Less output and less gain = bigger/fatter tone?

[papersoul]

Do you all think less gain usually equates to a fatter tone, or does it realy depend on the pickup?
I know the Rio Grande BBQ is fat but is like 13k. Lately I have been going back and forth between my
less gainy and gainy channel on my Egnater Marshall module and the lower the gain, the fatter the tone.
I never did head to head comparisons till yesterday and it seems the same with pickups less output or
resistance, fatter tone. This brings me to believe I should always try to go with lower output pickups
and use the amp for gain, etc. Use a sweet, warm pickup and juice it with the amp.

I know this has been covered but what do you all think. It seems with amps, the hotter the gain, the
smaller the tone and with pickups, the hotter the output the smaller the tone, hence more compression.

 

[jimijames]

Re: Less output and less gain = bigger/fatter tone?

Eh, it depends on the pickup, guitar and amp, not to mention the hands of who's playing. Derek Trucks and Stevie Ray Vaughan got two of the fattest tones I've ever heard, but leslie west did too and he used much more gain. For example, the jazz neck isn't really fat at all, the same goes for the strat neck pickup, which is like 6k (unless you use 12's or 13's, and even then it's just big and wide, but not particularly fat). When I think fat, I think fully gaussed A2. and the pearly gates in the neck.

Also, if you want to fatten up your tone, try plucking the strings from below with your non-thumb digits. Actually, the motion is more of a bow than a pluck, listen to Derek trucks and then try to get into his headspace and it'll come pretty naturally.

 

[papersoul]

Re: Less output and less gain = bigger/fatter tone?

Maybe I don't know the difference between big and wide and fat??? I thikn of them as the samething. I know what you mean but I was comparing different channels on my amp and the higher gain, the thinner the tone. I had a similiar thing going on with pickups and keep in mind, my hands were the common variable here.

 

[jeremy]

Re: Less output and less gain = bigger/fatter tone?

in general i think you are right, less gain = more fat but there are lots of other things to consider

 

[Empty Pockets]

Re: Less output and less gain = bigger/fatter tone?

This is definitely the truth. I spent a long time using Hot Rails with my DS-1's distortion knob up all the way, getting tons of distortion but never sounding 'right.'

The Phat Cat P90 I just dropped in my SG-X now sounds much bigger / fatter / open / heavier than the high-output Gibson 500T that was in there before.

It's exactly as you said -- the pickup is cooler, but it's got a thick, crunchy tone. Lower output pickups means I get to crank my amp up more before i hear any distortion -- get those power tubes cooking, so my amp 'roars' more than it 'growls.'

Then i step on the same DS-1 from back in the day, but the gain's down all the way and the Level knob is cranked and it sounds like a mastodon trying not to be eaten by a T-Rex in some kind of impossible space / time vortex where a meeting between the two can happen.

 

[cream123]

Re: Less output and less gain = bigger/fatter tone?

Then i step on the same DS-1 from back in the day, but the gain's down all the way and the Level knob is cranked and it sounds like a mastodon trying not to be eaten by a T-Rex in some kind of impossible space / time vortex where a meeting between the two can happen.

ummm....just wow. i might ahve to sig that

 

[Natman]

Re: Less output and less gain = bigger/fatter tone?

Yep, I agree. The very foolish misconception of those who don't listen is that more distortion = fatter tone. You have to keep it clear and distinct or else it doesn't sound fat at all, it sounds like diarrhea. Lower output pickups tend to keep things clearer because of the compression that every electronic device in your signal path can impart if it's pushed too hard. But it's definitely a balancing act. :soapbox:

 

[fab.regnaut]

Re: Less output and less gain = bigger/fatter tone?

less gain and distortion = more dynamics !

this is sure .

As for fat tone it depends on you pickup and amp , fat is related with mids and often with distortion .

If you ask for a round and dynamic tone then use less gain .

 

[jimijames]

Re: Less output and less gain = bigger/fatter tone?

To me, big and wide is a clear tone that's well balanced with a lot of harmonic range, but not necessarily 'fat'. For me, fat is when each note has a lot of midrange character but not much complexity - think fuzz face (or even better, z.vex fuzz factory)

 

[papersoul]

Re: Less output and less gain = bigger/fatter tone?

This is definitely the truth. I spent a long time using Hot Rails with my DS-1's distortion knob up all the way, getting tons of distortion but never sounding 'right.'

The Phat Cat P90 I just dropped in my SG-X now sounds much bigger / fatter / open / heavier than the high-output Gibson 500T that was in there before.

It's exactly as you said -- the pickup is cooler, but it's got a thick, crunchy tone. Lower output pickups means I get to crank my amp up more before i hear any distortion -- get those power tubes cooking, so my amp 'roars' more than it 'growls.'

Then i step on the same DS-1 from back in the day, but the gain's down all the way and the Level knob is cranked and it sounds like a mastodon trying not to be eaten by a T-Rex in some kind of impossible space / time vortex where a meeting between the two can happen.

'

Thats why I am afraid to get the SH-15 Alt 8 - my amp has plenty of gain

BUt, I am trying to think what is noisier....higher gain pickup and tunring the gain down on the amp or lower gain pickup and cranking the gain on the amp.

 

[Heavy]

Re: Less output and less gain = bigger/fatter tone?

Watch the G3 tour with Yngwie and his weak HS3s sound so much bigger and clearer than Vai or Satch with their real compressed tone. His tone was so in your face. Now the amps play a big part of it too obviously, but sometimes the hot pickups give a real compressed tone. I like that big, open tone.

