Behold! The Handwound Pickups!

The thing with musicians (or rather a niche group called tone snobs, myself included...) is that, we love details. We love the very little details of pickups, hardware, wood and that drives people mad. But for us, it's a pleasure seeking the right tone. We strive hard to get everything "right". And that's why handwound pickups matter a lot to us.

Now to get this straight, handwound pickups are not to be confused with hand-fed machine wound. Those are a different story. Handwound pickups are done, as it's name suggests, by hand. The coil wires are wound on the coils by hand. This is why handwound pickups are special. The tension of every coil wound around the bobbin is pulled at inconsistent tension, as well as the scattered positioning of the coils. Machine wound pickups are consistent in tension as well as having a very orderly winding pattern of the coils. 

Okay let's face it, they're both the same materials and same method used, simply copper coil windings on a fibre bobbin. So how is it possible that there's a difference tonally? It's due to the coils having inconsistent tension as well as the scattered winding pattern that causes a really cool electrical phenomena (read "Mojo" y'all tone snobs!) to occur. The increased space or distance between the windings lowers the distributed capacitance, as in Seymour Duncan's words.

"When you scatter wind a pickup, you’re not placing the wire as close to itself on each layer as you would with a machine. The effect is to create more air space in the coil. This lowers the distributed capacitance. The best way to think of distributed capacitance is like a little tone control in the pickup. When the capacitance is lowered, the result is that more treble will come through and the resonant peak of the pickup will increase slightly. "

 - Seymour Duncan

My first experience with handwound pickups are with Alexander Pribora pickups. The funny thing with most run-of-the-mill Fender pickups is that, they're really good pickups. They do the job covering single coil grounds, and the quality is consistent. But once you hear how the handwound pickups sound, you'd immediately notice the flaws in standard pickups.

Here's what I heard after comparing the handwound pickups 2 times with Fender pickups, one is a Tele, the other one is a Strat. The guitars were played clean only, paired with a flat-EQ-ed Fender Princeton amp, which has amazing warm cleans by the way. Pickups were set the same height, which is the bass side approximately 1mm above the pickguard, and the treble side set to 2mm.

1. I was playing with the neck pickups first. The mids and treble on the handwound pickups were so "relaxed", but not "slacking off". Very smooth and sweet. Upon going back to the Fender pickups (namely, the CS Fat 50s in the Strat and American Standard Tele), I was greeted with nothing but harshness. The harshness could be attributed to single coils, I understand. But the Fender pickups weren't even loud. They're just harsh. 
2. The expression range. The handwound pickups handle that very well, taking hard strums easily without going into the middy braaannnggg, while every light pick makes the most musical notes, so crisp and clear, yet solid. The Fender pickups were compressing every strum, even light strums, into just braaannnggg. Picking was fine, I understand why most people like that glassiness. SRV and Hendrix were big advocates of that tone, but it was too much for me in a vintage Strat context. 
3. The all important inbetween positions. The American Standard Tele did an amazing job on the middle position. The handwound pickups in my friend's Tele was bigger on the bass notes, rounder on the treble, totally different character, both respectable. The Strat though, was a hit on me. The American Standard Strat with Fat 50s sounded plain awful. Too much clang, there's only treble and no body at all. I'll be honest, any ceramic single coil guitar with a 5 way switch can nail that tone. I tried turning down the tone knob, it helped a little, but it felt like the treble was just too prominent in any other settings. Turning down the tone knob made the tone fatten-up in the mids, but that's not what those positions were about. The handwound pickups, on the other hand, was pure bliss. That scooped, vocal-sounding Robert Cray sound was there, without any resetting on the amp. It was the guitar, my fingers on the strings, and that's it. Effortless job. I'm done here. 

I'll let the video do the talking....

Shoutout to Alexander Pribora Pickups for making amazing pickups!!

For any stage-performers, maybe the nuances and expression range doesn't matter so much. But do yourself a favour and give these pickups a try. You'll be surprised.... And thankful at the same time! Who doesn't like a great tone anyways?

This is Bernard, signing out for the night. 

Tone Talks: Pickup Magnet Types and What Do They Do to Your Sound?

Basic knowledge here... The earliest widely used guitar pickups were the P90s. They are also known as the soapbars, due to their appearance resembling a bar of soap, especially cream-coloured ones. These pickups were structurally bigger than most single coils we see today. Under the covers hid a big coil usually wound to around 8k, 6 adjustable steel screw polepieces and two long magnets powering it.

