| Author |
 Topic  |
|
jackderringer
Silver Member
USA
153 Posts |
 Posted - 01/26/2010 : 00:57:55
|
well, even if i think the rack gear is overpriced compared to the heads, this is where i have my heart set if/when i go all-tube. thanks for showing us this!
i wonder if the modular thing will catch on with other manufacturers? markbass has a new modular system but it's completely different and nowhere near as versatile as this. |
 |
|
|
FRANZONI
Double Platinum Member
Ireland
3543 Posts |
Posted - 01/26/2010 : 01:13:20
|
quote:
Originally posted by jackderringer
i wonder if the modular thing will catch on with other manufacturers? markbass has a new modular system but it's completely different and nowhere near as versatile as this.
I like this idea... but IMHO the majority of guitar players wordwide seem to want old Fenders or Marshalls or a Fender/Marshall type clone amps..i use a mix of old and new but most of the players i know are pretty conservative when it come to their choices in gear... bass players always seem to be more open to changes in technology like this modular system......
|
|
|
|
aaronharmon
Silver Member
USA
271 Posts |
Posted - 01/26/2010 : 01:13:57
|
I asked someone on grailtone to comment on how the MIC elimination works. This is the only responce I got.
"It's a network of components (filter) designed to emulate the EQ effects of an SM57 on a v30 or thereabouts.
It's providing cabinet emulation and therefore won't sound as sterile and flat as a straight preamp/line out.
I got very close to the sound of a mic'd cab without the guesswork...in fact I think the elim soundedbetter but I suck anyway...so YMMV!"
Take it for what it's worth. I was hoping someone would chine in with a more technical explanation....
Hope that helps.
Aaron |
|
|
|
aaronharmon
Silver Member
USA
271 Posts |
Posted - 01/26/2010 : 01:27:37
|
quote:
Originally posted by FRANZONI
quote:
Originally posted by jackderringer
i wonder if the modular thing will catch on with other manufacturers? markbass has a new modular system but it's completely different and nowhere near as versatile as this.
I like this idea... but IMHO the majority of guitar players wordwide seem to want old Fenders or Marshalls or a Fender/Marshall type clone amps..i use a mix of old and new but most of the players i know are pretty conservative when it come to their choices in gear... bass players always seem to be more open to changes in technology like this modular system......
Those old amps sound great. I have regular access to several of the old Reverb and Reverb Deluxe amps from the mid 1960's (They are my grand fathers). Anyway, they sound great, but the Randall sounds every bit as good and is a heck of a lot more versatile.
My grandpa would take his Fenders over my Randall any day of the week, but he plays clean, no distortion, not even a little break-up so why would he change? Tonally, he is right where he wants to be.
The RM100 is for people who are still searching for their sound or just want to experiment with wide range of sounds without sacrificing their tone to digital modeling.
If your current AMP gets you where you want to go, there's not much point in taking the plunge. As they say "if it aint broke, don't fix it." |
|
|
|
jackderringer
Silver Member
USA
153 Posts |
Posted - 01/26/2010 : 03:33:54
|
quote:
Originally posted by FRANZONI
I like this idea... but IMHO the majority of guitar players wordwide seem to want old Fenders or Marshalls or a Fender/Marshall type clone amps..i use a mix of old and new but most of the players i know are pretty conservative when it come to their choices in gear... bass players always seem to be more open to changes in technology like this modular system......
i would guess it's because bass tone seems to be more forgiving of things like solid state amps and digital effects. maybe that's just me though.
on the mic elim, that explanation was technical enough for me, it confirmed my theory. not that there's anything wrong with that, but that same filter could be put on the head, and a filter just like it could be found on just about any recording software. seems like a way to sell more cabs to me.
just another advantage (in my mind at least) of going with the rack system... don't HAVE to buy a cab or even a power unit to record. works in a live setting too as long as the club has a PA. but i do think randall would be doing themselves a favor by putting a direct out on the heads. then again i guess directs aren't that common on guitar amp heads in the first place, are they? (i'm just getting into the whole guitar world, bass is my primary) |
|
|
|
aaronharmon
Silver Member
USA
271 Posts |
Posted - 01/26/2010 : 06:48:05
|
quote:
Originally posted by jackderringer
quote:
Originally posted by FRANZONI
I like this idea... but IMHO the majority of guitar players wordwide seem to want old Fenders or Marshalls or a Fender/Marshall type clone amps..i use a mix of old and new but most of the players i know are pretty conservative when it come to their choices in gear... bass players always seem to be more open to changes in technology like this modular system......
i would guess it's because bass tone seems to be more forgiving of things like solid state amps and digital effects. maybe that's just me though.
on the mic elim, that explanation was technical enough for me, it confirmed my theory. not that there's anything wrong with that, but that same filter could be put on the head, and a filter just like it could be found on just about any recording software. seems like a way to sell more cabs to me.
