I've Got Tone!

Smurph wrote: Tone matters way less to me than composition... unless it sounds like POO POO. I don't even like the tones of a decent number of bands that I love completely. But if I don't hate the tone composition will find it's way into making me love the album

Yeah, I'd say tone matters quite a lot to me. It's not just tone, though, but timbre more broadly, whether subtle coloring or extreme wackiness. For me, it's the top of my list of priorities. I know the priorities can be quite varied among Prog fans. I started a thread awhile back, titled "What characteristic of Prog do you most prefer?" in order to probe into some of that.




Edited by HackettFan - November 26 2015 at 14:54

For me, tone is extremely important. I once did a version of "Epitaph" by King Crimson on Kazoo, and no matter how hard I tried, it still sounded pants!

I find the tone control indispensable in carving the right sound, which depends on the guitar, amp etc.

Edited by pitfall - November 25 2015 at 14:00

There have been many different versions of the Big Muff, and they all sound and feel quite distinctive when you use them.

I got a Big Muff for the first time (no jokes, please). Sounds great. Some settings even sound like a square wave synth. No wonder Hackett always used them.

^The only product I've come across that is capable of producing a manual cocked phase is the modern version of the EHX Bad Stone.

I've been interested in the past in having an envelope phaser. They aren't cocked phasers like above, but they have a triggered sweep. Pigtronix has one (but pricey). I got one from Mooer (part of a multi-effect). I was kind of disappointed and lost interest, but this XVIVE Wave Phaser has gotten me interested once again. Here's a couple links to YouTube vids:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=MtG-YJIA2Lo
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=1mfSXgx6RTc

Here's a written review from Tone Report:
http://tonereport.com/reviews/xvive-wave-phaser

Bring this back to interesting distorted tones, I also came across this vid on the Ten Ten Devices Triangle Fuzz, which I find really impressive:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=rKueUxZmIv0

Here's also a little write up about it on the Tone Report:
http://tonereport.com/reviews/tenten-devices-triangle

^Thanks again.

HackettFan wrote: There's a really cool mod for the Boss OC-2 Octave Divider on the net (YouTube). One of these days I'll try to do the mod myself, but I was able to commission someone else to do one for me, and it's become one of my pride and joys. It's latency-free also (because there's no PV conversion). Basically what happens if you bypass the part of the circuit that filters the sound, you get an Atari Punk square wave sound out of it. There's another schematic out there too called a Synth Box, which is based on one of the other octave dividers. I think it was a Rocktron or something. The upshot is I suspect this might be a property of octave dividers generally, which means we could have had monophonic square wave synth sounds from guitars back as early as the 60s! Who knows what could've happened from there. Once you have an acceptable square wave, there are ample harmonics present so that you can filter out some of those harmonics and get other types of wave forms (schematics currently available on the net).

FYI, If anyone wants something like the Boss OC2 Mod without doing the mod, I just found out the MXR Blue Box is basically already designed that way. That is, it gives a synth-like square wave in a lower octave and simply lacks the filtering that the OC2 Mod seeks to eliminate or bypass. Just turn the output dial all the way up and the blend dial all the way down (or maybe three quarters of the way down). One difference is the OC2 Mod also bypasses the part of the circuit that matches the envelope of the dry signal, which gives it an even more synthey flavor. The Blue Box lacks the filtering of the OC2 to begin with, but it does match the envelope of the dry signal (actually cutting it out a bit early to eliminate some crackling noise. Craig Anderton spoke about that concerning his Rocktron schematic), so it's still a little different, but well worthwhile. It sounds great with a low cut filter or a resonant filter. I was also pleasantly surprised with the sound of the distortion without the lowered octive when turning the blend knob all the way clockwise. It has a very pleasant and creamy distortion that appeals to me.

Edited by HackettFan - October 11 2015 at 16:27

I've tried using a wah filter without a sweep, just using it in a static fashion and trying to find a single sweet spot with a nice timbre to play in. I never found a sweet spot that moved me, though. I tried it with a Line 6 FM4 without the expression pedal and just dialed it in, but nothing was very spectacular. Maybe I might try a resonant filter in the future, if I happen to swing the bucks for a Fulltone Clyde Standard Wah, which has a resonance control that I think might make something like this more interesting (or if I ever get around to building one of those Craig Anderton Super Tone Control projects). Maybe someone's aware of a guitarist, perhaps even a Prog guitarist who does this (played holding the wah pedal stationary), or has done it themself? I know it's occasionally been done, but I can't think of specifically who.

HackettFan wrote:  Dean, as you know, I perused your sustainer pickup thread quite awhile ago. I was wondering if you had been following Paul Vo's Vo Guitar. He showed it off at this year's Namm festival. He uses a digitally controlled sustainer pickup mounted on/in an acoustic guitar not just to vibrate the string but to control the vibration so that it produces a square wave or a saw tooth (and with the desired amount of sustain too of course). It controls what harmonics are present and can arpeggiate the harmonics even. It's a whole new type of synthesis he calls acoustic synthesis; purely physical - no signal processing or PV conversion. Talk about tone! They're not available yet. I'm waiting, though. I thought you might also get excited by the technical achievement of it. See www.paulvo.com (if you haven't already).

Edited by Dean - September 24 2015 at 02:49

Kati wrote: Dean wrote: odinalcatraz wrote: The loudness war in my opinion is ignored WAY too much. Many can't tell and have no idea what it is or how it sounds. I hate the sound of most albums and only recently realised why. It's a bit like radiation or the flu, you don't know it's there but it ruins everything and anyone who dislikes complexity in music, hates it a whole lot more when compressed too much. It sounds nasty to them and they refuse to listen. Listener fatigue is much worse for the person who has to hear music they haven't chosen to listen to. The effect is that they will never realise they would like it if it was dynamic or radiation free. Guitar tone is not generally affected by the loudness war tho. Ha ha! I've discussed dynamic range and loudness at length in other threads, the only point I was really intending here was that it is waaaaay off topic in a thread about guitar tone. If you can find one of those other threads (such as the one I linked in my reply to Sonia) I'll happily discuss your points in detail. Just not here. bah! You two need to get a room.  I did change the topic conversation yes and got this outcome arghh 3some hug hahahahaha!!!  hahaaha!!! sorry but hahaha!!

I saw that other discussion and good to see that Dean!
As for Sonia and her topic changing tendencies, I have no suggestions but I would like to warn everyone that Sonia has very scary hearing and will spot every single sound in the most complex piece and complain where necessary!