DG 30 With Mesa Cab Clone and DG Speaker Cab - Quickie Comparison Demo

[László]

Hello all! I was going to do a post about this Mesa Cab Clone ("CC"), and sort of review how it did with a PRS amp (my Grissom 30 in this case), but I decided that the most important question is:

"How does it sound versus a real cab?"

So I made a couple of clips and posted them on Soundcloud. One clip is the miked up speaker cab, one is the Cab Clone track.

Here's how I did it: I ran the output of my Grissom 30 into the Cab Clone, and also ran the "Thru" output of the Cab Clone into the speaker cabinet. That way, both the Cab Clone and the speaker run at the same time and can be directly compared.

I took the output from the CC and ran that into a mic preamp, and stuck a Shure SM57 against the grille just off the center of one of the speaker cones, and ran it into an identical mic preamp. Hit record, and you have the exact same performance recorded, one of the CC, one of the miked up speaker cabinet.

I wanted to be careful about setting the levels to be close, but this was a quickie demo, and I had the amp set up for a certain tone for a project, so I didn't want to fuss too much to try to match the levels exactly. I kind of eyeballed the meters and made the output levels as close as felt reasonable.

I found that the main difference between the two recorded tracks is that the one recorded with the 57 is a little more present/bright, and seems to accentuate distortion coming off the speaker cone a little more. But a lot of that could just be mic placement. Place the mic a little more toward the edge, and I'm pretty sure the 57 track would sound more like the Clone track.

At the same time, the Cab Clone track has a more solid bottom and lower midrange, with not as much brightness as the DG miked with the 57. The tracks aren't set at carefully matched levels, so you may or not find this, but I heard it in my monitors in the studio.

Really, the difference is more like you'd find with two different microphones than with two completely different methods of recording an amp, which surprised me a lot. Here are the links. The first one is the amp and cabinet miked with the 57, the second is the cab clone:

https://soundcloud.com/lschefman/grissom-amp-and-cab-semi-clean-comparison

https://soundcloud.com/lschefman/cab-clone-grissom-amp-semi-clean

To make the comparison more fair - that is, to make the cab clone sound closer to a mic in a room - I added literally a 1% wet amount of an Eventide room reverb. A tiny amount, but it is more like how I'd use a Cab Clone track in a mix, since the whole point is to use it to mimic the tone of a miked up cabinet.

I'll leave it to you to decide which track you prefer. I could see using either one in a mix, depending on context.

At some point I'll do some overdriven tracks.

 

[László]

I'm doing this second post because there are a couple of things I haven't mentioned yet.

One is that if you use the +4db line out (not the direct out) you get the tone of the amp but without the speaker cab emulation. That means you can record your amp tone without a speaker emulation, and later run the track into an impulse response like a Red Wirez impulse and see how it sounds with your amp, but with different mics and speakers. That's a good option for a lot of folks.

Second, the front panel output level control has no effect on the headphone jack, according to the manual. You want to make it louder, turn the amp up. Softer, turn the amp down. This is because the device is completely passive, so there isn't any amplification of the signal going to the headphone jack.

Additional thoughts:

Mesa says that running the Clone along with a reactive load like a speaker will make the sound a little different from the Clone running alone because the Clone is otherwise a purely resistive device.

The manual cautions that this is not like an attenuator or load box, and is not designed to lower the amp's output volume live, it's strictly a direct recording device.

Finally, I'll also note that in my test today, I had the clone plugged into the amp for about half an hour while I set levels, etc., and did a few test passes. It did not get hot. I had the master on the amp turned up to about 2 o'clock, which is pretty loud.

 

[Bluesboy998]

Sounds beautiful Les I use the cab clone on my mark 5/25 at gigs through th pa sounds incredible.

 

[Boogie]

Really, the difference is more like you'd find with two different microphones

Yes, that's what I heard, too. This dispels much of the original negative response heard when the CC was first released, suggesting that the problems were due to misuse of the device. M/B may also be guilty of over marketing the devices flexibility: just because it can do something doesn't mean that it is it's primary or best feature. Honestly, your CC recording reminded me of the difference captured with an old Redbox. Works in a pinch, sounds pretty good and is a useful tool.

Thanks Les! Good info, as usual.

 

[László]

I can see I'm going to get a ton of use out of this thing, because fundamentally, it sounds good and it's so easy to use.

Clearly you get the tone of your own amp that you've lovingly set up your way, and fussed over down to the tubes you stick in it. I'm surprised at how much nuance it's capable of. I honestly thought it'd be more compromised sounding.

