The Jazz Guitar Chord Dictionary
Reply to Thread Bookmark Thread
Page 3 of 13 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Posts 51 to 75 of 301
  1. #51

    User Info Menu

    there's a fundamental flaw in these amps. In every other digital/modeling amp, you have a master volume prior to the power amp. This allows you to dial in the sweet spot in the fender amp (typically 3-4 on the volume control for jazz, slightly higher for blues) and then turn the master up so that you can amplify *THAT* with your power amp. That's not how the new fenders work. They work exactly like the analog amps in terms of the volume. So even though the deluxe has a 100w power amp, you don't get a full 100w until the volume is cranked way up. To me, that's a fatal flaw. I'd probably buy the deluxe if it didn't have that issue.

    The twin version will likely have less of that issue since it has 2x the power of the deluxe version and I'm assuming you can get it loud enough and still be clean but it's disappointing that they'd whiff on this issue which every other modeler gets right.

  2.  

    The Jazz Guitar Chord Dictionary
     
  3. #52

    User Info Menu

    Treble is by nature (physics) directional. Easy solution, turn the treble down. I use fender amps and they sound great with my strat, tele, 335 style and barney kessel. From twang to fusion to straight ahead classic 50s/60s jazz to modern jazz. I haven't found anything they aren't good at. I can make it sound more similar to polytone just by adjusting the tone controls. Unfortunately, you can't make a mambo or clarus sound like a fender by adjusting the tone controls (even with the fender switch).

    Quote Originally Posted by christianm77
    Yeah I think I heard one of the early ones and it was a bit nasty sounding.

    New ones seem much improved.

    Re: the switch... I was happy with the vanilla eq actually. But - My guitar (old 175) sounds really good through flat response eqs though. I can plug it into a PA straight and it sounds good. Very characterful guitar.

    I’m kind of moving away from Fender with it and more towards solid state. i like it straight into my AER with no reverb for instance. Also fender amps do a fabulous job of taking those plinky, lively acoustic-ish tones older 175s produce and turning them into nasty ice pick trebles. I have to use an EQ.

    It’s going to be different for every instrument. Fender is probably a better match for an L5 or maybe more recent 175. OTOH I’ve heard a lot of pro guitarists (world class name players even) with great gear get some sounds I wouldn’t be happy with at all.... often it depends where you sit. I find fenders so directional with the treble .

    My friend was playing a Benedetto through the Mambo and wasn’t so happy (I thought it sounded good) he wants a Deluxe.... maybe he should try one of these Tonemasters....

  4. #53

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by jzucker
    Treble is by nature (physics) directional. Easy solution, turn the treble down. I use fender amps and they sound great with my strat, tele, 335 style and barney kessel. From twang to fusion to straight ahead classic 50s/60s jazz to modern jazz. I haven't found anything they aren't good at. I can make it sound more similar to polytone just by adjusting the tone controls.
    Indeed, less diffraction for higher frequencies. That's pretty hard to avoid, although how you set up your amp can help with this.

    Well I find an EQ pedal gives me better control, as the controls on a PR are treble and bass. I suppose I could mod it... But there is a voice going in my head - 'if you don't like smiley face EQ, why the hell did you buy a blackface fender amp?' which is.... fair enough.

    (This is after I've swapped in a Hemp speaker as well.)

    Unfortunately, you can't make a mambo or clarus sound like a fender by adjusting the tone controls (even with the fender switch).
    To me this is a feature rather than a problem. I don't necessarily need or want them to sound like that. I think the guitar is so characterful I need something flat. It's not like a 335, or a thick laminate archtop with a tune-o-matic bridge where the sound is quite smooth and neutral, it's something a lot more cantankerous and rude and it has a lot to say about the 500-800 Hz range, and it's not going to hold back to save anyone's feelings.

    So I need something quite transparent to flatter that particular quality. A small PA unit would do, honestly. The guy whose Mambo I tried owns a 175 of the previous year, and understood what I mean right away (he was keen for me to try it). A lot of people don't like those guitars. I love it though, suits my approach and style.

    The Princeton is a great amp, but I feel like I'm moving away from it. Probably hang on to it though, it does a thing. And, naturally, it sounds badass with my tele. And I do like to tele.

  5. #54

    User Info Menu

    Also, the PR is too loud for recording really. Need something that warms up a bit earlier. No, really.

  6. #55

    User Info Menu

    the hemp speaker may be your problem. They are EXTREMELY colored. The princeton is a very different beast of an amp. Different phase inverter than the standard blackface fender. I love them for low volume practicing but not loud enough for playing clean with a drummer.

