The New Tone Thread

Schwarzenyaeger said:
I've gotta admit: no DI'd digital amp can get cool feedback like that.
Click to expand...
Well, you can get feedback dude, if you turn your monitors up, & stand close to 'em with your guitar, but it's still not the same...

Sounds good Greg, both amps sound pretty similar, really to me, it only comes down to minute differences...In a mix, I'd never be able to tell 'em apart....

But don't you think you're limiting yourself by overloading your mic????:laughings:
 
Sounds pretty badass, Greg. Bit gainier than usual for you? I preferred the 1959, just slightly - the picked notes sounded a bit more defined (if that even means anything!).
 
Sounded cool Greg. I had a small preference for the 1987, but like jonny, I thought they're real close.

Seemed like more low end than I usually hear from you, even tho your amp settings didn't seem terribly different.
 
minerman said:
Well, you can get feedback dude, if you turn your monitors up, & stand close to 'em with your guitar, but it's still not the same...

Sounds good Greg, both amps sound pretty similar, really to me, it only comes down to minute differences...In a mix, I'd never be able to tell 'em apart....

But don't you think you're limiting yourself by overloading your mic????:laughings:
Click to expand...
Lol. Yes it's way too loud for a mic. :D



jonny deep said:
Sounds pretty badass, Greg. Bit gainier than usual for you? I preferred the 1959, just slightly - the picked notes sounded a bit more defined (if that even means anything!).
Click to expand...
It's a little gainier. These are the settings I usually use live with the band. I used the 1959 last weekend and haven't turned any knobs on it since.

TripleM said:
Sounded cool Greg. I had a small preference for the 1987, but like jonny, I thought they're real close.

Seemed like more low end than I usually hear from you, even tho your amp settings didn't seem terribly different.
Click to expand...
I think it might be the sheer loudness and proximity effect giving the track some enhanced lows. It doesn't seem excessive in the room. Just real loud.

Thanks fellas. Did yall notice the more compressed sound of the 1987? To me it does seem flatter, fatter, more compressed...and it is a tiny bit quieter than the 100 watter. The 1987 peaked in the DAW about 2db less on the meters than the 1959 with all things being the same.
 
great pic!

The extra headroom of the '59 is very apparent.
For what I do I'd prefer the 50 watter though because of that earlier compression.
 
yeah - another great pic - glad you got up there to represent

Both clips sound great - I prefer the 1987, but that's cause I'm more used it probably.
 
I told miner I'd post some clips of my Randall ISO cab.
All clips are played on my Gibson Les Paul Deluxe with mini humbuckers, Tascam US-1800 CH1. Dry through my Carvin V3, 100w mode, master and ch volume at 3. Even in the ISO cab, its loud as fuck.
1st clip is a Shure Beta57.
https://soundcloud.com/fuzzsniffvoyager/iso-cab-beta57
2nd clip is the Shure Beta57 and Cloud Lifter.
https://soundcloud.com/fuzzsniffvoyager/randall-iso-cab-beta-n-cl1
Now here's a SM57.
https://soundcloud.com/fuzzsniffvoyager/iso-cab-sm57
and the SM57 with the Cloud Lifter.
https://soundcloud.com/fuzzsniffvoyager/iso-cab-sm57-n-cl1
 
Greg_L said:
Okay here's some quick clips. This is a comparison between my Plexi reissues - 50w (1987) and the 100w (1959). Not attenuated. This is just as they are in all of their wide open super loud glory.

Same guitar, amp settings, mic, mic position, and speaker.

Les Paul Traditional - Burstbucker 3 bridge pickup
Marshall 1959SLP and 1987x
Presence - 8
Bass - 5
Mid - 6
Treb - 4
Ch vol 1 - 7
Ch vol 2 - 0
High input 1 only
Marshall 1960A - G12-65 - Audix i5 - on axis, on grill, just outside dustcap
No EQ in DAW.

1959SLP 100w
1987x 50w
1959 left + 1987 right
Click to expand...

