Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Considering buying an attenuator? Don’t just look at the absolute price…

December 18, 2009 by Unco B

There’s an unspoken battle raging on The Gear Page forum about which is the best “popular” attenuator on the market. Yeah, everyone claims theirs is the most transparent, and frankly, that’s true for very low levels of attenuation. But for really cranking down on the volume, my money, of course, is on the Aracom PRX150-Pro. To me, not only is it the most transparent attenuator based upon head-to-head comparisons of some of the popular attenuators done by me and others, and also being the safest with its input AND output impedance matching, it is also the most cost-effective attenuator out there. Don’t believe it? Well, the numbers don’t lie. When you consider the versatility of input/output impedance selections vs. cost of the unit that the PRX150-Pro offers, it’s simply no contest.

Let’s have a look at the numbers shall we?

Cost Per Impedance Selection Combination
Attenuator Price # Impedance Combos. Cost/Imp. Combo
THD HotPlate $329.00 1 $329.00
Alex’s Attenuator $350.00 1 $350.00
Faustine Phantom $799.00 3 $266.33
Aracom PRX150-Pro $650.00 16 $40.56

Clearly, based upon the number of impedance matching selections, the PRX150-Pro is the clear winner in terms of value. Even if the Aracom unit only had three impedance matching selections, it still will have 9 different available input/output impedance selection combinations, and each combination would only cost $72.11; still far below the competition!

Furthermore, let’s say the PRX150-Pro didn’t have output impedance matching, reducing its impedance matching combinations to 4. It still outperforms the competition in terms of value at $162.25 per selection!

Let’s compare the PRX150-Pro with the Alex’s attenuator for example. People love the Alex’s attenuator, and I understand it works great. But you have to get 4 of those units to match the impedance matching capabilities of the PRX150-Pro. In absolute cost terms, yes, the PRX150-Pro costs more. But with respect to value, well, you can’t hide from the numbers. The same thing applies to the THD HotPlate (though I have other reasons not to like this product). As for the Faustine Phantom, it has more versatility than the Alex’s by far, but it’s also very expensive, and it is unclear whether or not you’ll get one in a timely fashion. Some people have been waiting for theirs for several months.

Sometimes you have to spend more to get much more, and in the case of the Aracom PRX150-Pro, you’re getting A LOT more!

Disclaimer: I will say this again that I am not an employee of Aracom – I’m a faithful customer because of the superior product Jeff produces.

Posted in amps, aracom amps, attenuator, GAS, gear, gear reviews, guitar, guitar gear, guitar gear reviews, guitarists, Guitars, Music, musicians | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 12 Comments »

Things Are Starting to Look a Bit “Fuzzy”

December 17, 2009 by Unco B

In a previous post, I asked, “Where have all the overdrives gone?” For the last couple of years, it seemed that a new overdrive pedal would hit the market every week. Then suddenly, about a month ago, it seemed that the well just dried up. Excuse the pun, but did the overdrive market become fully saturated? Looks like it…

It seems I’m seeing another trend, though not quite as profound as I saw with overdrives, and that is the emergence of fuzz pedals. And like overdrives, fuzz pedals seem to come in different varieties. The most basic is the original FuzzFace design which uses two transistors to create a bunch of gain so that practically everything that goes into it gets converted to a square wave. After that, you get pedals like the Zvex Fuzz Factory that gives you control over various aspects of the fuzz tone.

Personally, I haven’t spent that much time with fuzz pedals. It’s not that I don’t like the sound; I do, it’s just that my playing style really hasn’t leaned towards a “fuzzy” type of sound. For those unfamiliar with the fuzz tone, here’s a good demo.

