I've Got Tone!

Atavachron wrote: Dean wrote: As with a lot of distortion effects it's good because the circuit is essentially bad (it has poor gain, loads the guitar pickups quite badly, has a dreadful frequency response, and most importantly is non-linear in that it clips the signal asymmetrically which produces a characteristic set of harmonics that you don't get with symmetrical distortion). Overdrive has an interesting history, accidental damage to amps becoming favored for the sound, later intentionally altered, culminating with things like the famous Dave Davies razor blade story.

A good option to test the loudness war and dynamic sound range is this site, you can compare any old or new band album releases on here, inc. all releases in. LP format etc.

Ah yes the Big Muff, also a favorite of Mark and John Gallagher as I recall

Kati wrote: A good option to test the loudness war and dynamic sound range is this site, you can compare any old or new band album releases on here, inc. all releases in. LP format etc. Here is one for Animals by PF but you can search/type whichever you want and/or upload an album you have in your possession too. http://dr.loudness-war.info/album/list?artist=Pink+Floyd&album=Animals

Dean wrote: Kati wrote: A good option to test the loudness war and dynamic sound range is this site, you can compare any old or new band album releases on here, inc. all releases in. LP format etc. Here is one for Animals by PF but you can search/type whichever you want and/or upload an album you have in your possession too. http://dr.loudness-war.info/album/list?artist=Pink+Floyd&album=Animals Personally I think too much play has been made over the so-called loudness wars. There are (not so) hidden agendas at work here that confuse the situation immensely. This confusion is deliberate IMO. With guitar effects the dynamic range issue is rendered a little moot since overdrive/distortion, feedback and sustain all tend to result in a reduction of the guitar signal's dynamic range. This is an inescapable consequence of "processing" the output from the pick-ups that has little or nothing to do with the dynamic range of the final recording.

Atavachron wrote: I used this puppy for years (or a model close to it); Seymour-Duncan Studio Series, good old workhorse, never needed a pedal I've noticed a good amp will sound better after a certain amount of use; there's something about wear & tear that does wonders for the character of an amp's sound.

Edited by Dean - September 14 2015 at 05:36

Dean wrote: Kati wrote: Dean wrote: Kati wrote: A good option to test the loudness war and dynamic sound range is this site, you can compare any old or new band album releases on here, inc. all releases in. LP format etc. Here is one for Animals by PF but you can search/type whichever you want and/or upload an album you have in your possession too. http://dr.loudness-war.info/album/list?artist=Pink+Floyd&album=Animals Personally I think too much play has been made over the so-called loudness wars. There are (not so) hidden agendas at work here that confuse the situation immensely. This confusion is deliberate IMO. With guitar effects the dynamic range issue is rendered a little moot since overdrive/distortion, feedback and sustain all tend to result in a reduction of the guitar signal's dynamic range. This is an inescapable consequence of "processing" the output from the pick-ups that has little or nothing to do with the dynamic range of the final recording. Dean I am very surprised you said that, maybe you should not think of loudness war, I will rephrase it as dynamic range instead. This obviously means the difference between the smallest and largest musical tone. A big dynamic range keeps growing unlike a compressed track which you notice little difference between low and high and the changes in-between them because most will lack bottom end and top end and overall the frequencies are chopped of to enable the sound to become louder whereby lacking the special details and at the end while we were impressed at the beginning it ends up making us tired of listening. I think you need to re-read my lengthy explanation of Dynamic Range, then perhaps my reply will not surprise you so much  For example, a track with a fade in or fade out has the same "dynamic range" whether it is compressed or not. Also compression does not affect frequency response (top and bottom end as you put it), that is the result of EQ, which is a completely different process. Listener fatigue is a subjective effect, which is susceptible to conformation bias so I play less heed to it in any discussion. Anyway, none of this has anything to do with guitar tone.

I agree. Absolutely anything goes to make a sound (I leave many sounds in a mix that some would clean up). Distortion and compression and even old strings are all good if it sounds good.
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!

Dean wrote: SteveG wrote: Does anyone have DIY effects? A few.  My fave is a replica of Jim Dunlop's Fuzz Face that I made using some germanium transistors I 'found' in my box of assorted bits (this is an example circuit from the web, I don't have an image of the cct I actually used) As with a lot of distortion effects it's good because the circuit is essentially bad (it has poor gain, loads the guitar pickups quite badly, has a dreadful frequency response, and most importantly is non-linear in that it clips the signal asymmetrically which produces a characteristic set of harmonics that you don't get with symmetrical distortion). This tread details an infinity sustainer mod to a cheap guitar I did a while back. SteveG wrote: This is a homemade oscillator/synth unit I cobbled together with a friend: Sounds very 'squelchy', so it's not used much.    Like Andrey I was curious about the breadboard  I've breadboarded a lot of different guitar effects circuits but few of them ever got made into usable pedals. My bug-bear is those industrial stomp switches, I've used them and still have a bag-full I bought cheaply from Proops on Tottenham Court Road many (many) years ago but they are too strong and hurt your feet unless you're wearing heavy work boots. I've since gone over to using Cherry™ keyboard switch with latch circuit similar to those used by Ibanez and Danelectro (among others)

My DIY stomp box was never intended for the stage, just the studio so the stomp switch was always "on." But for live playing I agree they they are a drag, but it was the only thing available 30 years ago and you never had to worry about it failing just before an important solo.

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!

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