I picked a mostly clean/slightly gritty tone because I thought it'd be difficult for the cab clone to do right, and therefore it'd be a good test.

Sounds beautiful Les I use the cab clone on my mark 5/25 at gigs through th pa sounds incredible.

My son was pretty excited about his CC, and also mentioned that he could probably cut an entire record just by setting a 5/25 on his console and using it for everything.

Yes, that's what I heard, too. This dispels much of the original negative response heard when the CC was first released, suggesting that the problems were due to misuse of the device. M/B may also be guilty of over marketing the devices flexibility: just because it can do something doesn't mean that it is it's primary or best feature. Honestly, your CC recording reminded me of the difference captured with an old Redbox. Works in a pinch, sounds pretty good and is a useful tool.

Thanks Les! Good info, as usual.

I figured a recording of the device would be the best way to decide whether it works. Well, it works, it's not expensive for what it does, and it's very portable. I don't honestly know how they could improve it without making it a lot more complicated and expensive.

I messed with the CC track last night just to see how it would take EQ, etc., and I'm confident that I can use EQ to make it even livelier, though I didn't want to do that for this demo for obvious reasons.

I honestly think it sounds a little less brittle in the example tracks than the miked-up cab, but that is probably a placement issue as I think I had the 57 too near the center of the dustcap on the speaker.

These things (as well as modelers like the AxeFX and Kemper) can solve a significant problem for bands that do big tours; the cost of moving big speaker cabs in road cases around the world for a long tour is usually heavy six figure money. You'd be very surprised at how much. When you see bands making non-traditional choices, most of the time it ain't for the tone - it's to save big on shipping and transportation.

This money is important to bands these days especially, since record sales aren't what they once were. And the fewer big tour items there are to move, money is also saved on roadie setup, setup time, etc.

Some bands are going to be very happy playing live with their modeling rigs, some would rather take a tube head and perhaps use something portable like this CC thing, but the point is that now they have choices that can save them money on tours.

Add in the ability to use something like this in small rehearsal spaces to control volume and be able to hear everyone in a mix a little better with in-ear monitors, since external noise is shut out, and you have a very useful little tool.

 

[aristotle]

That's pretty neat Les. I didn't have a preference one way or the other.

Regarding using something like this live (or a mic'd cab for that matter when most or all of the sound is coming through the PA) I just can't seem to dig it. Maybe it's the type of PA setup that we're using, but it always seems like a tinny recreation to me. In fact, I've never heard "great guitar tone" at large live events, and I attribute it to the fact that the guitars are running through the PA speakers. Or at those events, maybe it's just the feel of a huge space that gets in the way.

I certainly understand the practicalities involved, and maybe there just isn't a solution. And maybe it's just me... We run QSC KW153's as mains, KW181s as subs and K10s as monitors for what it's worth. I have a spare pair of KW152's, and I've gone so far as to dedicate them, along with a separate mixer to the guitars to see if it's a matter of getting muddled with bass and drums in the drivers, or power handling, or whatever. No dice. (and even if I'd have liked that, I'd rather haul around a 4x12 than a separate set of KW152's).

Don't mean to get the thread off-track, since you were mainly addressing the recording aspects... I'd be interested in other's experiences though.

 

[László]

That's pretty neat Les. I didn't have a preference one way or the other.

Regarding using something like this live (or a mic'd cab for that matter when most or all of the sound is coming through the PA) I just can't seem to dig it. Maybe it's the type of PA setup that we're using, but it always seems like a tinny recreation to me. In fact, I've never heard "great guitar tone" at large live events, and I attribute it to the fact that the guitars are running through the PA speakers. Or at those events, maybe it's just the feel of a huge space that gets in the way.

I certainly understand the practicalities involved, and maybe there just isn't a solution. And maybe it's just me... We run QSC KW153's as mains, KW181s as subs and K10s as monitors for what it's worth. I have a spare pair of KW152's, and I've gone so far as to dedicate them, along with a separate mixer to the guitars to see if it's a matter of getting muddled with bass and drums in the drivers, or power handling, or whatever. No dice. (and even if I'd have liked that, I'd rather haul around a 4x12 than a separate set of KW152's).

Don't mean to get the thread off-track, since you were mainly addressing the recording aspects... I'd be interested in other's experiences though.

Well, for your kind of band, going direct makes no sense, your monitoring system isn't like a concert venue's monitoring system with flying speakers, giant subs, and a dedicated front-of-house large format console with killer mic preamps, and outboard processing.

And you're not spending six figure money having your cabs hauled around. For you, putting up a speaker cab, whether you blend it with monitors or not, makes the most sense, and will give the best sound.

