I've Got Tone!
Printed From: Progarchives.com
Category: Other music related lounges
Forum Name: Tech Talk
Forum Description: Discuss musical instruments, equipment, hi-fi, speakers, vinyl, gadgets,etc.
URL: http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=103345
Printed Date: November 24 2024 at 23:43
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 11.01 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: I've Got Tone!
Posted By: Atavachron
Subject: I've Got Tone!
Date Posted: July 19 2015 at 17:02
|
The importance of how an instrument sounds is as crucial as the person playing it, and is under-appreciated as a tool equal to a good guitar, drums or bass. It was Jimmy Page's tone that made people sit up and notice Zeppelin; it was how Judas Priest sounded that made them successful, not just the songs; Pink Floyd's LPs would've been a shell of themselves if it weren't for Water's and Gilmour's stellar sense of acoustics; and it was Eddie Van Halen's understanding of his amps and how to get the best noises that made the VH debut so powerful-- let's face it, it wasn't the material, it was how that record sounded . Agree? Disagree? Let's hear it ! ------------- "Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought." -- John F. Kennedy |
Replies:
Posted By: JD
Date Posted: July 19 2015 at 17:26
|
To some extent I'd agree. There are some recording that have a wonderful 'sound' that have no real musical appeal to me. But the ones where both come together are absolutely stellar. ------------- Thank you for supporting independently produced music |
Posted By: Dayvenkirq
Date Posted: July 19 2015 at 18:29
|
It's material and sound. Why should there be any predisposition towards one over the other? To me, no matter how good an acoustic piano or acoustic guitar sounds, the skill in composition is still very important. I want to hear melodies. I want to hear something that has a solid form. That's why I think Mark Hollis should have reworked his solo compositions, even though all the instruments sounded great and were recorded very well.
|
Posted By: Atavachron
Date Posted: July 19 2015 at 19:03
|
^ Because great players are common (sorry), but a great sounding instrument/amp [or recording] is much more rare and can be the difference between 'wow' and 'meh'. I go back to Zep 1; that album would probably have languished on shelves for years without Page's searing Les Paul set-up and seasoned production. In fact you can trace the appeal and success of most rock artists directly to how their albums sound; Sabbath, Floyd, UFO, the Who, Priest, Boston, Van Halen, Ozzy & Randy, Peter Gabriel-- it is how those records played that made them so great. Otherwise all you have is basically a quaint bootleg of some talented musicians. ------------- "Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought." -- John F. Kennedy |
Posted By: Polymorphia
Date Posted: July 19 2015 at 22:28
|
The sound is an inextricable part of the material. Writing for different guitar tones can be like writing for clarinet vs. mandolin. Someone with an acute awareness for how things sound will also naturally create better material, too. ------------- https://dreamwindow.bandcamp.com/releases" rel="nofollow - My Music 
|
Posted By: Chris S
Date Posted: July 19 2015 at 23:37
|
...and then there is over production too. Thankfully most of the greats never fell into that category. And luck of the draw in terms of individual components contributing to a bands epic sound. Not to mention youth and creative risk taking in amongst perfectionist musicianship. ------------- ...As I venture through the slipstream, between the viaducts in your dreams...[/COLOR] |
Posted By: Atavachron
Date Posted: July 19 2015 at 23:53
Bingo. ------------- "Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought." -- John F. Kennedy |
Polymorphia wrote:Posted By: Kati
Date Posted: July 19 2015 at 23:58
|
