Has every module already been done?

[Paul Secondino]

I mean, what else is there to sound like?

How many more flavours of Marshall and Fender need to be done?

This is about it for other sounds I would want in a module:

EG 1/2
Mesa Quad/Mark 2c+/3/4

That's pretty much all I think is missing. The only exception would be some of the super EQ'd amps like Diezel and Engl .But the EG-5 covers a lot of that territory.

Problem with a 2C+ module is that much of the 2C+ tone comes from its Output transformer / output section . it's bass response is wider than the Mark 3 and less tight than a Mark 4 so I don't think you'll get one module that can replicate all the Mark sounds. I believe it's more easy to get a module to do a Mark 2C / Mark 3 than it would be a 2C / mark 4 . The power sections on those amps are quite a bit different.The Mark 4 power section is ver flat and smooth in comparison to the 2C and Mark 3.

The other issue is that the Quad preamp is nearly identical to the 2C and Mark 3 preamp sections .So making a quad module would be redundant. Or perhaps jsut make a quad module and call it a Mark 2C / Mark 3

 

[Resonant Alien]

Can the EG5 cop the sound of the early 5150 amps?

 

[guitarslinger]

I mean, what else is there to sound like?

How many more flavours of Marshall and Fender need to be done?

This is about it for other sounds I would want in a module:

EG 1/2
Mesa Quad/Mark 2c+/3/4

That's pretty much all I think is missing. The only exception would be some of the super EQ'd amps like Diezel and Engl .But the EG-5 covers a lot of that territory.

Problem with a 2C+ module is that much of the 2C+ tone comes from its Output transformer / output section . it's bass response is wider than the Mark 3 and less tight than a Mark 4 so I don't think you'll get one module that can replicate all the Mark sounds. I believe it's more easy to get a module to do a Mark 2C / Mark 3 than it would be a 2C / mark 4 . The power sections on those amps are quite a bit different.The Mark 4 power section is ver flat and smooth in comparison to the 2C and Mark 3.

The other issue is that the Quad preamp is nearly identical to the 2C and Mark 3 preamp sections .So making a quad module would be redundant. Or perhaps jsut make a quad module and call it a Mark 2C / Mark 3

my logic:

I owned a Quad, and to me, it did a 98% job of sounding like a MK2c+/or3/or4 with my 2150 power amp.

They are all so similar, preamp-wise, that yes, there is only one needed. I am not a fan of redundancy either.

So, I'm saying, just call the mod "the MKX", and forget about all this numbermumbojumbo.

 

[aeroic]

Can the EG5 cop the sound of the early 5150 amps?

I think it can get close enough. I owned a 5150, and I love the tone of the EG5 compared to the 5150.

Eric

 

[jasco]

I would REALLY like something along the lines of a Matchless (Clubman or DC30). There's a bazillion Marshall type choices, but only the one Vox module.

+1

I love the Vox mod, and could use another that still has the Voxy chime but also adds some of that Matchless DC30-style honk/grit in the mid-gain tones. Until I heard/owned the VX module I would have said it's impossible to get that in a 12ax7 preamp module (i.e., need an EF86, an EL84 power section, a celestion blue about to explode, etc. to get any where close), but I am now confident that Bruce could capture that mojo in a module! How about 65amps London 18 click channel on CH A of the module and Matchless C30 click channel on Ch B, and change the middle tone knob to a 5-way click!! PLEEEEASE!

 

[aeroic]

I would REALLY like something along the lines of a Matchless (Clubman or DC30). There's a bazillion Marshall type choices, but only the one Vox module.

+1

I love the Vox mod, and could use another that still has the Voxy chime but also adds some of that Matchless DC30-style honk/grit in the mid-gain tones. Until I heard/owned the VX module I would have said it's impossible to get that in a 12ax7 preamp module (i.e., need an EF86, an EL84 power section, a celestion blue about to explode, etc. to get any where close), but I am now confident that Bruce could capture that mojo in a module! How about 65amps London 18 click channel on CH A of the module and Matchless C30 click channel on Ch B, and change the middle tone knob to a 5-way click!! PLEEEEASE!

Do you have Yellowjackets for your Mod50? If not, you should really try those out with the VX. EVEN better VX style tone. I think you could probably get something close to a Matchless w/ YJ's and TADEL84s.

 

[Page]

Is there a module that can get a bogner uberschall type high gain tone? if not, i think a great module would be either refining one of the high gain modules or creating a new one that can get really brutal to satisfy modern metal heads. I dont have any experience with the modules other than clips, but i've yet to hear a modern chugga chugga high gain sound thats as outstanding as the clean and midgain stuff ive heard from the modules

 

[aeroic]

Is there a module that can get a bogner uberschall type high gain tone? if not, i think a great module would be either refining one of the high gain modules or creating a new one that can get really brutal to satisfy modern metal heads.

