haze015
-
Posts
13,615 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Blogs
Events
Articles
Store
Downloads
Posts posted by haze015
-
-
Yeah all bad. I don't have any electronics testing equipment, so I'll have to grab some cheap stuff for testing. But anyways, I rudimentally tested the 4 speakers with a 9V and they all seem okay, so it's the head. The head has power and will switch between leads but no output. Very well may be a fuse, but I have no means of testing today anyways. I had the VPR engaged, cutting the power level from apartment playing, and the fuzz, while at a reasonably low volume, was still loads louder than the base amp. I imagine that was the issue, but I'm not terribly good with circuits to understand that. I need to know my amp better I'm a civil engineer, not an electrical
If its switching on then its not the fuse. Can rule out power cable as well.
Otherwise try a different speaker cable.
The level of the fuzz won't cause it any issues.
-
Lemme see if y'all have any opinions on this before I take it to a tech.
I have a Marshall TSL100 and 4x12 1960a cab. I went to noodle with my fuzz probe and a chord kinked or something and caused some loud clicking noises and then all sound went dead. I'm going to do what I can to troubleshoot the head, but just looking to see if any of you have any rough ideas. Tried to input straight into the head with two different guitars and nothing.
Tried different leads?
-
Here's an awful recording of an unrehearsed cover of Creep from 12 years ago...
-
There's no organ at the start, its a synthesiser/string machine.
-
For Fury I wouldn't go with a clean amp with a Fuzz Factory. Just use whatever is closest to the VH4 channel 3 sound. I'm pretty sure the Fuzz Factory isn't present on Fury at all. It's whammy, delay, high gain amp.
Any high gain marshally sound will be good. The VH4 (in the gain channels) is much closer to a marshall than a Fender. If I remember correctly you can put either 6L6's or EL34's in the VH4. I think channel 1 might be closer to a fender style clean, but I highly doubt Matt ever used it because it's not that great to begin with.
I put a cover up over in the creative section of Fury recently in the muse covers thread. It's whammy, delay, VH4 sim in the Axe-fx. Personally I think it's pretty spot on.
Its definitely a better way of doing it as the FF sounds shite through a WH4 unless able to route it differently, but it lacks the artefacts present on the record, which I'm not sure if they are from the pitchshifting or from the FF + Whammy. But yeah, the main thing to get right is the Whammy and delay.
-
Oh, I made the mistake of listening to studio versions and kicking myself when I can't get the right sound. I never really had an amp so I'm really unfamiliar with how the knobs would translate into the Firehawk. (I'm assuming 12 o'clock is about 50% on the bar, and 3 o'clock 75%).
If it was a Diezel VH4 on Fury, then better to try a Fender sim to start with.<-- I don't really understand this part, could you explain it a bit?
Does the FF go before the Whammy for Fury? I remember reading you guys say that the FF doesn't play well being after anything in the chain. Also how do you set it I hate hearing loud squeals so I just set mine at 10 2:15 2:15 4:15 4:15 and never touch the knobs again
Yeah 50% would be 12'o'clock.
I could be incorrect, but basically a stock VH4 has similarities with Fender amps as it uses 6L6's, so an emulation of a clean Fender sound would be closer than a Marshall/Vox. Although most amps are in some way a variation on or modified form of a Fender amp.
Yeah, stick the FF before (Got to remember Matt's are built into his guitars) and set the Comp high to avoid oscillation. Drive and Stab about 12'o'clock, maybe a bit higher. Can't be too exact with FF/FP settings, as I've always found different ones to sound slightly different, well they'll sound the same, just not exactly the same settings, no idea if its still like that.
-
Better to listen to live versions of songs (At least if it's from Muse's early days), rather than studio recordings.
For Fury its a fairly standard clean so the FF's sound really comes through, so start with everything at 12'o'clock, if you're using an amp sim, then pick a model to taste, Fender will be a touch scooped compared to a Marshall for example. If it was a Diezel VH4 on Fury, then better to try a Fender sim to start with.
If you're not sure what to set it to, just try it! But for early Muse stuff, about 12'o'clock is where to start and not venture far from that, it was more how much midrange the gear used had than specifically setting for it (regardless of how much bollocks Matt spoke in interviews)
-
Putting it early will change the transient. So effects like distortion have a different signal to work with, altering what tones you can get out of whatever distortion is being used. Can help make it easier to use lower gain settings.
Also useful for different types of playing - percussive, solos with lots of sustained notes etc, better to have it early in the chain for that sort of thing as its useless after any other effects.
Compression is used all the time on clean sounds and acoustic guitars, not really turd polishing.
Edit - Basically its a potential solution to a problem/issue with your setup/sound and need to know what that issue is so it can be effectively solved. Its a very different question to where something like a delay goes in a chain.
-
Thanks for the explanation! Which version of the Fuzzhead do you have? I've been watching some stuff about it and it sounds pretty cool
You don't need to have it as early as possible, could use it last if you're looking to keep an unruly pedalboard under control for example, like after distortion if you're using different pedals and its bit of a pain to match them in volume or just after any pedals that boost/lower volume (Phase90 & Small Stones for example).
Using it first is useful if you're changing guitars during sets or just want to improve a guitar sound a bit before effects. Though this will cause issues with a Fuzz Factory, which really does need to be first. Putting it after might limit how far you can push the comp, which might not be a problem, but worth being aware of.