Leo had a different concept on his mind when he created the Telecaster single coils. Alnico magnet rods were used in place of steel polepieces, giving the pickups a voice which is more crisp and clear and "louder" in the treble frequencies, cementing both the pickup design and his name into the history of electric guitar. Now, there are many types of Alnico magnets. Starting from the weakest, the Alnico III, which did not actually have any cobalt content (but calling it Alni would have been weird), Alnico II, Alnico IV, Alnico V, and finally Alnico VIII. For some reason, the weakest Alnico magnet, Alnico 3 was chosen for the earliest Fender single coils. And they produce the sweetest Fender tones (in my opinion). Smooth in the midrange, not as thumpy as other magnet types and the sweetened treble makes it eardrum-friendly. I believe it was in '59 when they had revised the pickup design and switched to Alnico 5 rods in their pickups. During that period, the pickups were wound slightly hotter than the early 50's pickups to smooth out the excess treble. Leo was on a quest for the ultimate clean tone. A5 pickups had a distinctive mid scooped sound, due to the extended bass and treble response. A3 pickups were more balanced and had less ice-pick, which is important for clean tones in my opinion. Nonetheless, the A5 pickups were still being wound and they also hit the amps harder, resulting in the very popular glass-shattering "BRRAANGGGG" clean sound when paired to a Fender Blackface amp.

It's not hard for most trained ears to hear the difference between 2 identical pickups with different magnets. And this can be heard too in early Gibson PAFs, which are infamous for being very inconsistent in specs, yet each variation takes on different flavours that appeals to many. To examine the differences, let's start with the prototype PAFs made in the 1955. Seth Lover used Alnico IIs for the prototype humbuckers, and the design was the benchmark for Gibson's early tones. Read "benchmark", because although Gibson was supposed to use Alnico IIs only, they had somehow mixed in all types of Alnico magnets (in various sizes), presumably due to shortage of the perfect-sized 2.5" long A2s. It was '58 or '59 when they had slowly transitioned to using A5s, again resulting in a relatively more aggressive and brighter, scooped tone. The earlier benchmark A2 PAFs were sweet in the treble, fat and loose in the bass, which gives a very "gentle" clean sound, while the A5 PAFs were a lot clearer in a clean sound context, which was also the main aim for Gibson. In fact, all guitar and amp makers were aiming for the cleanest sound possible because country was the "in" thing back in their days. It wasn't until '61, that the pickup specs are standardised and only A5 magnets were used. Weirdly enough, some modern day pickup winders had utilised A4 magnets for the '61 inspired humbuckers, presumably learnt from their own experiences, that some '61 Les Pauls (they're SGs, I know) had A4 pickups.

Here's what I found out about each type of magnets through personal experiences and also loads of online reading....

• Alnico II - Warm and loose bass response. Smooth highs and neutral mids.

• Alnico III - Tighter bass response than A2. Slightly rounded highs, but still bright. Neutral mids.

• Alnico IV - This one's a sleeper, weirdly. It's one of those things that you think, these are the perfect magnets for PAFs. It's basically A3 with more power, or an A5 with a less harsh high end, depending on which way you think of it.

• Alnico V - The most popular magnets, regardless of single coils or humbuckers. Presumably due to the availability of it. It's a strong magnet, that emphasises in bass and treble frequencies. Mids aren't actually lowered or scooped, but the boost in bass and treble sort of creates an "illusion" of the scooped mids. 

• Alnico VIII - This one isn't that popular due to it being neither vintage nor modern. But A8 has been described by many as the best elements of ceramic and A5 blended together. Bass is tighter than A5, treble is sweeter than ceramic. Mids are strong but not as in-your-face as ceramic. 

• Ceramic - Many people associate ceramic magnets with bad pickups. I'm here to dispel that belief. Ceramic magnets tend to have a harder edge in both bass and treble. They're not actually louder, but rather stronger and hits the preamp harder as they're very overwound more often than not, to tame the highs and thicken up the overall sound. 

• Neodymium - Neodymium magnets are used to charge or uncharge all the magnets above. Need I say more? Yes, I do need to...Again, these aren't top shelf because they're too strong and dangerous to handle. But when they are used, the pickups produce a very strong tone. Bass is deep, mid is strong, treble is clear. Only few makers like GFS and Entwistle had attempted in selling Neodymium pickups, all of which I believe are made by Artec. 

Before you run out and pull the ceramic pickups from your guitar, I would like send this important message to all of you. Please take all the above arguments and explanations with a pinch of salt. Why? Because all guitars are different, as are all guitar rigs. If you like your guitar sound, there's no need for any changes to happen. If you wanted to experiment though, just follow the general rule of thumb for choosing pickups. 

Of course, do not base your search on only one factor like, certain magnets, a 7.8k winding, unbalanced coils etc. Remember, the sum of all parts is greater than the whole. A PAF pickup sounds like what it is because every structure and material matters. A humbucker won't sound like a PAF by just adding an A2 magnet, nor will changing the A2 for a ceramic make a PAF turn to a modern gain monster. 

Make sure you do plenty of research before you proceed in the tonal direction you want. Some pickups are tricky. Ceramic humbuckers like Dimarzio Super Distortion may sound bright, but the treble is rounded. Dimarzio Tone Zone and JB may have A5 magnets, but they're not scooped sounding in any way. Just throwing it there to muddy the waters hahaha....

