Why hasn't anyone done this yet?

Why hasn't someone out there offered a 'side-by-side' comparison on all (or at least most) of the MTS modules? Someone who has played most of the modules available should rate each module and discuss its strengths and weaknesses in comparison to the other modules. It would be really nice to have a guide that explains how each module performs...

actually someone on this site hear has done that, and hears a link to where you can hear most of the clips

http://www.bandslink.com/randall.htm

Thanks to Jim Rodgers for doing this, it really is cool to hear all of the modules.

Hey guys would either one of you possibly be able to lay us down some ultra xl clips?

There is 1 XL clip on this same section on the forum that was posted a little over a week ago.

Maybe some other people will do some more later on.

evhwolfie said:

actually someone on this site hear has done that, and hears a link to where you can hear most of the clips

http://www.bandslink.com/randall.htm

Thanks to Jim Rodgers for doing this, it really is cool to hear all of the modules.

Click to expand...

I think you missed the point of my post. I would like a TEXT review/comparison of each module- with the review discussing each of the Strengths and Weakness of the Modules; what it can be used for, and what it does poorly etc etc.

Sound samples are fine, but they still don't give a complete picture; There are things about an amp that you can hear in person but not in a recording. Someone explaining in words how the modules handle gives a better picture overall (in addition to the samples)>

Anyway you look at it, it would turn out slightly biased. That is just because we all as musicians have our own tastes with likes and dislikes of certain sounds, etc. Especially with these modules by looking at previous posts - most of us have different views on certain modules and what we find beneficial for each one. So when you want a side by side comparison, I'm sure someone might do it someday (which would take quite a bit of time to compile), but in the end it is still someone else's opinion.

I've always like hearing more than what I read, but hey that's just my opinion.

Anyway you look at it, it would turn out slightly biased. That is just because we all as musicians have our own tastes with likes and dislikes of certain sounds, etc. Especially with these modules by looking at previous posts - most of us have different views on certain modules and what we find beneficial for each one. So when you want a side by side comparison, I'm sure someone might do it someday (which would take quite a bit of time to compile), but in the end it is still someone else's opinion.

Click to expand...

A review implies someone presenting thier own opinion. There is no such thing as an objective Review. I don't care what one likes/dislikes during a review; as long as you SAY what your musical bias is. Obviously some people would fine some modules useless while other people use them exclusively- So knowing the person's musical taste assists you in understanding which tones you would be most suited to likeing.

I've always like hearing more than what I read, but hey that's just my opinion.

Click to expand...

Having both would be preferable to me. You get a sense of the tone yourself by hearing it; then a text review would give specifics and more details about the module that you wouldn't be able to hear in a short sound clip or one little song.

im not going to take this too seriously. heres my rating for the modules i have rated o-10
blackface-8 treble can get a bit overwelming if pushed past 3 oclock
nice clean when eq is set up and has nice slight overdrive when gain is dimed
recto (not modified)-1 hard to belive randall produced this. no good sounds in it.
plexi- 10 great ac/dc stlye crunch rich in overtones, clear note definition with bright switch on
ultra- 8 nice tight metal distortion.
not enough mid range charactor.
1086 -10 versitile distortions from crunch to face melting molten metal.

thats a step in the right direction that I was looking for.