Not quite clean but not quite distorted

Re: Not quite clean but not quite distorted

Postby Tennessee Jedi » Thu Sep 06, 2012 7:48 am

mgbills wrote:Also as a bit of a tangent...

For players new to thick picks

Why stop there ?
Jerry played with his fingers a ton ....
IMHO its the weakest link of many Jerry Players .... myself included !
:smile:
User avatar
Tennessee Jedi
Senior Member
 
Posts: 4225
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 6:29 am
Location: Bucks Co.Pa

Re: Not quite clean but not quite distorted

Postby tigerstrat » Thu Sep 06, 2012 7:58 am

TI4-1009 wrote:From the 70's on Jer had either the MXR or one or more of the Boss distortion/overdrive pedals in his rack. Do we know that he wasn't using them to get any of the "not quite clean, not quite distorted" edge? (as opposed to the clipping/pushing/technique part of it)


At one point, before my endless hours surfing & listening actually did come to an end, I was trying to determine the show where Jerry first used the MXR Distortion+ on stage... I never did, but it seemed like I was narrowing it down to 77 or 78. To complicate this determination, a constant in the loop at the time also had a powerful gain stage that interacted with the front end of the preamp: the Mutron III (introduced either at the end of 76 or mid-76, ymmv)

Yes, yes, the fingers, the technique... none of us should need to be told.
"There, in huge black letters, was 'The Grateful Dead'. It just... cancelled my mind out."-Garcia
User avatar
tigerstrat
Senior Member
 
Posts: 4632
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2005 1:20 pm
Location: Portland,OR

Re: Not quite clean but not quite distorted

Postby mijknahs » Thu Sep 06, 2012 8:49 am

TI4-1009 wrote:From the 70's on Jer had either the MXR or one or more of the Boss distortion/overdrive pedals in his rack. Do we know that he wasn't using them to get any of the "not quite clean, not quite distorted" edge? (as opposed to the clipping/pushing/technique part of it)


Absoulutely. You can see from videos when Jerry flips the OBEL switch. Before he does that, he is playing straight into his Fender Twin head but he can still get a bit of dirt. I think his volume knob has more to do with it. Or even his humbucker switch.

Playing outdoors a few months ago I had to turn my MC100 up louder than usual. I was getting some "dirt" or light breakup on certain notes and chords. More than normal. It sounded really good. You could get this even easier with an MC50 or MC250 but I would get it a little too much because I tend to play on the loud side (at least that's what they tell me - I think it's the "right" volume).
User avatar
mijknahs
Senior Member
 
Posts: 1518
Joined: Fri Nov 13, 2009 8:51 pm
Location: Los Angeles, CA

Re: Not quite clean but not quite distorted

Postby mijknahs » Thu Sep 20, 2012 10:39 am

Another interesting observation is that Jerry SHOULD have been more "dirty" sounding when he was using the K120s (less power handling) but he is actually relatively "clean" in the mid to late 70's. I think his "dirtiest" sound comes when he was playing a 500 WATT per channel McIntosh (the MC2500 in 1983) and using E120s. Listen to some '83 shows. Great tone and playing but definitely "dirtier" than 76-77 or even 82 for that matter. If it comes from clipping the McIntosh or the speakers, I can't explain why it would be dirtier when using a more powerful amp.
User avatar
mijknahs
Senior Member
 
Posts: 1518
Joined: Fri Nov 13, 2009 8:51 pm
Location: Los Angeles, CA

Re: Not quite clean but not quite distorted

Postby jenkins » Sat Sep 22, 2012 10:21 pm

Jerry was the master of pick attack, straight up.
He also was the master at setting his amp up just right.
He had his amp set up perfect to where it was right on the verge of feedback and breaking up at all times.
Meaning if her hit his notes and chords lightly they came out clean with just a touch of dirt and when he picked hard it gvae that nice little dirt to it.
He also was a master at his guitar volume staying equal between single notes and chords. This used to be a huge problem for me. My gouts would fall out when I went to single notes because I strummed chords too hard. Jery strummed his chords very lightly most of the time and they came out clean, then there were other times he would hit em a little harder and give it dirt but still never too loud. His guitar never falls out of the mix when he switches to singles.

He usually cranks up his volume some when he gets into a solo but most of the time hell switch back and forth between notes and chords without adjusting his volume knob. It's all in his attack and having his settings set just right to where it accentuates his attack. Technically this could be achieved on any almost amp and particularly on a tube pre/SS power section.
For me tube power sections just have a little too much dirt. It's hard to get that just right setting. You can tell the difference in Jerry's between early 70's and mis 70's. In the early 70's there was always a little dirt, more 'dirty yet clean' than 'clean yet dirty' in later years
jenkins
Billy
Billy
 
Posts: 243
Joined: Sat Apr 22, 2006 5:56 pm

Re: Not quite clean but not quite distorted

Postby SarnoMusicSolutions » Sun Sep 23, 2012 6:16 pm

mijknahs wrote:Another interesting observation is that Jerry SHOULD have been more "dirty" sounding when he was using the K120s (less power handling) but he is actually relatively "clean" in the mid to late 70's. I think his "dirtiest" sound comes when he was playing a 500 WATT per channel McIntosh (the MC2500 in 1983) and using E120s. Listen to some '83 shows. Great tone and playing but definitely "dirtier" than 76-77 or even 82 for that matter. If it comes from clipping the McIntosh or the speakers, I can't explain why it would be dirtier when using a more powerful amp.



One way to view this is that it's an argument FOR the notion that the distortion heard was the speakers themselves. Likely Jerry was using just one channel of that Mc2500, which is really more like 575 watts or so. The Mc2300 is about 345 watts into a matched load. So in comparison, the JBL's could be experiencing that much more stress and excursion and saturation. It doesn't support the argument that the amp was clipping, but it does point to the speakers it seems.