Anyway, pickups matter, and they are what's keeping tone snobs like us on our feet. The purpose of this post was to show how by understanding your pickup magnets, you can find out what you are after in your tone pursuit, and if you're handy with electronic jobs, you sure can try replacing magnets for different flavours. However, DO NOT EVER ATTEMPT TO SWAP IN/OUT NEODYMIUM MAGNETS. One little careless mistake can cost you your finger(s). That's how strong Neodymium magnets are. Peace out!

The Maple vs Rosewood Debate: When Will It End?

The reason why Leo Fender used maple wood to make the earliest Fenders was simple. Maple was abundant and easily obtained around the area Leo had set up his factory. And that production method had continued into the late 50's, where rosewood and maple fingerboards were made available as an option for the customers. Thick rosewood boards appeared on 1959 Strats (most famously played by Rory Gallagher), hence the term "slab board". Towards the end of Leo's ownership of the company (which CBS bought over Fender in 1965), Leo had experimented with laminating the rosewood onto the maple fingerboard, giving it a round-radiused bottom as well as being very thin, hence the term "round-lam board". Wait, you're confused about the terms and years... so where does that bring us? Back on the debated topic, of course.

Let's base these ideas off the fact that Leo Fender is no guitarist, and that he knows nothing about "tone", but rather playability, durability, cost, everything you can imagine of from a business standpoint. Now, maple was and still is, the most commonly used wood. Tell me, how often do you see maple-necked guitars, regardless of it being rosewood-boarded, ebony-boarded or just plain 1-piece maple, it's all still a maple-based neck. All the Strat/Tele-styles that you can think of out there, whether it's made in China, Indonesia, Korea, Japan, USA, Mexico etc, they're mostly fitted with maple necks. Back in the 40's though, not many guitars come with maple necks "fitted". Leo Fender thought it'd be a smart idea to bolt-on a neck instead of setting it in with glue. This saves manufacturing cost and labour hours. But the very popular mahogany wood during that time is a medium density wood which will not withstand being screwed in and unscrewed many times (which was supposedly the proposed function of a bolt-on design), so Leo had to choose a harder, higher density wood. Leo doesn't pick wood based on tone, he picks them based on how much do they cost, how easy is it to obtain them. So maple became the right choice of wood.

Along the way, Leo received some complaints from his customers, saying the pale colour of the maple gets worn and dirty-up very easily (as seen on many maple-boarded vintage Fenders), which led Leo to come up with another solution --- the tried and true rosewood fingerboard. By gluing on a slab of rosewood on the neck, there's no way for the fingerboard to look dirty and gunky anymore from far away. Just as Leo Fender thought he had solved the problem, there comes the complaints.

It appears to some customers' ears that the rosewood had dulled the treble frequencies a bit, resulting in less clarity and cut. They wanted the rosewood board to conceal the fingerboard mess, but still wanted the "tone" of the maple fingerboard. The year 1962, is the year Leo started implementing the round-laminated rosewood board. The thin layer of rosewood "shields" the maple neck from dirt, and at the same time, is too thin to have any effect on the tone.

However, the very thin round-lam boards weren't found on most modern Fenders anymore because at some point in the 70's, nitrocellulose lacquer was ditched and replaced by polyester finishes, not because they were better but rather because of the car industry changes. Car bumpers were made to flex upon impact, and nitrocellulose will crack even under the lightest tap from a car accident. Polyesters were able to absorb some minor shock and still maintain the surface gleam after flexing, so it worked for the car industry. Not for the guitar industry though...Guitars in the 70's were claimed to be "tone-suckers", although it's not entirely the finish's fault. The guitars seen in the 50's collected battle scars like nobody's business, but the 70's Fenders don't even dent at all unless abused hard. Which is also the reason why round-lam boards were gone. Polyester-finished maple necks won't get worn and dirty, and even if they do get grimy, a simple wipedown will get rid of the gunks. No more dirty-board woes. So naturally, only the slab rosewood and one-piece maple neck camp still existed.

So the next time you hear a difference between a maple fingerboard/rosewood fingerboard, check and see if it's a round-lam or a slab board. Check and see if you've been tricking your own mind with the "rosewood = darker/warmer" perception. Are you really hearing the wood, or does this particular guitar sound brighter/darker? Or is it the pickup doing it's own thing? You'll be surprised how a rosewood 'board guitar can be brighter than a maple 'board guitar. Been there, done that, and got my preconceptions thrown out of the window. AND have been preaching this truth to my friends ever since.

Pickups matter more.

This is Bernard signing out from my first post of 2016!

