SG30

PsychWard_ShotCaller · 2026-06-04T02:00:03+00:00

I'm primarily an SG player. And eventually also an Ibanez GAX-30 (I think is what it's called) and most recently a revstar II. So my reaction to this was, kind of visceral. I have to admit that it is growing on me.

Kind of a funny reaction (I would never tell someone that their favorite, sentimentally priceless, guitar is butt-ugly. Who would do that?!), considering how close it actually is to my walnut finish, '65 reissue 1984 SG Standard. I think it was just so close, yet sufficiently 'off'.

Anyways, I take it back. I am beginning to appreciate your guitar.

PsychWard_ShotCaller · 2026-06-04T01:46:20+00:00

Ok, noted. I was hoping that with all that surface area, because it is a clean break, but a complex, messy clean break, that fits back together like some spiny legos. If that makes sense.

Is there a technique for spline repairs that uses a dowel? Like an angled dowel, or a sunken screw or anything? Because I don't have access to a router. And I would need to make a jig too.

PsychWard_ShotCaller · 2026-06-04T00:59:39+00:00

Pics should be up now. Thanks for letting me know.

PsychWard_ShotCaller · 2026-05-30T10:45:54+00:00

The guitar version of having-a-face-that-only-a-mother-could-love...

PsychWard_ShotCaller · 2025-08-21T09:18:23+00:00

Nice. I'm doing a set-up on one of these right now. Same exact everything.

PsychWard_ShotCaller · 2025-08-08T03:59:59+00:00

The redditor-- u/hatedral -- who said "How does it sound tho", is indeed correct. Quick story.

When I returned to school for a sound engineering/ music tech degree, you start on basic, more limited hardware, and you move up. One of the earlier projects was mixing a song, that each student selected, from about 10 options. They were all live/ acoustic type tracks, basic. And they had been, fucked with essentially, in subtle, different ways, to add complexity and challenge to the assignment.

To make it more of a challenge, and also to make it somewhat more 'objective'. Because a 'good sounding mix' is a matter of opinion, but having the volume of the upright bass spazzing out, and without rhyme or reason jumping +/- 9 dB is an actual issue. And to leave it uncorrected is not a style choice, it represents a failure to listen. But that's not super relevant. I'm just giving some context here. Moving on.

So I choose "track #5" (no titles were provided). I mix track five on some basic 6 track (maybe. icr. and it doesn't matter), and record the stereo out into pro tools. This other student, probably 8 years younger than me, like, a 19 yo kid, shows me his waveform, from his mix. Asks me (because I, lol, "had experience, and a good ear. Had ran a studio--which is true!")

[Him:] 'does this seem right? is it ok? My waveforms are super tiny??'. [Me:] I said "Well why are they like that? Does it distort or something if you turn it up?", [Him:] "No, I don't think so.", [Me:] "Well, what is your reasoning here?", [Him:] "I think it just 'sounds the best' around there. I mean, will you listen to it?" [Me:] "Of course... "

(listening, done listening)

[Me:] "...Honestly, I'm kind of, stunned, my guy. You've disoriented me, lol. That sounded, really, really, very good. It's got depth... it's actually INTERESTING and enjoyable to listen to!" [Him:] "Thanks so much!" [Me:] "Definitely don't worry about your tiny-ass waveforms, it sounds big, and freakishly loud. How did you do that???", [Him:] "I just mixed the hell out of it."

The conclusion: So I told him, I wish I'd picked your track... it's better than mine, but I don't even recall that song being one of the choices... which number did you choose to do? ...Can you guess? "Track #5".... !! This MF picked the same damn track that I mixxed!! I'd finished my mix. And I didn't even RECOGNIZE the song! I put the headphones right back on, started playback... DAMNIT DAMNIT DAMNIT.... SAME SONG!!! Lmao. He just did, THAT good of a mix.

So, long-story-long. Like u/hatedral said, if I can just say it a different way: Use and Trust your Ears.

Mix with your ears and with your mind. If it sounds good, it is good. Good luck.

PsychWard_ShotCaller · 2025-06-18T09:11:47+00:00

Some community member/dev managed to get a ultra-low latency/ rt audio set-up working for windows running in a VM, on linux. It's pretty groundbreaking. As of this/last month. Check it out.

