Amp comparisons?

Kittyfrisk

OK, here we go...

We all have preferences for amp sounds/tones, but I frequently find descriptions of these to be so subjective as to be really unhelpful.

Terms like chime, warmth, sparkle, mellow, scooped, dirty, grit, clean, vintage, etc;  all abound.

I can handle reproducible colour when described as an RGB or CMYK profile, Pantone reference or similar, but I have problems with applying this to tone/sounds.

So, can anyone tell me if there are any settings that should be/are applied to every amp when recording a comparative sound sample, so that informed judgements can be made ?

I guess I'm looking for a kind of neutral setting point or reference position that applies to all such demo's.

I mean, should everything be set at 12 o'clock, no reverb, half reverb, gain setting, what master volume etc. etc. ?

Genuinely curious & looking forward to answers.

normula1

Matt Schofield has a method for dialling in amps that seems to work.
Start with the controls at zero and turn each one up until the point where the control begins to make a noticeable difference. It's quite surprising.

Kittyfrisk

Thanks. 
I get that principle, but it doesn't ever arrive at a point of actual comparison, just moves to where 'something changes'.

Revolting1

Tricky,I've not met a guitar amp where like the sound with everything set at 12 o clock.

           Trying not to buy an more-

                   I've only got 9          

ICBM

There is no universal setting. Use your ears, not your eyes.

The approach of finding the spot where each control has the most effect is surprisingly useful, and is good for revealing the basic character of the amp, but firstly those positions can be completely different from one amp to another, and secondly produce completely different tones.

dindude

Yup agreed, I use my ears to guide me to my base sound and even on supposed similar amps, ie fender types, the controls can be all over the place.

ToneControl

Amp controls are not linear or as simple as having a "centre position" for any control
Also, they interact on many amps: a slightly higher master vol on one amp I have increases the brightness, any one control on older Fender amps can need tweaking depending on where any other volume control or EQ pot is set, even on the channel you are not using

Roland

ICBM said:

There is no universal setting. Use your ears, not your eyes.

The approach of finding the spot where each control has the most effect is surprisingly useful, and is good for revealing the basic character of the amp, but firstly those positions can be completely different from one amp to another, and secondly produce completely different tones.

They’re also aimed at setting the amp up so that small changes in guitar volume, tone, and picking produce noticeable differences in the sound. That’s the way Matt plays. Other guitarists might call it “unstable” because the sound changes when they don’t want it to.

ICBM

Roland said:

They’re also aimed at setting the amp up so that small changes in guitar volume, tone, and picking produce noticeable differences in the sound. That’s the way Matt plays. Other guitarists might call it “unstable” because the sound changes when they don’t want it to.

I think that's why I like it. For me, the problem with a lot of amps - especially digital modellers, but also most analogue solid-state - is that it's possible to dial in a perfectly good sound for one very specific purpose, but the minute you change what you do on the guitar, the sound doesn't change in the way you expect it to to reflect that, and then you need to adjust the amp. This is really very frustrating... whereas most (not all) valve amps respond in a natural way that sort of automatically tracks what you do on the guitar. It's hard to explain why this should be so, but I think it's at the root of why most of us prefer valve amps when we're playing them, even if when you hear the amp as a listener it's not always obvious what the technology is.

Setting an amp - including solid-state ones - where the controls are most sensitive seems to negate this problem to a great extent. I don't just turn them up from zero either - as already said, the controls are often very interactive and there is sometimes a trade-off, or more than one 'sensitive spot' on the control, and if you just start from zero you may miss one that's higher up or with one of the other controls starting from maximum. I always try the full range of the controls too - some people seem oddly unwilling to set any of them outside about 9 o'clock to 3 o'clock, but this will often miss some really good tones when the controls are very close to zero or full up. 12 o'clock is definitely not the best setting with most amps.

Kittyfrisk

Thanks for all the responses.
@ICBM ; I totally get the 'There is no universal setting. Use your ears, not your eyes."   Very Zen/Yoda     but very true.

