It is currently Mon Mar 16, 2020 8:12 pm

All times are UTC - 7 hours



Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 35 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
Author Message
Post subject: Re: Why Isn't M3 "boxy"?
Posted: Fri Oct 25, 2013 9:51 am
Offline
Roadie
Roadie

Joined: Wed Feb 20, 2013 12:57 am
Posts: 224
captainc wrote:
Agreed. I had a 120 Watt Crate many years ago as my first amp. Didn’t know crap back then… not that I do now but that didn’t get nearly as loud as the Roland JC120 I would plug into at a rehearsal space me and a few buddies from work would go to occasionally. I’m fairly certan the Roland is the same wattage but I didn’t need to put that bastard past two or three with the drums going. If I remember correctly (we’re talking 1993 here) I would have to put the Crate on about 5-7 to have a chance at being heard over the drums. Two completely different amps, both SS, both same wattage, both 2x12 but one blew my hair back and the one just blew.
Speaker efficiency is the reason for this phenomenon, tube amps are generally more expensive, use higher quality components higher quality efficient speakers, assuming that the power ratings are accurate the speaker efficiency is the main culprit for why people think tube amps are louder, higher quality more efficient speaker = more volume per watt. anyway you slice it a watt is a watt. inefficient speakers take more wattage to produce sound, Solid state amps are built cheaper than tube amps and generally use inefficient speakers because they are cheaper, Ok I'll drop this topic because now I am beating a dead horse, the facts are out there for those who care enough to do their own research as I have


Top
Profile
Fender Play Winter Sale 2020
Post subject: Re: Why Isn't M3 "boxy"?
Posted: Fri Oct 25, 2013 11:03 am
Offline
Aspiring Musician
Aspiring Musician

Joined: Thu Dec 13, 2012 12:58 pm
Posts: 739
Kreature wrote:
captainc wrote:
Agreed. I had a 120 Watt Crate many years ago as my first amp. Didn’t know crap back then… not that I do now but that didn’t get nearly as loud as the Roland JC120 I would plug into at a rehearsal space me and a few buddies from work would go to occasionally. I’m fairly certan the Roland is the same wattage but I didn’t need to put that bastard past two or three with the drums going. If I remember correctly (we’re talking 1993 here) I would have to put the Crate on about 5-7 to have a chance at being heard over the drums. Two completely different amps, both SS, both same wattage, both 2x12 but one blew my hair back and the one just blew.
Speaker efficiency is the reason for this phenomenon, tube amps are generally more expensive, use higher quality components higher quality efficient speakers, assuming that the power ratings are accurate the speaker efficiency is the main culprit for why people think tube amps are louder, higher quality more efficient speaker = more volume per watt. anyway you slice it a watt is a watt. inefficient speakers take more wattage to produce sound, Solid state amps are built cheaper than tube amps and generally use inefficient speakers because they are cheaper, Ok I'll drop this topic because now I am beating a dead horse, the facts are out there for those who care enough to do their own research as I have


Right. So we can buy what is offered at stores that sell amps. I have neither the time nor the inclination to do mods. Not to mention the Mustang's speakers are supposedly "tuned" for the mustang and an "upgraded" speaker would be a failure.

So which sounds better for clean tones, pound for pound -- Mustang 3 v2 or Princeton Reverb.

I think it's a credit to the mustang series that this question can legitimately be asked without drawing laughter. I have heard many folks pick Mustang over a real Deluxe, at least the tone as it sounds when recorded.

M3 costs $280, the cost of 2 pedals. :lol: :lol: :lol: DRRI costs $1,000 and has only one tone (without pedals) and no gain or master volume vs. "gain" control as it relates to volume.


Top
Profile
Post subject: Re: Why Isn't M3 "boxy"?
Posted: Fri Oct 25, 2013 11:33 am
Offline
Roadie
Roadie

Joined: Wed Feb 20, 2013 12:57 am
Posts: 224
Kreature wrote:
Not to mention the Mustang's speakers are supposedly "tuned" for the mustang and an "upgraded" speaker would be a failure.
it may or may not be a failure it's subject to interpertation, it may sound better but at the same time it might not, I have the mustang V version 1, I do not have the matching cabinet, instead I have a hand built cabinet with 4 Peavey 8's keeping each channel at an 8ohm load, I will say that my amp would most likely sound better with 4 12's. but my 8's actually kick out a generous amount of sound and they do sound good, loudest I have been able to turn my amp up to is 5, anything more than that would be ear splitting, I usually play through my studio monitors with the sends on the back of the amp going to the line in on my audio interface, I find that playing through the studio monitors gives a more accurate audio image of what a patch I create will sound like on a stock mustang amplifier because my guitar speakers are not designed for the mustang amp series. So I suppose I may have put the cart before the horse on this one, 300$ amp head and 65$ in speakers and wood to build my cabinet,. When I get the extra money I will most likely upgrade to a 4x12 cabinet, but the 8's are more than sufficient for playing in the house, I am quite fond of the mustang amplifiers, my amp has suited me well for practice, recording, and just cranking it up ridiculously loud and knocking pictures off the wall


