Page 3 of 5
#81
If we're counting PODs, Steven Wilson (Porcupine Tree) has used the POD for recording.
#82
wow - lots of stuff for me to add


here is where I'm going with the OP - I think this will help a bit....NOT DONE.

I may break it down further but for now things are just kinda grouped.
Last edited by 311ZOSOVHJH at Oct 14, 2010,
#83
Just to clairfy, Skynyrd used Peavey Mace amps, which used 6 6L6 tubes in the power section. More tubes per capita than a lot of all tube amps .

Joe Strummer used the JC120 and Musicman HD150s. I think, but I'm not 100% sure, Roger McGuinn used JC120s as well at some point in his career.

We should just have a "Notable users of the JC120" thread
Quote by patriotplayer90
Lolz that guy is a noob.

Egnater
Leave it on the press, Depress Depress Taboot Taboot.
Last edited by Jhachey22 at Oct 13, 2010,
#84
Frank Zappa played a Pignose and an Acoustic 270
punk isn't dead, it's always smelled that way.

"A perfection of means, and confusion of aims, seems to be our main problem."
-ae
#86
Quote by fly135
If you use an FX box and a PA to serve as your amp, then I'd say that they quality in the SS category. They serve the same purpose as SS amps. And that's to re-create/model a tube amp's tone.

Your acoustic example doesn't count because people, as a rule don't use an amp to shape an acoustic's tone. Electrics, as a rule do use amps to dictate their tone.

What he's done solves the problem, group them by themselves. They are an effects unit so they don't belong with SS amps, they aren't an amp. A tubescreamer shapes the tone, that doesn't make it an amp. They may be used to perform a similar task but that doesn't make them the same thing. A vegeburger isn't meat. Putting them in their own category is the wise way to do it.
BTW: listen to the difference between an acoustic miked by a RadioShack mic (or even a dynamic Shure) and a Neuman and then tell me there's no tone shaping.
Anyway, the issue has been solved.
Gilchrist custom
Yamaha SBG500
Telecasters
Randall RM100 & RM20
Marshall JTM45 clone
Marshall JCM900 4102 (modded)
Marshall 18W clone
Fender 5F1 Champ clone
Atomic Amplifire
Marshall 1960A
Boss GT-100


Cathbard Amplification
My band
Last edited by Cathbard at Oct 13, 2010,
#87
Quote by AxSilentxLine
Again Billy Gibbons and also Kurt Cobain have both used Marshall Lead 12 stacks

If you're reffering to this stack

He neve actually used it live or in the studio. It's more of a joke on stage then anything.
Quote by patriotplayer90
Lolz that guy is a noob.

Egnater
Leave it on the press, Depress Depress Taboot Taboot.
#88
Where did he group them by themselves?

So you think mics are amps and the tone shaping by different mics on an acoustic is pretty much the same as the tone shaping of an electric by various tube amps? Well I guess that's your opinion. Personally, I think you were just trying to make an argument where one doesn't exist.
#89
Quote by fly135
Where did he group them by themselves?

So you think mics are amps and the tone shaping by different mics on an acoustic is pretty much the same as the tone shaping of an electric by various tube amps? Well I guess that's your opinion. Personally, I think you were just trying to make an argument where one doesn't exist.

No I'm not. They just aren't amps, they are effects units. I see no problem in including them, they just should be in a separate grouping, it's an interesting development in its own right. Have a look at the OP, there are now different paragraphs.
You've never heard a Neuman U87 have you?
Gilchrist custom
Yamaha SBG500
Telecasters
Randall RM100 & RM20
Marshall JTM45 clone
Marshall JCM900 4102 (modded)
Marshall 18W clone
Fender 5F1 Champ clone
Atomic Amplifire
Marshall 1960A
Boss GT-100


Cathbard Amplification
My band
#90
I just busted up the list as best as I can for now. I think it is less clougy.

I'm not really interested in practice amps or endorsements unless the artist uses or has used that amp/preamp/modeler LIVE or at studio to RECORD music.

