Intellifex vs G-Major

[OklaStrat]

Ok, here's the scoop:

I'm upgrading my entire rig, and going to *sigh* use an fx processor in the loop of whatever amp I end up with. The less I spend on the processor, the more I have for the amp, or amp parts for more chicanery with building them.

It seems the G-Major is well loved, and I've heard good things about the Intellifex also. I'm mainly going to use whatever I get for my cover band. Has anyone here owned both pieces of gear or at least spent a lot of time with them? Basically, is the Major worth the extra $200 or more? I have a foot controller that will relay switch amp channels, so that feature on the Gmajor isn't really necessary for me. My biggest worry is tone suckage - is the Intellifex going to be worse than the TC? (I'm guessing it is) and if so, how much worse?

Thanks!

Pete

[rstites]

Re: Intellifex vs G-Major

Pete,

I've owned both. I used the Intellifex for a couple of years sometime back. I had the G Major for only a short time before dismantling the rack. I kind of wish I would have kept it.

The G Major offers quite a few more effects and more flexability in setting them up. It's easier to program too. The Intellifex only does chorus, reverb, and delay. Doing more than one of those pushes the memory and can be hard on the sound. If you only do one sound at a time (definitely with reverb, less so with delay and chorus) it's a very solid unit.

The G Major does flanging, tremelo, volume, filtering, etc. effects too. I never got to mess around much with the non-timebased effects, but it's pretty well accepted that they aren't too strong. The choruses, reverbs, flanging, delays, etc. are all pretty good.

I really couldn't tell any significant reduction in sound quality going through the G Major 'flat' (ie. no effects - there's no a true remote bypass). The Intellifex definitely affects your tone, even when bypassed. It's not horrible, but you can easily hear it.

Both are readily available used and prices are very predictable and stable. I'd say buy the amp first and then figure what you have left to spend on a processor. If you can swing the G Major, go for it. If you can't, the Intellifex is plenty good for live use. You may also want to look into the Replifex since it has more guitar oriented effects.

Btw, I wouldn't discount the G Majors channel switching ability. With that, you can control everything with a single midi-controller. It's pretty handy.

Ross

[Cleveland Metal]

Re: Intellifex vs G-Major

Thought I'd chime in. I only own the Intellifex. And although I have never had trouble and think it's a truly great unit for the money. Next time around, I will grab a G Major...

I hear the buffers are much better and more transparent, and the unit has a lot more options.

New, they're about the same price. Yet used, the TC hold its value and the Intellifex is cheaper... Hmmm.... Might mean something.

[Foolius Maximus]

Re: Intellifex vs G-Major

I've owned both and I'd say go with the G Major (even though I had two that broke down but I think they were flukes)- The Intellifex sucked my tone once I started using the higher end stuff and that's why I went with the G Major- NO TONE LOSS- The Intellifex is a little more user friendly but if you want a good tone you SHOULD spend many hours trying to achieve it- Good luck- Neddi

[Cleveland Metal]

Re: Intellifex vs G-Major

Wow, you really feel that the Intellifex was tone sucking? Hmmm... I may have to pull it out of the system tonight and investigate...

I've noticed so much of my other equipments shortcomings since I went to high end stuff, like my CAE3+se in particular, I guess it's time to inspect the Intellifex for that too!...

G Major, here I come... Doh!!!

[Foolius Maximus]

Re: Intellifex vs G-Major

John, try your rig without it and see if you notice the difference- I had a black face, LTD, and an Online and they all sucked tone- Let me know how it turns out- Neddi

[rstites]

Re: Intellifex vs G-Major

Stu,

I definitely agree with you about these things being relative to surrounding gear. It can be very dependent on the effects loop that you're running it in too. Some effects loops inherently change the tone you hear at the output because additional circuitry is gone through in the amp that isn't if nothing is in the loop. This tends to be more true of the fancier parallel loops that are ironicly designed to preserver some of the amp's tone. [img]images/icons/wink.gif[/img] Of course, the same is true for various input/output stages of other drives if you have other devices in the signal path. The only way this can ever be 'solved/fixed' is if there's a standard adopted for nominal input/output impedances and dynamic ranges of such devices (not very likely).

