Luthiers - What are the myths or misconceptions guitarist have about the instrument

[Greg Peterson]

Reading the thread about becoming a professional luthier was a bit like reading a horror story. I knew that more or less it was not going to have a happy ending.

There were some comments made about guitarists and their collective misconceptions or myths surrounding the instrument.

So, just what are some of the things guitarists think will give them that sound?

Full Disclosure - I have hacked, sliced and diced, mongrelized and destroyed perfectly fine guitars in the name of 'creating a signature sound'. Conclusion: I'm the same player and the only thing I have to show for it is a pile of pickups, speakers, gizmos, do-dads.

I've also come to realize that while there is a unique tone buried deep in a finely crafted guitar, it takes a talented and skilled hand to extract it.

[John Coloccia]

I think the biggest myth is the general idea that guitarists think they can tell the difference between things like:

- fret material ("I don't like stainless steel...it sounds brittle and too bright")
- old wood vs new wood
- different finishes on electrics (finish becomes significant on acoustics....even a thin finish can be 10% of the thickness of a guitar top!)
etc etc etc...

when in fact, time and time again it's pretty clear that generally we can't when you do a controlled experiment. But it doesn't matter. We're a superstitious bunch of know it alls, and I do think sometimes that it's really held back the evolution of the instrument.

[Shawn Pixley]

I'll add:

Zero fret
Through body vs stop mounted
Flipped pickups (Peter Green) affect.
"Overwound is always better"
Scalloped fretboards
String gauge

All of the above can have an effect on electric sound. But none are the holy grail of sound. I sometimes spend quite a bit of time getting my electrics dialed in to what I am looking for. But the sound I want from one guitar is not the sound I look for in another. I keep detailed notes by Guitar and amp settings. Sometimes these are better thrown away when working on a new song.

There is quite a bit of variation in some lines of guitars. I tested ~100 Les Pauls before I found one that was special. My plywood Danelectro Baritone can get unique sounds, but I don't think anyone would call it a fine instrument.

The amp and speaker breakup also have a great deal of influence on the sound. What works at low volumes may not work at higher volume. In short, there is no holy grail but many good ways to get the sound you are looking for. Experiment and have fun.

For accoustics, finish, size, bracing, neck joint, tone wood all can have significant effects on the sound.

[Jerrimy Snook]

Have you seen "It Might Get Loud"? Jimmy Page, Jack White and the Edge all sitting around talking about guitars and the sound they are looking for.

As a sound board tech, I think it is that elusive or particular sound that makes working with guitar players an exercise in patience. I have learned that the results are almost always better when the musician is content with their sound.

[Greg Peterson]

Guitarists, while not as dysfunctional as singers, tend to be a little fussy. Guitarist fixate on strings, pickup, finishes, cords, effects, picks while completely ignoring the amp or trying to get the amp to behave (or respond) in a manner that is inconsistent with its design. Matching the amp to the sound one is looking for is often times the most overlooked attribute. You simply can not get a Twin Reverb to sound like a Marshall Plexi.

Not to diminish what a artisan crafted guitar brings to the table, but it is a rare musician that is able to coax the finest details out of a custom, professional grade instrument.

As for acoustics, they are a whole other beast. I enjoy my D15, and for my skill/talent level I feel this is a great match. It is a very articulate instrument and I know it has more to offer than what I can get out of it. This instrument is far more responsive to my input than any acoustic I have owned previously. It was an epiphany to experience an acoustic instrument that is touch sensitive beyond my motor skills. Nice to know that as/if my technique advances this instrument will be up to the task of responding.

[Ryan Baker]

Allegedly, Eric Johnson claims to be able to tell whether the electricity powering his rig was hydro or nuclear generated!

The list of myths is essentially endless.

[Greg Peterson]

I've heard other extreme claims attributed to Eric Johnson. I don't understand the buzz about EJ. He is a truly talented and gifted player, but I think he is just extremely OCD about his guitar and rig. If he is able to hear the things he claims to be able to hear, more power to him. But the audience certainly can't hear the difference, whether they be live or listening to a recording.

