Why are mesas mids vocied on the lower frequency range?

[kramerxxx]

The 25ft limit might be something, I'll check that. thx. I have Mogami cables that I made myself with Switchcraft ends but I think I use a 10-12' to the first pedal and a 15-18' behind them.

 

[JW123]

Mckinley

Grunge broke out with Nirvana 1991 if I recall

I got my first Recto in 1990, so the Rectos were designed pregrunge.

Theres nothing wrong with the way the Rectos are voiced. In fact some of the commercial radio songs over the last 10 yrs are Rectos. Think Creed, Nickleback, they may not always use Rectos, but they are using the sound.

I think you need to go somewhere else from here with your blasphemy, this is a Mesa site. And its obvious to this old guitarist that you dont know jack **** about tone.

 

[Jak0lantern01]

Regarding grunge as a low point for guitar, let me mention one name: Jerry Cantrell. 'Nuff said.

 

[Chris McKinley]

kramerxxx,

I would suggest a much shorter cable after the pedal. It's only got to go from the floor to the amp's input...even with a full stack of two 4 X 12 cabs, that's only about 6 to 8 feet or so. Unless you're playing arenas, there's no reason why you'd have to have your pedals any further away from your amp rig than that, and that might solve your cable length rolloff right there.


JW123,

RE: "Grunge broke out with Nirvana 1991 if I recall

I got my first Recto in 1990, so the Rectos were designed pregrunge.". Exactly, it's within one year....same time period. My point that Rectos came out right at the beginning of the popularity of grunge still stands.

RE: "Theres nothing wrong with the way the Rectos are voiced.". That's correct. Unless, of course, that's not the tone you're wanting....then there is something wrong with it. It's all a matter of personal preference.

RE: "In fact some of the commercial radio songs over the last 10 yrs are Rectos. Think Creed, Nickleback, they may not always use Rectos, but they are using the sound.". I would go further and say most of the commercial heavy rock over the last 10 years has been associated with the Recto tone. Tone-wise, Creed and Nickelback are both excellent examples of the power of that tone. So are Dream Theater, Mudvayne, Evanescence, Alter Bridge and many others. It's a great tone. Part of the reason why I personally have my own Recto.

RE: "I think you need to go somewhere else from here with your blasphemy, this is a Mesa site.". Blasphemy? Pointing out what most posters on this very site have mentioned as one of the few flaws of the Rectifier and claiming that it's still my favorite amp isn't exactly blasphemy.

Perhaps you're taking this all a bit too seriously. This isn't religionchat. It's a discussion forum for Mesa products, and I'm discussing them, the bad with the good objectively. This isn't a forum where posters are required to promote blind loyalty to the brand, or never say anything critical about Mesa's products. IOW, we're not responsible for selling Mesa's products, we're discussing them. If you don't like a given subjective opinion about those products, you are of course free to disagree, as am I. Unless, of course, we're trying to turn this forum into a place where even mild dissent such as mine is not tolerated.

RE: "And its obvious to this old guitarist that you dont know jack sh!t about tone.". Based on what? I want specific statements. By what parameters are you judging what is good tone or not? And by what specific statements of mine have you concluded that my concept of good tone does not fit within those parameters?

If you're going to level that kind of melodramatic criticism, I expect that you are intelligent enough to actually have specific evidence to back up such personal vitriole. Or are you just blowing smoke up our collective asses and venting?


JakOlantern01,

Your point about Jerry Cantrell is not lost on me personally, since I enjoy a lot of his playing. He's not what I'd call great, but he's decent, and his expressions are refreshingly not run-of-the-mill. However, he is not really representative of the genre's average guitarist. In any given musical trend, there are going to be at least a small few who stand out from the crowd. I'd add Mike McCready and Kim Thayil to that list as well.

But a few talented guitarists doesn't change the fact that, in general, the grunge genre was characterized by a pendulum swing away from overt technical ability to the point where minimal technical skills in the creation of songs was actually celebrated. It's an understandable swing given the excess it replaced, but it doesn't change the fact that the average ability of grunge guitarists was well below what could be found in previous popular genres of rock, not limited to the shred of the 80's. Still, if you enjoy it, then raw ability isn't particularly meaningful, and more power to you. There are several songs from the genre that I enjoy, since raw technical ability is not my only yardstick.

