Chat about Equipment Info
 #83534  by JonnyBoy
 
A good thing about the OBEL for me is consistency. I find the tone I want with my effects and then the tone is not surprising or maladjusted if you pull your vol a little off left or right. I can see what you mean about the vol pot being a good variety maker, you can put things in and out of your obel as you want. I agree for a lot of players its just not all that needed.
It offers a wider tonal situation due to the fact you can have these two tones on your guitar to switch between, plus the tone knob and vol knob does change the amps/preamps response, ie clipping. when you start the song you know what you're getting and when you flick the switch you know whats on the other side, which is a standard guitar hookup like your talking about. With the run I make in my rig a buffer is needed to keep a crisp twang. I keep a LPB1 in the main line sometimes to help add some dynamic color. The OBEL does add more to the fail list but it is an easy mod that isn't too delicate. a buffer, the batteries can cause problems for sure. I use a buffer in my line from the GCX and that works fine, I am only running 15' of cord unbuffered, no biggie. When I turn off the obel, I bypass the buffer and its like an old fashioned set up. You get it both. An OD pedal can be added in that line if desired and It is true that differently made buffers give you different tones too, just like different caps and such in OD pedals. I made an on board buffer I removed due to it conflicting with the tone and pedals negatively. The GCX works fine for now. All in all I think, depending on how you use it and how much gear is too much 8) , you get far more tones out of an OBEL.
 #83590  by seanc
 
Rusty the Scoob wrote:I get a headache just reading the descriptions of the functions of all the knobs on the preamps in two out of my three main basses. I seem to still play ok.
IMO 90%+ of the time all of the extra Bells, whistles, EQ, etc. exist purely to try to compensate for a bad sounding guitar/ bass in the first place. If you have a good sounding guitar all you want to do via amplification is make it louder with as little coloration as possible..
 #83592  by tcsned
 
seanc wrote:
Rusty the Scoob wrote:I get a headache just reading the descriptions of the functions of all the knobs on the preamps in two out of my three main basses. I seem to still play ok.
IMO 90%+ of the time all of the extra Bells, whistles, EQ, etc. exist purely to try to compensate for a bad sounding guitar/ bass in the first place. If you have a good sounding guitar all you want to do via amplification is make it louder with as little coloration as possible..
I hear you, the mods on Jer's guitar had more to do with making it more functional on stage rather than tone improving stuff. The amps are another story . . .
 #83593  by Rusty the Scoob
 
seanc wrote:
Rusty the Scoob wrote:I get a headache just reading the descriptions of the functions of all the knobs on the preamps in two out of my three main basses. I seem to still play ok.
IMO 90%+ of the time all of the extra Bells, whistles, EQ, etc. exist purely to try to compensate for a bad sounding guitar/ bass in the first place. If you have a good sounding guitar all you want to do via amplification is make it louder with as little coloration as possible..
You can't build a good sound with EQ although a lot of people try. I like having it onboard for setting my sound up in the mix, dialing in a little clarity to the attack or adding some fatness on the bottom. Every room sounds different, you can't compensate for all the infinite variables of stage acoustics with just a tone knob.
 #83604  by jester536
 
Back to the question of what guitar to buy. I got mine from Chris Michas...I don't know if I'd feel comfortable recommending him. He was great to work with and the guitar is very nice...nice workmanship...but I had the frets redone and some other work done on the neck. It's a very nice playing and sounding guitar now...but probably not exactly what I was looking for. I've seen some BEAUTIFUL guitars on here...but the playability is of the utmost importance. If I were to do it all over again...which someday I might. I really feel I have to play at least one guitar by the builder before diving into such a project. Long distance relationships never work...guitar building is no exception. Meet the guy...get your hands on some of his guitars....or have long and lengthy discussions with someone you trust who owns one. I know that once you make the decision to do this you want to jump right in...take your time and find the right guy.
 #83609  by keirweir
 
Rusty the Scoob wrote:I guess I see the Eagle logo as a tip of the cap to Irwin and Lieber as designers, not just builders. If they were still in business selling a high volume of guitars together like Martin or Fender or Gibson, that would be different.


+1
 #83610  by tcsned
 
keirweir wrote:
Rusty the Scoob wrote:I guess I see the Eagle logo as a tip of the cap to Irwin and Lieber as designers, not just builders. If they were still in business selling a high volume of guitars together like Martin or Fender or Gibson, that would be different.


+1
That sounds reasonable as long as the owners of that intellectual property have no issue with it. It's a cool inlay.
 #83784  by playingdead
 
It's your money ... get what makes you happy.

I always wanted a guitar like Jerry's, so I had one built. It's not exactly like Jerry's, because I didn't care if it had all the brass binding and elaborate sandwich woods and back inlay, I just wanted the shape, the heft, the electronics, a cocobolo top and maple core. It's a budget Tiger.

I would probably not play that particular guitar professionally outside of the Dead band, though, as I agree it's instantly recognizable as a Jerry guitar. You can make it sound different -- the Alembic guitars don't really sound like a "real" Tiger guitar -- but it still has that look to it. (Someone on here plays rhythm on an Alembic Tribute, which is pretty cool, imagine Weir playing the Tiger at a show.)

That's why I commissioned a Scott Walker Special, which has a unique shape to it. I have some of the Jerry electronics coming in that guitar, so I can have that tone if I want it, and some other different tones. That guitar I could play with Playing Dead, or any other band.

You don't see too many artists playing other artist's signature guitars ... everyone and his brother plays a PRS, but not too many would chose the Santana model. They all play Les Pauls, but not the Joe Perry signature model. To me, a Tiger copy is like a Garcia signature model. If it makes you happy, buy it, and forget what other people think.

Guitars have certain sounds ... there's nothing wrong with a Telecaster, Stratocaster, Les Paul, SG, etc., they are all on recordings that are instantly recognizable. But if Fender had only ever made one Telecaster and given it to Keith Richards, and never made any other guitars for anyone else, you'd probably have the same conversation about having a luthier build you yours and whether you'd be typecast as a Keith Richards wannabee.
 #83787  by jackr
 
jackr wrote:
Image
This one just sold.

However, I did pick up the Resurrection Bolt today. All I can say is HOLY CRAP it is nice. Tomorrow is my last day at work before vacation so I dont know if I can post pics. I am so buried! I just want to go and play it. Oh well!