What a great post!
BTW, loved the Marie Kondo joy images 
3 Likes
This is really great to hear. We had a chat about this yesterday in the office and would like to reach out soon!
Hahaha yes, there is definitely a nice smell in the air however I can assure you that the 4 of us wouldnât see any money from this but we are excited about improving the amp offerings!
The challenge for us is that we (at least definitely me) are quite interested in the project and would prefer to be responsible for the specification and graphic design (maybe being a bit of a control freak) but I think this is due to the fact that a few of us have had a desire to improve the amp offering for a long time and already have a lot of ideas of how we would want things.
The reality is though, that we are swamped with a lot of already half-finished projects and something like this really could slow us down on other things. Itâs beneficial for us and for you to involve the community (or leave it to the community) rather than us trying to step in and take on a new project.
I guess we need to find a middle ground. Perhaps we can put some things in place first with some collaboration from you guys.
As mentioned before, we (Andre and I) would really like to release a design guide that suggests a standardised set of plugin dimensions to use based on each type of plugin, a set of standardised knobs/control sizes as well as a standardised distance between knobs/controls. I think it would be nice to have this before any major work goes into re-designing a lot of GUIs or making new ones.
On top of this we could provide some refreshed assets for creating GUIs. Iâm the guy that does all the fancy 3D rendered images of the devices (like the header of this forum) and Iâve been daydreaming for years about making some 3D rendered templates for amps, cabinets and pedals to use as GUIs. Something like this could be nice to use in a GUI refresh of these plugins. But this may need to come later as it is a bit of a time investment.
So I would say at least we would try to start working on a design guide and we could open a topic about that for people to collaborate.
In parallel, we could start a conversation (probably in this topic) about specifying either, new amps from GuitarX which are simplified splits/combinations of the current offering.
OR
Specify some changes to make to the existing offering that could simplify their use and make it easier to find a good tone + a GUI refresh. I tend to prefer this rather than adding more to the already large selection from GuitarX to reduce option paralysis without removing any plugins that people are happy using already. Some ideas for this could be
- Hide some parameters from the GUI (but leave in settings to not break peopleâs boards)?
- Adjust the values of parameters to be more consistent (0-100 rather that 0-127)?
- Add the cream machine power amp to the amps that donât have a power amp section (allembic. this combo is amazing) with a toggle to turn it off if you only want the pre-amp
- GUI refresh
- GUI per model? Not sure if this is possible but for the AmpX, perhaps when you change the amp model in the drop-down to be âtwin reverbâ the GUI could change to look like a twin? Maybe this is abstract but could mean you donât need to split the AmpX into a plugin for every model.
Interested to know what you guys think
7 Likes
I already messaged @brummer some of my initial ideas.
Amp X already sounds very good and writing brand new code is likely unrealistic. My suggestion would be to repurpose whatâs already there, in order to create 3 plugins (low, mid, and high gain amps) that would cover the needs of 90% of players as far as basic tones are concerned (and for all the other players, thereâs AmpX, Alembic, Cream Machine, Onyx, Titan, Supersonic, etc.)
Since clean/edge of break up tones are where I exist most of the time, I did some initial testing (using Petrucci/Henson Neural DSP plugins as a reference - not to âcopyâ them of course, but to get the idea for the gain ranges available in their âCleanâ amps) and it turns out that creating an amp that would cover mostly clean sounds using Amp X should be rather straightforward:
I typed âin comparisonâ when talking about the output section in the picture above but I meant âin conjunctionâ. It almost makes sense anyway, but Iâm pointing this out for the sake of clarity.
Leaving the Drive and Distortion controls, at 0 make the range of the Pregain (should probably be called âGainâ in the final version) lend itself very well to producing clean and the edge of breakup tones (up until like 3/4th of the way depending on the chosen Tube section). The amp can still get that hairy/distorted sound with the gain all the way up, and all in all, this seems to be working extremely well. As mentioned I did some testing with the Petrucci/Henson plugins, and there, the âCleanâ amp behaves in a very similar way (the range of the gain knob is mostly clean and the amp gets dirty only when the gain is close to max).