Top
Profile
Post subject: Re: Why Isn't M3 "boxy"?
Posted: Fri Oct 25, 2013 11:38 am
Offline
Professional Musician
Professional Musician
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 01, 2010 3:38 pm
Posts: 1744
Her Wanna wrote:
Not to mention the Mustang's speakers are supposedly "tuned" for the mustang and an "upgraded" speaker would be a failure.


I don’t see how swapping the speaker is a failure. The Cab sim is just an EQ curve. You will likely hear an audible change but all I think that would force is different EQ settings to achieve desired results.

I would imagine upgrading say a mustang II to have the same speaker as a mustang III would be a good swap and you’d then have basically a 40 watt MII? Minus the LCD of course.

Edit: Well, I suppose you could consider the “Full Range” factor of the stock speaker but IMO if you swap the speaker out and have expectations of an audible difference and a need to re-adjust your presets than it doesn’t matter much. At least that’s what I think. I think this horse has died a thousand deaths.

_________________
YMMV

Chont's Mustang Presets


Top
Profile
Post subject: Re: Why Isn't M3 "boxy"?
Posted: Fri Oct 25, 2013 11:51 am
Offline
Aspiring Musician
Aspiring Musician

Joined: Thu Dec 13, 2012 12:58 pm
Posts: 739
captainc wrote:
Her Wanna wrote:
Not to mention the Mustang's speakers are supposedly "tuned" for the mustang and an "upgraded" speaker would be a failure.


I don’t see how swapping the speaker is a failure. The Cab sim is just an EQ curve. You will likely hear an audible change but all I think that would force is different EQ settings to achieve desired results.

I would imagine upgrading say a mustang II to have the same speaker as a mustang III would be a good swap and you’d then have basically a 40 watt MII? Minus the LCD of course.

Edit: Well, I suppose you could consider the “Full Range” factor of the stock speaker but IMO if you swap the speaker out and have expectations of an audible difference and a need to re-adjust your presets than it doesn’t matter much. At least that’s what I think. I think this horse has died a thousand deaths.


I was actually told by a Fender employee--not necessarily meaning this is correct--that the best sounds the Mustang can get are the speakers it has (and the ones in the 3 and 4 are very decent), which were designed in conjunction with the amp's modeling, in other words don't bother to "upgrade" speakers. I don't know about going through PAs and all that jazz; I'm simply talking about an M3 or an M4, how it sounds through it's own speakers.

What I want to know is whether an M3v2 sounds better than a real Princeton, pound for pound, clean tone with a touch of reverb.


Top
Profile
Post subject: Re: Why Isn't M3 "boxy"?
Posted: Fri Oct 25, 2013 11:57 am
Offline
Aspiring Musician
Aspiring Musician

Joined: Thu Dec 13, 2012 12:58 pm
Posts: 739
By the way and all this talk about SS amps sounding "ugly" when distorted, unlike tube amps. Are people still saying that even about the mustangs, talking about the mustang's "modeled" tube breakup, which can be done even at low volumes? Do people still not like that, or is it only the most stubborn tube snobs who have never tried a mustang 3 or 4?

Because many of the crunch/high gain tones sound great to me. Am I just wrong and I've never even heard the "real" Fender tone from the 1960s, as I read somebody on another part of this forum wrote about all of us "youngsters" (I'm 38) just yesterday?

So I'm not talking about turning the mustang up too loud for it's own self to cause real digital or physical distortion from being above what the equipment can handle. Nobody is trying to get "natural" breakup from our SS mustangs--it's modeled. The question is how accurate is it?

I'm talking about the 90s american model, for example, not with gain on 10...reasonable gain (6 to 8 or even 4 or 5) and EQ, perhaps with some tri-chorus just like Kurt, turned up to 5, which is loud as hell as everyone agrees (but at the same time is loudness the amp can handle--with digitally created modeling of the tube breakup--unlike a small real tube amp, which can't handle its own power and rattles and buzzes and shakes and the real tubes actually physically rattle and cause "ugly" noise if you are talking about a Princeton, from what I've read :lol: ). In my opinion this (the mustang's model I just described) NAILS the Nirvana tone I want, including the sustain and the tone, harmonics, overtones,...all of it. Does anyone disagree with me. That's "ugly SS distortion" and I just don't even know what good tone really is?