Part of the reason for asking here about neutral demo tone settings, was that I had posted a question regarding Laney TT20 (ECC83 / EL84) amps & peoples experiences here a while ago, which had zero responses.
 I wasn't really that surprised, as they were only made for a couple of years between 2001-2003 ish.

However, I think that as they are 'under the radar'  & not 'boutique', they are much underrated, being flexible with good tone & are great value. So much so that I now have several (just in case).

So my query here, was to try to see how the amp could/ should be set up in order to give a realistic idea of it's sound if demo-ing it, without having to try & show the full gamut of settings possibilities (I too like to see how the full ranges of controls affect sounds).

According to other owners, the TT can apparently do 'fender cleans' & 'vox chime' & possibly loads of others.
Thing is, given that everyone's ideas of what those things sound like will differ, I don't feel comfortable describing them as such. 

Finding meaningful comparative terms for amp sounds is still a place of much confusion for me.

Seemed a simple question last night, possibly not turning out to be so 

lukedlb

Setting an amp - including solid-state ones - where the controls are most sensitive seems to negate this problem to a great extent. I don't just turn them up from zero either - as already said, the controls are often very interactive and there is sometimes a trade-off, or more than one 'sensitive spot' on the control, and if you just start from zero you may miss one that's higher up or with one of the other controls starting from maximum. I always try the full range of the controls too - some people seem oddly unwilling to set any of them outside about 9 o'clock to 3 o'clock, but this will often miss some really good tones when the controls are very close to zero or full up. 12 o'clock is definitely not the best setting with most amps.

Yep, the Marshall Artiste 2nd Channel is only playable with the bass at zero. With the channels bridged, it adds body almost like an active mid. 
As volume increases, bass tone often needs to be reduced. 
The choice of speaker and cabinet often dictate the tone controls in an effort to best match the amp to the cab. 
Amp choice often requires setting according to playing style or quirks. 
A bit of a false quest in my opinion. It should be more a quest for one that best suits you. 

Kittyfrisk

Cheers. I understand most of the variables that can influence tonal differences.

As for 'A bit of a false quest in my opinion. It should be more a quest for one that best suits you. '
I know well what suits me & I'm a happy bunny, but this was all about how to best represent or reproduce the sound of a given amp to others (& maybe it still is).

lukedlb

Kittyfrisk said:

Cheers. I understand most of the variables that can influence tonal differences.

As for 'A bit of a false quest in my opinion. It should be more a quest for one that best suits you. '
I know well what suits me & I'm a happy bunny, but this was all about how to best represent or reproduce the sound of a given amp to others (& maybe it still is).

I see your point. I got a little lost in comparing amps through settings. Perhaps just get the amp to sound as best for you as possible. The thing is, not every amp will suit you. My amp for many a young year was a twin reverb. When I recently got it back and repaired, I really believed that it was operating badly. A fella played it with his rockabilly, pulp fiction style and made the amp sound incredible. It suited his style. My style had changed so much that other amps were more my thing. 

Kittyfrisk

lukedlb said:

Kittyfrisk said:

Cheers. I understand most of the variables that can influence tonal differences.

As for 'A bit of a false quest in my opinion. It should be more a quest for one that best suits you. '
I know well what suits me & I'm a happy bunny, but this was all about how to best represent or reproduce the sound of a given amp to others (& maybe it still is).

I see your point. I got a little lost in comparing amps through settings. Perhaps just get the amp to sound as best for you as possible. The thing is, not every amp will suit you. My amp for many a young year was a twin reverb. When I recently got it back and repaired, I really believed that it was operating badly. A fella played it with his rockabilly, pulp fiction style and made the amp sound incredible. It suited his style. My style had changed so much that other amps were more my thing. 

Yes, I believe there's more than a little of the 'in the ear of the beholder' thing going on for all of us.