I think the EG5 can do modern metal tones very well. Not a "Uber" by any means, but after playing a Uber Twin Jet this past weekend, I personally prefer the EG5 A LOT more than that for modern metal tones!

But that's me.

Eric

 

[Page]

There's always the Hiwatt and Orange/Matamp territory available. Killer amps but neither were as popular as Marshalls and Fenders back in the late '60s and early '70s.

i agree that something like this would be cool. I think a module that covers the dirty channel of an orange rockerverb would be awesome but probably not practical

 

[Gripp]

There's always the Hiwatt and Orange/Matamp territory available. Killer amps but neither were as popular as Marshalls and Fenders back in the late '60s and early '70s.

+1. What I'd really like would be a Hiwatt style module that would go from clean to a bit dirty and use that w/fuzzes. The twin doesn't really give me that Fripp/Gilmour fuzz platform. Maybe it's the eq and that it's too clean. SL on A is very cool w/fuzzes on its own but too middy or something for those sounds. Vx A is mighty good too but sounds more like a fuzz going into a Vox. Surprise!
I guess I need to try the T/V too and see what happens...

Best!
Pelle G

 

[bruce egnater]

Funny, I once had a guy ask if we could make a module that got the tone from Norman Greenbaum's "Spririt in the Sky" (for those of you old enough to remember that hideous song). Possibly the worst guitar tone ever recorded. Also, we did make one "HiWatt" module long ago. Sounded pretty lame by itself, unless you played "Won't Get Fooled Again". Then it sounded perfect....and "No" we won't make a custom one. There was way more to it than just changing a few parts.

 

[Len Rabinowitz]

You know, this is one aspect of the Eggies (and modelers, but that is another story) that bothers me a bit. They don't create new tones- they re-create old ones.

Of course, the Eggies do it top notch and for real, but still it is a little weird. After all, the guys who created the original tones weren't thinking about re-creating old stuff- They were thinking about creating new.

Egnater does innovate- But it isn't in the area of tone. It is in the area of design. There is some really creative and different thinking in the design of these amps.

I think there are only a few really iconic amp sounds- Some Marshalls, some Fenders, some Mesas, Vox AC-30, and the Roland JC-120 (That would be a weird module- I don't know how many of you guys played 80's New Wave, but you couldn't live without it! Can a tube model a transistor? It had the most awful distortion imaginable- But put a Rat through it and it was amazing!) are to me the really creative and original amp tones. How many times can you keep re-hashing them?

In terms of tone, I think the creativity has gone into the guitars and the footpedals.

At 52 and playing roughly 40 years, I will assume that I am older than most of you here. Here's an instructive exercise: Watch The Concert for Bangladesh from 1970. Today's equipment is so much more sophisticated it is amazing. Miking acoustic guitars in Madison Square Garden. Basically nothing but Gibson, Fender, and Martin up there. No footpedals except a wah wah.

And yet, almost 40 years later, those are the sounds that modern technology tries to emulate.

I wonder if we have made it so easy to sound good that we have made it haredr to actually be good. Maybe to be a Clapton or Leon Russell you need to work a little harder to get good sound out of the stuff?

Just thinking out loud.

 

[dfrattaroli]

I agree that we don't need any more Marshall or Fender flavors. I'd like to see some more Mesa type stuff. The high-gain Mark stuff would be cool and the Erect could use some tightening up and more gain but that's about it. I mention the Erect here as well because it seems the consensus is that it should be tighter and gainier so why not just get it that way out of the box?

At this point, I think I'd rather see a power amp that's tuned for the modules. And as I've said before, rather than having new mods, I'd rather see the existing ones get INDEPENDENT TONE CONTROLS. That would be huge.

 

[marvcus]

You know, this is one aspect of the Eggies (and modelers, but that is another story) that bothers me a bit. They don't create new tones- they re-create old ones.

Bro, I see what you are saying here, but I think most of the amp makers (especially the boutique builders) are "refining" classic tones. How many amps can you think of that have advertised some incarnation of "the Brown Sound" -- in the past 25 YEARS! I remember Mesa's Mark III was touted to have the EVH Brown tone on channel 2. Now, you have Splawn, Blankenship, Friedman, the list goes on and on... builders with amps that are pretty much solely dedicated to getting that type of tone. They may build other stuff, but they offer the Brown Sound and are renowned for it.

Moreover, it seems that the Big 3 (Marshall, Vox & Fender) are trying to clone their OWN classic sounds (some of them even quite poorly!).

I think that's why boutique builders are in such demand--modifications on basic amps have become standard issue. People want more sustain, less buzz, more low mids, etc. Any there are many talented builders that can accomodate that.

I do agree that it would be fun to see what wacky sounds Egnater could come up with. I like the idea of having a base tone with another amps EQ and seeing what happens (Fender w/ Marshall EQ, Marshall w/ Vox EQ, etc.etc).

(and I am editing this - to be fair- after my original post because I had to run to a meeting) Where I disagree is that I think a lot of the Egnater modules do create sounds you normally would not hear. Take VX B channel for instance; I've never had a sound like that before I got the M4.