[John Coloccia]

I've heard other extreme claims attributed to Eric Johnson. I don't understand the buzz about EJ. He is a truly talented and gifted player, but I think he is just extremely OCD about his guitar and rig. If he is able to hear the things he claims to be able to hear, more power to him. But the audience certainly can't hear the difference, whether they be live or listening to a recording.

There is definitely a difference between different brands of batteries, though. I can't hear it with modern effects, but if you listen to different brands in vintage, unbuffered effects there's a definite difference. I guess it's not too surprising that batteries behave differently under load depending on the details of their construction.

But then he starts doing weird things, like plugging cables in only a certain way around (getting the "polarity" right)....and I know unless the cable is damaged that shouldn't do a darn thing.

So the corollary to this is that there are things that people DON'T think make a difference that actually do. For example:

1) pick thickness and construction make a definite difference in tone
2) buffered effect pedals...I can't play through a buffered pedal anymore. Even my wife can hear the difference. The buffered pedals absolutely kill the dynamics. People swear to me up and down it doesn't matter.
3) general technique....how hard you fret...where you pick...palm mute (a light palm mute will not sound like a palm mute at all, but will merely kill off some of the harmonic content of the note). Things like that all have a very distinct effect on your tone and is part of what makes it very difficult to match another player's tone. You have to get the basic settings right AND copy his technique as well....the latter can be very difficult. Whenever I copy a player's tone, I refer to it an "impersonation", because it really is more like impersonating someone's voice and mannerisms than it is just dialing in a tone.

[Shawn Pixley]

I'd add to John's good list of things that do make a difference in the sound.

Tube amp vs SS
Class A vs Class AB
votage Sag in a class AB amp
power tube saturation/distortion vs preAmp saturation/distortion
Speaker selection
pickup height
strings (particularly in accoustic guitars)
the room in which you are playing

When I test a guitar that I would consider or purchase, I try to always use my amp and Settings. That way I can determine and some to some extent compare the guitars, minimizing the variables.

Lastly how the guitar is recorded (microphone, placement, etc...). It used to be the case that analog recording was sonicly superior, but these days the A/D converters have largely eliminated that.

[Greg Peterson]

Not to pick an argument, buttttt...




Tube amp vs SS

SS is getting pretty good these days. I would wager dollars to donuts that in a double blind test that the average guitarist would not be able to tell the difference. And certainly the listening audience would never be able to tell.


Class A vs Class AB
I've no horse in this race, but be aware there are some pretty credible amp builders that consider the class of operation nothing more than a marketing gimmick.


Voltage sag in a class AB amp
Tube rectified amps are the only circuits I know of that have sag. I love the sound of the early Marshalls, but I find myself fighting those amps. For years I could not understand why I disliked playing them. Once I got my hands on a tube rectified amp it was like coming home. I like sag and the dynamic, organic feel you get from it.


Speaker selection
Oh yes indeed. Huge difference. Amp, speaker, pickup (single coil/humbucker) is the descending order of importance in creating or emulating a sound. Everything else (strings, fret board, body, bridge...) are minor details that few players are really able to leverage. Get the right amp, speakers and pups and the rest you either have in your hands or you don't.

[Shawn Pixley]

Not to pick an argument, buttttt...



SS is getting pretty good these days. I would wager dollars to donuts that in a double blind test that the average guitarist would not be able to tell the difference. And certainly the listening audience would never be able to tell.


I've no horse in this race, but be aware there are some pretty credible amp builders that consider the class of operation nothing more than a marketing gimmick.


Tube rectified amps are the only circuits I know of that have sag. I love the sound of the early Marshalls, but I find myself fighting those amps. For years I could not understand why I disliked playing them. Once I got my hands on a tube rectified amp it was like coming home. I like sag and the dynamic, organic feel you get from it.


