FWIW, I don't consider post EQ a copout or a bad thing at all. It's just another tool, another set of possibilities, and I love that it's available and stored with a patch. It's the same idea as boosting treble in the preamp and cutting presence in the power amp for example, except that it's EQ after the power amp and speaker. Drive the whole amp with too much high end and not enough bottom, then back off high end and boost a little low mid fullness post EQ, response is really different than not doing that, tighter on the bottom and sparkly or some other better word on the top, without being painful or cheesy. (That's just an example, but it is a common angle for me.) I'm not talking about R4 specifically, haven't demo'd it yet, still playing with new toys in Amplitube, but it's a technique I've always used, to the best of my then-current-gear's ability, from way back, long before any of these sims. Lots of amps and stomps do the same things internally through their different gain stages.
I also get the impression Malcolm is bashing the living bejeezus out of his guitar there, probably on not super light strings. Maybe it just sounds like that, but it really does.
Any word on Revalver 4 release?
-
- KVRAF
- 4468 posts since 15 Nov, 2006 from Hell
that's Angus 
i don't consider EQ (pre or post) as a bad thing, it's just that i'm used to living without it and am very frustrated that i have to now buy an EQ module for doing something that comes naturally with the amps themselves in other amp simulators.
i don't consider EQ (pre or post) as a bad thing, it's just that i'm used to living without it and am very frustrated that i have to now buy an EQ module for doing something that comes naturally with the amps themselves in other amp simulators.
I don't know what to write here that won't be censored, as I can only speak in profanity.
-
- KVRAF
- 1869 posts since 15 Sep, 2003 from Land of Crazies, USA
You could always use the VST host module and load in a free EQ. I do that all the time in Revalver III.V.Burillo wrote:that's Angus
i don't consider EQ (pre or post) as a bad thing, it's just that i'm used to living without it and am very frustrated that i have to now buy an EQ module for doing something that comes naturally with the amps themselves in other amp simulators.
-
- KVRAF
- 4468 posts since 15 Nov, 2006 from Hell
well, yes, that too - or use a post EQ, which is what i do now. the original complain still stands - the tonestacks in all of the amps are horribly inflexible and mostly sound the same to me.
I don't know what to write here that won't be censored, as I can only speak in profanity.
-
- KVRian
- 1063 posts since 28 Dec, 2012 from Boston area
Not to diss R4, which I haven't even demo'd yet, but you're used to Amplitube, right? Its amps really *don't* all sound the same. Spoiled, we are, in a good way...
-
- KVRAF
- 4468 posts since 15 Nov, 2006 from Hell
exactly
i'm not saying *all* R4 amps sound the same. up until certain level of gain, they are plenty different. it's the high gain sounds that i have a problem with - each amp (bar 6505's, which sound i don't like, and Demon to some extent) is practically identical to the ValveKing. maybe that's just me, but i can't pull out any high gain tones from, say, the Peavey XXX, that are dramatically different from what ValveKing can bring to the table. and i can't achieve that mid-scooped sound on any of them, aside from using the EQ. contrasting this to Amplitube, where even switching from a Soldano to Jet City provides me with enough difference to not bother with adjusting anything else.
in fact, i loaded Ignite's NRR-1 or Emissary instead of Revalver's amp and was instantly able to achieve what i was looking for. so it's definitely not the cabs, but the amps themselves.
i'm not saying *all* R4 amps sound the same. up until certain level of gain, they are plenty different. it's the high gain sounds that i have a problem with - each amp (bar 6505's, which sound i don't like, and Demon to some extent) is practically identical to the ValveKing. maybe that's just me, but i can't pull out any high gain tones from, say, the Peavey XXX, that are dramatically different from what ValveKing can bring to the table. and i can't achieve that mid-scooped sound on any of them, aside from using the EQ. contrasting this to Amplitube, where even switching from a Soldano to Jet City provides me with enough difference to not bother with adjusting anything else.
in fact, i loaded Ignite's NRR-1 or Emissary instead of Revalver's amp and was instantly able to achieve what i was looking for. so it's definitely not the cabs, but the amps themselves.
I don't know what to write here that won't be censored, as I can only speak in profanity.
-
- KVRAF
- 42529 posts since 21 Dec, 2005
I love having the post eq. Saves a step.
After posting my tripe and having people like the x50 over the revalver I'm really rethinking this. Oh god, the constant a/b'ing ... I'm hopeless!
After posting my tripe and having people like the x50 over the revalver I'm really rethinking this. Oh god, the constant a/b'ing ... I'm hopeless!
-
- KVRist
- 107 posts since 5 Aug, 2009
hibidy wrote:
I just needed to share this guitar tone from ac/dc. It's what I aspire to obtain.
From a web page discussing AC/DC gear:
"Malcolm's Signature model comes strung with 12-56's. I've read if you re-string it with any other gauge you loose alot of his tone. For amplification both Angus and Malcolm use Marshall. The boys like the older ones. Angus' main amp is an old JTM45. Angus uses this in the studio and live. When Angus plays live, he'll run this through an isolation speaker box that sits under the stage, that feeds directly into the PA system. When Angus wants a thicker lead sound he'll use a 100 watt amp. The amps stacked behind Angus and Malcolm on stage are '59 SLP 100 watt heads(reissues to the oringinal Super Lead Plexi)Each head powers two 4 x 12 cabs. Malcolm is also using WIZARD amps on tour. They are custom made."