The Difference Between Overdrive, Distortion, and Fuzz Pedals

I’ve been doing a lot of research on getting the fundamental differences between the three types of distortion, and the following is a synopsis of what I’ve found:

  • Overdrive – First is overdrive. This can be used as either a verb or noun, but from a sonic standpoint, overdrive produces the gentlest type of distortion, commonly known as soft clipping. Overdrive and booster pedals produce this type of sound. Using “overdrive” as a verb, it commonly means to overpower the pre-amp tubes of an tube amp, though technically it’s simply overpowering the input. Overdrive pedals simulate this with clipping diodes so you can get that overdriven sound at lower volumes.

    Overdive pedals include: Tube Screamer, Bad Monkey, OCD, Holy Fire, Swollen Pickle, etc.

  • Distortion – Here we get into a bit of a grey area because technically, any pedal that uses a transistor to clip or distort a signal is a distortion pedal, so the Tube Screamer and OCD fall into this realm. But many distortion pedals such as the TS also add signal gain, so they also overdrive the front-end of the amp. The big difference between Tube Screamer types and dedicated distortion pedals is in the type of clipping they produce. Distortion pedals produce a harder clipping of the input signal in their transistors at any volume level.

    Distortion pedals include: DS-1, Metal Zone, Holy Fire, Rat, Saturator, etc.

  • Fuzz – Fuzz is square wave distortion produced by a couple of cascading transistors that amplify the input gain so much that it produces a square wave when looked at in an oscilloscope. The tone of the fuzz typically has a lot of bass, and tons of odd-order harmonics. It’s ugly, but in a good way, and applied properly, can produce some spectacular tones. Jimi and SRV were masters of the fuzz.

    Fuzz pedals include: FuzzFace, Fuzz Factory, Graphic Fuzz

Note that I didn’t want to get too technical here mainly because the technology is less important than the tone. As in all things, you need to hear and play them for yourself to see what you like.

By the way, I found a great wiki article on distortion, which goes into a more technical discussion if you’re interested. Check it out!

Posted in Guitars | Tagged , , , | 2 Comments »

Got GAS because you’re not happy with your amp’s tone? Before you sell it…

December 16, 2009 by Unco B

There are two things you should consider doing before you decide to get rid of it. I’ve done this on two amps, and have ended up keeping them both.

1. Change your speaker(s)

Let’s state the obvious: An amp’s speaker produces the sound, but it is amazing how many people I’ve come across who don’t look at replacing this vital component first when they’re not happy with their tone. I know, evaluating speakers is tough, and a lot of the time, you can only rely on people’s words and frequency response charts. I actually find frequency response charts useful in making a decision on a new speaker. If I want more mid-range and presence, I’ll look at speakers whose frequency response charts are big in the mids and high-mids, with a much more smooth bass response curve, like the Jensen P12N. If I’m looking for more bottom end, and a slightly scooped tone, I’ll look for a speaker that has those kinds of characteristics, such as the Fane Medusa 150. Of course, you have to hear the speakers in the end to decide if they work for you, but the frequency response chart is a good place to start.

2. Change your pre-amp tubes

I’m a NOS tube fanatic. To me, there’s nothing like the build and tonal quality of a good NOS tube. The ones I’ve chosen tend to have a bit less gain than newer tubes, and they break up so much more smoothly. But that’s just me. I want a smoother overdrive tone, whereas someone else may want a harsher tone. To each their own on this. However, changing tubes – especially pre-amp tubes – can have a profound effect on your tone. Like speakers, you have to try several before you find ones that fit your tastes, but it’s worth it once you do. And note, with respect to tubes, you get the most bang for your buck by replacing the pre-amp tubes as opposed to the power tubes. I use JJ power tubes for practically all my amps, and you know what? I’ve never replaced any of them because I just haven’t seen that much tone improvement by replacing them.

Where I have seen LOTS of improvements is in replacing the pre-amp tubes, as you’ll see below…

As I stated above, I saved two of my amps from the chopping block. Yeah, I had to spend a bit of money to save them, but save them I did. My most recent “save” experience was with my Aracom PLX18 BB. This amp is based upon the classic Marshall 18 Watt Plexi “Bluesbreaker.” When I first got it, I loved it, but one thing that I didn’t quite bond with was the fizz that the amp naturally produced. I really dug the mild distorted tone of the amp, but there was just something that wasn’t quite “right” when I’d crank the amp all the way.

