California Blonde VS. Fender SFX Acoustisonic
ken
vocals.
Thanks
Ken
RPCarnighan
Are you asking for opinions on the Acoustisonic Pro or Junior. I think, the
Pro and the Blonde would be more comparable, but I only know what I read. I
am particularly interested in reading comments from those who have used both
the Blonde and the Acoustisonic (Pro).
Lonesome 12 String Picker
North Carolina
ken <k...@bsc.net> wrote in message news:8da9cc$lcv$1...@server.cntfl.com...
Hojo2x
>> Ok. Let the opinions fly. Which one is better? For both guitar and>>
vocals.
A lot of this is just personal opinion, and different folks will find valid
reasons for preferring one over the other.
For what it's worth, I recently demo'ed a couple of each of these in two local
music stores. In each case I preferred the Fender Acoustisonic, in both the
stack version and the smaller one, over the California Blonde and the
Strawberry Blonde. By a considerable margin. The basic SOUND just seemed to
be better.
But that's just me. Your mileage may vary.
Wade Hampton Miller
Robert Smith
sound hole pickup and an Epiphone Emporer Regent jazz box through it. It
sounds good and when you turn all of the effects off the acoustic sound
of the Martin stays intact.
The SFX gadget sounds good in my large family room in the corner. It
kind of radiates sound off of the wall kind of like the old Bose 901
stereo speakers did. It fills up the room instead of just blasting
straight out into the room.
When my brother comes over and plugs his Telecaster in and cranks it
up he can easily overdrive it but that isn't going to happen to often.
Never tried a California Blonde, they didn't have one when the money
was in my pocket, and the Strawberry Blonde didn't make an impression on
me but it sounded fine. I have heard good things about them and Trace
Eliot combos unless you got the bucks for the Riviera Sedona.
Knotbob
Dave Brichler
"ken" <k...@bsc.net> wrote:
> Ok. Let the opinions fly. Which one is better? For both guitar and
> vocals.
>
>
> Ken
Yo Ken,
I just stumbled on this website -- consumer reviews of all sorts of
gear. Plug in "SWR" and/or "Acoustasonic" for customer opinions of each
amp.
Personally, I think you need to assess your application. The SFX uses
3-D directional speaker direction, i.e., it fills the sides as well as
projects out the front. A useful effect in a solo or small acoustic
ensemble stage setting, however, I think this effect would be rather
lost in a louder electric band setting. The Acoustasonic Pro is
probably more of an even comparison with the C.B. in that context, plus
it contains all the same SFX circuitry, however, I don't know of a
California Blonde owner who isn't pleased with his stage sound.
My own opinion is to give Fender & SWR equal shakes in the faithful
reproduction department, with Trace-Elliott running a close third. Try
'em all -- Just keep in mind if you intend to use it in close proximity
with other backline amps, go for the power.
Best,
Dave
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Troubleman
Acoustasonic SFX against SWR's California Blonde. Both are great
amps; I selected the California Blonde. I use it with it's
matching powered ext cabinet (Blonde on Blonde); I love my rig.
Paired with the Blonde on Blonde cabinet, the comparison isn't
even close. Even without it - the Cali Blonde has more headroom,
and it definately has more bottom end (SWR's bass amp heritage
really shows). It can also hang with an aggressive drummer
onstage; the Acoustasonic SFX has trouble doing so. While
A/B'ing them I turned off the SFX in the Fender and the reverb
(spring!) in the Cali Blonde, and just listened the the amps
themselves. IMHO the Cali Blonde had a better fundamental tone.
Fender's SFX are really cool, but the are just that - effects.
They don't translate if you need to mike the amp. The Cali
Blonde is also a bit more compact (easier to transport). Both
are great amps. If I'd the extra cash and found an Acoustasonic
SFX used for a decent price....
As an aside - I think the Fender Acoustasonic Jr sounds better
than the Acoustasonic SFX; the Jr is just severely underpowered.
