I Think I’ve Decided What My Next Amp Will Be - For Now...

gball said:
Oh yeah!! When we'd play places that had no or weak monitors we (the two guitar players) could barely hear each other. I'd have to walk up to the front of the drum riser and kind of lean over toward his way and vice-versa. And even with a slant-front 4x12 I wasn't always able to hear myself without leaning down a little. It was definitely easier when I played in a 3-piece (the bass player was the singer).

Obviously, if the place had any kind of decent monitors this wasn't a problem.
Click to expand...
The only thing we heard coming back through the monitors, is what the 2 back up vocal mics where picking up, basically the entire band, to an extent, but we could hear the lead vocals quite well.
Cheers
 
Mitch Pearrow SJMP said:
The only thing we heard coming back through the monitors, is what the 2 back up vocal mics where picking up, basically the entire band, to an extent, but we could hear the lead vocals quite well.
Cheers
Click to expand...

Haha, that'd be an example of "weak" monitors to me. I liked the places where you could have the sound guy plop just what you wanted into your own monitor - I didn't need the bass and drums, so I always wanted guitar 2, vocals and a bit of my own guitar blended in.
 
Robert Herndon said:
We don't live in the word of mic'd amps and PA's for live work.
Click to expand...

When I gig out with the other band, we bring our own PA and monitors. In fact, in those situations I often use just my floor-based processor and run straight to the mix. It takes up a lot less area on a cramped stage. It also facilitates sound check because the sound of the processor never changes. It's incredibly consistent, and I can build patches beforehand practically on a song-by-song basis. I would like to upgrade that, too. For more routine work with flexible set lists, I prefer an amp and pedals as I can make changes to my sound with a lot more instantaneous flexibility.

My other GAS item is an AXE FX. I would take the older AXE FX 2 XL. The AXE FX 3 has been out for awhile, but they are pretty pricey. The AXE FX 2 XL is what Joel Hoekstra currently uses in the Trans-Siberian Orchestra. I KNOW first-hand that sounds good! So, yeah...I kinda have two parallel paths. On the one hand, I want a low wattage amp that is not a glorified entry-level amp (hence, the interest in Mesa) and I want an upgrade in processing.
 
Last edited:
smitty_p said:
When I gig out with the other band, we bring our own PA and monitors. In fact, in those situations I often use just my floor-based processor and run straight to the mix. It takes up a lot less area on a cramped stage. It also facilitates sound check because the sound of the processor never changes. It's incredibly consistent, and I can build patches beforehand practically on a song-by-song basis. I would like to upgrade that, too. For more routine work with flexible set lists, I prefer an amp and pedals as I can make changes to my sound with a lot more instantaneous flexibility.

My other GAS item is an AXE FX. I would take the older AXE FX 2 XL. The AXE FX 3 has been out for awhile, but they are pretty pricey. The AXE FX 2 XL is what Joel Hoekstra currently uses in the Trans-Siberian Orchestra. I KNOW first-hand that sounds good! So, yeah...I kinda have two parallel paths. On the one hand, I want a low wattage amp that is not a glorified entry-level amp (hence, the interest in Mesa) and I want an upgrade in processing.
Click to expand...

We have a nice PA for the vocals. several of us sing backup vocals, so there are 4 mics going. The singer has two monitors, but they are far enough forward they don't work for me. I have - in the past - ran a speaker from my amp that served as a monitor, and that worked well enough. I suppose we could expand the system a bit.

On occasion, I have played with larger music productions where everything was super-controlled. Guitars right into the board, in-ear monitoring, sound man FOH having full control of all effects and switching them on and off in real-time. I have played through a lof of processors and the technology is taking incredible leaps, that's for sure. I guess I just prefer the 'old way' of doing things....????

I like the way my live setup sounds. Switch off one effect on my board and my sound is gone. It takes all 7 effects running at 100% duty cycle to get the tone. I suppose, because of my background, I like to hear a tube amp and effects and I am probably more enamored by someone ho can wrangle a good tone out of a JMP stack and keep it under control at high stage volumes, than I am the guys with the latest amp modeling software. In our world, guys spend huge sums for the latest gear. We see and hear such an incredible array of these new technological advances that it's hard to keep up with them.

There are not many of us tonal dinosaur's left, who still kill with a truncheon as opposed to using the latest scoped, high powered, sonic rifles...

Probably the most fascinating attribute of my live rig is that I can stand in front of the amp - at 1/2 volume - with no buzz, no hum and no feedback. We have played with other bands where the guitarists were fighting constant feedback.

Feedback control and quiet signal are my most important goals in a live setup. Second is a very organic and natural overdrive that is very loud and percussive. I want to feel the air coming out of that speaker cabinet/amp. The Electro-Harmonix 12VR75 is a key component of that sound. It can be driven to incredible stage volumes, but never breaks up...it always has 100% clarity. Whatever you hear at '2' will sound just as clear at '8' on the volume scale so to speak.

Some studio musician friends of mine (and I) are planning a new music venture. It will be a kind of 'super-group' in that all of us are established musicians. With a dedicated vocalist, all (5) of us will take turns sing lead vocals. Just in the planning stages now (we have met and jammed once thus far and it was incredible) we have a cumulative list of almost 500 songs.

My own personal list contains 125 songs from 70's/80's/90's that I can play and sing from memory without any lead sheets. Each member brigs a good number of songs with them, so when combined, we have this incredible song catalouge available.

It's funny that the bandleader and visionary for this venture has a purple Schecter F1-FR, which has the identical finish to my C1-FR

I have to say, that for me personally, each new musical prospect, or collaborative opportunity, or simply a live performance, holds for me so much more fascination and interest than any gear acquisition ever could.

When I got my Schecter from Spectre, (it rhymes!) I cannot ever remember being that excited about an instrument acquisition, but the excitement was the prospect of being able to stay in constant tune - under any conditions - more than it was the simple acquisition in and of itself.

I suppose I am just very old fashioned in that everything must have a distinct and identifiable purpose for me to get excited about it....like my 2006 Mustang, which into the trunk of said vehicle I can fit a DSL40C and 5 guitars can be placed on the rear folded seats, along with a bag of cables and my pedalboard.

I don't post too much these days, as I have really tried to (consciously) spend more time being focused and earning money than just idle chatting about herein.

This weekend, Outfall (the band) and I will be in an old, little known ghost town in the desert (north of Kramer Junction on the US395) to begin filming for the new music video. The Mustang will have a role in this production, which is going to be a lot of fun.

Gotta run...Burbank is a long drive...
 
On larger stages I have had issues hearing other guitar. Generally we get decent monitors. When we set up our own system we each get a monitor plus our own mix. Put whatever ya like in there.
I then use the solo boost feature or channel on my amps to give it a nice crank for solos. It's always run through FOH unless it is a very small pub venue. Even then it's nice to spread it around.
 
Robert Herndon said:
I have performed with Aviom (in ear) monitoring and hate the false representation it gives you of your sound.
Click to expand...

Yeah. I’ve used Aviom before. Certainly not the best! I didn‘t care for it a lot, either.

A lot comes down to the in-ears, themselves. The best ones are molded to fit the inside of your ear so they are a precise fit and have multiple drivers. Some setups have up to eight drivers in each ear piece and can run nearly $2000.00. Those with fewer drivers will still be several hundred dollars. This is just for the pieces that fit in your ear and the connecting cable...not the actual wireless receivers or other electronics.

I have a singer friend who tours professionally. I think he said his set has seven drivers.

These setups, if paired with good electronics, sound WAY better and more natural than the old Aviom stuff.

A lot has to do with the whole field of psychoacoustics. If you are able to get a good stereo mix in your ears, rather than a simple mono feed, you will actually perform better with in-ears. The reason is that we don’t live in a mono world. It isn’t a natural sound field to us. A good stereo feed will be more natural and easier for your brain to adapt to.

Right now, I’m working with just a mono mix to my in-ears, so I leave one ear open so I can get a spatial sense. We have plans to upgrade to stereo in-ears.
 
Robert Herndon said:
You don't really see any high dollar cables or headphones, even in the record label's own studios.
Click to expand...

I don’t think such in-ears would really be used in a studio.

I’ll have to ask my friend what he uses in studio.

I’d think you’re more likely to see such systems for live, stage use. Of course, not all in-ear monitors are as expensive as I’ve described, but they can be, depending on what you buy.
 
@smitty_p ....I’ve been spending some time with my “anachronistic throwback“ version of your targeted amp acquisition over the last couple of nights. Thank goodness for the excellent master volume control :wink: ...
The clean channel has been the easiest to dial in IMO. If the Mini Rec has the same preamp setup/circuit, I’d be confident in thinking that you should be able to dial in a really nice, pristine, clean. One that can cut through with a drummer. I am able to dial in a nice Fenderish clean that shakes the house...literally... my beer was just rippling around like that Jurassic Park scene a little while ago:).

347BF9C9-B3F6-49B8-83D5-576CE74F74C5.gif
 
Thatbastarddon said:
@smitty_p ....I’ve been spending some time with my “anachronistic throwback“ version of your targeted amp acquisition over the last couple of nights. Thank goodness for the excellent master volume control :wink: ...
The clean channel has been the easiest to dial in IMO. If the Mini Rec has the same preamp setup/circuit, I’d be confident in thinking that you should be able to dial in a really nice, pristine, clean. One that can cut through with a drummer. I am able to dial in a nice Fenderish clean that shakes the house...literally... my beer was just rippling around like that Jurassic Parscene a little while ago:).
Click to expand...

Awesome!

Thanks for the insight, Don!
 
Mr Grumpy said:
I know nothing, so feel confident in saying (although I have zero experience of these amps): the Mark 5:25 channel 1 has two really nice cleans, the first might be twangy heaven while the second seems to be a thicker bluesier clean that I like a lot (never having actually head it).
Click to expand...

You’re right. Green channel ‘clean’ is basically Blackface clean. “Fat” is like a Boogie Mk 1. It’s clean but with a lot of girth.
 
syscokid said:
Nice. Gorgeous sounds from both of them!
Click to expand...

True, both World-class. The Mark is a lot more versatile if that matters...not just the 6 vs. 4 modes, but the added EQ and cab clone are huge benefits. Plus, and I guess this one is subjective, in the real world I feel the tones coming out of it are more "sophisticated" and complex, both the cleans and distortions but especially the high-gain sounds. Keep in mind I have the Mk 5:25, not the 35 but side-by-side they sound basically indistinguishable to me. I loved my Mini Rec for what it was but in the end it didn't do anything that the Mk 5 couldn't do better so I moved it on.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top