I encountered some of what you're describing with the G Major, but was able to dial it out. Like any digital processor, you need to use as much of the dynamic range of the quantizers (A/Ds) as possible, without clipping. With the G Major this requires adjusting both the input and output volumes. I found the programming the G Major without the inherent -6 db output (ie. with a 0 db output) was a major improvement in sound from the unit. It's just an idea if you haven't tried it. I honestly didn't own the unit long enough to get past the honeymoon phase with it, but I do think I'm pretty objective (compared to the average HC reviewer anyway [img]images/icons/grin.gif[/img] ). I also never did totally trust it. I still had my GCX around at the time and did switch it out of the loop when not in use.

Pete on other neat thing about the G Major is the built in tuner. Let's you move the old Korg/Sabine tuner out of the gig rack. Don't expect to do setups with it, but it'll work fine for basic tuning.

Ross

[StuTDavis]

Re: Intellifex vs G-Major

Ross,

Yup...I get what you're saying about the Input/Output level features on the G-Major. One of the nice things about the unit is it does have several different options for varying both input and output levels, to try to get the best mix for your setup. Of course, the downside of anything like this is...well...you've got all those options hehehe. Options which "basically" do the same thing but, but have different affects on the sound depending on which one you use to do it. The Pro vs. Consumer input range parameter, the actual amount of boost put on that input range, the actual input knob, the actual output knob, and 2 or 3 other internal parameters for varying the outputs and mixes of the various effects and the unit in general. Great if it works just right for your setup out of the box (like it did with my Prophesy preamp), but can be a real frustration when things don't work so perfectly in stock settings (as happened when I switched over to my Egnater preamp). The good thing though, regardless of the headache and frustration, is that it HAS these options...whereas other units that don't have such variable parameters...well...you're stuck with what you get like it or not. Overall, I'd say the G-Major is a fairly easy unit to program...and it does have some fairly useful preset effects that could be use without much programming at all...but, otherwise, I don't think it's the type of unit for people who "hate tweaking knobs all day" hehehe.

[kirkslossar]

Re: Intellifex vs G-Major

I've had both, and I got rid of the GMajor and stuck with an old black face (Motorola Chipset) Intellifex.

To me, the G-Major was a tone sucker. I also think it's easier to program the Intellifex.

I only use a bit of chorus, some delay and reverb. I don't have any use for any of the other FX at this time.

To be totally honest, I am notusing anything more than my amp and a wah these days. Less is more.

[OklaStrat]

Re: Intellifex vs G-Major

I've used a fulldrive II and a wah (sometimes not even the wah) for the most part, but I'm in a cover band, and I want my parts to be more accurate. Ergo, effects time. I prefer the sound of guitar/cable/amp personally.

Pete

[StuTDavis]

Re: Intellifex vs G-Major

I believe the whole "tone sucking" phenom about various pieces of gear must be a very finicky thing. I think whether someone detects "tone sucking" must really depend on the specific gear and whole setup the user has. There have been pieces of gear that people have told me "completely sucked out all the tone", that I personally found to have not audibly changed my rig's sound. And there have been units that people have claimed are "completely transparent", that I have used and noticed they did change the sound in my setup.

The G-Major, in this respect, is one that many people say is completely transparent, but for some reason I do notice a slight change in my setup with my G-Major. In my setup, it seemed to "digitalize" the sound and feel somewhat, making the sound a tad less warm and the feel somewhat more stiff. I didn't use it for my "main sound" for quite a while becuase of this. Then, I decided I wanted some sort of "solo boost", and the G-Major was my only sensible option without spending more $, so I had to try to incorporate it. Luckily, to my surprise, I was fiddling around, and found a patch that just has compression and a very low-volume delay, and for some reason those things brought back some of the sound and feel I'd felt the G-Major had been taking out while it had no effects on, and I'm happy with it. Otherwise, I'd have the solo-boost function I'd wanted, but had to suffer the sound/feel.

