-
Folks generally seem to share taste in "good" tone for jazz but why do some guitar amp combinations sound better?
How do you quantify good tone? Is it to do with peaks and troughs in the frequencies?
I've seen some stuff in the past from Randy (I think) analysing speaker outputs graphically, can this be extended to analysis of the good tones thread?
P
-
11-20-2012 01:50 PM
-
Good tone occurs not in the guitar, the pick, the strings, the cable, the amp circuitry, the speaker, or even in the soundwaves moving the air. Good tone occurs in the space between the listener's ears.
And like snowflakes, no two are alike.
/EOT
-
+1 :-)
Originally Posted by rpguitar
-
Good tone sounds like Johnny Smith, Peter Bernstein, and Wes Montgomery.
Listen to RP. He either owns or has owned many of jazz's tonal crown jewels.
-
To me good tone has life, i.e. it's not monochromatic. I'm really not fond of the "roll the tone knob all the way down" sound except as a special effect. I like to hear a lot of harmonic content in the tone, i.e. the tone should shift from attack to final decay when you hit a note.
I like a snappy sound on the low strings and a fairly meaty sound on the trebles. This is a very difficult tone to achieve and most people find some sort of compromise -- for jazz it's usually biased towards the meaty trebles, which tends to leave the bass strings flabbly and dull. For trad country, it's biased towards bright twangy basses (Tele through a BF Fender) which usually leaves the trebles earsplittingly bright.
I gravitate towards a 40s/50s sound when it comes to electric archtops, i.e. not very bottom heavy, lots of middle and treble, usually a P90 or CC pup through a tweed toned amp. After all, you want to keep out of the frequency range of the bass player for the most part, so dry out that bottom end! And a smidge of grind never goes amiss when you really whack it
-
I think I'll dissent a little here.
Strings, picks, guitar construction, amplification are all implementation. However, if you look at tone from a requirements point of view there are a limited number of variables. Requirements are, of course, what you're trying to achieve through implementation. While there may not be a lot of agreement on the details, maybe there will be some agreement on candidates at the top level. My starting list might be:
- Acoustic versus electric balance
- Acoustic depth and ring (likely a better name for this.. what I mean is what an 18" non-cutaway gives you that a 15" thinline doesn't)
- Frequency spectrum (mid-range punch vs. even spread vs. a bass or treble peak vs. something else)
- Warmth (Now there's a precise technical term. This can apply to the guitar but I'm thinking more of amplification)
- Clarity (most implementation variables contribute to this)
I'm sure someone could come up with additions and a better list overall, but the idea is that 'tone' has requirements that are followed by implementation. Being able to articulate those requirements is the first step in getting to the sound you hear in your head. And, of course, the requirements change as you hear new things. It's important to think through your requirements first. Then you figure out how you will implement with picks, strings, guitar, style, pups, and amplification. Just trying out a bunch of stuff until something happens to be what you have in your head is not the best way to get there.
-
good tone starts with your fingers.....
articulation studies are of paramount importance to achieve good tone...
the rest amplifies what you put down with your fingers...
time on the instrument...
-
Good tone can't be bought.
-
+ 1 Originally Posted by Bryan T
I love this thread
-
This x100 Originally Posted by pierre richard
I had a lesson with Tim Miller with him just going straight to the amp, changed my life.
-
Good tone allows the player to make the statement they choose.
For me, good tone is clean, allows me to hear every note in my chords, and allows single note lines to sound even and balanced.
My good tone is not someone else's.
-
In other words, tone is totally subjective and totally individual. Everybody knows what it is but nobody can really quantify it scientifically or numerically.
-
Well said. To me, good tone is slightly microphonic pickups, a tinge of grit, and a pronounced attack. Makes single lines warm and velvety and chords just a little bit messy. Totally different than Mr. Beaumont, but helps me try to make the statement I want to make. Originally Posted by mr. beaumont
-
But you can distinguish between requirements and implementation. When it comes to tone people seem to get wrapped up between 'what', 'how', and 'why'. Requirements are the 'what' as in 'what you want to achieve'.
-
No really, back down to Earth with a bump you guys Originally Posted by Chimera1to1
Oscilloscope traces, has anyone ever plugged recordings that sound good into software for a spectral output of the frequencies?
"This" or "that" sounds good isn't very scientific or repeatable. There's not just frequencies and harmonics but amplitude, attack, decay
Gimme a graph
-
I see you're fixated on this, but it makes as much sense as a chef who subjects a perfect marinara sauce to molecular analysis in order to repeat it. He would never do that. He learns to make it through trial and error, by sight, by feel, by taste. Originally Posted by Chimera1to1
Gimme a graph
A guitarist uses his senses to reproduce good tone. And most importantly, because of those honed senses, he can often elicit good tone from an imperfect instrument, amplification system, or performance space.
That's why the art part is ultimately more important than the science part.
-
@Chimera1to1,
What or who's tone do you consider to be "good"?