How long did he use the Mc2500 instead of Budman (his most used Mc2300)?

B
... and it's just like any other day that's ever been...
User avatar
SarnoMusicSolutions
Senior Member
 
Posts: 1066
Joined: Tue Jan 27, 2009 6:15 pm
Location: St. Louis, MO - USA

Re: Not quite clean but not quite distorted

Postby mijknahs » Sun Sep 23, 2012 10:40 pm

SarnoMusicSolutions wrote:
mijknahs wrote:Another interesting observation is that Jerry SHOULD have been more "dirty" sounding when he was using the K120s (less power handling) but he is actually relatively "clean" in the mid to late 70's. I think his "dirtiest" sound comes when he was playing a 500 WATT per channel McIntosh (the MC2500 in 1983) and using E120s. Listen to some '83 shows. Great tone and playing but definitely "dirtier" than 76-77 or even 82 for that matter. If it comes from clipping the McIntosh or the speakers, I can't explain why it would be dirtier when using a more powerful amp.



One way to view this is that it's an argument FOR the notion that the distortion heard was the speakers themselves. Likely Jerry was using just one channel of that Mc2500, which is really more like 575 watts or so. The Mc2300 is about 345 watts into a matched load. So in comparison, the JBL's could be experiencing that much more stress and excursion and saturation. It doesn't support the argument that the amp was clipping, but it does point to the speakers it seems.

How long did he use the Mc2500 instead of Budman (his most used Mc2300)?

B


Yeah, it would seem like the MC2500 would make the JBLs clip harder than the MC2300 would. But then he wouldn't necessarily have to play the MC2500 as loud to get the same stage volume either.

I believe Jerry started using the MC2500 sometime in late '82 through sometime in '83. Waldo would know the month.
User avatar
mijknahs
Senior Member
 
Posts: 1518
Joined: Fri Nov 13, 2009 8:51 pm
Location: Los Angeles, CA

Re: Not quite clean but not quite distorted

Postby gpilcher2001 » Sat Feb 02, 2013 7:41 am

I'm gonna revive this for a minute. I have been playing around with the pre amp volume, my guitar volume, and my power amp volume i conjnction with eachother. It seems I have read. Somewhere that the mac was dimed. So my brainstorm, as smart or dumb as it is, was you could look at this as a master volume amp. Most poeple crank the master and use the gain knob to get the over all volume of the amp. So I have a 50 watt tube power amp, if I get the volume up on the amp. Between 7-9 and run my pre at 4.5 and my guitar at 1/2 up my rig becomes fat sounding and still clean. If I turn the guitar up to 3/4 the power starts to clip a little. I think thats were this clean to dirty or clean dirty thing happens. Now my only problem is fitting he overall volume of the rig to the right situation. I think I'm gonna go for an attenuator at this point. You guys with the macs probably would ned one based on your venue size. Any feedback would cool. Greg..
good to know you got shoes to wear when you find the floor.....
User avatar
gpilcher2001
Terrapin
Terrapin
 
Posts: 159
Joined: Wed Sep 08, 2010 8:54 pm
Location: colorado

Re: Not quite clean but not quite distorted

Postby tigerstrat » Sat Feb 02, 2013 2:58 pm

I don't know if I agree that most people start their adjustments with the master dimed, nor have I ever heard that JG's Mac was dimed - maybe it was.

But, whether using my current rig (Fender tube preamp>SS power amp) or my former 60w all-tube Boogie combo, I do NOT dime the Master Volume and go from there. Quite the opposite- I start with the Master relatively low, maybe about 25%, then get the level of Gain and Mid into the sweet spot I am trying to hit (Treble dimed, Bass squashed, and I usually have the Fender pre volume at about 4.5) ... then turn the Master up to stage volume (or, if just testing stuff out in my garage, down to "don't make the neighbors hate me" level).
Last edited by tigerstrat on Sat Feb 02, 2013 3:05 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"There, in huge black letters, was 'The Grateful Dead'. It just... cancelled my mind out."-Garcia
User avatar
tigerstrat
Senior Member
 
Posts: 4632
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2005 1:20 pm
Location: Portland,OR

Re: Not quite clean but not quite distorted

Postby barefootdave » Sat Feb 02, 2013 3:02 pm

I have a Dr. Z airbrake if you are interested. My recent Fractal AxeFX purchase renders it no longer necessary. PM if interested.
Barefoot Dave
"His job is too shed light, not to master"
barefootdave
Billy
Billy
 
Posts: 230
Joined: Sun Jan 02, 2011 3:57 am
Location: South Florida

Re: Not quite clean but not quite distorted

Postby gpilcher2001 » Sat Feb 02, 2013 6:39 pm

I'm not sure what the deal is but I'm not able to get a fat sound with my rig unless my power amp s cookin!
good to know you got shoes to wear when you find the floor.....
User avatar
gpilcher2001
Terrapin
Terrapin
 
Posts: 159
Joined: Wed Sep 08, 2010 8:54 pm
Location: colorado

Re: Not quite clean but not quite distorted

Postby gpilcher2001 » Sat Feb 02, 2013 7:20 pm

Oh yeah I forgot to ask.How do you like the air brake? I have a thd 4 ohm but I'm only running a 1 x 12 rihjt now.
good to know you got shoes to wear when you find the floor.....
User avatar
gpilcher2001
Terrapin
Terrapin
 
Posts: 159
Joined: Wed Sep 08, 2010 8:54 pm
Location: colorado

Previous

Return to Jerry Tone

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests