banner

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Tubes vs Digital vs Bad Sound

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Re: Tubes vs Digital vs Bad Sound

    Most people have never stood in front of a 100 watt Marshall head on "10" with 2 4x12's.

    It is louder than &$%$ing God....
    Originally posted by Bad City
    He's got the crowd on his side and the blue jean lights in his eyes...

    Comment


    • #32
      Re: Tubes vs Digital vs Bad Sound

      With my Hiwatt, I can make you step 6 feet back and with my Traynor I can make you have to leave the room with only one 4x12

      Comment


      • #33
        Re: Tubes vs Digital vs Bad Sound

        Originally posted by Aceman View Post
        Most people have never stood in front of a 100 watt Marshall head on "10" with 2 4x12's.

        It is louder than &$%$ing God....
        It sounds amazing, though. But I can't think of a single gig I've ever done where I would use that, or a single bandmember or soundperson that would think it was a good idea.
        Administrator of the SDUGF

        Comment


        • #34
          Re: Tubes vs Digital vs Bad Sound

          I guess to be on topic, I will provide more relevant information. I was an early adopter to digital anything. I had a Zoom 2020 shortly after it was released and had Yamaha digital amps, a POD HD and even a Digitech RP7, and that other Digitech one that was basically the first to call itself a modeler ( I can't remember its name ). In the end, I always went back to tube amps. The only reason why is that tube amps just have a touch, response, feel and connection that none of the digital units had for me. I have yet to try the more modern Kemper, Axe FX, and Helix lines yet, and I am sure that even the POD HD would have been fine, it's just that it took so much fiddling to get the sound where I feel it should just be from the get go.

          The upside I see to modern modeling amps is that you really have no excuse to make a bad sound. There are so many options and so much power and control that it should be nearly impossible to make a bad sound. You literally have as much if not more tone-shaping parameters than most sound guys do to make any sound you desire. If you have a decent ear, you can make an acceptable sound from a modeler. Now how it feels and reacts to your playing is a different story. That is the part I struggled with.

          I have been playing guitar for a VERY long time and 90% of everything I have actually played through has been an analog device. I had digital devices, but they were predominately used for FX, added grit or in some instances the sound you hear. Ultimately though, I have relied on a tube amp as my form of amplification. I have only ever played on stages with a tube amp. I couldn't deal with the way that the modelers worked when using a PA speaker to reproduce my guitar sound. The biggest deal-breaker for me was that I could tell it was a digital device because it didn't have the feel and touch I desired. Sounded just fine really, but the connection I desired was not there.

          As to how important a sound guy is to any given band, I would say that they are probably only about 10-25% of the equation at any given point in time. In a small bar case, they have very little to do with the actual sound that the patrons hear. If they can make it so there is a balance at all, you're already winning and the quality of the sound is likely not something they can greatly affect. If you are playing on a stage that is 100' wide for 26,000 people they are likely already far ahead of the curve and they can only give the people a level of quality that is on par to that of the performers. Crap in is likely crap out. Not playing to the venue doesn't help. Too loud is too loud and once you reach that threshold, it doesn't get any better. The larger the stage and lower the impact a band has on the sound people actually hear, the more importance a sound engineer plays, but going back to the main point, if you give them nothing but crap, it is hard to fix it. The big thing to keep in mind is that sound is SUBJECTIVE, while you may think it sounded bad, it is very likely many others thought it was just fine or at least ok. Most people are tolerant provided they can hear everything they want to.

          One thing I will note is that you probably shouldn't base your opinion based on what you hear from the monitors. Monitors are meant to be heard, not sound good, so they are not typically great sounding. A monitor that sounds good but feeds back easily is not a good monitor. A monitor that is stable and is louder than you need it to be is generally not a very good sounding one. Acceptable yes, but great sounding; not so much. If your monitors sound both good and are plenty loud, jump for joy, it isn't easy to get that. If the band before you sounded good, decent, or acceptable at FOH, it is quite likely you're going to sound about the same. If one band sounds great and another sound like ass, it was likely not the sound guy as much as the band giving him little or nothing to work with. Most sound guys are consistently bad or good, so if it sounds horrible for more than a few bands, it is likely the sound guy is just not that great. If it is hit or miss, the sound guy is probably decent enough but is being thrown challenges. If it sounds good for every other band and yours sounds like poop, well it is probably just you. It isn't easy to be a sound guy and what I can say from experience is that great sounding bands are generally great musicians, and they practically sound good regardless. A crappy band is a challenge to mix for not only sonically but mix wise too. It is very hard to manage both sonic and dynamic content that is bad. Why do you think sound guys rely on compression so much? It isn't because it's the glue that holds the mix together, it's because it makes dealing with a dynamic drummer, bassist or guitarist manageable. We don't use multi-thousand dollar mixers because it sounds good, we use them because the tools it provides makes things sound good. It all starts with the band and ends with how much control the sound guy can actually have. The shorter the leash you give them, the less they can do. Bad or good sound is a team effort, so play to win.

          Comment


          • #35
            Re: Tubes vs Digital vs Bad Sound

            Originally posted by beaubrummels View Post
            With my Hiwatt, I can make you step 6 feet back and with my Traynor I can make you have to leave the room with only one 4x12
            My Line 6 through a 4x12 will liquify your guts. And you will like it.

            Sent from my Alcatel_5044C using Tapatalk

            Comment


            • #36
              Re: Tubes vs Digital vs Bad Sound

              Originally posted by Mincer View Post
              It sounds amazing, though.
              Why yes, yes it does! When you listen from a safe distance. Like in a control room down the hall and around the corner with the soundproof door closed...

              Originally posted by Bad City
              He's got the crowd on his side and the blue jean lights in his eyes...

              Comment


              • #37
                Re: Tubes vs Digital vs Bad Sound

                Originally posted by Mincer View Post
                It sounds amazing, though. But I can't think of a single gig I've ever done where I would use that, or a single bandmember or soundperson that would think it was a good idea.
                Not when you're directly in front of one

                Sent from my ONEPLUS A6003 using Tapatalk
                Originally posted by Myaccount876
                Attenuators are for pussies. Neighbors calling the cops isn't a problem - if the cops can actually still decipher the neighbor's complaint on the phone with the Marshall in the background, you're doing it wrong and it needs to be louder.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Re: Tubes vs Digital vs Bad Sound

                  Originally posted by Aceman View Post
                  Why yes, yes it does! When you listen from a safe distance. Like in a control room down the hall and around the corner with the soundproof door closed...

                  That's the thing, though. I've yet to hear an engineer capture that sound like to sounds in the room. The recorded sound might be good, but it isn't the same.
                  Administrator of the SDUGF

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Re: Tubes vs Digital vs Bad Sound

                    i think its those with the 'old school of rock ' mentality.young or old that ply too loud

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Re: Tubes vs Digital vs Bad Sound

                      I kept all this in mind for our show last Saturday. The band before us were running digital and their sound was harsh indistinct whereas we used mic'd tube halfstacks the old fashioned way. Our sound was much clearer and made for a beautiful FOH mix but I chalk it up to us working out our sounds for compatibility with each other and our compositions rather than the choice of technology. Even having a good crowd (which we did, place was nice and packed whereas they were opening and not everyone had showed up yet) and crowds can absorb treble.
                      The opinions expressed above do not necessarily represent those of the poster and are to be considered suspect at best.

                      Lead guitarist and vocalist of...



                      Keep up to date on our Facebook

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X