Sounds SO good, and you have engineering skills that I want to possess. EDIT : I love the Freddie Krueger sweater, too. NOTHING sounds better than a Tele. It can sound like a Les Paul, a Strat, BUT a Strat and Les Paul can't sound like a Tele. It's THE most versatile guitar ever made, and I'm a bass player, so I'm speaking from a neutral position.
Teles are awesome! Funny about the sweater. I never thought about the Freddie Krueger connection until someone pointed that out on an earlier video. LOL
This is cooler than all get-out. I love all the variety of Hammond tones you use, and the straight guitar tone is perfect. I'm especially impressed with how you got the spacing of the echo at the end to be in perfect time with beat. Next, you've got to do Whiter Shade of Pale--with you singing!
Thanks! Rather than A Whiter Shade of Pale, I'd pick Nothing But The Truth. It could be my tribute to the recently departed Gary Brooker and his ghost would haunt me for the rest of my life!
I would define this pedal as a toy for the nostalgic, although the tunings chosen by the designers are great, it's still not a guitar with a whole world of sounds and a million unsolved secrets.
@@anotherheadlessdemo If this pedal is connected to your creative plans, then it can become an instrument. But if you look more broadly, and imagine a band player who has a keyboardist working nearby, then this is a toy. This is a substitute for the monkey that we saw in your videos. I tried to convey to you the idea that the fact that you play the guitar with its individual voice is more valuable than an emulating device. There is a whole world of unsolved mysteries of sound in front of you, which I really appreciate. Historically, you're wasting time getting the sound you already have. Stuffed with all kinds of sounds, a modern electric organ in the hands of a musician who is able to create and improvise will always be richer and more interesting. He will perceive this pedal as a toy. But he will never be able to tune his organ to sound like your guitar. And he will envy you a little. This is exactly what I wrote about in my comment above.
It was 35-37 years ago. In my practice, there was a case when, in the morning, having come to work, I went into the office of a young graduate director who, using a computer and a synthesizer, was trying to restore a simple guitar intro to a phonogram that had suffered under some circumstances and was needed to stage some - a show. He said that he had been trying to dial this sound and this score since last night. But he does not get it reliable. I listened, looked at his software instruments and score - there was a simple search for 4-6 chords close to the open positions of the game. And the program allowed to make adjustments to the volume and detonation of the note, attack, excesses and attenuation. I visualized how it was played. But we didn't have an electric guitar. We sat down together, and I asked him to make corrections to the sound of the notes, which are characteristic as inaccuracies in the tuning and volume of different guitar strings with your fingers. We recorded this intro with sampled sounds in a few tens of minutes. Got something similar. I forgot about this case. A week later, I learned that this graduate showed this work to guitarists (and these were serious musicians) who could not believe that it was played on a programmable synthesizer. The same was said by his senior colleagues sound engineers. Why this story? This is a story about what a mysterious and secret instrument the guitar is and our sounding standards in the head are primary even in relation to the system and scale. And secondly, if there was a guitarist with an instrument next to us, then all this would be easier. I hope that Google Translator has not distorted my thought. A real musical string instrument is always better.
I agree with your earlier comment about using this pedal in a band situation when you already have a keyboard player. That doesn't make sense to do that. I see the pedal as something to add contrast and color to a piece I've recorded. It's interesting to see what sounds players come up with when using digital devices. Most samples or emulations of various instruments sound like the real thing - at least to me. Would I rather have the real instrument in a recording? Absolutely! As far as Google translator goes, I have used it a few times and hoped I haven't insulted anyone who is a native speaker! That said (fingers crossed): Я ценю ваши комментарии!