Because I played "In Bloom" at my secret open mic the other night and the 7 people in the crowd seemed to love it and it sounded SPOT ON in my opinion. Using Mustang 4 v1, 90s american model, gain on about 5, no pedal, a strat w/ humbuckers, preset volume on 8 and master volume on 5 (was LOUD AS HELL -- stage was outside, about 800 sq ft "enclosure" -- filled room easily and was, in fact, way too loud, but I did it on purpose because that's what everyone does at the venue I was at).

Afterwards people in the audience who are in their own punk band....you know what comes next.... they wanted to see and ask about my amp.

:lol:


Last edited by Her Wanna on Fri Oct 25, 2013 12:07 pm, edited 3 times in total.

Top
Profile
Post subject: Re: Why Isn't M3 "boxy"?
Posted: Fri Oct 25, 2013 11:59 am
Offline
Roadie
Roadie

Joined: Wed Feb 20, 2013 12:57 am
Posts: 224
for amp modeling purposes one would think that the speakers to be used should have a flat frequency response, I haven't looked into the specs of the stock mustang speakers, so i really do not know for sure, but it seems to me at least.. a flat frequency response would be a factor in the design of amp modeling


Top
Profile
Post subject: Re: Why Isn't M3 "boxy"?
Posted: Fri Oct 25, 2013 12:02 pm
Offline
Roadie
Roadie

Joined: Wed Feb 20, 2013 12:57 am
Posts: 224
Her Wanna wrote:
By the way and all this talk about SS amps sounding "ugly" when distorted, unlike tube amps. Are people still saying that even about the mustangs, talking about the mustang's "modeled" tube breakup, which can be done even at low volumes? Do people still not like that, or is only the most stubborn tube snobs who have never tried a mustang 3 or 4?
distortion and clipping are two different things in this context, solid state distortion sounds fine, it's when you take a regular old solid state amp and crank it up and overdrive the circuit the transistors produce a nasty fuzz that isn't pleasing to the ears


Top
Profile
Post subject: Re: Why Isn't M3 "boxy"?
Posted: Fri Oct 25, 2013 12:09 pm
Offline
Aspiring Musician
Aspiring Musician

Joined: Thu Dec 13, 2012 12:58 pm
Posts: 739
Kreature wrote:
Her Wanna wrote:
By the way and all this talk about SS amps sounding "ugly" when distorted, unlike tube amps. Are people still saying that even about the mustangs, talking about the mustang's "modeled" tube breakup, which can be done even at low volumes? Do people still not like that, or is only the most stubborn tube snobs who have never tried a mustang 3 or 4?
distortion and clipping are two different things in this context, solid state distortion sounds fine, it's when you take a regular old solid state amp and crank it up and overdrive the circuit the transistors produce a nasty fuzz that isn't pleasing to the ears


so check this out. in my opinion my M4 can nail every tone J Mascis achieves in this video, and every effect, and at a very loud volume too:

(and in other words you agree that mustang modeled high gain tones are good--or even great? the tube snobs are talking about when people tried to overdrive traditional non-modeling SS amps. the tube snobs who still automatically trash any SS amp have literally never tried a mustang 3 or 4) (and I'm not talking about just high distortion--I personally don't like the metal 2000s model.... I think the 90s model not with gain too high gives a great lead tone that remains "clean" for single note playing but is piercing and has HARMONICS or what I would call harmonics...I think...well, again, I think it is a great soloing tone or nails Nirvana PERFECTLY)



Top
Profile
Post subject: Re: Why Isn't M3 "boxy"?
Posted: Fri Oct 25, 2013 12:22 pm
Offline
Professional Musician
Professional Musician
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 01, 2010 3:38 pm
Posts: 1744
Kreature wrote:
for amp modeling purposes one would think that the speakers to be used should have a flat frequency response, I haven't looked into the specs of the stock mustang speakers, so i really do not know for sure, but it seems to me at least.. a flat frequency response would be a factor in the design of amp modeling


Yeah that makes total sense. I guess if you weren’t too concerned about preserving the modeling and were good with the change in tone it would be fine. I think if I did upgrade the speaker, I’d upgrade to what the MIII has if possible. But hoping in a couple of years to be getting a small tube amp at which time it will be me posting about should I get a Princeton or not LOL.

