Lawrence Juber and his rig

=

James Nash - Rig with a difference

=

These guys are pretty darn good...
I need to cook my chops more!

They are good, but notice the difference in their Rigs. The first dude has a pedal board that is pretty hectic, Laurence uses just a preamp, James Nash runs through his computer and programs everything digitally.

So many options

I just play straight into the PA.

But am experimenting a bit more with FX.

I have often used my Roland Cube 60 as a preamp for my nylon acoustic making use of the amp models and the other effects. This is fine when I'm playing with my band and the full rig. With solo gigs and duos, I like to travel light and tend to plug straight into the PA these days.

I must say though, that these pedals and rigs that you have found, Squonk, are making me think a bit.

PeteM wrote: I have often used my Roland Cube 60 as a preamp for my nylon acoustic making use of the amp models and the other effects. This is fine when I'm playing with my band and the full rig. With solo gigs and duos, I like to travel light and tend to plug straight into the PA these days.

I must say though, that these pedals and rigs that you have found, Squonk, are making me think a bit.

It's a pretty much what suits you and I think size does count...

I have started collecting pedals for solo/acoustic gigs and I have four at the moment - Chorus, Delay, Looper and a Tuner. Would still need a couple more to make it work. And already that is a whole bunch to carry, where that Zoom A3 seems like a good solution for the smaller Solo/Acoustic gig...

Yeah - whatever works for you...

Juber makes a lot of sense with his (basically) KISS approach - all very practical but giving him enough control to work with the different environments he might encounter on a tour.

Of course, Nash's approach appeals to me with the level of control he has, but the downside is you have to know what you are doing and it is still not a easy system to tweak while playing. There is also the whole relying on a computer for gigs thing.

Benfield is probably closer to what most end up with, but it still leaves you pretty much at the mercy of the sound system and engineer.

Great vids. I found that really eye-opening. Its amazing how different the needs and approaches to stagecraft are.

Squonk wrote: They are good, but notice the difference in their Rigs. The first dude has a pedal board that is pretty hectic, Laurence uses just a preamp, James Nash runs through his computer and programs everything digitally.

There's one thing that interests me about the average (haha!) top acoustic player: They have really good guitars. Despite the electronics they rely on to some degree or other, the guitar still counts for something.

When I saw Martin Simpson in Hampshire in 2010 he was kind enough to show me his gear after the gig. I remember him showing me one of his Stefan Sobell guitars (he had two with him that night) and telling me that I could have one like that for eight thousand pounds! When I saw him in 2012 he was playing a PRS - I didn't ask, but I'd bet it doesn't come cheap. Bruce Cockburn plays Linda Manzer guitars. Richard Thompson plays Lowdens. Martin Carthy only (only) plays a Martin. Guys like Bruce Springsteen (hardly the worst player in the world) tour with Taks (from, I'm sure, the high end of that range) but despite the amplification and the effects (in some cases - Thompson, Cockburn) the serious guys all start off with a top notch guitar. Even Loudon Wainwright (a great performer, not a great player) tours with a D28.

The extent to which you are at the mercy of circumstance is an interesting question. Usually if a guy is touring solo then it's not a big scale tour and so they don't have pantechnicons lugging sound systems around. Richard Thompson takes his own sound guy on the road (every gig) but they still need to work with the sound system that the venue provides. Martin Carthy has a small scale rig (he has a little box that he clips onto his mic stand), generally plays small gigs and for solo shows doesn't retain a sound guy. I've seen him twice. The first occasion was in a pub basement in London and he had fantastic, magical sound that night. I saw him a couple of years later at the Southbank Centre - bigger, posher venue with a lot more gear - and his sound was... not bad but not what I'd previously heard. At that same gig Thompson appeared to play just two songs, his sound guy took the desk over and suddenly the sound was much better - and stayed better even after he handed the desk back to the venue staff.

Effects can work well. It might not be "pure", but often the intent is to perform a SOLO show, not an ACOUSTIC show. Delay and modulation effects seem to work well. I have a live John Martyn CD on which some rather rude noises suggest that he was using overdrive as well. (it is my belief that Martyn pioneered the delay sound that first Gilmore and then The Edge later made good use of).

Lets face it .... All "acoustic musicians" except the chosen few maestro's will usually have to haul their own gear from venue to venue .... And that means keeping weight down .... And yes each to his/her own ..... Some like natural tone some processed .... But thankfully gear today offers more features and power for ridiculously small footprints and weight ...

And the bottom line is that if you have the chops you can rely more on skill than technology ...

And we all know that many players suffer from GAS so often a lot of toys (gear) you see in racks /setups are often not essential but just nice to have ...... Or there because of sponsorship and only used sparingly ?

but like others have said play what you like and what suits your technique and you one happy muso .....