# My theory on hi-gain distortion and muddy sounds



## Scali (Aug 6, 2009)

This topic seems to come up quite often, so I figured I'd lay out my theory on how to avoid muddy sounds, and get clean, crisp distortion, and how this has worked for me.

A basic thing to know about distortion is that it's basically a side-effect of pushing a valve amplifier beyond its limits. It results both in compressing the original sound, and adding extra harmonics on top of the root frequency (more info on that here: http://www.blackstoneappliances.com/dist101.html).

Another thing is that the frequencies in a signal are pretty much of a logarithmic nature... that is, the signal strength of bass frequencies is generally much higher than that of the higher frequencies, so the low frequencies are more likely to distort and compress.

Now the thing is... when you have too much distortion on your bass frequencies, you are adding many higher frequencies which start to interfere with the other higher frequencies in your signal, so you can no longer discern the individual notes, the sound becomes muffled and the compression will take out the 'punch' of the sound. I think this is what most of us know as 'muddy'.

The solution then, seems to be that you want to take away some of those bass frequencies before it starts distorting, so you 'free up' some room for the other frequencies, and balance out your tone.

There are various ways to do this. One example is the Mesa Boogie Mark IV amplifier, which has two equalizers, one before the major distortion circuitry of the amp, and one after. With the first you can 'shape' the distortion, dial out excess bass and tighten up the sound... with the second you can make the distorted sound aurally pleasurable.

Many amps (such as Marshalls and derivatives) only have an eq after the distortion, so you need to add the 'shaping' control externally.
You could use an equalizer pedal, or a booster pedal, which emphasizers the treble frequencies (such as what Brian May uses, and the Ibanez TS-9 is also famous as a booster pedal... they set the gain low, and the tone and output high, making it essentially a treble booster pedal)... Or you could change your pickups to pickups with more treble and/or less bass.

I personally choose not to go for extreme pickups, because while they may make your distorted sounds sound good, they generally don't work that well for clean or lo-gain sounds. I don't like the compromise.
I find that with most good pickups, a treble booster is good enough to get a tight, punchy distortion sound. And for clean or lo-gain sounds you just switch the booster off, and you have your classic tones back.

I tend to cringe when people say Les Pauls or their PAF-like pickups are horribly muddy... The truth is that it's not in the pickups.
Good PAF-like pickups have an almost singlecoil-like clarity to them, and just like single-coils, they make the sound of the guitar and your playing sound through. That's why people love them.

So, if you have a guitar that sounds great clean, but you're having trouble getting rid of the muddy sound with hi-gain... try boosting that treble, it might just work.
You'll probably also find that with boosted treble, the gain doesn't need to be that high to still get great sustain and harmonics on the high strings (which is probably why most people want the gain... to get into that screaming harmonic zone).
If you look at Eddie van Halen's Frankenstrat... in a way he did the same... He used a PAF pickup from his old Gibson, and put it in a Strat with a Floyd and a maple neck... a very bright-sounding guitar. So in a way that was his treble boost. The result was legendary.


----------



## cycloptopus (Aug 6, 2009)

Interesting theory. I concur. Especially since i've got a Mark IV. The pre gain bass is a dangerous knob. I wind up keeping it no higher than 3 or all mud breaks loose. 

I believe there are many ways to skin the cat. And I like your example of EVH's guitar sound as one way of getting it done.


----------



## Scali (Aug 6, 2009)

Yea, the Mark IV is a great amp, and the dual eq is a big factor in that. Strange that not more amp builders have copied this approach over the years.

And yea, there are many ways to solve the problem... I suppose what I am trying to say is that it's difficult to place the blame on one single aspect of the rig, even though people tend to do that ("Those pickups are horrible", "Mahogany sounds muddy", "That amp doesn't sound tight" etc).


----------



## Purist (Aug 6, 2009)

I too concur.


----------



## jufob (Aug 6, 2009)

Your theory seems accurate and makes sense through my own experiences but the "Aftermarketeers" do a great job of creating "Upgraded Illusions" and in a "Fast & Furious" world artists desire individuality and sometimes the right amount of combination, balance and luck can transform one into a present living historical figure.


----------



## TMM (Aug 6, 2009)

jufob said:


> Your theory seems accurate and makes sense through my own experiences but the "Aftermarketeers" do a great job of creating "Upgraded Illusions" and in a "Fast & Furious" world artists desire individuality and sometimes the right amount of combination, balance and luck can transform one into a present living historical figure.


----------



## Variant (Aug 6, 2009)

Personally, I've found modeling amps to be the best thing for retaining articulation in hi-gain, downtuned scenarios. I suppose if they got their models 'right' it wouldn't work.


----------



## Scali (Aug 7, 2009)

Variant said:


> Personally, I've found modeling amps to be the best thing for retaining articulation in hi-gain, downtuned scenarios. I suppose if they got their models 'right' it wouldn't work.


 
Well yea, I think there's actually something about that on the Line6 site...
Do you model an amp as accurately as possible, with all its idiosyncracies... or do you make it a bit more user-friendly?
In some cases it doesn't make sense to model all the quirks... People want to have a model of the GOOD sounds that certain amps produce, not the garbage you get when you do everything wrong.
So yea, modelers tend to be a bit more foolproof than the real thing


----------



## WrathOfGirth (Aug 7, 2009)

That's a good theory Scali,
I've been looking at things like this as I'm doing a tech course and I'm more on the physics of sound side of things.
I've never actually used the Boogie Mark IV, but to shape the signal like that, more amplifiers definitely need that and it is surprising that this hasn't been redone.

Besides my guitars with active pickups.
I'm finding I'm getting a muddy sound with both of my strats running through the lead channel on my amp. So single coil pickups tend to create a brighter sound and I find your neck pickup from a single coil exceptional compared to a humbucker IMO.
But I still can't pull off 'that sound' that I get with the active pickups.
Tried playing with the EQ, still couldn't quite get it.
Do you think a boost pedal might help with this?


----------



## BrainArt (Aug 7, 2009)

I like this theory, a lot. This one goes hand in hand with my theory on note definition and high-gain.


----------



## Scali (Aug 7, 2009)

WrathOfGirth said:


> I've never actually used the Boogie Mark IV, but to shape the signal like that, more amplifiers definitely need that and it is surprising that this hasn't been redone.


 
Well, actually it all started with Fender. They placed the eq at the front of the preamp (before distortion really was 'invented'). Mesa Boogie's Mark series started by hotrodding such an amp (a Fender Princeton I believe).

Marshall started out by copying Fender's Bassman circuit. But they moved the eq behind the preamp because it has less 'tonesuck' there.
Since most hi-gain amps are based on Marshall Plexi/JCM800 circuits, the eq pretty much stayed there (goes for the Mesa Recto series aswell). It's also more useful there, if you only have one eq.
Mesa decided to leave the eq in front of the preamp and just add a second one.



