Peter Figen Offline Upload & Sell: On
|
The differences are in the smoothness, precision and quality of the machining. There is no backlash and no slipping with the Waverly's and you can generally get them to be a perfect match with older vintage but crappy tuners. But really, when you use them, they're so smooth and precise and it's so easy to tune exactly and they just hold their tune with no slippage that this is the first thing you want to change. The vintage Grovers on this guitar are 12:1 ratio and the Waverly's are 16:1. There are also modern Grovers with an 18:1 ratio too that get good reviews.
Differences between Helicon and Zerene: Yes. I have both. Zerene is about ten times slower but in difficult stacks, especially those with large areas of smooth tone with no detail, Zerene is smoother with less stair stepping in those areas. In some complicated stacks, Zerene is just cleaner with better edges and fewer artifacts that need to be cleaned up. I really got it for doing focus stacks on speaker grills where Helicon was having an issue and it saved my hide a few times so I guess it was worth the money, but frankly, I only use it when Helicon doesn't work. Photoshop's own built-in focus stacking is a joke. It just doesn't work. At least it doesn't work on any high res images where I've tried it. Surprised that Adobe hasn't tried to buy Helicon but they do have a working relationship with Phase, so maybe that's keeping them from it.
|