Re: [Harp-L] Which harp mic is most feedback resistant?

[Richard Hunter <turtlehill@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Greg Heumann wrote:
<The Fireball is a perfect example. I  
<hate it. Why? It takes away one of the great expressive variables I  
<have under my control, which is tonal change based on cupping  
<technique. That mic has very high headroom (140dB) so even when cupped  
<tightly it doesn't distort. People who play through digital effects  
<boxes to manufacture their tone for them like this mic, because it is  
<predictable. It is very good at what it does - I just don't like it  
<personally for that reason - some times I WANT to induce a distorted  
<sound.

I respect Greg enormously and am in fact a very satisfied Blowsmeaway customer.  That said, Greg's comment about "People who play through digital effects boxes to manufacture their tone for them" makes me say whoa.

Let's get something straight.  Digital effects boxes "manufacture" tone exactly as much, or as little, as analog effects boxes or tube amps.  They're all electronic devices.  Every one of them takes an electronic input signal, does something to it, and pushes a modified signal out. There's nothing inherently purer or less "maufactured" about a tube amp where this is concerned.  A tube amp is as electronic as a semiconductor; there's nothing "natural" about a vacuum tube.  Neither tubes nor semiconductors grow in corn fields, at least not the last time I looked.

If you're using an electronic device of ANY kind, you're using it to produce a sound that you couldn't produce otherwise. In that sense, ANYONE using an electronic device is using it to "manufacture" a different sound than they started with. Whether that simply means a louder version of your acoustic harmonica tone, or something nearly unrecognizable as a harmonica, or something in-between, is up to the artist.  Chet Atkins doesn't sound much like Jimi Hendrix, but they're both using very similar technology, and neither one of them is producing a sound that's "natural."     

The fact is that artists have been using tube amps to produce ("manufacture"?) new sounds since the 1930s.  Harp players have learned the technology very well, to the point that we now have purpose-built tube harp amps that reduce some of the problems (like feedback) that resulted from using amps designed for electric guitar.  Digital modeling technology is about a decade old, and guitar and bass players are all over it, but harp players are behind the adoption curve, as is apparently the tradition.  (Guitar players began using tube amps in the 1930s, I believe; Little Walter began his innovative experiments with tube amps in the late 1940s.)  We don't yet have purpose-built digital modeling technology for harp players--there's no device currently on the market that models the behavior of a Sonny Jr, a Harp Gear, a Wezo, a Meteor, etc., etc.-- though the patch sets I build for Digitech devices, and the patches other players have built for their Line 6 and Zoom devices, are a step in that direction. And the results are already very good--dare I say it, better-sounding than a lot of the tube amps that harp players currently carry to their gigs.  

At some point, the digital technology will be as familiar to harp players as tube technology is now.  The stuff is too good, too inexpensive, and too convenient for it to be otherwise.  In the meantime, let's recognize that especially from the audience's point of view, the technology used to make the sound is a lot less important than the nature of the sound, and NONE of it is "natural." What the digital gear provides is lots, and lots, of great sounds for a very small investment compared to older generations of technology. 

In the meantime, let's stop pretending that one form of electronica is more "natural" or less "manufactured" than another.  If you prefer certain sounds to others, great!  That's what it means to be an artist--you make choices and you put them in front of an audience.  But it has nothing to do with what's manufactured and what's not.

I have no doubt that tube amps will remain staple tools of all sorts of musicians until we run out of electricity.  I certainly love mine.  I also have no doubt that modeling technology will increasingly be a staple for harmonica players--as it already is for guitarists, bassists, and vocalists at all levels of artistry and industry success. I spent the weekend tweaking my Digitech RP350 side by side with my Ron Holmes-modified Crate VC508, the latter being a terrific little beast of a 5 watt tube amp.  There's no doubt that the RP350 through my Peavey keyboard amp sounds different from the Crate--among other things, the Peavey has a 15" speaker that puts out a lot more bass then the 8" Weber in the Crate--but there's also no doubt in my mind that very few listeners, maybe none, would be able to tell in most cases that the RP350 was not a "real" amp.  I will illustrate this point with a Youtube video that puts the two systems side by side within the next two weeks. Stay tuned. 

Regards, Richard Hunter       

author, "Jazz Harp"
latest mp3s and harmonica blog at http://myspace.com/richardhunterharp
more mp3s at http://taxi.com/rhunter
Vids at http://www.youtube.com/user/lightninrick