These all have a bit of a late-80s feel to them, they're saturated but I like them all. I'm partial to the panned doubled clip. Out of the 2 individual clips, I like 1959 best. It's a little less compressed and a little more open sounding. I like the 1987 a lot, not knocking it. But the 1959 sounds a little tighter, brighter, and clearer.
 
fuzzsniffvoyage said:
I told miner I'd post some clips of my Randall ISO cab.
All clips are played on my Gibson Les Paul Deluxe with mini humbuckers, Tascam US-1800 CH1. Dry through my Carvin V3, 100w mode, master and ch volume at 3. Even in the ISO cab, its loud as fuck.
1st clip is a Shure Beta57.
https://soundcloud.com/fuzzsniffvoyager/iso-cab-beta57
2nd clip is the Shure Beta57 and Cloud Lifter.
https://soundcloud.com/fuzzsniffvoyager/randall-iso-cab-beta-n-cl1
Now here's a SM57.
https://soundcloud.com/fuzzsniffvoyager/iso-cab-sm57
and the SM57 with the Cloud Lifter.
https://soundcloud.com/fuzzsniffvoyager/iso-cab-sm57-n-cl1
Click to expand...

Glad to see you post these, I've never heard a V3 before (that I know of). There is a definite boxiness to these clips, like a small room or small chamber reverb. It definitely sounds bigger than a little iso box though.

The SM57 clip seems to be the most "roomy". It's almost phase-y. I like the Beta57 clip the best. The Beta57 with cloud lifter is a little more saturated sounding, I think that I like it without the extra mic amplification better. The cloud lifter doesn't seem to add anything to the SM57.

And these are all with the master volume at 3? Wow. What does it sound like if you turn down the preamp gain and crank the power section? Other than painfully loud and potentially drawing law enforcement to your home?

I actually really like the clip that kept auto-playing after each of these tone clips the best, with the flanger guitar and drums :D
 
Lt. Bob said:
Here's a clip from that gig I did a few weeks back with Tommy Talton and friends.

First .... the recording is a Teac DR-05 set on a balcony railing above the stage .... no mixing possible .... this is just the two built-in mics.

I was mostly there to play bass and once I got on stage to play my one sax song with Tommy he never let me back down so everything after that was totally off the cuff.
This is a song I'd heard before but I've never played it .... so this is me winging it ..... in fact about 1:36 in, you can hear me stop for a second 'cause I think I'm thru ..... then they were going, "No-o-o-o-o ... keep playing" .... :D
Click to expand...

WOW ! nice chops that man,the lick starting at 00:55 gives me a boner \o/ :D

fooking great intonation n feel,love it :)
 
Lt. Bob said:
great pic!

The extra headroom of the '59 is very apparent.
For what I do I'd prefer the 50 watter though because of that earlier compression.
Click to expand...

antichef said:
yeah - another great pic - glad you got up there to represent

Both clips sound great - I prefer the 1987, but that's cause I'm more used it probably.
Click to expand...

Tadpui said:
These all have a bit of a late-80s feel to them, they're saturated but I like them all. I'm partial to the panned doubled clip. Out of the 2 individual clips, I like 1959 best. It's a little less compressed and a little more open sounding. I like the 1987 a lot, not knocking it. But the 1959 sounds a little tighter, brighter, and clearer.
Click to expand...

Thanks a lot guys. Yeah both clips are pretty saturated. That's at 7 on the channel vol, and on these amps that's pretty much right at "cranked" territory. They don't get much dirtier than that, just fatter and more compressed. I like these settings because when playing live I can be real guitar player and just use little twists of my vol knob on the guitar to control my clean vs crunch vs gain. :D

The difference in headroom is quite apparent to me. And you can *feel* it when you play these amps.
 
fuzzsniffvoyage said:
I told miner I'd post some clips of my Randall ISO cab.
All clips are played on my Gibson Les Paul Deluxe with mini humbuckers, Tascam US-1800 CH1. Dry through my Carvin V3, 100w mode, master and ch volume at 3. Even in the ISO cab, its loud as fuck.
1st clip is a Shure Beta57.
https://soundcloud.com/fuzzsniffvoyager/iso-cab-beta57
2nd clip is the Shure Beta57 and Cloud Lifter.
https://soundcloud.com/fuzzsniffvoyager/randall-iso-cab-beta-n-cl1
Now here's a SM57.
https://soundcloud.com/fuzzsniffvoyager/iso-cab-sm57
and the SM57 with the Cloud Lifter.
https://soundcloud.com/fuzzsniffvoyager/iso-cab-sm57-n-cl1
Click to expand...

To me they all have the box sound in them. They sound like a speaker in a box. That's two Randall iso cabs we have in here now that don't sound all that great. On the plus side maybe we can warn people to not buy that damn thing.