-
"Good tone", now there's an abstract concept.
I'm with roger that good tone lies within the mind of the player. My good tone is not your good tone. Heck, I'd go a step further and say good tone changes with the context. I may dial in a tone I like and then when the bass and drums are grooving, my tone is suddenly all wrong. In the sonic palette, the guitar occupies a changing role depending on the other instruments, etc.
Ok, that said, there are a few things that I really like and don't like when I audition a guitar and amp together:
1) I hate the metallic ringing often associated with brass tailpieces. If you don't hear this, lucky you. Now that I can hear it, it drives me nuts to hear someone with a ringing tailpiece. Like that little bump under your tongue that annoys you but you just cannot ignore it. Argh!
2) I like to hear the articulation, whether the clicking of fingernails or the thump of the pick. When tone is rolled off and dark and I cannot hear the front of the note, my ears get fatigued easily.
3) my idea of single note tone is often different from my ideal chordal tone. So, if I am playing lines, I may make a few tweaks to my sound to optimize it for the single notes. Likewise, that same sound may be too muddy for chords.
4) I remain a skeptic of all stock pickups. When I buy a guitar, I never consider whether I like the pickup or not because I already know I won't be keeping it. I used to spend time swapping magnetic pickups in and out until I found the perfect one to match the guitar, but now I have a strong preference for one that I know well, and have thus far gotten great results every time I've put it in.Last edited by mikeSF; 11-23-2012 at 10:15 PM.
-
+1 Originally Posted by mikeSF
-
Waveforms would be nice. I can remember a few misspent sessions with access to recording oscilloscopes and waveform analyzers with just enough experience with them to be dangerous. A 75 Les Paul in my lap and tube amp at my side, we were looking for the perfect distortion. As you might expect, this proved to be elusive. You can drill sown to every bit of the waveform though and if you knew how to extract what was 'warmth', 'stringy', etc. it might even prove useful.
Still, and paradoxically, I would describe this problem as both too simple and too complex for these tools. An expert on human hearing might explain some of the differences in how we hear things versus pure vibration. It's complex and interesting stuff. An experienced guitar play will tell you to experiment and use your ears and save the test equipment lease fees.
Still I don't find the idea that 'it's all in your head' useful in addressing what is, essentially, a requirements, design, and implementation exercise. YMMV of course. Guitars and amps are constrained tools. They are not open ended like an artist's palette. You could do a flow chart that would get you close to the guitar, strings, pick, and even what you do with your right hand as long as you know what you're trying to accomplish. Just saying 'Wes tone' isn't enough of course and unfortunately, there isn't a good vocabulary to provide a starting point.Last edited by Spook410; 11-23-2012 at 11:18 PM.
-
Mike . . . I've read 3 or 4 of your posts today and I've enjoyed each of them. Curious though, about this one. You indicate that you dislike the sound of tone rolled off . . . "can't hear the front of the note". OK. . . I get that. But, you also say that you change your tone based upon the context . . . "a few tweaks to optimize tone" . . when switching for chordal playing to lines. How do you accomplish that if your tone controls are always wide open? Do you reach back and tweak the amp? Originally Posted by mikeSF
-
Thanks. I definitely do not use my tone pot wide open. On the contrary, it is probably more near the middle of the taper but I tend to lean on the amp for my eQ. It just makes more sense since one has much more control over frequencies there. Regarding my comment of tweaking on the fly, I sometimes use the tone pot, sometimes flip between series/parallel, sometimes switch picks or picking location, tweak the amp, etc...it may well be something hat only I notice in the end, but it often makes a difference in how I approach the song. Originally Posted by Patrick2
About the nails, I tend to vary the angle of attack to add more flesh or add more nail as required.
-
Cool .. . thanks for the quick reply. I guess I miss interpreted "rolled off" in your origing post. You REALLY meant rolled off. I took it to mean rolled back . . . maybe to mid way. I'm considering a treble by pass for one of my arch tops for that very reason. I like to ride my volume pot. On this particular arch top . . unless the volume pot is dimed out . . I get a pretty significant treble bleed off. I also agree that pick attack, pick angle and picking location has a great affect on not only dynamics . . but, tone as well. Originally Posted by mikeSF
However, I'm just not that much of a tone junkie. I got a whole bunch of great arch tops . . . brass tail pieces on every one of them. Never really picked up on any ringing. But, when I do play amplified . . it's usually at very low volumes.. so that I can enjoy the acoustical properties and a blend of warm tube pureness.
-
Heston Blumenthal. Originally Posted by rpguitar
-
I also agree with rp that good tone is between your ears. When I pick up a guitar, mine or someone else's, I work kind of subconsciously to find a tone that sounds right to me. Its kind of like I don't know exactly what I'm looking for, but I know when I find it. A good indicator is when I find myself playing with my eyes closed.
Bill
Reply With Quote
Recommandations for Hollowbodies for $600 and under?
Today, 05:20 AM in Guitar, Amps & Gizmos