• TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
    Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
    Join free Log in
    Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.

Your preference: clean or colored amp heads?

Do you prefer clean or tone-coloring head units?

  • Clean

    Votes: 123 46.8%

  • Colored

    Votes: 90 34.2%

  • Carrots?

    Votes: 50 19.0%
  • Total voters
    263
#61
I buy a particular amp because I want the tone they have. I don't use any effects pedals or have a bunch of stuff in my signal chain. I can understand why many would like to have a clean amp with effects to sprinkle in here and there, but I prefer things less complicated.

To each his own.
 
#62
spector_boogie said:
What's ridiculous is you're paid to have to say that. :) :hyper:

Do you actually get your "tone" to the board or just DI like most "fridge" setup users have to?
Click to expand...
Dude, I strongly suggest not commenting on my background when you know zip about it. But since you seem to care so deeply, here is my background...

I've been playing Ampeg since 1978. I have been an endorser for about 8-9 months. Up until I switched over to the REDDI (which I got specifically because it sounds identical to a B-15 DI'd to the board), I used a cab mic. But we work with a lot of unfamiliar soundmen, and while most are accepting of the cab mic, many are not, and I was sick of the arguments.

And the sum total of what Ampeg has paid me to play Ampeg and say I like it is $0. Yeah, I got a good deal on a PF rig and a free practice amp. Whoopee. Well OK, I was pretty excited to get it ;) but in the grand scheme of things it's small potatoes and I'm very much a small potatoes endorser. I had amps long before I ever got my Ampeg deal (which was my first and only deal in over 30 years of playing pro), and while I'm not rich, I certainly don't need an endorsement deal. If I didn't like it, I wouldn't play it. Period.

So take what you want out of that...but if you want to be offensive and snotty, I can go that route too, and I've got the bans to prove it. But I'm trying to be a kinder and gentler TBer these days because I'm on thin ice with these guys ;) Don't make me blow it by impugning my integrity when you know zip about me.
 
#64
TinIndian said:
I buy a particular amp because I want the tone they have. I don't use any effects pedals or have a bunch of stuff in my signal chain. I can understand why many would like to have a clean amp with effects to sprinkle in here and there, but I prefer things less complicated.

To each his own.
Click to expand...

I agree with this. I don't worship in the house-of-knobs-at-noon, and I know I'm going to be turning knobs. I find a amp or preamp because of what it brings to the table as long as that color is the color I like for what I'm doing. My cabs I like to be as uncolored as possible, so I don't have to EQ around them to get what I want.
 
#66
I used to love my SWR Studio 220 which I thought to be pretty clean. I used to cook it (tho' it never broke down) and I swapped it for a Marshall Jubilee head. What a mistake. The Marshall was the most horribly muddy and coloured amp that I ever had the misfortune to own. It was totally unreliable too although that's another story. I think it depends on the style of music and wether or not you are looking for an SVT style graunch. If you are then you better be prepared to carry a mic and get the sound man onside. Personally, I would rather have a clean DI (straight from my bass) and a DI after my pedalboard. This depends on the gig tho' and if the sound man is on the ball and has decent compressors then I'm not too bothered about the post pedalboard DI as this gives me more freedom to adjust my compression to suit the song without worrying about messing up my FOH sound. I don't think any bass rig is going to give you a true representation of what's coming out of the PA anyway. If you prefer a coloured rig then I think you have to consider how you are going to get that across and that depends on wether you are going through the PA or not.
 
#67
Toastfuzz said:
Nah you're overthinking this a bit, and maybe I was off in referring to the 80's sound. After all I wasn't even born until 87. Actually scratch anything I said about the 80's, I was probably just thinking of the general lack of fuzz or OD in 80's pop tunes that I've heard.

To my ears, any Peavey / Markbass / Carvin amp I've heard pretty much don't affect the sound of your bass... its why I always jam a Markbass when I want to hear the distinctive qualities of different basses as Guitar Center. VS. if you demo'd a bunch of basses through the same Ampeg SVT rig, while they'd have subtle differences, alot of what you're hearing is the rig. Thats why I think some people are so disappointed to buy an instrument and take it home and it sounds nothing like it did in the store through a $1000+ rig. Personally, I couldn't tell the difference between Peavey / Markbass / Carvin in a blind test, if they were all EQ'd similarly. Also to me, I dont think these amps are really meant to be overdriven, but rather deliver a clean tone at their maximum power. In comparison, while I couldnt tell the diff between a low volume Marshall / Ampeg / GK / Sunn, at high volume and overdriven states they become distinguishable.

I'm far from an amp genius, so you can probably poke holes in my assertions like swiss cheese... I'm not arguing, just saying how my ears work. With what you said on the clean power-amps, you'd have to figure out what kind of pre you use... a typically "clean" pre or one with intentional baked in tone? I know nothing of stand-alone pre's so not even gonna open that can of worms.
Click to expand...

Thanks Toastfuzz - I am/was just trying to understand what you considered the difference between a clean and colored bass amp so I could express my opinion (as your requests), not poke holes in your assertions bro - so with your thoughts of clean vs. colored in mind I lean towards colored but my vote is carrots. Cheers.
 