So the first thing I did to bleed off some of the highs was to replace the stock speaker. The Red Coat Red Fang is a nice, bright speaker, but brand new, it’s pretty harsh, and I didn’t want spend a lot of time breaking it in. But even still, the amp was naturally bright, and with a bright speaker, I just didn’t feel it was a good fit. As luck would have it, I had another speaker on hand, a Fane Medusa 150. The thing about this speaker is that it has a real strong, tight bass response. Once I had it installed, I couldn’t believe my ears! It really balanced out the brightness of the amp, and curbed a lot of the fizz.

But there was still some fizz left. Knowing that there were JJ’s in the pre-amps, which have a lot of gain, my thought was that they were throwing a lot of gain at the EL84 power tubes, which can get fizzy when driven hard. So I swapped them out for a set of NOS circa 1959 GE and RCA long plate 12AX7’s, which are oh-so-smooth and a have a bit less gain than the JJ’s. The result was simply magnificent!

That clip was recorded with the Aracom PLX18 BB, and using my LP copy Prestige Heritage Elite. Sorry, I don’t have a “before” clip, but before I did those two simple modifications, the amp produced a ton of fizz that I just couldn’t connect with, even though I loved the dynamics when it was fully cranked. Now, I can crank that puppy up, and get those rich tones with no fizz.

Posted in amplifiers, amps, Amps/Amplification, aracom amps, EL84, GAS, gear, guitar, guitarists, Guitars, instruction, NOS | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment »

Your Wife Complaining You Spend More on Gear than Her? Get Her a Car!

December 15, 2009 by Unco B

Here’s a solution…

Posted in Guitars | 1 Comment »

Is technology really THAT important?

December 8, 2009 by Unco B

Just how important is the technical design of an amp or a guitar?

If you read incredibly captivating (read: time eater) threads like this: http://www.thegearpage.net/board/showthread.php?p=7264585 on The Gear Page you might think the science and technology that goes into a product is all-important, as the original poster laments about the lost art of amp design, and how amps today just aren’t made like they used to be made because people don’t understand the science. In a project with his son, he claims to have rediscovered the science and is now using that amp as a prototype to perhaps launch a new line of Trainwreck clones. That’s a new one. Wow!

As for me, with respect to the techno stuff, I’m kind of on the fence about it.

After all, how many times have we consumers chosen a product not based upon technology, but for completely different reasons? Can you say BetaMax vs. VHS? Back in the 70’s Sony’s BetaMax video technology was clearly better than VHS. But BetaMax players were more expensive and media producers were slow to adopt the format. Needless to say, it died a quiet death. Just an aside: Some say the porn industry had a lot to do with it as well as they adopted the cheaper VHS to get their tapes out to market more cost-effectively.

Anyway, with respect to guitar gear, let’s look at the Aracom PRX150-Pro attenuator. I’ve had several in-depth discussions with Jeff about the technology behind this attenuator, and how it differs from the traditional L-Pad and resistor networks that also throw a load across the speaker. Jeff’s doesn’t. I’m no expert in electronics, but I am an engineer by trade, and the scientific and engineering principles that Jeff employed to arrive at his solution make it significantly different in approach than the traditional-style attenuators. But this isn’t an article on attenuators.

The point to my bringing up the PRX150-Pro is that despite the technology it’s built upon, that’s not what compels people to buy it. The primary reason they buy it is because it is the most transparent attenuator on the market today (not to mention that it’s less expensive and you can get one in a lot less time than its nearest competitor – and you don’t have to put a down-payment on it). Yes, it is its technology that enables that transparency. But I would venture most people don’t really care or only have a nominal interest in the technology. As for me, my gearhead nature loves the tech stuff, but I’m frankly more interested in the end product.