But if you use a less compressed amp like a JCM 800 or something, then a hot pickup won't over compress the tone. So it all works together.

I can't stand the typical rock/shred tone. Hot, muddy pickups into a ton of gain stages ala Mesa or Peavey. It's so squashed and/or buzzy. There's no real tone from the instrument and no dynamics.

 

[Robert Delahunt]

Re: Less output and less gain = bigger/fatter tone?

Do you all think less gain usually equates to a fatter tone, or does it realy depend on the pickup? I know the Rio Grande BBQ is fat but is like 13k. Lately I have been going back and forth between my
less gainy and gainy channel on my Egnater Marshall module and the lower the gain, the fatter the tone. I never did head to head comparisons till yesterday and it seems the same with pickups less output or resistance, fatter tone. This brings me to believe I should always try to go with lower output pickups
and use the amp for gain, etc. Use a sweet, warm pickup and juice it with the amp. I know this has been covered but what do you all think. It seems with amps, the hotter the gain, the smaller the tone and with pickups, the hotter the output the smaller the tone, hence more compression.

Depends on how it's wound as well as magnet type. The Custom Custom is a 14k humbucker, and with alnico ii magnet it sounds rather big and fat. The JB to my ears also sounds big and fat. It depends on a lot of things, such as amp, guitar, pickup magnet, pickup wind and type, etc. For example, my alnico ii pro staggered single coils in my Lite Ash Strat sound biggER and fattER than standard single coils, but not as big and fat as, say, a JB....

 

[Sanford]

Re: Less output and less gain = bigger/fatter tone?

Also, tailoring your amp settings to the room/venue you're in will help. I've seen plenty of people who have their favorite amp/soundboard knob settings and think that it's going to sound the same no matter where they play. A soundcheck, even in a small club or bedroom, will make a big difference when going for tone.

Sanford: "Sounds kinda muddy tonight...what'd you do different?"

MusicianDudeX: "I dunno, I've got the bass on 4, the mids on 2 and the treble on 8...just like always"

Sanford: "Well, what if you changed your knobs around a little?"

MusicianDudeX: "Nah, this is how I always run my amp...must be something else. The sound guy just sucks, I guess."

 

[Zhangliqun]

Re: Less output and less gain = bigger/fatter tone?

I think it's sort of like a bell curve. From straight clean you might get a bigger tone in certain aspects as you enter the break-up zone but it starts to go the other way pretty quick, at a point that 90% of the under-25 crowd would rather not contemplate.

There's a psychology involved with the perception of the player that confuses ease of touch (hyper-sensitivity of the strings created by high gain) with a big fat tone. This is why you often record something with your favorite gain setting and think it sounds huge but on playback it sounds like a beehive through a telephone. You no longer have the ease of physically playing to distract you from the actual sound, which is pretty lame.

Then you cut the gain back and the playing is more laborious because you have to dig in more because the gain isn't there to fill in the weak hits with the pick, etc., so you think it sounds like a weak jangly garage band player through an original Pignose -- but on playback it sounds gigantic.

 

[Empty Pockets]

Re: Less output and less gain = bigger/fatter tone?

I can't stand the typical rock/shred tone. Hot, muddy pickups into a ton of gain stages ala Mesa or Peavey. It's so squashed and/or buzzy. There's no real tone from the instrument and no dynamics.

It kinda makes me mad that this is the 'typical' rock tone nowadays...in my opinion, the bands that rocked the hardest used guitars designed for blues plugged into the biggest, loudest amp they could find, with the volume up all the way.

Sabbath, Zeppelin, Jimi, the Ramones, the Sex Pistols, even newer bands like Goatsnake, Jucifer and High On Fire use this approach...loud cranked amp, sweet classic guitar, and every single bit of your soul in every note you play.

 

[Robert Delahunt]

Re: Less output and less gain = bigger/fatter tone?

It kinda makes me mad that this is the 'typical' rock tone nowadays...in my opinion, the bands that rocked the hardest used guitars designed for blues plugged into the biggest, loudest amp they could find, with the volume up all the way.

Sabbath, Zeppelin, Jimi, the Ramones, the Sex Pistols, even newer bands like Goatsnake, Jucifer and High On Fire use this approach...loud cranked amp, sweet classic guitar, and every single bit of your soul in every note you play.

You forgot the Fuzz Pedal. Zeppelin and Hendrix used 'em....

 

[Benjy_26]

Re: Less output and less gain = bigger/fatter tone?

Hey!!!

What's wrong with jangly?

 

[Iron Horse]

Re: Less output and less gain = bigger/fatter tone?

You forgot the Fuzz Pedal. Zeppelin and Hendrix used 'em....

And treble booster...

 

[wanmei1]

Re: Less output and less gain = bigger/fatter tone?

It kinda makes me mad that this is the 'typical' rock tone nowadays...in my opinion, the bands that rocked the hardest used guitars designed for blues plugged into the biggest, loudest amp they could find, with the volume up all the way.

Sabbath, Zeppelin, Jimi, the Ramones, the Sex Pistols, even newer bands like Goatsnake, Jucifer and High On Fire use this approach...loud cranked amp, sweet classic guitar, and every single bit of your soul in every note you play.

+1
I for one agree,
I think it was a pivotal change for the worse when using overdrive distortion instead of power amp distortion became de regur.
p.s your previous post describing a Masdodon and a T.Rex meeting in a time space vortex is priceless !

 

[austin]

Re: Less output and less gain = bigger/fatter tone?

I agree 100% with Zhang!

-Austin