Discussion in 'Amps and Cabs' started by 70' s Tone, Jul 23, 2019.
I suggest this one ...
US_$2_reverse by kafka posted Jul 25, 2019 at 4:02 PM
Post up a clip.
Pointless. I'm not the subject here. I also haven't been gifted 50 years of sitting on my ass, being famous, and having an infinite amount of time to become a better player. That's what's most frustrating...him sitting on Laurels, not evolving, seemingly not even trying. Why praise an "artist" like that?
That happened to us once in LA, while jamming with Russ Parrish (Satchel, pre-Steel Panther). We borrowed the 250ML amp from my drummer buddy's roommate. The amp started smoking and we had a repair to pay for.
Watching Zappa Live At The Roxy last week, I noticed that FZ was playing a GMT amp. Bassist Tom Fowler might've had one also.
I'm not sure how that relates to a technical discussion...anyway, I'm a tube advocate, and like others I recognize the great myth associated with using 2D, solid state digital recordings to discriminate between tubes and 2D solid state digital amps. You can't use a meter to measure its own accuracy and precision, and you can't use ss/digital recordings to discriminate tubes vs ss/digital.
Or even two mics. Or a lot of mics. And a lot of high dollar equipment. You, me, and a 5 year old can clearly tell the difference in recordings and live sound, because of the large amount of information lost, or corrupted by recording and MI equipment. Likewise, recordings of live events are not equivalent in actual sonic content to the live event, and therefore can't be reliable when comparing two products. There isn't much more to it than that.
Oh, you're not the subject. I see. That's a convenient response. So let's try this. Name 10 guitarists that are still "evolving" at age 72. For that matter, name 10 "artists," regardless of medium, who are still "evolving" at that age. Please be sure to post examples of each artist's continued evolution over that 1/2 century. Surely naming 10 who fit that description won't be as "frustrating" for you as Santana's seeming failure of "even trying." Correct?
Save your left arm for John Hancock.
I think he found his voice faster than I found mine, that's for sure. He's not a one-trick pony, either. The videos in this thread attest to that.
Like I said above, I'm not a big fan of his, but I'll sure give the man his due.
I don't know about anyone else, but when driving or walking through a neighborhood, I can tell if the music they're blasting is media or a live band. I'd be willing to bet the majority of folks reading this thread know exactly what I'm talking about. The ambience, the imperfections, the rattle of the snare, I don't know -- I just know when I hear it.
I'm not sure he was particularly tall.
"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows"
Not sure if that was even the point of that lyric, but now I'm waiting for people to talk about how Dylan was an overrated lyricist. TGP: the land of contention and pissing contests of their guitar/musician idols.
Your premise is false for two reasons:
1) You don't listen to music with an oscilloscope. You listen with your ears. There are a great many measurements of waves that can be expressed mathematically that cannot detect a difference that a perfectly functional set of ears can detect.
2) An oscilloscope will indeed show differences in timbre associated with different instruments and different recordings made of different amplifying devices of the same instrument.
Although it is indeed true that many solid state amps over the years can have similar charicteristics of tube amps the fact is they still sound different. The differences do show up on recordings providing it is a recording of just a guitar and an amp before effects are added. Solid state gear does not mask the change in a sine wave, although all semi-conductors color the sound of instruments to greater and lesser degrees.
And the fact remains that how a musician plays an electric guitar depends a great deal on what it is being amplified to, because the amplifier becomes an active part of the process. The feel and response of an electric guitar differs , sometimes to a significant degree, depending on the amp you use and the settings.
Quite obviously a live concert sounds far different where you record it compared to where the recording is listented to, that isn't rocket surgery. The walls of a room make a difference, the equipment used for listening makes a difference, even the amount of humidity in the air makes a difference.
None of that has to do with whether it is solid state, tubes, analog, or digitally encoded sound that has been decoded from a digital stream of information back into an analog wave.
If you record a band using all tube gear including vintage tube mikes and record the same band in the same venue with all solid state gear, it is going to sound different. Even if the acoustic of the room is 100% the same and the humidity level is exactly the same when played back on solid state gear.
Santana was an absolute nobody until Rob Thomas entered the picture with Smooth in 1999. If you seek tonal nirvana and unparalleled musicianship look no further than the likes Rob Thomas and Matchbox Twenty. End of story.
It's called sarcasm.
We still cannot replicate the discrimination ability of the human ear. Meaning, the human ear is superior to our best measurement devices. We just now are able to perform basic voice recognition - and it still has a long way to go to catch up.
An oscilloscope will show the difference when you twist a knob...on the same amp. Its even more compelling, that an O scope or any DSP cannot discriminate between a Martin D28, and a Rogue RA-90. Yet, you me and a 5 year old can tell them apart with 1 second of information.
I've given two examples you can perform at home that prove recordings are false, and you've given a third (O scopes and DSP) that also show our measurement systems cannot discriminate well.
I love how the pajama-haddeen, sitting in their momma's basement, are criticizing players who have great success. Being the "greatest" intrumentalist has never been a requirement to being a commercial success. If you're smart you will go see the "Greats" before they pass. I have been privileged to see Chuck Berry, BB King and Santana in recent history. Santana has an amazing Latin rhythm section...his playing was just a part of the overall musical landscape that night. Two different vocalists. A stage full of players. It was an awesome show! His tone and style is smooth and creamy...just roll off some high end, stand in the perfect spot to catch some feedback and his guitar sings me into dreamland. He definitely had to be popular with the stoners of the 60's! Ha! I hope to see Buddy Guy before age takes him from us. Clapton would be cool as well. On the younger front, got my tickets to Gary Clark Jr in the fall!
And this is exactly why I think it's legit to call Carlos overrated as a guitar player.
As a musician, as a band leader? Maybe not.
And don't you (not you personally, you all) ever confuse musicality or instrumental virtuosity with commercial success in (pop) music business... which is part of show business.