So what’s the point? No matter what kind of product, manufacturers can talk all they want about their technology and claim how their product is better than the rest. But in the end, a consumer’s choice will be based upon how that product moves them. Tech may play a role, but it’s minor compared to performance.

So to the original poster of that thread: Brother, you may have some great technology on your hands, but I gotta like  how it sounds.

Posted in Guitars | Tagged , , , , , , | 1 Comment »

Take it to the limit…

December 8, 2009 by Unco B

I walked into my garage/studio this morning and looked over to my gear – there’s a lot (though probably not as much as I’ve seen from other gear sluts’ pictures). Peering over my collection, the thought struck me: What if I could only have one of each type of gear… What would I choose? What would be the basis for my decision?

After ruminating on this subject over breakfast and coffee, I decided that I’d choose the gear that gives me the most versatility with respect to tone and usability given the various types of music I play. So based upon that here are my choices:

  • Squier Classic Vibe Tele 50’s
  • Aracom VRX22 with 1 X 12 Cab
  • BOSS TU-2 Tuner
  • Aracom PRX150-Pro Attenuator

Those four things will get me through any gig or recording session. Not to say that they’re my favorite pieces of gear, but that combination will give me the most versatility with respect to versatility and usability.

What? No Goldie? Man, I love that guitar, don’t get me wrong. But that guitar is so heavy, I don’t gig with it unless I’m at a place where I have to sit down. The Tele, on the other hand, is super-light, and with its pine body, it’s very resonant, so I can get thick, almost humbucker-type sounds to nice trebly tones. Goldie offers that up and more, but she loses on usability in a variety of venues due to her weight.

The Aracom VRX22 happens to be my favorite amp in any case, but it’s my favorite because of its versatility. Once I had Jeff do the footswitch mod so I could switch between channels, and remove the clean channel from the master volume, there’s nary a tone – except for super heavy, high gain – that I can’t produce with that amp.

With respect to my TU-2 tuner, yeah, I know, there are much better ones out there, but it’s what I’ve got. But despite that, I’d rather be in tune than to have a cool effect, so that pedal would stay.

Finally, the Aracom PRX150-Pro attenuator will always be a part of any rig I put together because it allows me to set limits to my max volume in any venue. Since I play mostly small to medium venues, this box is essential for dialing in just the right amount of volume for the house. And even if I have to play at super low volumes where the Fletcher-Munson effect comes into play, I can rest assured that when my amp is miked, I’ll get my true tone.

I was actually surprised by my own choice of guitar primarily because Goldie is such a tone machine. But for as much as I move around when performing, lugging a heavy guitar is definitely not my cup of tea; especially if it makes me throw out my back, which I did a couple of weeks back. But it also says loads about that Squier Tele. I’ve got some great guitars, but that little $329 wonder creates such awesome tones and it plays so great, that it’s a clear winner. I might’ve gotten lucky with my particular guitar because I’ve read some user reviews that their tone is inconsistent. I’ll play a few more to see how that holds up.

Posted in amplifiers, amps, aracom amps, attenuator, gear, guitar, guitar attenuators, guitar gear, guitarists, Guitars, Music, musicians, PRX150-Pro, squier classic vibe telecaster, VRX22 | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 4 Comments »

It Feels Great to Play Naked!

December 6, 2009 by Unco B

O thou with such dirty little minds! I’m not talking about some Red Hot Chili Peppers-style playing with a tube sock around my member. I’m talking about playing with zero effects! So there!

For the past few weeks, I’ve recorded and gigged several times with no effects at all, and the only pedal I use is my trusty BOSS TU-2. The first time I did it, I was being lazy and didn’t want to break down my rig from my studio – especially since I was in the middle of laying down some tracks and didn’t want to lose my settings. But that first time turned into a second, then a third, and so on.

I’ve found it to be refreshing on a number of fronts; not the least of which is the much lighter load I have to lug around. But more importantly, I think it has really helped my playing as I can’t rely on pedals to fill in the gaps. For instance, I’m a lot more aware of how I’m sustaining notes, and trying to hold them as long as possible before I have to move on.

