Universally understood distortion terms - pickup choice

[eegeland]

I have always thought there should be some sort of agreed upon universal descriptions for sound. I know its all subjective but just something so we can all at least have a half ass idea of what to say. Maybe there is and I just haven't gotten it in 35 years lol. Anyway, I am going to have a go at the sound I am looking for in the hopes that it is understood and ya'll can help!

I like tube overdrive to the point of needing a noise gate BUT with definition. So the opposite of the stoner/fuzz sound. I have achieved this with a Peavey Triple XXX with carefully chosen pre-amp tubes and the stock pick up in a 1990 Gibson V90 (I am not sure but I think its either a dirty fingers or HBL-8). Its as close to the Alice In Chains Dirt sound as you could get with a live setup.

I recently bought a 1988 Carvin Ultra V with stock pickups and they sound even better than the Gibson with the treble on the guitar rolled off a bit. I also just bought a guitar with active EMG's and they just seem to be fuzzy/fizzy loosing some of that definition. I would like to replace those EMG's and need help with what SD pickups might get me the sound described above. I would rather go back to passive (as the guitar originally was) as well.

Thanks and hope all this information is helpful and doesn't drive everyone crazy!

 

[zionstrat]

I would actually love to do a project where we collect all of the timber tones and chart them and describe them. Obviously it would be challenging.. as you say its subjective and everybody's got their own specific examples with specific gear etc...

But some are relatively easy. Regardless of the rig, claptons woman tone is pretty clear and obvious... In fact it might be the place to start because I'm guessing 95% of us are going to hear that one in a similar ballpark.. (By the way I'm not a particular fan of woman tone I'm just saying it's easy to understand and recreate).

Brown may be at the opposite end of the spectrum... Obviously Van Halen's tones progressed over the albums, and some of his sound was recording techniques, but when you hear it you know it..

So stop me if this has been done before, but what do you guys think about making a spreadsheet where everybody contributes their timber quality definitions and examples? Once we get a lot of them, similar patterns might become obvious and we could even vote once we're getting some structure...

Obviously we could rank them from cleanest to most crunchy but I think there might be other ways to categorize stuff...

Of course we need a lot of people interested in this so not trying to hijack the thread but could be an interesting conversation...

And of course someone may have already done this so feel free to point me to a good URL

 

[Securb]

I have always thought there should be some sort of agreed upon universal descriptions for sound.

Distortion is measured and is used as a tool when selecting audio equipment. The problem is audio equipment is judged by how little distortion it add versus how much. I agree it would be nice to have a baseline or a definitive number and be able to discuss distortion levels and know where an amp or effect lands. Is the amp somewhere between a JC120 and a Fender Twin or JCM 800 and a 6505? It would not be hard pulling these amps in a studio/lab and to measure the distortion OR....the amp manufacturers could measure themselves and report on the numbers. The more I think about it I know the amp manufacturers have these numbers.

 

[NotDemanic]

One persons "fizz" is another's "sustain".

 

[weepingminotaur]

Lack of universal consensus on terms is a feature to me, not a bug. Too many variables to go all structuralist and try to map out some kind of Big Book of Tone Words. JMO of course.

 

[Mincer]

I have always thought there should be some sort of agreed upon universal descriptions for sound. I know its all subjective but just something so we can all at least have a half ass idea of what to say. Maybe there is and I just haven't gotten it in 35 years lol. Anyway, I am going to have a go at the sound I am looking for in the hopes that it is understood and ya'll can help!

I like tube overdrive to the point of needing a noise gate BUT with definition. So the opposite of the stoner/fuzz sound. I have achieved this with a Peavey Triple XXX with carefully chosen pre-amp tubes and the stock pick up in a 1990 Gibson V90 (I am not sure but I think its either a dirty fingers or HBL-8). Its as close to the Alice In Chains Dirt sound as you could get with a live setup.

I recently bought a 1988 Carvin Ultra V with stock pickups and they sound even better than the Gibson with the treble on the guitar rolled off a bit. I also just bought a guitar with active EMG's and they just seem to be fuzzy/fizzy loosing some of that definition. I would like to replace those EMG's and need help with what SD pickups might get me the sound described above. I would rather go back to passive (as the guitar originally was) as well.

Thanks and hope all this information is helpful and doesn't drive everyone crazy!

Welcome to the forum!

I think the easiest is providing a video or clip of what you mean. Words can only get us so far, and there is no universal agreement on what they mean, as you figured out.

 

[Securb]

Most of those "tone words" are already defined and measured in the amp manufacturing process..

 

[zionstrat]

Most of those "tone words" are already defined and measured in the amp manufacturing process..

Is there a list available online or would you have to look at each manufacturer's description?

 

[Securb]

Is there a list available online or would you have to look at each manufacturer's description?

You will find the terms with home audio amps or even power amps but not guitar amps at least not in the way we are thinking. Things like signal to noise ratios and total harmonic distortion. It would be nice to know the THD of a cranked JCM 800 vs JCM 900 vs 6505.

 

[PylonRacer]

There's a lot that goes into that exact sound; but for pickups Jerry used a JB in the bridge of his G&L Rampage.

 

[strat dude]

It seems as though there are so many contradictions in the description of tone and distortion it’s laughable. Good luck getting consensus.

 

[strat dude]

As far as tube tone and high gain the old method for get clarity was to turn up gain at the amp then hit the front end with a tube screamer to “tighten up” it up and keep bass under control.

 

[Chistopher]

I recently bought a 1988 Carvin Ultra V with stock pickups and they sound even better than the Gibson with the treble on the guitar rolled off a bit. I also just bought a guitar with active EMG's and they just seem to be fuzzy/fizzy loosing some of that definition. I would like to replace those EMG's and need help with what SD pickups might get me the sound described above. I would rather go back to passive (as the guitar originally was) as well.

Thanks and hope all this information is helpful and doesn't drive everyone crazy!

Friendly reminder that this was the core of why this thread was started.

A Sentient neck and 59/C bridge might be worth looking into some sound clips of for the sound you want. This is assuming you wanted something metal oriented, but not in the traditional sense? Both of these pickups have definition and work well with any amount of distortion. They aren't strictly "heavy" sounding, but if I understand correctly, that's what you are looking for.

 

[eclecticsynergy]

THD as a spec is measured by percentage. A simple amount, more distortion vs less.
In guitar tone it's the character of distortion that matters to tone & texture.​ But it's all very, very interactive.
Compression and frequency response (itself dynamic) are related to so many other factors, in the amp and downstream.
That's not even addressing the input signal's tone, dynamic qualities, and overall strength.

And distortion has a legion of aspects beyond texture and sustain, although those are the two easiest to describe.
The boundaries blur - when we talk tone we're really discussing a complex amalgam with a hundred facets.
So we muddle along with general terms that may have different meanings to different players.

Most of us can agree on simple terms like bright vs dark (but even there, I can't say all of us).
As the words get more abstract, there's less and less consensus.

 

[Chistopher]

Most of us can agree on simple terms like bright vs dark (but even there, I can't say all of us).
As the words get more abstract, there's less and less consensus.

Bright versus dark is one I think there is a wide range of interpretations on but isn't discussed too often because everyone thinks there is a consensus. But for example my definitino of brightness is anything above 12k, wheras some people might consider it anything above as low as 6k.

Here's a good resource for those who want to get a general idea. It's not perfect because there's really no standardization to this stuff, but it's here https://hyperbits.com/eq-cheat-sheet/

 

[zionstrat]

Nice link..thanks!