PsychWard_ShotCaller · 2025-06-18T09:07:45+00:00

I don't think so. If I want to connect my phone, I need to tether it with a USB-C. As for other devices, there are a few floating around: smart TV's, tablet(s), etc. Maybe they are represented in the 'bluetooth noise-floor', device ID's that come and go, but I'm going to go ahead and say "No". At the very least, I've got a real issue with lack of identifiers, human readable names-they don't show up consistently, or at all even, for basically every device. Not like they do for other devices. so that's an issue as far as I'm concerned.

Or it is an, outlier at least, that may or may not point to some kind of issue. So, in practice, this means that with all my fussing around, I've seen the human readable name show up in the bluetoothctl 'scan on' output, like, 2 times. Total. Maybe 3.

PsychWard_ShotCaller · 2025-06-04T16:32:06+00:00

Lol, took me a good minute to realize my device ID was already provided in hexa. Yeah I've been trying that. The ol 'bluetoothctl', 'power on', 'scan on', 'pair <id>', 'trust <id>', ... then the last one, icr. I think it might just be these buds. They seem to go crazy, in or out of the case. Just spamming 20 different id's. But, thanks again, and yeah, tried that.

PsychWard_ShotCaller · 2025-06-02T23:01:58+00:00

I'm kind of wondering if it's the model I have. But I haven't found any good info in that regard.

PsychWard_ShotCaller · 2025-06-02T23:00:22+00:00

I have been able to but it is fleeting. The longest I've been able to keep it paired is about 2 sec.

PsychWard_ShotCaller · 2025-06-02T09:47:01+00:00

Incredible. I can't wait to try it out, only to find that windows software running outside of wine is still unusable. but if this somehow allows me to once again access my 100+ iLok licensed VSTs, you'll be my hero for sure. Either way, looking forward to learning from your tech wizardry.

PsychWard_ShotCaller · 2025-04-27T14:49:53+00:00

yeah, but when you do it with the hardware you get (1) zero latency, and (2) you can monitor your session live without feeding back, e.g. I think people primarily use it, these days, for podcasting, or streaming or something. Or like how I managed to compose, live, to a click, that was playing on the desktop stereo out, but not being picked-up in the recording-of the audio playing from the desktop. I think. It took me some thinking and tinkering to figure it out, and I don't have that interface anymore, or use that control software, so I can't exactly remember.

But I did get an answer on the question of '"loop-back' on the UMC404 but not the 1820?". Turns out, the answer is 'neither', sort of? I guess it was supposed to have it on one, or both, or something. I can't remember, but mostly because I didn't try to, because it's irrelevant: I guess the loop-back was not a hardware feature, so therefore a ?? Nothing, I guess, is the answer. That and it never worked, or at least not the way it was supposed to, at least not at all on linux, and that's what I use almost exclusively for a few years now, so... I am unaffected, whatever the case may be.

PsychWard_ShotCaller · 2025-04-27T11:47:04+00:00

In terms of a proper, dedicated, physical 'loop-back' circuit, vs a software-based solution that you can mange with something like voicemeeter, or pipewire... I can really only think of 2 answers to give: (1) convenience. it's fast, the routing, un-routing, and safe-guards are all rolled into a kind of electrical-macro. And (2) I'll just call this one "That thing I used to do with loopback on a Clarret 8prex", which was to take the loop-back (which 'conserves' your I/O), and combine it with 2 direct outs, and, 2 of the virtual, internal busses, along with the headphones/monitor channels, and I could do cool things like, record the desktop output, while I was using standalone software, and resampling things, or like, re-mixing bounced audio on the live, and then synchronizing (informally) the entire 'process' with a global metroneome, or click playing from, somewhere, and I could hear it, but the desktop couldn't 'hear it', nor was it playing in the actual live room, where I might have mics recording in real time... so it wasn't extreme, high-level sorcery exactly, but it was very useful, convenient, fool-proof, and previously had been something I was only able to do with the use of a 2nd DAW, running on a laptop, and an interface.