Also, I think getting into the JCM900 or Blackstar HT5 thing is a bit much so I'm not going to go there. At least not now. It will open too big a can of worms. I've got enough to deal with as it is


Anyway - let me know what you think of it now...
Last edited by 311ZOSOVHJH at Oct 13, 2010,
#91
Quote by Jhachey22
If you're reffering to this stack

He neve actually used it live or in the studio. It's more of a joke on stage then anything.

Aww and here I was with a shred of admiration for Nirvana, and you had to ruin it
#92
A lot of people rag on Kurt's music but I think it is brilliant


Notice how I have ?? in places where we are not sure.

I want this to be OUR list not MY list.




PS: Thanks for comment Becky!
Last edited by 311ZOSOVHJH at Oct 14, 2010,
#94
Quote by AxSilentxLine
meh I was always more of a Blur fan

Do I start throwing beer cans at you now?
Gilchrist custom
Yamaha SBG500
Telecasters
Randall RM100 & RM20
Marshall JTM45 clone
Marshall JCM900 4102 (modded)
Marshall 18W clone
Fender 5F1 Champ clone
Atomic Amplifire
Marshall 1960A
Boss GT-100


Cathbard Amplification
My band
#95
Quote by Cathbard
Do I start throwing beer cans at you now?


Screw beer, I'm grabbing some Molotovs.
Quote by dr_shred
FrustratedRocka you are a legend

Quote by littlephil

The man clearly knows his shit.

Quote by Banjocal


one of the best, educated and logical posts I've ever seen on UG in the Pit. Well done good sir.
#96
Quote by Cathbard
You've never heard a Neuman U87 have you?
Oh cool.... why don't you explain to me how it completely alters the tone of your acoustic in a way analogous to how a tube amp alters the tone of an electric guitar. I can't wait to hear this.

Quote by Cathbard
Have a look at the OP, there are now different paragraphs.
Looks like it's grouped by brand to me.
Last edited by fly135 at Oct 14, 2010,
#97
Quote by fly135
Oh cool.... why don't you explain to me how it completely alters the tone of your acoustic in a way analogous to how a tube amp alters the tone of an electric guitar. I can't wait to hear this.

Looks like it's grouped by brand to me.

Well actually the U87 does have a tube, an EF86 pentode iirc. Hire one and try it in an A/B test with an SM57. I think you'll be surprised at the difference in sound. When recorded you'd swear you are listening to a completely different guitar. Seriously, try one. They are way too expensive for most us to buy but you can often hire them. First time I used one for vocals was an epiphany moment along the lines of "So that's how they make vocals sound so good on pro recordings!! Nothing to do with effects afterall."
Don't laugh at things you have no experience with. As they say,
"si tacuisses, philosophus mansisses"
And anyway - what has tone shaping got to do with it being an amp or not? An effects unit's sole purpose is to shape tone. Shaping tone is a side issue with amps, their prime purpose is to amplify. What I have been saying all along is that they are an effects unit, not an amp. So your whole argument is fundamentally flawed from the outset.

Well grouping it by make and model does the same thing effectively. Instead of breaking it up into hybrid and SS it groups them even more specifically. It removes the assertion that they are the same. Different approach same result.
Gilchrist custom
Yamaha SBG500
Telecasters
Randall RM100 & RM20
Marshall JTM45 clone
Marshall JCM900 4102 (modded)
Marshall 18W clone
Fender 5F1 Champ clone
Atomic Amplifire
Marshall 1960A
Boss GT-100


Cathbard Amplification
My band
Last edited by Cathbard at Oct 14, 2010,
#98
Quote by Jhachey22
Like I suggested, denote exceptions like Santana, Jimmy Page, etc. who only used SS for a short period, or one memorable concert, with a "*".

And the whole thing about the JCM900s being hybrid: Who really cares? If you like the sound of it, good for you. If you're going to turn your nose up at it now that you've learned that it has a good deal of SS parts, screw you for being a corksniffer.

If you never liked the sound of it regardless, then good on your for appreciating proper Marshall tone.

Thats not a personal attack on anyone, but it's just like the whole deal with the HT5. Everyone was sh*tting themeslves over how good the amp was, then someone bothered to research the circuit and determined it was basically a hybrid. Now we have bandwagoners in every HT5 thread spouting out that it's a hybrid. it's a cheap practice amp with decent tone. Personally, I think that's a little more important that whether or not it's hybrid ot tube.

$400 is cheap for a practice amp? Maybe if you refuse to practice out of anything but a tweed Champ.

But yeah, obviously a lot of that gain is coming from diode clipping, and I honestly don't care.
Last edited by Holy Katana at Oct 14, 2010,
#99
I'm not laughing at the idea of someone using a high quality mic. I'm laughing at how off-topic you are with this mental masterbation. The idea that you think wrt a guitar amp the "prime purpose is to amplify" is laughable. If that were so people would just plug their guitars into a mixer. Electric guitars are *virtually never* played direct through clean flat response amplification. A significant purpose is to amplify, but without some sort of tone modification/shaping an amp isn't a electric guitar amp. Of course you already know this, but your need to expound on the irrelevant has overridden your better judgement.

The purpose of this thread is pretty obvious. It's to point out artists that have performed without using a tube amp. So SS amps, SS multifx amps, and multifx through PAs are all performing the same sort of function. That being simulating the tones artists get through their tube amps and pedals.
Last edited by fly135 at Oct 14, 2010,
#100
Alright guys, take a nap, drink some prune juice and let's come back to this tomorrow. Maybe call one of your grandkids and tell them about growing up before cellphones... That should make you feel better.
Quote by Cathbard
Quote by Raijouta
Unless its electronic drums.

BURN THE WITCH!!!!!
#101
Quote by tubetime86
Alright guys, take a nap, drink some prune juice and let's come back to this tomorrow. Maybe call one of your grandkids and tell them about growing up before cellphones... That should make you feel better.


#102
I'm gonna list a bunch of jazz guitarists and their amps, since it's widely known that jazz is one of the few genres where solid-state amps have all but replaced tube ones. And you'll notice that the vast majority of high-end SS amps are marketed towards jazz players.

Joe Pass - Polytone Mini-Brute
Jim Hall - Polytone Mini-Brute
George Benson - Roland JC-120, Polytone Mini-Brute
Pat Martino - Roland JC-120, Acoustic Image Clarus
Jimmy Bruno - Acoustic Image Clarus
Pat Metheny - Acoustic 134, Digitech 2101 GSP preamp into Yamaha power amp (not sure about the model)
Larry Coryell - Roland JC-120
Kurt Rosenwinkel - Polytone Mini-Brute (he's been using a blackface Twin Reverb for the past three years or so, though)
#103
most acoustic artists, should go without saying but i said it... you could just put "most acoustic artists".
I wondered why the frisbee was getting bigger, then it hit me.
#104
Quote by fly135
I'm not laughing at the idea of someone using a high quality mic. I'm laughing at how off-topic you are with this mental masterbation. The idea that you think wrt a guitar amp the "prime purpose is to amplify" is laughable. If that were so people would just plug their guitars into a mixer. Electric guitars are *virtually never* played direct through clean flat response amplification. A significant purpose is to amplify, but without some sort of tone modification/shaping an amp isn't a electric guitar amp. Of course you already know this, but your need to expound on the irrelevant has overridden your better judgement.

The purpose of this thread is pretty obvious. It's to point out artists that have performed without using a tube amp. So SS amps, SS multifx amps, and multifx through PAs are all performing the same sort of function. That being simulating the tones artists get through their tube amps and pedals.

It's an amplifier, of course it's prime purpose is to amplify. If it amplifies a perfect representation of the raw signal it's still a guitar amp if you can plug you guitar into it so you can hear it. Tone shaping is just something that good amps do as well. Stop being obtuse, you are completely twisting my assertion that the AxeFX is an effects unit and not an amp. You have not refuted that assertion in the slightest. They don't perform the same sort of function: an amp drives speakers, an AxeFX is an interface to the PA - to use an amp into a PA you stick a mic in front of it. They are totally different things. In fact by crapping on about tone shaping you are actually unwittingly supporting my assertion because tone shaping is an effect. Without an actual amp like the PA you can't hear the bloody thing.
My mic comment was a response to a specific post. Because a device interfaces the instrument to the PA that doesn't make it an amp - far from it. That's why I drew the comparison to a DI box and a mic. Can't you follow a conversation?
Gilchrist custom
Yamaha SBG500
Telecasters
Randall RM100 & RM20
Marshall JTM45 clone
Marshall JCM900 4102 (modded)
Marshall 18W clone
Fender 5F1 Champ clone
Atomic Amplifire
Marshall 1960A
Boss GT-100


Cathbard Amplification
My band
Last edited by Cathbard at Oct 14, 2010,
#106
Quote by Cathbard
It's an amplifier, of course it's prime purpose is to amplify. If it amplifies a perfect representation of the raw signal it's still a guitar amp if you can plug you guitar into it so you can hear it. Tone shaping is just something that good amps do as well. Stop being obtuse, you are completely twisting my assertion that the AxeFX is an effects unit and not an amp. You have not refuted that assertion in the slightest.
OK, hows this.

1) Does an AxeFX amplify? Not that this is relevant, but you are the all over the place on what's an amp. So I'll waste my time with this since you wanted a refute to your assertion.

2) Name one commercial guitar amp that is a perfect (within reason, say as a stereo amp is perfect) representation of the raw signal.

Quote by Cathbard
They don't perform the same sort of function: an amp drives speakers, an AxeFX is an interface to the PA
Which is why, if you look at my original post you are refuting, I said...
Quote by fly135
If you use an FX box and a PA to serve as your amp, then I'd say that they quality in the SS category.

Quote by Cathbard
That's why I drew the comparison to a DI box and a mic. Can't you follow a conversation?
Not if I want to remain on topic. Which is why I'm not discussing mics with tubes in them when we are talking about guitar amps.

Look Cathbard, you might know how to play a guitar. Actually I don't know but I'll go check your profile for clips right now. And you might know about guitar amps. Seems like you know a bit. But you sure as heck can't get a grasp of context when it comes to a discussion. My original post that you are arguing was stricky appropriate to this thead and your response to it was a bunch of off topic out of context crap. Have a good day.
#107





311 - Prince.
I wondered why the frisbee was getting bigger, then it hit me.
#108
Albert King used an Acoustic 270 and a Roland JC120.
Quote by patriotplayer90
Lolz that guy is a noob.

Egnater
Leave it on the press, Depress Depress Taboot Taboot.
#109
cath & fly, wtf are you guys arguing about? best i can tell is you are guys want to argue over where 'digital modelers' should be organized against those who use SS amps.

@fly, making assumptions like this:

Quote by fly135
The purpose of this thread is pretty obvious. It's to point out artists that have performed without using a tube amp. So SS amps, SS multifx amps, and multifx through PAs are all performing the same sort of function. That being simulating the tones artists get through their tube amps and pedals.


well, the multi effects and modeling were are talking about aren't processed by SS components, they are digital signal processors (DSP's);

well, i would like to point that the thread says "Artists that use/have used Solid State amps...mk III ", so if digital modeling is even being included i am sure it is an afterthought (at least after he made the title for the thread). "solid state amps" would strictly imply 'amps using transistors and opamps to amplify the signal'. though there is a pretty big part left out that implication, which is 'shaping the tone'. tube amps and SS amps both use RLC based tone stack technology and don't look too different in design, amp simulators use similar concepts as well but the technology itself is vastly different. lets take a look how...

lets talk a little signal theory. any device that synthesizes, copies or passes a signal (input to output) cannot reproduce the signal perfectly. it is quite impossible actually as propagation of signal through any medium degrade is (whether it be air, diaphragm, wire, speaker, w/e). the differences in the source signal (input) and the output can be represented by a 'transform function', which represents the changes in the input to output.

only imaginary, 'super-optimal', thought-experiment devices don't introduce distortions to a signal

to further with out signal theory, there are 2 thoughts on how to 'best' represent a signal.

1) with continuous 'real world' values, as analogue device do (tube amps, SS amps)

2) with discrete "whole number' values, thought of as digital devices (computers)

if you care to know the benefits and drawbacks of each then you can look it up in wikipedia or something. but it is an interesting note that both tube amps a SS amps are 'analogue' devices, but are separated into "2 camps", and any design that uses both technologies is immediately considered a 'hybrid' and separated from the pack of 'pure tube amps'. but when combining digital (discrete) and analogue (continuous) technology, you seem to want to call it just 'SS'.

i won't get too technical here, but i agree with cath. if you want to include 'artists who use digital modeling' then it should be separated as such and be considered another 'hybrid' technology. when you add digital to a signal chain you include A/D/A (analogue/digital/analogue) converters to the circuit that actually sample the analogue signal, represent it discretely, shuffle around the 1's and 0's a but, and then transform it back into a analogue signal for output. a SS amp would do nothing like that to the signal without a digital device in the signal for processing.

i would easily advocate adding 'digital/SS' as it own 'hybrid class'.
punk isn't dead, it's always smelled that way.

"A perfection of means, and confusion of aims, seems to be our main problem."
-ae
Last edited by gumbilicious at Oct 14, 2010,
#110
Oh FFS. At no stage did I say that things like the AxeFX shouldn't be included. All I did was suggest that they go in their own category because they aren't actually amps - and they're not. I don't understand why such a simple statement of fact and a categorisation suggestion has got people so het up.
I'm out.
Gilchrist custom
Yamaha SBG500
Telecasters
Randall RM100 & RM20
Marshall JTM45 clone
Marshall JCM900 4102 (modded)
Marshall 18W clone
Fender 5F1 Champ clone
Atomic Amplifire
Marshall 1960A
Boss GT-100


Cathbard Amplification
My band
#111
Quote by DisplacedLogic
Ed Sloan (Crossfade) used Vettas and Flextones early on. The entire first album is pretty much ALL Vetta.

Mark Tremonti uses a Johnson Millennium for a warm up amp. And I swore I saw a video somewhere of him using a Randall V2 (both having tube pre-amp, but a solid state power section).


Yes, he definitely HAS used the Randall V2 for sure. Not sure about now. But I've just recently read a 2008 interview in a magazine, in which he said that he used the V2 both live and in the studio, along with some other amps (Bogners, Peaveys etc.).
He actually thought the amp sounded killer.
#112
guys guys guys.....I respect all of you equally and I cannot stand to watch you argue in my thread

I'm sorry if my thread title is misleading. I used it because it was the same as the last one and I figured it would get more attention that way. I do state in the OP 'Solid State or Hybrid or Modelers'

I will try harder at catagorizing the amps appropriately.


Quote by Jhachey22
Albert King used an Acoustic 270 and a Roland JC120.

Thank you for helping fill in that blank.


Greg, I'm confused.

311 - Prince?

If you are saying I am a prince, then I agree.
If you are saying 311 > Prince (the artist formally known as) then I agree.
If you are saying Prince used non-tube amps then do you know which ones?

ktnxbai
#113
Quote by gumbilicious
@fly, making assumptions...

well, the multi effects and modeling were are talking about aren't processed by SS components, they are digital signal processors (DSP's);

well, i would like to point that the thread says "Artists that use/have used Solid State amps...mk III ", so if digital modeling is even being included i am sure it is an afterthought (at least after he made the title for the thread).
I'm not the one making the list that's full of modelers and modeling amps. I'm assuming that what's in the list and posts are part of the discussion. Nobody said, "let's keep this strictly SS only, no DSPs".

