|
Dirty-South Blues Harp forum: wail on! >
5 amps
5 amps
Page:
1
SuperBee
1898 posts
Apr 05, 2014
9:31 PM
|
for whatever its worth, i set up 4 5watt valve amps and a 5 watt ss.
all these amps have 8 inch speakers. i recorded a single recording...
the 1st amp is an epi vj thats been modified with an alnicomagnet kit
2nd is a stock epi version 2
3rd is a version 3 epi that has had everything between the transformers replaced and is running a 6v6
4th is a Fender vibro champ xd
5 is a lectrosonics mouse
mic is a 520SL
recorded on a Zoom H1 at maximum bit rate, but then converted to mp3 in itunes, so im not sure what that may have acheived...i though uploading a 120MB file was a bit OTT though
at first i thought this single recording was a good idea, but now i realise its probably a drag as it would require listening to a lot of fairly dull repetitive playing to hear when the amps change. and i found it kind of tedious to just repeat the same stuff..concentration wandered as it went on. anyway, live and learn, i noted the places where the amps change
1: 9 - 58 sec
2: 1.00 - 1.58
3: 2.00 - 3.30
4: 3.35 - 4.25
5: 4.30 - 5.20
Last Edited by SuperBee on Apr 05, 2014 9:43 PM
|
rockmonkeyguitars
49 posts
Apr 05, 2014
11:26 PM
|
I tried listening to these through my laptop speakers and could not hear a bit of difference between the 3 VJ amps. At the very least the 6l6 one should have sounded different. I'm going to have to come back listen with my desktop which has a better soundcard and is connected to my Hi Fi.
|
stokeblues
80 posts
Apr 06, 2014
6:15 AM
|
G'day Bee man,love the first sound ,next 2 sound the same pretty much,the xd sounded really good,but the solid state sounded really Really good, just a quick take bro
Last Edited by stokeblues on Apr 06, 2014 6:16 AM
|
Goldbrick
400 posts
Apr 06, 2014
7:50 AM
|
I like number 3 the best number 5 the least ( kinda weak and hollow to my ear)
|
MJ
716 posts
Apr 06, 2014
9:08 AM
|
I also think the Maxi-Mouse sounded the best. I own one and use it to noodle i the garage. I have also used it at one or two small venues. I have owned Epi's of different types also. The Epi's were nice but a little one dimensional. I have a Champ and Vibro champ that are nice but not the same model as the one you used.
|
SuperBee
1901 posts
Apr 06, 2014
2:47 PM
|
When I play at the markets, I use the mouse. It's just an original mouse, not a maxi...
When I used that mic, I had a couple of comments about distortion. I did some testing and decided to use a cleaner mic with it.
I like the sound of number 3, but it's pretty wild, hits feedback suddenly. Tried a 12ay7, tamed the feedback somewhat but also lost it's 'zing'.
Number 1 has a treble-cut tone control. It will go louder without feedback than I had it in the recording. It also was playing through a twin cab. 2x8" weber smooth cone alnico speakers, vintage series. That's the rig I used in the 'Easy' clip that some may have seen. The other epis start to 'ring' just before feedback...with this one I can cut the treble and turn it up. The twin speakers do project a little more. That's something which really doesn't come across on the recording.
The stock epi sounds relatively thin and feeds back relatively early.
It's actually a 'Legacy Valve Edition'. Same thing as a Mk 2 epi. Not sure if the speaker is the same, but everything else is the same except the name badge.
The 6v6 epi...well, it's epi v3 transformers and the v3 eminence Lady Luck speaker. The rest is a hand wired board with carbon comp resistors, Malory caps, vintage 6v6. it's based on the epi circuit with a few value changes, mainly to protect the power tube, but also some different values in the bypass caps in the preamp.C3 is 1uF and C4 is 2.2. The stock values for those caps are both 22uF.
C5 is the cathode bypass cap on the power tube. Here the value is 1000 uF. There are other changes also.
It should sound quite different to a stock epi. And in the room it really does sound different to both the other epi based amps.