It's always interesting to me to hear, when some people say something affects the sound like this, and others say it doesn't and vice versa. Just another example of how there are no definites or absolutes in the world of guitar gear.

On another note...another good, possibly important feature about the G-Major I don't think the Intellifex has...a built-in EQ section. I don't know if they are sending them out with the EQ added in the units now or not...it wasn't originally part of the G-Major, but was made available as a MIDI-upgrade via software download from TC. It's a 3-section Parametric EQ, that's plunked down in the Noise Gate section. That alone can vary the sound so much for you, and add so much more variety, without being an actual "effect", and without having to buy, install, or possibly haul around a seperate EQ unit to do the duty.

[eaeolian]

Re: Intellifex vs G-Major

I've been very happy with the G-Major. Before it came out, I was considering a Replifex - which I, personally, think sounds better than the Intellifex - but the G-Major just blew it away, tonally.

In my TripleRec, it's as close to transparent as anything I have heard - plug a cord into the loop without the unit and it sounds the same. (The Mesa loop does change the tone slightly, because it kicks in a driver circut.)

I've used all the FX at one time or another. The time-based stuff is excellent, the compressor's not bad, the harmonizer sounds the same as every other non-intelligent harmonizer - it's a good Octaver - and it's pretty easy to get good sounds out of, even with the number of variables.

I need to upgrade my software eventually - I stil have the version without the EQ. Even that's really easy. The tuner even works well.

All in all, it's hard for me to recommend anything else for even double the price, unless you can find a used G - Force. This thing blows away all the Lexicon guitar-oriented stuff, too, and is much easier to work with - and doesn't "pop", either.

Mike

[Jimi D]

Re: Intellifex vs G-Major

I had both simultaneously (Rocktron Blackplate Intellifex w/ Motorolla chipset and G-Major ver. 1.11) and ran them a bunch of different ways one day - serially, in parallel (two preamps - a JMP-1 and a Rocktron Pirhana - each into one of the units, into my stereo power amp), and individually through the same kit - and the G-Major was clearly superior to my ears on just about every count... It especially was apparent dealing with dynamic clean sounds and delay trails, and I just had no problem with selling the Intellifex the very next day... In my rig, the G-Major is perfectly transparent - doesn't suck my tone. Well worth the little bit extra you pay for it - it's significantly advanced over the much older Rocktron design... HOWEVER - if you do get an Intellifex, try to get an older one. I A/B'd two used units when I bought mine - the original and the 'on line' model - and thought the original sounded warmer, richer...

[StuTDavis]

Re: Intellifex vs G-Major

Yeah I think it's important to remember with things like this--everything is relative. Relative in relation to what people expect, what people perceive, in relation to other competing gear, and in the actual difference in relation to what specific other gear is involved. What might seem like a big difference to some people, in the same situation may seem relatively very minor to someone else, even with the same exact gear, in the same exact room.

Like several people here have said, the G-Major in their rigs seems completely transparent, or at least a notch above the competition in that department. For me, I notice some difference in the sound but, again, compared to other units (which admittedly I've never tried any other stand-alone effects unit in my rig) I'm sure it does as at least as well or exceeds them. I consider myself to be very sensitive to these differences, and my setup is set up in a way in which subtle differences are "usually" made much more noticable than they would be in a much simpler setup. For someone like Cleveland Metal, who I think is even more sensitive and picky on transparency and noise issues than I am...he might get the G-Major and hear something that completely turns him off on it--something that anyone else might not even perceive at all, or might consider is extremely minor and forgivable.

[Cleveland Metal]

Re: Intellifex vs G-Major

Yeah, not sure man... haha. Been glaring at my Intellifex Online all eve and wondering whether it's a problem or not...

May try a GMajor soon as I get my rolling shock rack paid and done.