The Truth About The Correlation of Pickup Magnets, Output and Coil Windings

Ahh, all this might seem a bit cliched to talk about. We all know how pickups sound more powerful if the coils are overwound or "vintage-sounding" if underwound. We all know how bad pickups are made/wound badly, and great-sounding pickups are made/wound greatly. And an added sprinkle of mojo. But do we actually think about what these things really mean? I mean, they're just numbers to most people, and people believe these numbers tell you how the pickups sound. I'm here to say, that's not entirely true. There's some science behind it, but I'm no physics teacher here. For the sake of understanding what these figures mean, lets just put it in simple words, instead of passing them off as magic or voodoo. Keep in mind that there's no rocket science involved as well....

DC resistance (DCR) is what we all are most familiar with in pickups. It's the reading used to determine the number of windings in relation with the wire gauge, in resistance. Assuming that the wire gauge is the same, the more the windings, the higher the DCR; the lesser the windings, the lower the DCR. Assuming the windings are the same amount, the thinner the wire gauge, the higher the DCR; the thicker the wire gauge, the lower the DCR. Simple high school physics, right...

Overwinding a pickup, as done in humbuckers from 1959, the 59 PAFs have a stronger midrange and higher output compared to the early 56/57 PAFs.

And in the end, all high DCR means high output, low DCR means low output, correct? Not exactly that simple. Take for example, the Dimarzio D Activator set. They are the some of the highest output pickups from Dimarzio's catalogue, but they are not wound hot at all. A quick run through the spec sheet, shows that the D Act pair has very low DCR. In fact, the neck pickup has a 7.2k reading only, lower than a PAF's standard 7.8k, which resulted in an almost singlecoil-y sound. The bridge pickup has a 11.4k reading, which is moderately overwound. They are very loud and powerful, but not hot-feeling at all. They give a loud, clear, bright sound, and it's unforgivingly responsive. Of all times we hear the term "powerful pickups", more often than not it's the hot, fat, warm (or dark) sound from overwound humbuckers. The D Act set, is the complete opposite of those criteria.

There are of course, many other factors causing them to sound like that. First thing first, they employ ceramic magnets. This is what's pumping out the loud, bright sound from them. Then, there's the hex pole screws, that according to pickup designers, they have a more focused "view" of the strings, and therefore when installed, increases the speed of pick response. Put the windings into context, and we have a set of pickups that imitates the huge sound and response of EMGs, but with a more dynamic sensing of the player's picking hand technique.

Here's the essence of what I've learnt from dissecting the spec sheets of pickups:

• The reason why early/vintage pickups are wound to be very low output, was that they didn't use very strong magnets. Winding them to be hotter takes away the treble and adds more mids. They won't cut as well in clean mode, although they'll still do well in driven sounds. Alnico IIs were used back then to make the 57 PAFs (don't start me on why it wasn't aged A5s, that'll be reserved for another post...) and Alnico Vs had completely replaced them in '59. A2s gave a lower output, with a slow response in the midrange (ahh, the ever-famous spongy, compressed driven sound and endless sustain), so pickups back then were wound to be less hot to keep the sound clear and bright. When A5s were used, they realised that with the original winding, some pickups sounded too harsh in the high end. So, the overwound PAF was born.

• The reason why most cheap pickups sound like crap, was that either they wanted to copy the DCRs of vintage pickups but paired with a ceramic magnet, or that they had overwound some Alnico pickups too much to a point where clarity went down the shitter. Ceramic pickups were meant to be of high DCR, because they're inherently bright and fast. A higher DCR will tame the high end of ceramic pickups, and make them more usable. 

• Alnico pickups on the other hand, needed some balanced winding to sound good. Some cheaper Alnico pickups, like Epiphone's Alnico Classic pickups, were wound to be too hot. Sources had said they were equipped with A5, but the muddy sound I get from them seems to support the rumours of them being A2. And overwinding an A2 pickup is just looking for trouble. Plus, the cheaply made nickel-plated brass pickup cover is one hell of a tone blanket. 

• Single coils are meant to have a mid-high winding. One vintage single coil measures at 5.7k DCR on average, but cheap ceramic single coils have only 4.5k average. That's the main reason why most ceramic single coils sound wimpy and empty in the mids, but bright and clanky in the highs. Why some single coils like P90s are also in soul, a ceramic single coil, but sounds way better? That's because, apart from the wider "view" of the strings, they're also wound to an average of 7.8k-8.5k. That's a very high winding for a single coil, because if they're wired in series like a humbucker, that's equivalent to 16-17k. And Fender's ceramic single coils from the MIM guitars are actually not too shabby, because they're powered by 2 ceramic magnets like P90s, and they're overwound. Having a vintage single coil with 5.7k DCR on mind as a standard, with 2 of them wired in series like humbuckers will produce a 11.4k DCR. Therefore,  considering the option of having a pseudo-ceramic single coil on your humbucker guitar, having a higher DCR tend to make the humbuckers sound better in coil split mode.

That's all for today's post. Thanks again for all who finishes reading my posts. Your support is the biggest help I'll ever need and also the biggest, most generous help I have ever received in my guitar-related ventures.

Multi-Effects Unit vs Single Pedals

To multi?

