What if Hendrix used a solid state amp????
Gary Raymond Mottola
better than solid state amps. Since what sounds good/bad is a very, very
subjective issue, is it possible that we think tube amps sound better
because that is the sound rock and roll was built on. What if solid state
amps and not tube amps were around when chuck berry and jimi hendrix and
all the other guitar gods were doing there thing -- and than tube amps
came along. Would we still find the "warmer" and more "rounded"
distorted tones that tube amps produce superior to solid state amps? Or
would we say tube amps sound artificial because they do not sound like
the solid state amps that came before them. Perhaps this line of
thinking is wrong and tube amps do sound better than solid state amps --
regardless of the history of rock and roll and the evolution of musical
instruments. I would be very interested in any opinions on this topic so
fire away.
W wittman
>>Although opinions vary, there is a general consensus that tube amps
sound
better than solid state amps. Since what sounds good/bad is a very, very
subjective issue, is it possible that we think tube amps sound better
because that is the sound rock and roll was built on. What if solid state
amps and not tube amps were around when chuck berry and jimi hendrix and
all the other guitar gods were doing there thing -- and than tube amps
came along. Would we still find the "warmer" and more "rounded"
distorted tones that tube amps produce superior to solid state amps? Or
would we say tube amps sound artificial because they do not sound like
the solid state amps that came before them......
well i can say that a similar (or at least reasonably comparable)
transition occurred in recording consoles (and tape machines for that
matter)
the industry started with tube desks and machines and then progressed to
transistors and from discrete transistors to the now ubiquitous I-C chips.
and each technology had its sound...
it's true that for example when the transistor desk went into Abbey Road
the engineers complained that they just couldn't get the Bass Drum sound
they wanted anymore like on the valve desk.
but i know that although i love SOME tube/valve gear (compressors in
particular) *MY* preference is for discrete transistor technology desks,
and *I* prefer that sound to valve mic pre-amps (and i like ic amps the
least)
so although we cut our teeth listening to tube recorded records, i still
think that discrete transistor recordings were an 'improvement'
does this answer your question? <g>
*I* think valve guitar and bass amps just sound BETTER...that is, more
musical, no matter HOW you place them on the time line.
there will always be some sounds that only one technology or the other
will get (for example the Big Muff)...but on the whole tubes sound better
to *me*
does anyone SERIOUSLY think we'd even have transistor amps today if they
weren;t easier and CHEAPER for the manufacturers?
not
it is an economic , not an artistic decision...and then afterwards come
the rationalisations as to how they are 'better'
Mike Rejsa
that looks like the Telecaster for this long unless it was one of the
first and thusly a classic?
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
/* mi...@primenet.com "Less is more..." */
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nathan Phillip Stewart
>because that is the sound rock and roll was built on. What if solid state
>amps and not tube amps were around when chuck berry and jimi hendrix and
>all the other guitar gods were doing there thing -- and than tube amps
No, because Hendrix did use that awful fuzzbox, and while it is popular, it's
__FAR__ from a general concensus. I wouldn't be too teribly offended if they
all dissapeared from the face of the earth. Why anyone (who can get away with
the volume) with that amp, would stick such an ugly device in front of it
baffles me.
_______________________________________
| | Nathan Stewart
| Marshall | npst...@eos.ncsu.edu
| ________________________ | Play skillfully to the
| |!!o Q Q Q Q Q Q :: | | Lord with a
|=======================================| *LOUD* noise. Psalm 33:3
rdou...@hoasys.isd1.tafensw.edu.au
its that tube amps sound like tube amps and solid state amps sound like
solid state amps. A lot of money and effort is wasted trying to use various
effects to get the sound of an overdriven tube amp out of a solid state amp.
Without much success, as far as I know.
So if you want to sound like Hendrix etc. get a tube amp. But there's nothing
wrong, IMO, with creating your OWN sound by whatever means you want and can
afford.
I find that the more I learn, the more I realise that how you play is a lot
more important than what equipment you use. Of course the music equipment
industry is keen to propagate the opposite view.
Roger
=====
David Swanger
: atoddegg wrote:
: >>No nead to crank up a transistor amp to get a decent tone. Just a side
: thought....
: in MY opinion it is not POSSIBLE to get a decent tone from a transistor
: amp, at ANY level
I've been saying similar things about transistor amps for years, but
lately I've been trying to rethink my position. The goal is to get a good
sound. I shouldn't *really* care what technology my gear is based on
(tubes, silicon, magic, hamsters, whatever) as long as it sounds good. I
*SHOULDN'T* care, but I do, I still lean toward tubes.