WrathOfGirth said:


> Besides my guitars with active pickups.
> I'm finding I'm getting a muddy sound with both of my strats running through the lead channel on my amp. So single coil pickups tend to create a brighter sound and I find your neck pickup from a single coil exceptional compared to a humbucker IMO.
> But I still can't pull off 'that sound' that I get with the active pickups.
> Tried playing with the EQ, still couldn't quite get it.
> Do you think a boost pedal might help with this?


 
Are the actives also single-coils?
Because single-coils will always sound different from humbuckers (even the humbucking type single-coils).
Malmsteen's sound is typical of a boosted single-coil (his are actually stacked humbuckers, but they sound much like real single-coils, with less noise).
If you want the fatter, chunkier sound of a humbucker, I suggest you try using a compressor in front of the distortion.

Noise could also be a reason why it sounds a bit muddy. Single-coils just happen to be more noisy than humbuckers (the whole reason why the humbucker exists is to reduce hum, noise etc, hence the name). Not much you can do about that, other than replacing the pickups with less noisy variations (stacked or rail type single-coil sized humbuckers, or actives).


----------



## phatfil (Aug 7, 2009)

here's a couple very good articles on the subject of distortion...

A Musical Distortion Primer
http://www.geofex.com/effxfaq/distn101.htm

"*PRE and POST distortion EQ:* Filtering of the signal both before and after the distortion usually has at least as much if not more to do with how the distortion sounds than the actual method of distortion."

and...

Distortion and power-tube saturation voicing: using the "eq->dist->eq" sequence

"Guitarists should experiment with this setup, which is merely implied in Distortion 101. It's very powerful: low-noise EQ --> distortion pedal --> EQ pedal"


----------



## Scali (Aug 7, 2009)

HAUCH said:


> I think the EVH analogy was ace, ash body/maple neck was his boost. I think that is a great way to explain what "healthy" distorted tone sounds like. I always seem to enjoy the the way a tone feels with moderate output pups and high gain amps.


 
Yea, of all the DiMarzio clips on their website, I think the Virtual PAF ones by Howie Simon sound by far the best. And those are some of the lowest output pickups they make. Just tons of character in his tone, most others just sound bland and 'processed'.

As for ash/maple... Jeff Loomis went for that combo with his signature Schecter guitar... but he put in active pickups...
If you compare Van Halen's sound to Loomis' sound... which do you think is 'better', more 'healthy', more 'natural'?


----------



## 74n4LL0 (Aug 7, 2009)

You're completely right Scali.
I achieve some of my best distortion tones with a Eric Johnson humbucker in the bridge (low output, bright sounding)...


----------



## Scali (Aug 7, 2009)

HAUCH said:


> Ohhh but there's quite a generation gap there. The sonic qualities of Jeffs tone are obviously dialed in to suit more modern or extreme purposes. And there lies the bane of mans quest for godlike tone IMO. A tone is only as effective as the sum of it's parts, or rather how well it sits with other tones. Both Evh and Loomis have different applications for their distorted tone, so it's hard to say which is "healthier" and judge them fairly. I will say that both tones are some of my favorite of all time.


 
Well, I don't see it that way.
I don't consider modern metal to be different from older metal.
I find that a lot of modern rock/metal is actually based on 80s stuff, heavy influences of Metallica, Iron Maiden and other melodic rockers/metalers.
Jeff Loomis' style seems to draw a lot of influences from 80s neoclassical shredders like Malmsteen and Becker (some of the stuff on Zero Order Phase sounds almost directly borrowed from Becker's Altitudes). Except I think the 80s shredders sounded better doing it 

I actually preferred Loomis' tone when he was playing the mahogany Schecters. The dark guitars with the bright actives worked better than his current combination of bright guitar and bright pickups, in my opinion. Although I never really considered Loomis to have particularly great tone.

I think 80s metal tones just were better than the current ones in general. I don't see why you can't play the current stuff with the old tones, because the music itself is pretty similar, we're in a bit of an 80s revival since the grunge/punk fad has faded away and more solid rock/metal is making a return.


----------



## possumkiller (Aug 7, 2009)

I agree. I spent a LOT of time trying to get the most distortion I could and the turn the bass to 10 the mids to 0 and the highs to 10. It seems like the farther on down the road we move in the metal world, the more gain people are using. I guess more gain=more modern to a lot of people. Dont get me wrong, I LOVE the sound of some SYL and Emperor and such, I just find myself not liking the sound Im hearing when Im practicing or trying to record something. I remember drooling over EMGs for so long when I was a kid because Metallica used them and I thought that would fix my tone. Now I get a guitar with EMGs and swap them out with Duncans or DiMarzios. All I have to do now is get myself to start turning down that gain knob a bit.


----------



## tr0n (Aug 7, 2009)

phatfil said:


> here's a couple very good articles on the subject of distortion...
> 
> A Musical Distortion Primer
> http://www.geofex.com/effxfaq/distn101.htm
> ...



Thanks for posting these. They're great, very enlightening. I've been trying to get a good distortion sound for a while and now with some method to my madness, I can achieve the results a lot quicker (in theory  )

The OP made a point that modelling should make amps more user friendly. I agree definitely. I think one of Native Instruments' 'Unique Selling Points' with Guitar Rig 3 is the emulation of amp noise. Duhhh, noise is what we don't want. ><


----------



## JJ Rodriguez (Aug 7, 2009)

What would be interesting to do is have a multi-band distortion. I could probably set something like that up on the Axe if I were so inclined. Have your low frequencies less distorted, mids/highs more. Set up a low and high pass filter and run them into 2 separate distortions. I actually tried something like that, ran my lows into the Diezel model and highs into the Uberschall model, didn't seem to mesh well though. Might have to retry it.


----------



## HANIAK (Aug 7, 2009)

Interesting theory, which is most probably true since lower tunings tend to be a lot muddier and require much more work to be as clear as higher tunings in the final mix.


----------



## HammerAndSickle (Aug 7, 2009)

Scali said:


> Well, I don't see it that way.
> I don't consider modern metal to be different from older metal.
> I find that a lot of modern rock/metal is actually based on 80s stuff, heavy influences of Metallica, Iron Maiden and other melodic rockers/metalers.
> Jeff Loomis' style seems to draw a lot of influences from 80s neoclassical shredders like Malmsteen and Becker (some of the stuff on Zero Order Phase sounds almost directly borrowed from Becker's Altitudes). Except I think the 80s shredders sounded better doing it
> ...



This I wholeheartedly disagree with. You're talking in the first post about clarity, articulation, note definition... all qualities I would attribute to a Loomis-esque sound. Becker was ahead of his time as far as that piercing, high-clarity tone. Your example of Van Halen is exactly the opposite of what I would consider articulate (purely from a rhythm standpoint). That's like saying Kill Em' All era Metallica was more articulate than obZen era Meshuggah. It's absurd.

