Pulled Coupling Caps

[Chuck H]

Stan, I have to admit to being more "converted" than I have been in the past (just call me Uncle Ben). But I'm decades from being in that place where good playing is confused with good tone. And I just want to speak a moment in defense of our goals here. That is, designing tones. Or more properly, amps that make them. I still see this as a valid pursuit. Lest we take the "magic is in the player" thing too far. There are indeed amazing sounding amps out there (yes I know it's subjective). And then there are amps that are just amps. Most amps produce a serviceable tone when operating correctly. But I don't know any players that get excited about "serviceable tone". A couple of known example might help to illustrate my point... The VOX AC30 has a very characteristic sound and "feel" (let's not forget that component as it applies to a player). As does a plexi Marshall, a BF Twin Reverb or a 5e3 Deluxe. These amps all behave differently. A good player will play to an amps strengths and find something cool and musical to create. But even better is an amp that is particularly suited to a player, style, genre or even has it's own characteristic sound. I'm certain that history is full of situations where a player (famous or otherwise) played a good performance on an amp that was evaluated as "it'll do". But every day, players professional and amateur strive for more. A properly working and reliable amp is important when you need to get a job done. The best players still spend tiny fortunes on chosen amps for good reason. I'm just saying that "Here's an amp. It works good. Make some magic." only goes so far. And our continuing quest for the right balance of compression, asymmetrical vs. symmetrical clipping, fidelity and frequency balance as it relates stage to stage in the chain seems crazy in light of this outlook, but it's this alchemy that makes guitar amplifiers their own instrument to the player. And I, for one, think it matters enough to keep tinkering.

[km6xz]

Sure it matters what the amp's transfer function is like......after the fact. A performer who has caught the attention of an audience based on creating something new that influences an audiences as to what sounds good, tries to recapture that to the degree he can. But saying that an amp has a characteristic tone that makes it better, without an audience already predisposed to like the sound, is wishful thinking. The sound that teaches an audience a new tone character is attached to a song that influences them.
Before the song was heard that used that tone character, it would not have mattered. Tastes are learned. After a song influences a lot of people, the tone associated with the song becomes a desirable trait but not before. That one song might trigger a class of music style that becomes known as a genre where many people try to get the same feel as the one song that influenced them first.
Working with musicians who are outside of a current genre of music are usually not influential until a song appeals to a significant number of people.
Every time someone comes onto the forum requesting the formula for magic tone, it is always related to a specific song, even if they do not realize it. Otherwise they would not be on a quest to "reproduce" it. Ask any music store salesman how many customers walk in with a reference song at least in their mind, whose tonal characteristics, he is trying to reproduce.
There is a distinct difference in the production of sounds/songs compared to reproducing sounds/songs. Sometimes the influencing sound character builds slowly over a generation to become known as a type, other times it is a single song that triggers the audience response to reproduce it.
One reason genres gain and loose popularity is because an audience moves on, and the genre is filled with boring reproduction artists, with thousands of banal unimpressive products, yet a few early producer artists in that style are still able to recreate the emotional response in an audience when their 1956 or 1966 or 2006 song is played, for the first audience that was influenced by it. Very few people have created highly influential songs but there is one or a few at the foundation of every genre.
Listening to a new song which is not triggering a positive response in an audience, regardless of the tonal characteristics, does not trigger the quest to reproduce the tone and song character in audiences. Most people who truly are different in their music never strike the cord of acceptance in an audience. But different is a key to moving music off in a new direction.
Genres which are filled with boring reproducers become an embarrassing cliche eventually and falls out of favor, yet the foundation songs still work for many people. Rock for example has splintered off into a hundred subspecies which is not appealing to a broad audience and is getting boring with little influencing power now. It lasted a long time and pretty much drives industries catering to reproducers trying to recreate emotions from the past. Not much new has been created in a long time so it will fade away, as every other out of popular favor music genre has in the past. Yes, there will always be small pockets of fans of any one genre but its influence and impact on a large audience dies. The music that influences people to actually by it, that is new, does not even have guitars in it. So tone arguments are becoming narrower and narrower, restricted to an older reproducer hobbyist population. Who knows when the next Hendrix emerges, likely there will be, but odds are strong he will not be playing a guitar when he creates the highly influential music that spawns the desire in millions of young people to reproduce it.
Go look up actual play lists of Top40 stations from, say, 1958 or 1964, you will see a lot of variety that is not heard today with the splintering of audiences. How many songs or styles of that period are considered silly cliches now, most. If anything audiences were more accepting of "different" at that time. Memory suggests that rock was king at the time but the play lists and sales figures suggest that the same audiences were accepting a lot of different styles at the same time, where jazz, country, folk, classic, standards, Motown, vocal groups, rock, blues, surf, and many other classes of music were all trading places on the top or bulk of the lists on the same stations. At the time the top songs getting the requests had songs from The Singing Nun, Roger Miller, Mitch Miller, Mrs Miller, the Trashmen, Beach Boys, Buddy Holley. Chubby Checker, Dave Brubeck, Louis Armstrong, Lorne Greene, The Tokens, The Supremes, Solomon Burke, The Temptations, classical music movie scores, The Tornadoes, Peter Paul and Mary, Elvis Presley, Peter and Gordon, Mr. Acker Bilk, Bobby "Boris" Pickett and the Crypt-Kickers, The Dixie Cups, Roy Orbison, Mary Wells, Vince Guaraldi, Ramsey Lewis, The Kingston Trio, Dick Dale, Bobby Vinton,Ray Charles etc etc all getting high sales figures from the same audience with #1 records.
At the time each was an influential style and copies by aspiring new musicians or writers. Some of their styles became cliches, some are remembered as classics, but all, at the time were received very well. So from this, it is safe to say that most tones sought today will fall out of favor but a few will gain critical mass of people wanting to reproduce them for another generation.
If surf music maintained its significance to today we would be arguing over which reverb rare earth magnets or alloy springs gave the best tone instead of which tubes overload best. When the current generation of aging reproducers die off, the only tube arguments will be in archives of the WayBackMachine. In recording now, where digital has completely replaced analog, similar magic dust arguments rage over models of ADC's and DSPs. Yet they are all just as sidetracked as the guitar fairy dust fans, and proof is that all it takes is one song that takes people by their emotions to direct the quest to reproduce that tone. Everyone will claim a particular mpu is better than another because it was used on the song they want to emulate.