Lately, I've read several things on the net, people bragging about the
SansAmp, Pearce (sp?) amps and other solid state thingies. Dimebag Darrel
(that Pantera tone king) uses solid state gear. I talked to a friend of
mine the other day, he had recently played a Marshall Valvestate stereo
combo amp with built-in chorus. He really liked it. This guy is a great
player and gigs a lot (more than me lately). If he likes it, I should at
least check it out, so maybe I will the next time I get a chance. I asked
him if the Valvestate sounded *just* like a tube amp and he said, "No, but
it sounds damn good."
Oh well, didn't mean to ramble...
--
David Swanger University Computing Auburn University, AL
swa...@mail.auburn.edu
Joe Bac
worth big bucks today. Yes, I played Acoustic amps as a kid. Although
Jimi was my hero, Marshall amps were hard to get in those days and cost
a hell of a lot more then Fenders, Acoustics, Sunns, etc. So we went
with what we could get. Besides, Acoustic had cool looks and cool
catalogs. FWIW - I have a Marshall catalog from when I was a kid, it
was the plexi era then. The price of a 100-watt stack was $1495. Kept
a lot of us away. I think my Acoustic was 600 bucks or so.
--
Joseph G. Bac Phone: 415 691-5417 Fax: 415 691-5030
Hewlett-Packard Co. ARPA: joe...@cup.HP.COM
100 Mayfield Ave. MS 36LF UUCP: hplabs!hpiatmh!joebac
Mountain View, CA 94043
Anthony T
Perhaps these legends of rock (those who are still with us!) would still
retain most of their hearing abilities. No nead to crank up a transistor amp
to get a decent tone. Just a side thought....
Tony
W wittman
>>No nead to crank up a transistor amp to get a decent tone. Just a side
thought....
Douglas Fowler
>
>If Jimi used solid state amps, the Acoustic amp I had as a kid would be
>worth big bucks today.
Now we are down to the meat of the issue! <ggg> If Hendrix used the
following:
solid state amps
Kay guitars
Then solid state amps and Kay guitars would be viewed as highly
desirable rock and roll rigs.
"Man, I've been trying to get that Hendrix sound but I can't get it with
these cheap Japanese Kay knockoffs, and I can't afford a *real* one.
BTW, do you know anyone who hotrods solid state amps? I gotta get that
sound, dude!"
I guess guitar history would have to be rewritten, and a lot of folk
would eschew tube amps 'cause they just don't get *that sound* <ggg>.
Doug Fowler
J. Gravity Strings
St. Louis, MO
JUSTIN-RICE
That's a rather close-minded statement. Have you played a Pearce or an Amp11?
I'd wager to say that either of those amps would change your mind.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Justin Rice -----------------------------------------------
Arts & Sciences "Jazz isn't dead, it just smells funny." FZ
RJM1...@centum.utulsa.edu "...but mine goes to eleven!" Nigel Tufnel
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
- My opinions do not reflect those of TU -
Brian Rost
> You've got a point - can you imagine anybody seriously making a guitar
> that looks like the Telecaster for this long unless it was one of the
> first and thusly a classic?
The reason they still make Teles is because people buy them. Being
the "first" has nothing to do with it.
--
Brian Rost
Ascom Timeplex APBU
rost_...@timeplex.com
********************************************************
"There were three things that keep a group of musicians
together: the social life between the members, the money
they make and the quality of the music. And any two of
them will keep the band together."
-Michael Giles
********************************************************
Jeff Thomas
Fowler) writes:
The point is that those amps and guitars sound awful, and that's why
Hendrix, etc., didn't use them.
michael alan rose
: In <3jkk80$j...@ixnews1.ix.netcom.com> SHC_...@ix.netcom.com (Douglas
: Fowler) writes:
Hendrix _was_ an official endorsee of Sunn solid-state amps for
several months and used them on stage. I'm of the opinion that he could
have played through a Radio-Shack transistor radio and got a good tone.
And there are great sounding solid-state amps today. Ronnie Montrose was
using Pearce amps until the company folded. Check out Gallien-Kruger as
well. What is important is what makes your ears happy - not the
technology you use to get to that point.
Michael
Jerry Loyd
>From: mar...@ucs.indiana.edu (michael alan rose)
>Subject: Re: What if Hendrix used a solid state amp????
>Date: 11 Mar 1995 23:23:25 GMT
> Hendrix _was_ an official endorsee of Sunn solid-state amps for
>several months and used them on stage. I'm of the opinion that he could
>have played through a Radio-Shack transistor radio and got a good tone.
>And there are great sounding solid-state amps today. Ronnie Montrose was
>using Pearce amps until the company folded. Check out Gallien-Kruger as
>well. What is important is what makes your ears happy - not the
>technology you use to get to that point.
> Michael
I listened to "Hendrix In The West" several times this weekend. I'm not so
sure I'd care to duplicate the "tone" he gets in several of the songs. I've
had this album for years, and worshipped Hendrix since I was 15 (23 years
ago). For the first time, I got the idea that the poor guy spent half his
energy fighting equipment that just wasn't designed to do what he wanted.