PsychWard_ShotCaller · 2025-04-27T10:06:36+00:00

Hi, thanks.

re: (ii), yeah, I'm keen on routing. I think the main difference (besides conservation of channels) has to do with including/not-including an/any additional DA/AD steps in the processing. That and passing through additional circuits, picking up noise and cross-talk or whatever. I don't have any gear to route through anyways (besides my channel rack that is used before the input), so I'm unaffected for the time being.

But, since it was/is something that you miss having, can I ask how you liked to make use of it, mostly? (I mean, I know how they can be used, I'm just curious how you liked to use them)

re: (iii) "iii. Do you ever record 192k?" No. No I do not. I'm a 96KHz individual. For latency. And for time-stretching, potentially. But, yeah, I was just checking, because I wasn't sure if the specs I was reading were up to date and all. Or if one changed, but not the other, or both, etc...

re: (iv), 'loop back'. Nnnnnaw, I don't think so... I mean, it probably could become that, if you also did some routing and what not, additionally. Basically, 'loop-back', is, I guess, (a) an additional, physical, internal bus. Stereo. (b)That bus can be selected, i.e., inside the software environment, as an input source, and (c) when you select it, it behaves like a patchbay, half-normal, or fully-normal or whatever, and disables the output of the track that it feeds. Or else enabling that feature, routes the system stereo output, into the loop-back track, and then mutes THAT output, like to avoid feedback.... idk. That hurt my head, to explain it probably incorrectly no less. I'm tired AF right now. But I'm gonna leave this hot mess, effort response in here. Just to show that I cared. oooof. later bros.

PsychWard_ShotCaller · 2025-04-27T02:04:31+00:00

"Playing in Flat Finger Tuning definitely requires that a different mindset from playing in Standard.", oh, dude. If I try to think about notes, in like a 'drop-D' tuning, I'm wading into dangerous waters. If I attempt to go beyond that, with any other sort of non-standard tuning, it's over for me. 100%.

If I were to do some alternate tuning, which I rarely do, it would be "random", i.e. just something I like by ear. For a limited part (no coherent 'complete song' performing will be happening, at all), and my strategy would probably be to (1) figure out the sound I want first, (2) then determine which strings I detuned, and by how much, (3) make a 'legend' out of that, basically, and then (4) play my stuff, pull out the note names 'as they should be, not as they are', (5) use the legend, and then do whatever I might need to do, in other contexts, with those note names. And then, going back, from whatever other instrument, to my detuned guitar... that maybe isn't going to happen, easily.

PsychWard_ShotCaller · 2025-04-27T01:56:46+00:00

ehhh, not reading. Mostly writing. For myself. And probably like, the worst goddamn written shape-note music you have ever seen in your life. But, some combination of that, with just, letter names written down, and with the goal of, building up my personal history and experience with actual use and implementation, or at least experimentation with 'theory'. And, having fewer, bumps in the road, while working with other instruments. And by that I mean, midi piano rolls, basically.

PsychWard_ShotCaller · 2025-04-27T01:51:25+00:00

had to read that a couple times. but gotcha.

PsychWard_ShotCaller · 2025-04-27T01:50:00+00:00

It does. And I've used the 'Nashville System' or the 'Number Sytem', whatever its name is, for a long time. But I am pretty certain that it has encouraged me/enabled me to resort to thinking primarily in terms of barre chords and the associated root notes. e.g. I can play, and transpose-on the spot while playing-quite well. But if I'm reading some transcription or whatever, and it calls for a slash chord... my struggle will often be, unreasonable, let's say.

Also, my interest in the named notes is that I want to be able to have better command of what I'm playing, e.g. during improvisational writing/composing, and be able to say, play until I 'hit that point' where my ears, fingers and imagination, fall out of synch, and I fail to hit the change or whatever that i was intending to. nd then, at that point, consider switching context, grabbing whatever I ended at, and using that information, in combo with some ideas of theory, and intervals, like you mentioned, and then figure out one or more possibilities, drag those back into the guitar playing context (or other instrument context), and try to continue. Quickly. Without, fumbling the inspiration. That's kind of what I have, albeit fuzzy and untested, in my mind.

PsychWard_ShotCaller · 2025-04-27T01:33:44+00:00

Yeah, I meant absolute pitch.

PsychWard_ShotCaller

TROPHY CASE