  7. #56

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by jzucker
    the hemp speaker may be your problem. They are EXTREMELY colored. The princeton is a very different beast of an amp. Different phase inverter than the standard blackface fender. I love them for low volume practicing but not loud enough for playing clean with a drummer.
    I got it on the recommendation of Tele/335 player... so... yeah maybe!

    Very efficient though. I've had no trouble with headroom. I did have trouble with the stock Jensen, it broke up fairly quickly. You should try a PR with a more efficient speaker sometime... It's pretty striking how much more usable the amp becomes.

  8. #57

    User Info Menu

    12w doesn't work for my style no matter how efficient the speaker is. Even a deluxe doesn't work for me. I need 40w minimum and even then, I usually run in stereo with a 2nd amp for headroom.

  9. #58

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by jzucker
    there's a fundamental flaw in these amps. In every other digital/modeling amp, you have a master volume prior to the power amp. This allows you to dial in the sweet spot in the fender amp (typically 3-4 on the volume control for jazz, slightly higher for blues) and then turn the master up so that you can amplify *THAT* with your power amp. That's not how the new fenders work. They work exactly like the analog amps in terms of the volume. So even though the deluxe has a 100w power amp, you don't get a full 100w until the volume is cranked way up. To me, that's a fatal flaw. I'd probably buy the deluxe if it didn't have that issue.

    The twin version will likely have less of that issue since it has 2x the power of the deluxe version and I'm assuming you can get it loud enough and still be clean but it's disappointing that they'd whiff on this issue which every other modeler gets right.
    I'm sure that was conscious decision by Fender, to make as much like the real tube amp as possible. Altho I get where you're coming from, and imo I agree- the alternate MV design you describe would be better suited to the SS/modeling technology... that's kind of THE POINT, no? It's certainly a big reason why I bought the Roland Blues Cube Artist- the same sound, at any volume. Can do any size room or stage. There is no "sweet spot" to find. It just sounds good.

  10. #59

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by jzucker
    12w doesn't work for my style no matter how efficient the speaker is. Even a deluxe doesn't work for me. I need 40w minimum and even then, I usually run in stereo with a 2nd amp for headroom.
    All I know is MF's be constantly asking me to turn down. Not electric bassists though, TBF.

  11. #60

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by ruger9
    I'm sure that was conscious decision by Fender, to make as much like the real tube amp as possible. Altho I get where you're coming from, and imo I agree- the alternate MV design you describe would be better suited to the SS/modeling technology... that's kind of THE POINT, no? It's certainly a big reason why I bought the Roland Blues Cube Artist- the same sound, at any volume. Can do any size room or stage. There is no "sweet spot" to find. It just sounds good.
    I'm not sure it was conscious or not. If they wanted to make it as much as the original as possible they would not have built an attenuator in. Since they did that, I presume they did give it some thought.

    Also, the deluxe reverb (analog version) has a bright cap hard-wired in and from the clips I've heard, it appears they have modeled that in the deluxe version of the modeler. Many people I know never use the bright setting and clip out the capacitor on the analog model. Fender should have added this functionality. This lack of common sense feature set seems tone-deaf and gibson-esque IMO.

    Regarding the blues cube artist, I haven't tried it. But I had a katana and while it had potential, it was way too bright. I had to keep the treble on zero which is ridiculous.

  12. #61

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by christianm77
    All I know is MF's be constantly asking me to turn down. Not electric bassists though, TBF.
    Nobody in NY is gigging with a princeton though. Guys like Adam Rogers are using a Twin in stereo with a walter woods for most gigs and a pair of deluxes for quieter gigs. Vic Juris and several other guys are using a 150w fuchs SS amp.

    I think the ship has sailed on being able to use a 12w guitar amp. Might be different for playing background music. On my duo gig in the wine shop, I could definitely use a princeton but not on the big stage at cleveland bop stop or night town.

  13. #62

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by jzucker
    there's a fundamental flaw in these amps. In every other digital/modeling amp, you have a master volume prior to the power amp. This allows you to dial in the sweet spot in the fender amp (typically 3-4 on the volume control for jazz, slightly higher for blues) and then turn the master up so that you can amplify *THAT* with your power amp. That's not how the new fenders work. They work exactly like the analog amps in terms of the volume. So even though the deluxe has a 100w power amp, you don't get a full 100w until the volume is cranked way up. To me, that's a fatal flaw. I'd probably buy the deluxe if it didn't have that issue.

