The New Tone Thread

[miroslav]

I never really got the fascination with blues. I know it's the building block for my beloved rock and roll, but straight blues does nothing for me.

I cut my teeth on 12-bar Blues kind of stuff...but that was when I was young and starting out on guitar, and of course, everyone was bringing back the blues from the late 60s through the 70s...Clapton, Beck, Page, etc...so it was everywhere.
I went to see Johnny Winter and Muddy Waters in the late '70s...and I was floored.

That said, as soon as we got a little older and started doing the band thing...basic 12-bar Blues was over for me.
I don't think I could jam to more than 1-2 classic Blues tunes these days before getting bored.
The nice thing was that all the Blues playing easily translated to Rock...and Jazz...and Pop. So the Blues foundation was/is great to have, but not as much fun to play now days since Blues is sorta forgotten. Back then, it was the hot item, and playing Blues, Boogie, Rock...all fit nicely together.

I actually got into the British Blues wave before I got into the rootsy American Blues. Bands like Savoy Brown, Cream, Bluesbreakers, Yardbirds, early Fleetwood Mac...which all did a harder-edged Blues, and a lot of up-tempo Blues Rock.
It was only through them that I then discovered the roots stuff from Muddy Waters, Dixon, Wolf...etc...and so I rolled with that for awhile, since it WAS the original stuff...but not for long.
I'm not sure I would have gotten into the Blues if I had started with that roots 12-bar slow-mo, laid back stuff...so I'm glad the British Blues wave hit me first.

There are still a lot of guys around here trying to form roots Blues bands....but they just never take off anymore.
NO one wants to listen to that all night long....and I don't know how they can play it all night long.

Dum Ta Rum Ta, Dum Ta Rum Ta..."Little girl, little girl...where do you get your sugar from"...

 

[Tadpui]

Hey guys,
I'm still alive over here, been having some health issues, but I think/hope it's gonna be ok...We'll see I suppose....

I'm down to 1 amp now, had to sell 'em all except the DSL100, but that's ok, I'll eventually get back on my feet & get some of that shit back, & to be honest, the DSL is fine for the music I play,, although I do miss the Ceriatone pretty badly....

Anyway, here's a quick-n-shitty DSL clip, nothing special, actually the first time I've even picked up a guitar in a couple weeks, so look over the sloppy-ass playing....

LP > DSL100H > '65 > SM57

50w mode
OD 1
Resonance: 0
Presence: 0
Bass: 7
Mid: 3
Treble: 1.5 - 2
Volume: 5
Gain: 4

DSL100/'65

Only 2 weeks late here. First off, get better man! Sorry to hear of your health woes. I won't get all sappy on you, but you seem like a good guy and I hate to see bad stuff happen to good guys. Do what you need for yourself, and don't push it too hard.

I like that tone from your DSL. It sounds tight, even with that relatively modest pre and master setting. Now that I've played through a DSL combo and now a JCM800 through a closed-back cabinet, I'm starting to recognize which pieces of the puzzle contribute to the sound. The DSL has such a tight power section, it deals with palm mutes and other transients very well. It just doesn't sag at all. And a closed back cabinet has a tight low and mid chunk to it...so to me that DSL paired with your cab is a great match for a tight, agressive kind of sound.

I like that riff too. A little GnR, a little dirty southern thing too. Good to hear you playing, hope you get back to your home soon enough.

 

[Tadpui]

Probably the first tone I've posted recording with my amp at a decent volume - not completely full on, about 1/2 way on the master - I'm sure its loud enough to annoy my neighbours carers. It certainly sounded loud in the room when I took my headphones off. Went a bit modal madness in the middle but oh well. Was fun at the time. Bit wah wah crazy at the end too. Had to sim all the lead work as its getting later here now.
https://soundcloud.com/brother-number-one/test-milk-test-mix

Not bad at all. The cleaner tones are pretty dark and disappear in the mix. The dirty octave part is nice and grungy, lots of midrange and I think it sounds good. The harmonized solo part hits the spot for me on EQ, it's brighter and just punches through a lot better than the other guitars (I guess that's the point in a mix most of the time...vocals and solos take center stage). The wah tone sounds pretty good to me too, nothing to complain about there. I'd say try to brighten up the lower gain tones a little without making them brittle.

Is this with your new custom franken-tele?

 

[JDOD]

Not bad at all. The cleaner tones are pretty dark and disappear in the mix. The dirty octave part is nice and grungy, lots of midrange and I think it sounds good. The harmonized solo part hits the spot for me on EQ, it's brighter and just punches through a lot better than the other guitars (I guess that's the point in a mix most of the time...vocals and solos take center stage). The wah tone sounds pretty good to me too, nothing to complain about there. I'd say try to brighten up the lower gain tones a little without making them brittle.

Is this with your new custom franken-tele?

No, the new guitar still isn't finished. It's nearly there though. I saw a video of it yesterday and it just needs the electronics and nut added.

 

[Lt. Bob]

My wife's new job is cool ........ earlier this year she got to hang around with Stirling Moss and last night she's at a party at peter Brocks house and hanging with craig Breedlove! ... Holy cow .... these guys are car royalty.