[Jazz P Bass]

Uncle Ben

[QUOTE=Chuck H;314439]I have to admit to being more "converted" than I have been in the past (just call me Uncle Ben). QUOTE]
Ha!
How many will get that reference?
Hint: Rice
Thanks, took me back on that one.

[Chuck H]

Positively. I think the idea that an artist creates the tone that creates the desire is accurate to a large degree. But without going into a long post I'll just say that the artist needs to be inspired. And that there are a whole bevy of people with notions in between the artist and the enthusiast. And that for an experienced player it's clear when an amp is making good vs. bad distortions, good vs. bad frequency balance or good vs. bad attack/decay envelope, etc. Certainly some bad tones have been used to make popular recordings. And there will always be players that want to be their personal image of that artist. Not realizing that that tone isn't going to win them any favor. But to be sure that isn't all of us. Though it may be most of us.

BTW, this is probably the most ignored and uninteresting aspect of pop music. And making progress in it's understanding would likely never change a thing But I'm happy to discuss it with YOU. I don't think it's possible to have any more perspective on it than you do. Provided you background is accurate to your posts and your not actually some double agent!?!

[km6xz]

I am not so sure it is so easy to say that some popular recordings have bad tone. By what references, and is it not possible that the song was popular in part because of a unusual or nonconventional sound? If it is popular, it has some traits that mean something to someone, a lot of someones. I do not know enough about art to state that XXX artist has bad pigment but I sure know what I respond to, it is not intellectual at all, but there is a response, sometimes it is pleasurable, other times irritating or uncomfortable. Whatever "it" is, communicates and impacts those who experience. The ones that communicate the most and have the longest living impression often were not pleasant. The first time seeing Picasso Guernica in Spain, was not pleasant or pretty but it was difficult to sleep for a week and it help cement a no-war personal philosophy. I had a long time bent that way before, and was involved in VN protests, in uniform but seeing that one large mural in person made such an impact that nothing before had, for me. Others think it is nothing special and does not look just like anything.
I approach music the same way, never cared about the details of how it was done, or compared to some reference, but how it impacted me and assumed that some twisted souls would be impacted the same way. That has been my guiding philosophy in a number of businesses, from the customer's point of view, based on how I would have perceived it as a customer. Luckily, enough people responded likewise and that has supported me for decades in various fields. I give talks to young entrepreneur groups here and that is what I stress, forget the business school theory, look to your own emotional response when judging. Not what you think, we can always fool ourselves intellectually but how you respond, the emotional response without explaining why. Music in this case is no different than other art, cooking, woodworking etc. Functionality can be justified but emotional impact can't be or even explained without risking being foolishly wrong.