Oh yes indeed. Huge difference. Amp, speaker, pickup (single coil/humbucker) is the descending order of importance in creating or emulating a sound. Everything else (strings, fret board, body, bridge...) are minor details that few players are really able to leverage. Get the right amp, speakers and pups and the rest you either have in your hands or you don't.



Per point 1, I think we'll agree to disagree. I can, and most of my musician friends can, hear the difference. If by the average guitarist, you mean some wanker playing in Guitar Center, then yes. If you mean people that actually play and get paid for it, not so much. People that think that they get good sound from an iPod probably don't know the difference.

Per point 2, Again, we'll agree to disagree. it probably depends upon what sort of sound you are looking for. if you are used to, and looking for preamp distortion, there isn't much difference. If you are looking for the power tube break-up, the Class A will ring very differently.

Per point 3 Tube rectified amps that are Class AB have sag. Class A amps have no sag due to constant power consumption. Each have their moments and I use both. I am not a big Marshall fan myself, give me an AC30 or 5E1 Fender Champ - though I do play with something else these days. Niel Young's sound from the Buffalo Springfield or Tonight the Nights eras are great examples. The stories of people putting a Variac in front of the amp to accentuate the sag are legion.

Per point 4, passionate agreement

[Matt Lau]

First, I'm mainly an acoustic guy:

Misconceptions:
1. The wood makes the tone. That I NEED Brazilian rosewood, Adirondack spruce, koa, etc for a good sounding guitar.
2. Gibson/Martin/McPhearson, etc make the greatest guitars in the world.
3. Buying a guitar can be a financial investment.
4. Old guitars are always better.
5. Adirondack spruce and Brazilian are always better.
6. All finishes are equal on an acoustic.
7. Dovetails are the ultimate neck joint, and superior to bolt ons, spanish heels, etc.
8. CNC is better than hand work.
9. Mother of pearl makes things sound better.
10. More expensive-> better guitar.
11. All guitars from a particular builder sound the same.
12. A guitar is a guitar is a guitar. Can't I buy it from China or Ebay?
13. Strings are *supposed* to make my fingers bleed for tone.
14. Taylor guitars are automatically superior to everything.
15. Bigger is better, louder, more melodic.
16. Old wood = new wood. For acoustics, I've found that building with wood that has been air dried over 25 years has a significant improvement--mainly because of increased strength and stability. That, and certain woods (Adirondack spruce, Mahogany, Indian RW, Braz RW. etc) have been deforested and simply aren't available in the same quality as the old days.
17. Luthiers make more money charging $20,000+.
18. Setup doesn't matter. A loose nut isn't important, etc.

I'm purely an amateur luthier, but I spent the past two years visiting the best to further my understanding.

[george wilson]

What is best all depends upon what you perceive sounds best. Woods aRE different,and different species of spruce and rosewood DO affect the tone. It is all up to what you think sounds the best,though.

These days,many feel that maple guitars sound better than rosewood,and that the strings stay better sounding for longer.

[Bryan Morgan]

SS is getting pretty good these days. I would wager dollars to donuts that in a double blind test that the average guitarist would not be able to tell the difference. And certainly the listening audience would never be able to tell.

I'd have to throw out a technicality here... Something like an AxeFx or properly profiled Kemper may be mostly indistinguishable from a tube amp, but I haven't heard any actual solid state amps that didn't sound like solid state amps. Whether thats good or not is subjective of course...

[John Coloccia]

I'd have to throw out a technicality here... Something like an AxeFx or properly profiled Kemper may be mostly indistinguishable from a tube amp, but I haven't heard any actual solid state amps that didn't sound like solid state amps. Whether thats good or not is subjective of course...


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G8morZn3bSw

[Bryan Morgan]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G8morZn3bSw

What is this? His guitar tone sounds pretty thin and shrill. Actually sounds like a Boss SD1 or similar.

[John Coloccia]

What is this? His guitar tone sounds pretty thin and shrill. Actually sounds like a Boss SD1 or similar.

What about the clean sound? That's a JC-120...solid state beginning to end. I doubt anyone could listen and pick that out from a Twin.