 

[Anonymous]

I have the stock mesa black shadow speakers in my Combo. Im thinking maybe eminence red white and blues. I play blues and southern rock.

dude, you must be a fan of the black crowes. great songs and tones.

get a marshall and strat. case closed.

riveras are cool too.

actually iam. Thats why i loaded KT77 powertubes in the lonestar. My main guitar is a custom built carvin bolt(strat like) that i put rio grande pups in. I also use a gibson VOS Les Paul Special a hot roded nashvile tele(with a mini HB in the neck position). I own over 10 guitars those are just my main players.

 

[Kung-Fool]

Mckinley

Grunge broke out with Nirvana 1991 if I recall

I got my first Recto in 1990, so the Rectos were designed pregrunge.

Theres nothing wrong with the way the Rectos are voiced. In fact some of the commercial radio songs over the last 10 yrs are Rectos. Think Creed, Nickleback, they may not always use Rectos, but they are using the sound.

I think you need to go somewhere else from here with your blasphemy, this is a Mesa site. And its obvious to this old guitarist that you dont know jack sh!t about tone.

Ummmmm, I don't think you got your recto in 1990. They were first built in 1992.

 

[nemesys]

Your point about Jerry Cantrell is not lost on me personally, since I enjoy a lot of his playing. He's not what I'd call great, but he's decent, and his expressions are refreshingly not run-of-the-mill. However, he is not really representative of the genre's average guitarist. In any given musical trend, there are going to be at least a small few who stand out from the crowd. I'd add Mike McCready and Kim Thayil to that list as well.

Actually, Kurt Cobain (who would probably have been the first to tell you that he wasn't a very technical guitarist, and whose playing served the music he was playing, anyway) notwithstanding, I don't see a lot of overall difference between the technical ability of guitarists of the grunge era and any other era. Stylistically, grunge was very minimalist, likely as a rejection of the 80's excess, as you pointed out. But, what flashy guitar playing there was was just as technically sound as any other. The genre was really just an interesting blend of punk and 70's rock, in the final analysis.

I would call Jerry Cantrell a great guitarist, because he knows how to play to serve the song he is playing. Sometimes, he'll play a fast shred solo, sometimes he'll play three notes in fifteen seconds. It always fits perfectly and sounds very natural, though -- I think he has exceptional ability in this area. He can do it in multiple styles, too -- did you know that back in the 80's, before grunge became popular, AIC was a hair-metal band? I think Mike McCready and Kim Thayil are excellent guitarists, as well. Honestly, throw in Dean DeLeo (who is also very good), and we've covered a good portion of the grunge movement. So, to you, who are all of these untechnical guitarists who represent the grunge movement?

But a few talented guitarists doesn't change the fact that, in general, the grunge genre was characterized by a pendulum swing away from overt technical ability to the point where minimal technical skills in the creation of songs was actually celebrated. It's an understandable swing given the excess it replaced, but it doesn't change the fact that the average ability of grunge guitarists was well below what could be found in previous popular genres of rock, not limited to the shred of the 80's. Still, if you enjoy it, then raw ability isn't particularly meaningful, and more power to you. There are several songs from the genre that I enjoy, since raw technical ability is not my only yardstick.

You seem to be of the opinion that ability consists solely of the ability to play fast, and that overall, grunge guitarists were lesser players because they tended toward minimalist arrangements. This seems quite arrogant, and I disagree, I think ability lies in the ability to serve the song you're playing, and I think that technical ability, while important, isn't everything.

I'm reminded here of an album that a friend lent me a while ago that he liked. The band was "Arch Enemy", I think, I don't remember the album name. In the intro to the first track, the drums were going about 180 BPM, the bass was doing some sort of modal thing right along with them, the rhythm guitarist was playing downtuned, palm-muted power chords as fast as he could, and the lead guitarist was playing some sort of neoclassical shred, ten notes a second. It all sounded like a wall of mud, because there was no space in the arrangement. Overall, the album wasn't bad. The lyrics were pretty hackneyed, and a lot of it was pretty homogeneous, but there were some decent songs. All they did was play fast, though, and that got old, unless there was something melodically interesting going on. Sure, it was full of technical ability to the exclusion of all else. So is programming a computer, but that's not necessarily interesting to watch, either.

 

[EXPRESSLOVER]

I think the amp is not for your style maybe?? If the tone isnt where your heart is then defo think about getting a marshall or something with a different voicing altogether.

