RSS

Tag Archives: editorial

Editorial: The Pedalboard

In other news: my Pedaltrain 2 has arrived, along with my new Dunlop DVP-1 volume pedal. So, the pieces of my pedalboard are lying around. All that remains is to put it all together into a configuration. Other than the Pedaltrain and the power supply, the components are, in no particular order:

  • Korg DT-10 tuner
  • TC Electronic Spark Booster
  • MXR Phase 90 (block logo)
  • Dunlop Crybaby wah (limited edition white painted)
  • Dunlop DVP-1 volume pedal
  • TC Electronic Shaker Vibrato
  • MXR Carbon Copy analog delay

The vibrato and delay will go into the effects loop of the amp, the other five before the input. Cable cornucopia! The tuner will likely be connected to the tuner out of the volume pedal, unless I prefer the sound of its buffered input. More than that, I haven’t really figured out exactly in which order to put the pedals. The one thing I know is that I want to keep the phaser before the amp input, because I’ve yet to hear a phaser that sounds good after distortion. (Edit 16 March: accidentally wrote BEFORE distortion. Oops!) The vibrato does sound pretty cool before distortion, but the delay sure as hell doesn’t. Keep the regeneration and mix above 9 o’clock and it immediately turns to mush.

One thing that strikes me is that this pedalboard is not that different from what Hendrix would have used. That is entirely intentional. Listen back to those albums from 1967 and onwards, how the great players experimented with tones. Other than the really saturated modern metal tone, all the basic rock tones were already discovered before 1972. Before flangers, before choruses. In those days, there were Leslies, wahs and phasers, which are effects that simply feel more organic to me. Believe me, I have an incredible itch for a proper fuzz and a Uni-Vibe!

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on 15 March, 2014 in editorial, gear

 

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

The Curious Case of the Clean Floor

The perfect gig is the one where I don’t have to sing and where I can play the entire set with a clean floor – no effects pedals or switches whatsoever.

My most flexible setup in this regard is my Fender Telecaster into the OD channel of my 20-watt Blackstar amp, with the gain set at about 9 or 10 o’clock. I can get a whole range of rock tones using nothing but the pickup selector. On the bridge pickup (a DiMarzio Super Distortion T), I get a searing, penetrating lead sound, whereas the bridge + neck combination backs off on both gain and treble for a very smooth rhythm sound. The neck pickup alone (DiMarzio Area T) is more focused, but obviously not as distorted or toppy as the bridge pickup. If I introduce the volume control on the guitar into the equation, there’s even more flexibility. The aforementioned middle position, but with the volume at about half, gives me a clean sound that works very well for basically anything but the funkiest and twangiest stuff.

With a Gibson, which typically has individual volume controls for the two pickups, I get even more flexibility. I can basically preset one pickup, usually the bridge, to a distorted tone and then use the neck pickup on half volume as an ersatz clean tone. Then I just use the pickup selector to flick between clean and crunch. Still, I tend to use my Fenders, primarily the Telecaster, simply because the Fender sound just fits the cover bands better.

This practice of mine has drawn a bit of criticism from audio purists around me. Their argument being that adjusting the guitar volume on the fly is an arbitrary and imprecise method, that I will never be able to be consistent, that for instance two verses will not have exactly the same settings and sound. Like that matters! As if rock n roll was ever supposed to be exact and scientific! I’d gladly give up that precision for the luxury of being undistracted by searching for pedals and switches on the floor. It’s a lot less gear to carry, fewer cables to trip on, one power outlet less to worry about. I don’t have to glance down, I can maintain eye contact with my band members and the audience. Ultimately it means a better performance, and that’s what it’s supposed to be about, not audio perfection. I’ll bet that at the end of the show, people are not going to come up to you and tell you that one of the guitars dropped out during a verse here and a bridge there.

Sticking to one amp setting and playing without effects is a major challenge. I have to be at my very best to coax every possible tone and nuance out of my instrument. It is at the end of the day a more stimulating challenge than having one pedal for each sound. I am forced to play my instrument and not just touch the strings.

This method works really well for my session work: gigs, rehearsals and recordings with cover bands. In my more serious metal band Namlar, it is sadly not an option. I use way more distortion and volume, which means that I have to use the channel selector – backing off on the guitar volume doesn’t clean the tone up enough. More gain also necessitates a noise gate, and if I have one pedal and one switch on the floor, I might as well use a pedal tuner. It quickly snowballs from there, and that is how I entered the current phase of expanding my pedal board.

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on 21 April, 2013 in editorial, gear

 

Tags: , ,

The Tale of the Lunchbox

We guitar players are living in exciting times. I am talking about the lunchbox amplifier: a small form factor head that packs a full set of tubes (or valves) and is rated between 1 and 20 watts.

For not much money, you can get a tube amplifier that you can crank to your heart’s content and both your eardrums and your rental contract will be intact afterwards. Moreover, you don’t have to break your back to bring one onto a small stage, and when it gets there, it doesn’t completely obliterate the rest of the band.

It started with the smaller, upstart companies, and now, five, six years down the line, even the high-wattage giants Marshall and Mesa/Boogie have jumped on the bandwagon and issued lunchboxes of their own.

I think this is a wonderful development. Tube amplification has all of a sudden become a realistic option for us home recording people who happen to live in apartments. As well as for amateur musicians who take to stages that are no more than dimly lit corners of restaurants. Even though the sound quality of solid-state equipment has been steadily improving in the past 20 years, there is just something about tubes that we don’t want to abandon.

This is all well, but it does beg one question. Did it take that many years for the industry to realize just how overpowered a 50 or 100 watt stack really is? Or has it been a form of confirmation bias: amp manufacturers have only ever offered 50 and 100 watts, thus people have not been able to buy anything else, confirming back to the manufacturer the correctness of their offerings?

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on 17 March, 2013 in editorial, gear

 

Tags: , , ,