View other reviews for this product:
azertyvince « MEDIOCRE »
Published on 04/16/13 at 07:54Edition via PC possible.
Manually editing also.
Digital multi-effects with lamp sortie.Processeur 44.1 kHz (96 kHz against its predecessor).
Simple connectivity (no MIDI input, no effects loop).
The pedal has switches numbered 1 to 4, which suggests that there are 4 patches per bank, excluding use it seems that the 4th is locked, the display does not patch, but no the bank. There would therefore 3 patches per bank.
While ZOOM G7 and G9 had respectively 4 and 5 patches per bank, where it seems that one falls to 3.
Many switches have disappeared from the G7 and G9 (more switches specific bank change over switch amp change over switch function, which allow to extend the possibilities of the bank).
There is more than one expression pedal compared to G9.
A lamp and transistor preamp settings have disappeared from the G7 and G9. The tone control lamp on the G5 is not used much in my opinion.
I also find that the Booster lamp and switch are superflux the lamp enough.
In this proposal, there is more control in the preamp tone simultaneously (replaced by adjusting knobs freq 4): this is in my opinion, less manageable and fully redundant with respect to eq 6 bands put into effect, so that general tone setting complemented well eq 6 bands on the G7 and G9 (2 sets were very interesting to scupter sound).
UTILIZATION
Manual editing is simple.
I have not tried using the PC.
The manual is quite clear, everything is pretty intuitive and clear (more than his predecessors: G7/G9).
on the other hand, it is regrettable that the effects are not classified before selection during manual editing effects. Must scroll through 100's effects before you find one that you want to insert in the chain.
SOUND QUALITY
I totally agree with the opinion of Mickhendrix (below).
This is well below the G9, I also 5 years.
G5 tested in a Marshall Valvestate entry 8080 (clear channel transistor)
then in the loop of the amp (the "amp head" and "power amp has been selected in the G5.
Where G9 was the result of a compromise between numerical simulations and lamps (analog), where these two aspects of his were well proportioned, forming a single entity and providing sound quite natural, G5 meanwhile sounds pretty synthetic.
On the G5 it seems to find these components (digital and analog), but so unbalanced. Digital (simulations) is in the foreground.
The two components (the simulations and the 12AX7) do not fuse on the G5.
Simulations and synthetic sound effects G5 and it's even worse when we combine 2 or 3 effects. This was not the case on the G9, in any case not at all at this point.
Question her, the G5's hard to reproduce some sounds fine and cristalins that could happen to produce the G9.
On the G5, I feel that the simulations also compress the sound loses the sweetness of the natural attack and there was on the G9 and G7 (despite setting this "tube" to zero on the G5).
OVERALL OPINION
All this is very disappointing when we had the G9 and we enjoyed it.
Used a morning tested with the G9 side to compare,
and restored to the store.
There's no photo, even if I feel that both bikes come from the same place a sound point of view, I think the G5 next to the plate.
This crankset that brandishes ZOOM as "The Answer" is, in my opinion, the answer to anything.
I rather like cheap pedals, economic version.
I feel that ZOOM foolishly copied concurrency, while G9 was quite original and was very much appreciated.
Putting the simulations and therefore the digital front, at the expense of the lamp, I feel that ZOOM wanted to caricature the sound was more subtle on G7/G9,
as if to shout a little louder than the competition.
Result, the G5 sounds a bit more like a line6 "all digital".
Manually editing also.
Digital multi-effects with lamp sortie.Processeur 44.1 kHz (96 kHz against its predecessor).
Simple connectivity (no MIDI input, no effects loop).
The pedal has switches numbered 1 to 4, which suggests that there are 4 patches per bank, excluding use it seems that the 4th is locked, the display does not patch, but no the bank. There would therefore 3 patches per bank.
While ZOOM G7 and G9 had respectively 4 and 5 patches per bank, where it seems that one falls to 3.
Many switches have disappeared from the G7 and G9 (more switches specific bank change over switch amp change over switch function, which allow to extend the possibilities of the bank).
There is more than one expression pedal compared to G9.
A lamp and transistor preamp settings have disappeared from the G7 and G9. The tone control lamp on the G5 is not used much in my opinion.
I also find that the Booster lamp and switch are superflux the lamp enough.
In this proposal, there is more control in the preamp tone simultaneously (replaced by adjusting knobs freq 4): this is in my opinion, less manageable and fully redundant with respect to eq 6 bands put into effect, so that general tone setting complemented well eq 6 bands on the G7 and G9 (2 sets were very interesting to scupter sound).
UTILIZATION
Manual editing is simple.
I have not tried using the PC.
The manual is quite clear, everything is pretty intuitive and clear (more than his predecessors: G7/G9).
on the other hand, it is regrettable that the effects are not classified before selection during manual editing effects. Must scroll through 100's effects before you find one that you want to insert in the chain.
SOUND QUALITY
I totally agree with the opinion of Mickhendrix (below).
This is well below the G9, I also 5 years.
G5 tested in a Marshall Valvestate entry 8080 (clear channel transistor)
then in the loop of the amp (the "amp head" and "power amp has been selected in the G5.
Where G9 was the result of a compromise between numerical simulations and lamps (analog), where these two aspects of his were well proportioned, forming a single entity and providing sound quite natural, G5 meanwhile sounds pretty synthetic.
On the G5 it seems to find these components (digital and analog), but so unbalanced. Digital (simulations) is in the foreground.
The two components (the simulations and the 12AX7) do not fuse on the G5.
Simulations and synthetic sound effects G5 and it's even worse when we combine 2 or 3 effects. This was not the case on the G9, in any case not at all at this point.
Question her, the G5's hard to reproduce some sounds fine and cristalins that could happen to produce the G9.
On the G5, I feel that the simulations also compress the sound loses the sweetness of the natural attack and there was on the G9 and G7 (despite setting this "tube" to zero on the G5).
OVERALL OPINION
All this is very disappointing when we had the G9 and we enjoyed it.
Used a morning tested with the G9 side to compare,
and restored to the store.
There's no photo, even if I feel that both bikes come from the same place a sound point of view, I think the G5 next to the plate.
This crankset that brandishes ZOOM as "The Answer" is, in my opinion, the answer to anything.
I rather like cheap pedals, economic version.
I feel that ZOOM foolishly copied concurrency, while G9 was quite original and was very much appreciated.
Putting the simulations and therefore the digital front, at the expense of the lamp, I feel that ZOOM wanted to caricature the sound was more subtle on G7/G9,
as if to shout a little louder than the competition.
Result, the G5 sounds a bit more like a line6 "all digital".