"better" tone is subjective. But I find the tones you're describing to be flubby and not as razor-sharp as they could be. I took from your first post "get sharp and articulate tone, but without high-gain fizz and noise" then in this post you're saying "sacrifice clarity for a 'natural' sound, I prefer old-school "crunch" over modern precision"


----------



## Scali (Aug 7, 2009)

possumkiller said:


> I agree. I spent a LOT of time trying to get the most distortion I could and the turn the bass to 10 the mids to 0 and the highs to 10. It seems like the farther on down the road we move in the metal world, the more gain people are using. I guess more gain=more modern to a lot of people. Dont get me wrong, I LOVE the sound of some SYL and Emperor and such, I just find myself not liking the sound Im hearing when Im practicing or trying to record something. I remember drooling over EMGs for so long when I was a kid because Metallica used them and I thought that would fix my tone. Now I get a guitar with EMGs and swap them out with Duncans or DiMarzios. All I have to do now is get myself to start turning down that gain knob a bit.


 
Well, I started out with lots of gain because that was the only way my rig sounded good and played right, lol.
I started out with a cheap old amp and a Boss OS-2 pedal in front of it... Later I got a Zoom 505, which was better, but still the distortion sounded best when you ran it flatout.
When I got a better amp, I could finally explore lower gain settings.. Firstly, my amp (Marshall 6101) has stupid amounts of gain when playing with humbuckers. Past '5' on the gain knob, the tubes are fully saturated, you basically don't hear a difference in sound anymore, except that you're dialing in more noise. So that already made me explore the 'sweet spot' for the gain knob, trying to find that nice saturated tone with the least amount of noise.
Secondly, I found out that this amp didn't compromise response and sustain when you turn down the gain. I always had trouble playing with lower gain, because the guitar just didn't really respond to harmonics anymore, and notes would drop off quickly. But when you have a great distortion, it will sound sweet, liquid and responsive even with relatively low gain, and that makes it very easy and nice to play.

I'm not saying actives are necessarily bad by the way. I love the tones that David Gilmour or Steve Lukather got out of them. I actually the Lukather EMG set in one of my guitars, and it sounds great.
Old Metallica wasn't bad either. But these days it seems people just combine the brightness of active pickups with bright woods and some kind of boost... it becomes a bit of a caricature... Yea, with a sound like that you can use stupid amounts of gain without worrying about the sound getting muddy... but does it still sound good? I don't think so... I think you lose too much in the mid and lower regions, so it no longer really sounds like a guitar... you don't hear the 'sounds of wood and steel' anymore. I think Van Halen's tone is great because you can really hear the sound of his guitar, and the sound of his hands on the strings. It's so natural, so transparent.


----------



## Scali (Aug 7, 2009)

HammerAndSickle said:


> This I wholeheartedly disagree with. You're talking in the first post about clarity, articulation, note definition... all qualities I would attribute to a Loomis-esque sound. Becker was ahead of his time as far as that piercing, high-clarity tone. Your example of Van Halen is exactly the opposite of what I would consider articulate (purely from a rhythm standpoint). That's like saying Kill Em' All era Metallica was more articulate than obZen era Meshuggah. It's absurd.
> 
> "better" tone is subjective. But I find the tones you're describing to be flubby and not as razor-sharp as they could be. I took from your first post "get sharp and articulate tone, but without high-gain fizz and noise" then in this post you're saying "sacrifice clarity for a 'natural' sound, I prefer old-school "crunch" over modern precision"


 
Well exactly...
See, in the old days, people either sounded thin because they didn't use enough gain to get that really meaty metal sound... or they had a thick sound, but it was too fuzzy and flubby.
Guys like Van Halen and May managed to create a sound that is both meaty and articulate at the same time. But they still retained that 'vintage' warmth and character of the guitar and amp.

I fully agree that Loomis has an incredibly articulate and precise tone... but I don't find it an aurally pleasing tone. I think 'modern' tones like Loomis' just went way overboard with getting an articulate tone, and in the process lost the character of the guitar sound itself.

So yes, I'm saying that I like a sound that has 'just enough' articulation (avoid mud), and still retains the classic tone and warmth of the instrument.
That's why I like warm sounding low to medium output pickups like the PAF as the basis for my tone, in a classic sounding wood like mahogany/maple or alder.

The Howie Simon samples I was referring to, seem to have disappeared from DiMarzio's site, along with the Virtual PAF itself...
Here's one of the songs they used:


I think both the rhythm and lead tones are plenty articulate, and really sound like wood, steel and glass.
(And the lead work is incredible to boot )



HAUCH said:


> I don't know Scali, I agree with most of what you're saying but there are some clear inconsistancies with your theory.


 
What kind of inconsistencies?



HAUCH said:


> I like to think that guitar tone has come a long way since the 80s. To say that is has not would have you dismiss EVERY sought after high gain amp ever made in the last 10 years....which is something I'm not prepared to do.


 
I never said the amps are the problem (heck, I love the Engls myself). Rather how guitarists like to use their gear these days.
Besides, can you give any examples of how tone has come a long way since the 80s? Most modern guitarists use active pickups, which were invented in the 70s... and most hi-gain amps are based on the Marshall Plexi/JCM800.
The bloodline of popular 'modern' amps like the Mesa Recto and Peavey 5150/6505 can be traced back to these Marshall amps via the Soldano and Bogner modifications of them, which was done in the 80s.
Was there any significant breakthrough in the 90s or 00s in terms of pickups or amp technology? Or is it just the same 70s/80s stuff in a slightly different package?


----------



## phatfil (Aug 7, 2009)

JJ Rodriguez said:


> What would be interesting to do is have a multi-band distortion. I could probably set something like that up on the Axe if I were so inclined. Have your low frequencies less distorted, mids/highs more. Set up a low and high pass filter and run them into 2 separate distortions. I actually tried something like that, ran my lows into the Diezel model and highs into the Uberschall model, didn't seem to mesh well though. Might have to retry it.


 
Craig Anderton made a device called QuadraFuzz. it use low pass filters to split the signal and clips each range seperately. far less intermodulation and the bass freq's don't hog all the gain. i'm sure you can pull it off with plug-ins but here's a link for a kit to make a rack mount version...

PAiA - 6720K Quadrafuzz Kit, Quadrafuzz, 6720K


----------



## cycloptopus (Aug 7, 2009)

JJ Rodriguez said:


> What would be interesting to do is have a multi-band distortion. I could probably set something like that up on the Axe if I were so inclined. Have your low frequencies less distorted, mids/highs more. Set up a low and high pass filter and run them into 2 separate distortions. I actually tried something like that, ran my lows into the Diezel model and highs into the Uberschall model, didn't seem to mesh well though. Might have to retry it.


That sounds like a cool idea. I've had the thought that I'd like to be able to distort each individual string through a different amp or whatever. Basicly I would like to achieve an "overdubbed" distorted sound with chords and such to eliminate the distortion on the dissonant overtones or whatnot. If any of that makes sense. But of course I do like distorted dissonant overtones too, so I'd have to be able to turn in on and off whenever at whim. Could this be done with a Piezo and an AxeFX?


