown, has too much reverb, and is just plain terrible.
And when programmers actually program a sound like this as a preset in a modeling unit, they know it sounds awful but put it in anyway. After all, everyone wants that Randy Rhoads tone, right?
No. Nobody wants it. Nobody wants a trebly, nasty overblown mess of a guitar sound.
You got what you asked for
To anyone who complains about the stock presets in a modeling unit not sounding right, you got what you asked for. The tone is there. You just never liked the actual original studio sound to begin with...
...and that's why you're better off just programming your own presets with modelers. Tedious to do? Not really. You just have to sit down, learn how your modeler does what it does and create your own custom presets.
For multi-effects, it doesn't matter whether you have a DigiTech RP55, ZOOM G3Xn or BOSS GT-1000. For modeling amps, it doesn't matter whether you have a Peavey Vypyr VIP 1, Line 6 Spider V 240 or Fender Mustang GT 200. The fact of the matter is that with ANY of these things, you will have to sit down, learn the thing and actually do some basic programming.
And yeah, I know the word programming scares some people. Don't be afraid of it. Tone modeling is just one of those things where you have to craft your own tone and that's just the way it is.
However, on a final note, being I just recently acquired a Line 6 Spider V 60, I might write up a better manual on that. Maybe. I'm thinking about it. I personally think the amp is very easy to use, but again, the whole programming thing does scare some. If I decide to put a book together on how to use the amp, yes I will of course announce it here.