Amps And Guitars: Are Some Matches Better Than Others?

Dgt into a dg, fillmore, ac30 or Matchless
Cu24 into a mark 2c+, mark iv or mark v

We play an array of music demanding clean and clear, classic rock crunch and liquid distortion. When im out somewhere i use a dgt into a mark v combo. Unlike David, I play 8.5’s on the dgt and use the clean/crunch/hi-gain logic across the 3 channels. Only volume, delay, clean boost chorus and wah on the board. Making this work took some time but I get alot of positive feedback from players much more experienced than I am and I have a reasonably small footprint wherever I play. The DGT is really a magic swiss army knife. I see it as the Mcarty evolved.

If our band was more focused on metal/prog rock, id use a cu24 into a Mesa Mark.

Desert island would probably be a DGT into a Fillmore
 
Robert Fernander said:
Desert island would probably be a DGT into a Fillmore
Click to expand...
Texas_minor_blues said:
If I had to pick a Desert Island rig I would go with a DGT into a Matchless Nitehawk or Chieftain
Click to expand...
I like to think of my studio as a Desert Dungeon.

Granted, there isn't much sunshine, and there's no water, but I'm saving up for a sunlamp and a case of Perrier, and there's enough stuff to keep me almost semi-happy-ish. ;)
 
My main amps for rock are a 30+ yr old Mesa/Boogie Studio 22+ with an aux 2x10 run in stereo with a Sovtek Mig 50 4x12 Marshall slant front ( TC Stereo chorus/flanger/trem does the split)

For the Semi hollows and blues end I run the DG30 Custom set

The rock rig is much brighter sounding, the DG30 more lush .


My jazz box a handcarved Heritage H575 Custom stays with a Mesa Rosette 300w , as do all my acoustics . For Jazz and Acoustic type it is a gem
 
Last edited:
11top said:
Yes, but…..
With a kemper, I can dial in pretty much anything.

As far as tube amps, I’d choose my Bogner Shiva with a guitar outfitted with Custombuckers or 59/09s.
Click to expand...
You can indeed dial in some wonderful stuff with a Kemper, provided you're willing to accept the sonic trade-off, which may or may not even be perceptible to many players.

It is to me, but I spend my life creating audio, so I'm clearly an outlier. No one should ever take my advice without knowing that I do audio for a living. That's not bragging - frankly, it's a limitation that makes me too picky for my own good! ;)

The Shiva is a beautifully designed amp with a great sound; Reinhold Bogner is also a very good dude with excellent ears! I'm especially fond of the overdrive tones a Shiva puts out.

I should also mention that the Shiva was the US built amp chosen by the great producer, Flood, for a record my son worked on, and he was presented with several higher end options. It's a very, very good amp.
 
Can't go wrong with a Shiva...or an XTC...or an Uberschall....or a Helios Eclipse....or a________.

@LSchefman - So you are saying as a listener you can tell if a Kemper is used on a record? Or are you referring to the differences when you are personally playing? Or Both?

For me, I can't tell a difference on record if the Kemper is dialed proper. If a profile is not a good capture I can tell much easier in my own playing. If it is a high quality and tuned capture it is very difficult sonically to tell the difference and the "in the room / air push aspect" is not what I am referring to. My mindset in this post is being in a control room and having the cabs in a different room type of thing.
 
Bogner said:
@LSchefman - So you are saying as a listener you can tell if a Kemper is used on a record? Or are you referring to the differences when you are personally playing? Or Both?
Click to expand...
Interesting question!

I've been put to the 'tell on a recording' test more than once. The last time I tried it (a few years ago on a bet with a recording engineer who insisted I couldn't tell) I scored 9 out of ten right, which is statistically significant. But so what, really. It was that day, in his room, and I was familiar with the amps. So the dice were loaded in my favor.

There are a lot of variables, the mic(s), mic placement, player, amount of gain, room, recording engineer, effects used, etc.

It would be unfair for me to claim I can always tell on a recording, but I'd say usually I can tell, provided I know the real amp's sound. There are lots of amps I haven't played through, and some amps of the same brand and model sound different from one another..

Playing the amps: yes, that's the most important thing to me, though I do take pride in my ability to properly mic up an amp and have it sound the way I want.

I can also tell the difference between a real 1073 mic preamp and a Universal Audio emulation of a 1073 - in fact, in a back to back recording with the same mic, same acoustic guitar, and same player most people can tell (I once posted a comparison on my former Forum, and everyone heard the difference).
 
Last edited:
LSchefman said:
Inquiring minds want to know. Do some combinations of guitars and amps work better for you than others?

