Detailed Review of Diezel Herbert

  • Thread starter Thread starter angelspade
  • Start date Start date
by the way man, which one are you diggin' most so far? VH4/Herbie?
 
Joeytpg":3pn7kocv said:
by the way man, which one are you diggin' most so far? VH4/Herbie?
Click to expand...

Digging them both pretty much even as of right now. I will be writing a detailed comparision of the two in a seperate thread that will reveal more of my opinions...I will post it here as well as the HC boards.
 
scottph":gj7vtfj1 said:
Awesome review! :rock:
Click to expand...

Thanks man...stay tuned. Detailed comparison between the Herbert and VH4 to follow soon.
 
i think the lead channel on herbert rocks! i dont know what you could possibly do to make it better, your amps make me sound like i can play better than i actually can THAT IS A FACT! :yes:

peace
A Wood
 
van hellion":1d5klfhr said:
i think the lead channel on herbert rocks! i dont know what you could possibly do to make it better, your amps make me sound like i can play better than i actually can THAT IS A FACT! :yes:
Click to expand...

I agree! Since purchasing my Diezel amps, even when I suck at least I suck with good tone! :D

-d
 
Peter Diezel":1nhoimxz said:
angelspade":1nhoimxz said:
Here's the link to my DIEZEL HERBERT review...enjoy. Feel free to comment or ask questions via the board. And Peter....THANKS for building an amazing high gain amplifier!!!

http://acapella.harmony-central.com/for ... diezel+VH4
Click to expand...

What can we do better on the lead channel ?

Thanks,

Peter
Click to expand...

I really am already a fan of the 3rd channel Peter, and I should make you aware that I am not by trade a "lead" player (more of a rythym player)...So it really depends on the application of the 3rd/lead channel. I actually set up the second channel of the Herbert for a nice dirty, "grinding" in between type of tone and reserve the third channel for very "heavy" rythym playing...The amp is perfect for me when set up in this format. I have, however solicited opinions of several of my friends (some of which are professional musicians) who are primarily lead players, and I have spoken in detail to people of taste about their generalized feelings towards this amplifier. One of the most frequent negative comments that I have heard is that channel 3 just sounds and reacts in too similar a fashion to Channel 2 (especially in the + mode) . I think for the most part, SOME lead players would favor a slight mitigation towards an upper midrange frequancy boost in the 3rd channel. Ironically, most of these same players prefered the "feel" of the 3rd channel with the mid cut switch engaged. I equate this to some players of the original Peavey 5150 (6505) amplifiers switching to the 5150 II (6505+) series amps because of it's more pronounced upper midrange bite and generally brighter voice...Only to then "scoop" out of their lead tone on by dialing the mid value down to 2-3...Strange, but somewhat common. While I believe that changing some values within the Herbert to generate some addition "cutting" upper mid frequencies MIGHT be of some benefit (particularlly in a live performance context) to the 3rd channel, you can't please all the people all the time. Obviously this is a matter of taste...In fact, several of the players who relayed this realitively minor complaint are long time Marshall players. I do not believe that any guitarist who leans towards high gain amplifiers that project an overly "bright" (like most Marshalls I have owned) lead tone will ever feel at home with this particular amplifier. That being said, I personally might be a little concerned by the potential results of this this modification...For my purposes. I feel that raising the eq focus of the Herbert from the lower to an upper mid emphasis would detract signifigantly from the "sinister" vibe of it's unique high gain flavor. I also believe that single notes (of great importants to lead players for all reasons) would forfit some of their girthy roundness and punch. So to make a short answer long: I can understand why some might really perfer some of the eq/voicing tweaks in channel 3 that I mentioned. Me? I would be intrigued to hear the difference...just for the purpose of comparison, but a little fearful of the actual results. Peter, thank you for taking the time to read my review and expressing an interest in my opinion on this issue. In conclusion...Please feel free to send me any and all new amplifier model "prototypes" (at no cost to me of course) and in return I promise to provide you with more overly wordy, needlessly complex and somewhat confusing commentary, reviews and opinions...HA!!! Thanks again Peter.
 
angelspade":2g7i08oo said:
Peter Diezel":2g7i08oo said:
angelspade":2g7i08oo said:
Here's the link to my DIEZEL HERBERT review...enjoy. Feel free to comment or ask questions via the board. And Peter....THANKS for building an amazing high gain amplifier!!!

http://acapella.harmony-central.com/for ... diezel+VH4
Click to expand...