I need to point out that the reason, a major factor here might that we tend to continue to go love back to the classic albums where there were no such things as loudness war, most albums had a dynamic range between 10 to 13. This is why many people recently tend to prefer LP's from new releases because those are not as much compressed as cd's or mp3's, i.e. an album might be an 8 dynamic range while same album as an LP could be 11 dynamic range. Thus no wonder we tend to opt for the ear friendly one, especially if we intend to listen to that album many times. |
Posted By: Catcher10
Date Posted: July 20 2015 at 13:00
Of course I agree.......  -------------   
|
Posted By: Kati
Date Posted: July 20 2015 at 13:20
mhwohaaaaxxxxx and a big hug to you too, Catcher10
  |
Posted By: HackettFan
Date Posted: July 21 2015 at 23:55
| I definitely think tone is important. Steve Hackett has excellent smooth tones with commanding sustain. Marc Ceccotti from Edhels fame (or lack thereof) has very similar qualities to Hackett's tone. Steve Rothery's fantastic tone is actually better than his playing. Jan Akkerman's playing is better than his tone. The tone is like an effect pedal. It will mold and affect what you play as you play it in a delicate feedback loop. When it comes to straight guitar ironically I like to turn the tone dial on my amps way down to nothing and throw on some reverb. The effect is a sort of ghostly hollow sound with the reverb bringing out my Les Paul sustain in a slightly different manner than one typically hears. Then there's my effects or synthesizer produced tones. I particularly like stuff that sounds more creamy than crunchy. I don't go much distortion. I may use some overdrive (Boss Feedbacker/Booster) or compression (Pigtronix Philosopher King: grit dial) on odd occasions. Since back in the 80s I started doing experiments using ring modulators to add or increase harmonics in my guitar signal. The results were sometimes pretty synth-like. |
Posted By: Atavachron
Date Posted: July 22 2015 at 00:24
|
For the 'foamy' sound I liked ; https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&ved=0CAcQjRxqFQoTCOKZkpj_7cYCFVIsiAodgQ0GMA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.guitargeek.com%2Fmxr-distortion-plus-gear-review%2F&ei=ayivVbuJGtPjoATNo6qoCQ&bvm=bv.98197061,d.cGU&psig=AFQjCNFvJo358YNaQsQiEygbyhHDb1EDpQ&ust=1437628915061861" rel="nofollow">  ------------- "Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought." -- John F. Kennedy |
Posted By: HackettFan
Date Posted: July 22 2015 at 10:19
| ^That's sweet. Scuffed up nicely. It looks like it's vintage. Do you get the foamy sounds by turning the output down with distortion up? I never used one. I checked it out on YouTube, though. There are so many distortion pedals out there each with a character of its own. The Boss DS-1 sounds awful, and the "synth" mods people do on it sound worse. Steve Hackett uses an Electro-Harmonix Big Muff. I've never used it, but Electro-Harmonix is my favorite maker generally. I have a Boss Adaptive Distortion pedal DA-2, which is unique in that it lets you play more complicated 7th or 9th chords without the notes getting mashed into a wall of noise. Individual notes remain perceptible even with thick distortion. It's a good pedal, but I don't have a place for it currently on my pedal board. I also have a Roland GR-D, which gives some nice creamy distortion and even some sawtooth timbres if you turn the dials right, and it's GK compatible (it can be used with a divided pickup, or with a regular one), but it is a bit noisy. The Boss MO-2 Multi-Overtone pedal is something I highly recommend if anyone wants to play with their tone. It lets you alternatively add high, mid, or low overtones to your signal. It has a detune option and gives a bit of clean boost too. Genuinely nice. |
Posted By: Atavachron
Date Posted: July 22 2015 at 15:18
|
Yeah Boss DS1 is awful. I've heard good things about the Ibanez "Tube Screamer" but never used one. The MXR is the pedal Randy Rhoads preferred though his amp levels were so enormous the feedback problem must've been hell. You hear it in those rehearsal tapes of him and Ozzy; he can barely control the noise coming from his Marshall but would use the feedback, and practically invented playing fills between vocal parts mostly so he could block all that noise(!). Here's a blast from the past - - http://www.ebay.com/itm/Vintage-Proco-Rat-Distortion-Pedal-/252034879578" rel="nofollow">  and the newer version -- http://www.ebay.com/itm/ProCo-Rat2-distortion-Pedal-IN-STOCK-NOW-FREE-Shipping-/221830485813" rel="nofollow">  ------------- "Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought." -- John F. Kennedy |