Quote by gumbilicious
i won't get too technical here, but i agree with cath. if you want to include 'artists who use digital modeling' then it should be separated as such and be considered another 'hybrid' technology. when you add digital to a signal chain you include A/D/A (analogue/digital/analogue) converters to the circuit that actually sample the analogue signal, represent it discretely, shuffle around the 1's and 0's a but, and then transform it back into a analogue signal for output. a SS amp would do nothing like that to the signal without a digital device in the signal for processing.

i would easily advocate adding 'digital/SS' as it own 'hybrid class'.
But that isn't the case here. Nor is that my decision. If you want to make a categorized thread then I suggest you start one.
Last edited by fly135 at Oct 14, 2010,
#114
Quote by Cathbard
Oh FFS. At no stage did I say that things like the AxeFX shouldn't be included. All I did was suggest that they go in their own category because they aren't actually amps - and they're not.
What's the difference between a modeling amp and a modeler into a PA? I think the answer is there is no verifiable difference other than the packaging.
#115
Quote by fly135
What's the difference between a modeling amp and a modeler into a PA? I think the answer is there is no verifiable difference other than the packaging.

Errm, the modelling amp can drive a speaker and work as an amp on it's own. A modeller is only half of an amp, it's missing the part that makes it a full amp - the part that makes it audible.

Seriously, I'm out. This is a silly conversation now. I've made my point and this is now going nowhere.
Gilchrist custom
Yamaha SBG500
Telecasters
Randall RM100 & RM20
Marshall JTM45 clone
Marshall JCM900 4102 (modded)
Marshall 18W clone
Fender 5F1 Champ clone
Atomic Amplifire
Marshall 1960A
Boss GT-100


Cathbard Amplification
My band
#116
Quote by Cathbard
Errm, the modelling amp can drive a speaker and work as an amp on it's own. A modeller is only half of an amp, it's missing the part that makes it a full amp - the part that makes it audible.
Apparently you overlooked the part of the question that said... "modeler into a PA" and "other than the packaging."

Why is reading something the way it is written so hard?

Quote by Cathbard
Seriously, I'm out. This is a silly conversation now. I've made my point and this is now going nowhere.
Your point is completely obvious and easy to understand. Do you really think I don't know what a multifx does?
#117
Quote by 311ZOSOVHJH

Greg, I'm confused.

311 - Prince?

If you are saying I am a prince, then I agree.
If you are saying 311 > Prince (the artist formally known as) then I agree.
If you are saying Prince used non-tube amps then do you know which ones?

ktnxbai


i forget now, i need a nap, pork loin knocked me out. i invited cath and fly over so we could discuss the downsides of a viagra overdose in man camp, but they bailed.

let's go with "A".
I wondered why the frisbee was getting bigger, then it hit me.
#118
I think I've witnessed the downsides of viagra overdoses firsthand in the course of this thread.
Quote by Cathbard
Quote by Raijouta
Unless its electronic drums.

BURN THE WITCH!!!!!
#119
Quote by fly135
Apparently you overlooked the part of the question that said... "modeler into a PA" and "other than the packaging."

Why is reading something the way it is written so hard?

Your point is completely obvious and easy to understand. Do you really think I don't know what a multifx does?

The modeller and the PA are totally separate entities. To combine them as if they are one thing is like saying a JTM45 is a hybrid if I mike it up to a SS PA.
Sorry, but this really is silly and I'm not going to continue.
Gilchrist custom
Yamaha SBG500
Telecasters
Randall RM100 & RM20
Marshall JTM45 clone
Marshall JCM900 4102 (modded)
Marshall 18W clone
Fender 5F1 Champ clone
Atomic Amplifire
Marshall 1960A
Boss GT-100


Cathbard Amplification
My band
#120
Can't believe I forgot this one.

Brian May!

He used the Deacy amp on pretty much every album from Queen II onwards.
"Music snobbery is the worst kind of snobbery. 'Oh, you like those noises? Those sounds in your ear? Do you like them? They're the wrong sounds. You should like these sounds in your ear.'"
- Dara O'Briain