I definitely stuck around for too long, and some unnecessary toxicity was included in some of my recent posts. That said, and not that you need to do it of course, but if you read my posts without projecting or the assumption of a ‘bad vibe’, you’ll probably find that most of them were, in fact, ‘ad rem’.
Please ignore my post in this topic for a moment:
- You get a user reporting a potentially big issue with a commercial plugin (other multi-FX boxes usually don’t have those, so if it’s a real issue it’s probably a big deal).
- A reply from Jon about the lack of the cab sim in the test patch, which, the pre+power amp simulation technically doesn’t need to function (subjectively sure, technically no). At this point though, and employing the principle of charity, this may be interpreted as a solid reply. Maybe the user doesn’t know that preamp + power amp sim doesn’t “sound good” without a cab/filter. Maybe he’s confusing ‘artifacts’ with ‘bad tone’.
@Sharry in his reply, proves that he’s perfectly aware of what cabs are and how they work. He also gives solid reasoning on how he identified the issue by removing the parts of the effects chain, that could be potentially responsible, thus explaining why his test patch is so barebones, and includes pretty much only the necessary stuff. He points out, that in his view, he did everything he can, and asks what more can be done?
- And here we get the part that provoked me to post. We get the “So I guess I “already tried it myself”.” which I’ll ignore cause I may be projecting but this could potentially be a negatively charged reply (condescending to be precise, but again maybe I’m just projecting). We get this gem: “An amplifier head used without a cabinet is normal that doesn’t work nice (have you tried it in the real world?!)” - which as I already mentioned (and also explained in my ‘toxic post’) is really irrelevant to the subject at hand, and the “!?” bit was probably unnecessary. Lastly: “but if you want us to evaluate the closing conditions to yours possible and in an application for what the plugin was developed for, you need to provide a pedalboard that respects those conditions. Otherwise, you will get a quick answer like the one I gave you.” Which clearly doesn’t appreciate @Sharry’s reason for creating a minimalistic test patch.
I felt like those replies were unfair to the user reporting an issue, which made me write my reply. Especially because it’s not about a “free” lv2 plugin by some random dev. It’s about a commercial plugin, and since most of the other multi-FX boxes don’t have those, it may be a good idea, to justify the somewhat unique business model with adequate customer care, don’t you think?
I’m not a white knight of course, and yes it was also an opportunity to add some unnecessary toxic elements to my post, which makes me a bit of a dick I guess.
Anyway, this is my last post here, I left a trail of cautionary tales, that can maybe make some potential guitar-playing Dwarf buyers reevaluate if the device is right for them (which it may well be if its flexibility can trump the shortcomings, from a given user’s perspective).
I genuinely wish you all well. Go and make some great music! Have fun messing around with the Dwarf and other MOD boxes.