[Greg Peterson]

The Roland gets consistent, high praise. Clean tones are not really a problem for SS amps. Replicating tube distortion is a bit trickier. I think for the average listener, it is virtually impossible to tell SS from tube. I suspect a player can tell a difference primarily because the SS amp responds differently than the tube amp.

However, IMO, we are getting at the center of the electric guitar universe. Electric players fixate over the most minor of details all the while completely ignoring the amplifier. There's a whole bucketful of components in the amp that would drive a guitarist crazy if they popped the chassis and looked things over. Output tranny, tubes, coupling caps, resistors, speaker(s)....

[Bryan Morgan]

What about the clean sound? That's a JC-120...solid state beginning to end. I doubt anyone could listen and pick that out from a Twin.

The JC120 is legendary. I'd agree most people probably couldn't tell the difference when they are played clean.

[Shawn Pixley]

Never cared much for Fender Twins. KInda shrill and ice-pick like until they are cranked. When cranked, you don't want to be near them. My son's high school had a 80's JC-120. it was a workhorse and performed adequately doing a number of different things. SS amps tend to sound very compressed; even more so than tube amps. The electric guitar is already heavily compressed, especially ones that modulate more in the pre-amp section than in the power amp portion of the circuit. Put pedals in front of it and you can easily end up with mud. SS amps had one structural advantage. It is far easier to have more vesatility inate to the amp than the vast majority of tube amps. Some friends in a cover band swear by the amp and they can coax quite a few sounds out of it.

[george wilson]

the 120 was my favorite ss amp. I got a Standel a few years ago,the EXCELLENT repro of the Standel that Chet Atkins and the other famous players used back in the 1950's,even down to the vintage JB Lansing 15" speaker in it. I put it through the JC 120, and it sounds like a HUGE Standel. I play clean,and it is a truly remarkable sound. BUT,it will show up the SLIGHTEST playing error like no other amp.

[george wilson]

I might add that I have owned a very large number of amps over the years. After all,THE AMP is what you really hear. Not at all to discount the guitar,pickups,etc. At one time I owned 19 amps,and have owned and sold/traded off many others. If you can afford the $3500.00 for a Standel from Requisite Electronics,and you play CLEAN,I urge you to try one. He finds original 15" JBL speakers and builds them into the amp. Now,I'll warn you that the JBL cone does not "propagate" a lot,and I'd like more bass response. However,sending the signal from the Standel's chassis(takes a special cord)to a Roland jazz chorus 120 WITH the old aluminum dome speakers(new ones don't have those speakers),you will get the most remarkable tone you've ever heard,with all the bass you'll ever need. Sparkling highs,just amazing. You need those aluminum domes to get those highs,though!!!

The guy who makes the Standel amps is a really good person to deal with. Real careful about his work. He uses hospital grade plugs on the cords!! Great guy,great work. The Standel WAS the amp to have if you were a great player back in the 1950's. Only about 50 were ever made,though. Chet Atkins,Joe Maphis,Buddy Merril,ALL the great players had one,it seems.They went out of fashion due to the advent of distortion. Standel listened to their engineers,not the players,and lost out. I play clean,though,and care nothing for distortion. If anyone's near,you could stop and try mine.

[David Weaver]

John, when you talk about buffered effects, do you mean the processing amplifiers and that type of stuff? They just remove the sharp edge from the attack when you play, it's just enough to be really irritating, and even if there is milliseconds of delay, it just takes the crispness out of playing.

[John Coloccia]

John, when you talk about buffered effects, do you mean the processing amplifiers and that type of stuff? They just remove the sharp edge from the attack when you play, it's just enough to be really irritating, and even if there is milliseconds of delay, it just takes the crispness out of playing.

The "buffers" are really little amplifiers. They present a very high impedance input for guitars and essentially decouple the guitar side of the chain with everything that follows. Nearly every effect requires some sort of pre-amp stage to drive the effect circuitry, even if it's just a simple op-amp.