@@anotherheadlessdemo "I see the pedal as something to add contrast and color to a piece I've recorded." From this point of view, this device can be called an instrument, but rather a device for sound substitution. I am very critical of digital effects, especially when they replace one sound with another. There are, of course, devices that do their job of enriching the sound in an exhaustive way, such as reverb, noise suppressors working on complex signal processing algorithms - they should not cause replacement and substitution of your main sound, but only enrich and decorate the *individual voice* of your instrument . They are all so different and so rich in their facets of sound. Consider me a weirdo. But our recording transmission lines emasculate personality and sound quality compared to the *live voice* of a real sound source. Is it possible, for example, to fake the Leslie effect in a recording? At first glance, it will be 100% reliable. But it will be so far from perfect when used live in a listening room that you will never trade a real Leslie cabinet for a pedal unless you have to gig and move around a lot. The real Leslie sounds much richer and more individual. We're just used to recorded sounds. It is the gestalt of our perception of the world. This is already difficult to explain without the psychology of apperception, but it may not be interesting and complicated descriptive constructions for you. Musicians rarely think about the intricacies of the tasks that face the general director of recording. If you take Leslie's natural cabinet and microphone system that are used in philharmonic scoring and start to sample recordings on stage, especially when the task is to record a solo instrument, you will understand how difficult it is to capture and document a live performance sound in space. You will move the cabinet (and microphone group) to different positions in the orchestra hall and be amazed at the many results you get. Why is this all being said? This is to the fact that the concept of an acoustic musical instrument and the concept of a musical instrument for a musician and the concept of the sound of a musical instrument for the listener, and even more so the effect in the line of sound processing, are completely different concepts. Designers who formulate a technical problem when designing all such effects simplify this task. And we, as listeners, lose the sensory image and deal, at best, with a gestalt, and at worst, a generalized schematized image of a certain coloring of the sound. Do digital effects devices look like live sounds? No and no again! These are very rough similarities, creating similar oscillograms of those schematic gestalts that were in the head of the designer. This is not at all, and very, very different from reality, if you carefully consider it. If you accept the term gnostic listening, it will be impossible to record most of the real sounds. This is again the jungle of psychology. Excuse me, I was talking about something that I was not asked about. But back to our original dialogue. The electric guitar, as a musical instrument, has developed and grown literally before the eyes of one and a half generations, but it is surprising that our auditory ideas about the sound of the electric guitar have developed and settled thanks to the development of radio and sound recording, and now media and telecommunications. It is interesting to observe these metamorphoses and constants. A kind of evolutionary model. It was about these secrets and mysteries of metmorphoses that I wrote to you in my first posts. And digital effects occupy a subordinate role in my head, and rather like a chain of failures, analyzing which, we reveal the fundamental academic properties of different musical instruments. Many millions of hours have been spent by musicians of mankind mastering these inventions of design engineers. It's time to draw a global conclusion - for the most part they are of little use, and rather interfere with performance and creativity, and all the real secrets of sound are hidden in simpler engineering and performing techniques. I really liked your illustrative example, when you got a very high-quality retro sound on a typical transistor combo amplifier. Young humanity has no experience, it can be filled with education, but they cannot do without sensory experience. You will have very successful retro styling. Your perfectionism in sound production and collection of instruments are already rails leading to the horizon. Interesting: and if you ask an enthusiastic keyboard player to respond to participate in a non-commercial joint project - will there be one? I wrote my thoughts.
Wow!
:)
Highlight of my week👍👍👍👍😃😃😃
Thanks, Marty. Glad you liked it!
NICE!
Thanks!
Very2 nice sound, is like Hammond organ!. Love the green tele!. 👍👍
Thanks much! I'm getting to really like that Telecaster.
I have the B9 Organ... this is among the best videos of usage of the EHX organ pedal.. thanks for sharing .. its so inspiring
Thank you!
Smooth jamming! Also, I like that Freddy Kruger sweater you got there! (The red and grey striped)
Thanks! Someone mentioned my Freddie Kruger sweater on an earlier video. I was wondering if someone else would notice. :)
Wow. Just wonderful. Maybe I'll check out this pedal.🙂
It's pretty cool!
Nicely done!!! 👍🏻
Thank you! 👍
killer
Thank you!
Hey David, nice rotary box! Love this tune, Booker T forever.
Thanks!!
Thanks John. It's a great tune and fun pedal too!
Excellent playing, and video !!
Many thanks!!
excellent video!!!
Thank you!
Sounds legit David!