And wtf is that cloud lifter supposed to do? Isn't it supposed to "enhance" a weak signal mic? Does it need to be used with 57s?
 
Thanks for posting the clips Fuzz....they do seem to have the boxy sound mine do, although I will say your clips sound better than mine, especially the Beta 57...

I've tried pretty hard for months to make the ISO cab work, but it just ain't gonna happen I don't think...Back to using it for di's late at night, then re-amping 'em later, which can be done with ampsims...I've put mine up for sale locally, but I don't know if I'll be able to get rid of it or not...
 
Finally had a solid, distraction free day to really play with the amp and different mic set ups. I'd post up tones but really once i added them to the mix of a song it just didn't seem to fit quite right. I need to tweak more i think. However. The difference in this song i am working on from sims to amp is pretty vast. Going to keep playing and exploring with the mic set ups and stuff and see if i can make things better.

One huge glaring issue i have noticed with the AD30 is that boxxy cardboard tone. i am not entirely sure if it is my mic placements, the speakers the room or whatever, but each time i have tracked something and did a quick sweep there always seems to be that crud in and around the 350 to 600 range. Is this an Orange thing? or is this just something that is simply a thing?
 
In this months issue of Stereophile ..... ( yes, I am an audiophool ) there were some very interesting comments by a guy who engineered a recent album they were interested in. The discussion was about hi-end sound, of course, but in the context of that he said this:

"There's a sonic signature of hyper-compression that, in modern rock, has really defined what a guitar sounds like now.
It doesn't sound like it sounds coming out of an amplifier.
And you can listen to records from the '70s, like AC/DC, the distortion isn't ..... that guitar isn't killing that amp, it's not cranked to 11, and it's power amp distortion and not pre-amp distortion.
It's vibrant, live and it's deep.

But nowadays everything is super-high-gain Mesas and Marshalls and whatever, and they've got tons of pre-amp distortion on 'em.
On top of that it's essentially a squarewave by the time it's coming out of the speaker, and then you hit it with a 1176 compressor or a distressor and all of a sudden it has a whole new sound ----- and that's what a lot of people have come to equate with a properly miked and recorded rock-guitar sound."

I think there's a lotta truth there.
 
" and it's power amp distortion and not pre-amp distortion.
It's vibrant, live and it's deep"

I am not convinced that anyone can differentiate pre amp from power amp distortion merely by listening, even to the naked amp leave alone a complex recording of it?

In any event, since the Fender Bassman, most "rock" guitar amplifiers have included a circuit that according to M. Blencowe, contribute more than almost anything else to over drive rock tone. This is the "badly" designed DC coupled gain+cathode follower triode pair, it usually drives the tone stack.

When driven hard this stage overloads rather gracefully and produces compression (I will NOT us the term "saturate" because valves in even the hardest driven amps don't).

After the Fender the circuit was "stolen" by all and sundry and is found in Marshalls virtually unchanged, Soldanos and Vox with minor tweaks.

There is much myth, magic, smoke and mirrors surrounding guitar amp "tone". As they are wont to say on QI...Nobody really knows"!

Dave.
 
This goes back to the quote by Neil Youngs producer. The the sound you want coming out of the speaker. Get it to tape (in our case DAW) by the shortest possible route via a good mic and don't fuck with it.
 
Lt. Bob said:
In this months issue of Stereophile ..... ( yes, I am an audiophool ) there were some very interesting comments by a guy who engineered a recent album they were interested in. The discussion was about hi-end sound, of course, but in the context of that he said this:

"There's a sonic signature of hyper-compression that, in modern rock, has really defined what a guitar sounds like now.
It doesn't sound like it sounds coming out of an amplifier.
And you can listen to records from the '70s, like AC/DC, the distortion isn't ..... that guitar isn't killing that amp, it's not cranked to 11, and it's power amp distortion and not pre-amp distortion.
It's vibrant, live and it's deep.

But nowadays everything is super-high-gain Mesas and Marshalls and whatever, and they've got tons of pre-amp distortion on 'em.
On top of that it's essentially a squarewave by the time it's coming out of the speaker, and then you hit it with a 1176 compressor or a distressor and all of a sudden it has a whole new sound ----- and that's what a lot of people have come to equate with a properly miked and recorded rock-guitar sound."

I think there's a lotta truth there.
Click to expand...

Fuck yeah, I love it. I like how he mentioned AC/DC. As far as I'm concerned, that's the benchmark for rock and roll guitar sound. :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top