When it comes to which tube sections/tone stacks to make available to the user, and how to name them, that would require some thinking. Tone stacks would be easier, something like Twin, J-45, AC-15 for clean. Itâs probably best to use terms that are somewhat vague to give the user a good general idea of what they are working with, but not build false expectations that the âTwinâ will be exactly like their Twin tube amp (call it âAmericanâ or âAmerican Cleanâ, or something even more abstract like âSilverâ for Fender, âGoldâ for Marshall, âRedâ for Vox instead, etc. the specific tone stacks can be mentioned in the ampâs description).
MOD already has great sounding and looking cabs in the store. Besides, it simply makes sense to the user these days, that amps should be âcompleteâ (include preamp â tone stack â power amp) and no cab sim. Nothing against the Cream Machine but all the parts of the Amp X already work great so thereâs no need to add that on top.
Mid and High gain amp would require a bit more testing, but this is how all the amps would look like in general:
- Gain (Pregain on Amp X)
- 2 position switch (for switching between two most applicable tube sections for the character of the specific amp, names hidden from the user but can be mentioned in amp description.)
- Tone stack controls (Bass, Middle, Treble, Presence).
- 3 position switch to choose between the most appropriate tone stack for the character of the specific amp.
- Volume (Mastergain on Amp X).
- Master volume (Output - so the user doesnât have to use gain plugins outside the amp for gain-staging, which is very important).
The high gain amp could likely use an additional control (access to either Drive or Clean/Distortion that would be arbitrarily set for the other two amps).
When it comes to the naming convention, UI considerations, etc. I deffer back to you @James because this post is already long enough, but Iâve alluded to some of my initial ideas (Iâm really trying not to use Neural DSP again as an example, but their stylistic choice of streamlining, simplifying, and not even referring to âreal ampsâ but rather the âarchetypesâ, if you will, seem to resonate with players).
7 Likes
This one sparks joy! 
2 Likes
do you see any way this could happen without adding new plugins?
Me too. Iâm a big fan of the Cory Wong amp from Neural as well some amps from Amplitube such as the Fender SuperReverb as well as the Red Pig (Marshall Major clone) that I plan with very low gain to keep it mostly clean.
I agree with this. Since this set up would be pretty much aiming for a Fender Twin Reverb like tone (a staple which I think we should definitely have) it would be great if the controls closely resembled the ones on that amp. This would really help to reduce the onboarding confusion for players used to these amps. Maybe even adding reverb to the amp would make a lot of sense.
I second this. More recognisable names would help because most guitarists know the amps but donât know the names of the preamps and poweramps.
I partially agree with this, however for some people, it might be nicer to just have a âdelux reverbâ or a âtwin reverbâ that has everything in one like the real thing. Preamp, Reverb, Poweramp and Cab. Although the IR cabsims are hard to beat
Maybe it makes sense just to focus on the clean one in the beginning
I really like them too. They all kinda look uniform but have their own style which I really like. Maybe me and Andre can come up with the kind of template and then the we can ask for inspiration from the commuinty for the colours, materials and textures. Or give assets for you guys to play around with
5 Likes
I donât think that is possible without break backwards compatibility.
As it requires to redefine the range/amount of the controllers. Beside that it may be a good point to update the Guitarix tube simulations to the latest upstream for those new plugs.
7 Likes
I was curious about what you had in mind here, but even though Iâm not a dev I suspected this:
To be the issue. Iâd still love to hear what you had in mind of course.
I think this is a bit of a trap from the PR but also, and more importantly, a user experience standpoint. Not that MOD has a ton of content around it on the interwebz, but guitar players love comparisons, and while my testing revealed that with Drive/Distortion at 0, and Twin tone stack, Amp Xâs Gain and Volume knobs produce pleasing Fender-ish clean/edge of breakup tones, inviting direct comparison to a certain amp maybe a tiny bit misleading. Even NeuralDSP doesnât reference any real amps directly in their Archetype plugins (they may mention or allude to what their âCleanâ is modeling but it doesnât say that anywhere in the plugin itself, itâs just what users really need to know - âa Clean ampâ), they only do that on the Cortex.