----------



## Scali (Aug 7, 2009)

cycloptopus said:


> That sounds like a cool idea. I've had the thought that I'd like to be able to distort each individual string through a different amp or whatever. Basicly I would like to achieve an "overdubbed" distorted sound with chords and such to eliminate the distortion on the dissonant overtones or whatnot. If any of that makes sense. But of course I do like distorted dissonant overtones too, so I'd have to be able to turn in on and off whenever at whim. Could this be done with a Piezo and an AxeFX?


 
Sound more like something the Roland V-Guitar system might be able to do.
It works with a small hex-pickup. The signal of each string is sent to the processor separately. This is required for accurate midi tracking, but they also coupled more conventional modeling effects to it.


----------



## cycloptopus (Aug 7, 2009)

Scali said:


> Sound more like something the Roland V-Guitar system might be able to do.
> It works with a small hex-pickup. The signal of each string is sent to the processor separately. This is required for accurate midi tracking, but they also coupled more conventional modeling effects to it.


Aha...

But, how cool would it be to run each string through a separate amp? 

I need to disregard females and obtain currency...


----------



## phatfil (Aug 7, 2009)

Scali said:


> Sound more like something the Roland V-Guitar system might be able to do.
> It works with a small hex-pickup. The signal of each string is sent to the processor separately. This is required for accurate midi tracking, but they also coupled more conventional modeling effects to it.


 
Anderton metions using hex pickups to achieve the multi-band distortion. i'd love to try it, but $ is unfortunately a factor.


----------



## JJ Rodriguez (Aug 7, 2009)

cycloptopus said:


> That sounds like a cool idea. I've had the thought that I'd like to be able to distort each individual string through a different amp or whatever. Basicly I would like to achieve an "overdubbed" distorted sound with chords and such to eliminate the distortion on the dissonant overtones or whatnot. If any of that makes sense. But of course I do like distorted dissonant overtones too, so I'd have to be able to turn in on and off whenever at whim. Could this be done with a Piezo and an AxeFX?



Nope, could not be done with the Axe. As far as I could tell, you could probably get about 4 strings, stereo inputs, and there's 2 of them. Could do it with 2 Axes  But if you have piezo's, I'd follow Scali's suggestion and get the Roland shit that's made for that.


----------



## xtrustisyoursx (Aug 7, 2009)

There are some guys we know here in Tennessee called Kingdom Amps who are working on that very concept. Their flagship model, the Neuma, has a dual power amp stage with both EL34s and 6L6s. The frequencies are split, and the higher range stuff is amplified by the EL34 stage, while the lower stuff goes to the 6L6. It creates a very pleasing and hifi sound.


----------



## Scali (Aug 7, 2009)

HAUCH said:


> My point is, many of the tones you hear today were unattainable in the 70's or 80's. Not even Michael J. Fox could get the tone he wanted, he blew up the amp Doc made for him.
> 
> Here is a clip I made a few weeks back. The playing is not super tight, I recorded two tracks one take each to a click then programmed the drums to it after. The gear/pups/ect. I used is in the description of the track.
> 
> ...


 
Well, I wonder about that really...
I mean, actives and mahogany neck-through guitars both existed in the 70s/80s...
The Engl didn't exist, but I think a Soldano or Bogner from the 80s will probably get you reasonably close.

I think the main thing is that people didn't play this kind of music back then, and as such weren't looking for such sounds. They didn't tune down this low.
To get back to your Back To The Future-reference... The people also didn't 'get' what Michael J Fox was playing to them... they weren't ready for it yet.

Just look at Yngwie Malmsteen for example... He basically uses the same gear as Hendrix... a vintage Strat and a vintage Marshall stack. Nothing fancy really, just 50s/60s technology... but Malmsteen gets a way different sound... not to mention he developed a technique and musical style that people couldn't even conceive back in Hendrix' days.
It's not about the gear, it's about how you use it


----------



## HamBungler (Aug 7, 2009)

Scali said:


> Just look at Yngwie Malmsteen for example... He basically uses the same gear as Hendrix... a vintage Strat and a vintage Marshall stack. Nothing fancy really, just 50s/60s technology... but Malmsteen gets a way different sound... not to mention he developed a technique and musical style that people couldn't even conceive back in Hendrix' days.
> It's not about the gear, it's about how you use it



More or less Yngwie was trying to mimic Ritchie Blackmore's setup while in Deep Purple, as a lot of what Yngwie does was trying to be BlackmoreX10, especially his early stuff.

There are a couple points that I disagree with you on though. For example, yes the technology to make these sounds have been around for years and years, but most of these technologies have been tweaked to the point of them being something completely different from what they originally were, even the amps that were based off of older amps. The Peavey JSX for example was basically trying to be 3 different amps (Fender Clean, Marshall Crunch and Triple XXX Lead) and in the process became a totally different animal, especially with tube swaps, etc. Also the comment on how most active pickups are super bright, I find the 707 to be really dull and dark, especially in mahogany and Loomis' move to put it in an Ash guitar was a great choice as it balances that pickup out very well. Most will agree with me that the 707 can get horribly muddy if it isn't tweaked right.

My theory is a little bit different. You're right with the boost thing and each person has a different way of doing it. Some guys like to do the actual output boost with the pickup, like me and my X2N-7. For the most part, this pickup boosts most frequencies, mainly the bass and treble with a fairly mild boost on mids, so what I do is run these properties lower and tone the gain down to get a really nice and articulate high-gain sound. With my other guitars I usually boost the treble and mids and only run the bass a little higher than I would with the X2N. With my live rig (Digitech GNX-3 into Peavey Classic 60 Poweramp) I find I need to boost my lower mids, which I've been doing with my Nobles ODR-1 which for most purposes is a very dark sounding boost, but I love it for this as I don't have to run my lows as high and thus I avoid mud and still get a very tight low end with sparkling clean tone to boot.

So at least for me I run this sort of rig to get the same thing accomplished, only I feel I have a lot more room to work with and if I ever decide to change my mind I have options available to me. I find cranking frequencies on PAF-style pickups to end up either being too harsh or too muddy myself (despite amp or whatever), which is why aftermarket pickups were invented in the first place. Your theory works but it might not work for everyone either, myself included.


----------



## Scali (Aug 7, 2009)

HamBungler said:


> The Peavey JSX for example was basically trying to be 3 different amps (Fender Clean, Marshall Crunch and Triple XXX Lead)


 
Hum, you mean it tried to be this:
Marshall Amps :: Heritage
What a coincidence, that was the amp Satriani was playing before he went to Peavey.



HamBungler said:


> Also the comment on how most active pickups are super bright


 
I never said or implied that they are 'super bright'.
Just brighter than a classic-sounding pickup such as the PAF.



HamBungler said:


> I find the 707 to be really dull and dark, especially in mahogany and Loomis' move to put it in an Ash guitar was a great choice as it balances that pickup out very well. Most will agree with me that the 707 can get horribly muddy if it isn't tweaked right.


 
Well, I've already given my opinion, so you know I don't agree that it balances out nicely with Loomis' sound.



HamBungler said:


> I find cranking frequencies on PAF-style pickups to end up either being too harsh or too muddy myself (despite amp or whatever), which is why aftermarket pickups were invented in the first place. Your theory works but it might not work for everyone either, myself included.


 
Yea, but what does that say really? There's plenty of people who get gorgeous tone out of PAF-style pickups, with no harshness or mud at all. So it's not like it's a problem of the pickups... perhaps it just doesn't work well with the particular amp/booster you tried it with.
Besides, many (if not most) of the aftermarket pickups are actually PAF-clones or derivatives. Apparently they do work for many guitarists.
They work for me anyway, because pretty much all of my favourite tones come from such pickups... They just sound richer and warmer to me than most other pickups...
But as I've already said, I also love Lukather's tone, and Steve Vai's Evo sounds amazing aswell... so it's not like PAFs are the only way to great tone. In fact, it's not even about PAFs... I was just giving an example of stock pickups which I often find under-appreciated... Same goes for Ibanez stock pickups for example. The V8 bridge humbucker is actually pretty close to a PAF Pro and can get a very sweet tone when boosted. In my RG570CT I actually prefer the V8 to a Tone Zone I tried in there for a few months.
And the S7320... people say the stock pickups are useless... While I agree they're not the greatest in the world, I am certainly able to get decent articulation out of them. They're certainly not useless, they just like to get boosted


----------



## All_¥our_Bass (Aug 8, 2009)

I really, REALLY wish more amps had both pre-dist and post-dist eq.

I'm gonna buy and eq pedal ASAP to put before my distortion.


----------



## HamBungler (Aug 8, 2009)

With the JSX at least the only part of the Marshall Satriani wanted was the Crunch part, I read in an old interview he wanted more than just his Marshall when Peavey got ahold of him so they gave him something with his favorite parts of his favorite amps, resulting in the JSX. Of course now he's back with Marshall, but the amp itself is a testament to a multitude of technologies coming together to make something different. Don't forget about VHTs either, though they've been around for years they totally break the norm for high gain amplifiers and sound like nothing else out there. Another one is Traynor with their YCS series, its really awesome stuff.

Okay, I'm done ranting. Point was, there are many ways to achieve great tone, each player has his own way of doing it. Yes, there is always going to be bad tone, but just because you present this theory doesn't mean it will work for them either, it could just as easily end up the opposite because there are too many factors that go into making a sound than just pickups and amplifiers. Just look at the guy who had muddy D-activators and tried everything and couldn't get them to sound un-muddy to him, to my ears they're some of the most piercing pickups out there, each musician's ears are different so its not gonna work every time.


----------



## Scali (Aug 8, 2009)

HamBungler said:


> With the JSX at least the only part of the Marshall Satriani wanted was the Crunch part, I read in an old interview he wanted more than just his Marshall when Peavey got ahold of him so they gave him something with his favorite parts of his favorite amps, resulting in the JSX. Of course now he's back with Marshall, but the amp itself is a testament to a multitude of technologies coming together to make something different. Don't forget about VHTs either, though they've been around for years they totally break the norm for high gain amplifiers and sound like nothing else out there. Another one is Traynor with their YCS series, its really awesome stuff.


 
Not sure what you're trying to say though... I never said anything about amps, or how there's only one amp you should really be using.
Yea ofcourse there are many amps and they're all different... they're not THAT different though.
In the end it's more important who's playing them, and how he's set them up. Satriani is an excellent example of that. Before he had the JSX, he went through various Marshalls, like the JCM800, JCM900 and the 6100, which all sound different... and the JSX sounds different from those...
But when Satriani played, they all sounded pretty much the same, especially if you only consider the amount of mud/clarity (which this topic is mostly about... not necessarily about tone itself, but just about how you can improve the clarity of your tone).
I haven't heard him play on the new Marshalls yet, but I'm pretty sure he's still going to sound like Satriani.



HamBungler said:


> Just look at the guy who had muddy D-activators and tried everything and couldn't get them to sound un-muddy to him, to my ears they're some of the most piercing pickups out there, each musician's ears are different so its not gonna work every time.


 
Well, no offense, but I think the guy just has a problem elsewhere. As you say, the D-Activators are pretty 'piercing'... That's not something that depends on a musician's ears... it's a simple scientific fact, just look at the frequency response to other pickups. As I say in this topic, muddy sounds are the result of having lots of bass and not enough treble... Well, the D-Activator is the exact opposite of that, it has a very low bass response, and very high treble response. Exactly the recipe I was describing to avoid mud.

So he may be right in saying that his tone is muddy... but blaming it on the pickups is wrong, because the D-Activators aren't exactly the pickups most likely to sound muddy.
As I was trying to say earlier... many people blame a muddy sound on PAF-like pickups... while a lot of them have good clarity of themselves.
There ARE pickups that indeed have a muddy character, and always sound a bit muffled, no matter what you try... but PAFs don't, and D-Activators surely don't either.
That was my entire point... people shouldn't blame this on the pickups so easily, especially not with pickups that famous guitarists have gotten excellent articulate tones with (both the PAF and the D-Activators would qualify there).
With this topic I'm hoping to give people some insight in things to try before they go for a pickup swap.
In the case of the D-Activators... where would you really be going from there? If you think THOSE pickups are muddy... well, it's pretty much on the extreme end in terms of clarity anyway, you can't really go much further. So maybe you should be looking at some other factors first.


----------



## HamBungler (Aug 8, 2009)

Scali said:


> Not sure what you're trying to say though... I never said anything about amps, or how there's only one amp you should really be using.
> Yea ofcourse there are many amps and they're all different... they're not THAT different though.
> In the end it's more important who's playing them, and how he's set them up. Satriani is an excellent example of that. Before he had the JSX, he went through various Marshalls, like the JCM800, JCM900 and the 6100, which all sound different... and the JSX sounds different from those...
> But when Satriani played, they all sounded pretty much the same, especially if you only consider the amount of mud/clarity (which this topic is mostly about... not necessarily about tone itself, but just about how you can improve the clarity of your tone).
> ...



I was more or less going off of what you were saying about amp technology not advancing much in the last decade or two, and was simply showing some companies that had been innovating. That is all.