I know of lots of players who don’t use pedals at all, and for quite awhile, I couldn’t imagine life without pedals. But “playing naked” has really helped me to not rely on them. I used to always use overdrive pedals as my main source of drive, but I now use them as accents. I used to slather on the reverb but now, I rarely use it, except in the studio and even there, I use it sparingly.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m not going to put my board away. There are times when I need a pedal for a particular song, but for the most part, I can do without them, or just use them to provide tonal accents. In a way, I feel liberated…

Posted in Guitars | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , | 5 Comments »

Studio Test: Squier Classic Vibe Telecaster 50’s

December 6, 2009 by Unco B

When I first talked to a guy at a shop about this guitar (it’s someone whose word I’ve learned to trust over the years) about the Squier Classic Vibe Tele, one of the first things he said was, “For the guys who know tone, this is one of the best kept secrets in the industry.” That, from a guy who pedals high-end Fender custom shop axes. His only nit about the guitar was the same as mine: The frets seemed a little small. But other than that, the guitar was a player in his opinion; and so it was with my own estimation of this wonderful little guitar.

Squier is supposed to be the budget line for Fender, and traditionally have been tagged as beginner guitars. But the way this guitar looks, feels, plays and sounds, there’s nothing beginner or budget about it. The build quality is excellent. There are no split or jagged joints or uneven painting. This guitar looks and feels solid. And it’s light, weighing no more than 7 pounds with its pine body and maple neck.

I was excited about this guitar when I first played it, as evidenced by the high marks it got on my original review. I couldn’t believe that a guitar with a street price of $349 could actually be this good. But the one thing that struck me about it was not just its looks, but its tone. This ain’t your typical, thin Tele twang machine. This guitar has balls. The pine body resonates – a lot – and that adds a fatness to the tone that is completely unexpected! Even in the bridge pickup that really brings out the twang, the Classic Vibe Tele sounds like a bridge humbucker with just a touch of twang!

Since I was able to bring one into my studio, I decided to record a couple of clips to demonstrate how fat this guitar sounds…

The first clip features the Tele clean in the neck pickup for both rhythm and lead, though I dirtied up the lead part just a tad.

This next clip demonstrates how the guitar sounds through a fully cranked up amp (Aracom VRX22 with 6V6’s). The three parts feature the neck, middle, and bridge positions of the same chord progression, respectively:

Finally, here’s my new song Strutter again with the Tele played in the bridge position through my Aracom VRX22:

As you can tell from the clips, “thin” is just not part of this guitar’s modus operandi. It’s actually unsettling at first because when I’ve played Tele’s in the past, they were pretty bright and thin. But this guitar just sings and resonates all day long! Must be the pine body. But who cares! It’s a player, and for the money, you just can’t go wrong.

Posted in gear, gear reviews, guitar, guitar gear, guitar gear reviews, guitar reviews, guitarists, Guitars, Music, musicians, new gear, squier classic vibe telecaster, telecaster | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 3 Comments »

Quick Review: StageTrix Pedal Fasteners

December 4, 2009 by Unco B

Click for full size view

What do you get when you have a group of product development consultants who are avid guitar players who want to find a way to stop “workin’ for the man,” but not create a bunch of “me too” products? You get StageTrix Products. These guys are brand-new, and from what I can gather, their approach to creating guitar gear centers around what you might call convenience products for guitar players.

Take, for instance, their pedal risers that I reviewed back in October. These gadgets that raise the back row of your pedal board may not make music, but they sure make the making of music a helluva lot easier. Here’s proof: The solo part of my latest song, Strutter, was recorded in a single take, with one punch-in at the very end of the song after I was done. In between sections, I was activating/deactivating effect pedals on the fly – something I’ve never done in a recording. I usually stop the recording, activate the pedals, then continue on. Granted, I had enough time between sections to do the switch on the fly, but I will submit that I couldn’t have done without the back row of my board being raised; in other words, how my board used to be. The point here is that that little convenience made a world of difference for me in my recording.

