Author Topic: Home recording suggestions (PodXT?) (Read 11516 times)

adamzap · « **on:** October 18, 2006, 01:56:03 AM »

What's a standard home recording setup that I can use in my apartment?

I have an Apple laptop with GarageBand, and I was thinking of getting a PodXT for Christmas.

Is the PodXT a good idea?

Also, what else would I need?

Thanks

Tol · « **Reply #1 on:** October 18, 2006, 03:41:16 AM »

I have a guitarport that is like the podxt, and I find it great for recording.

The guitarport is MAC friendly now. Its kind of like a Pod, but only for the computer. PodXT has some like more amps and effects (some, not lots more), and can be used without a computer.

I don't think you would need anything else. Guitar to Pod to computer.

Hell Hound · « **Reply #2 on:** October 18, 2006, 02:26:42 PM »

I got a toneport UX2, and it's the perfect solution for recording. I usualy plug my guitar directly but also use my Tonelab SE via the line in (2 x 1/4" symetric ) and it always sounds great.
You can also use mics with it, even with phantom power, very good for the money.

carlaz · « **Reply #3 on:** October 18, 2006, 03:49:15 PM »

I've also got an Apple laptop (and old iBook G4!) with GarageBand, and have considered both the PODxt and the Toneport (both from Line6).

The advantage of the Toneport is that it works as a generic USB audio interface, and you can hook up mics and whatever else through it.

The advantage of the PODxt is that all amp-sim processing is handled off-board (i.e. not by your laptop's CPU, which may be a good thing considering how resource-hungry GarageBand is!).

However, I've not yet had the money to spring for either of them! :P I'm leaning towards the PODxt, though, since I've already got a USB audio interface and the PODxt would still spare the CPU a bit. It would also be slightly easier to haul away for jamming somewhere, or even running into a PA at a pinch! If I didn't already have a USB audio interface, though, I'd prefer the Toneport for sure.

gingataff · « **Reply #4 on:** October 18, 2006, 03:58:07 PM »

Don't forget latency!
If you are running though your computers processor you'll get a delay when you play, but I have my XT connected to an audio interface for the recording but the sound goes from the XT to the interface then straight out to my monitors so there's no latency, I use that as my stereo amp as well. Not the same as a real amp but it get's the job done for me (plus I'm thinking of joining the Epi VJ club)

adamzap · « **Reply #5 on:** October 18, 2006, 04:11:58 PM »

Thanks for the info guys

I still need to do a lot of research, but I just briefly looked at the toneport UX2, and I'm wondering if the PodXT can do Microphones as easily?

I also have an old iBook G4, carlaz :)

With a modern computer, will the Toneport UX2 experience latency?

More toneport vs. podxt discussion please ;)

do you guys think the recording quality will be the same between the two? The podxt costs $100 more

carlaz · « **Reply #6 on:** October 18, 2006, 04:27:12 PM »

Quote from: adamzap

I still need to do a lot of research, but I just briefly looked at the toneport UX2, and I'm wondering if the PodXT can do Microphones as easily?

Dunno whether one can run mics through a POD very easily. Certainly the Toneport would be no problem.

Quote from: adamzap

I also have an old iBook G4, carlaz :)

Creaks and groans a bit with GB, but it gets there!

Quote from: adamzap

With a modern computer, will the Toneport UX2 experience latency?

I have to say I haven't had latency problems with my non-Toneport USB audio interface, and I wouldn't expect any from the Toneport. I've got a Tascam US-122, and I'm usually recording just myself, one input at a time, but I have recorded a live band with something like 8 simultaneous inputs and didn't run into any trouble.

Quote from: adamzap

do you guys think the recording quality will be the same between the two? The podxt costs $100 more

I think the quality will be pretty similar. I think the POD costs more because it's its own complete solution with its own little CPU in there. The Toneport needs to be attached to a computer for it to do anything. I think POD and Toneport essentially solve slightly different problems with slightly different trade-offs. IMO, the Toneport is more flexible for home-recording (though it will tax your CPU a bit more -- I'm not sure how my G4 iBook would react to running both GB and the Gearbox software simultaneously ... perhaps not well! ;)), while the POD is a complete unit, usable without the computer, but perhaps not offering the flexibility of the Toneport's audio interface features.

Originally, the POD didn't support bass amp add-on models -- making that a big negative for me -- but I believe both POD and Toneport/Gearbox currently support the bass amp models as add-ons.

Kilby · « **Reply #7 on:** October 18, 2006, 05:47:13 PM »

One thing to consider is wether the Pod will allow re-amping of already recorded tracks (which I believe the tone portdoes cope with)

Although this may not be nessicary, I have yet to hear of anybody who is completely happy with a part the following day.

I beleive the Digitech GNX 3 is very good for recording purposes, and I have seen new ones for less than 200 quid on ebay stores.

Rob...

sgmypod · « **Reply #8 on:** October 18, 2006, 06:34:35 PM »

xt does reamping and is upgrade able to have bass amps as well(at a cost, downloadable) also there's the maudio blackbox(upgraded now) is usb and £99

carlaz · « **Reply #9 on:** October 18, 2006, 07:17:24 PM »

Quote from: sgmypod

xt does reamping

Really? I had never worked out how to do that easily with the XT. Does it actually interface with GarageBand or other recording apps to leave a dry signal on the hard drive but give you playback and mix down with the effected signal? That would be cool. One of the things that has kept me stuck with GB's amp sims is the built-in easy re-amping!

adamzap · « **Reply #10 on:** October 18, 2006, 07:54:02 PM »

by reamping you mean changing the tone after youve recorded, right?

while the mic stuff is cool on the toneport, I was thinking...I'm the guitarist, so it should be up to the singer to find a nice mic and a recording solution

not that we even have a singer yet ;)

carlaz · « **Reply #11 on:** October 18, 2006, 08:30:04 PM »

In my situation, I am the singer, bassist, keyboadist .... :)

Dakine · « **Reply #12 on:** October 18, 2006, 08:31:10 PM »

with toneport you CANNOT re-amp if in meaning you mean change the amp settings after recording (this is discussed on Line6 forum, not got mine yet).

My clips are recorded (cept Warpig chug) with UX2 into GB and I am v.satisfied with it (tis why have ordered one), also has two pantom power mic outs so can use it to direct record amp.

WP Chug is recorded with M-Audio Black Box which is also VERY good (built in drums etc.) but I prefer the layout of UX2 (with it on pc screen) and the phantom power ports.

sgmypod · « **Reply #13 on:** October 18, 2006, 10:13:20 PM »

sound wise which one wins the ux2 or the blackbox...could always get a mixer..

the behringer ones start at about £40 with phantom power etc

Dakine · « **Reply #14 on:** October 18, 2006, 10:20:57 PM »

when it comes to lil electronic boxes my mind feels old at times LOL.

In a nutshell, I prefered the big PC interface (i.e. using screen for tweaking etc.) of the UX2.

Two different bits of kit really. One is standalone and has built in drums etc. and one is more an interface.

Black Box is pretty simple to use, guess I am just more used to a mouse ;)

Another option is a DAW like the Zoom MRS I have for sale. Even more stand alone with prog. drums etc. and alot more internal control.

Alot depends on HOW ya wanna record. Only with pc or maybe on holiday, work etc. where a stand alone will be more valuable.