[Leo_Gnardo]

Wow has this thread taken a trip, from the Hollywood Bowl to Guernica. Saw it when the painting was "on tour" in New York @ 1980. No photograph can do it justice. It IS supposed to be disturbing. Looks like Pablo "hit the spot" when you couldn't sleep for a week. Five star award for Great Art. And another great post Stan.

Back to the music, I'll bet a lot of music fans & even musicians would be disturbed to hear their favorite recordings, a track at a time on the multitrack tape. Not much beauty here. Some of those tracks when auditioned "solo" sound downright awful, but in the mix, add up to a great song, a great album. George Harrison used to say "It's all part of the soup." How right he was and still is.

[Chuck H]

Well, you've got me there. Argued from a debate mentality that is a strong component. I once won a debate in high school arguing in favor of clubbing baby seals! To clarify my point about "bad tone" I am really talking about the convention and not the abstract. Semantics aside, an amp that would only do the lead tone in Sympathy for the Devil would be considered a bad sounding amp by 99% of guitar players. But indeed, let the abstract remain! Without it art in all music would be as lost as it would in a world painted entirely in gradients of gray. But let's not pretend that there isn't a conventional set of qualities that separate bad tone from good tone. Artistic expression aside. I know someone who likes peanut butter and mustard sandwiches! Most of us are much happier pairing peanut butter with jam. And if it's really good, homemade jam where all the components of sweet, sour, texture, cooked vs preserved fruit flavor, etc. come together that's even better. I want to make amps as good as that jam. But I also love trying new foods! I hope this illustrates my point. IMO we have no arguments with each other. We're making different points that are both valid.

I'm really happy for your experience with Picasso Guernica. To be affected and inspired so deeply is a wonderful thing. I must concede that those experiences for me are limited to music, but I've never seen the painting in person. It must be amazing and profound.

[Leo_Gnardo]

peanut butter with jam. And if it's really good, homemade jam where all the components of sweet, sour, texture, cooked vs preserved fruit flavor, etc. come together that's even better. I want to make amps as good as that jam. But I also love trying new foods!

I'm really happy for your experience with Picasso Guernica. To be affected and inspired so deeply is a wonderful thing. I must concede that those experiences for me are limited to music, but I've never seen the painting in person. It must be amazing and profound.

Now you're making me hungry... (And in Jr High I was assigned to argue for the Arabs, as the 6-day war just drew to a close. Suffice it to say, it didn't make me any more popular. Had I rejected the assignment, teacher promised an F for the semester. There was another MAJOR angle to that assignment which I'll leave out, wishing to not draw fire for it. Some folks might not understand and start pitching their mud pies thisaway.)

Funny t'ing, Guernica is mostly shades of grey and black.. A snapshot of a really bad day in an otherwise sleepy hillside town where nothing bad should ever have happened. The toughest decision for the artist is to know when to stop.

There's a nice big write-up on Wikipedia, very informative. At the bottom, a comment from Alejandro Escalona, comparing the painting to Beethoven's 9th symphony. Nope,IMO it's more like Mahler's 6th.

When you hit the 'big towns' in your area Chuck, I'm guessing Seattle, Portland, Vancouver, take a shuffle through some art museums. Bound to find some inspiration, rouse curiosity, might even see some "old friends."

Gotta go pull some coupling caps now, see ya at the museum!

[Steve Conner]

I once heard the multitrack of Bohemian Rhapsody. The individual parts sound pretty crummy.

[Leo_Gnardo]

I once heard the multitrack of Bohemian Rhapsody. The individual parts sound pretty crummy.

Just what I'm talkin 'bout. Such is the craftsmanship of the mixer/producer. Shows up as an earworm for me , and I'm not even a Queen fan. That one's not so much soup, it's fruitcake. A very elaborate one.