    The twin version will likely have less of that issue since it has 2x the power of the deluxe version and I'm assuming you can get it loud enough and still be clean but it's disappointing that they'd whiff on this issue which every other modeler gets right.
    Fender has other modeling amps that do scale the way you're talking about, so they're obviously aware of this approach. It seems to me, they're trying to build amps that behave the way original Deluxes and Twins behave (and I guess need more power than tube power sections to deal with the "tube watts vs SS watts" phenomenon), without the hassle factor of tubes, and somewhat lower weight. I assume that they have sussed out enough demand for this to make the investment. I tend to agree that that plus power scaling makes more sense, so I don't know if they're right about the market, but I guess time will tell how successful that turns out to be.

    John

  14. #63

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by jzucker
    I'm not sure it was conscious or not. If they wanted to make it as much as the original as possible they would not have built an attenuator in. Since they did that, I presume they did give it some thought.

    Also, the deluxe reverb (analog version) has a bright cap hard-wired in and from the clips I've heard, it appears they have modeled that in the deluxe version of the modeler. Many people I know never use the bright setting and clip out the capacitor on the analog model. Fender should have added this functionality. This lack of common sense feature set seems tone-deaf and gibson-esque IMO.

    Regarding the blues cube artist, I haven't tried it. But I had a katana and while it had potential, it was way too bright. I had to keep the treble on zero which is ridiculous.
    Oh... well if Fender installed an attenuator, then they ARE trying to the same thing... "same tone at any level"... that's what attenuator (are supposed to) do. Of course, it's not that simple. Is the attenuator at the END of the signal chain, right before the speaker? If so, it's the same thing.

    The BCA is NOT bright. Some people actually think it's dark. I think it's neither. The EQ is so versatile (and subtle; for example, the bass control doesn't go from little to underwater, and the treble control doesn't go from blanket to ice pick; their entire ranges are VERY usable) that imo it's hard to get a bad sound out of it. Of course you have to like it's base tone (which is modeled after a Tweed Bassman), or get a Tone Capsule you prefer (I have the Ultimate Blues tone capsule)... and the amp sounds like that no matter where you put the EQ. And the "power scaling" (which, after reading your comments) seems to me to likely be the same or very similar to Fender's "attenuator". The BCA power scaling does indeed sound the same at pretty much any volume, except for very quiet levels (0.5W, MV turned down to 2)... nothing sounds the same when you're barely moving any air. But flip the switch to the 15W setting, and raise the MV to 3... and anywhere from there up sounds pretty much the same... I use the 15W setting at home, and the 45W setting with the band (much louder), and it sounds as much the same as it can, taking into consideration the Fletcher-Munson curve.

  15. #64

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by John A.
    Fender has other modeling amps that do scale the way you're talking about, so they're obviously aware of this approach. It seems to me, they're trying to build amps that behave the way original Deluxes and Twins behave
    I didn't realize the originals had digital attenuators, line out or cabinet sims. I guess they were more advanced than I give them credit for!



  16. #65

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by ruger9
    Oh... well if Fender installed an attenuator, then they ARE trying to the same thing... "same tone at any level"... that's what attenuator (are supposed to) do. Of course, it's not that simple. Is the attenuator at the END of the signal chain, right before the speaker? If so, it's the same thing.
    The attenuator is not before the speaker. It's before the power amp. It's not a real attenuator. There would be no point in attenuating a class D power amp. Essentially they added the level control I was wishing for but did not add the ability increase the overall level. Only decreasing is allowed.

    So they obviously did think about this but decided it wasn't a feature that people wanted or needed... So with less than $5 worth of circuitry they could have added the master level control prior to the power amp.

  17. #66

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by jzucker
    Nobody in NY is gigging with a princeton though. Guys like Adam Rogers are using a Twin in stereo with a walter woods for most gigs and a pair of deluxes for quieter gigs. Vic Juris and several other guys are using a 150w fuchs SS amp.

    I think the ship has sailed on being able to use a 12w guitar amp. Might be different for playing background music. On my duo gig in the wine shop, I could definitely use a princeton but not on the big stage at cleveland bop stop or night town.
    I will say you are correct as it seems important to you.

    If there's a DR or a Twin at the venue I'd rather play through that. Usually this is the case for a jazz club or festival... But I'm not up for lugging one of those around London. Can't comment on NYC, don't work there.