That's why I don't use anything but true bypass pedals anymore. When a true bypass is switched out, it no longer goes through the pedal circuitry. Many many many pedals NEVER take that input buffer out of the circuit, even when the actual "effect" part of the pedal not active. Depending on the quality of the buffer, and the kind of amp you're playing through, this can make a very small difference or can make a HUGE difference. When I was playing through my Fuchs ODS, the difference in sound and feel was as absolute deal breaker. Playing through a Marshall? I can hear it but it doesn't ruin the sound. I mostly just plug straight into a twin or a little modeling practice amp now....I can definitely hear it through the Twin. I can't hear any difference through the modeling amp.

There are advantages to buffers. If you're more than 10' or 20' away from your amp, you really want to put a buffer in there somewhere. Buffered effects tend to be very quiet, and are especially quiet switching. True bypass effects often have a loud "click" associated with them.

Anyhow, the effect of the buffer is that it typically gives a bit of a compressed feel to the entire signal, and you definitely loose some sensitivity to your touch. The Fuchs is so incredibly responsive that it's really noticeable. I even tried putting all my effects in an effects loop. This particular one was supposed to have a world class buffer. You could even dial in some "sag" to try and mimic being plugged into the front end of an amp. Not even close, I'm afraid. I've since sold off the entire pedal board, my Marshall and my Fuchs, and now just plug straight into a twin. It feels good to keep it simple like that!

[David Weaver]

Ahh...slightly different than I was thinking. I don't think I'd heard of fuchs, but about 5 years ago I dumped every single one of my pedals because I was tired of fooling with them, and I haven't played in front of people for 12 years so I don't need any versatility. Maybe I should've just looked for a couple that were better made.

I could stand to have a better (and smaller) amplifier, but right now, all I have is a Rivera Fandango 2x12. I would kind of like to switch to some sort of 6L6 boutique amp, but I'd have to find someone willing to do a trade, and people only ever seem to want to trade something 1/2 as good when you're looking for a trade.

Maybe george would sell me something vintage off of his huge pile :)

[John Coloccia]

The Fuchs was one of the first Dumble clones...maybe the first. Really incredible sounding and feeling amplifier. I dumped it because it was just time for something different. Sometimes you meed to change things up a bit to keep from getting stale.

[David Weaver]

Sometimes you meed to change things up a bit to keep from getting stale.


Roger that, sometimes different is good, even if it's not technically "better". Sometimes it's nice to go out to youtube and watch videos of other people doing stuff with your equipment, too, just to get ideas - just got a refresher on my amplifier, and a few new kinks other people do make it seem like worth playing with again. Stealing someone else's creativity, I guess. Like the honkey tonk man said about his elvis type wrestling gimmick "I didn't come up with the gimmick, I stole someone else's idea, just like everyone else".

[Kevin McMichael]

As for solid state: I have been playing for many years, 10 of those I was full time. I cannot say for sure I could do it in a blind test but this is my impression. I can sit around and play through a tube amp for a long time. I might be ok with the sound of a solid state but my mind will quickly lose interest in playing and I will be ready to quit.

[Greg Peterson]

As for solid state: I have been playing for many years, 10 of those I was full time. I cannot say for sure I could do it in a blind test but this is my impression. I can sit around and play through a tube amp for a long time. I might be ok with the sound of a solid state but my mind will quickly lose interest in playing and I will be ready to quit.

I think your observation is truer than you give it credit. Tube amps are in themselves an instrument. You don't so much as play through a tube amp as you 'play' the tube amp. Touch response, tonal sensitivity to your attack, subtle, nuanced tone/gain shifts that you consciously or not, control and manipulate are present in tube amps. Digital processors, or more importantly the programming of the models, hasn't captured those attributes as of yet.

It's a matter of time though.

Meanwhile, the average listener is oblivious.

[Max Speedwell]

"Marketing gimmick".

Sell the sizzle, not the steak.

Musicians (Folk (flat top), jazz (archtop), concert (nylon string)) they ALL want something
new. They are ALL looking for that certain sound, that cutting edge, and they demand it
from a builder. You MUST devise a new and better bracing system, hand-pad a shellac finish
that is tougher than urethane, and come up with a new shape that is visually appealing and
sits comfortably in their lap. Then they reject anything that's not totally traditional!

If that's not bad enough, the electric players are worse! They want a Flying V that looks
like a B.C. Rich then refuse to pay for it since it's not an exact copy of a Les Paul!

-Max

[James White]

What about a one piece blank for electric guitar bodies vs a two or more piece blank? Is there a real significant difference in the sound?

James

[John Coloccia]

What about a one piece blank for electric guitar bodies vs a two or more piece blank? Is there a real significant difference in the sound?

James

I hear no difference. I hear no difference with the number of pieces an acoustic/archtop is made out of. You'd be shocked to know how many archtops are actually 4 piece tops as opposed to a simple bookmatch. Many many have little "wings" at the lower bout. Makes no difference in my opinion.

[James White]

I hear no difference. I hear no difference with the number of pieces an acoustic/archtop is made out of. You'd be shocked to know how many archtops are actually 4 piece tops as opposed to a simple bookmatch. Many many have little "wings" at the lower bout. Makes no difference in my opinion.

Do others concur with Johns opinion/observations? I am asking because I have a friend who wants to buy blanks form me. But is insisting on a one piece blank. He feels that this is an important detail that too many builders overlook. Is he just falling for hype?

James

[george wilson]

Even Stradavari sometimes resorted to "wings". The top doesn't vibrate appreciably that near the edge, The sides hold it rigidly. A careful matching job,and it would be hard to spot. It is silly to think otherwise.

As for 2 piece tops,ask him if he knows all Strad's violins had 2 piece book matched tops. Guaneri even made a few violins with KNOTS in the top. No one knows why. There is a story that he was in jail at the time,relying on the jailer's kind daughter to bring him wood. There's no proof of that though. The fact remains that his violins still sounded good,knots and all.

[James White]

Even Stradavari sometimes resorted to "wings". The top doesn't vibrate appreciably that near the edge, The sides hold it rigidly. A careful matching job,and it would be hard to spot. It is silly to think otherwise.

As for 2 piece tops,ask him if he knows all Strad's violins had 2 piece book matched tops. Guaneri even made a few violins with KNOTS in the top. No one knows why. There is a story that he was in jail at the time,relying on the jailer's kind daughter to bring him wood. There's no proof of that though. The fact remains that his violins still sounded good,knots and all.

George,

Can I take it that you are saying? If it does not mater in these more sensitive acoustic instruments. Then it truly does not mater in electrics.

Regards,
James

[Shawn Pixley]

Do others concur with Johns opinion/observations? I am asking because I have a friend who wants to buy blanks form me. But is insisting on a one piece blank. He feels that this is an important detail that too many builders overlook. Is he just falling for hype?

James

For electric guitars, other than aesthetics, I don't think there's a nickle's worth of difference in the sound of a 1 piece vs 2 piece. For my best instruments by sound: the Telecaster - 3 piece, 1 Les Paul - 1 piece, 1 Les Paul - 2 piece, both G&L ASAT's - 1 Piece Blank, ES335 - 2 piece, both Ibanez's - 2 or more pieces (one is a neck-thru model).

For electrics and archtops, I don't hear any difference between 1 piece vs 2 piece on high end (sound, not price) instruments. For low end guitars (sound) and "cheap" guitars there is a difference in sound, but I can't say it is attributable to the number of pieces to the top or back. There are far too many other variables that come into play.

So to answer simply, I fully agree with John and George on that issue.

[george wilson]

It does not matter especially in electrics. Too many young guys get some silly notion in their heads and can't be gotten off of their beliefs. Old guys do it to. Everyone wants to believe that have found the mythical secret of great tone. Trouble is,they end up ignoring the REAL things that do contribute to tone.

[Greg Peterson]

+1 George.

I'd rather have great touch, a great amp and a plywood bodied guitar than no touch, a modeling amp and $3k beauty queen electric.

The truly great players *may* be able to find a sound or tone in a high end solid body electric that eludes mere mortals. But even the talented ones rely more on their technique and amp than the guitar. The significance of the electric stringed instrument to the final timbre is greatly exaggerated, IMO.

[Neal Clayton]

Allegedly, Eric Johnson claims to be able to tell whether the electricity powering his rig was hydro or nuclear generated!

The list of myths is essentially endless.


I've heard other extreme claims attributed to Eric Johnson. I don't understand the buzz about EJ. He is a truly talented and gifted player, but I think he is just extremely OCD about his guitar and rig. If he is able to hear the things he claims to be able to hear, more power to him. But the audience certainly can't hear the difference, whether they be live or listening to a recording.

Sorry to bump an old thread but the last time I saw Eric Johnson (House of Blues in NOLA) there was a HORRIBLE hum coming from some raggedy old piece of gear he had up there. After a couple of songs he apologized and made some comment about "these things happen when you have to use antique gear" and just had the mix guy cut him out between songs, so that it wasn't as noticeable to the audience, but he never figured out what it was and fixed it.

I was trying to explain to my girlfriend at the time while we were on the way to the show that "no one drives around in the car listening to EJ, it's just a good show because he sounds good and he's a great live player". Needless to say she didn't get it, all she had to say about the show on the drive home was "that hum was awful".

:rolleyes:

[Julie Moriarty]

Sorry to bump an old thread...

I'm glad you did. There's a lot of interesting info here.

[John Coloccia]

There's SOME truth to Eric's OCD, but he's over the top :) I think if he took a couple of months and worked with someone, we could get him up and running with modern equipment and maintain whatever it is he wants to hear. Some of the fuzzes can be difficult to duplicate just due to the scarcity of the components and the fact that a lot of the vintage components varied wildly in their specs. It's not just that it's vintage equipment....it's a specific example of the equipment that has the magic. Everything else in his setup is really straight-forward and can be exactly duplicated in reliable ways.

Incidentally, there are some pedals where I can tell the difference between a wall wart and a battery. It has to do with how they filter the power differently, source current differently, etc....mostly to do with the initial attack of the note. There's no reason for it, though, because we understand what's going on pretty well these days.

[Neal Clayton]

There's SOME truth to Eric's OCD, but he's over the top :) I think if he took a couple of months and worked with someone, we could get him up and running with modern equipment and maintain whatever it is he wants to hear. Some of the fuzzes can be difficult to duplicate just due to the scarcity of the components and the fact that a lot of the vintage components varied wildly in their specs. It's not just that it's vintage equipment....it's a specific example of the equipment that has the magic. Everything else in his setup is really straight-forward and can be exactly duplicated in reliable ways.

Incidentally, there are some pedals where I can tell the difference between a wall wart and a battery. It has to do with how they filter the power differently, source current differently, etc....mostly to do with the initial attack of the note. There's no reason for it, though, because we understand what's going on pretty well these days.

I'm not a musician, firstly, but have a basic understanding of these debates from reading them over the years.

I get that EJ likes his old school gear and for studio use, hey, that's great. But the bottom line in my anecdotal situation is, a person who saw him live for the first time didn't like the show because of a gear malfunction. So while that old stuff may be great in the studio, I can't see the feasibility of travelling with it on the road.

[george wilson]

i agree about taking old gear on the road. It is way beyond its expected functional life, Taking it on stage,after its been banged around by a bunch of pot head "roadies",is asking for disaster. I don't know what old gear he might be using,but tubes by nature are delicate.(I don't know how the tube(s) in the first fused artillery shells survived being fired,but they did!) They had electric circuits inside their noses which included at least 1 tube. They could be timed to burst NEAR the ground,to spray shrapnel on troops,or near aircraft to do the same. At the time,they were nearly miraculous pieces of equipment,and highly secret.