Speaking of Quad Cortex (and Helix, and Boss/Hotone/Nux/Mooer/Harley Benton, etc.) virtually all of the multi-fx units, differentiate between an âAmpâ block (as in pre/power amp and tone stack) and âCabâ blocks (either stock cab or IR). Some of them may allow the user to use Amp + Cab block (Helix) but even then they are still independent (they just occupy less space in the chain, but the interfaces of both blocks are still separate). To put it simply, guitar players are kinda nuts about their cabs/IRâs these days.
Some of the multi-fx units may offer the option to not model the power amp (to accommodate the users who choose to use a real one, though thatâs somewhat rare), but the industry standard is âAmpâ and âCabâ as separate elements (which, is also something most MOD plugins like Supersonic, Onyx, Titan, etc. uphold).
While MOD may be in a more pressing need of a more âhigh gain optionâ I think I have to agree with this. The low gain amp as a âproof of conceptâ should be the easiest to implement in a high-quality format. If it goes well, the mid and high gain amps would also become much faster and easier to implement.
Love it!
4 Likes
In a somewhat anti-climactic turn of events, I decided to return my Dwarf. Iâve spent a lot of time testing the plugins inside the Dwarf against free and paid VSTs, that I already have on my machine, hoping I could provide the MOD team and @brummer with some insights, and in this process, I realized two important things. MOD - while decent - didnât compare favourably to the plugins (often free ones) I was shooting it out against, and - perhaps more importantly - I couldâve been making music instead. The unfavourable comparison wasnât so much in the tone department (besides, one playerâs âwarmâ is another playerâs âmuddyâ, so Iâll abstain from making any definitive claims here) but certainly in the ease of use/speed of getting the desired effect. The subtle fact that MOD is less responsive than plugging straight into the interface (by whole 3ms but actually 11ms given that MOD was also plugged in), and that free IR loader in my DAW doesnât have the 2.6ms limitation, didnât help things either. Neither did the fact that plugins that are out of beta offer control in ranges of 0-127 or -4-20 (?) where a user would expect to see % or ms or dB.
Instead of listing all the reasons why Iâm no longer a MOD user (pending Thomannâs acceptance of my unit, but that shouldnât be an issue given that it spent 100% of its time safely on my desk), Iâd encourage you to really take this topic seriously. I want to be fair so I will begin by stating that MOD is very powerful. Unfortunately, this turned out to be somewhat irrelevant in my current workflow. Coming up with a complex live looping patch to⌠record into Ableton, or using Dexed/TAL/.sf3 loader when I already have those inside my DAW, with user interfaces that are easier to operate, presets that are easier to load, etc were both exercises in needless redundancy, but couldâve been invaluable if I had to routinely unplug and go DAWless. I still appreciate the fact that Dwarf can do so much more than guitar multi-fx units, however, itâs currently also worse at being a guitar multi-fx unit, than even some of the lower-end offerings from other companies (with lower latency/more robust IR support, etc.). I doubt it will ever get close to the HX, Fractal, or Quad Cortex territory (technically sky is the limit, but scouring the depths of the interwebz for good lv2 plugins curbed my optimism in that department considerably) but at this moment, I wouldnât compare it favourably even against the lower end units.
I realize that the MOD team is very small (and from the interactions I had with you all - pretty amazing), and Iâm not sure how important the guitar player market is to you (this may not have been intentional, but it looks like the MOD products suit synth/electronic music producers better than guitar players, despite the much more âstompbox-yâ design of the Dwarf when compared to Duo) but if thatâs a client base that you seriously consider, the proper IR support should likely be much higher on your list of priorities. When it comes to the amps⌠Iâve already written a lot on this subject. Bottom line is that LV2 is a niche (I was hopeful initially, but research after the MOD purchase curbed my enthusiasm considerably) Guitarix is likely your best bet, and it looks like @brummer is willing to help.
Lastly, and I guess it is somewhat important to put this whole thing in context - Iâm not a cork-sniffing tone monster. I donât have, nor do I want a stack of tube amps and cabs (one small 5w combo is more than enough in my book). Iâm used to plugging my guitar direct in. Hell, Iâve been plugging in straight through Joyo American Sound (30euro analog âamp simâ) into my interface with some good reverb/delay/saturation plugins behind it, and getting some of my favourite tones that way. I suspect, there are a lot of players who would judge their guitar experience with Dwarf far less favourably. MOD is almost there, the IR support, some decent, good looking, user-friendly amps, and a bit of general UI polish is really all thatâs needed, but even though I really wanted to love it, and really wanted to help, I have enough trouble progressing in my music-making endeavours as it is. Who knows, maybe in 1, 2, 3 years Iâll get the Dwarf again. I wish you all the best till then.
6 Likes
I agree with most of your thoughts, the general feeling is that Dwarf wants to be like modern guitar amp modelers but inherits an ecosystem that is not designed around guitar/bass players (even if it is the most flexible on the market). All it needs to be more intriguing for guitar players is a bunch of well made amp plugins and all the tricks here and there under the hood in order to reduce the noise (when I use my other modelers, thatâs the first main difference I spot: near zero noise). Iâm also afraid that usability also is a big concern for major audience, most âsunday guitar playersâ (90% of guitar players market, I suppose) wants ease of use at first. Market nowadays offers a lot of good quality products at very low budget and I think that following the mainstream (about usage and sound quality improvements) is something that has to be done, otherwise MOD Dwarf will remain a niche product for nerdy guitar players. The effort to put into the game is still enormous for MOD Devices but not out of reach. IMHO following aspects must be improved to attract more guitar players:
-
Noise reduction at zero level
-
UI usability (think about a simplified UI for Dwarf only like NUX MG30 and the like)
-
5 to 10 high quality amp modeling plugins (but people will look at figures where other cheap modelers already offer 30 to 50 amplifiers. Cuvave Cube Baby alone has 9 amps).
-
PLUS: top notch profiling feature (dreaming of a Kemper-like subsystem for sharing and selling profiles. Selling opportunity would attract profile creators. Profiling is way easier than coding an amp modeling plugin).
10 Likes
I can sympathize - I agree with your points and have had similar moments of feeling like I spent my creative time on technical matters. It has been interesting to see the evolution from when the Duo and ancestors were conceived largely by and for guitar players but also got a lot of interest from a wide swath of musicians with lots of different interests. I thought the introduction of the ModX was a bet or recognition of the popularity of EDM styles (and remembering that sales volume for guitars pre-pandemic were not something to be optimistic about). The Dwarf looks like it will be a significant upgrade in terms of CPU capability, form factor, and platform usability compared to the Duo and while Iâm excited to get mine, I donât plan on using much as a guitar modeller. Iâve written a detailed comparison elsewhere in the forum and had the same conclusions that the creative experience is much more enjoyable with the dedicated modeller, and Iâll stick with that.
Acknowledging that I and others have clearly achieved some satisfying outcomes, the devices are well capable of producing amazing tones, no question. Especially in the realm of modulated effects, you can make some incredibly freaky, trippy, heavenly, glitchy, drone-y, harmonious, floaty tones. Like you, the building and tuning experience is more tedious and opaque than what Iâm usually looking for. Itâs also been my experience that the Duo was my only noisy pedal though I was able to tame most of it via dedicated power / battery and lots of gain staging and experimentation.
Now I view the MOD devices more like Swiss Army Knives - something unique thatâs useful in many different contexts even if there are other more purposed options available. With the addition of the filesystem, better loopers, and extra CPU Iâm hoping to use my Dwarf in several ways:
- Using backing tracks, MIDI loops, sequencers, and the loopers for jamming and recording demos
- Using it for vocal EQ and modulation
- Using it with a battery for busking, open mics, casual gigs
- Enhancing my one-man-band playing with backing tracks / beats, mixing vocals and guitar, harmonizing vocals and/or guitar
- Doing some occasional synth work for adding pads and swells to recordings
- Using it as a Send/Return to generate awesome modulated tones
5 Likes
First I just want to say that we absolutely take this thread seriously. I hope I didnât give you the wrong impression there. All of your suggestions are super helpful and we definitely intend to work on them!
I can completely understand the sentiment of not wanting to spend time troubleshooting and just wanting to use what works for you to do the thing you want to do which is making music! No hard feelings. I hope you stick around in the forums to follow along with the progress.
I agree with both of you guys and you have pointed out some very valid points!
