Diezel Paul Arrived... Awesome, But Not What I Expected

[SavageRiffer]

Well I've heard a few things about the Diezel Paul, such as it being a "Marshally" sounding Diezel. Peter described it as being more classic sounding in the NAMM demo. Well, to my surprise, initially playing the Paul seemed to have more of an Orange vibe rather than Marshall. Then I recalled one of the NAMM videos where Peter (the demo guy, not Peter Diezel) said that it could probably do stoner metal, so I'm guessing that's it. After playing it for a couple of hours and spending the remaining time on channel 2.5, it reminded me a lot of the Einstein.

The amp distortion itself, if anything, seems to be kind of Orangy. However, using a TS808 on channel 2 brought a tighter and less fuzzy tone. Perhaps I'm getting this Orange vibe because I'm using an Eminence Private Jack for the Paul. I don't have any Celestions at the moment. Then again, I've been using a Silver Jubilee and DSL 50 exclusively for the past year, at if it had a Marshall vibe, I'd recognize it.

The amp is pretty punchy as described, and my definition of punchy would be exemplified by the Bogner Ecstasy 101B which makes picked notes kind of pop out with some kind of low end depth. The overall feel of the Paul is different; looser or greasier in feel. With the DMoll, I kind of had to have a certain amount of gain to get some liquidity, but the Paul does quite well with much less gain.

The clean channel is very dynamic, poppy, and kind of brisk compared to the DMoll. Not to say the DMoll doesn't have nice cleans because it does, just different. The gain control on the clean channel, by the way, is a powerful control that seems to interact with your volume and EQ settings. It does a fantastic job of acting kind of like a transparent boost between the 10:00 and 12:00 range, so you can get a pretty nice Shine On you Crazy Diamond kind of tone.

Lastly, I was kind of worried that the Paul might not do the brootz quite as good as the DMoll, but I can already tell that it actually kind of likes the scooped mid thing. However, I want to say the Paul does seem to have a bit of an inherent scooped contour which might explain the great clean tones, and I noticed that the mid control scoops a lot out by the 10:00 position, so I kind of like the mids around 1:00 normally, and 10:30 for metal rhythm... at this point at least.

So. In conclusion, the Paul is a little different than I expected, and I might have misperceived the "more classic sounding" description because by more classic sounding to the Paul is still kind of hi-fi classic Diezel thing I guess. It's like a cross between a Schmidt, Einstein, and Orange Rockerverb.

 

[SavageRiffer]

Thanks for the review. I played it at NAMM and it Loves single coils. It's a springy bouncy feeling amp and is really fun to play.

I haven't tried my single coils yet. The guitar I used to record the upcoming little demo has a Dimarzio Injector neck which is a stacked single coil humbucker. It sounds fat through any Diezel. P90s might be great, and I have a guitar with some PRails, so I'll see what that's like too.

 

[JimmyBlind]

Cheers.

It's the amp i'm most interested in at the moment. Sacrilegious as it might be, I don't play Ch3 & 4 of my VH4 at all nowadays. Love Ch 2. It's much less compressed, a bit more balanced & brighter. The Paul seems like it offers what I like about Ch2 and with a really stellar clean channel, which I value.

 

[lowmantotempole]

CLIPZ!!!!

 

[cardinal]

Cheers.

It's the amp i'm most interested in at the moment. Sacrilegious as it might be, I don't play Ch3 & 4 of my VH4 at all nowadays. Love Ch 2. It's much less compressed, a bit more balanced & brighter. The Paul seems like it offers what I like about Ch2 and with a really stellar clean channel, which I value.

Channel 2 is my favorite of the VH4 as well. Channel 3 sounds very cool and I think once it's all mixed together fits really well. But by itself, there's a somewhat unnatural high and low pass type thing going on that always gets to me after a while. Great amp, don't get me wrong.

 

[WizardSouth-JP]

Cheers.

It's the amp i'm most interested in at the moment. Sacrilegious as it might be, I don't play Ch3 & 4 of my VH4 at all nowadays. Love Ch 2. It's much less compressed, a bit more balanced & brighter. The Paul seems like it offers what I like about Ch2 and with a really stellar clean channel, which I value.

Channel 1&2 on the VH4 were great to my ears.

 

[jape23]

Congrats man. Glad you dig it. In my original post on the Paul, I described it as straddling the line between more vintage/British tones and modern tones, but still with some of that hi fi Diezel thing that I remember from some previous Diezel models. Like with a lot of amps, what you get out of it depends a lot on the player and what you're going for. I use single coils and lower output humbuckers a lot of the time. And channel 2 with the gain below noon puts me squarely into Marshall territory. That channel is pretty dynamic and responsive -- from nice cleans, to Malcolm Young type gain to Van Halen levels of gain.

Channel 3, being the higher gain thing, is less dynamic/touch responsive. Lately, I haven't had a lot of interest in using that channel, unless I want more gain/sustain for the odd lead break. I just don't have any interest in higher levels of overdrive these days.

For those wondering about clean or mid gain comparisons to the VH4 or Einstein, I don't think channels 1 or 2 of the Paul sound similar at all to channels 1 and 2 on those amps. Those channels on the Paul are way more open, lively and dynamic to my ears.

 

[born_hard]

CLIPZ please.

 

[SavageRiffer]

I left my Tascam on for 2 hours yesterday while practicing, so I haven't had a chance to export the huge wave file. I'll either rerecord or make another one tonight. However, I'm no pro so don't expect anything polished and hi-fi.