Which has me thinking. HW, one thing that might be a good idea for you is to go to a rehearsal space and rent a room that has a decent variety of amps. Some places will also let you request specific ones. I live in PA but work in NYC and a couple of friends and I would occasionally rent a rehearsal room and have a play for fun. It was cheap and the place we went to had a good selection of amps. You’ll get one that’s broken in (hopefully that includes the “in” and not just the “broken”) and you can sit there for a good hour or two for about 30 bucks and just crank up and test til your hearts content with now sales guy to bug you or tell you to turn it down.

Might be an option

_________________
YMMV

Chont's Mustang Presets


Top
Profile
Post subject: Re: Why Isn't M3 "boxy"?
Posted: Fri Oct 25, 2013 12:34 pm
Offline
Aspiring Musician
Aspiring Musician

Joined: Thu Dec 13, 2012 12:58 pm
Posts: 739
captainc wrote:
Kreature wrote:
for amp modeling purposes one would think that the speakers to be used should have a flat frequency response, I haven't looked into the specs of the stock mustang speakers, so i really do not know for sure, but it seems to me at least.. a flat frequency response would be a factor in the design of amp modeling


Yeah that makes total sense. I guess if you weren’t too concerned about preserving the modeling and were good with the change in tone it would be fine. I think if I did upgrade the speaker, I’d upgrade to what the MIII has if possible. But hoping in a couple of years to be getting a small tube amp at which time it will be me posting about should I get a Princeton or not LOL.

Which has me thinking. HW, one thing that might be a good idea for you is to go to a rehearsal space and rent a room that has a decent variety of amps. Some places will also let you request specific ones. I live in PA but work in NYC and a couple of friends and I would occasionally rent a rehearsal room and have a play for fun. It was cheap and the place we went to had a good selection of amps. You’ll get one that’s broken in (hopefully that includes the “in” and not just the “broken”) and you can sit there for a good hour or two for about 30 bucks and just crank up and test til your hearts content with now sales guy to bug you or tell you to turn it down.

Might be an option


thanks yeah I've been meaning to find a place to do that.

BTW I'm telling you dude...when you get there and it's time to spend $900 on a Princeton, you will really hesitate knowing you can get an M3 for $280 that might sound better pound for pound not even talking about price.

I'm a guy who decides on my own what is valuable -- clothes, cars, etc. I judge the real thing, as it is, not labels. I'm not a sheep like most of our society.

I'm trying to remember what I do with the amp -- mainly play at home, trying to gig a little or find or form a band. I record videos for youtube and I like to be able to have different gainy tones and effects (like vibratone) at apartment volumes. like to be able to change the tone/effects AFTER i already recorded it with my looper, then record it with my zoom recorder...

as I sit there looking at the PRRI (and I already know Deluxe is going to be waaay too loud--many people have told me)..... $900 .... one tone that might not be any better than the M3 that can also do 67 other tones....... I keep reading all sorts of rattling/defect/buzz problems with PRRIs and DRRIs...tube maintenance, upkeep.

let me know when you get to that point.

then there are the $600 tube amps -- egnater, blackstar, vox, Fender Blues Jr types...... egnater doesn't even have onboard reverb. no tuner like the mustang foot pedal...

I'm talking "money no object" I'm having trouble pulling the trigger on a real princeton! I'm afraid I won't like it and the only reason I want it is the peer pressure of the tube snobs.

Only way I will buy a princeton instead of mustang is if I play it and find the tone to be spectactularly different and that I've been wrong all this time thinking mustang's tone is good.

And I've read that too and I can't understand how there can be such a variance of opinions. Many people love the mustang's clean tones but then many people say it sounds HORRIBLE AND NOT EVEN CLOSE to the real thing. which is it????


Top
Profile
Post subject: Re: Why Isn't M3 "boxy"?
Posted: Fri Oct 25, 2013 12:51 pm
Offline
Professional Musician
Professional Musician
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 01, 2010 3:38 pm
Posts: 1744
Her Wanna wrote:
I want it is the peer pressure of the tube snobs.


Forget the tube snobs. If you like it that’s all that matters.

“if it sounds good it is good” – Duke Ellington.

I’m sure when I’m ready to drop some money on a nice new amp the modeling technology will be even better so I guess I’ll cross that bridge when I get to it. When I was writing music with my coworkers at my last job, we tried to write kind of 80s style parody music for a few laughs. It was very useful to have the modeling options and at the time I used a GT6 and we had all the access to mix rooms you could wish for. Man I wish I had the Mustang then. I could also strangle those dudes for all the friggin drama that came with trying to write those tunes but that is literally another thread. So I can totally see myself sticking with the Mustang Line or whatever is the latest and greatest when that time comes.