We do want to make the device easier to use and most importantly easier to get the desired result youâre looking for!
We have put some work into this area. We added the noise compensation tool which was a big improvement! we also added the noise gate into the input and output processing which is another big improvement. We are trying to find better power supplies to include with the device and are doing a lot more to try to make this even better
This is a big one. Our current roadmap has an emphasis on improving elements in the UI to make it act more like how you would expect it to, coming from other environments. We also have a lot of room to make some quality of life improvements here so we really appreciate the suggestions from the community.
We are also looking forward to adding an on device patch builder to make things easier for the middle tier user who has moved past the inbuilt presets but perhaps is still a bit intimidated by the web GUI
On this I couldnât agree more. Part of it is about curation (presenting the best amps so they are easy to find), Also improving the GUIs of the plugins as well as getting more amp plugins. Iâve been saying it since I first joined MOD. We need more amps! not a large quantity, but just a reliable set across a range of styles. Itâs a bit of a chicken egg problem. We need to sell more devices to make the marketplace apealing for amp plugin developers, and we need more amp plugins to sell more devices. So it feels like it moves slowly
Something else that has an emphasis in the roadmap is to improve sharing. The pedalboard feed is a great idea that needs some work. Hopefully we can make some big improvements there soon too!
For sure! there are many other reasons to have the device outside of modeling and weâre happy about that!
7 Likes
just a little correction, I think you didnât get the profile section. When he said âprofilesâ he didnât mean like presets or pedalboards but the capacity of creating a profile of certain amps so it replicates its sound (like the Kemper or the Mooer Preamp Live). In LV2 there is some plugins with this capacity (tubeAmp by Kapitonov, for example). It could be really good for the Dwarf to have something like that to mitigate some of this problems!
2 Likes
I understand all of the ideas stated in this thread, but would like to offer counterpoint: I came from the Poly Effects Beebo, and as a bassist/guitarist it is MUCH easier to arrive at a usable sound on the Dwarf than it is on the Beeboâcomparatively the Dwarf is absolutely for guitar players. At the same time, Iâve also owned an HX Stomp and was frustrated by the limited routing capabilities and limited number of simultaneous effects.
One of the strengths of the Dwarf is inherent in the name of the companyâMOD Devicesâitâs a modular system, which can either be run as a straightforward pedal chain (again, super easy to set up a simple pedalboard) or be set up like a Eurorack signal chain albeit with many distinctly non-Eurorack sounds. On the Beebo, if thereâs an effect you want that isnât there, you can build it yourself if you understand modular synth well enough. I suspect one can do the same thing on the Dwarf, but I realize that thatâs the boundary at which many would rather spend their time playing music instead of knob-twiddling (including myself, which is why I gave up on the Beebo). But it also offers opportunitiesâjealous that Helix has that awesome polyphonic freeze effect? Build it from components in the MOD Constructor. Heck, exceed it while youâre at it. Curious about the Chase Bliss Dark World? Recreate its capabilities inside MOD.
Again, I get that not everybody wants to take that time and they just want to find the right distortion⌠thereâs plenty on offer already, you just gotta try out ALL the plugins. Yes, that makes for a fairly long session at your computer playing the same riff through dozens of plugins and tweaking the parameters⌠but itâs still faster than buying a physical dirt pedal, playing with it for a few days or weeks, then buying a new one and selling the previous one on Reverb, etc etc ad infinitum. Of course if MOD does create a Kemper/NeuroDSP style profiler per popular request, you could profile your favorite physical dirt pedal and use it on the Dwarf.
As to the lack of good amp models, the IR loader is clearly the way around that. Even the major players are focusing less on modeling which is expensive and time-consuming on the development end and are focusing on IRs. Perfect example: on this forum and on the Line6 Ideascale, people have asked for years for models of amps/cabs specifically for acoustic instruments. Still nothing. But I can load up an IR of my own Acoustic Image Coda+ amp in an afternoon. There plenty of sites online that will tell you how to capture IRs of your favorite head, cab, mic, acoustic instrument or physical space so that you can take your amp etc with you; and even more that will sell you IRs so you donât have to buy the cabs or spend the time recording them.