And that's just the thing, he had a setup that you would think meant massive clarity and tried everything he could to eliminate mud, but they were still muddy to him. Although I guess its entirely possible to lose the high frequency range of hearing, or have a bad piece of wood on the guitar in question. Still, I find nothing wrong with pickup swaps in the slightest and find that stockers are extremely limiting, and for most intensive purposes is one of the cheapest ways to change/enhance your tone. So all I'm saying is if a person isn't happy with their tone and switches their pickups and gets closer to the tone in question, then that is progress, most will agree and would suggest this in a heartbeat. You are one of the few people on this board that regularly suggests using stock pickups, most others either say "go BKP" or whatever...so again, tone is subjective, not saying either suggestion is wrong, and neither suggestion is guaranteed to work either so I just find this all kinda redundant.


----------



## Scali (Aug 8, 2009)

HamBungler said:


> I was more or less going off of what you were saying about amp technology not advancing much in the last decade or two, and was simply showing some companies that had been innovating. That is all.


 
Well, we differ of opinion then.
I think 'innovating' isn't really the proper term, it's more like 'tweaking' or 'finetuning'.
If you ask me, there were only a few innovations in terms of guitar amps...
There were the original Fender guitar amps...
Then there was the Marshall Plexi, which moved the position of the eq, replaced tube rectification with solid-state rectification, and gave a certain level of control over distortion... resulting in a new breed of amps with a much tighter, punchier sound, and much more power than any amp that had gone before it.
Then the final innovation in terms of tube amps was when amp techs like Mesa, Soldano and Bogner started experimenting with cascading gain stages for extreme amounts of distortion (Mesa modifying a Fender circuit, with the eq upfront. Soldano/Bogner modifying Marshall circuits, with the eq at the end). Popular metal amps today, such as the Mesa Boogie Rectifier series or the Peavey 6505 are still based on those. These amps have such incredible amounts of gain, that you're never going to need more. The tubes are fully saturated long before you hit 10.
The only other amp innovation came from Line6: digital modeling.

Everything since seems to just be rehashing the same technology as before, giving slightly different interpretations of the same basic sounds. I haven't heard anything drastically different in years. I play on a tube amp from 1992, and I can dial it in to sound like 'modern' guitarists such as Petrucci, Loomis, Cooley and the like. I don't think I need a more 'modern' amp for that. Just a bit of tweaking of the knobs and a 7-string guitar instead of a 6-string.



HamBungler said:


> Still, I find nothing wrong with pickup swaps in the slightest and find that stockers are extremely limiting, and for most intensive purposes is one of the cheapest ways to change/enhance your tone.


 
I never said there's anything wrong with changing stock pickups per se... But here you go again, making a blanket statement that "stockers are extremely limiting".

That's the thing that bothers me... people have this knee-jerk reaction of "replace the pickups", then usually with the random pickup-du-jour... these days that is BKP for passives and Blackouts for actives.
There are so many things wrong there... let me try to sum a few issues up:

1) Guitars are made of wood, not of pickups. It seems that people just buy a guitar because it looks cool, without bothering to play it. Then they find it doesn't sound right, and hope to fix it with the pickups. A guitar is a musical instrument... you should play the guitar unplugged first, and see if you like its natural acoustic sound. If so, then you can fix the rest with pickups, if need be. If the guitar is a dead piece of wood, or it doesn't suit your style at all, you shouldn't buy it in the first place, because no matter what pickup you'll put in there, it's going to suck.

2) There's stock pickups, and then there's stock pickups. Doesn't necessarily have to do with the price of the instrument either. For example, a Les Paul Studio has the exact same pickups as some of the FAR more expensive models. Or a Jem 555, it has the same DiMarzio signature pickups as some of the more expensive models.
Or for example the Schecter Loomis, which comes with EMG 707... For years people have been modding their UVs and RG7s with EMG 707, saying how much better they sounded.
Clearly this already proves that not all stock pickups are bad, because some of them are the same high-end pickups that are sold 
aftermarket, and/or used in high-end guitars.
Now people complain about the same EMG 707, and want to replace them with Blackouts. I guess EMGs aren't as good anymore when they come stock... and EMGs aren't the pickup-du-jour anymore, so now it's Blackouts. Who knows what next year will bring...

3) It's such a knee-jerk reaction that people are already thinking of replacing pickups of a guitar they've never even played yet. How do you know if it's even necessary to replace the pickups? And how do you know what kind of pickups need to go in the guitar? It's not like the same pickup works in every guitar... A lot has to do with the wood and the construction of the guitar, and the resulting sound that the guitarist has in mind.

4) Pickups aren't the only way to improve your sound, there are plenty of other options to explore, which are often cheaper and more flexible, and can yield better results (Pickups aren't a cheap fix... if you have a budget guitar from Korea, Indonesia, China etc, getting a set of high-end aftermarket pickups and controls can cost as much as the guitar itself, or more. A tubescreamer or eq pedal is a much cheaper solution, and you only have to buy it once, not for every guitar you own).

5) What kind of nonsense is advice like "go BKP" anyway? While there's nothing wrong with BKP pickups, they make a wide variety of pickups, with widely differing characteristics. In fact, the brand is really not that relevant, all things considered... BKP, DiMarzio, Seymour Duncan, you name it... they all have a wide selection of pickups with all kinds of configurations, and these mostly overlap eachother. It's more important to get the general characteristics right than who actually makes them, in most cases. I mean, roughly speaking... if what I'm really looking for is a modern ceramic pickup sound, and I buy a vintage-voiced BKP with alnico magnet, I'm not going to be happy, even though I "went BKP".

6) Now, some of you may think that guitars are designed by drunk monkeys, but in reality guitar designs don't just 'happen'. People actually put some thought into the wood choice and construction, and select pickups which will actually work fine in that design.
I mean, if you look at a company like Ibanez... they don't just have 'stock' pickups... No, they have quite a large collection of pickups, perhaps as many as DiMarzio's line-up. In fact, some of these pickups were actually designed in conjunction with DiMarzio and/or famous artists. Yea, there's the Ibanez brand on them, but that doesn't necessarily mean they're all crap. They have a few duds in there, such as the Powersound and Infinity series, then again, those go in the absolutely cheapest models only. Those pickups need to be cheap to keep the price down. The ones in their more expensive series are actually pretty good. They don't have any of the usual 'cheap stock pickup' problems, such as noise, microphony, thin/scratchy/raspy/muddy sound or anything.
And that gets us back to the point... yea, maybe stock pickups aren't always exactly to your liking... but shouldn't you first buy a guitar, spend a few weeks getting to know the guitar, pickups and dialing in your amp, before you can even decide whether or not they need replacing... let alone trying to pinpoint what it is that you need to replace them with?

7) A lot of the time, the people discussing such pickup swaps are just 'beginners'... they've only been playing for a few months, maybe a few years... and they've only been playing over cheap gear. To put it bluntly, what do they really know about tone, response and all that anyway? Give them a high-end guitar with high-end pickups and a high-end amp, and they still can't make it sound good anyway.
They're just trying to be cool and fit in. Having an opinion on everything is just the thing to do on the internet.

Bottom line is just that people need to think about what they're doing more, rather than just go with these knee-jerk responses or internet myths like "all stock pickups are crap".