The Vibro champ xd is a hybrid amp using a SS preamp chip, a 12ax7 driver and 6v6 power tube. It is quite a different amp to the superchamp xd, but the two are often mentioned together as if one is a bigger version of the other. They have some similar features, but electronically they are not similar.
This amp also can go louder than I had it here. The tone controls are set with bass all the way up, treble all the way off. It has separate gain and volume, so the sound I recorded is just one option. Also, it has onboard effects, reverb, chorus, delay, and others. I didn't use any of those here, but usually I use some delay. To me this amp is the most useful. It's convenient and reliable and versatile. And it draws compliments. It's a friend.
The mouse is handy. I've never had a compliment on it's sound. I have had criticism. Interesting how it goes. I replaced a pignose with this, I think it's better than the pig, but no one ever told me they thought the pignose was broken. (Even though it actually was).
Anyway, I think it probably just shows the limitations of trying to tell much about an amp from a recording. In the room all these amps have distinctive character. And there are other factors of loudness, tone settings, mic choice, room size and shape...and Of course, my playing probably didn't really highlight the amps differences, maybe I brought out their similarity.
I'm just on the leading edge of starting to learn about this topic. Thanks for listening and commenting.
|
MindTheGap
426 posts
Apr 07, 2014
7:31 AM
|
Superbee - thanks for doing this comparison, it's great as where else could you hear five amps cued up like this?
I thought we were going to get to the mouse and it be clearly not very good compared to the others. I remember your story about someone saying it was broken, right? But although they all sounded a little different, they all sounded good. As you say, something of the difference may be lost in recording-playback. Maybe it's the volume and relative resistance to feedback that are the big differences?
Or is the mic, or your playing, the dominant factor?
----------
mtg
Last Edited by MindTheGap on Apr 07, 2014 7:35 AM
|
SuperBee
1902 posts
Apr 07, 2014
7:03 PM
|
It seems to me when we record our amps essentially we are demonstrating what they sound like recorded. Conversely, when we play our amps and decide what we like, we judge them on the live sound.
Even more to the point, when we are listening to what they sound like recorded, we are hearing how the recording sounds on our particular playback equipment. Think about your favourite record played back on a high end hifi, compared to the same record played back from an mp3 on an ipod through earphone buds.
with my amps I think you’d need to play the recordings through 8” speakers at an average of about 95dB, peaking at 101 (measured at 2 metres) to start to understand what they sound like. Even then there is still the filter of the zoom mic and software, conversion to mp3 and some more sound-processing software.
The end result may be as much like listening to the original amp as comparing the acoustic sound of harmonica to the amplified sound. Except I expect most listeners probably had the volume lower than the volume of my acoustic playing.
In a sense what you’re listening to is what your equipment does.
The fact that most listeners found the 3 valve junior amps sound the same, should be illustrative that you really can’t tell much from these exercises. One was through a twin speaker cab, one ran a 6v6, they all have different speakers, they all have significantly different value components in key areas of the circuits…but they all sound the same. Yes, maybe the mic is an equalising factor, likely the musician has a large impact. Maybe I just adapt the way I play to produce the same sound. But I think the playback equipment must be a major player.
Of more use may be to take the same 5 amps and record them played as loud as feasible…but then I expect I would find it very difficult to play at the same volume. I’d probably have to use a recorded source signal. This could also possibly answer the question of how much difference the player makes.
|
MindTheGap
427 posts
Apr 08, 2014
12:11 AM
|
Yes, that all makes sense. The ear-brain are brilliant at normalising everything - which is why you can listen to music on a tinny transistor radio, or a big hi-fi or live via a big PA and still think it's roughly the same music, when in practice the frequencies and volumes in the sounds are massively different.
For instance, it's a well-known psychoacoustic affect that if you hear music on equipment that can't reproduce the fundamental of a bass note (e.g. the tinny tranny radio) but you hear the harmonics that it can reproduce, then you brain recognises these and fill in the fundamental for you. Which is handy, except when trying to compare amps over the web!
For that reason I don't think the 're-amping' exercise would give anything new. But then, theories are there to be disproved, so why not...
----------
mtg
Last Edited by MindTheGap on Apr 08, 2014 12:13 AM
|
Post a Message
|