#69
Man, it sure takes a lot of circuitry to make your bass sound like itself, doesn't it?

;)

But I get what you're saying. Most certainly the goal in the 80's was to have bass as clean as can be, at least for the most part. Distortion was not unheard of, but especially with new wave and dance tunes, the goal was clean, although many still liked to roll without tweeter frequencies.
 
#70
JimmyM said:
Man, it sure takes a lot of circuitry to make your bass sound like itself, doesn't it?

;)

But I get what you're saying. Most certainly the goal in the 80's was to have bass as clean as can be, at least for the most part. Distortion was not unheard of, but especially with new wave and dance tunes, the goal was clean, although many still liked to roll without tweeter frequencies.
Click to expand...

That was because in the 80's everyone was so used to all the low wattage 70's stuff that you couldn't get very clean very loud. Also, the modern production at that time made clean and clear a goal...think about that compressed, limited and gated drum sound and the synth sound and the clean guitar sound that a lot of popular music of that era had.
 
#71
MSUsousaphone said:
I also can't stand Ampeg. WAY too much influence on my tone. It's like THE go to brand people pick to cover their bad technique.
Click to expand...

Your opinion was respectable until that last line. The Ampeg sound defines generations of music, and entire genres. I stated many times I just didnt prefer the tone of Ampeg anymore. Please don't start a gear-bashing flame war, and while I've jumped on JimmyM for his bias towards them in the past I think we've all grown up a bit and stopped assuming our personal opinion = fact. I used to be guilty of that with Ibanez (saying that Ibanez could make a bass to equal any other for $500 less) and realize now thats not the case, its just my opinion.
 
#72
BurningSkies said:
That was because in the 80's everyone was so used to all the low wattage 70's stuff that you couldn't get very clean very loud. Also, the modern production at that time made clean and clear a goal...think about that compressed, limited and gated drum sound and the synth sound and the clean guitar sound that a lot of popular music of that era had.
Click to expand...

Yeah the technology in the 80's allowed for all kinds of new clean and digital sounds. I dont think it was really until the 2000's that the "vintage" bug hit everyone, and now that its 2012 and technically we should all be either sipping margaritas with Jesus or burning in the apocalyptic fires, but we're still here making music, I'm wondering what the new popular sound will be?

From MY perspective, I see a perfect blend between 70's vintage and 80's clean/digital. Because how many of us have massive-wattage 5 lb. digital amps, yet vintage-tuned cabinets and vintage-styled amp modelers in our setups? You can now go from 70's vintage to 80's clean digital in the turn of a knob.

Question is, what will be the "new" sound? Has all the ground already been covered? Or is the new sound.....<gasp>...... DUBSTEP???????? :hiding:
 
#73
New sounds and new styles of music come from two places...creative use of new technology, and people with old technology trying to sound like new technology. Using new technology to sound like old technology isn't really creating new sounds or genres, but it does make it easier to cut a guitar track at home at 1 am when everyone else is sleeping.
 
#74
Toastfuzz said:
Yeah the technology in the 80's allowed for all kinds of new clean and digital sounds. I dont think it was really until the 2000's that the "vintage" bug hit everyone, and now that its 2012 and technically we should all be either sipping margaritas with Jesus or burning in the apocalyptic fires, but we're still here making music, I'm wondering what the new popular sound will be?

From MY perspective, I see a perfect blend between 70's vintage and 80's clean/digital. Because how many of us have massive-wattage 5 lb. digital amps, yet vintage-tuned cabinets and vintage-styled amp modelers in our setups? You can now go from 70's vintage to 80's clean digital in the turn of a knob.

Question is, what will be the "new" sound? Has all the ground already been covered? Or is the new sound.....<gasp>...... DUBSTEP???????? :hiding:
Click to expand...

Nah. Dubstep is nothing more than a momentary blip on the screen, in the same way that 'house' and 'breakbeat' and 'drum and bass' were all active subgenres.

I don't really care as long as autotune as a musical staple goes out of style soon.
 
#79
JimmyM said:
the goal in the 80's was to have bass as clean as can be
Click to expand...

I often wonder about this phenomenon. Is it the case that equipment in previous decades wasn't able to produce a full, hi-fi sound for bass guitar? Was it always a thick, kind of squished, kind of fuzzy retro sound? (Or what we today would call a retro sound, that is.)

Did one have to sound like Motown or Black Sabbath and that was pretty much it until the 80s? Maybe that's why everyone fell in love with getting that clean sound at that time.

Nowadays it's whatever you want. A much more balanced approach, I think.
 
#80
scottfeldstein said:
I often wonder about this phenomenon. Is it the case that equipment in previous decades wasn't able to produce a full, hi-fi sound for bass guitar? Was it always a thick, kind of squished, kind of fuzzy retro sound? (Or what we today would call a retro sound, that is.)

Did one have to sound like Motown or Black Sabbath and that was pretty much it until the 80s?
Click to expand...

I never really thought of Phil Lesh or Stanley Clarke as sounding anything like that in the mid-70s...;)
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back