Thanks much!
This is super! Very cool Niles.
Thanks much!
Nice one...great
Thank you - glad you enjoyed it!
So good!
Thanks much!
Sounds SO good, and you have engineering skills that I want to possess.
EDIT : I love the Freddie Krueger sweater, too. NOTHING sounds better than a Tele. It can sound like a Les Paul, a Strat, BUT a Strat and Les Paul can't sound like a Tele. It's THE most versatile guitar ever made, and I'm a bass player, so I'm speaking from a neutral position.
Teles are awesome!
Funny about the sweater. I never thought about the Freddie Krueger connection until someone pointed that out on an earlier video. LOL
Beautiful Sir. Love the Tele.
Thank you kindly!
That is COOL. Well done!
Thanks! This pedal is way fun.
@@anotherheadlessdemoYou're welcome. I have wanted one for YEARS! Once I have the available cash...
Sounds very cool!
And great cover \m/
Thank you!
This is cooler than all get-out. I love all the variety of Hammond tones you use, and the straight guitar tone is perfect. I'm especially impressed with how you got the spacing of the echo at the end to be in perfect time with beat. Next, you've got to do Whiter Shade of Pale--with you singing!
Thanks!
Rather than A Whiter Shade of Pale, I'd pick Nothing But The Truth. It could be my tribute to the recently departed Gary Brooker and his ghost would haunt me for the rest of my life!
Wow! Sound is awesome, very authentic! Thanks for the review, David! *went to check the prices:)))
Thanks Zakhar! I think most people would not be able to tell the difference between this pedal and the real thing.
Tasty man
Thank you 😋
Awesome! Which mode did you use?
Actually, I don't remember!
Sounds great Dave...remember the Guitorgan?
Thanks Ben. I had forgotten about the Guitorgan!
I would define this pedal as a toy for the nostalgic, although the tunings chosen by the designers are great, it's still not a guitar with a whole world of sounds and a million unsolved secrets.
Toy or tool? Or both? Regardless, it's fun to have even if it doesn't sound like the real thing. :)
@@anotherheadlessdemo If this pedal is connected to your creative plans, then it can become an instrument.
But if you look more broadly, and imagine a band player who has a keyboardist working nearby, then this is a toy. This is a substitute for the monkey that we saw in your videos.
I tried to convey to you the idea that the fact that you play the guitar with its individual voice is more valuable than an emulating device. There is a whole world of unsolved mysteries of sound in front of you, which I really appreciate.
Historically, you're wasting time getting the sound you already have.
Stuffed with all kinds of sounds, a modern electric organ in the hands of a musician who is able to create and improvise will always be richer and more interesting. He will perceive this pedal as a toy.
But he will never be able to tune his organ to sound like your guitar. And he will envy you a little. This is exactly what I wrote about in my comment above.
It was 35-37 years ago.
In my practice, there was a case when, in the morning, having come to work, I went into the office of a young graduate director who, using a computer and a synthesizer, was trying to restore a simple guitar intro to a phonogram that had suffered under some circumstances and was needed to stage some - a show.
He said that he had been trying to dial this sound and this score since last night. But he does not get it reliable.
I listened, looked at his software instruments and score - there was a simple search for 4-6 chords close to the open positions of the game. And the program allowed to make adjustments to the volume and detonation of the note, attack, excesses and attenuation. I visualized how it was played. But we didn't have an electric guitar.
We sat down together, and I asked him to make corrections to the sound of the notes, which are characteristic as inaccuracies in the tuning and volume of different guitar strings with your fingers.
We recorded this intro with sampled sounds in a few tens of minutes. Got something similar. I forgot about this case.
A week later, I learned that this graduate showed this work to guitarists (and these were serious musicians) who could not believe that it was played on a programmable synthesizer. The same was said by his senior colleagues sound engineers.
Why this story?
This is a story about what a mysterious and secret instrument the guitar is and our sounding standards in the head are primary even in relation to the system and scale.
And secondly, if there was a guitarist with an instrument next to us, then all this would be easier.
I hope that Google Translator has not distorted my thought.