Obviously I'm not saying that all stock pickups are good... The ones in my Yamaha RGX sounded horrible, so I threw some EMGs in there... and an Epi Les Paul had microphonic problems, so I put real Gibsons in there. But I do like to mention that this Epi was from 1995, and Epi has since been waxpotting their pickups, and has also improved the general quality of their pickups. I've played an Epi Les Paul Custom from 2000ish, which sounded absolutely gorgeous with the stock pickups, and they had no microphonic problems whatsoever. They came very close to my Gibsons. Good output, good clarity, nice vintage warmth and vibe. So let's not mistake this for an "All Epi stock pickups are bad" blanket statement.
You have to judge pickups on a per-case basis.
"Stock is bad" is retarded, just as "go BKP". Ofcourse you'll have a bigger e-peen if your guitar has BKPs, even if they don't match your guitar and amp at all, and you don't really know how to play. But I thought it was about tone, and not about e-peens.

Thank you for playing.


----------



## DarkSideCreo (Sep 3, 2009)

Hi all!
I read your topic and posts, and found them quite useful for me. Thanks a lot for sharing the information and your thoughts!

I have a question though. I've been playing for like 7 or 8 years so far, but I had a huge gap of about few years, when I was busy with study and other things and didn't play as much as I used to. But about a year ago I started getting back into playing, got myself a new guitar and few stomp boxes. So here goes the question: why my distortion sounds is so damn muddy?
Is it because of my amp? I have a crappy Fender Frontman 25watts atm. Other equipment is not that bad I think.. I bought ESP Eclipse II with EMG pick-ups. I also have Ibanez IC300 (quite old, bought it after about a year or 2 of playing guitar). Recently I decided to buy few pedals to try to get a good distortion, but so far all the results are not great. I don't know much about equipment and etc, I don't have many pro musicians around me so no one could show me all these things))
I have Boss MT-2 distortion pedal, Boss GE-7 equalizer and recently I bought a DigiTech Bad Monkey tube overdrive. I also have Zoom G-2 effects processor, but I don't use it much, except for recording through its USB port or tuning my guitars.
I tried putting pedals in different positions in a line-up. So far the best results I get are going: Guitar -> Bad Monkey (gain at 3, highs at 8, low at 6) -> MT-2 (gain at 3, highs at 3, lows at 0) -> equalizer (with highs tuned down)-> input on my amp (clean channel). This way I get enough distortion, crunchy palm-muting, and ok sustain. But I still get a lot of mudd. Distortion sounds weird, since I turn down highs on my equalizer, but if I don't, there will be even more mudd and dirt in my sound. 
Can anyone advise on how to get my sound less muddy? I know my amp sucks, does all the mudd comes from the amp? 

Also, recently my friend discovered, that if he plugs the guitar into his amp, and plugs all his pedals into the effect loop (the one with Send and Return plugs), he gets a much clearer sound. A lot less mudd and dirt. And he's using cheaper equipment than me (LTD Viper guitar, Behringer distortion pedal, some cheap 15 watt amp). Unfortunately, my amp doesn't
have the Effect Loop, so I was wondering if its possible to somehow simulate this, or get similar results with a stomp box pedal? I was reading some stuff online, I read that preamp pedal can do this. Is it true?

Sorry for all the details, but I thought it might be easier to understand my problem, if I describe it in details 

Thanks in advance!

PS: Also, just wanted to add, that I don't have money to buy high-end super expensive equipment at the moment, cause i just graduated from college this year, so please keep that in mind, before offering me to buy a Messa Boogie amp, or a stomp box, that will cost the same money as my guitar


----------



## HamBungler (Sep 3, 2009)

DarkSideCreo said:


> Hi all!
> I read your topic and posts, and found them quite useful for me. Thanks a lot for sharing the information and your thoughts!
> 
> I have a question though. I've been playing for like 7 or 8 years so far, but I had a huge gap of about few years, when I was busy with study and other things and didn't play as much as I used to. But about a year ago I started getting back into playing, got myself a new guitar and few stomp boxes. So here goes the question: why my distortion sounds is so damn muddy?
> ...



The main problems with your chain is the MT-2 and your amp. The Metal Zone is a horrible pedal unless you get it modded, and compared to good amp distortion its not that great anyway. Those Fender amps are not too bad if you have a good Multi-Fx processor with them, and that Zoom isn't too bad if you know how to tweak it. I've found with my Fender 85 that with my GNX-3 I have to keep bass-mids-treble at about 6 and use the internal EQ on the pedal to taste. Quite honestly if you find yourself with a muddy sound still I'd just look into a better amp. It doesn't necessarily have to be super expensive either. Something like a Marshall Valvestate or Crate Stealth combo can be had for cheap on the 'bay ($200-300 US) so if you sell off the Metal Zone and some other pedals plus your old amp you could get one of those pretty easy. There's also Bugera, which are a cheap man's Peavey amps.

Also, how are you using the Bad Monkey? If you're using it as a boost, keep the gain down at about 0-3, crank the level and use the tone to taste. That will boost your signal and keep the low end in check.

And if you have a muddy signal, why are you using the EQ to turn down highs? If anything you want to cut lows and boost low-mids and maybe highs just a tad.


----------



## TomParenteau (Sep 3, 2009)

I totally agree with the original post except for one little nit-picking =vH= trivia fact: A Floyd certainly brightens a guitar up, but the Frankenstrat didn't have one at first 'cuz there weren't none.


----------



## Scali (Sep 3, 2009)

TomPerverteau said:


> I totally agree with the original post except for one little nit-picking =vH= trivia fact: A Floyd certainly brightens a guitar up, but the Frankenstrat didn't have one at first 'cuz there weren't none.


 
True, but Van Halen was one of the first to receive an early prototype from Floyd Rose. This would have been around 1977-1978... Which is also around the time when the first Van Halen album was recorded.
So I'm not sure if Eddie ever recorded without a Floyd at all, and if he did, it was probably only on the first album.


----------



## TomParenteau (Sep 3, 2009)

All accounts & interviews I know about quote him as saying something like, "The Floyd stuff is too bright for recording." Also that the first album has no Floyds, just a regular strat-type bridge hanging on with only 2 screws! He was the best at keeping those things in tune.

But as much as I like to go around & around with =vH= trivia, I will stop now because it's not the topic of the thread.


