[fretzel]

So I took a little gamble today on a trade and picked up a Guyatone HXm5. It is from the Mighty Micro line. It is my first Guyatone anything. I am quite impressed with my initial findings.

It goes from somewhat clean boost to all out distortion. It was a 3 way clipping switch. Not a huge difference between clipping settings but definitely noticeable. Great range in the controls. The one control that is different is the "Ex Volume". This volume works when the pedal is off and does nothing when pedal is on. It actually pushed my amp HARD!!!!

Does anybody have any GTone products they like?

 

[bzrkrage]

I have a weird one, a Guyatone PS-008 Parametric Eq.
I use it for recordings, especially in order to remove the 60k hum, works like a charm!

"Best mediocre guitarist in Calgary!"

 

[mhammer]

They make some interesting things. Guitarist extraordinaire Guthrie Govan often uses his WR-2 Wah Rocker to great effect. VERY responsive.

 

[bigboki]

. VERY responsive.

I have a question not associated with this thread topic. But, can you please explain me, when you say "Very responsive" what does that to you?
Also check this guitar post at 12fret:
Waterloo WL-K Southwest by Collings, 2017 | www.12fret.com
at 4 places they say that model is extremely responsive...
What the heck does that mean? Please help!

 

[mhammer]

"Responsive" can meandifferent hings in different contexts. IN the context of envelope-controlled wah-filters, it means variations in picking, and especially fast picking, are reflected in sweeps of the filter.

In a more general sense, I suspect others mean something vaguely related to tone that reflects picking strength.

 

[bigboki]

Ok, so basically let say, the amp is on a verge of breakup, and if you pick hard it will distort more and if you pick softly it will cleanup? Would you say then that amp is responsive?
Really weird verb to describe something like that but again might my lack of English

But how the hack, acoustic guitar can be responsive or not???
To be honest, to me it seems like "oh i have heard this term - it sounds cool and doesn't really mean anything so lets use (and abuse) it as much as possible to sound cooler).

 

[mhammer]

I'm as critical of meaningless overused terms as anyone might be - "transparent", for instance - but in this instance, "responsive" is simply being used as a contraction of "responds to variations in picking strength", and there are not many other ways to convey that. It is an entirely appropriate use of the term. I can't speak for other ways in which folks might wish to use it.

For acoustic instruments, some have a tone that can be fairly consistent, and simply be louder or softer, depending on picking strength, while others might show the sort of dynamic variation in tone that helps to make them more expressive. Such variations are why, for many years, keyboard players preferred acoustic pianos over digital ones. They felt, and could demonstrate, that the touch sensitivity, and tone (i.e., "resonsiveness") of a traditional acoustic pianoforte was superior to electronic ones. Things have certainly improved in the responsiveness of electronic keyboards, with the introduction of velocity sensitive keys, and more sophisticated modelling that varies harmonic content and decay properties with how hard the keys are struck.

To some extent, the same is true of some amplifier designs. Some are irritatingly consistent in their tone, while others indeed do respond to variations in picking strength.

 

[bigboki]

- but in this instance, "responsive" is simply being used as a contraction of "responds to variations in picking strength", and there are not many other ways to convey that.

GREAT, thank you so much for your explanation - now it makes more sense.

Really thankful

yours Bojan

 

[Budda]

I had a guyatone delay which I gifted to a friend upon learning I like tap tempo.

I think most people's issue with their pedals isn't so much the sound so much as the reliability for a pro who gigs a lot.

 

[mhammer]

GREAT, thank you so much for your explanation - now it makes more sense.

Really thankful

yours Bojan

My pleasure, sir.

 

[High/Deaf]

I'm as critical of meaningless overused terms as anyone might be - "transparent", for instance - but in this instance, "responsive" is simply being used as a contraction of "responds to variations in picking strength", and there are not many other ways to convey that. It is an entirely appropriate use of the term. I can't speak for other ways in which folks might wish to use it.

While I agree with your premise, I disagree with your one example. "Transparent" is one of the terms that actually has meaning in the audio (and guitar) world. PA equipment and hi-fi equipment can all be judged by how transparent it is. "Transparency" can even be measured. A guitar equalizer, if set flat and unity gain, should also be transparent. When people talk about guitar amps or pickups being transparent though, you are correct, they aren't using the term right. The last thing we'd want in a guitar amp is transparency (just plug your electric into a PA if you don't believe me).

Now if you'd used terms I see all the time on other sites, like "chimey" or "barking" or "3d", I'm in full agreement. Nebulous terms with no definition that seem to carry weight with people wanting to be in the know but having no technical grasp on what they are trying to describe. Remember, though, these are people that struggle with the difference between "best" and "favorite".

Don't even get me started on 'crystal lattice' or some of the really crazy ones. Yea, "transparent" doesn't phase me in the least, when used in the correct context.

 

[mhammer]

I'd agree.... if only people actually used the term "transparent" in the right context. Unfortunately, outside of the audiophile world it is more likely to be used as an oxymoron: as in "transparent overdrive".

 

[High/Deaf]

It's very common in the sound reinforcement and recording world as well.

While it is generally a misused term in the guitar world, even some OD's do fit into that category (i.e. my Timmy's pretty damn transparent if I set it up that way - but it's the only one I've found so far), not to mention comps and EQ's. The challenge with attenuators and re-ampers is also trying to get as close to transparency as possible (amplitude changes, only). But I agree, how most guitarists seem to use it is a bastardization or misunderstanding. Doesn't mean we shouldn't use it at all. There's enough really goofy terms that should be totally disallowed, we may as well keep the few that have some semblance of reality.

 

[Budda]

No mention of a strident tone? Im out.

 

[mhammer]

It's very common in the sound reinforcement and recording world as well.

While it is generally a misused term in the guitar world, even some OD's do fit into that category (i.e. my Timmy's pretty damn transparent if I set it up that way - but it's the only one I've found so far), not to mention comps and EQ's. The challenge with attenuators and re-ampers is also trying to get as close to transparency as possible (amplitude changes, only). But I agree, how most guitarists seem to use it is a bastardization or misunderstanding. Doesn't mean we shouldn't use it at all. There's enough really goofy terms that should be totally disallowed, we may as well keep the few that have some semblance of reality.

A decent unit but I would not describe the Timmy as "transparent". I would say that it yields a less mushy or fizzy overdrive tone that lets notes be heard clearly, even playing chords. In the non-guitar audio world, "transparent" is going to be used to refer to gear/circuits that provide near-zero coloration, by adding neither audible or measurably significant harmonic or intermodulation distortion. In other words, what comes out is pretty much identical to what went in, except higher amplitude. Standards tend to be a lot lower in the guitar world, where "transparent" tends to mean "not wrecked too much".

Ironically, even where a boost IS clean and provides little or no coloration, players tend to use them to introduce signifcant coloration from their amplifier.

In the case of power attenuators, the attenuator itself is neither transparent or nontransparent. It can certainly provide coloration by delivering a frequency response that is different from what the amp would normally deliver into a pure speaker load, but the majority of them are purely passive and add no additional harmonic content on their own. There may be some coloration stemming from having the freedom to crank the amp harder,but that coloration is from the amp, not the attenuator.

 

[High/Deaf]

A decent unit but I would not describe the Timmy as "transparent". I would say that it yields a less mushy or fizzy overdrive tone that lets notes be heard clearly, even playing chords. In the non-guitar audio world, "transparent" is going to be used to refer to gear/circuits that provide near-zero coloration, by adding neither audible or measurably significant harmonic or intermodulation distortion. In other words, what comes out is pretty much identical to what went in, except higher amplitude. Standards tend to be a lot lower in the guitar world, where "transparent" tends to mean "not wrecked too much".

Ironically, even where a boost IS clean and provides little or no coloration, players tend to use them to introduce signifcant coloration from their amplifier.

In the case of power attenuators, the attenuator itself is neither transparent or nontransparent. It can certainly provide coloration by delivering a frequency response that is different from what the amp would normally deliver into a pure speaker load, but the majority of them are purely passive and add no additional harmonic content on their own. There may be some coloration stemming from having the freedom to crank the amp harder,but that coloration is from the amp, not the attenuator.

If I set my Timmy with gain at zero and the tone controls set at near minimum (they are cut controls, of course), I can get as close to a flat unity gain signal as with an EQ. I can switch the effect on and off and not hear any difference. I can increase and decrease the level and only hear the change of amplitude with no distortion artifacts. If I add gain, the coloration comes in and transparency goes away. Of course, in a full bandwidth system, it may not be truly transparent, but in the limited bandwidth world of guitar, it can be. or maybe I just got a real good one. I dunno. Same with comps and EQs, transparency should be the goal. Who wants an EQ that colors your sound when set flat?

I've never had another od-type pedal be able to do that - not even the CoolCat Transparent OD, which is supposed to be a copy of the Timmy but most assuredly is not.


If you consider the power amp-o/p transformer-speaker as a system, I think attenuators can have more or less impact on that system as a whole (changes to the resistive/reactive components of the load that the amp sees at different attenuation levels, etc). They will never be truly 'transparent' (i.e. always have some impact on the original circuit and never sound exactly like the speaker alone) but they can be judged to be closer or further away from the original sound, sans attenuator, except quieter. Of course, you have to take into account how the speakers will sound different at different levels, and F-M and other things. But the term 'transparency' makes sense to me in that scenario. It is the ideal everyone is striving for and I can't think of a better term to use in describing their effect on the original system. The best attenuator in the world would be transparent at every level of attentuation. AFAIK, this has not be achieve.

Even moreso with loads used for recording interfaces and re-ampers. Removing the speaker from the circuit and replacing it with a static set of components is always going to be a compromise (which of all of those various speakers/cabinets are you trying to mimic with this circuit?), but some do it better than others. Transparency is as good a yardstick as any to use in discussing these. Again, it's the goal everyone is trying to achieve.

 

[mhammer]

If I set my Timmy with gain at zero and the tone controls set at near minimum (they are cut controls, of course), I can get as close to a flat unity gain signal as with an EQ. I can switch the effect on and off and not hear any difference. I can increase and decrease the level and only hear the change of amplitude with no distortion artifacts. If I add gain, the coloration comes in and transparency goes away. Of course, in a full bandwidth system, it may not be truly transparent, but in the limited bandwidth world of guitar, it can be. or maybe I just got a real good one. I dunno. Same with comps and EQs, transparency should be the goal. Who wants an EQ that colors your sound when set flat?

I've never had another od-type pedal be able to do that - not even the CoolCat Transparent OD, which is supposed to be a copy of the Timmy but most assuredly is not.

We agree. But what you describe is the Timmy essentially converted into a unity-gain buffer; something it is capable of doing because the minimum gain can be set low enough that the higher clipping threshold simply has no impact on the signal, and because the Timmy's tonal controls permit attaining full bandwidth, without the mid-hump of the Tube Screamer from which it evolved.

That a pedal can be set to exhibit no coloration is distinct from the coloration produced when owners set it to how it is meant to be used. For instance, the MXR Micro-Amp is designed to be essentially a flat boost, with no audible loss ot top or bottom, and a limited gain range (max gain = 22x). It can be used to simply optimize S/N ratio (most audio products are designed to cope with at least a bit more signal than they would normally receive), but the majority of users are likely going to employ it to induce coloration in some part of their signal chain. Obviously not as much coloration as via something like a Timmy or Klon/clone, but intended coloration nonetheless.

I'm not trying to twist the knife on a nitpicky semantic matter. I just want pedal-users to recognize appropriate contexts, and apply "the T-word" appropriately so that they don't look like fools. But yes, you are correct that many such pedals CAN be set to provide minimum or inaudible coloration, earning the label "transparent", as used in the "other" audio universe. It's just not what we normally do, or how the term is normally used.

 

[High/Deaf]

I'm not trying to twist the knife on a nitpicky semantic matter. I just want pedal-users to recognize appropriate contexts, and apply "the T-word" appropriately so that they don't look like fools. But yes, you are correct that many such pedals CAN be set to provide minimum or inaudible coloration, earning the label "transparent", as used in the "other" audio universe. It's just not what we normally do, or how the term is normally used.

It's all Leo's fault. He started it with Vibrato channels and tremolo arms. It's now du jour to use terms that seem inverse to what they should actually mean, if in fact not completely meaningless and silly. The 'business' is rife with it.

But I love Leo. His contributions far outweigh those little faux pas.

 

[mhammer]

It's all Leo's fault.

Now THAT made me laugh! Thanks for that.