An argument could be made that they do, at least for me.

There is no better match in my world than a 594 Soapbar and the DG30. None. Even a DGT can only approximate the greatness of this combination. It's juicy, it's emotional, it's warm and vowel-like, and it's made in tone heaven.

You want a killer humbucker combination? HXDA and CU24 30th PS. Oh. My. Goodness. I mean, sure, you'd expect that with the McCarty Singlecut, also great, but not necessarily with the CU24.

The Special with the Lone Star's clean channel with NOS tubes is joy-joy that makes me weep in its utter tone glory. I bow down to the genius of Paul Smith and Randall Smith, who obviously had the same familial genes.

Well OK, they probably didn't, BUT the combination still sounds amazing. ;)

The McCarty Singlecut works with everything, but I was surprised with how well it mates up with the Fillmore. I didn't expect that at all.

Guitars. Amps.

Mysteries abound. What are some of your favorites?
Click to expand...
To me it was always Fender guitars and Vox or Fender amps, a Gibson and Marshall, PRS and Mesa/Boogie.

Now the Mesa is owned by Gibson, and PRS is making amps too. It hurts my brain
 
LSchefman said:
Interesting question!

I've been put to the 'tell on a recording' test more than once. The last time I tried it (a few years ago on a bet with a recording engineer who insisted I couldn't tell) I scored 9 out of ten right, which is statistically significant. But so what, really. It was that day, in his room, and I was familiar with the amps. So the dice were loaded in my favor.

There are a lot of variables, the mic(s), mic placement, player, amount of gain, room, recording engineer, effects used, etc.

It would be unfair for me to claim I can always tell on a recording, but I'd say usually I can tell, provided I know the real amp's sound. There are lots of amps I haven't played through, and some amps of the same brand and model sound different from one another..

Playing the amps: yes, that's the most important thing to me, though I do take pride in my ability to properly mic up an amp and have it sound the way I want.

I can also tell the difference between a real 1073 mic preamp and a Universal Audio emulation of a 1073 - in fact, in a back to back recording with the same mic, same acoustic guitar, and same player most people can tell (I once posted a comparison on my former Forum, and everyone heard the difference).
Click to expand...

Much the same as “auto-tune”. I’m not saying it doesn’t have its place, but it’s not a transparent effect, and I hear it plain as day, even used on live performances now.

Mrs AR laughs at me because she can’t hear it, as I’m sure lots of people can’t.

For me it messes with the natural timbre of the voice.
 
Alnus Rubra said:
Much the same as “auto-tune”. I’m not saying it doesn’t have its place, but it’s not a transparent effect, and I hear it plain as day, even used on live performances now.

Mrs AR laughs at me because she can’t hear it, as I’m sure lots of people can’t.

For me it messes with the natural timbre of the voice.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I can hear pitch correction way more than I can hear modeling.

I should be happy about that though, otherwise it’d ruin more songs for me.
 
Alnus Rubra said:
Much the same as “auto-tune”. I’m not saying it doesn’t have its place, but it’s not a transparent effect, and I hear it plain as day, even used on live performances now.

Mrs AR laughs at me because she can’t hear it, as I’m sure lots of people can’t.

For me it messes with the natural timbre of the voice.
Click to expand...
Auto tune can be used with a heavy hand, or a light one. Many of the pitch correction plugins allow one to blend the untreated vocal with the auto-tune effect, and the result can sound very transparent.

There are vocalists who can deliver a track with beautiful timbre, but can't match pitch in a session at a level I want on certain notes. Others can. A lot depends on the song and how the vocalist delivers.

Some folks are sensitive to auto pitch correction. Some, like me, find that even a slightly off-pitch note is unlistenable, and would rather deliver a track that sounds properly pitched, autotune warts and all. I've corrected a single note when necessary. I doubt anyone would even know. Even the mavens who think they know.

Then again, I can't please everyone. Fortunately, there's no need to try to please everyone!

Besides, I've got a lot of problems with you people! (Is festivus over?)

I will indeed run a vocal through Waves Tune or Melodyne as a matter of course whenever I bring in a vocalist for an ad, switch it in, switch it out, compare, blend, whatever. If not needed, great. If needed here and there, even with a great singer, life-saver!

I want the result to sound like a major label record. However, I'll use various settings and techniques depending on what I want to accomplish to make it as transparent as possible. I'd be willing to bet that no one can identify the part of the track that's been corrected, because I'm pretty f#cking good at my job!

I like the Waves stuff slightly more than Melodyne; it's more intuitive for me. Personal preference, not a criticism of Melodyne. I'm all about what gets the work done faster and easier.

