GR2 Demo impressions

Are you confirming that GR2 is dual processor aware and does infact use both processors,, if so,, is this true for both G4 and G5 macs running all versions of OS X,,?

 

Applications do not need to be multi-processor aware under Mac OS X; the operating system handles allocation of CPU resources. Any application running on a dual- (or now, quad-) processor Mac will benefit from the second (third, fourth...) processor.

-B

 

Okay,,
I understand how OSX works in this respect,, but it has always been my understanding that it will give one whole processor to the application and retain the second one for the operating system unless the application is coded to be dual CPU compliant as is the case with LOGIC Pro Versions 6 and 7.
An example of a none DP compliant application would be ProTools le before version seven where by you could set the preferences so that PT used 99% of one CPU,, then you could only set say,, REASON,, to use 85% of the second CPU as a RE-WIRE client because it was sharing it with the OS. Indeed, the recoding of PT7 as a true DP aware application was quite a big selling point at AES.
So, in my case, i have a dual processor G4 1.25,, if it where true that any application that ran on OSX used both processors why is it that people with a single processor 2 gig XP machine are getting way better performance from R4 than i am?
I've had this explained to me by both the guys from DIGI and also the guys from Ableton who both confirmed to me that even though an application is running on a DP machine,, and that it runs more efficiently than it would on a single CPU machine,, say a DP G4 1.25 as opposed to a single CPU G4 1.25,, it is only because it is using 99% of one of thoughts CPU's and not sharing the single CPU with the OS. Native Instruments have told me more or less the same thing when i asked about R4 on a DP CPU mac.
So,,,
Can you confirm that GR2 is in fact a true dual processor aware application,,?

 

OK, looks like you have a deeper understanding than I about this issue. I suppose I bought the hype about Mac OS X, that applications didn't need to be coded to take advantage of multiple processors. I can't answer your question, but I will try ask someone who can.

-B

 

Yes, but can you get 2 controllers to one destination? Why would I want to do this? Simple, my POD XT live alternates between CC off and CC on so if I assign say CC 11 on to turn on an effect, I have to hit the pedal on the XT live twice to turn it off because it cycles through CC 11 off first, it would be good to somehow get CC 11 off AND on to the one destination

I own several high quality audio interfaces including Tascam 1884. You forgot to mention high quality monitors are also very important (I have Mackie HR824s among others). Good quality guitar is also essential. I have all of the above and I still can't find any demo presets that sound anything like the mp3 demos on the NI site.

 

When I was going through the presets I thought I seemed to come across presets that were like the ones on the demos... which mp3 examples in particular?

One thing I seem to notice about presets of any kind on a guitar processor like this 1) I always have to tweak them a lot to match my playing techniques and pickups 2) 50% or more of a given "tone" ends up being in the fingers of the player (i.e. when I play a preset that is named after a certain player or band, it doesn't ever really sound like them when I play it).

I tried for a while to get a decent Geddy Lee bass tone in GR and didn't get anywhere close until I played much more aggressively and the strings were rattling all over the frets. Sounded awful while I was playing it but once recorded it sounded great....the two new recordings on my website demonstrate this.

Rob
http://robmartino.com

 

The first 4 presets for starters, Fat Metal. Rock Track, Blues and Country, I own a variety of guitars and know how to pull a sound from an amp with technique, none of the demo presents are in the ballpark of the demo mp3s.

Otherwise, besides the inflexibility of the midi controller routing, I am pretty impressed with GR2

 

"I tried for a while to get a decent Geddy Lee bass tone in GR and didn't get anywhere close until I played much more aggressively and the strings were rattling all over the frets. Sounded awful while I was playing it but once recorded it sounded great....the two new recordings on my website demonstrate this. "

If you find that you've got to play too hard in order to get convincing tone, it may well be that your input level is a little too low. What are you using for a preamp/ sound card and is there an input trim that you can adjust to make the input signal hotter?