_________________
YMMV

Chont's Mustang Presets


Top
Profile
Post subject: Re: Why Isn't M3 "boxy"?
Posted: Fri Oct 25, 2013 12:56 pm
Offline
Aspiring Musician
Aspiring Musician

Joined: Thu Dec 13, 2012 12:58 pm
Posts: 739
captainc wrote:
Her Wanna wrote:
I want it is the peer pressure of the tube snobs.


Forget the tube snobs. If you like it that’s all that matters.

“if it sounds good it is good” – Duke Ellington.

I’m sure when I’m ready to drop some money on a nice new amp the modeling technology will be even better so I guess I’ll cross that bridge when I get to it. When I was writing music with my coworkers at my last job, we tried to write kind of 80s style parody music for a few laughs. It was very useful to have the modeling options and at the time I used a GT6 and we had all the access to mix rooms you could wish for. Man I wish I had the Mustang then. I could also strangle those dudes for all the friggin drama that came with trying to write those tunes but that is literally another thread. So I can totally see myself sticking with the Mustang Line or whatever is the latest and greatest when that time comes.


As I wrote the other day, I believe Jimi Hendrix himself would have loved my M4. He would have used it to create all sorts of amazing sounds.


Top
Profile
Post subject: Re: Why Isn't M3 "boxy"?
Posted: Fri Oct 25, 2013 1:46 pm
Offline
Roadie
Roadie

Joined: Wed Feb 20, 2013 12:57 am
Posts: 224
The mustang amps are great at everything they do, they model high volume and high gain amp tones at lower volumes as well which is great for apartment living or late night practicing, where as to get those good crunchy higher gain tones with a tube amp you will need to either get a guitar effects processor or crank your amp up loud. Mustang amps are a Beast.


Top
Profile
Post subject: Re: Why Isn't M3 "boxy"?
Posted: Fri Oct 25, 2013 11:14 pm
Offline
Aspiring Musician
Aspiring Musician

Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 6:30 am
Posts: 375
For the guy wanting to make the 40 watt MIII. ( too lazy to go back and look up the actual user name, lol)

One important factor of the MIII's sound is it's open back. The MII is closed back, so even with the same G12-T 100 it would sound different. ( like an MII with a better speaker)

I own a v1 MIII, and love it. I don't get any annoying noises from mine. I really think it would be difficult to switch to a standard tube amp- simply put, I'd miss the variety of sounds!

I think a lot of the negative comments come from the fact that the Mustangs ARE so tweakable. There really is a learning curve in getting to know it. It isn't really a plug n play amp- unless you set it up to be. That's the key. Simply running through the factory presets is not a great way to get it's best sounds. Those are intentionally set up as gee whiz- look what I can do! You have to set up your own sounds- the way YOU want them- THEN it becomes a thing of beauty. The true tube only cork sniffers can simply be over looked. No offense to them, but why bother asking one of them for an opinion on something they don't care about? No matter how good it actually is, they won't like it BECAUSE it's not a tube amp.

I also own a Super Champ X2. If it's a Princeton, or that Princton tone you think you want, you may want to try one out. You get the tube feel and tone, because it is a tube amp- with some solid state extras. One of the voices on ch2 is the Princeton- in fact there may be two, a clean and a dirty/compressed. More importantly, they are pretty similar in many ways- sizewise, the 10" speaker, the 6v6 power section, it has reverb and tremolo built in. Honestly, it's a lot closer to a princeton than it is to a real Champ. Combine that with 2 channels, and a lot of the flexibility of the Mustang line. 15 watts, and it can get pretty darn loud. However, thanks to the solid state bits, it also sounds GREAT at quiet levels. Takes pedals well, too. There's no fx loop, but ch 1 is all clean, so you can run all your fx in the front with a dirt pedal. ( just as you would need to do with a Princeton)

Other fx include chorus, delay and vibratone. If you want more, it is Fuse enabled, and the ch2 voices are user programmable. (via Fuse) Same amp models as the Mustang on ch2. One interesting addition to the models is the Jazzmaster. A flat solid state clean. It actually sounds very good. Kind of funny- making a tube emulation of a solid state amp!

The kicker- it costs $350. Compared to $800+ for the Princeton.


Top
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 35 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

All times are UTC - 7 hours

Fender Play Winter Sale 2020

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to: