[dcunning30]

Originally Posted by thesteve

so basically what you're saying is you read the title and came to a bunch of conclusions without actually reading very much of the thread?

Nope! I've read the title, read several of the posts, recalled similar discussions on other musicial websites, all with the same sorts of points being made, then posted.

But, instead of responding to my points, you're calling my motivations into question. It's as if, there's a thread titled "Tube Snobbery" but the contents are a number of posts discussing the superiority of tube technology, and everyone coming into agreement that this is not tube snobbery, it's just common sense.

[thesteve]

Originally Posted by dcunning30

Nope! I've read the title, read several of the posts, recalled similar discussions on other musicial websites, all with the same sorts of points being made, then posted.

But, instead of responding to my points, you're calling my motivations into question.

that's because i, and others have already responded to all of these points already. i could do it all again, but it's already been said in this thread...probably more than once. your responses have really said to me, "i've read a few posts but not enough of them to get a full grasp of what's going on or what points ave already been made..." all i'm saying is that you're rehashing a discussion that's already occurred.

[dcunning30]

Originally Posted by thesteve

that's because i, and others have already responded to all of these points already. i could do it all again, but it's already been said in this thread...probably more than once. your responses have really said to me, "i've read a few posts but not enough of them to get a full grasp of what's going on or what points ave already been made..." all i'm saying is that you're rehashing a discussion that's already occurred.

My apologies then. I wasn't motivated to read through multiple pages of posts. This thread is 16 pages long. Anyway, if my points were responded to prior to my joining the thread, I suppose responses to me would have been other than SS is crappy (not my word, but what was used in response to me) tone and POD's straight to the mixing board is unacceptable. What I haven't seen would be there's good SS stuff, but I prefer tubes. In fact, in all the "tube snobbery" discussions I've seen on the net, I think I can count those kinds of replies on one hand.

[BillSPrestonEsq]

Originally Posted by dcunning30

My apologies then. I wasn't motivated to read through multiple pages of posts. This thread is 16 pages long. Anyway, if my points were responded to prior to my joining the thread, I suppose responses to me would have been other than SS is crappy (not my word, but what was used in response to me) tone and POD's straight to the mixing board is unacceptable. What I haven't seen would be there's good SS stuff, but I prefer tubes. In fact, in all the "tube snobbery" discussions I've seen on the net, I think I can count those kinds of replies on one hand.

if you read threads you'd see some here. Especially from the steve. My point in saying crappy tone was that bad gear played excellently sounds bad. I have heard bands with all manner of amps and talent levels, and bad gear kills it.

[thesteve]

Originally Posted by dcunning30

My apologies then. I wasn't motivated to read through multiple pages of posts. This thread is 16 pages long. Anyway, if my points were responded to prior to my joining the thread, I suppose responses to me would have been other than SS is crappy (not my word, but what was used in response to me) tone and POD's straight to the mixing board is unacceptable. What I haven't seen would be there's good SS stuff, but I prefer tubes. In fact, in all the "tube snobbery" discussions I've seen on the net, I think I can count those kinds of replies on one hand.

interesting...because i made a post where i said that i love the sound of my SS amp as much as i love my tube amp.
also, most of the responses since you posted haven't said anything about ss vs. tube...what they have said is that the tone simply needs to be GOOD. many players have found there tonal nirvana and it happens to have glass bottles in the back of it. i've heard great tone from SS, tube, modeling, etc. i've also heard horrid tone from all of those. in fact one of the worst sounding rigs i've ever heard had a Bogner Ecstasy (probably had something to do with the fact that it was so loud it hurt my ears).

[Shredcheddar]

Okay, let's all calm down a bit. D. Cunning likes solid state modeling amps, and some of us like tube amps. Deal.

I think the aspect of this debate that strikes us as particularly strange is the fact that some people prefer "tube modeling amps" over what others would call the real deal; real tube amps. We have the idea that modeling amps are attempting (and always failing to some even minute degree) to recreate tube tone. While this may be true, we neglect the fact that, during the process, someone's come out with an amp that (to some people) just sounds better. If you look at the situation in an unbiased fashion and imagine two nebulous amps, Amp A and Amp B, if I like Amp A better and you like Amp B better, nobody gets crazy about it.