Enter the Pedal Fasteners. For $9.99, you get a pack of three, pre-cut hook-and-loop strips that are dimensioned to fit standard-size pedals. You might say, “So what? I can just get some Velcro from my local crafts store and be done with it.” You certainly can, but my experience with that stuff is that the glue used with these cannot withstand higher temperatures. They get all gooey, and once the glue has melted, the glue must change chemically, because its sticking power is lost. You ever get that stuff on your hands? I rest my case… 🙂 Pedal Fasteners, on the other hand, have a glue that can withstand up to 200 degrees Fahrenheit; more than enough for even a hot car interior, and the mere fact that you don’t have to cut them to size is killer!

I recently replaced the velcro strips on all the pedals on the front-row on my board with Pedal Fasteners. No cutting, (except for the center section (which you could conceivably push out, but I wanted clean edges and didn’t want to risk tearing, so I used a sharp utility knife). They work great, and even stick to rubber! I’d recommend removing the rubber though… I’ve had mixed results with that, but I did it to test it out – it’s sticking just fine so far.

So if you’re tired of having to cut fasteners to size, and even more tired of that messy goo once the glue has melted, you owe it to yourself to get a couple of pack of these!

For more information, please visit the StageTrix Products site!

Posted in Guitars | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment »

New Song: Strutter

December 2, 2009 by Unco B

Song Information

Title: Strutter

Guitars: Rhythm – Strat, Lead/Melody – Saint Guitars Messenger (Goldie)

Amps: Rhythm – Aracom VRX22, Lead/Melody – Aracom PLX18 BB Trem

Guitars were recorded at conversation levels using the Aracom PRX150-Pro attenuator.

Effects: KASHA Overdrive, GeekMacDaddy Geek Driver

Audio

About the song

I wrote “Strutter” a couple of weeks ago. Like many of my instrumentals, it started out as a backing track that I could practice over. I was simply experimenting with doing leads over a dominant 7th chord progression after watching more of Chuck D’Aloia’s “Blues with Brains” instructional video and wanted to try out some of the stuff he talked about. Well, one thing led to another, and I started getting ideas that I started running with. So I laid them down.

I actually completed the recording several times using different guitars and amps for the lead, but every time I listened to it, I just wasn’t satisfied with the lead. I knew I wanted a bright sound tone, either from a Strat or from a bridge humbucker, but I wanted the lead to have some hair as well. My Strat just didn’t work here because of the vintage-style low power single coils I have in it. And the PLX18 BB was just a bit too fizzy with the stock speaker. So I sat on the song for awhile, though I did keep on refining the phrasing. As far as amps are concerned, I have several to pick from, but their tones are very vintage smooth. Even my go-to amp, the VRX22, was just too “nice-sounding” for what I wanted.

The PLX18 BB got me right into the ballpark. It doesn’t have loads of gain, and while the breakup is smooth and expansive – very 3D – it also has lots of balls for which Plexi-style circuits are known. But even then, the speaker I had in it was just too harsh in the highs, with an overabundance of fizz. In earlier recordings with the amp, I had to bleed off highs. I really didn’t like doing that because I don’t like to EQ my guitar parts. So it wasn’t until last night when I swapped out the stock speaker (Eminence Red Coat Red Fang) with a Fane Medusa 150 where everything came together.

Previous versions of the lead track included wah, but I removed the wah and re-recorded that portion of the song mainly because I just wanted a slightly fatter tone. The amp was already dimed, so I just added a couple of stacked overdrives using my KASHA overdrive and Geek Driver. This resulted in a bit brighter, but fatter tone.

Finally, the cool thing was that I recorded the song in two takes. The second take was the ending. I think my hand was getting tired from all the bending, and I made a couple of mistakes. 🙂 It’s amazing how your playing flows when your tone inspires you!

Posted in Guitars | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , | 3 Comments »

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »