Fender amps? What have you owned?

They were the last two amps I bought and only I own:
  • Mustang I w/ the 8" speaker bought in 2012
  • Blues DeVille 2x12 bought in '94 or '95
The later hasn't been plugged in more than a decade...
 
Last edited:
0 but not for a lack of trying. It's just always been the case that something else won out in the end of that amp quest.
 
1966 Bassman
1970 Deluxe Reverb (the only actual "good" amp I still own)
1974 Deluxe Reverb
1974 Super Reverb
a handful of Frontman and Mustang practice amps for the studio.
 
Dexter Inferno said:
Always liked their cleans. But...when you need some dirt from the amp they're really not it.
That's not what they do.
Click to expand...

I don't 100% agree, but I love that Marshalls essentially started out trying to copy Fenders, but couldn't get the recipe right. Instead of it being a failure, they created another awesome voice for the electric guitar. Marshalls are generally the inverse of Fenders. MESA/Boogie and Dumble were essentially trying to offer both the Fender cleans and Marshall dirt, but they also became other colors in the palette.

The Fender dirt is a different thing than Marshall dirt. Obviously far less gain, but still a voice I love.
 
Dew Knot Humps said:
I’m not up on the latest modelling technology but out of the ones I’ve tried over the years the blackface cleans is where they fail.
Click to expand...
Real tube amps are still my preference. I’ve never considered modeling sims 1:1 equivalent to tube amps for various reasons.

The specific technology matters. The speakers matter. The way the signal gets amplified matters. But, without getting into the details, modeling is not the same experience as a tube amps for me as a player.

Modeling through FRFR is like a miked amp through PA. It doesn’t sound the same as a direct signal from the amp speakers. But, since the audience typically hears a band through PA speakers, it’s pretty easy to give a live audience a nearly identical auditory experience with top shelf, modern modeling.

I have used Fender profiles through ToneX, into a Fryette Power Station, fed into real guitar cabs. It can often feel and sound very close to the real deal. Certainly, it’s good enough to fool a live audience, or even professional ears in a recording. Yet, a Tonex capture is a different paradigm than a tube amp for multiple, specific reasons.

Sometimes, the benefits of digital modeling outweigh the disadvantages. Tube amps come with their own downsides in various situations.

In my case, I rarely play live at this point. I mainly play for my own enjoyment. I use both tube amps and digital modeling. I’m able to find inspiration from both paradigms. Bottom line, you should use the gear that inspires you to play.
 
Dexter Inferno said:
Always liked their cleans. But...when you need some dirt from the amp they're really not it.
That's not what they do.
Click to expand...
I'd say that depends. It's just a different kind of breakup than British crunch.

I once met a German metal producer, completely coincidence, at an event that had nothing to with music, but we got to talk about recording guitar amps. He explained that the reason why British amps like Vox, Marshalls and Laneys sound so good when heavily distorted is that as they start breaking up, certain frequencies 'disappear', like if you have a 100-band EQ and every second frequency is turned down. So you get a massive roar but it's still somewhat transparent and therefore pleasant to the ears, and great for layering stuff.

Classic non-master Fenders don't do that the same way but rather try to stay full and clean until they run out of breath and crash at all frequencies at once, but often with a mid focus. All that is circuit-related, he said, and things get a lot more complicated when you consider speaker types/swap speakers/cabs, mics, placement, etc., etc..
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top