The Strawberry Blonde isn't nearly the performer that the Cali
Blonde is......
peace,
jb
In article <20000415171012...@ng-cq1.aol.com>,
hoj...@aol.com (Hojo2x) wrote:
>For what it's worth, I recently demo'ed a couple of each of
these in two local
>music stores. In each case I preferred the Fender
Acoustisonic, in both the
>stack version and the smaller one, over the California Blonde
and the
>Strawberry Blonde. By a considerable margin. The basic SOUND
just seemed to
>be better.
>
>But that's just me. Your mileage may vary.
>
>
>Wade Hampton Miller
>
>
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
RCarnighan
What kind of setup are you using re: Acoustic pick-up and preamp with your
guitar.
Ron
Lonesome 12 String Picker
North Carolina
Troubleman (Jay Brown) <troublema...@rocketmail.com.invalid> wrote in
message news:292a7210...@usw-ex0105-036.remarq.com...
RCarnighan
Troubleman
system, through an LR Baggs ParaAcoustic DI (I *almost always*
use that box, no matter what I'm going through), Taylor 410K -
Fishman Rare Earth Blend, Taylor 414KCE - B-band New Frontier.
Fender "FrankenStrat" (Stratocaster made from about a dozen
different Strats) with an LR Baggs Bridge-X piezo bridge and
Control-X pre-amp. I run the piezos through the Baggs Para DI
into channel one of the Cali Blonde. The Strat's magnetic single
coils go through an Akai HeadRush Delay, then through a Line6
POD, then into channel two of the Cali Blonde. Hmmmmm.... I've
an old beater Ovation Custom Balladeer (one of the 1st ones)
that even sounds "okay" through the Cali Blonde.
In the toybin there's a TC Electronics Compressor, Lexicon
MPX100 Dual Channel Processor, a Lexicon JamMan, and a Sabine
Feedback Exterminator. I find that I use effects less and less
these days; the MPX100 is used sparingly if at all. The JamMan
is pretty much song-based, and I'm thinking of retiring it in
favor of a Line6 Delay Modeling pedal. The compressor is always
on, but used sparingly. The Feedback Exterminator is a silent
sentinal (sp?)
peace,
jb
In article <38fb5...@news1.prserv.net>, "RCarnighan"
Troubleman
are electric guitarists (I'm a reformed StratCat). Other than
reverb and chorus, most of the acousticats I've run across don't
delve into effects too much. From time to time I do run across
an acoustic-guitar based looper (delay loops).....
jb
In article <20000417232707...@nso-cf.aol.com>,
mka...@aol.comspamnyet (MKarlo) wrote:
>In article <006f0b7c...@usw-ex0105-036.remarq.com>,
Troubleman (Jay
>Brown) <troublema...@rocketmail.com.invalid> writes:
>
>>In the toybin...
>
>That's a great way to put it Jay. Which leads me to a
question. I don't see
>where effects are discussed much in this group, even those that
are supposedly
>appropriate for acoustic guitar. What's up with that? Does
the general
>acoustic community regard them with disdain, or even outright
contempt? I'm
>especially interested in hearing from those who perform for a
live audience.
>Could it be that FX are something you just leave to the sound
guy? Just
>pondering the ponderable.
>
>
>
>
>Mitch
>Enjoying the Journey
MKarlo
125D; the SFX, etc.)
Mitch
Enjoying the Journey
MKarlo
RCarnighan
Ron
Lonesome 12 String Picker
North Carolina
Troubleman (Jay Brown) <troublema...@rocketmail.com.invalid> wrote in
message news:006f0b7c...@usw-ex0105-036.remarq.com...
Keith Ganz
>That's a great way to put it Jay. Which leads me to a question. I don't see
>where effects are discussed much in this group, even those that are supposedly
>appropriate for acoustic guitar. What's up with that? Does the general
>acoustic community regard them with disdain, or even outright contempt? I'm
>especially interested in hearing from those who perform for a live audience.
>Could it be that FX are something you just leave to the sound guy? Just
>pondering the ponderable.
