Bob-I wrote:I still can't get this amp to really bloom. I'm beginning to think it's the OT since I've changed everything else.
Is this your own build or a Ceriatone (like mine).
No, it's a Bludotone chassis and iron.
However, in my case, changing the OT made no difference with respect to Bloom or Feedback - as my amp had other issues.
But changing to Heyboer's Fender model definitely added more solid body to the tone than I got from the stock Ceriatone OT.
I have plenty of body and tone, but no bloom and feedback at all. In fact it seems to squash some notes, as they sustain they get thin and then die.
I'll have to record a clip of the problem. Very frustrating, mostly because this is my only real $$ build. Most of my builds were from donor amps I got for next to nothing and they sound great.
This is relatively what i see in my scope w/ a 1kz sine wave input, depending on how the bleed is set it can have more or less rounded leading edges. Wish more guys had a scope for this, many features of the tone can be adjusted by viewing visually. I tried to get more interaction w/scope traces -but it seems noone on this forum even has one--
LPSGME wrote:Thanks. Now I at least know there's nothing too unusual going in my amp.
I agree. A scope and signal generator can provide a quick useful understanding of how the signal is being modified, and if anything is off and where.
Yes, but you'll be hard pressed to distinguish and acquire a Dumble tone on a fully functional clone amp based on scope traces alone. Many on this forum have tried using just a scope and generator. Your ears are your most valuable tool to achieve it. However once you have the tone you want, comparing old waveforms to new could be useful.
Ears are the best and most misleading tools for voicing, they vary per day, and per time of day. They are not the whole story, and can really take it down the wrong road. While u might get lucky and build something that works, having a tool like a scope really gets to the issue at hand. The learning curve is slight, and the reward is great. Audio pros in recording and sound use them every day, because of the immediate results. I've worked on amps, sound, recording for 40 years, and couldn't be w/o one.
We are all saying the same thing here, just from a different perspective. Ears, no matter how subjective they may be are still a valuable tool to achieve the tone. However, I still continue to use a scope, generator and spectrum analyzer, as well because they are good support tools for helping determining tone.
The debate here seems to be centered around the extreme cases. Who would best achieve the tone, a deaf person with skills and knowledge of his test equipment or someone with good hearing with no scope or analyzer?
I think we can all agree you must be able to interpret scope results before they can be effective tools for achieving good tone. That's all I was saying.
Some discussion of bench test results could alleviate a lot of confusion that people have, especially when building from scratch. It provides baseline data that sound clips never will. Pretty easy to confirm the od sound by just lookin. The forgotten aspect is always the player in most discussions. There seems to be a lot of guys on here that are ear guessing if their build is tuned right. I don't think d-amps are for everyone. Good players get the tone out of them.
Structo wrote:In the end, the guitarist is the only one that has to be pleased with his tone, with his ears.
Or his bandmates.
My problem is that my ear changes from day to day, and guitar to guitar. Interesting that my Peavey converted to HRM keeps me really happy at gigs, especially when I use the Rocket reverb as well for the bright clean tones. That amps had enough flexibility that I can turn a knob or two and satisfy my changing tastes.
I just want the same for this amp. The BM seems to be closer. Hopefully a trip to dogears house will do the trick. Once the summer if over I'll take him up on the offer.
BobW wrote:We are all saying the same thing here, just from a different perspective. Ears, no matter how subjective they may be are still a valuable tool to achieve the tone. However, I still continue to use a scope, generator and spectrum analyzer, as well because they are good support tools for helping determining tone.
The debate here seems to be centered around the extreme cases. Who would best achieve the tone, a deaf person with skills and knowledge of his test equipment or someone with good hearing with no scope or analyzer?
I think we can all agree you must be able to interpret scope results before they can be effective tools for achieving good tone. That's all I was saying.
For those here with some deeper interest in this topic I can recommend to scan the papers of the Symposium "Human Supervision and Control in Engineering and Music". There's a short abstract at the entrie of each paper that makes a quick scan for something that you perhaps deem to be worth a closer look easy.