[g1]

But listening to a singular track is usually taking it out of context. Usually the player is listening to other tracks in the headphone mix. So we hear it in a way that even the studio player did not. A solo track that was meant to be solo usually won't have those issues.
All I'm saying is a solo track from a recording is often an artificial construct, so it's not really fair to criticize it's tone. Sort of like listening to some chords played on a guitar, then filtering out all the notes that are not played on the A string, how good is that going to sound?

[Steve Conner]

That's exactly my point. If Brian May can play a dozen dreadful-sounding guitar parts, and when combined they sound great, where is the mojo then? It's certainly not in the guitar, amp, or effects he used.

[Leo_Gnardo]

But listening to a singular track is usually taking it out of context. Usually the player is listening to other tracks in the headphone mix. So we hear it in a way that even the studio player did not. A solo track that was meant to be solo usually won't have those issues.
All I'm saying is a solo track from a recording is often an artificial construct, so it's not really fair to criticize it's tone. Sort of like listening to some chords played on a guitar, then filtering out all the notes that are not played on the A string, how good is that going to sound?

Fair enough and a good observation. And not knocking the less-than-perfect tracks, hardly. One of the producer's jobs is to keep it all "in budget" while still turning out a saleable product, therefore has to decide just how much track-polishing can be done or is necessary. Given a huge budget and engineers, producers & musicians who can perfectionize to their hearts content, go right ahead. Home recordists on your own time, fine, knock yourselves out. I'm sure some excellent recordings have been made that way.

Practically everything we do that's got any complexity is made of humble stuff. Including Chuck's PBJ. A spoonful of flour isn't too appetizing, peanuts ain't much until roasted (or boiled if you like those), and even berries have a limited appeal until you boil 'em down with sugar. The greatest architectural accomplishments, I-beams, stone, brick, mortar, wood. I could go on but I'm sure you get the idea.

[g1]

As far as the pursuit of the "golden tone" goes, this talk about tracks listened to alone having poor tone made me think of something.
How much % of the time is spent listening to the tone of amps in isolation. In a band context it will be different. Maybe amps that are passed over for poor tone could actually be the ones with the best tone in a band situation.

[Leo_Gnardo]

That's exactly my point. If Brian May can play a dozen dreadful-sounding guitar parts, and when combined they sound great, where is the mojo then? It's certainly not in the guitar, amp, or effects he used.

"Comping" solos, vocals, etc. has been the order of the day since multitrack started. I'm not so sure about "dreadful", the solo attempts are good up to a point, then flubbed. Having been in-studio to observe on many occasions, the artiste does a number of takes. Then with help from engineer & producer, the best bits are picked out & run into a coherent part. (Occasionally the artist IS the engineer and producer as well. Fewer arguments that way.) One fine day @ 10 years ago I got to sit on the control room sofa right behind the mighty Todd Rundgren while he knocked out a doozy. Took about five or six runs at it, then comped 'em together for the "master take". The whole process took @ 30-40 minutes. THEN he learned the comp solo for live
performance. Just one example, there are no doubt millions.

So what mojo there is, is there. Plus that of the engineer & producer in selecting & sewing together the bits. They're building the cake out of slices, or layers if you will. It's done by the best of 'em, you name it. And if the guitar hero, singer, whatever instrument you want, transfers it to live, more credit to 'em. And I haven't even mentioned variations which might also be termed on occasion "mistakes."

Good point also g-one on studio vs. live "golden tone." Live, you have whatever's on the backline plus effects. (Not many can carry the whole candy store around on the road, and would give up pretty quick after facing long setup/teardown times, intermninable sound checks, and sound mixers growling about how many mixer channels you're taking up.) If you recorded a song, or even part of one, on a Champ but your live rig is a Marshall double-stack, some change in tone is to be expected. COULD stomp on the Ibanez Tube Screamer to shave off a good deal of low frequencies & add a little grit. IMO the audience will generally be fairly forgiving if the tone isn't exactly what it was on the studio recording. Just us amp nuts to pick it apart...

There are some who use more or less the same rig in studio or on stage. Ry Cooder comes to mind and I have no argument with his tone or playing, ever. Eric Johnson's 5-amp rig took a 2½ hour soundcheck I attended one day. Of course he sounded magnificent, but not many have the time & patience.