 Actually, what I think I'd really like to see/hear, is an amp 'sound off' in the way that gringopig did with his guitars, but using different amps  http://www.thefretboard.co.uk/discussion/154250/gringos-clean-test-can-you-pass/p1

That way I'd possibly get to listen to Vox chime; Marshall crunch; Fender clean etc. in a reasonably controlled format.
OK, now everyone tell me why that won't work either 

ICBM

Kittyfrisk said:

That way I'd possibly get to listen to Vox chime; Marshall crunch; Fender clean etc. in a reasonably controlled format.
OK, now everyone tell me why that won't work either 

That will definitely work, and the differences will be much more pronounced than with the guitars.

Comparing totally clean sounds might not be though...

Kittyfrisk

ICBM said:

Kittyfrisk said:

That way I'd possibly get to listen to Vox chime; Marshall crunch; Fender clean etc. in a reasonably controlled format.
OK, now everyone tell me why that won't work either 

That will definitely work, and the differences will be much more pronounced than with the guitars.

Comparing totally clean sounds might not be though...

Fair point. I'm not actually into tilting at clean windmills    I was just trying to find a way to try to fairly represent an amp's sound.

Now, I wonder who has enough amps to carry out such a task?
I'm not volunteering anyone, just wondering how much of a chore it might actually be.

fretmeister

I can't really see it working.

Even if you said "70s Marshall crunch" then that's a huge range of different tones recorded over the decade.

You'd be better off get samples from recorded music that people like and then simply stating that a particular amp can achieve it.

TheBigDipper

fretmeister said:

I can't really see it working.

Even if you said "70s Marshall crunch" then that's a huge range of different tones recorded over the decade.

You'd be better off get samples from recorded music that people like and then simply stating that a particular amp can achieve it.

Yes. And even then the recorded amp won't be sounding like the way it did in the room - it'll be after the engineer has finished using EQ and effects, or recording several tracks to fatten it up, etc., etc.  

"Writing/talking about music is like dancing about architecture."

For the OP, I don't think there are any shortcuts to getting into the rough ballpark area, playing an amp for yourself and making your own mind up.

Kittyfrisk

I can't really see it working.

Even if you said "70s Marshall crunch" then that's a huge range of different tones recorded over the decade.

You'd be better off get samples from recorded music that people like and then simply stating that a particular amp can achieve it.

Yes, you're probably right.

I just don't get how almost everyone uses & can seemingly relate to such descriptive terms, when it seems that no-one can demonstrate what it is that they are actually describing...? 

Kittyfrisk

TheBigDipper said:

fretmeister said:

I can't really see it working.

Even if you said "70s Marshall crunch" then that's a huge range of different tones recorded over the decade.

You'd be better off get samples from recorded music that people like and then simply stating that a particular amp can achieve it.

Yes. And even then the recorded amp won't be sounding like the way it did in the room - it'll be after the engineer has finished using EQ and effects, or recording several tracks to fatten it up, etc., etc.  

"Writing/talking about music is like dancing about architecture."

For the OP, I don't think there are any shortcuts to getting into the rough ballpark area, playing an amp for yourself and making your own mind up.

True again. What I was actually trying to find, was not my own tone or making my mind up.
It was trying to find a quantifiable, reproducible way to accurately represent an amp's sound to someone that had never heard it.
Naive? Possibly, but unless we ask questions, we don't learn 

fretmeister

Kittyfrisk said:

I can't really see it working.

Even if you said "70s Marshall crunch" then that's a huge range of different tones recorded over the decade.

You'd be better off get samples from recorded music that people like and then simply stating that a particular amp can achieve it.

Yes, you're probably right.

I just don't get how almost everyone uses & can seemingly relate to such descriptive terms, when it seems that no-one can demonstrate what it is that they are actually describing...? 

Because they are not referring to a specific sound alone.

They are referring to a wider genre and even an emotional idea of what the terms mean.
Guitar tone has to be one of the most subjective things in the universe!

Even if someone were to say "Van Halen" crunch - the difference between VH1 and the most recent releases are huge.

Crunch for some people is Led Zepp. For others it is Van Halen 1.
For others still it's Devin Townsend's filthy rhythm tone, and for some Brad Paisley's barely edgy clean.

I wouldn't bother trying to make sense of it!!