As for the hi-res mode, in the brief time I've had to test it, I was very impressed. The impact was not what I expected - it's not just a matter of detail or smoothness; there also seems to be an additional warmth in the low-end that I had missed in GR1.

There's another thing I thought I picked up on, but it may just be that my PC was having a hard time keeping up w/ hi res at the low latency I'd selected: it seemed as if, in hi-res mode, I could hear "ghost notes" modeled on the Fender clones. These are non-tuned overtones produced by real amps due to capacitor leakage (to the small extent that I understand it) and the behaviour is alledgedly authentic, if not necessarily desirable. This was hotly contested by the Line 6 community when folks started to notice rather loud ghost notes behind their overdriven Vox models. It seems to my ears that NI has done something similar which only jumps out of the mix at hi-res.

 

I will chime in, having used the GR2 demo for a few hours now, and ordered the software upgrade.

First off, Let me say that I do a lot of experimental electronic music, and I'm interested in scuplting new sounds and playing my Warr Guitar as if it was a kind of synthesizer. Thus I have little to no interest in accuracy of amp models, vintage sounds, etc. While I understand there's a functional use for these things, I think it's ridiculous that in this era of amazing music technology, the best we can think of is to replicate the sounds (and functionality) of the past. I want to be able to make *new* sounds, and route, stretch and abuse them in interesting new ways, not being stuck in the rack-and-stomp thinking of the past.

In this regard, GR was interesting but not quite there, but GR2 has made great strides. I am in love with the modifiers, and hope NI will continue down this path- an easy, flexible interface for controlling textural changes. I love these features. The Pro Filter is fantastic as well. Probably my instant favorite effect.

I also do a considerable amount of looping, so I was excited about the Loop Machine. I'm very disappointed that NI, like just about everyone else making looping plugs, has failed to incorporate the vital function of going directly from Record mode into Overdub mode, for a smooth overlap. This makes the Loop Machine totally useless for me.

As I said, I don't care much about the amp models and I certainly don't have a room full of amps to compare, but the new ones sounded good to me. I'll certainly be happy using them when I want a more conventional sound.

I was hoping for more flexibility in signal routing (like putting effects in the feedback path of delays, for example), but overall I am very excited about the new version, if for no other reason than the Modifiers and the Filter. Very cool stuff.

 

Someone in this thread above mentioned a "Fender clone" and I've heard others mention a Mesa Boogie clone. Having never owned or used either of these amps, how am I supposed to know which clone is what?

If I wanted to simulate a Mesa Boogie amp/cab, how would I do this?

 

Hey, Rob,

Great clips on your site! Thought your "Rush to Judgement" was fantastic and really demonstrated not only how great GR2 can sound, but also that you've got some talent indeed! I'm a huge Rush fan myself so it's cool to hear your homage to them yet with your own spin. Nicely done.

Cheers!

Kevin

 

If you develop even a passing familiarity with the more successful amps of the past and present, you'll start to recognize parallels between the GR models and real-world amplifiers they're meant to approximate/ replace. Apparently NI decided not throw money at licensing the actual names of the products. Nor did they approximate them exactly. A typical complaint about GR is that you often have to use the "wrong" amp to get any given, familiar sound. I read one complaint that the Twang sounded more like a Vox, for instance. The Gratifier which most obviously corresponds with a Mesa Rectifier product is actually so much more versatile that it can sound like a whole bunch of different amps - and ironically, not a whole lot like a Rectifier. The new Tweedman appears to be a Fender Bassman clone, the Twang a blackface Fender Twin I think, and the remaining, whose names I can't recall, are a Vox and a couple of Marshalls. The effects have similar loose associations (some not so loose) - Transamp = Sansamp, etc.

(I wouldn't be at all surprised to see this post pulled for legal reasons...)

I agree with pbajzek, though, in that the best application of these tools is to start with a clean slate and look for tones that are new.

 

I will say this much for the amp models: I used to have a Laney tube amp that had the most beautiful "clean-to-barely crunchy" tone I've ever heard. The AC model in GR is capable of duplicating that tone almost exactly, with the same response to playing dynamics.