I was referring to a band like the ones my son toured with, who are spending a literal fortune hauling cabs around.

Incidentally, the main culprit of bad tone at large live concert events isn't really the recording, monitoring, or sound reproduction equipment, it's the acoustics of the venue itself.

I defy you to show me a basketball arena, hockey or football stadium with superb acoustics. Even theater venues are not acoustically designed for the sound pressure levels involved in rock concerts.

Then too, the person mixing the event makes a significant difference. When my son toured with 30 Seconds to Mars the first time, and they came to Detroit, they played a 6,000 seat theater, the Fillmore. The sound for the opening act that was mixed by the in-house guy (whose mixes I always dislike) was predictably terrible. For the Mars team, which included the CB7 band my son performed with on that leg of the tour, they had their own mixer instead of the in-house guy.

The sound was phenomenal, including the guitars. Why? Because it was important to the band and they were willing to pay someone good to come along on the tour. The guitar cabs were all offstage, in isolation cabinets similar to the Rivera Silent Sister. And when I say the guitars sounded great, I mean "sounds like the record" great. So yes, it can be easily done without large speaker cabs onstage, there are good alternatives.

The next leg of that tour (the second to last one he did with them) was Europe, and they took my son along principally to handle simulcast mixes because they thought that was as important as the FOH mixer. That's pretty cool, and great attention to detail. And most bands would never do it.

I mention this simply to show that there are issues that are well beyond the electronics technology that have a big impact on what you hear at a concert.

 

[sergiodeblanc]

Sounding nice!

 

[BlackMoons]

Thanks for your time and effort doing this, Les.

 

[László]

Thanks for your time and effort doing this, Les.

No biggie, just took a few minutes. I hope it helps others who are considering one, or something similar. :top:

 

[aristotle]

Well, for your kind of band, going direct makes no sense, your monitoring system isn't like a concert venue's monitoring system with flying speakers, giant subs, and a dedicated front-of-house large format console with killer mic preamps, and outboard processing.

And you're not spending six figure money having your cabs hauled around. For you, putting up a speaker cab, whether you blend it with monitors or not, makes the most sense, and will give the best sound.

I was referring to a band like the ones my son toured with, who are spending a literal fortune hauling cabs around.

Incidentally, the main culprit of bad tone at large live concert events isn't really the recording, monitoring, or sound reproduction equipment, it's the acoustics of the venue itself.

I defy you to show me a basketball arena, hockey or football stadium with superb acoustics. Even theater venues are not acoustically designed for the sound pressure levels involved in rock concerts.

Then too, the person mixing the event makes a significant difference. When my son toured with 30 Seconds to Mars the first time, and they came to Detroit, they played a 6,000 seat theater, the Fillmore. The sound for the opening act that was mixed by the in-house guy (whose mixes I always dislike) was predictably terrible. For the Mars team, which included the CB7 band my son performed with on that leg of the tour, they had their own mixer instead of the in-house guy.

The sound was phenomenal, including the guitars. Why? Because it was important to the band and they were willing to pay someone good to come along on the tour. The guitar cabs were all offstage, in isolation cabinets similar to the Rivera Silent Sister. And when I say the guitars sounded great, I mean "sounds like the record" great. So yes, it can be easily done without large speaker cabs onstage, there are good alternatives.

The next leg of that tour (the second to last one he did with them) was Europe, and they took my son along principally to handle simulcast mixes because they thought that was as important as the FOH mixer. That's pretty cool, and great attention to detail. And most bands would never do it.

I mention this simply to show that there are issues that are well beyond the electronics technology that have a big impact on what you hear at a concert.

Thanks for the info Les! There are plenty of bands around here that do get a majority of their sound out of the PA mains. Not so much club bands, but event bands that do everything from weddings to corporate parties to charity events. These guys are usually super over the top pros that scale their production to the event, and mix live musicians and recorded backing tracks depending on the size and budget of the gig. The irony is, according to my observations and taste, that although I might not be bowled over by the "tone" with these events bands, it's a far more pleasant product taken as a whole. Even the popular A-list large club bands around here...ones with great musicians and vocals, have a loud, flat mush mix where solos get lost in the background, vocals can't be heard, with a couple of exceptions, keys are shrill, and in general, it's a bunch of (admittedly tight) noise. I certainly don't have any first hand experience with larger venue concert situations, so can't comment on that stuff so much. I'm a piker, so I'm certainly not saying that we're any better...but that doesn't necessarily disqualify me from forming an opinion. What you say makes sense though, and it's probably why things are the way they are. It's fun to experiment with in any case...