Since the introduction of digital modelling technology and the rise of our beloved red giant kidney-shaped multi-effects unit, the Line 6 POD that converted (just sayin...) half the guitar-playing population to digital modelling fans, the debate has gone on for decades already, and it will go on forever and ever and ever... BUT, I'm here to make a stand, to find out which one reigns supreme in the tone-perfecting quest of guitarists. Let's just start by saying, I like both forms of pedals. They both serve specific purposes and cannot be flexibly replaced by each other.

Or to single? Hmmm....

Multi-effects have come a long way since the pioneering generation of digital modelling products. What we have today is much closer to the analogue real-thing tone than most people would think. With modelling units, by logic, the more you pay, the closer your unit sounds, compared to the real deal. But watch out for modelling units that uses the same soundcard/processor, but packaged in a bigger platform with more buttons and knobs. The same audio processors will produce the same quality of sounds, but the extra bells and whistles will only add to tweak-ability, not improving the tone in any way. For example, the Digitech RP155 shares the same audio processors as the RP255 and RP355. But the 255 and 355 are more expensive because 255 an integrated expression pedal, and the 355 has a few more knobs, an expression pedal as well as an extra foot-button. There may be some difference in price, amount of presets, or featured amps/effects model but the sound of the same patches will be the same. So if you ever start out on a cheaper multi-effects pedal, and think about upgrading to a higher-level one, do make sure you're not "upgrading" to another pedal with the same standard of build/sound quality.

Then, there's the ever-popular single pedals. Looking to add a drive channel to your clean amp? Get a distortion pedal. Looking for some added ambience? A reverb pedal is your friend. Need more grunt from your amp? Give the front end a kick with a booster or overdrive pedal. In the end, we'll always need like, at least 4 to 5 pedals if we're going for single pedals. Overdrives are essential, because at the max gain end, most people can get a pretty good blues/rock tone out of it, and at the lowest gain setting, a clean boost on some pedals and a slight breakup on the others. An EQ is also recommended because you can use it as a bass boost, treble boost, mid boost, flat boost, scoop pedal, a "telephone sound" pedal, anything imaginable just by playing around with the frequency bands. Delays are pretty popular too as they can give a sense of spaciousness your solos, double your sound to give a dual-guitar approximation, act as a pseudo-reverb pedal, or even imitate a tremolo effect if you're a clean and precise player (check out the song Octopus by Bloc Party). In the end, we'll amass a huge amount of pedals through collecting and buying different type of pedal for comparisons, experiments, or even just as a collection. That means, huge and heavy pedal board, difficulty in powering pedal if you don't have a daisy chain/multi-pedal power supply unit. And even worse are the pedals falling out of the case if not velcro-ed. And velcro means your pedal gets it's appearance "destroyed" underneath. Not that it matters to most people, but vintage pedals could fetch a lower value if you're selling them. And cables. Lots of patch cables, and with all the daisy chain/power supply cables running around, that can spell trouble when something's not working somewhere...

Enough talk about tone, let's talk about usability. Single pedals are no-frills, foolproof things, that require only for you to know about the pedal's power ratings before plugging in any power supply. It does what it does, overdrives drive, distortions drive harder, reverb pedals add reverb, and that's it. Nothing too hard to understand. For multi-effects, most people will need some time to sit down with the manual, experimenting and wrap their head around what this knob does, how that button works... And some people actually give up trying to work their way around using the pedal because it gets too complicated for some to understand. And the darned save/store button that you forgot to press after finally dialling in that sweet tone... But once you find your way, the multi-effects can be your most important component in your rig.

As for convenience, most will find the amp and cabinet simulation on the multi-effects a greatly convenient feature, myself included. You can't plug a single pedal into the PA and expect a usable sound, unless you're using a cab sim pedal or a pedal with the feature already built-in. You can do it with almost any multi-effects though, and most of them actually sound better into the PA rather than into an amp. All you need is a power supply and the multi-effects pedal, maybe a pair of headphones or earphones, and you're good to go. Record a song, gig onstage, or practice at home, zero real amps needed. Save yourself the effort to lug your 30kg Vox to the gig, only to find that one of the power tubes have cracked from that speed bump you drove over too fast. And the convenience of having all the essential/boutique pedals under your foot, for maybe the price of only 1-3 pedals. How economical is that?

However, with multi-effects, you're limited by what's offered by the company in that pedal. They can have all the essential amps in the world, but if you can't find that Soldano sound, you'll have to settle with the Marshall and try some pedal combinations. No Fulltone OCD modelling? Can you live with that very good Tubescreamer simulation? With individual pedals though, you get full control of how you want your sound to sound like. You want a Maxon instead of Ibanez, go get a Maxon. Wah pedal? You know you prefer a Vox instead of Dunlop, so pick your favourite. You want a Mesa? Don't settle for a Fender + distortion pedal, get the real deal if you can afford it, man! Simple as that.