Last resort is to try to get an e.q pedal which will brighten up your sound etc....and also maybe try a speaker change too as this can greatly affect your sound.

I know it seems like alot of hassle but if you love the amp then you will have to try things in order to get the sound your after.

If not sell it off and get a marshall which are great in the high-gain bright sounding e.q's.

I prefer a darker sound which my boogie gives me in spades along with my strat.

 

[Chris McKinley]

nemesys,

That was actually a fairly insightful view of grunge. Ultimately, keep in mind we are talking about subjective taste preferences here, so there is no objective way for either of us to convince the other by strength of argument alone.

RE: "...I don't see a lot of overall difference between the technical ability of guitarists of the grunge era and any other era.". Well, ok, but I and most others do. Not that that is the only factor by which good music should be judged, as both of us have previously pointed out.

RE: "But, what flashy guitar playing there was was just as technically sound as any other.". Quite simply, it was not. Precisely as part of that pendulum swing, the 90's marked the temporary death of the guitar solo in popular music. The vanishingly rare instances of it still remaining during that era were, contrary to your claim, nowhere near the technical equivalent of even the average output in either the 70's or (especially) the 80's.

RE: "I would call Jerry Cantrell a great guitarist, because he knows how to play to serve the song he is playing.". That's one of the reasons his expressions aren't typical. Most grunge players, perhaps even most players, don't share his same sensibility. But I treat the ability to write and play to the song as a separate skill entirely unto itself, and one that is important enough to warrant its own separate consideration. Rock's history is full of guys who were not great technical players but who excelled at playing to the song. Pete Townshend, Paul Compton, Ace Frehley, Mick Mars, C.C. Deville, Kurt Kobain....all these guys fit that category, for instance. Great guitarists? No. Great songwriters and band players? Definitely.

RE: "...did you know that back in the 80's, before grunge became popular, AIC was a hair-metal band?". Yeah I did, which is part of why Jerry isn't the best choice as a representative of the grunge style overall. Dean's a closet player. He pretended (as many guys who were already good when grunge came along) not to be able to play particularly well in order to fit into the genre's philosophy. If you listen to STP without knowing that about him, you would assume that he was a completely forgettable guitarist and a typical grunger whose recorded output was always near or at the edge of his playing ability.

But the small handful of guys we've mentioned by name are only a drop in the bucket of a movement that included hundreds of bands, with only a minority actually recording, and an even smaller minority of those who could claim to have lasting hits in any way. Again, any time period/trend will have at least a few good players; it's the average that defines the genre, not the exceptions. Even at that, none of the guys we mentioned were what I personally would call outstanding technical players anyway. By the standards of just 3 or 4 years previous to when they came out, they would be considered marginal at best.

RE: "You seem to be of the opinion that ability consists solely of the ability to play fast, and that overall, grunge guitarists were lesser players because they tended toward minimalist arrangements.". I am not of that opinion. However, grunge guitarists tended toward minimalist arrangements because, on average, they were not capable of other options.

Excepting the players whom we've named, the average grunge player glommed onto the genre after it's best players were already in the public marketplace. The culture of the genre was such that practices such as not taking guitar lessons, not practicing, purposefully avoiding any playing that could be accused of being 'technical', intentionally playing through crappy equipment, even not tuning the instrument precisely for both recordings and live performances all became chic.

The small cluster of players who kicked off the genre were not ultimately particularly representative of the genre they created in terms of average playing level, and while these practices made the genre a very authentically populist musical trend (perhaps the last one), it also levelled the playing field to the lowest common denominator in terms of playing ability. One could start playing guitar for the first time and 3 months later, plateau and be as good as one will ever be on the instrument and still play acceptably within the genre.

RE: "All they did was play fast, though, and that got old, unless there was something melodically interesting going on. Sure, it was full of technical ability to the exclusion of all else.". Yeah. That's why good players don't always play good music. And good music isn't always played by good players. That's also why I consider that a totally separate set of skills, and no less important.

 

[mikey383]

I can't speak to the Lonestar series, but this is the main problem with the Recto series, too. In fact, I would go so far as to say that that series is even becoming a bit obsolete as a result. When Randall designed the Rectos, he specifically set out to voice an amp that didn't sound like a hot-rodded Marshall. This was also right at the beginning of the popularity of Grunge, a musical movement characterized (among other things) by terrible guitar tones which were purposefully muddy, mushy and inarticulate.