Having it before fuzz/distortion is cool though as it can offer something something a bit different to boost/overdrive pedals.
With bass I use compression in parallel with distortion, although worth trying it before (I tend to find it gets too noisy, so stick with the parallel thing).
Can also be cool on the wet signal on old analogue delays to get more repeats without oscillation.
Some comps do alter the tone, like the MXR Dyna Comp, which limits you to where it works best. Just need to be clear about what it is you want a compressor to do as they can be used anywhere and no reason not to have more than one either.
-
If you think you know how to communicate, but come across as a snob everywhere, why do you post?
Nothing 'snobbish' about it. I use compression every day and its a legit point, if you ask to where to use it, probably best to not use it.
-
Because I know what a compressor is supposed to do, but I don't know where it should be in a pedal chain.
It has no specific place in the chain, it goes where you need it to do what it does. So if you're not sure where you're putting it in your chain, then its worth asking what are you buying one for exactly?
-
Haha, thanks guys. I'll just get the V then. Alright, only need a phaser and compressor now. Where does a compressor go in a pedal chain?
If you have to ask, then why are you getting a compressor?
-
John Leckie did once say Matt was putting Big Muffs on everything on OOS.
It is a DI'ed bass though. Could easily be a pre-amp.
-
Yeah, looks like he did have it in his chain at some point (video around 3:33). I've never touched a WM so I have no idea what he uses it for though. Can it do anything that an Animato + Big Muff combination can't do?
Probably just an alternative for the Big Muff, when more fuzz and bass is needed.
-
Looks like there was a Woolly Mammoth on that board - but someone said Chris never really used one. So bogus article?
He did start using them didn't he?
I think there was a lot of bogus info years ago that he was when he wasn't then he did start using one. Or at least it was in his setup (But nothing to confirm he ever used one before)
-
On the other side very few albums in popular music could be considered experimental if you only considered it in the context of all music. While never as blatant as Muse taking preexisting and defined music styles and merging them into something else isn't far from what experimentation usually entails.
That's correct.
Its not that it doesn't happen, just quite rare. As I said, reinvention/redefining are probably better terms and is fairly common to use these terms when describing certain pop-acts (Bowie, Madonna, Bjork etc), yet the exact thing they are doing gets described as 'experimental' when its other acts. Dunno if its just misplaced snobbery or what, but it is annoying.
Kraftwerk is probably the best example of experimental and popular music as one thing. Or there's I Feel Love.
-
Okay, fine, whatever. So it's dabbling in different genres. Happy now?
Yeah and the criticism by others is that it dabbles too much and lacks cohesion as a whole, despite enjoying songs separately. Which is entirely subjective of course.
-
There's nothing objectively wrong about saying "I think Drones is a good album" and praising it for thing you think it did well.
Calling it 'wildly experimental' is objectively wrong.
Nothing wrong with your subjective opinion, enjoy enjoying it!
But its not experimental, or even a transitional album, its not reinvention either.
The definition on wikipedia: "Experimental music is a compositional practice defined broadly by exploratory sensibilites and movement radically opposed to and questioning of institutionalized musical compositional, performing, and aesthetic conventions"
-
Soooo... what am I supposed to get out of this, then? The album is bad and my opinion that it's good is objectively wrong just because you guys don't personally enjoy it like I do? Is that what I'm supposed to take from this?
What you're supposed to get out of this is not to say things that are objectively wrong to reinforce your subjective opinion.
-
Maybe it's experimenting that you don't personally like, but that doesn't make it objectively bad.
Yes it can be objectively bad.
If the experiment has a purpose and fails to achieve that, then it is objectively bad, even if people subjectively enjoy it, which is rarely the aim with experimental music.
Muse's attempts at reinvention/re-defining don't appear to be successful, as nobody really knows who they are any more (Met enough young people who are surprised when they hear Showbiz/OOS!). T2L doesn't do anything different that Muse hadn't done before, just used a different set of genres, its the same formula they've used for 2/3 albums prior. No idea how its experimental.
-
This is a last page topic but an album that is experimental only in reference to the band and not in a wider musical context can still be considered an experimental album.
Any album could be considered experimental if only considered within the context of those musicians.
However reinvention is probably more appropriate than experimental in this particular context.
-
Those aren't as uncommon as 5/4, though.
Uncommon =/= Experimental
Take Five and Mars, The Bringer Of War are hardly 'experimental' pieces, but both in 5/4. I've done stuff in 5/4, still just as shite as the stuff in 4/4.
Musicians will tend to experiment far more than their released output.
-
Here's a particularly famous piece of experimental electronic music from 1958 and its accompanying score that was made in the 70's (A fantastic bit of art all by itself):
So when you describe anything as 'wildly experimental', you've got to be referring to trying new unexplored ideas that don't sound like what's gone before and/or done without the likelihood of a 'good', 'listenable' result. Not a band trying their hand at different genres outside of what they've previously been pigeonholed into.
These days, things like auto-generative music (Brian Eno's latest is an example) would be one area of experimental music.
-
He did describe Radiohead as "weird electronic stuff" a few pages back.
The Muse/Non-Muse Cover Thread
in Creativity
Posted
No idea!