Re: [Harp-L] still need to decide on a mic

[Rick Davis <bluesharpamps@xxxxxxxxx>]

Richard, your affection for processed sound is well known, and I share some
it it.  But your assertion that a harp player cannot tell the difference
between the sounds of an amp modeler and the sounds of a good tube amplifier
is just ... well ...  it does not comport with reality.  I've played many
examples of both, and I can tell you with absolute certainty that I would
never confuse the two.  I know when I'm playing a good tube amp.  It's not
about what we hear on a recording, it's about what we hear when we play.
They FEEL different when you play them.  The tone is apples and oranges when
you play them.

I think the same is true for virtually all pro harp players who play the
Chicago blues sound, to which our beginner aspries.  They are not Luddites
stuck in the past, as you suggest.  Speaking for myself, I'll happily move
to processed tone when it sounds as good as vintage style tube amps for the
type of music I play.  That day has not come, and I don't expect it to
arrive any time soon.

In another thread I asked the Harp-L community who were the top pro blues
harp players.  The list is long, but I don't think it includes any Chicago
style player who uses amp modelling instead of tube amps..  Think of Kim
Willson, Charlie Musselwhite, Curtis Salgado, Mark Hummel, Paul Oscher, Rick
Estrin, and on and on.  All of them play vintage tube amps.  I don't think
it is because they are stuck in the past.  It is because they want the best
sound.

I recommend to all my students interested in amped Chicago blues that they
immediately buy a small 5-watt tube amp.  Every harp player needs one, like
your small Crate amp.  It is a wonderful learning tool.  For students
interested in other styles of music on the harmonica, solid state amps and
modellers can be a perfect fit.  But they will frustrate students trying to
emulate the sounds that drew them to the old-school tone in the first
place.  I know this from experience teaching.

It will be a great day indeed when I can carry only a pedal -- or perhaps in
the future just a wireless mic with an embedded modelling chip -- that will
sound as good as a boutique blues harrp amp.  That will be brilliant.  I'll
sell all my amps the day that happens.  If it ever happens...

-- 
-Rick Davis
The Blues Harp Amps Blog
http://www.bluesharpamps.blogspot.com/





On Thu, Sep 2, 2010 at 12:44 PM, Richard Hunter <turtlehill@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>wrote:

> Rick Davis wrote:
> <Yes, I am familiar with the Vox DA5 and with other small modelling amps.
>  To
> <compare their tone with a Super Sonny (a very fine large tube harp amp) is
> <kind of silly.
>
> Rick, I understand your point of view, and I disagree.  Comparing a DA5 to
> a Super Sonny is no more unrealistic than comparing my Crate VC508 to a
> Super Sonny.  Nothing that puts out 5 Watts through a 6.5" speaker is going
> to make a noise as big as a 40 watt tube amp with 4 10s.  The point is that
> they both sound good within their respective power ranges.  And they both
> sound very good with harp.  The DA5 represents excellent value for money;
> it's a good tool for a novice harp player or a pro.
>
> <There are lots of good small tube amps out there that will sound better if
> <the new player aspires to the "Chicago Sound."   I have no doubt the Vox
> DA5
> <(or the small Roland COSM amps) can sound good for jazz, but for blues the
> <the tone of a good small tube amp is unique.  Gary Smith owns an Epiphone
> <Valve Jr. Half Stack for practice and he told me the tone is amazing.  He
> <even occasionally gigs it in small venues.  That is high praise from a
> <player considered by many to have the finest vintage Chicago harp tone.
> <I've played the Epiphone and it has impressive natural blues sound.
> <
> <Digital modelers just can't duplicate the character of a good tube amp.  I
> <cannot think of a single top pro "Chicago style" player who relies on
> <digital processing instead of real tube warmth.  The young player who
> <initiated this thread said he was after the Chicago tone, so in my opinion
> <he would be best served by using the real thing.
>
> The fact that most harp players haven't yet taken advantage of amp modeling
> technology is a reflection of the conservatism of harp players in general,
> as evidenced by the fact that most players are using mics and amps based on
> 1940s technology, not a reflection on the quality of the tones produced by
> amp modelers.
>
> In response to the comment that "Digital modelers just can't duplicate the
> character of a good tube amp", I say: that's plain wrong. The technology is
> well over ten years old, has seen constant development during that period,
> and is now very, very capable.  Anyone on this list who listens to the radio
> or looks at YouTube has heard many, many guitar players and bass players who
> use amp modelers as their go-to recording and performance tools.  The stuff
> works.  Period.  I am ABSOLUTELY certain that practically no one on this
> list would be able to tell the difference between a state of the art amp
> modeler and a "real" amp on a recording.  I certainly can't tell which one a
> guitarist is using on a recording. I couldn't tell that Winslow Yerxa used a
> software amp modeler on his piece "Windemere," which had a very impressive
> amped tone, until Winslow said so. I repeat: the stuff works.
>
> Like I said: I own and love tube amps, and I use them in performance. But
> the vast majority of my performances for the last 5 years have relied on amp
> modeling devices, not "real" amps.  (We'll leave to another time the
> discussion of whether a vacuum tube is more "real" than a silicon chip.)
>  Most of those gigs have been about rock and blues, not jazz, and the
> musicians I've worked with, like the audiences, frequently compliment the
> sound of the rig.
>
> I don't expect anyone to take my word for it.  I post plenty of my live
> performances and studio recordings to my website at http://hunterharp.com.
>  You can hear what I do with these tools there, and you can decide for
> yourself whether the amp modelers deliver the goods.
>
> I respect the point of view expressed in Rick's message--only an idiot
> would claim that a tube amp with a bullet mic doesn't sound good,and I'm not
> an idiot (rumors to the contrary notwithstanding)--but I don't agree with
> his conclusions.  In 1990 a tube amp might have been the only real choice
> for a player.  In 2010 a tube amp is ONE good choice for a harp player, not
> the only one.  And I don't think it's the automatic default choice anymore.
>
> I don't expect everyone to agree with me.  And I don't expect anyone to
> dump their Sonny Juniors or Epiphone Valve Juniors for a Vox DA5.  I'm not
> selling my tube amps anytime soon.  But the new technologies sound very good
> and give you a lot more options for the money--like included FX--at any
> given price point.  For all those reasons, I have no problem recommending
> the DA5 to a beginner as his or her first amp.  And I have no problem
> recommending amp modelers to harp players generally as a low-cost, highly
> effective way to add LOTS more colors to your sound, regardless of whether
> it's your primary rig.
>
> 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
> Twitter: lightninrick
>