Paul Lawson wrote to Bill Riley <=-

Does a Digitec RP-7 count as one?

Hey Paul, how do you like the RP-7? I've got the RP-6, which is
adequate for live performance and for four-tracking, but it's far
too noisy for serious recording.

Martin
~~~~~~~~

___ MultiMail/MS-DOS v0.36

--- Maximus/2 3.01
* Origin: The Eclectic Lab (1:153/831)

Martin Ridgley wrote in a message to Paul Lawson:

Paul Lawson wrote to Bill Riley <=-

Does a Digitec RP-7 count as one?

Hey Paul, how do you like the RP-7? I've got the RP-6, which is adequate for live performance and for four-tracking, but it's far
too noisy for serious recording.

I've not tried the RP-6 but I believe it has the same processor. The selling point for the 7 was the 12AX7 pre-amp tube to get that "real" tube sound. I needed it at the time as I was running through a tranny amp. It was better than the tranny alone but still not even close to a substitute for a tube amp. I was able to dial in a couple of convincing bluesy tones but the high gain blows. That said, I do like the time based effects. The reverb is very versatile, highly configurable and quite quiet. I'm not very pleased with
the chorus, not nearly as smooth as the stereo chorus in my Peavy. I suppose the same applies to the RP-7, fine for performing but I'd want something much nicer for recording. It seems I can get close to the sond I'm looking for in a
matter of minutes but spend hours trying to tweak it and still don't get exactly what I'm looking for.

Paul

--- timEd 1.10.y2k
* Origin: Paul's point, Salt Lake City, Utah. (1:218/704.16)

Paul Lawson wrote in a message to Martin Ridgley:

I've not tried the RP-6 but I believe it has the same
processor. The selling point for the 7 was the 12AX7 pre-amp tube
to get that "real" tube sound. I needed it at the time as I was

Lordy, that's as bad as Casey with his one 12AX7 in that Arty-farty amp of his,
claiming he had a tube amp.




Bill

--- timEd 1.10.y2k
* Origin: Bill's Point, Beaverton OR (1:218/704.6)

Bill Riley wrote in a message to Paul Lawson:

Paul Lawson wrote in a message to Martin Ridgley:

to get that "real" tube sound. I needed it at the time as I was

Lordy, that's as bad as Casey with his one 12AX7 in that Arty-farty
amp of his, claiming he had a tube amp.

I wish it would have worked that well. It would have saved me the cash I dropped on my Mesa...



Paul

--- timEd 1.10.y2k
* Origin: Paul's point, Salt Lake City, Utah. (1:218/704.16)

Paul Lawson wrote in a message to Bill Riley:

I wish it would have worked that well. It would have saved me
the cash I dropped on my Mesa...

You bought a Booger? Oh my...

Bill

--- timEd 1.10.y2k
* Origin: Bill's Point, Beaverton OR (1:218/704.6)

Paul Lawson wrote to Martin Ridgley <=-

Martin Ridgley wrote in a message to Paul Lawson:

Hey Paul, how do you like the RP-7? I've got the RP-6...

I've not tried the RP-6 but I believe it has the same processor.
The selling point for the 7 was the 12AX7 pre-amp tube to get
that "real" tube sound. I needed it at the time as I was
running through a tranny amp. It was better than the tranny
alone but still not even close to a substitute for a tube amp.

Yes, I believe it does use the same processor. I was going to get
the RP-7, for the same reasons, but price was a restricting factor for
me. Also, for the sake of simple home recording, I figured I could
get close enough to a tube sound with an Ibanez TS-9 Tube Screamer,
which I already had. So, I went for the cheaper model.

I was able to dial in a couple of convincing bluesy tones but the
high gain blows. That said, I do like the time based effects.
The reverb is very versatile, highly configurable and quite quiet.
I'm not very pleased with the chorus, not nearly as smooth as the
stereo chorus in my Peavy.

That sounds pretty much the same as my experience with the RP-6.
I can get away with using it for 4-track cassette recordings, but
some of the effects have too much extraneous noise to be used on a
digital deck.

I suppose the same applies to the RP-7, fine for performing but
I'd want something much nicer for recording.

That's the reason I asked. I know that when I finally get a digital
recording deck, I'm going to have to get some new guitar effects as
well. <sigh> And the shopping list just keeps on growing... ;-(

It seems I can get close to the sond I'm looking for in a matter
of minutes but spend hours trying to tweak it and still don't
get exactly what I'm looking for.

Yep. Me too. After hours of tweaking, I often end up with
something frustratingly close to one of the factory presets. ;-(

Cheers,
Martin
~~~~~~~~

___ MultiMail/MS-DOS v0.36

--- Maximus 3.01
* Origin: Eclectic Lab BBS (1:153/831)

Bill Riley wrote in a message to Paul Lawson:

Paul Lawson wrote in a message to Bill Riley:

I wish it would have worked that well. It would have saved me
the cash I dropped on my Mesa...

You bought a Booger? Oh my...

Yep, I thought I mentioned it. Bought a dual rect Maverick. 2/12 35 watts of pure class A Heaven. It's a great amp.

Paul

--- timEd 1.10.y2k
* Origin: Paul's point, Salt Lake City, Utah. (1:218/704.16)

Martin Ridgley wrote in a message to Paul Lawson:

Paul Lawson wrote to Martin Ridgley <=-

Yes, I believe it does use the same processor. I was going to
get the RP-7, for the same reasons, but price was a restricting
factor for me. Also, for the sake of simple home recording, I
figured I could get close enough to a tube sound with an Ibanez
TS-9 Tube Screamer, which I already had. So, I went for the
cheaper model.

I apologize fr being so slow in responding, been a long month around these parts... I'd say you made the wise choice. The tube isn't worth the price difference. The first thng I did after getting my Mesa was kill the pre--amp in all my patches. I ended up having to "dry up" most of the patches and running the FX loop about 50% wet to preserve the amps tone but it seems to
be working.

That sounds pretty much the same as my experience with the RP-6.
I can get away with using it for 4-track cassette recordings, but
some of the effects have too much extraneous noise to be used on a digital deck.

My problem isn't noise just not quite having the tools to dial in the sound I hear in my head. Fine for live but I'd want something more powerful and configurable for recording. Particularly for reverbs. I'm a sucker for a good reverb.

That's the reason I asked. I know that when I finally get a
digital recording deck, I'm going to have to get some new guitar
effects as well. <sigh> And the shopping list just keeps on
growing... ;-(

It never stops. I'm afraid to start doing the studio thing, my wife will kill me. :) I figure when I get to that point I'll have to spring for one of the good Lexicon reverbs... after I sell the kids...


Paul

--- timEd 1.10.y2k
* Origin: Paul's point, Salt Lake City, Utah. (1:218/704.16)

Paul Lawson wrote in a message to Bill Riley:

Yep, I thought I mentioned it. Bought a dual rect Maverick.
2/12 35 watts of pure class A Heaven. It's a great amp.

Nope, last I heard you were just looking, unless I missed a post. Bringing it with you to Fidojam I hope.

Bill

--- timEd 1.10.y2k
* Origin: Bill's Point, Beaverton OR (1:218/704.6)