Neural Quad Core thing demo

Jetfire

digitalscream said:

TeleMaster said:

I agree. The stuff he puts out must be edited in post, maybe even verified by the company. I just can’t see these companies paying people without them appropriating the videos and sounds. 

That's really, really not how it works.

Tbf, I agree with Telemasters view point, esp after years and years of guitar mags never reviewing a bad guitar or slagging off anything ever. 

However, the reality is clearly different..

monquixote

I think the thing a lot of relentless GAS chasers probably don't like to admit is that someone like Rabea, or Pete Thorn can make 90% of gear sound fantastic because they know how to EQ and they know how to play in a way that gets the best out of the gear. They don't need to do tricks.
The difference between the Neural and the AxeFX is a lot less than the difference between you and Rabea. 

TeleMaster

Jetfire said:

digitalscream said:

TeleMaster said:

I agree. The stuff he puts out must be edited in post, maybe even verified by the company. I just can’t see these companies paying people without them appropriating the videos and sounds. 

That's really, really not how it works.

Tbf, I agree with Telemasters view point, esp after years and years of guitar mags never reviewing a bad guitar or slagging off anything ever. 

However, the reality is clearly different..

There must be companies who are much more controlling than others, surely. Perhaps YouTubers have more control because they can still pick anything up from a shop, review it, return it and say what they want and still get paid through YouTube. 

A lot of YouTubers also belong to media companies now who seem to be able to negotiate rates with YouTube, so they may have more financial independence than a magazine.

But ultimately I know very little of this world. 

monquixote

TeleMaster said:

Jetfire said:

digitalscream said:

TeleMaster said:

I agree. The stuff he puts out must be edited in post, maybe even verified by the company. I just can’t see these companies paying people without them appropriating the videos and sounds. 

That's really, really not how it works.

Tbf, I agree with Telemasters view point, esp after years and years of guitar mags never reviewing a bad guitar or slagging off anything ever. 

However, the reality is clearly different..

There must be companies who are much more controlling than others, surely. Perhaps YouTubers have more control because they can still pick anything up from a shop, review it, return it and say what they want and still get paid through YouTube. 

A lot of YouTubers also belong to media companies now who seem to be able to negotiate rates with YouTube, so they may have more financial independence than a magazine.

But ultimately I know very little of this world. 

I think brands don't have to say anything explicit because people know full well if they savage something it will be the last review they do for that company. 

If it's someone like Boss people aren't going to be that silly. 

lysander

monquixote said:

I think the thing a lot of relentless GAS chasers probably don't like to admit is that someone like Rabea, or Pete Thorn can make 90% of gear sound fantastic because they know how to EQ and they know how to play in a way that gets the best out of the gear. They don't need to do tricks.
The difference between the Neural and the AxeFX is a lot less than the difference between you and Rabea. 

100% agree with this.
Pretty much any modern piece of gear can be made to sound good and this a required skill for any pro.

However for most amateur musicians with limited time you tend to want something that sounds good out of the box and for the things you want to play rather than changing your playing / approach / other gear / production around it to try and best fit a piece of equipment. 

And this is why all these pro player demos are of limited value when it comes to judging gear - to be honest I watch them for the playing rather than the gear most of the time.

digitalscream

Jetfire said:

digitalscream said:

TeleMaster said:

I agree. The stuff he puts out must be edited in post, maybe even verified by the company. I just can’t see these companies paying people without them appropriating the videos and sounds. 

That's really, really not how it works.

Tbf, I agree with Telemasters view point, esp after years and years of guitar mags never reviewing a bad guitar or slagging off anything ever. 

However, the reality is clearly different..

That's just it, though - the professional YouTubers who get given gear generally won't review or demo something if it's crap. As I noted above, the decision isn't, "Is this product good or bad?" but rather "Shall I make a video or not?". That's why you don't see bad reviews when they're paid for; it's exactly the same business as the guitar magazines.

Glenn Fricker's absolutely explicit about this - he has product demos and reviews that are sponsored, and he has his separate Patreon-funded reviews where he can be honest about it.

On top of that, if a YouTuber gets something in that's not quite right, they have an opportunity to work with the company to make it better - and that relationship can be worth far, far more than the unicorn of a sponsored video slating a product.

With that said, there's very little truly shit gear around these days.

JohnCordy

@monquixote hold my beer....

fretmeister

WiresDreamDisasters said:n

TeleMaster said:

digitalscream said:

TeleMaster said:

I agree. The stuff he puts out must be edited in post, maybe even verified by the company. I just can’t see these companies paying people without them appropriating the videos and sounds. 

That's really, really not how it works.

Which part? The ‘appropriating’ is meant to be ‘approving’ by the way. Some strange autocorrect. 

I would be very surprised if they just let the people they send their stuff to just put out videos of the stuff sounding like shit without them approving it before they pay them. And I’d be very surprised if the sounds aren’t EQ’d in Logic after. I don’t see how the guitar tracks can sit so well in the mix otherwise. 

Happy to have my cynicism proved wrong!

Source Audio just sent me a C4 pedal for absolutely free, because they were impressed with my Collider and Ventris videos, and they want me to do more content for them.

They are happy for me to just do my thing. Because they like it. They don't need to micro manage me, they don't need to put words in my mouth, and they certainly don't need to approve my videos.

They like my stuff. I'm guessing Neural likes Rabea's stuff, and they also don't need to be heavily involved in his videos. They trust him to just do his thing.