just another advantage (in my mind at least) of going with the rack system... don't HAVE to buy a cab or even a power unit to record. works in a live setting too as long as the club has a PA. but i do think randall would be doing themselves a favor by putting a direct out on the heads. then again i guess directs aren't that common on guitar amp heads in the first place, are they? (i'm just getting into the whole guitar world, bass is my primary)
The slave out on the back of the RM100 can be used as a direct recording. It does not offer speaker/cab emulation so you would need to do that through your recording software. |
Edited by - aaronharmon on 01/26/2010 06:48:36 |
|
|
|
jackderringer
Silver Member
USA
153 Posts |
Posted - 01/26/2010 : 08:08:37
|
doh! i didn't even notice the slave out
 self. |
|
|
|
nosi0
Gold Member
Netherlands
511 Posts |
Posted - 01/28/2010 : 12:36:39
|
I find that with Marshall you are stuck in the past. all it does well is crunch and low gain lead (relatively) IMHO. so your looking at rock and roll up to iron maiden. Yet modern amps like Randall and Engl have expanded in both directions to include killer cleans and actual High gain lead channels.
Now i agree you can make the marshall sound a bit better if you push it with some pedals.
This is the amp i am going for if i do not buy the Caparison guitar:
 |
|
|
|
Miky
Silver Member
Czech Republic
184 Posts |
Posted - 01/28/2010 : 12:57:46
|
I always wondered why ppl need 100 watts, but 150 - Wow? Anyway, Engls are top amps and always a good choice.
I'd be interested to know whether, once you have it, you push the volume to more than 5.   |
|
|
|
nosi0
Gold Member
Netherlands
511 Posts |
Posted - 01/28/2010 : 13:00:44
|
| haha i know. I'm getting the Invader 100 if i do though. then i can actually connect an attentuator, as they are for 100 watts max. |
|
|
|
Witloofboer
Gold Member
Belgium
513 Posts |
Posted - 01/28/2010 : 15:34:57
|
quote:
Originally posted by nosi0
I find that with Marshall you are stuck in the past. all it does well is crunch and low gain lead (relatively) IMHO. so your looking at rock and roll up to iron maiden. Yet modern amps like Randall and Engl have expanded in both directions to include killer cleans and actual High gain lead channels.
Your right when you say that older amps (in general) are less versatile. However, I use a single channel amp, just because it's so easy. You can spend ages looking for different tones on just one channel, I can't imagine how many time it would cost to explore all possible combinations.
Another benefit of single channel amps, is that you learn to play in a more dynamic way. If you want much distortion, play hard, if you want a clean sound, play softly. |
|
|
|
FRANZONI
Double Platinum Member
Ireland
3543 Posts |
Posted - 01/28/2010 : 16:06:11
|
I still think the concept of the Randall is very impressive but as Arron pointed out about his grandpa's amps and witloofboer made a similar point regarding dynamics with single channel amps ...if your don't need the multi channels and use pedals to shape your sound it's IMHO that probably a low gain,single channel amp is best...it's a pity that a lot of players seem to live in the past with amps,even the clones are styled on the tweed amps of the 50's and 60's and don't even get me started on reliced guitars.......IF i had the wedge to buy something at the moment i was pretty impressed with this as a concept for an amp...
http://www.londonpower.com/products/aurora.htm
not your usual clone..... |
Edited by - FRANZONI on 01/28/2010 16:07:49 |
|
|
|
Dirk
Platinum Member
Netherlands
1309 Posts |
Posted - 01/28/2010 : 17:54:18
|
Also, looking at that Invader it looks mighty impressive.
But with 4 channels, 24 knobs and 10 switches on the front it seems like nearly impossible to find a good sound on a dark stage during a small festival where every band gets to play half an hour, and is expected to build up and leave in 10 minutes while the previous and next bands are doing the same thing at the same time.
No time for soundcheck, plug in, countdown and go.
Again, mighty impressive but not my first choice.
Also 150 watts is something you'd only use on extremely big stages, they invented PA's so these days 50 watts is usually already too loud for most soundmen.
On Franzoni's comment on most guitarists living in the past, I don't know, what if it just sounds good?
Looks to me like way back in the fifties and sixties people like Jim Marshall and Leo Fender knew what they were doing.
Timeless, I'd like to add. |
|
|
|
nosi0
Gold Member
Netherlands
511 Posts |
Posted - 01/28/2010 : 18:17:26
|
| Well being the pedal freak that i am, i always dial in the tone i want for specific songs on various pedals or combinations(usually at home before the gig) Then during sound check just adjust the amplifier EQ so it doesn't colour the tone too much. so with the invader i would probably do something quite similar(i mean set it before a gig). Touring bands that i have seen often stick ductape somewhere on the amp with all their settings drawn on it. I agree the 150 watt version is too much and i wish they made a less than 100 watt version. the fireball I is quite nice with 60 watts and 2 channals (clean and lead). |
|
|
|
Witloofboer
Gold Member
Belgium
513 Posts |
Posted - 01/28/2010 : 19:08:35
|
quote:
Originally posted by nosi0
[brI agree the 150 watt version is too much and i wish they made a less than 100 watt version.
100 W is very (very) loud. I have one too, the master volume stays under 2(/10).
|
|
|
|
Topic |
|
killer amp you may not know about.