 

[Greg_L]

Chibson, a straight up counterfeit. Here's one I handled in person. My buddy bought it, knowing full well that it's a chinese knock-off. He didn't get ripped off, so don't go there. He bought this knowing it's fake. So how is it? Not bad, really. It's looks are exactly as it should be. There's one tiny section of the curve where the body meets the neck on the bass side that's a little bit off, but otherwise it's dead-nuts accurate. The neck actually feels really good. Pretty chunky like you'dd expect from a real 50s LP. The frets are acceptable, but they could use some leveling. The binding is stark white but it's been tinted to look aged. The top finish is weird. I think it's a giant sticker that's been cleared over and then buffed with scotchbrite to look aged, but I'm not sure. It's a sticker or veneer. Whatever it is, it aint finely grained and stained wood. But to the eye, it doesn't look bad. It looks like a 59. He will be refinishing it himself. The nut is garbage, as are the pickups. I plugged it in and was met with immediate squealing. Lol. But he's got a "50s wiring" setup on order and 57 Classics, so that will help. The headstock is perfect. The tuners are some kind of kluson looking knock-offs, but they work and are smooth.

My biggest gripe - it can't be mahogany. This thing is a featherweight. It's very resonant. It's either super weight relived, or the mystery wood is extremely soft and porous. It's so light. Like lighter than an SG light. It weighs nothing. That alone is very off-putting when you know and love the heft of a real Les Paul. For 230 bucks it's a solid guitar that needs upgrades. You could buy a real LP Studio for about the cost of the Chibson + upgrades.

 

[Lt. Bob]

My biggest gripe - it can't be mahogany. This thing is a featherweight. It's very resonant.

That would actually attract me ..... one thing I dislike about my Zak Wilde is that it's heavy like an old paul.

A few years ago I played a guys Gibson paul that was weight relieved and it was almost like a different ax ....... I really liked it a lot.

Not that I'm buying any guitars ..... if I never have enough money to get a Hallmark then I'll never buy another guitar.

 

[rayc]

I just don't know/get it. Smoke & plastic mirrors?

 

[JDOD]

That Chibson, looks pretty authentic actually. So decent electronics and a trip to a luthier to get a fret levelling and good set up and it will probably be perfectly usable.

Anyway, here's another hard rock tone. I've nudged both the mid and treble up a notch and dialed the bass back slightly. The preamp vol and gain were just where they happened to be when I got them out of the car after carrying them from the pub last night.
View attachment untitled3.mp3

 

[liv_rong]

That Chibson, looks pretty authentic actually. So decent electronics and a trip to a luthier to get a fret levelling and good set up and it will probably be perfectly usable.

Yeah it doesnt look bad but the thing that would be a red flag for me is the Gibson logo looks like its painted on and Im pretty sure its only painted on on Studios which do not have binding and have dots as fret markers. Not bad for $230 though!

 

[JDOD]

Yeah it doesnt look bad but the thing that would be a red flag for me is the Gibson logo looks like its painted on and Im pretty sure its only painted on on Studios which do not have binding and have dots as fret markers. Not bad for $230 though!

See, I don't think that shit like that actually matters unless you are actually trying to pass it off as a Gibson. If all you want is a guitar than looks and feels a bit like a Gibson then its fine.

 

[Lt. Bob]

That Chibson, looks pretty authentic actually. So decent electronics and a trip to a luthier to get a fret levelling and good set up and it will probably be perfectly usable.

Anyway, here's another hard rock tone. I've nudged both the mid and treble up a notch and dialed the bass back slightly. The preamp vol and gain were just where they happened to be when I got them out of the car after carrying them from the pub last night.
View attachment 95041

that sounds significantly better to me.
I know it's not much of a change but the slight addition of highs makes all the difference to my ears.

 

[liv_rong]

See, I don't think that shit like that actually matters unless you are actually trying to pass it off as a Gibson. If all you want is a guitar than looks and feels a bit like a Gibson then its fine.

Totally agree.

 

[liv_rong]

This is where I am at now, this is a raw track.

 

[JDOD]

that sounds significantly better to me.
I know it's not much of a change but the slight addition of highs makes all the difference to my ears.

Cheers Bob, I'll be interested to see what Greg thinks of it. You guys would probably take a bit more of the darkness out of it but I do like to keep it pretty dark. Its still a little harsh but that could be mic placement - it might be a bit too central.

I'm writing a song in drop D at the moment so we'll see how it sits in a mix by the end of the weekend.

 

[JDOD]

This is where I am at now, this is a raw track.

I think that sounds alright but I reckon there's too much gain there so its starting to mush out a bit. Might be OK, if it was an intro/interlude bit but I think it would disappear and sound like mush in a mix.

I'm shit at telling what freqs people are using but it sounds a bit too scooped to me too. Could you dail back on the bass and push the mid up a bit to give it a bit more bite?

 

[Lt. Bob]

Cheers Bob, I'll be interested to see what Greg thinks of it. You guys would probably take a bit more of the darkness out of it .

no, not really ...... I always liked the 'dark' part ..... I just felt it was missing the other end.

For me, at least, it was never that there was too much 'dark' ..... it was that there wasn't enough 'sparkle' on the top end which gives you your note and pitch definition

 

[Greg_L]

Yeah it doesnt look bad but the thing that would be a red flag for me is the Gibson logo looks like its painted on and Im pretty sure its only painted on on Studios which do not have binding and have dots as fret markers. Not bad for $230 though!

The Gibson name is not painted. The pic just doesn't show the detail well enough. It is an inlay, but it's not a real high quality inlay.

 

[Greg_L]

Cheers Bob, I'll be interested to see what Greg thinks of it.

I played a drum gig and a guitar gig back-to-back at the same place last night. Greg can't hear anything right now.

Remind me later when my ears calm down.

 

[JDOD]

Good night?