~Palmer PDI-09, Weber Mass Lite versus Mic and cabinet~

  • Thread starter Thread starter GONZO-X
  • Start date Start date
GONZO-X

GONZO-X

Well-known member
just did an a/b test with a Palmer junction on saturday.

we recorded two tracks at once: one with a mic, one with the palmer cab sim.
we then a/b'd them back to back, and compared the sound.

http://www.mercenary.com/pdi09figudib.html
https://taweber.powweb.com/weber/masslite.htm

daw: Sonar
mic: at4033
ART DPS (digital into sonar)
amp: Peavey classic 30
Guitar: warmoth TELE /fender stock tele pickups

the amp went: speaker out >> Palmer junction >> Weber Mass lite >> speaker

we set the mass for a comfy volume, and adjusted the treble/mid and mid/low crossover points for a nice full sound.

the Palmer, recorded the straight amp sound before attenuation, the mic recorded the close miced weber/attenuated sound.

(for the purpose of this test (for recording) the difference between a wide open 30 watt tube amp, and the sound of the attenuated amp versus the Palmer, wasn't worth the time.)

the only way this amp would ever be 'recorded' would be low volume, so the only thing we cared about was the sound of the pure amp direct, versus the attenuated amp miced.

the difference between the miced sound and the direct sound:

miniscule.

on the miced track: if you take out the part of the sound that is: the mic capturing the room : i'd have to say the palmer sounded cleaner, more distinct, more in your face, and the tone was fuller and absolutely smooth.

add a touch of ambient reverb to the direct track, and the differences were so small as to not add up when blending with other tracks.

******

i just bought a Peavey JSX mini colossal..
waiting to get it.

once i give it the 'test', i'll decide whether to keep it, or sell it and immediately purchase a palmer and a weber mass lite.
 
this was moderate clean to barely crunchy sounds.
haven't tried it with a high gain sound..... yet.
 
yep, i like that weber mass lite.

it has two attenuators in it, that have a crossover point in the mids somewhere..

so, what i like, is to attenuate the bass less, and the treble more, and get a chunky thick sound.....
which i like the idea of, more than adding a full tone stack (and more tone sucking possibilities) to the full blown Mass.

my friend, who's studio we used for the test, had a death in the family, and is out of town this week..
so when he gets back, we'll do a test that will be 'post-worthy' and i'll be back with it...
meanwhile, maybe my Peavey Jsx Mini Colossal will show up....

LOL

and i'll include it in the test, since it has a palmer-type device built right into it...
 
i mean, of course, there are better units.


if you've got the dough, go with the mother lode...
or the Groove tubes unit.

but for the price...

bang for buck...
what i've heard so far, is totally worth it.

i have a iso box, but prefer a more open sound (the box DOES impart some flavor on the sound)....

but i have neighbor issues...
and can't get the amp to the 'sweet spot' without some serious volume.

having the palmer take the sound off BEFORE the attenuation, makes perfect sense to me, assuming that the player understands the sound the amp makes on it's own, at pushed master volume, VERSUS the sound you hear coming from the speakers after the attenuation occurs.

the actual cab sound, becomes secondary.. simply a 'monitor', and the sound coming off the amp, into the palmer, and the tone the Palmer imparts on what's going to the mixer, is the real deal...

so, lesser of evils to me, is a really decent cab sim like the palmer....
but not like the cab sims in, say, the pod (i used to own a pod xt)

it's not the same thing.

more to come.....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top