All of that is of course irrelevant for the people who either have a good physical preamp on their pedalboard, or are only using the Dwarf live and donât need amp or cab modeling. These people do exist.
I wonât deny that the lack of good open-source plugins and the LV2 format is a limitation (which would be so awesome to see overcome), but a lot of the complaints about the Dwarf/MOD in general can be levied against ANY multi-effects unit. The format is inherently limited, but people choose it because the alternative is cycling through and carrying around lots of physical pedals. Itâs a trade-off we accept. For me, the MOD system is the routing flexibility of a Eurorack-in-a-box with far more guitarist-friendly pedals. And Iâm trying to sound like me, not emulate any famous players, so it contains more than enough ârightâ sounds.
One way to look at it is that itâs expensive if you wind up only using the same five effects all the time because all the others are useless. The other perspective is that those five physical effects would cost more and take up more space if they were physical pedals; and since new free effects that people enjoy are in fact being developed (hello @brummer), thereâs still the opportunity to get new sounds without paying for more gear.
So, yeah, I would absolutely recommend it to other guitarists.
12 Likes
Sad to see you go, @Matt, especially since youâve sparked so much joy.
I must say I understand your rationale and I too believe that, specifically for the guitar folks, proper IR handling is a must. Love it or hate it (I personally donât care about IR at all), this is where the money is these days. Boss recently released the SY200, a glorified IR loader. Several lesser (and poorly built) similar units are now in the market and indeed they provide a good interface and decent sound results.
I also fully understand the personal workflow issue. Sometimes a piece of gear adds an unnecessary layer of complexity. It also brings to mind a 9-month struggle with a multi-effects unit I once owned. Instead of making music, I spent hours (and more money) trying to make it sound good, only to finally realise it would never deliver. Off it went then.
But there are two things we must consider:
a. Amp Models, no matter how good they might be, are never unanimous.
Even if MOD were to offer 10 super-duper models, chances are half users would scoff at them. Letâs face it, there are videos over videos of people whining about Neural (and a LOT of them lashing at their Quad Cortex, for reasons that are understandable), the Helix, HeadRush, and even the Kemper and Fractal. I myself own full versions of Guitar Rig and Amplitube and donât like either in the least.
Therefore, if the entire process of porting an existing model (free or paid) to the MOD were either highly streamlined â meaning also that MOD could potentially consider hosting formats other than LV2 â and made economic sense to developers, just bringing whatever plugin solution that already pleases a user to Mod would be a common thing.
(I have to concede that LV2 and a lot of Linux / Free software / Open source stuff carries a bad stigma in some ways. They are nice, mostly free, âcommunityâ built and so on, but at times they just have no owners or people actively maintaining them. Developers eventually get jobs elsewhere and no longer put time and effort on them. Worse yet, I donât know how many whatever killer â like GIMP, which would be a Photoshop killer â never came close to the performance of their supposed victims. Over time a lot of people got worn out and moved on to proprietary solutions, where people and/or businesses are responsible and liable for the results. MOD is in a different league altogether, since they offer a hardware/platform that is complete, as opposed to DIY thingies that promise you a Synclavier and deliver a Casio VL-Tone. Still, the LV2 format constraint is something that may stand in the way of the platformâs success. Not blaming the format, but the culture around it.)
b. MOD is a platform, not a multi-effects or modelling unit, though it does that too.
As a platform â and better yet, a vision â it can succeed or not. We all hope it does. Some may remember the Receptor, an extremely expensive VST host from the 2000s that was essentially a PC running Linux where one could install Windows format VSTs. It was for music was Blackberries were for the mobile phone world, and similarly they did not anticipate a number of things â mainly 64-bit plugins for the former and touchscreens for the latter. It vanished from the market, and people who had paid 3000+ USD for their machines were left in the void. In my opinion the MOD offers more possibilities all things considered, and given it costs 1/6th of what a Receptor used to cost, it is highly likely that it can capture the minds of everyday users.
I donât necessarily agree that MOD was designed and caters mostly to electronic music makers: it was pretty much a customisable stompbox in its earlier interactions. The fact that it also hosts synths, sequencers and CV tools is more a consequence of its nature â a platform and ecosystem â than a purpose, in my opinion (of course anyone is free to disagree.)