Now, size is an issue here. Some pedals like the original Big Muffs and Fuzz Faces are huge. Almost as big as a small multi-effects unit. Fitting them on your pedalboard could be tough. And there are also compatibility issues. Like, running a modulation pedal, wah pedal or fuzz pedal before or after other pedals can produce different sounds due to the sequence of the pedals causing some effects to be above or under others. That can sometimes produce surprising results, although whether are they usable or not, that's down to personal taste... With multi-effects, everything is set in a sound processor. They're made to work together without much compatibility issues. So the only thing you have to do is plug in and make music happen.

As always, trust your ears and your own needs, not your perception, because we humans are easily deceived. Only you can tell yourself which one works for you. Whether you can live with the limited, not-analogue-enough digital modelling sound and reap the benefits of convenience, portability and value, or do you think it is worth every bit spending some money on something you really like the sound of, to reach tonal nirvana that you've been dreaming about, and silently deal with the woes of a bad back from carrying your tube amp, 2 guitars and one big heavy pedalboard.

I personally pick multi-effects because I think they're good enough for gigs. I mean, what kind of audience goes to a show and say, "Oh this guitar player sounds like he's using digital modelling. If only he uses real tube amps, he would have sounded better..."? Most people will be like, this is a clean section, this is a "noisier" section. So all I need is a nice clean tone, and a nice "noisy" tone that sounds decent enough. At home, I do collect a few individual pedals, because they sound pretty awesome. And I enjoy making some DIY pedals myself too. There's a lot of fun in wiring some components together and get a really cool sound coming out from it. But when it comes down to general usability, I'm all the way digital modelling. Because I'm a simple man....




Hey guys, thanks for yet another read-through of my blog. I haven't updated in a whole week because I was busy with several other things I had on hand. Anyway, I have a pedal review coming up, and it'll be up within a few days time. Watch this space! Thank you for reading, your presence and support means a lot to me. Have a great day ahead!

TONE TALKS: British Tone vs American Tone In A Nutshell

You might have overheard guitarists talking about British and American in conversations. You might have seen and read about them on forums or Total Guitar magazines. You might even at some point, bought products that claim to give you either British or American tone, or even both tones from the same product. But if you still have no idea what's the deal with the UK vs USA debates, and think that, "Well, cleans are cleans, distortions are distortions, what's the deal with you all tone snobs fighting over which clean is cleaner?", you better clear your ears and listen up! (or read up, since you're here in this blog...)

The never-ending debate starts from 2 amp-making companies, Fender and Marshall. Fender is team USA, Marshall is team UK. The End. EXCEPT, it's not that simple....

Anyway, Fender amps were first made way earlier than Marshalls. The earliest Bassman amps were made in 1952, spawning some of the most revered variations of the Bassman in between 1957 and 1959. Later, Jim Marshall had built a Bassman prototype, using components available from UK at the time. In 1962, the prototype Marshall had built became a production amp called the JTM45. The main differences between the JTM and the Bassman are just the country manufacturing the components. Bassmans used 6L6 tubes while the early JTMs used American 5881 tubes and later on switched to British KT66. However, circuitry differences aside, the supposedly similar circuit gave very different sounds when played. Then after many decades of updates and evolution phases, we are here with distinctly different sounding Fenders and Marshalls.

Fender worked on getting greater, louder clean tones out of their amps, so the amp sounds more focused and responsive to playing dynamics. The crisp, glassy cleans are what makes Fender what they are.

Glassy as in, sounding like crumbling glass. Play a though a Fender amp and you'll get what I mean.

We're talking about the Blackface amps here. The drive sound is very saturated and barks hard, with a   slightly scooped midrange and a very clean cut edge in their response. There's no sweet warm mush in their tone, hence why some people say they sound so sterile and harsh. The Tweed amps though, have a rounder edge and while they still respond fast like the BF amps, they are "warmer" and hairier-sounding like Marshalls.

Marshall on the other hand, worked on pumping out huge volume and bass thump. Literally bass thump. It wasn't actually the difference in the circuit that causes the bass to thump on Marshalls. It was rather the amp cabinet design. The closed-back design used to be unique to Marshalls only, until the recent years with the rise of rock/metal-oriented amp makers like Mesa Boogie, Peavey etc, which employed the closed-back design as well. Closed-back cabs has a wall behind the speaker cone unit, that reflects the sound directed to the back, so it gives a somewhat more aggressive air-moving thump. The real unique thing about Marshall is the crunch sound. Every other amps out there can drive hard, but most will not crunch like Marshalls do. The sweetened highs, thick juicy mids and the somewhat "fatty" and loose bass sound is textbook Marshall. Later Marshalls like the JCM models defined 80's rock with their fat, loose-sounding chug, with a lot of harmonic bite.

Bite as in, a slightly nasal-sounding high-mid frequency sound. Hit an open chord on a Marshall and do that on a Tweed Fender, and you'll know the difference between bite/bark and crunch/drive.

