Digitech 2120
Moderator: Shoshanah Marohn
-
- Posts: 62
- Joined: 8 Apr 2000 12:01 am
- Location: Kissimmee, Florida, USA
Digitech 2120
I was wondering if anyone out there is using the 2120 for FX.
I really would like to have a multi-purpose processor that would work well for steel and guitar.
I recently purchased the Pod hoping to be able to use it for both. IMO it falls short as a steel processor, but is awesome for guitar.
Everything I tried with it seemed a little bit too edgy for steel. The 2120 is pricey , but I sure would love to go to a single FX unit.
Thanks
I really would like to have a multi-purpose processor that would work well for steel and guitar.
I recently purchased the Pod hoping to be able to use it for both. IMO it falls short as a steel processor, but is awesome for guitar.
Everything I tried with it seemed a little bit too edgy for steel. The 2120 is pricey , but I sure would love to go to a single FX unit.
Thanks
- Jack Stoner
- Posts: 22087
- Joined: 3 Dec 1999 1:01 am
- Location: Kansas City, MO
There are several, that have commented on the forum, that are using the 2120 or the older 2112. Buddy Emmons was using the 2112 at one time but I think he's on to something else now.
I've been using a Peavey Transtube for almost two years and it works well for steel with user programs. The factory programs work well with my Tele.
I've been using a Peavey Transtube for almost two years and it works well for steel with user programs. The factory programs work well with my Tele.
-
- Posts: 62
- Joined: 8 Apr 2000 12:01 am
- Location: Kissimmee, Florida, USA
Hello Jack, and thanks for responding.
I still own a tubefex but haven't tried using it in quite a while.
I still like using it mostly for FX pre Nashville preamp.
But my last attempts at using the tube section of it pre Nashville were extremely noisy.
I do understand it is all a matter of gain stages, and level matching, but it seems to be quite the tradeoff. It seems to be too powerful to use in front of the Nashville preamp, and not quite enough ooomph to be used as a stand alone pre-amp patched directly to the Nashville power-amp.
Oh well I am gonna try again by reducing all the levels and the global output.
I find myself becoming a little impatient when it comes to programming FX units.
I did some searches for 2120's but didn't turn up much.
I'll search some more.
Thanks alot.
I still own a tubefex but haven't tried using it in quite a while.
I still like using it mostly for FX pre Nashville preamp.
But my last attempts at using the tube section of it pre Nashville were extremely noisy.
I do understand it is all a matter of gain stages, and level matching, but it seems to be quite the tradeoff. It seems to be too powerful to use in front of the Nashville preamp, and not quite enough ooomph to be used as a stand alone pre-amp patched directly to the Nashville power-amp.
Oh well I am gonna try again by reducing all the levels and the global output.
I find myself becoming a little impatient when it comes to programming FX units.
I did some searches for 2120's but didn't turn up much.
I'll search some more.
Thanks alot.
- Jack Stoner
- Posts: 22087
- Joined: 3 Dec 1999 1:01 am
- Location: Kansas City, MO
Eddie, you don't have an e-mail listed so I have to respond on here.
The TubeFex should drive the Nashville 400 to max output power. The Transtube Fex I have will do it and basically the only difference is in the preamp type. The *Fex is not as noisy as an old Profex II but I still had to use the noise gate on the end of the effects chain to limit the noise. One of the problems is the summation of the noise in the *Fex unit and the noise in the Nashville 400, even if both units are within specs the combination of the two could present an unwanted noise level. From reports and comments on the forum I would say the TubeFex is slightly noisier than the Transtube Fex but still should work. I did notice that I needed the noise gate when I used it with my Nashville 400 but since I went stereo with a MosValve 500 power amp, the MosValve is a lot quieter.
Try the TT Fex programs I have listed on my web page. Set the Global settings, input 100, EQ's at 0 and output at 80 or above.
Web Page: http://home.earthlink.net/~jestoner
I have a friend in Zephyrhills that is using a Transtube Fex and Nashville 400, (using the power amp in) with his Zum and loves it and gets all the volume he needs.
If you use the *Fex with the guitar input on the amp, you have to cut all the gains way back or you overload the amp, and you need to set all the EQ settings on the amp at 0.<FONT SIZE=1 COLOR="#8e236b"><p align=CENTER>[This message was edited by Jack Stoner on 20 June 2000 at 03:30 AM.]</p></FONT>
The TubeFex should drive the Nashville 400 to max output power. The Transtube Fex I have will do it and basically the only difference is in the preamp type. The *Fex is not as noisy as an old Profex II but I still had to use the noise gate on the end of the effects chain to limit the noise. One of the problems is the summation of the noise in the *Fex unit and the noise in the Nashville 400, even if both units are within specs the combination of the two could present an unwanted noise level. From reports and comments on the forum I would say the TubeFex is slightly noisier than the Transtube Fex but still should work. I did notice that I needed the noise gate when I used it with my Nashville 400 but since I went stereo with a MosValve 500 power amp, the MosValve is a lot quieter.
Try the TT Fex programs I have listed on my web page. Set the Global settings, input 100, EQ's at 0 and output at 80 or above.
Web Page: http://home.earthlink.net/~jestoner
I have a friend in Zephyrhills that is using a Transtube Fex and Nashville 400, (using the power amp in) with his Zum and loves it and gets all the volume he needs.