And one thing is just fabulous in the MOD-sphere: you can create a full plugin on Max and port it to MOD, therefore not requiring serious programming skills. Beat that, competition.
Therefore, I think MOD has a lot of work to do â UI, improve key plugins, build others, fix glitches, etc â and that it will take indeed some time until it scares off some big guys in the room. With the right managerial and market decisions, it has everything it needs to succeed. Maybe some of us canât want until then, but I believe thereâs a promising future ahead. MOD needs to clear the way, be delivering all Dwarf units and wrapping up the Expression pedal, then focus on solidifying its platform, user base, and add components to it that will appeal to more and more people.
10 Likes
Not at all. I think the MOD team is amazing. Itâs just that the Dwarf, in its current state, and despite being an impressive product, doesnât meet my specific guitar-related expectations. Iâm just letting you know where it fell short, in my estimation, because I suspect there are many other guitar players sharing my sensibilities.
@RashDecisionAudio Iâm glad youâre enjoying the product. I have no trouble admitting that it is, in some aspects, very impressive. Yes, other guitar multi-fx units have their quirks, but almost all of them have proper IR support, lower latency, and can produce great results a lot faster.
I could address a lot of points both you and @QuestionMarc (thanks for being a great forum member btw) have made here, but an hour ago I took the American Sound pedal Iâve mentioned before from my closet, along with a BB preamp copy made by a local builder. Iâve plugged my guitar through them into my interface, used a free IR loader VST along with TAL Reverb 4 (on my PC, that plugin is not in beta), and Iâve effortlessly dialed in a great tone, which instead of making my wonder if Iâm missing out, or making me want to âcompare the knobsâ with some amp sim, made me want to record a jam into Ableton, and I guess thatâs the gist of it.
9 Likes
That says it all, @Matt. You have the gear you need right now, and duelling with new equipment hampers your music making process. I can absolutely understand and agree with that.
In fact, I have not given up my Yamaha Magicstomps and Yamaha UD Stomp â and the Axon, of course. My baby! With those I can pretty much do everything I need and then some. If hell breaks loose between computer, interface, software, synths, etc., I can just plug it all in and play ad libitum. Which I understand is what youâre shooting at right now. So, go for it!
We wish you well and hope youâll rejoin the MOD-sphere at some point.
6 Likes
Luckily enough you found tools already to support you on your musical journey. I totally get that the MOD devices are not equally suited for every need and expectation and wish you well for your future endeavours. Safe travels!
8 Likes
So, this project will continue? I know we lost the person who proposed it but after all the comments in this thread seems appropiate to continue with this in some way
4 Likes
Thanks a bunch, @eggsperde though this isnât strictly true. As I mentioned before I have some experience with a large chunk of all the free and paid guitar plugins available on the market (not to mention some fx-units, real amps, analog gear, etc. though here, the experience is much less comprehensive). Iâm no stranger to more complex signal chains, etc. Thatâs what made me interested in Dwarf in the first place.
That being said, I strongly believe that before I can venture into more complicated or experimental, I need to be able to dial the 'meat and potatoes of the tone in a quick and user-friendly fashion. It so happens that most of the other plugins I have at my disposal, and certainly the analog pedals I have access to, do a much better job at this than MOD. And what Iâm missing I can simply do inside my DAW. Here MOD could provide some advantages if, for some reason, I had to unplug from my PC, which is currently not necessary.
@jesusperezsv I very much hope so. The selfish need was certainly a part of the motivation behind this topic, but I was fairly sure that both my diagnosis and the proposed solution were in line with what a large percentage of guitar players would agree with. The more quality options there are available on the market, the better it is for the consumers, and MOD is really not that far from being able to provide a very good experience to people who are primarily guitar players.
4 Likes
Care to elaborate? I fail to see how anything in my statement could be disagreed with.
Whether something sounds good or not is highly subjective, isnât it? You might not find the quality of effects on par and noone could not argue with that. Because thatâs what you hear and feel. I personally like what my MOD Duo outputs and because I tried out many pedals and amps as well on my journey, I can confidently say that in sum it is the most enjoyable system I made music with.
Godspeed!
3 Likes