Marshall amps respond at the same speed as any other amps out there, but the loose low-end makes them sound as if they're slightly slower. They can chug under high gain, but it's a very different chug compared to Fenders/Mesa Boogies. When you crank them to saturation, they're really juicy, while Fenders and Mesas can be a bit "dry" and abrasive without some reverb. It also feels like, Marshalls do not have the same amount of gain as Mesas due to the smooth crunch. There is also not a lot of fizz in their distortion sound, unlike Fender BFs and Mesas.

In recent years though, efforts have been carried out by several amp makers like Mesa Boogie to bridge the gap between Fender and Marshall. Of course, the earlier Tweeds are unintentional alternatives (because they're made earlier than Marshalls) that can possibly replace Marshalls in your rig if you prefer to tread the line between the big F and M. Mesa Boogie basically started out modifying Fender amps with added gain stages. The Mark series is possibly one of the best studio amps out there due to their reliability and also the vast amount of tones possible from this amp alone. You can get American saturated drive tones, sublime cleans and the newer models like the Mark V gets a Crunch mode. And with the onboard graphic EQ, it's the swiss army knife of amps, nailing both Fender and Marshall tones and still potentially able to do more.

The Rectifier series, successfully nails that crunch sound, in an American way. Big, loose bass end, fat mids favouring the lower end, those are the British-sounding character in them and it stops right there. The high-end is sharp and hard-edged, especially with the amount of gain on tap, it gets really fizzy and raspy if dialled in wrong.

In about the same era, Peavey had debuted the 5150 (now called the 6505, 5150 has become another amp made under the EVH company, which is still essentially the same amp...), which was designed in collaboration with Eddie Van Halen. It was based on his "brown" sound essential amp, the Marshall SLP/JCM bloodline, except the tubes are 6L6 instead of EL34. It retains all the British juicy goodness, but adds a touch of saturation and faster response, making it one of the most popular Metal amps ever. With the Rectifier, a Tube Screamer overdrive was needed to tighten up the overall sound, but with the 6505, it's a matter of firing it up and turning it up to taste. The magic of a Marshall-type, everything works!

So in a nutshell, if you prefer a squeeky-clean clean tone paired with harder-edged, saturated and focused drive tone, you're an American amp guy. If you like warm, shimmery cleans with a juicy, fat crunch sound with lots of harmonic bite, you're on Team British. Now go ahead and pick your poison, ladies and gentleman...



Thanks for reading yet another entry of my blog. I'll be doing more of these Tone Talk posts in the future to discuss, opine and share about musical gear, tone in general and possibly capturing various artists' tones too. Also, there will be added features like reviews, shootouts, DIY projects and many more, so please stay tuned! Thank you for reading and supporting my blog, people. You have no idea how much your presence (no amp pun intended) means to me. This is Bernard, signing out for the night.

Full-Sized Guitars vs 3/4-Sized Guitars, What's The Verdict?

We all know full-sized guitars has been in the trend since the 40's, when Martins and Gibsons were the bee's knees. They served their purpose well and are in fact, the basis of what most guitars today are. But in recent years, with the rise of John Mayer, Tommy Emmanuel etc, people are starting to favour smaller, curvier guitars, be it a parlour, OO or OOO.

First off, these guitars give a less bassy sound compared to dreadnoughts, which has been the go-to design since the folk revival in 60's and has stayed on the top spot for numbers in guitar shops. I believe, when most of us think of acoustic guitars, the Dreadnought shape comes to mind. Pulling back the bass in the sonic spectrum means the mids and treble details are accentuated more even though the body shape doesn't actually boost them. It makes them sound immensely clear and rings out evenly for fingerstyle. I've noticed that OOs(Concert) sounds decent for strumming, albeit with a little less perceived volume due to the cut-back in bass. OOOs(Orchestra Model/OM) sound really good for strumming due to their big lower bouts. They sound full and sweet, with an emphasis on the mids and highs as mentioned earlier. While the size might look like a compromise in volume to some, in reality that's completely the opposite. In fact, most OOOs and Grand Auditoriums (in Taylor's term) I've tried are louder than Dreadnoughts, not to mention, more versatile tonally as well. The slightly thinner body and curved waist makes it easier to handle for ladies too.

If I'm not mistaken and my information source is reliable, parlour guitars were the earliest guitar design. They were made for parlour singers wanting an accompanying instrument in their performance. Parlour guitars are small by today's standards, but it was "regular"-sized back then, especially the early 30's. There was no parlour-sized or OO or OOO, there was the guitar and that's it. It's a small-bodied but full-scaled guitar with a very pinched-looking waist, has an often wider-than-standard nut-width, and the fretboard joins the body at the 12th fret. Does not sound as loud as a dreadnought/OOO/jumbo would be, but still produces a crisp bright tone very suited to folk and fingerstyle. Kinda like a steel-strung substitute for nylon-strung classical guitars.