Unfortunately, nothing helps to achieve that tone better than voicing an amp to produce too much 200Hz mids. If you are playing a severely down-tuned guitar, a stock Recto will provide a very full sound at that end of the frequency spectrum. This kind of sound was also very popular among rock, grunge and nu-metal guitarists throughout the 90's and well into the 2000's. However, it pretty much left the mid and high-mid range empty on many recordings.

Now that guitarists are getting over the long, dark hangover of grunge, rap-metal, nu-metal and poor playing in general, they are starting to notice that their tone is lacking when they try to do anything but down-tuned chugs. Lead players are beginning to once again appreciate the fact that the electric guitar is an instrument that lives and breathes in the mid range, and the resurgence of the graphic EQ pedal's popularity is one of the results.

Changing tubes can lessen the effect of the amp's tone stack voicing, but it can't fundamentally alter it. Same thing with EQ's. EQ's always do a better job of removing too much of a given frequency than they do of adding more of a frequency which is too weak. It's a lot like dealing with Photoshop. The filters in Photoshop can do some dramatic things, but they can't work miracles, and you'll always be better off starting with a good quality original photograph with high resolution. That way, only small tweaks are necessary to take the photo from good to great. Even in Photoshop, only so much can be done with a low-res, color-imbalanced photograph with bad lighting.

dmotisko mentioned the Boss EQ-20. I've got one. It's no different than any other graphic EQ in terms of how it affects the guitar's signal. The only difference is that it's digital and that it can store presets. That's it. It's a handy tool, but frankly it's a bit noisy. The Danelectro Fish n' Chips blows it away for quiet operation and price.[/i]

:shock:

Dude, have you even played a Recto??? When set properly, they are anything but muddy and flabby.

...and Grunge having terrible tones? Geesh...

I guess you've never played a Fender amp then? Since Mesa designs are based from Fenders, that accounts as to why Mesas are in the low-mid spectrum. It's also one of the characteristics of 6L6s.

 

[Chris McKinley]

mikey383,

Try to keep up, Sparky. If you had been paying attention so far, you'd know that I not only own a Recto, but claim it to be my favorite amp. You'd also know that it is a common problem for Rectos to sound muddy in the bass precisely because people commonly don't know how to set them properly. I have participated in numerous threads in this forum attempting to provide the best information possible on precisely how to avoid that. Grunge's famous "wall of mud" sound is not new to anyone, and it's part of why we work so hard to avoid it in our amps.

As to Fender amps, it's old news that the first Boogies were designed from the Fender platform. Not only are Rectos several generations of amps removed from the Fenders that first inspired Randall Smith to work his magic, they sound nothing at all like the Fenders that provided that original inspiration. Twins, Champs, Blackfaces, etc. certainly do not have a similar emphasis on low mids to Rectos. This has far less to do with the use of 6L6's in the power section than it does the way Randall designed the tone stack of the amp.

Now, beyond this, do you have anything to actually add to the discussion?

 

[jdurso]

and what's wrong with grunge and "Nu" metal anyway? after i got bored playing thrash i need something new to do with aggro guitar, and the stuff Munkey and Head did blew my mind. Wes Borland is Brilliant too, just was stuck behind a dork for a frontman.

There's nothing wrong with grunge and nu-metal. I don't buy the notion that it's considered a low point for guitar music either. If anything, it's more guitar-centric than the 80's metal that's so popular now, with the spare, synth-less arrangements, though I would argue that songwriting was centric. Just because not every song had a flashy million-note guitar solo doesn't make them bad. The guitar, as with all of the instruments, should serve the song, not the other way around. And, there were some great grunge songs which sounded like nothing else that was popular at the time, and a lot of people liked to listen to them.