When we all figure out how to recreate the exact acoustic sound of the
guitar through an amp, with all the nuances and subtleties, then we
will start covering it up with effects.
Keith Ganz
_____________________________________________________
Sound clips and info at http://www.mindspring.com/~mushmouth
Troubleman
In article <8dfb9g$s87$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, Dave Brichler The
Acoustasonic Pro is
>probably more of an even comparison with the C.B. in that
context, plus
>it contains all the same SFX circuitry, however, I don't know
of a
>California Blonde owner who isn't pleased with his stage sound.
Does the Acoustasonic Pro have the SFX? I know it has alot of
onboard digital effects, but I didn't think the spacial
expanding SFX was among them.....
jb
Dave Brichler
Troubleman (Jay Brown) <troublema...@rocketmail.com.invalid>
wrote:
>
>
> In article <8dfb9g$s87$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, Dave Brichler The
> Acoustasonic Pro is probably more of an even comparison with the C.B.
> in that context, plus it contains all the same SFX circuitry, however,
> I don't know of a California Blonde owner who isn't pleased with his
> stage sound.
>
> Does the Acoustasonic Pro have the SFX? I know it has alot of
> onboard digital effects, but I didn't think the spacial
> expanding SFX was among them.....
>
> jb
No JB, you're right. It does NOT have the SFX 300-degree spatial
dispersion. What I should have said was that it has all the same
onboard digital effect circuitry. Because it IS a forward-projecting
combo, I think it's a better comparison with the SWR.
For anyone interested, some specs from http://www.fender.com :
Acoustasonic Pro
The new Acoustasonic Pro offers players the ultimate in acoustic
instrument amplification. Guitars, violins, mandolins, and voice are
all reproduced with exceptional purity. Two channel operation, 160
Watts of toneful stereo power, dual processing and 99 sophisticated
digital multi-effect presets voiced at Fender's in-house digital lab.
Stereo chorus + multi-tap delays + reverb; flange; auto pan;
vibratone; reverb halls, plates, and rooms to name but a few. Store
your favorite four presets with the push of a button, and access them
with the included footswitch. All the features performing professionals
demand.
Specs: 160 Watts stereo (80x80), two independent channels, Gain, Treble,
Mid, Bass, EFX send, EFX return, master Volume, instrument and low-Z
inputs, 2 x 8" speakers & high frequency horn, dual notch filters,
String Dynamics, Stereo RCA inputs with level control, attack control,
tuner out and mute, balanced Line Out, stereo master EFX Loop, mono
instrument channel EFX Loop, 4 button footswitch included, Weight 45
lbs, Size: 18"high x 24"wide x 12"deep.
--and--
Acoustasonic Stereo SFX
Independent channels for acoustic instruments and vocals, 300
degrees of balanced dispersion (via SFX matrix), String Dynamics
control, feedback eliminating Notch Filter, Dual Channel power
amplifier, and 32 Stereo Digital presets are but a few of this amps
many features.
Specs: 80 Watts per channel (160W RMS), 32 stereo digital presets,
SFX Matrix, Fender Special Design speakers 10", 8" and Piezo horn.
Weight: 62 lbs. Size: 29.5" high x 17.5" wide x 13" deep.
Side note: I'm rather curious why they stayed with twin 8's in the Pro.
The power's double that of the Acoustasonic Jr., which also has stereo
8's. Why not go up to at least twin 10's?.
Any rate, hope this helps,
Troubleman
better. I really think the Acoustasonic Jr fundamentally sounds
better than the Acoustasonic SFX. That said, I really do like
the spacial expansion effect. In a small venue (or
bedroom/basement recording studio) it really does sound good..
peace,
Dave Brichler
Troubleman (Jay Brown) <troublema...@rocketmail.com.invalid>
wrote:
> better. I really think the Acoustasonic Jr fundamentally sounds
> better than the Acoustasonic SFX. That said, I really do like
> the spacial expansion effect. In a small venue (or
> bedroom/basement recording studio) it really does sound good..