Posted By: Kati
Date Posted: July 24 2015 at 00:04
mhwoaaahhxxxxxxx
|
Posted By: Kati
Date Posted: July 24 2015 at 00:10
|
The most memorable and nerve touching awwwww tunes keeping a touching beautiful note for long while making one feel so vulnerable was Jeff Beck, he is better to none and here you go: JEFF BECK LIVE Cause We've Ended As Lovers |
Posted By: Kati
Date Posted: July 24 2015 at 00:12
|
Jeff Beck - Nadia |
Posted By: Atavachron
Date Posted: July 24 2015 at 00:21
|
Ah, the Great One. ------------- "Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought." -- John F. Kennedy |
Posted By: SteveG
Date Posted: August 26 2015 at 09:55
|
Does anyone have DIY effects? This is a homemade oscillator/synth unit I cobbled together with a friend: Sounds very 'squelchy', so it's not used much. http://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CAcQjRxqFQoTCOzfu4yAx8cCFcZsHgod2DAFBQ&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.instructables.com%2Fid%2FProto-Pedal-for-DIY-Guitar-Effects%2F&ei=yNLdVezbKsbZedjhlCg&psig=AFQjCNGtfbGNLTrcqSEFDXSIo9hACG_GeQ&ust=1440687155501416" rel="nofollow"> 
|
Posted By: Dayvenkirq
Date Posted: August 26 2015 at 09:57
| ^ I suppose only you know what happens if you fiddle around with the breadboard ... and how to fiddle with it. |
Posted By: SteveG
Date Posted: August 26 2015 at 10:11
------------- This message was brought to you by a proud supporter of the Deep State. |
Posted By: Dayvenkirq
Date Posted: August 26 2015 at 10:14
| ^ What I meant was that I've never seen anything like this before. I thought if you made it, you'd know how the breadboard works. What chips does it come with (if at all)? |
Posted By: SteveG
Date Posted: August 26 2015 at 10:22
|
^My apologies Andrey. The breadboard and other goodies were taken from something that should not have been 'borrowed from', so I can't say more. That's the problem with a lot of DIY stuff, you can do yourself in if you're not careful.
Oh, and as I said, it didn't sound the way we thought it would!
|
Posted By: Atavachron
Date Posted: August 26 2015 at 14:12
|
I love homemade music stuff. Tinkering, toiling, experimenting like a mad scientist, it's the best way to learn about not just sounds but electrical too. ------------- "Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought." -- John F. Kennedy |
Posted By: SteveG
Date Posted: August 26 2015 at 14:35
| Fiddling around with stuff is the most fun. When I was a kid, I plugged a cheap electric guitar into a reel to reel tape recorder that contained an amp/speaker unit, that I found in the trash. It made me sound like Hendrix for a few minutes before it started blowing vacuum tubes. It actually made tuba sounds before it finally died, but it started my fascination with tech tools. And reel to reel tape recorders! |
Posted By: HackettFan
Date Posted: August 26 2015 at 16:30
|
I have a bunch of schematics off the internet that should be well worth putting together. I've bought most or all of the materials too in some cases. There's a lot of DIY how-to instruction on the internet too. I don't have a good work area where I currently live, though, so I'm biding my time a little. I mainly have other people's DIY stuff I've gotten over the years. I've used ring modulators to get latency-free synth sounds for years now. I split and buffer the signal, then use one or more harmonizers to add in harmonics. The commercial ring mods are dead set on supplying an oscillator with them, so I've had to find people over time who make their own DIY ring mods with two inputs and no oscillator. I have a few of them now, and one or two kits to make them when I get around to it. It's a really simple circuit. Even I can say that. 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). |
Posted By: HackettFan
Date Posted: September 02 2015 at 22:49
 . Not much ground broken there.
|
Posted By: Atavachron
Date Posted: September 02 2015 at 23:29
|
Talkboxes are so stuck in their time-- do they still make 'em? ------------- "Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought." -- John F. Kennedy |
Posted By: Polymorphia
Date Posted: September 02 2015 at 23:31
Tube Screamers are good. In addition, there are lots of Screamer clones on the market that provide some differences. There's also the famed/highly-priced Klon Centaur. Electroharmonix has a clone of that called the Soul Food, and I would definitely recommend it. Perhaps over a screamer-style pedal. On bass, I use a Bass Soul Food for my less overdriven tone and the Way Huge Green Rhino (a higher gain screamer clone) for more gain. Alone, I can't really the Green Rhino to sound good, but with the Soul Food underneath it sounds great. I've yet to get one for guitar although I've used my friend's numerous times. The Green Rhino sounds fine on my guitar because my guitar is darker and hotter, but I'd like to have a similar setup for guitar. ------------- https://dreamwindow.bandcamp.com/releases" rel="nofollow - My Music
|
Posted By: HackettFan
Date Posted: September 03 2015 at 00:36
|
Posted By: Atavachron
Date Posted: September 03 2015 at 02:14
|
They are fun, I just can't stop hearing Frampton doing 'Show Me the Way' when I think of one ------------- "Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought." -- John F. Kennedy |
Posted By: HackettFan
Date Posted: September 03 2015 at 23:48
|
Posted By: Atavachron
Date Posted: September 04 2015 at 00:03
|
Jeff Beck had a talkie phase in the 70s-- oh yeah and Joe Walsh too ------------- "Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought." -- John F. Kennedy |
Posted By: HackettFan
Date Posted: September 04 2015 at 00:20
|
Posted By: Atavachron
Date Posted: September 04 2015 at 00:34
|
Oh I'm sure quite a few did, but the thrill was gone ------------- "Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought." -- John F. Kennedy |
Posted By: Disparate Times
Date Posted: September 04 2015 at 00:41
| Jerry Cantrell almost brought it back in the early 90's with man in the box, that song was pretty popular. It was probably the first time i realized i was hearing one, but i agree they've had there day. |
Posted By: SteveG
Date Posted: September 04 2015 at 15:21
| ^I agree that there time is up! The only time a talk box sounded good was when the player was using it in tandem with a wah pedal like Frampton did (on Show Me The Way) and was not actually talking but making throaty vocal sounds or just vocalizing a melody. They constantly keep resurfacing on some new band's albums, unfortunately. |
Posted By: The Dark Elf
Date Posted: September 12 2015 at 15:10
------------- ...a vigorous circular motion hitherto unknown to the people of this area, but destined to take the place of the mud shark in your mythology... |
Posted By: SteveG
Date Posted: September 13 2015 at 14:21
|
^Just as I remembered. The only good thing about them is they gave the guitarist a splitting headache after about 4 songs! ------------- This message was brought to you by a proud supporter of the Deep State. |
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: September 14 2015 at 02:23
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). http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=47359" rel="nofollow - This tread details an infinity sustainer mod to a cheap guitar I did a while back. 
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™ http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=98120&PID=5068346#5068346" rel="nofollow - keyboard switch with latch circuit similar to those used by Ibanez and Danelectro (among others)  ------------- What? |
Posted By: Atavachron
Date Posted: September 14 2015 at 02:49
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. ------------- "Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought." -- John F. Kennedy |
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: September 14 2015 at 03:24
The other factor is that those early guitar amps were low power (less than 30W) so were easy to overdrive, with most of the distortion being in the output stage and loudspeaker (which resulted in permanent damage to both). As amps became more powerful they were purposely designed so that the input stage would clip before the output, so with amps like the Marshal Valvestate you have an easily overdriven valve (tube) input stage (for that warm distortion) with bullet-proof transistor output stage to prevent damage to the speakers. Stomp boxes mean you can achieve distortion without overdriving the amp, which is why so much effort is put into getting "just the right sound" in each design. One interesting one is John Deacon's famous Deacy amp used by Brian May, this little germanium transistor amplifier with a pair of tiny speakers (3" and 6") confounded professional and home-builders alike for many years as replicas could never reproduce the same distorted tone as the original even when using the same circuit. Looking at the schematic now it seems obvious (to me at least) that the reason for that is the pair of transformers used in the circuit were originally very low quality and easy to saturate (magnetic saturation), which produces a lot of odd-harmonics that you don't get from overdriving transistors (or valves come to that). ------------- What? |
Posted By: Atavachron
Date Posted: September 14 2015 at 03:42
|
^ Who'd have thought it would be cheap materials that helped create the rock sound. Though it does make perfect sense and is totally rock 'n roll. Regarding boxes being used to avoid damage to the amp, I've always thought the natural distortion of a good amp was always superior to an effects pedal (I'd be surprised if Gilmour used much in the way of artificial distortion). And the amount of output that a box saps from an amp is huge, it just ruins the tone. You lose more than you gain. ------------- "Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought." -- John F. Kennedy |
Posted By: Kati
Date Posted: September 14 2015 at 03:46
|
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" rel="nofollow - http://dr.loudness-war.info/album/list?artist=Pink+Floyd&album=Animals
|
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: September 14 2015 at 04:04
Gilmour used a Fuzz Face in the early days (The Nile Song - perhaps the dirtiest guitar tone he's ever used) and an Elecro-Harmonixs Big Muff since (famously on Comfortably Numb and all of Animals). I think the Elecro-Harmonixs Electric Mistress and the Lesley-effect rotating speakers are the key to his undistorted sound though. ------------- What? |
Posted By: Atavachron
Date Posted: September 14 2015 at 04:06
|
Ah yes the Big Muff, also a favorite of Mark and John Gallagher as I recall ------------- "Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought." -- John F. Kennedy |
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: September 14 2015 at 04:13
hmm... the Big Muff creates the distortion during the mid-stage amplification so the input and output stages are not overdriven, this allows for some "tone-recovery" (I presume by 'feed-forward') in the output stage that doesn't "sap" from the amp like you mentioned before. ------------- What? |
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: September 14 2015 at 04:28
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. ------------- What? |
Posted By: Atavachron
Date Posted: September 14 2015 at 04:37
|
I used this puppy for years (or a model close to it); Seymour-Duncan Studio Series, good old workhorse, never needed a pedal
http://www.guitarcenter.com/Used/Seymour-Duncan/8440-Tube-Guitar-Combo-Amp.gc" rel="nofollow">
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.
------------- "Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought." -- John F. Kennedy |
Posted By: Kati
Date Posted: September 14 2015 at 04:47
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. |
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: September 14 2015 at 05:30
I think you need to http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=102131&PID=5165152#5165152" rel="nofollow - 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.
------------- What? |
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: September 14 2015 at 05:36
This goes back to the notion that bad circuits make for good guitar sounds. With guitar tones we are looking for distortion of the guitar output, anything that modifies the signal away from the pure-tone is distortion even when it sounds good. As amplifiers age they move away from their design specification and that affects the tone of the signal. For example valves (tubes) naturally age, and they each age slightly differently, so what was originally a perfectly matched-pair in a new amp will not be so closely matched once the amp has been burned-in for a period of time, which of course adds to the distortion. Also over-driving valves causes them to run hot, which accelerates their ageing (you'll read of things such as "cathode stripping", but as with all esoteric technical concepts, you should read them with extreme caution).