 

[László]

Thanks for the info Les! There are plenty of bands around here that do get a majority of their sound out of the PA mains. Not so much club bands, but event bands that do everything from weddings to corporate parties to charity events. These guys are usually super over the top pros that scale their production to the event, and mix live musicians and recorded backing tracks depending on the size and budget of the gig. The irony is, according to my observations and taste, that although I might not be bowled over by the "tone" with these events bands, it's a far more pleasant product taken as a whole. Even the popular A-list large club bands around here...ones with great musicians and vocals, have a loud, flat mush mix where solos get lost in the background, vocals can't be heard, with a couple of exceptions, keys are shrill, and in general, it's a bunch of (admittedly tight) noise. I certainly don't have any first hand experience with larger venue concert situations, so can't comment on that stuff so much. I'm a piker, so I'm certainly not saying that we're any better...but that doesn't necessarily disqualify me from forming an opinion. What you say makes sense though, and it's probably why things are the way they are. It's fun to experiment with in any case...

Definitely fun to experiment with!

And I agree with you, I'd much rather listen to a wedding/event band for a night, that is well-rehearsed, with good players, and volume levels and mix scaled to the room they're playing in, than a rock band that hasn't got the experience (or know-how) to scale their sheer wall of sound to the venue. That's something lots of event and wedding bands do as a matter of course.

Really, if I have to put in earplugs to protect my hearing at a live show of any kind - as I often do - what is the point? Do I really enjoy that? Hell no! I get the feeling that bands want to entertain themselves more than the audience. Well, hell, I know it's true from my own youthful gigging days. LOL I was there for my own amusement!

Largely, that's the fault of the FOH guy mixing the band, if there is one, but some of the responsibility has to fall on the band. If a wedding or event band can put out great sound regardless of the genre of the tune they're playing, why can't a club band do the same thing? What is up with that?

 

[ozboy]

Well a small segue way but the drummers and bass players I see at rehearsal generally wear earplugs. Drums are inherently "loud" and when the band plays at their level the volume is above 100 db which is bad for hearing.

 

[László]

Well a small segue way but the drummers and bass players I see at rehearsal generally wear earplugs. Drums are inherently "loud" and when the band plays at their level the volume is above 100 db which is bad for hearing.

You know, I come from a time when drummers didn't play very loud, and no one needed earplugs. In fact, if you go to a jazz club today, you can hear drumming that lets people chat in the same room.

Even in the late 60s, bands just weren't all that loud. Heck, Ringo used to put pads of some kind on his drums to reduce the ringing and volume at Abbey Road.

It wasn't until the early 70s that the crazy volume wars really got going.

It is not a coincidence that around the same time, lots of clubs and bars began to stop hiring live bands, and it's been a downward spiral ever since. Lots of people are tired of the relentless assault on their hearing that seeing live music has become. By the time I was in my 30s, I didn't want to hear it either. Sure, I'd go to a big concert event, but to hear some half assed local band thrashing out the noise for an evening? No thanks.

 

[g.wizz]

great wealth of info and demos as usual Les
thank you :beer:

 

[Boogie]

I'd much rather listen to a wedding/event band for a night, that is well-rehearsed, with good players, and volume levels and mix scaled to the room they're playing in, than a rock band that hasn't got the experience (or know-how) to scale their sheer wall of sound to the venue. That's something lots of event and wedding bands do as a matter of course

The success of a band can be directly attributed to their ability to scale their mix, if all other factors are considered equal. Most venues have preconceived notions of acceptable volume levels (right or wrong) and if you can't meet those notions, you won't return. In a way you become part musician, part psychotherapist, part audio engineer, part longshoreman, and part used car salesman. Playing in a venue the size of a walk-in closet? A bar covered in hardwood toungue-in-groove...floor, ceiling and walls? A bar with a balcony and hardwood? You'd better know your stuff. Otherwise...

Largely, that's the fault of the FOH guy mixing the band, if there is one

More likely than not, there is no soundman. Of all our venues, two had in-house talent and we brought a pro to the more critical and outdoor shows. The rest of the time, we relied on the vocalist, who owns the PA...and that did not always go so well.

If I had a reliable, simple, and reasonably priced ultra-low volume solution, that didn't sound like doo-doo, leveraging my existing gear, I'd be interested. But in my experience, there's always a compromise...and often, an unacceptable one.

 

[László]

If I had a reliable, simple, and reasonably priced ultra-low volume solution, that didn't sound like doo-doo, leveraging my existing gear, I'd be interested. But in my experience, there's always a compromise...and often, an unacceptable one.