----------



## DarkSideCreo (Sep 3, 2009)

HamBungler said:


> The main problems with your chain is the MT-2 and your amp. The Metal Zone is a horrible pedal unless you get it modded, and compared to good amp distortion its not that great anyway. Those Fender amps are not too bad if you have a good Multi-Fx processor with them, and that Zoom isn't too bad if you know how to tweak it. I've found with my Fender 85 that with my GNX-3 I have to keep bass-mids-treble at about 6 and use the internal EQ on the pedal to taste. Quite honestly if you find yourself with a muddy sound still I'd just look into a better amp. It doesn't necessarily have to be super expensive either. Something like a Marshall Valvestate or Crate Stealth combo can be had for cheap on the 'bay ($200-300 US) so if you sell off the Metal Zone and some other pedals plus your old amp you could get one of those pretty easy. There's also Bugera, which are a cheap man's Peavey amps.
> 
> Also, how are you using the Bad Monkey? If you're using it as a boost, keep the gain down at about 0-3, crank the level and use the tone to taste. That will boost your signal and keep the low end in check.
> 
> And if you have a muddy signal, why are you using the EQ to turn down highs? If anything you want to cut lows and boost low-mids and maybe highs just a tad.



Thanks for your reply)
I don't think I can sell my pedal cause i live and work in China atm, the second hand musical instruments market is quite small here. Thats also a reason why I don't know any pro musicians here, people simply don't play rock that much.. I bought that MT-2 cause i read some good reviews about it, I guess it's a load of BS. Ah well, i'll keep it, maybe after I'll get a new amp, i can use it somehow. 
I tried to use the EQ to get rid of the mudd, it seemed to me that all the mudd and hiss was in high frequencies zone. 

By the way, I'm still wondering about the Effect Loop thing. As I mentioned before, my friends sound was much better after running it through the effect loop. 

So if i'll get a good amp, should i run my pedals through the effects loop? Or just plug it in like guitar -> pedals -> input?

As for the amp - should i get an amp with valves? I mostly listen and play hardcore melodic punk to heavy alternative, and stuff like that.


----------



## EdgeCrusher (Sep 3, 2009)

Generally speaking, you want to put distortion/overdrive pedals in front of the amp. Plugging your pedals into the effects return jack will bypass your amps preamp (ie the tone controls will not work) and your only using the amps power amp. 

I'd try plugging your Zoom pedal into the effects return and try tweaking your sound on the pedal. The Bad Monkey overdrive is a nice pedal, but it's best used with the gain low in front of a tube amp's dirty channel to tighten up the sound. Putting it in front of the MT-2 is just going to add too much gain which is muddying up your sound. 

If you can afford a cheap tube amp that would be the way to go, keep the Bad Monkey and sell your other pedals. For now though, try using the Zoom as a preamp, or try boosting the front of your Fenders gain channel with the Bad Monkey.


----------



## DarkSideCreo (Sep 3, 2009)

I don't have effects loop on my fender, my friend has it, so i can't really use it i guess. I'll try using bad monkey with fender's overdrive. As i mentioned earlier, I can't really sell my pedals, so I'll keep them and start saving for a tube amp. Also, there was a link at the first page of this topic, about the Eq -> distortion -> Eq setup, I want to try it also. 

"The Metal Zone is a horrible pedal unless you get it modded"
Is it hard to modd it? How to do it? I guess i need to give the pedal to some custom shop?


----------



## TonyFlyingSquirrel (Sep 3, 2009)

One of my favorite amp tones is actually the Mesa Boogie .50 Caliber, all the front end eq set at about six, gain about the same, use the post eq in a bit of a v or smile curve to beef up the low end, I wish they still made that amp.


----------



## sepherus (Sep 3, 2009)

I used to get pretty decent results with my MT-2 I used to own. It can suck, and it is hard to learn, but the post EQ is a good thing to own. 

I'd take the bad monkey out of the chain. EQ your amp flat. Leave the gain low at first on the MT-2, same with the treble and bass. Put the inner mid knob to up past half to taste, with the outer one about 1 o'clock. With your external EQ boost the lower mids till it sounds full but not overpowering, then tweak the lows and highs to taste. Then add only as much gain as you need, which shouldn't be much with it. I never went over half.

Keep in mind the pedal will always be very compressed and dynamics pretty much aren't there.


----------



## Ruins (Sep 4, 2009)

thanks for confirming me my theory . i KNEW that i was right


----------



## DarkSideCreo (Sep 4, 2009)

Thanks a lot for info everybody. So i'm selling my Ibanez tomorrow, don't really need it since i have ESP now, so I'll have some spare money.

From what people wrote, I should buy a tube amp right? The choice is not that great around here, I only saw one Vox 30 watt tube amp. Other ones are too expensive and huge, I don't need a 120 watt amp in my apartment 

How's VOX AD30VT? Is it any good? I read some nice reviews about it. 
There's also a Peavey Bandit 112 Transtube. Also Peavey Studio Pro 112, but its more expensive, so I don't know if i can get my hands on it or not.. And also a cheap Peavey Envoy 110. Also I found Randall RG75 G2. And quite a few Laney amps. All of those are in a same price range.

Which one of those would be better for me? Again, I want clean and powerful distortion, but also I want to be able to get a decent punk sound out of it..


----------



## Scali (Sep 4, 2009)

If your amp doesn't have an effect loop, you need to plug it in the front... and that could be a problem with Fender amps. They are VERY sensitive to the input signal. What I think is happening is that the Zoom is coming in too loud, and the Fender's preamp starts distorting, which means that even though the Zoom may have provided a decent tone, it gets muddied up again in the Fender's 'clean' channel. With an effect loop you generally don't have that problem, which probably explains why it sounds so much better on another amp.

So I think you have to keep the gain on your Fender amp as low as possible, and possibly also adjust the Zoom's settings so that its output is lower. I'd start by using a fully clean sound on the Zoom, and try keeping it sqeaky-clean even after it's passed through the Fender. Which means squeaky-clean, so not even a tad of distortion when you hit the strings hard.

I think if you can get the Zoom and the Fender to like eachother, you should be able to get some pretty decent tones. I use the Zoom G9.2tt myself, which basically sounds the same as the G2, it just has more amp models, effects and other stuff.

And no, I don't think you necessarily need to buy a tube amp. None of the amps you mentioned are tube amps though, as far as I recall (except the Laneys perhaps... which would be a good choice I suppose).


----------



## DarkSideCreo (Sep 4, 2009)

I haven't played around with Zoom yet, still tried to mess with the pedals I have. Tried removing the MT-2 out of the line-up, plugged the bad monkey into the clean with distortion on (but quite low, like 2-3). Sounds less muddy, but not much power in it. To get more power I need to crank up the gain knobs, and then mudd returns.. Return of the Mudd 
Also I tried to follow sepherus's suggestions. Removed Bad monkey out of the line up, used settings he posted (plus messed around with them myself). Doesn't sound that good either. 

So I think i'll just buy myself a tube amp, if i'll find one, and see what'll happen)

PS: I will give Zoom another go today, will see if anything decent will come up  but I'm starting to think that my amp is just screwed. I mean its cheap, and its few years old. And I didn't really take care of it, maybe it got damaged when I was transporting it to another apartment.


----------



## Scali (Sep 4, 2009)

The Zoom has some really tight distortions anyway, one of my favourites is the ExtremeDistortion.


----------