It's fashionable now to bag on 90's music as being underplayed and lacking technique, just as it was fashionable ten years ago to bag on hair bands for being overdone and image-focused (I think the hair bands were overdone and too image-focused after a while, and it's mystifying to me that people like that stuff now, but that's because I'm getting old, not because it's inherently bad). And, you know what? In a few years, it'll come full circle again, and something will come along that was influenced by the grunge era, and it'll be fashionable to hate the stuff that's being made now. It doesn't matter, it's all music.

wow great points. honestly, i do think there was more "talent" in the 80s and even more in the 60s and 70s but not because of flashy guitar solos. to me there were more actual musicians then that knew how to serve the song because they knew more theory. now i am in no way saying knowing theory will ultimately make you write great songs or that you need to know it to write good songs, but it sure does help when you have a good ear and a nack for writing. now the 60s and 70s had musicians that did serve the song, in the 80s you still had a lot of great musicians floating around but somehow everything started (at leats for guitar) to be centered around the solo, leaving rhythm guitar to pretty much a few chords played over and over (not everyone but a lot). only in the under ground was the riff still shining and i hear a lot of music in the 90s being more centered around the riff and rhythms. hell... look at Tool. product of the 90s, really never heard a true solo out of Jones but hell they create some of the best rhythms out there. Soundgarden and AIC also had some great stuff going on in terms of rhythms. to me the guitar is a rhythm instrument more so than a solo instrument, and the 90s paid homage to that.

 

[Griz]

Maybe the out of phase Strats killed the rhythm guitar in the 90s. Too much keyboard in the 80s. The 70s & 60s are stock full of great rhythm guitar players. Great thread though.

 

[jdurso]

this thread is awesome... totally OT but just entertained me for a good 30 minutes. Lots of good points... lots of drama.

i will say one thing to some of the guys posting... you may not like chris but he knows his ****. you may not agree with his opinions but he posts a lot of very objective views, most of which are based on vast knowledge and experience. i havent always agreed with him on some topic, but i've learned a hell of a lot from his posts.

 

[Anonymous]

This off topic pissing match has gotten me nowhere in tums of my original post! Does anybody have any good advice to give?

 

[JW123]

Chris McKinley,

Im sorry I said what I said, cause after reading back thru this and laughing my *** off at all your post. I conclude that you are the smartest son of a ***** Ive ever run into on message board. How long does it take you to write all this crap.

Re this and Re that you should be on the comedy channel or get a life, but keep it up cause you are one funny dumbass in my humble opinion.

Have a great Labor Day

 

[Charles Reeder]

This off topic pissing match has gotten me nowhere in tums of my original post! Does anybody have any good advice to give?

PM sent: Charles

 

[Chris McKinley]

****.....JW123 is on to me. It's not as fun to pull someone's leg if they know you're doing it. Oh well. I do like to mix a little silliness into the mix when we're talking tech specs and such, otherwise it's so dry. I still don't really like grunge, but that's mostly cuz I'm an old fart. Just wait...it'll happen to the rest of you someday, too!

 

[JW123]

Charles Im not as intellegent as Chris, but isnt there another pot that you can exchange for your mid to change the voicing. Im sure Chris can chime in. I think my Roadster has different mid pots on channel 1-2 than channel 3-4. They have a totally different flavor. Just call Mesa and tell them what you want, Im sure there is a cure, if you want to put all that effort in.

Im sorry Chris Im probably older than you are. Grunge was just updated garage rock in my opinion. Just amps with more gain.

 

[mikey383]

mikey383,

Try to keep up, Sparky. If you had been paying attention so far, you'd know that I not only own a Recto, but claim it to be my favorite amp. You'd also know that it is a common problem for Rectos to sound muddy in the bass precisely because people commonly don't know how to set them properly. I have participated in numerous threads in this forum attempting to provide the best information possible on precisely how to avoid that. Grunge's famous "wall of mud" sound is not new to anyone, and it's part of why we work so hard to avoid it in our amps.

As to Fender amps, it's old news that the first Boogies were designed from the Fender platform. Not only are Rectos several generations of amps removed from the Fenders that first inspired Randall Smith to work his magic, they sound nothing at all like the Fenders that provided that original inspiration. Twins, Champs, Blackfaces, etc. certainly do not have a similar emphasis on low mids to Rectos. This has far less to do with the use of 6L6's in the power section than it does the way Randall designed the tone stack of the amp.

Now, beyond this, do you have anything to actually add to the discussion?

Way to be a smartass :roll:

I'm calling you out on the "6L6s have less to do with the low mids" comment. Try putting EL34s in it. That drastically changes the tone in the mids.

Every 6L6 equipped amp I've ever played has been voiced in the lower mid section, as to where every EL34 equipped amp is voiced in the higher mid spectrum. Swapping tubes makes a highly noticeable difference in amps that can accept both, so there's my addition to the discussion.

You guys keep on going with your pissing match. I'm going to go play on my high-mid voiced Recto now.