 

[Len Rabinowitz]

Maybe that's the next challenge for Egnater- Stop emulating and come up with an original tone.

You start getting into some semantic split hairs. When have you stopped refining and created your own? At what point has the refinement gotten too far from the original?

 

[RockStarNick]

Len. I hear your point, but just remember: Marshall basically "emulated" the Fender Bassman when they created their first amp.

I think at this point, people have just discovered 3 different circuit layouts that "work". Vox, Fender, and Marshall. And most of the tone you hear today are just variations on them. And that's kinda just the way it is. The same way that all dirt boxes are either fuzz, overdrive, or distortion. MANY variations of each, and some that blur the lines between one another, but those are the 3 major categories.

Technically speaking, tube amps aren't really complicated beasts, electronically. Not that I could build one from scratch, but compared to modern technology, they're kinda archaic. (and I LIKE that... but anyway.) The preamp sections are some tubes, resistors, and caps, and the tonestack, before or after the gain stage, depending on the circuit. Different combinations of resistors and caps on the same circuit produce pretty drastically different tones. IE, the BMAN and the SL, the SL2X and the EG34.

I think if you really deviated from that path, you'd probably get some really crappy tone.

It's kinda hard to describe a *new* tone, that has yet to be invented, in words. It's easy to describe what you'd like to tweak from an existing design: tighten it up, add more mids, etc. And that can be accomplished by tweaking an existing layout.

Saying "invent a new tone" is kinda like asking a chef to invent a new flavor of food that HASN'T been done, but still tastes good. Or asking an artist to create a new color that's never been seen before by the human eye...

But even less abstract than that thought... it's kinda similar to guitars. Lots of guitars are either deviations of a Les Paul, a Strat, a Tele, or a hollowbody. When guitar makers start trying to invent "original" shapes, you get some butt ugly ass guitars.

 

[dfrattaroli]

Bottom line is: Everything is derivative. Everything. Marshall is Fender is Mesa is Hiwatt is Bogner is Engl, etc., etc.

The truly talented musician depends on their touch, technique and creativity to get good tone way more than they do on their gear. To amateurs like us, the fact of the matter is, creating music, is actually secondary to the gear. We're possessed by the gear. Gear collectors by default.

We spend so much time, money and effort changing tubes, speakers and the like when I think most of that could be accomplished by just turning the tone controls. I agree that there is certain gear that works better for each player. I just think that once you find it, forget about tweaking it to death. Just play. Create something that will be here when you're gone. Our ears change from day to day. Things sound differently at any given time so why go crazy trying to find the perfect mix of glass, metal and wood when it likely won't sound exactly the same to you in a week? Life's too short for that IMO.

Dave

 

[muudrock]

I personally have found my sound with the Egnater gear. I can't think of a tone that I would want that I can't get now with the modules I have. That said, I always like experimenting with new sounds.

The only possible thing I could think of would be to have a totally distinct voices on a single module. Like, MHG ch A and EG 5 on ch B. I understand that it's not feasible under the current design. But for me, it's the only modular thing that hasn't been done.

 

[RockStarNick]

Bottom line is: Everything is derivative. Everything. Marshall is Fender is Mesa is Hiwatt is Bogner is Engl, etc., etc.

The truly talented musician depends on their touch, technique and creativity to get good tone way more than they do on their gear. To amateurs like us, the fact of the matter is, creating music, is actually secondary to the gear. We're possessed by the gear. Gear collectors by default.

We spend so much time, money and effort changing tubes, speakers and the like when I think most of that could be accomplished by just turning the tone controls. I agree that there is certain gear that works better for each player. I just think that once you find it, forget about tweaking it to death. Just play. Create something that will be here when you're gone. Our ears change from day to day. Things sound differently at any given time so why go crazy trying to find the perfect mix of glass, metal and wood when it likely won't sound exactly the same to you in a week? Life's too short for that IMO.

Dave

Good point, Fazzoli...

The entire world had access to Fuzz Faces and Stratocasters in the late 60s. But Hendrix was the ONLY one to use them and make the sounds that he did...

 

[Len Rabinowitz]

Here's a tone challenge for Egnater: A JC-120 module, with the gain being based on a ProCo Rat.

I don't know if a tube amp can do it- Or might this be Egnater's first transistor module?

Seeing Springsteen this weekend got me thinking about how tone changes over time and is affected by various things- He definitely sounded different by the end of the night from the beginning.

Some obvious factors:

Tube guitar amps- Tube definitely change tone as they heat up.
The sound man, for obvious reasons.
The musicians playing harder.

Some questions that came up:

How do things like heat and humidity (outdoor concert) affect computerized/transistorized equipment like the soundboard?
How do things like heat and humidity (outdoor concert) affect speakers and cabinets?

How do things like heat and humidity (outdoor concert) affect how sound propagates?

How does the movement of people affcet the sound?