[dcunning30]

Originally Posted by thesteve

interesting...because i made a post where i said that i love the sound of my SS amp as much as i love my tube amp.
also, most of the responses since you posted haven't said anything about ss vs. tube...what they have said is that the tone simply needs to be GOOD.

We can all agree that the tone needs to be good. But to rebutt me with "the tone needs to be good" suggests a disagreement with my premise: you can get good tone from modelling. hence my original observation regarding "tube snobbieness".

And if you stated you love your SS tone as much as you love your tube tone, then why are we having this debate? My ONLY point is you can get good tone from SS technology as well.

[BillSPrestonEsq]

Originally Posted by dcunning30

We can all agree that the tone needs to be good. But to rebutt me with "the tone needs to be good" suggests a disagreement with my premise: you can get good tone from modelling. hence my original observation regarding "tube snobbieness".

And if you stated you love your SS tone as much as you love your tube tone, then why are we having this debate? My ONLY point is you can get good tone from SS technology as well.

Your problem is you walked in with a pile of assumptions and started tilting at the windmills.

[dcunning30]

Originally Posted by Shredcheddar

Okay, let's all calm down a bit. D. Cunning likes solid state modeling amps, and some of us like tube amps. Deal.

You still got me wrong. I like tubes as well as modelling. I have, and use both technologies. I noticed you used "solid state modelling" and "tube modelling". What do you mean by each of those terms?

Originally Posted by BillSPrestonEsq

Your problem is you walked in with a pile of assumptions and started tilting at the windmills.

That's exactly what I have been thinking about those responding to me.

[BillSPrestonEsq]

Originally Posted by dcunning30

That's exactly what I have been thinking about those responding to me.

because you didnt read the thread...

[dcunning30]

Originally Posted by BillSPrestonEsq

because you didnt read the thread...

I already apologized that I didn't read the previous 16 pages before I posted.

[BillSPrestonEsq]

Originally Posted by dcunning30

I already apologized that I didn't read the previous 16 pages before I posted.

Then quit defending your attack on the thread you didn't read! Not reading a thread and assuming you know what people said is not really defensible.

[CheshireCat]

Originally Posted by BillSPrestonEsq

Your problem is you walked in with a pile of assumptions and started tilting at the windmills.

Originally Posted by BillSPrestonEsq

Then quit defending your attack on the thread you didn't read! Not reading a thread and assuming you know what people said is not really defensible.

Indeed.

D, I get you as someone with something of value to contribute, but I also experience you a just a tad smug based on some of your comments. I experience you busting into a lot of threads with the proverbial "both guns blazing".

You comment that we "get you wrong". Well, without much history, and with much provocative statements, we really don't have much to work with.

Also, it appears that you are responding to threads you read somewhere else, by your own admission on the assumptions you made, and to assume that "if you've seen one [insert cliche subject] thread, you've seen them all" is presumptuous.

Also, since you seem to have made several rounds with various other forums and groups, then you might be tired of the concept of a "Senior Member", but we are a tight knit group here and do tend to respect the opinions of others here who have been around for a while and have made significant contributions, often notated by the high post counts a lot of the regulars have.

Long story short, when in Rome . . .

Chesh

[thesteve]

Originally Posted by dcunning30

And if you stated you love your SS tone as much as you love your tube tone, then why are we having this debate? My ONLY point is you can get good tone from SS technology as well.

we're not really debating ss v. tube at all...we've been debating semantics for awhile.

I noticed you used "solid state modelling" and "tube modelling". What do you mean by each of those terms?

what he's saying is that alot of modelers are modelling tube amps. for example the "blackface" setting on a POD is a Fender Twin Reverb model. he's using the terms "ss modelling amps" and "tube modelling amps" interchangably to describe a class of amps that relies on digital technology to recreate tube-esque tone, and asking the question, "why not just buy the real thing?" however the concession has been made that tone is subjective and that having 24 amp simulators can really be necessary in the proper context.

[dcunning30]

OK, my bad that I didn't read the previous 16 pages.

But then again, I came on the board strong, so I apologize.