I think there's a difference between usefully solid volume, and ear-splitting volume, and most bands haven't got a clue as to how to tell the difference. I'll also say this - sadly, in terms of chops, most bands would have a hard time playing "Happy Birthday," especially the rhythm section.

When last I gigged, and it's been several years, we played with two of my session guys, that we hired for the gigs. One is the drummer the Detroit Symphony calls for pieces that incorporate a trap kit. He also rocks out, and plays a groove so deep and wide that you can swim in it. Makes playing so easy, so simple. It's like time is slowed down even when you're playing fast. But he is also able to control his dynamics for the room and the gig.

The bass player was a guy who had toured with Prince at one point. He and the drummer had done a lot of gigs together over the years, and both are great guys who are fun to play with. He also was able to play ridiculously well, and control his dynamics.

When you have a rhythm section like that, there is no loudness war. The guitar players were able to match their dynamics, and as I was mainly on keys or 12 string, it was a piece of cake for me to play. In fact, I used to just show up for the gig, I never practiced once with the band. That's how easy it was to play with these guys.

And audiences loved us.

I'm not talking audiences full of old codgers my age. The band was half my age, and we played college age and other GenX clubs.

Anyway, the point is, if you want a reasonably priced, low volume solution that doesn't sound like doo-doo, it's called 'finding the right musicians.'

I'll give you another example. When I was in college in Ann Arbor in the early 70s, the two bands who played most at one of the clubs in Ann Arbor that I hung out at were Commander Cody and the Lost Planet Airmen, and Asleep At The Wheel. As you know, both bands went on to greater fame within a short time.

Never, ever, did these bands play at more than moderate level. Granted, they weren't metal bands, but they rocked out plenty in that country-rock style they were so good at. Because they were really, really fine musicians, they were able to do everything, and do it impressively, without anyone in the place having to put their hands over their ears, wear earplugs, etc.

My college band once opened for Commander Cody, and it was embarrassing how loudly we played, and how much better they sounded. I never forgot that. They sounded better because they were better, more experienced players than we were, and understood how to control their dynamics.

The good news is that it is not difficult to learn to control dynamics. People just have to want to do it.

 

[Boogie]

if you want a reasonably priced, low volume solution that doesn't sound like doo-doo, it's called 'finding the right musicians.'

Under normal circumstances, I'd totally agree, hands down. But with this group, I'm on the other side of the fence. Our drummer is a phenomenal talent and of the age where he has nothing to prove with volume. He's a true to the term 'finesse player' that represents the pinnacle of percussion players I've had the honor of sharing a stage. Bass players have come and gone but each one successfully synchronized with his drummer, perfectly. None of which has anything to do with volume issues. That has been, IMO, solely due to the inadequate use and configuration of the PA. It's the head-to-head frequency competition with the guitars that's been such a challenge. Tonal consistency of the guitars drives me nuts but is not my real concern...

 

[László]

Under normal circumstances, I'd totally agree, hands down. But with this group, I'm on the other side of the fence. Our drummer is a phenomenal talent and of the age where he has nothing to prove with volume. He's a true to the term 'finesse player' that represents the pinnacle of percussion players I've had the honor of sharing a stage. Bass players have come and gone but each one successfully synchronized with his drummer, perfectly. None of which has anything to do with volume issues. That has been, IMO, solely due to the inadequate use and configuration of the PA. It's the head-to-head frequency competition with the guitars that's been such a challenge. Tonal consistency of the guitars drives me nuts but is not my real concern...

Then go old-school and put the PA on the vocals, only.

I heard Hendrix, Cream, the Who, and many other bands play with mics only on vocals in the days when they played relatively small venues. When bands went arena rock in the mid 70s, that changed because of the size of the venues, not because there was some wacky discovery that a mixer was needed for bands!

Fergodsakes it's not about the frickin' guitars. If there's head to head competition - and there shouldn't be - get rid of one guitar player.

In a small room, there is no need whatsoever for professional or semi-professional musicians with experience to mic up guitar cabinets, bass cabinets, or drums, and leave the sound balance to some dude who works for the club. Do it yourselves, with your own dynamics.

I'm waiting for some young guy to tell me, "If it's too loud, you're too old." Well, I'm in my 60s and still rockin'. I write music and record and mix it for a living. Deafness is not in my plan. How about you?

 

[alantig]

I'm waiting for some young guy to tell me, "If it's too loud, you're too old." Well, I'm in my 60s and still rockin'. I write music and record and mix it for a living. Deafness is not in my plan. How about you?

What?