Note: Nearly every major label track produced today, including bands where you'd guess "No way they'd ever do that," uses pitch correction. And I'm only using the qualifier 'nearly' because I suppose there might be someone who doesn't. But based on my contacts, it's used across the board unless the artist categorically refuses. Most do not refuse. They know better.

I've also used pitch correction on guitar bends that the player did just slightly off when the rest of the performance was a keeper; I've fattened and tuned snare drums with it on a separate channel via an aux send; I've used it to correct a kick drum in a techno song a friend asked me to mix and master, when someone recorded an 808 kick half-step off pitch - yeah that was a very big problem!

That track went from 'what the f#ck is wrong with this track?" to "Hey, cool track." The band didn't have access to the machine to re-cut the tracks (it was a real 808), so Autotune came to the rescue! How was the result? Ya wouldn't believe it. It was great.

Auto-pitch correct is a fantastic tool that can fix a lot of problems. Can it be misused? I suppose. But mostly it's good.

I'm a YUGE fan of pitch correction - where it's needed. And as I said, usually that's only for a phrase or note.

Do not be so quick to diss Autotune. You only hear it where it's obvious. Most of the time, you don't. In fact, Alnus, I'm confident enough about this that I'd be willing to make a small wager. ;)
 
Last edited:
LSchefman said:
Auto tune can be used with a heavy hand, or a light one. Many of the pitch correction plugins allow one to blend the untreated vocal with the auto-tune effect, and the result can sound very transparent.

There are vocalists who can deliver a track with beautiful timbre, but can't match pitch in a session at a level I want on certain notes. Others can. A lot depends on the song and how the vocalist delivers.

Some folks are sensitive to auto pitch correction. Some, like me, find that even a slightly off-pitch note is unlistenable, and would rather deliver a track that sounds properly pitched, autotune warts and all. I've corrected a single note when necessary. I doubt anyone would even know. Even the mavens who think they know.

Then again, I can't please everyone. Fortunately, there's no need to try to please everyone!

Besides, I've got a lot of problems with you people! (Is festivus over?)

I will indeed run a vocal through Waves Tune or Melodyne as a matter of course whenever I bring in a vocalist for an ad, switch it in, switch it out, compare, blend, whatever. If not needed, great. If needed here and there, even with a great singer, life-saver!

I want the result to sound like a major label record. However, I'll use various settings and techniques depending on what I want to accomplish to make it as transparent as possible. I'd be willing to bet that no one can identify the part of the track that's been corrected, because I'm pretty f#cking good at my job!

I like the Waves stuff slightly more than Melodyne; it's more intuitive for me. Personal preference, not a criticism of Melodyne. I'm all about what gets the work done faster and easier.

Note: Nearly every major label track produced today, including bands where you'd guess "No way they'd ever do that," uses pitch correction. And I'm only using the qualifier 'nearly' because I suppose there might be someone who doesn't. But based on my contacts, it's used across the board unless the artist categorically refuses. Most do not refuse. They know better.

I've also used pitch correction on guitar bends that the player did just slightly off when the rest of the performance was a keeper; I've fattened and tuned snare drums with it on a separate channel via an aux send; I've used it to correct a kick drum in a techno song a friend asked me to mix and master, when someone recorded an 808 kick half-step off pitch - yeah that was a very big problem!

That track went from 'what the f#ck is wrong with this track?" to "Hey, cool track." The band didn't have access to the machine to re-cut the tracks (it was a real 808), so Autotune came to the rescue! How was the result? Ya wouldn't believe it. It was great.

Auto-pitch correct is a fantastic tool that can fix a lot of problems. Can it be misused? I suppose. But mostly it's good.

I'm a YUGE fan of pitch correction - where it's needed. And as I said, usually that's only for a phrase or note.

Do not be so quick to diss Autotune. You only hear it where it's obvious. Most of the time, you don't. In fact, Alnus, I'm confident enough about this that I'd be willing to make a small wager. ;)
Click to expand...

I guess I was in the “airing of grievances” phase of Festivus.

We’ve had this discussion before Les and I appreciate it saves a lot of studio time (money) and as listeners we’ve become adept at hearing perfect music.

My point was directed at the sound or studio engineer that doesn’t use it with discretion and it’s is Cher obvious.

I remember watching a studio engineer correct a vocal for a friends band on one track and he was doing the one note thing, very cleverly I might add. Yes it did take it from “meh” to “yeah”.

I’m not criticising it as an invaluable and probably necessary tool. It’s when someone with very little talent (no names) is made to sound like an amazing vocalist through digital trickery, which disappoints me. There are so many talented singers, who maybe don’t need to be altered (as much).