>
> peace,
>
> jb
JB,
I'll second the comments on the Junior. Have one, love it. Just isn't
loud enough in a band mix.
Also, to change the topic, have you seen the SFX Satellite? It's a
blackface 1x12"x80W add-on to any other amp's stero FX loop, and gives
the same dispersal effect as the Acoustasonic SFX, plus has it's own
onboard FX. I'm thinkin' 3-D Telecaster tones here, dude -- with
surfers on waves crashin' over the stage & shit Tele tones.
My Princeton Chorus oughta drive it just fine. For that matter, so
could the Junior, nicht wahr?
Best,
dca...@attglobal.net
few other brands. For me, the SFX had the best ratio of sound quality to
volume to price of the group and I bought it. If only it had wheels....
Paz
Dave
Dave Brichler wrote in message <8dko5d$t26$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
Troubleman
escargot - one man's fine French delicacy is another man's
buttered garden pest. Let you're ears decide for you....
peace,
jb
In article <38fef...@news1.prserv.net>,
Mudlumps
ken <k...@bsc.net> wrote
Let the opinions fly. Which one is better? For both guitar and
| vocals.
|
I listened to the Blonde's and the Acoustasonics, both with my still inept
fingers on the guitar and the fingers of a guy that could make the guitar do
supernatural acts before plugging in. I couldn't get Blondes to sound good,
but really liked the Acoustasonic. The other guy got the Blondes dialed in
pretty nice. He plugged into the Acoustasonic and didn't have to do a thing
to make them sound good. I ended up buying the Jr. It's great for practice
and I also use it in a ~350 person church on Sundays. And I run my mike
through it from time to time when there a lot of us taking up the available
channels on the church system. I have the amp turned up a bit, and so have
to move it away from the mic to elimate feedback. But it all works, and
sounds great. I love it.
Skink
I was searching for a good amp earlier this year and found a review of some
of the current acoustical amps at
www.guitarplayer.com\archive\gear\bt9910.shtml
that helped me decide.
I decided that if I could cut the price of the SFX, I might as well wait
until I could swing the
Acoustasonic Pro. I was able to get a Pro localy (S.W. Florida) for under
$1000 and have no regretts.
The Pro is smaller, lighter, packed with power and features that in my
opinion made it more practical then the SFX. Some time down the road I would
be interested in adding the Acoustasonic SFX as a sattilite or adding a SFX
Sattilite by Fender which has a larger speaker.
The controls and I/O's on the Pro are all there, I have 3 times the pre
sets on effects (the DSP on this is fantastic, can have effects on both mic
and guitar or on guitar w/ any reverb on mic) and plenty of power (160 W).
Plus I carry about 20 lbs. less weight and is 18" high instead of the 29" of
the SFX.
I am just learning to play and thought this was a good way to burn the
ol' tax return and I am glad I did. I dont think I will ever have to replace
this amp for want of more features or quality of sound. I am sure I will own
more guitars (ya, I'm hooked) but plan on having this amp for a long, long
time.
Just so you know what I am plugging into it, but not wanting to sound
like a Fender ad, I have a Fender DG 41s w/ a Martin Thin Line pick up. The
DG 41s has solid spruce (Grade A I think) top and sides and back are good
quality rosewood, all nicely bookmatched. It sounds as good as some guitars
going for 3 times the price I payed (under $400). I do not know how the
Marin pick up stands up to the compitition but it cant be all that bad,
sounds pretty good here and at about $90 installed I have no complants.
This is my first post to the group and hope it helps someone. I have been
lurking out here for a few months and think the people here are first class.
Thanks to all that have posted here in the past, you are an interesting
and informative bunch.
One more thing, before I even got my amp home I stoped and picked up a GOOD
surge protecter. I have one on the old computer and that amp cost almost as
much!
Best to all,
Skink
"Mudlumps" <botte...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:9DNU4.72179$WF.40...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...