What can we do better on the lead channel ?

Thanks,

Peter
Click to expand...

I really am already a fan of the 3rd channel Peter, and I should make you aware that I am not by trade a "lead" player (more of a rythym player)...So it really depends on the application of the 3rd/lead channel. I actually set up the second channel of the Herbert for a nice dirty, "grinding" in between type of tone and reserve the third channel for very "heavy" rythym playing...The amp is perfect for me when set up in this format. I have, however solicited opinions of several of my friends (some of which are professional musicians) who are primarily lead players, and I have spoken in detail to people of taste about their generalized feelings towards this amplifier. One of the most frequent negative comments that I have heard is that channel 3 just sounds and reacts in too similar a fashion to Channel 2 (especially in the + mode) . I think for the most part, SOME lead players would favor a slight mitigation towards an upper midrange frequancy boost in the 3rd channel. Ironically, most of these same players prefered the "feel" of the 3rd channel with the mid cut switch engaged. I equate this to some players of the original Peavey 5150 (6505) amplifiers switching to the 5150 II (6505+) series amps because of it's more pronounced upper midrange bite and generally brighter voice...Only to then "scoop" out of their lead tone on by dialing the mid value down to 2-3...Strange, but somewhat common. While I believe that changing some values within the Herbert to generate some addition "cutting" upper mid frequencies MIGHT be of some benefit (particularlly in a live performance context) to the 3rd channel, you can't please all the people all the time. Obviously this is a matter of taste...In fact, several of the players who relayed this realitively minor complaint are long time Marshall players. I do not believe that any guitarist who leans towards high gain amplifiers that project an overly "bright" (like most Marshalls I have owned) lead tone will ever feel at home with this particular amplifier. That being said, I personally might be a little concerned by the potential results of this this modification...For my purposes. I feel that raising the eq focus of the Herbert from the lower to an upper mid emphasis would detract signifigantly from the "sinister" vibe of it's unique high gain flavor. I also believe that single notes (of great importants to lead players for all reasons) would forfit some of their girthy roundness and punch. So to make a short answer long: I can understand why some might really perfer some of the eq/voicing tweaks in channel 3 that I mentioned. Me? I would be intrigued to hear the difference...just for the purpose of comparison, but a little fearful of the actual results. Peter, thank you for taking the time to read my review and expressing an interest in my opinion on this issue. In conclusion...Please feel free to send me any and all new amplifier model "prototypes" (at no cost to me of course) and in return I promise to provide you with more overly wordy, needlessly complex and somewhat confusing commentary, reviews and opinions...HA!!! Thanks again Peter.
Click to expand...

:confused: I find the blend between ch2 and 3 to be different, so I can't relate to this. Ch3 has noticably more low mids going on while switching to ch3 makes a noticable shift to higher focused mids. The two chanels compliment each other well. No offence meant but what you've written here is a load of crap IMHO :no:
 
[ :confused: I find the blend between ch2 and 3 to be different, so I can't relate to this. Ch3 has noticably more low mids going on while switching to ch3 makes a noticable shift to higher focused mids. The two chanels compliment each other well. No offence meant but what you've written here is a load of crap IMHO :no:[/quote]

No offense taken...It never bothers me when people refer to my opinion as a load of crap. Please notice that Peter asked for MY suggestions on ways he could possibly improve the 3rd channel of the amplifier...perhaps he will ask you at some point as well. In the interim, the response I'm most interested in hearing will come from him. Have a good day and thanks for reading. :)
 
Nice comeback! :lol: :LOL:

Anyhow, I feel the third channel complements the second in + mode really well, cos it's much smoother (to my ears) than the second channel which has more of a 5150 feel to me.
 
Thanks for Your opinion. There will no changes made to the
Herbert, but it´s important for the next outcoming stuff.
 
which i personally cant wait to hear in person! I too find major differences in ch2+ and ch3 on herbert, just my ears and my guitars/hands you know? i love herbert and cant believe how often this amp gets looked at as a metal only amp, i have toured with country artists with this thing, you wouldnt believe what kind of tele tones are hidden in ch2- with the gain way down!
peace
A Wood
 
Peter Diezel":2ljpd7zd said:
Thanks for Your opinion. There will no changes made to the
Herbert, but it´s important for the next outcoming stuff.
Click to expand...

Peter,
You are welcome sir...Look forward to playing that next outcoming stuff!
 
2+ and 3 are similar? Do i have s.th. with my ears?
My channel 2 and 3 settings are nearly the same! And they are totaly different.
Ch2: Gain 10:30, Vol. 13:00, Treble 16:00, Mids 15:00, Bass 13:00
Ch3: Gain 11:00, Bass 12:30

Midcut if engaged: Int 10:30 Level 12:30
Presence 13:00 Deep 13:00

Never had any problems to cut through a band mix! Even against a Marshall! I dont know the problem is of some of you guys?!

Take a look at my idol Richie f.e.. He played Herberts 3 or 4 years. And he wasn´t the only guitar player. There are Jon and Bobby Bandiera. Take a look at some 2005´er Amsterdam Videos at youtube. You can always her the Herberts.
Now he went back to Marshall, but his marshall tone isnt the same as 2000 on the Crush-Tour. It´s much darker. A lot darker then his Herbert Tone was. I would like to know, how much Marshall payed him. ;)

But serious...did some of you never tried to record the amp? F.e. if you use a SM57 as a stand alone mic, it is a horror to record a Marshall because of its high frequencies. But it´s so easy to record a Herbert!

A few weeks ago i saw two gigs of one band. He played a VH-4 and a Diezel cabs. You only heard his guitar, when he played the solos!!! And he was the only guitarplayer. So who cares about the midrange of amps if there is nobody who can mix your sound? And regarding the opinion of some of you guys, the vh4 is the winner in this cut through mix. I dond´t give a sh**!
A few days later, same place, there was another band. The both guitar players played Vox Tonelabs!!! What an amazing sound!!! It was outstanding! It´s only the damn motherf****** mixer!

Sorry, but this frequency discussion is a little piece of Chickenshit! :doh:
Everybody can visit me and play my Herbie live. It will fucking blow any amp away in a band. There is no amp with these low mids like him.
But if you dont like the voicing, go for another amp. Marshall and stuff...
the only thing i would like in my Herbert is a little bit more rawness(?) in the distortion section. Something like mesas dual rectifier. Not equal, but something like... But otherwise, there is the recording thing and the SM57. It adds this rawness itself.

Sorry for my bad english. :aww:
 
i agree with bato referring to the SM57. i for example always dial the EQ of the amp more darker, because most of the times a SM57 stands in front of the cab and this adds more highs than needed. together = perfect sound for the audience and also for me because i like the herbert daarrrrrrrk sounding.
 
You´re my man!

This is the magic word: TOGETHER!!! :thumbsup:
But every pro uses monitoring. There´s no one who is hearing the amp.
Oh yes...me once at a blues gig. Amp was a Mark IV with a Mesa 412. I was in front of stage. The pa was above my head. So i didnt hear the pa sound. Only heard the Amp. It was terrible. But pa sound was nice.

Guess which mic it was!?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top