I (don’t) have a lot of problems with you people.

There was no “diss-ing” going on. I merely made the point that I hear it on occasions where maybe some others don’t.

As far as your “wager”, I might as well just send you the money as I’m a useless gambler. Ironic, I know, for someone who’s about to embark on a trip to Vegas!

There’s an interesting Rick Beato YT video where he quantizes and auto-tunes a Van Halen track and to my mind it just doesn’t sound right.

Anyway, as we were. Festivus is nearly over and we can go back to extolling the virtues of “four month lay-aways” and “baby Yoda” statues.
 
LSchefman said:
Because I'm a ho.
Click to expand...

Apparently there are plenty of street corners in Ampland, because you’re certainly not alone!

Amps sound different one to another, or year to year, sometimes even the same model. This applies also to guitars. And to guitar players! It makes sense that combining certain examples will produce different outcomes, and a player would like some better than the others. A few I’ve used and liked:

513 with Mesa Road King II (made a lot of $$ with this combo over the years)
NF3 with California Tweed (a recent, pleasant discovery)
HB Spruce w/Archtops with HX/DA
Tele with AC30 w/Celestion Blues
Carvin CT6 with Mesa Nomad 55

I could have put many substitutions in there for guitars, but those stick out. I could add a lot of Fractal Audio model combinations but the earlier mention of speaker cabs is a huge deal, and readily apparent in a modeler where changing and combining them involves no money, back injury, or angry sound guys. Speakers can change everything. It’s amazing how switching multiple heads but using one cab can bring your sound into focus.
 
Alnus Rubra said:
I’m not criticising it as an invaluable and probably necessary tool. It’s when someone with very little talent (no names) is made to sound like an amazing vocalist through digital trickery, which disappoints me. There are so many talented singers, who maybe don’t need to be altered (as much).
Click to expand...
That sums up my feelings on this topic very well. I grew up in a family of people who could sing very very well. I won’t get into the ”industry made star” debate again, but it’s not that uncommon to hear people who sound good to very good on recordings to sing a line impromptu and not be able to sound even decent when doing so. And all I can think of after hearing it is that they were MADE into a star.

I also understand that this in various forms, has been going on for years with other aspects of music. All the original albums that we had our guitar hero’s due to what we heard, to later find out studio pros laid down those solos, is another example.

When we find out later that the studio ace did those solos… do we still hold the ”guitar hero” in the same esteem? I do not. The recording process has gotten to such a level, that you can make music sound good, when it’s made by people of basically any skill level. Heck, you can do it all in the computer with no level of ability on an instrument. And all I am saying about that is, the recording can make an average or below singer or musician sound very good. That’s either great, or unappealing depending on your perspective….
 
DreamTheaterRules said:
That sums up my feelings on this topic very well. I grew up in a family of people who could sing very very well. I won’t get into the ”industry made star” debate again, but it’s not that uncommon to hear people who sound good to very good on recordings to sing a line impromptu and not be able to sound even decent when doing so. And all I can think of after hearing it is that they were MADE into a star.

I also understand that this in various forms, has been going on for years with other aspects of music. All the original albums that we had our guitar hero’s due to what we heard, to later find out studio pros laid down those solos, is another example.

When we find out later that the studio ace did those solos… do we still hold the ”guitar hero” in the same esteem? I do not. The recording process has gotten to such a level, that you can make music sound good, when it’s made by people of basically any skill level. Heck, you can do it all in the computer with no level of ability on an instrument. And all I am saying about that is, the recording can make an average or below singer or musician sound very good. That’s either great, or unappealing depending on your perspective….
Click to expand...
Well, the fact is that your guitar heroes' tracks were cut and pasted together, even when they were recorded to tape, because that's what people did by the late '60s.

Even the "aces" had their tracks cut and pasted, physically with tape, and digitally, when that came along.

People have fantasies about this stuff, but I've worked in the trenches.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

opnoob
Roast me all you want but I'll say it: SE is better than S2.
3 4 5
Replies
96
Views
3K
Woodrow F Call
W
Alot_of_PRS
2 Wood Library Guitars but such a difference in brightness
Replies
8
Views
378
Alot_of_PRS
Alot_of_PRS
gush
Finally, some tonal satisfaction
Replies
12
Views
269
Alnus Rubra
Alnus Rubra
E
CE24 and DiMarzio's Tone Zone
Replies
5
Views
239
Em7
E
László
Picking The Amp(s) For A Session Or Show. What's Your Process?
2
Replies
28
Views
797
László
László
Back
Top