  18. #67

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by jzucker
    The attenuator is not before the speaker. It's before the power amp. It's not a real attenuator. There would be no point in attenuating a class D power amp. Essentially they added the level control I was wishing for but did not add the ability increase the overall level. Only decreasing is allowed.

    So they obviously did think about this but decided it wasn't a feature that people wanted or needed... So with less than $5 worth of circuitry they could have added the master level control prior to the power amp.
    Yeah I was thinking that was a bit of a gimmick

  19. #68

    User Info Menu

    Yeah, you can't really gig with a drummer and use a princeton reverb and stay clean...unless we're talking real soundman/everybody mic'd up kind of situation...which, I don't know about you, but...

    These still really aren't a subway amp, I guess, the box is too big. For me, I'm far enough out from the city center that it makes more sense to drive to stuff, so I could see myself parking and walking a few blocks with a "lighter than my Polytone" Deluxe...if it sounded pretty darn close. I will be trying these.

    Anybody seen one "in the wild" yet?

  20. #69
    Quote Originally Posted by jzucker
    The attenuator is not before the speaker. It's before the power amp. It's not a real attenuator. There would be no point in attenuating a class D power amp.
    But the attenuator "functions" as if it's after the power amp. This is because both the preamp and power amp modelling is done before the class D amplifier. If attenuator was before the power amp, they wouldn't be able to simulate power amp distortion at lower wattages, but I believe that's not true. So both preamp and poweramp as far as tone shaping goes come before the class D amp in this design. The class d amp is not the power amp of the original amplifier TM is modeling.

  21. #70
    Quote Originally Posted by jzucker
    I didn't realize the originals had digital attenuators, line out or cabinet sims. I guess they were more advanced than I give them credit for!


    You do have a point here. But that said, it seems like their philosophy was to keep these TM amps as pure an original blackface experience as possible. They were so hipsterishly fanatic about it that they didn't even add an F/X loop. They even kept the stand-by switch.
    Attenuator seems like one compromise they had to make to increase the appeal of these amps to their main crowd which isn't jazzers. Most people (blues and rock crowd) want high volume crunch tones at lower levels (attenuator) in quieter gigs or bedrooms, not low level tones at high volumes (master volume). They figured they already offer Twin for the second group. Also a master volume would have been more invasive to the original panel.

  22. #71

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by jzucker
    I didn't realize the originals had digital attenuators, line out or cabinet sims. I guess they were more advanced than I give them credit for!


    Sorry, based on your earlier comment, and having only seen the front panel, I didn't realize they do in fact scale. I guess whatever point you were trying to make went over my head.

    John

  23. #72

    User Info Menu

    Well one things for sure Jack Z will give us a full review as soon as he gets one.
    Jack Z is our resident tester for all things gear. You go Jack,and we all thank you for saving us a bunch of $$

  24. #73

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Tal_175
    But the attenuator "functions" as if it's after the power amp. This is because both the preamp and power amp modelling is done before the class D amplifier. If attenuator was before the power amp, they wouldn't be able to simulate power amp distortion at lower wattages, but I believe that's not true. So both preamp and poweramp as far as tone shaping goes come before the class D amp in this design. The class d amp is not the power amp of the original amplifier TM is modeling.
    I should have been more specific. My posting was correct, i should have specified that the "attenuator" is after the modeling power amp but before the class D (the real) power amp

  25. #74

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by jads57
    Well one things for sure Jack Z will give us a full review as soon as he gets one.
    Jack Z is our resident tester for all things gear. You go Jack,and we all thank you for saving us a bunch of $$
    If they made the 200w power amp version in a 1x12 config I'd buy it.

  26. #75

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by jzucker
    The attenuator is not before the speaker. It's before the power amp. It's not a real attenuator. There would be no point in attenuating a class D power amp. Essentially they added the level control I was wishing for but did not add the ability increase the overall level. Only decreasing is allowed.

    So they obviously did think about this but decided it wasn't a feature that people wanted or needed... So with less than $5 worth of circuitry they could have added the master level control prior to the power amp.
    So what you're saying is, in effect, there's no way to get "power tube distortion" out of these new amps because of where the placed the attenuator? But if it's a SS power amp... I would think they DID dial in the "power tube distortion" right into the VOLUME control on the front panel, no? Just like the real tube amps? One control for preamp AND power amp gain.... you DON'T WANT SS power amp distortion, so the Class D power amp is volume controlled with the attenuator. Am I missing something? I don't see how Fender could NOT have modeled the power amp response in the channel's volume (gain) control, since that's how the real (tube) amps work...?