------------- What? |
Posted By: Kati
Date Posted: September 14 2015 at 05:43
Dean, overall the fact is that most details, especially the tiniest details are lost (and with prog this is major) maybe it has not necessary to do with the guitar tone, btw acoustic guitar always sounds louder funny enough compared to electric. Compression works just like digital painting if I can describe it that way, if you use auto contrast, it might sound more impressive at first but you lose all the details. There must be a reason why prior to the 80's most bands and an average dynamic range of atleast 11 compared to thereafter having 8 and 8 is bordering the red minimum line. Meanwhile LP's continued to have a minimum of 11 or 12 dynamic range same album.
|
Posted By: odinalcatraz
Date Posted: September 14 2015 at 09:27
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! ------------- http://www.corvusstone.com |
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: September 14 2015 at 09:37
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. ------------- What? |
Posted By: SteveG
Date Posted: September 14 2015 at 09:39
|
Posted By: Kati
Date Posted: September 14 2015 at 10:54
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!! |
Posted By: odinalcatraz
Date Posted: September 14 2015 at 13:13
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! ------------- http://www.corvusstone.com |
Posted By: HackettFan
Date Posted: September 23 2015 at 22:00
|
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: September 24 2015 at 02:42
I had seen his Wond but not the Vo-96. Interesting. There is signal processing and conversions going on, they're just part of the feedback process instead of being post-processing. Unfortunately the demo video was as dull as dishwater as I didn't care what the presets do or any of that so I didn't watch it to the end, I was more interested in the pick-up/exciter. I had considered a pick-up/exciter per string for my sustainer but that was too complicated for what I was building. Thinking about how the Vo-96 must work and judging by its size, I surmise that he has used (at least) two pick-up/exciter pairs per string so he can control the harmonics and create the tone-arpeggios, giving a total of 24 individual coils. This has got me thinking... sustainers work by feeding back the picked-up note to a driver coil such that it is in-phase with the note fundamental, the Vo-96 uses two (or more) driver coils so the secondary driver can be a little out of phase with the fundamental and thus control the harmonics. In sustainers such as the Sustainiac and Ebow the drivers are continuously pushing and pulling the string, and unless told otherwise I'm guessing that this is also how the Wond and Vo-96 work (based on the Wond, but he says the technology is the same) but perhaps it isn't... Because this isn't how we play a guitar, we apply the initial impetus to start the vibration and the string oscillates at its fundamental frequency, and without further stimulation it decays naturally. Now consider pushing a child on a swing... here we don't continuously run backwards and forwards while holding on to the swing's seat to keep it swinging, we apply a single push at the top of its backward swing and allow physics to do the rest. This impulse function is more efficient and requires less energy from us to keep the kid amused. In fact we don't even need to give this extra impetus on every back-swing, we can do it once every 2nd, 3rd or nth back-swing and the swing will maintain its oscillation. So what if we applied this technique to a guitar string... this is tricky in pure analogue sustainers but in digital sustainers it would be simple as the DSP analysis has already analysed each string for pitch, phase and amplitude. So rather than driving the exciter-coil with a reconstituted analogue signal (from a D to A, which I'm pretty certain is how Paul Vo does it), "digitally" pulsing the exciter-coil at the peak point in each vibration cycle would be a doddle, we could even pulse the string 180° out of phase and thus dampen the string. This opens up another (technical) possibility - since the coil is only being driven for a brief time during the note's cycle, the rest of the time the string's vibration will be inducing current in its windings, therefore the exciter can simultaneously be used as a pick-up to give continuous feedback to the control circuitry. hmm... food for thought. ------------- What? |
Posted By: HackettFan
Date Posted: September 25 2015 at 00:10
|
Posted By: HackettFan
Date Posted: September 27 2015 at 19:01
| 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. |
Posted By: Atavachron
Date Posted: September 27 2015 at 19:58
|
Satch uses tons of wah, and sometimes it sounds like he's got it stuck on stationary, though I suspect most of the time he's footing it. ------------- "Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought." -- John F. Kennedy |
Posted By: HackettFan
Date Posted: October 11 2015 at 16:20
^Thanks again.