A real musical string instrument is always better.
I agree with your earlier comment about using this pedal in a band situation when you already have a keyboard player. That doesn't make sense to do that. I see the pedal as something to add contrast and color to a piece I've recorded.
It's interesting to see what sounds players come up with when using digital devices. Most samples or emulations of various instruments sound like the real thing - at least to me. Would I rather have the real instrument in a recording? Absolutely!
As far as Google translator goes, I have used it a few times and hoped I haven't insulted anyone who is a native speaker! That said (fingers crossed):
Я ценю ваши комментарии!
@@anotherheadlessdemo "I see the pedal as something to add contrast and color to a piece I've recorded."
From this point of view, this device can be called an instrument, but rather a device for sound substitution. I am very critical of digital effects, especially when they replace one sound with another.
There are, of course, devices that do their job of enriching the sound in an exhaustive way, such as reverb, noise suppressors working on complex signal processing algorithms - they should not cause replacement and substitution of your main sound, but only enrich and decorate the *individual voice* of your instrument . They are all so different and so rich in their facets of sound. Consider me a weirdo.
But our recording transmission lines emasculate personality and sound quality compared to the *live voice* of a real sound source. Is it possible, for example, to fake the Leslie effect in a recording? At first glance, it will be 100% reliable. But it will be so far from perfect when used live in a listening room that you will never trade a real Leslie cabinet for a pedal unless you have to gig and move around a lot. The real Leslie sounds much richer and more individual. We're just used to recorded sounds. It is the gestalt of our perception of the world. This is already difficult to explain without the psychology of apperception, but it may not be interesting and complicated descriptive constructions for you.
Musicians rarely think about the intricacies of the tasks that face the general director of recording.
If you take Leslie's natural cabinet and microphone system that are used in philharmonic scoring and start to sample recordings on stage, especially when the task is to record a solo instrument, you will understand how difficult it is to capture and document a live performance sound in space. You will move the cabinet (and microphone group) to different positions in the orchestra hall and be amazed at the many results you get.
Why is this all being said?
This is to the fact that the concept of an acoustic musical instrument and the concept of a musical instrument for a musician and the concept of the sound of a musical instrument for the listener, and even more so the effect in the line of sound processing, are completely different concepts.
Designers who formulate a technical problem when designing all such effects simplify this task. And we, as listeners, lose the sensory image and deal, at best, with a gestalt, and at worst, a generalized schematized image of a certain coloring of the sound.
Do digital effects devices look like live sounds?
No and no again! These are very rough similarities, creating similar oscillograms of those schematic gestalts that were in the head of the designer. This is not at all, and very, very different from reality, if you carefully consider it.
If you accept the term gnostic listening, it will be impossible to record most of the real sounds. This is again the jungle of psychology. Excuse me, I was talking about something that I was not asked about.
But back to our original dialogue.
The electric guitar, as a musical instrument, has developed and grown literally before the eyes of one and a half generations, but it is surprising that our auditory ideas about the sound of the electric guitar have developed and settled thanks to the development of radio and sound recording, and now media and telecommunications.
It is interesting to observe these metamorphoses and constants. A kind of evolutionary model. It was about these secrets and mysteries of metmorphoses that I wrote to you in my first posts.
And digital effects occupy a subordinate role in my head, and rather like a chain of failures, analyzing which, we reveal the fundamental academic properties of different musical instruments.
Many millions of hours have been spent by musicians of mankind mastering these inventions of design engineers. It's time to draw a global conclusion - for the most part they are of little use, and rather interfere with performance and creativity, and all the real secrets of sound are hidden in simpler engineering and performing techniques.
I really liked your illustrative example, when you got a very high-quality retro sound on a typical transistor combo amplifier. Young humanity has no experience, it can be filled with education, but they cannot do without sensory experience. You will have very successful retro styling. Your perfectionism in sound production and collection of instruments are already rails leading to the horizon.
Interesting: and if you ask an enthusiastic keyboard player to respond to participate in a non-commercial joint project - will there be one?
I wrote my thoughts.