If you use the *Fex with the guitar input on the amp, you have to cut all the gains way back or you overload the amp, and you need to set all the EQ settings on the amp at 0.<FONT SIZE=1 COLOR="#8e236b"><p align=CENTER>[This message was edited by Jack Stoner on 20 June 2000 at 03:30 AM.]</p></FONT>
-
- Posts: 672
- Joined: 8 Nov 1999 1:01 am
- Location: Indianapolis, In. USA
Eddie, I have an out of the box demonstrator [new] 2120 at my music store in Rogers,Ar. It lists for appx $1200.00 and we are going to sell this one for around $650.00. It is new and has the full factory warrenty. If you are interested call [501]6361125 and ask for Rich.
Ben Jacks Arkansas Music
Ben Jack
Ben Jacks Arkansas Music
Ben Jack
-
- Posts: 46
- Joined: 23 May 2000 12:01 am
- Location: Sebastopol, CA, USA
I have a Boss GT-3. It is good --
If you like Boss effects, (up to 9 at a time)
If you want amp modeling, like POD, (the TWIN is probably what a steeler would want),
If you want a programmable effects chain,
If you want an external loop,
If you want the whole thing built into a rugged floor unit, complete with switching and expression pedal,
If you want midi,
------------------
Why fret? Just let it slide...
If you like Boss effects, (up to 9 at a time)
If you want amp modeling, like POD, (the TWIN is probably what a steeler would want),
If you want a programmable effects chain,
If you want an external loop,
If you want the whole thing built into a rugged floor unit, complete with switching and expression pedal,
If you want midi,
------------------
Why fret? Just let it slide...
-
- Posts: 46
- Joined: 23 May 2000 12:01 am
- Location: Sebastopol, CA, USA
Here is a picture of the GT-3 and the GT-5. The GT-3 can be had for under $400 and about $200 more for the GT-5.
Let me know what you think if anyone tries one out.
GT-3 and GT-5
------------------
Why fret? Just let it slide...
Let me know what you think if anyone tries one out.
GT-3 and GT-5
------------------
Why fret? Just let it slide...
- Earnest Bovine
- Posts: 8318
- Joined: 4 Aug 1998 11:00 pm
- Location: Los Angeles CA USA
I think the GT-3 and GT-5 are essentially the same as the Boss GX-700 and Roland GP-100 (is that the right name?) which are single-space rack mount units.
The GT units sit on the floor and are covered with stomp switches and a variable pedal or two. I think this is a poor choice for the pedal steel guitarist whose feet are already too busy.
Also I prefer the rack units since they can be mounted on the right end of the steel guitar, using only a very short cable from pickup to the preamp in the fx box. This gives you the benefits of a buffer amp, like the Goodrich Match Box etc.
The GT units sit on the floor and are covered with stomp switches and a variable pedal or two. I think this is a poor choice for the pedal steel guitarist whose feet are already too busy.
Also I prefer the rack units since they can be mounted on the right end of the steel guitar, using only a very short cable from pickup to the preamp in the fx box. This gives you the benefits of a buffer amp, like the Goodrich Match Box etc.
-
- Posts: 46
- Joined: 23 May 2000 12:01 am
- Location: Sebastopol, CA, USA
Earnst, they still show the GP-100, but the one time I looked at it, I think it was almost a grand. The new guy (newer than the GT-3) is the VF-1, is a lot cheaper than the older ones, and is a half-rack. It seems like it has everything that the GT-3 does and then some. I took my GT-3 apart and beleive me, it would be no sweat to put the guts of it in something smaller than a half-rack... I think the amp sims on mine are excellent. I play clean most of the time, which is why I never cared for the Digitech stuff. They seemed to be geared for the player who wants to overdrive everything all of the time. Not my cup of tea.
VF-1
VF-1
- Larry Bell
- Posts: 5550
- Joined: 4 Aug 1998 11:00 pm
- Location: Englewood, Florida
- Contact:
OK, I'll have to defend Digitech (somewhat) since I do use a 2112 and have found it to be the best tube preamp and multi-effects unit I've used for steel.
Out of the box, using the factory presets, MOST multi-effects units are geared for guitar players who are looking for grunge -- totally opposite of what a steel player is looking for. (The Peavey products, particularly those with Jeff Newman's patches, may be an exception) I didn't find a single factory preset in the 2112 that was even close. However, after spending a few hours understanding how the preamp and effect modules worked together and how they can be modified and saved, I was able to find some really useful settings. I'm grateful to Buddy Emmons for helping me understand what I needed to do by providing some examples.
I use the 2112 as a preamp for my MosValve 500, primarily for a stereo rig using two Peavey 115e cabinets. I also use an outboard reverb in that rack to permit tweaking the reverb more easily onstage.
I have a web page or two that explain The 2112 for Steel Players on my website if anyone is interested. If you don't have one, anything past the first couple of paragraphs is pretty worthless reading, but if you own a 2112 and are not getting good steel sounds out of it, you may want to look at this link:
http://www.net-link.net/~ltbell/2112_intro.html
LTB
Out of the box, using the factory presets, MOST multi-effects units are geared for guitar players who are looking for grunge -- totally opposite of what a steel player is looking for. (The Peavey products, particularly those with Jeff Newman's patches, may be an exception) I didn't find a single factory preset in the 2112 that was even close. However, after spending a few hours understanding how the preamp and effect modules worked together and how they can be modified and saved, I was able to find some really useful settings. I'm grateful to Buddy Emmons for helping me understand what I needed to do by providing some examples.
I use the 2112 as a preamp for my MosValve 500, primarily for a stereo rig using two Peavey 115e cabinets. I also use an outboard reverb in that rack to permit tweaking the reverb more easily onstage.
I have a web page or two that explain The 2112 for Steel Players on my website if anyone is interested. If you don't have one, anything past the first couple of paragraphs is pretty worthless reading, but if you own a 2112 and are not getting good steel sounds out of it, you may want to look at this link:
http://www.net-link.net/~ltbell/2112_intro.html
LTB