Then, there be a market niche where people wanted even smaller guitars, initially not purposed for comfort or value, but rather for portability. That's where the 3/4 guitars come in. With the body size and scale length at 3/4 of the regular guitars, the volume is certainly compromised.  Size-wise, they're quite similar to parlours, with a small, thinner body, providing an overall more comfortable feel. It's not as loud as full-sized guitars, same as parlours, but with the different scale length, it gives a rather different tone. With an average scale length of 23.5", they sound only a slight bit softer than regular guitars, assuming materials and construction process are the same. But it's the boxy, bass end that makes the perceived volume smaller. Some people might think of 3/4 guitars as toys because they're quite frankly a lot smaller than what people expect when thinking of "guitars". Adults are reluctant to buy it for themselves because they think it makes them look like a child, and great-sounding ones are less popular with and while it's not always true, some cheap travel-sized guitars do sound like toys because of the weird honky and boxy sound it makes. Boxy, as in like, trapped in a small box.

(This term took me a really long time to grasp the idea of it, because the term was everywhere, amps section, guitar section, and I thought it means that it sounds punchy, I had no idea....so I'm writing this here to help people understand the word, if you haven't already.)

However, there are also companies that makes incredible 3/4 guitars. Companies like Taylor, Martin are great examples of guitar-makers doing their best to tap the travel-sized market. The Baby Taylor and Little Martin are two of, if not the best, balance between quality, sound, comfort and price point. Want to go cheaper? There's Tanglewood, Cort, Farida, Yamaha etc that makes the same-sized guitars with solid tops, that comes in at around half the price. Want to go even cheaper? I guess you're in the wrong place, bruh...go pick up an ukelele now, run along...

In the end, it's down to your personal taste, I'm not forcing anyone to buy or not buy travel-sized guitars. I just feel the need to address the real value in having a travel-sized acoustic. There are a few reasons why I advocate small-bodied guitars.

1. It's kawaii. No... It's pretty comfortable actually. You can just lounge around on your sofa and play the guitar without ever feeling like it's digging into your ribs. You won't even feel the need to grab your main acoustic to write anymore because the incredibly portable size makes it so easy to just grab and go. You can write songs everywhere, whether it's in your car, on your bed, in your office, toilet...

2. Most of these guitars come with a gigbag. A pretty good bag if you know where to look. Cort, Yamaha and Taylor are a few examples I've seen that comes with nice padded bags. At that size, it's impossible to find bags for them as no one makes them, so the guitar makers had to include that in the package. The big brothers are way louder, but this little one comes with a bag made to fit, so it's a no-brainer for me. #whatthehellwasthat Well, at least that's pretty convenient...


3. We don't need the amount of volume from a dreadnought/jumbo anymore. In the olden days, people played to crowds using the guitar itself and the soundhole is the only way to amplify the sound. Play it hard to be louder, play it soft to be softer. Today, we have undersaddle transducers and preamps to plug into PAs or guitar amps to get the amount of required volume. So it's not compulsory to have a huge body acoustics for volume anymore, except maybe for connoisseurs who love the sound. Plus, having a smaller sound chamber results in less moving air and smaller vibrational oscillation, meaning it's also less likely to feedback at loud volumes.

4. Great quality acoustics mean they'll sound good and still withstand the years of usage. Now, with bigger guitars, they're more expensive to build as more wood is required to produce them. With the smaller-bodied guitars, you're buying the same quality as the bigger ones, but at a lower price point. If it finally makes a Martin/Taylor affordable to you, why not? You're paying less cash for the same amount of value, just smaller in size.

5. It's great for kids/beginners. Lots of teacher tell young beginners to buy full-sized acoustics because they'll outgrow small acoustics within a short time. That's like telling parents to buy a 12.y.o. size shirt for a toddler because that way you won't outgrow the shirt so quickly. #whatthehellman
Plus, kids are physically smaller. Making them arch painfully over a full-sized dreadnought or stretch their tiny little fingers across the 25.5" scale length for chords wouldn't motivate them to play guitar that much, I guess...

6. Not a diehard fan of him, but Ed Sheeran plays a Little Martin on stage. That's enough reason for me to advocate playing small guitars. Even full-sized professionals (I know Ed isn't that tall...) are using it, so why the "small guitars are for kids" mentality?

So the verdict is that, if you want full-sized sound, go for a full-sized acoustic. If you're willing to compromise a little bit of sound for portability, playability, economics and cute factor (hmmm...), the 3/4 is the way to go. If you want a 3/4 size body with a volume closer to full-sizers, go parlour. If you're still gonna nitpick between parlour and a 3/4....there's the Mini Jumbo!!! Dreadnought-sized volume from an approximately OO-sized body. Ain't nobody going wrong with these guitars...


Well, that's it for this topic I guess. Whatever you opinion it is on smaller guitars, I wanted to thank you for dropping by at my blog. Your support means a lot to me. Thanks again and have fun, people!