-
- KVRist
- 107 posts since 5 Aug, 2009
Hmmmmm...seems trusty ol' Wikipedia contradicts some of that info:
"Angus and Malcolm both use Marshall amplifiers. The amps stacked behind Malcolm onstage are two original Marshall 100 watt heads, one 1966 JTM45/100 and one late Superbass from the late 1960s or early 1970s. Each head powers two 4 × 12 cabinets. He also uses custom-made Wizard amps on tour. His main amp, since recording Dirty Deeds Done Dirt Cheap in 1976, is a slightly modified Marshall Superbass from the late 1960s or the early 1970s. On Ballbreaker, he used a Marshall JTM45/100 with KT66 power tubes and a high B+ voltage (625 volts). In a recent interview with Marshall Law, Young mentions his two favourite amps: a Superbass and old Super amp (JTM45/100). Also Young used two Orange full stacks in London, England on 13 July 1976 while playing "Jailbreak", "Live Wire" and "Can I Sit Next to You Girl", with Bon Scott. While AC/DC were playing at Donington Park in 1991, Young used Mesa Boogie stacks."
It does specify "citation needed" after the end of that last sentence. Likely, after all the years it all may be true.
"Angus and Malcolm both use Marshall amplifiers. The amps stacked behind Malcolm onstage are two original Marshall 100 watt heads, one 1966 JTM45/100 and one late Superbass from the late 1960s or early 1970s. Each head powers two 4 × 12 cabinets. He also uses custom-made Wizard amps on tour. His main amp, since recording Dirty Deeds Done Dirt Cheap in 1976, is a slightly modified Marshall Superbass from the late 1960s or the early 1970s. On Ballbreaker, he used a Marshall JTM45/100 with KT66 power tubes and a high B+ voltage (625 volts). In a recent interview with Marshall Law, Young mentions his two favourite amps: a Superbass and old Super amp (JTM45/100). Also Young used two Orange full stacks in London, England on 13 July 1976 while playing "Jailbreak", "Live Wire" and "Can I Sit Next to You Girl", with Bon Scott. While AC/DC were playing at Donington Park in 1991, Young used Mesa Boogie stacks."
It does specify "citation needed" after the end of that last sentence. Likely, after all the years it all may be true.
-
- KVRist
- 107 posts since 5 Aug, 2009
Agree.hibidy wrote:I can't use strings that heavy btw.
For me, that would be like trying to play a chain link fence.
Besides what I posted, the info I was really looking for was from an article written several years ago. Cannot remember where I read it, though.
It specifically mentioned their [Angus - Malcolm] amps.
Rick Rubin wanted to get back to the early AC/DC guitar tone. And, they found that over the years of maintenance and repairs both their main amps were [in their opinion, badly] out of spec from the early years. Parts were installed and/or adjustments were made without staying with the original specifications.
The article talked of them sending their amps to be, sort of, reconditioned and brought back to exact specs.
That would imply a lot of middle period AC/DC music was done with unintentionally modified amps that would be hard to replicate even with exact models of your own.
Sorry I couldn't find it. I thought it might have told you something you could use, even with amp modeling software.
I guess you go into ReValver and put in the wrong parts...haha
-
- KVRian
- 554 posts since 28 Jul, 2011 from USA
The tonal balance in those Back in Black guitars is pretty amazing. Are they using separate combos for the lows and highs or are they just masterly scooped in the mids? The highs seem to occupy a really narrow range of frequencies and almost just rest on the beefier part of the tone, particularly in the left guitar. I fooled around with trying to dial in something remotely close to these EQ curves by ear and would be completely missing the mark when I A/B'ed it each time. I'll probably break down and cheat and use Voxengo Curve EQ to auto match one of my "better" attempts to see where the boosts and cuts are actually needed.
-
- KVRian
- 1392 posts since 28 May, 2008 from Saint Paul, MN
Ahh, the joys of tonal hair-splitting 
If only our heroes and legends could have seen us (guitarists) in the future toiling over minute differences in EQ and "authenticity". I'm sure it would've been a giant WTF moment for them, since they were just using the tools that were available/affordable to them at that time--making the best of it
Don't give me wrong! I enjoy all of the scrutinizing as much as you guys, but let's keep this in perspective: anyone can get a great tone with R4, or nearly any modern amp simulator, with minimal effort
Keep it real, and keep it fun
Rock on my friends
If only our heroes and legends could have seen us (guitarists) in the future toiling over minute differences in EQ and "authenticity". I'm sure it would've been a giant WTF moment for them, since they were just using the tools that were available/affordable to them at that time--making the best of it Don't give me wrong! I enjoy all of the scrutinizing as much as you guys, but let's keep this in perspective: anyone can get a great tone with R4, or nearly any modern amp simulator, with minimal effort
Keep it real, and keep it fun
Rock on my friends-
- KVRian
- 554 posts since 28 Jul, 2011 from USA
Left guitar is in green. Right guitar is in yellow. These are taken when each guitar first comes in on the track. Ignore the amplitude difference, it varies depending on the moment I tell Curve EQ to sample, but the curve's shape basically remains the same. Both gutiars have essentially the same EQ curve with a crazy drop at 10k.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
Last edited by Greg Houston on Tue Aug 26, 2014 11:32 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
- KVRian
- 554 posts since 28 Jul, 2011 from USA
I couldn't find a copy of this guitar track to purchase so I just grabbed it from the youtube video. Obviously not the best source, but I am wondering if that crazy 10-11kish cut isn't due to youtube or the mp3. I don't even know what sort of tool you would use to do that naturally.