Let me know when you want to sell the C4

monquixote

If you look for them there are channels that buy their own gear and will slate it if they don't like it.

Elmo is an example. They are usually small because you can't make a living out of it.

JohnCordy

.

JohnCordy

@monquixote you'll also find that certain folks like to champion certain bits of gear in the comments so even if you do try to be honest about your experience of gear, you catch heat for weeks after from people who aren't used to seeing anything but glowing praise

monquixote

JohnCordy said:

@monquixote you'll also find that certain folks like to champion certain bits of gear in the comments so even if you do try to be honest about your experience of gear, you catch heat for weeks after from people who aren't used to seeing anything but glowing praise

Yep in the example of Elmo he has done 2 or 3 follow up videos on the amount of crap he's had about saying he doesn't like the Marshall Code

WiresDreamDisasters

fretmeister said:

WiresDreamDisasters said:n

TeleMaster said:

digitalscream said:

TeleMaster said:

I agree. The stuff he puts out must be edited in post, maybe even verified by the company. I just can’t see these companies paying people without them appropriating the videos and sounds. 

That's really, really not how it works.

Which part? The ‘appropriating’ is meant to be ‘approving’ by the way. Some strange autocorrect. 

I would be very surprised if they just let the people they send their stuff to just put out videos of the stuff sounding like shit without them approving it before they pay them. And I’d be very surprised if the sounds aren’t EQ’d in Logic after. I don’t see how the guitar tracks can sit so well in the mix otherwise. 

Happy to have my cynicism proved wrong!

Source Audio just sent me a C4 pedal for absolutely free, because they were impressed with my Collider and Ventris videos, and they want me to do more content for them.

They are happy for me to just do my thing. Because they like it. They don't need to micro manage me, they don't need to put words in my mouth, and they certainly don't need to approve my videos.

They like my stuff. I'm guessing Neural likes Rabea's stuff, and they also don't need to be heavily involved in his videos. They trust him to just do his thing.

Let me know when you want to sell the C4

Unfortunately it's amazing

Teetonetal

monquixote said:

JohnCordy said:

@monquixote you'll also find that certain folks like to champion certain bits of gear in the comments so even if you do try to be honest about your experience of gear, you catch heat for weeks after from people who aren't used to seeing anything but glowing praise

Yep in the example of Elmo he has done 2 or 3 follow up videos on the amount of crap he's had about saying he doesn't like the Marshall Code

Assume this is because what people value more than anything is to be told that the opinion they hold is right... When they get told something different they defend the gear because it is also defending their own just judgement.

WiresDreamDisasters

TeleMaster said:

Okay. It does seem strange that in an age where marketing and public perception is almost more important than the product itself, that companies would give up so much control, but I’m happy to see that they do actually allow artists to have a good element of creativity. 

In my experience, it's all about relationships. Companies want to work with people who like their gear, and people want to work with companies who make gear they like. That's why a lot of reviews tend to bias towards the positive I think.

It's different in gaming - there are always extreme non-disclosure agreements and embargo limitations. I've never really seen that to the same level in music tech. There's a lot of faith and trust going around, much more so than the cut-throat world of gaming.

Look at Cyberpunk 2077 and their piss-take agreements they made all of the Youtubers sign up to. They were prevented from using their OWN gameplay footage for their reviews, and had to use footage provided by the company. Total garbage move from a reviews perspective.

That doesn't happen in music tech to my knowledge.

TeleMaster

Off topic, but the bugs are the most entertaining thing about Cyberpunk. 

mixolyd

The big scandal in gaming/tech yesterday was Nvidia sending an “off with your head” email to a review channel that didn’t cover their product in a manner that agreed with Nvidia’s perspective.  It has happened in the weeks following the actual reviews because it would be highly unusual for a reviewer to give a company “final say” on a video review before publishing.  The way it works is the product is supplied along with a press pack that gives bullet points & background info to give the reviewer context so they can provide a review.  Actually vetting reviews would cost a lot of extra time and money (far, far more than the value of any free products supplied) and would discredit the reviewers as the marketing arm of the companies involved if it ever came out.

fretmeister

WiresDreamDisasters said:

fretmeister said:

WiresDreamDisasters said:n

TeleMaster said:

digitalscream said:

TeleMaster said:

I agree. The stuff he puts out must be edited in post, maybe even verified by the company. I just can’t see these companies paying people without them appropriating the videos and sounds. 

That's really, really not how it works.

Which part? The ‘appropriating’ is meant to be ‘approving’ by the way. Some strange autocorrect. 

I would be very surprised if they just let the people they send their stuff to just put out videos of the stuff sounding like shit without them approving it before they pay them. And I’d be very surprised if the sounds aren’t EQ’d in Logic after. I don’t see how the guitar tracks can sit so well in the mix otherwise. 

Happy to have my cynicism proved wrong!

Source Audio just sent me a C4 pedal for absolutely free, because they were impressed with my Collider and Ventris videos, and they want me to do more content for them.

They are happy for me to just do my thing. Because they like it. They don't need to micro manage me, they don't need to put words in my mouth, and they certainly don't need to approve my videos.

They like my stuff. I'm guessing Neural likes Rabea's stuff, and they also don't need to be heavily involved in his videos. They trust him to just do his thing.

Let me know when you want to sell the C4

Unfortunately it's amazing

I have the Spectrum Filter and that too is amazing.

fretmeister

Andertons demo is up

Musicman20

I have to say it just sounds decent to me. Not mindblowing.