|
Posted By: HackettFan
Date Posted: October 16 2015 at 14:21
Paul Vo apparently confirms that he's using PM synthesis. In the following link, he says in passing that, "It's moving the harmonics in a way that a phaser would move them." https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=psqPViFKkjg" rel="nofollow - https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=psqPViFKkjg I'm still reading up on things and trying to wrap my head around this and still not sure what the mathematical relationship is between phase modulation and harmonics, which is maybe just too bad for me. It works of course. I've just always had a better grasp of additive synthesis, oh well. Anyway, Craig Anderton (Projects For Guitarists pp.55-58) has a phase switcher project that shifts the phase of a signal 180 degrees. It occurs to me that a well placed pot might give variable control over the degree of shift not unlike a cocked wah, and therefore I could maybe do something that's hands on (of course I would have to split and buffer and mix it with the unmodulated signal too). |
Posted By: HackettFan
Date Posted: October 18 2015 at 15:05
|
^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: %20" rel="nofollow - https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=MtG-YJIA2Lo %20" rel="nofollow - https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=1mfSXgx6RTc Here's a written review from Tone Report: %20" rel="nofollow - 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: %20" rel="nofollow - https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=rKueUxZmIv0 Here's also a little write up about it on the Tone Report: %20" rel="nofollow - http://tonereport.com/reviews/tenten-devices-triangle |
Posted By: Atavachron
Date Posted: October 24 2015 at 00:16
Anyone hear about the PRS (Paul Reed Smith) guitar wood scandal-- one of their suppliers of the rare Bigleaf maple tree which yields the stunning wood PRS uses for their instruments is charged with clear-cutting a bunch of the trees. I played several PRS axes back when Paul himself was making them and they were without doubt some of the very finest guitars I've ever handled or heard, but I think I' rather keep some rare trees around.
------------- "Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought." -- John F. Kennedy |
Posted By: HackettFan
Date Posted: November 12 2015 at 21:54
|
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.
|
Posted By: Atavachron
Date Posted: November 12 2015 at 23:02
|
MUFF !!! ------------- "Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought." -- John F. Kennedy |
Posted By: pitfall
Date Posted: November 15 2015 at 16:12
|
There have been many different versions of the Big Muff, and they all sound and feel quite distinctive when you use them. Hackett did use a few versions in the mid '70's, but most of his early stuff was played using a Shaftstbury Duo Fuzz and a Marshall Supa Fuzz. The current Electro Harmonix Big Muff with the red on/off LED sounds OK, but is a bit weaker and more polite than the pre OP Amp versions.
|
Posted By: HackettFan
Date Posted: November 25 2015 at 09:22
| There have been, quite true. I was in the market for an historically accurate early 70s version. I demoed a Big Muff Pi at a guitar store, however, which had some newer frills, with "tone" and "wicker" options, but I fell in love with it and bought it. The tone and the wicker can both be switched off for what I presume is more historically accurate, rightly or wrongly. |
Posted By: pitfall
Date Posted: November 25 2015 at 13:59
|
I find the tone control indispensable in carving the right sound, which depends on the guitar, amp etc. Even during the run of a particular version of the Big Muff components in the circuit, and sometimes, the transistors changed - it's only really apparent when you are A/B'ing 2 or more pedals at the same time that the differences become obvious.
|
Posted By: Smurph
Date Posted: November 25 2015 at 19:35
|
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 ------------- http://pseudosentai.bandcamp.com/" rel="nofollow - http://pseudosentai.bandcamp.com/ wtf |
Posted By: pitfall
Date Posted: November 26 2015 at 14:15
| 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! |
Posted By: HackettFan
Date Posted: November 26 2015 at 14:37
|
Posted By: HackettFan
Date Posted: November 26 2015 at 14:50
|
Posted By: Atavachron
Date Posted: November 26 2015 at 23:18
It still sounded pants ?  Love them English wordies.------------- "Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought." -- John F. Kennedy |