tedeeoo wrote:I think with his Marshalls there was alot more "power amp distortion" in play than with his later amps and it makes alot of difference in tone.
Absolutely!
And I see a pattern when people with great tone (Ed, Gary Moore, Schenker etc.) lost their tone a bit when they stopped using those old Marshall 4-holers. Their tone became more 'pre-ampy' if that's a word? Randy's live tone was great in '81 and started to sound 'pre-ampy' in '82. Maybe he started to use that 'cascaded' thing then where in '81 he didn't, who knows...
I like John Sykes tone on 1987, but still it's not a very dynamic tone, very pre-ampy. (imo) And yep, I think Randy's '81 spring/summer live sound was some of the best in metal history! I never liked his studio sound on Blizzard that much, DOAM is a little better.
btw: it would be very interesting to hear Pete Mertons (Randy's guitartech) speaking. Small chance now regarding the latest developments with the doc......
whatever was being done to his sound in 82 was either done by him or most likely they agreed to let the soundman control it. To me its clear as day his chorus was decided to be left on for that entire tour all the time. You can can hear it add that glassy tone over his sound and if you guys have noticed also his harmonics were much much harder to pull off and and alot of the times they were weak or he had to hit them twice to get them to take. Modulation effects kill harmonics very quickly (especially pinch) so put those two together and that's what it was.
If you listen to the sound check footage his tone was just like it was during the the tribute album. And that was February 82 right?
I would like more info on what was used for Revelation, some said a harmonizer but i always thought it was his flanger
Shockwave wrote:If you listen to the sound check footage his tone was just like it was during the the tribute album. And that was February 82 right?
To me not exactly like his '81 tone but still a lot better than his '82 sounds we hear on the boots.
Like you said to me it sounds like he started using a harmonizer, in those news reports clips at times I think to hear a second delayed guitarsound a bit lower in pitch. It could be a chorus as well. You right about those failing harmonics too. Something was added to his rig (or after miking) that killed all his dynamics....
btw I'm glad Ozzy wants to release some 'unseen' footage from '81.
Shockwave wrote:If you listen to the sound check footage his tone was just like it was during the the tribute album. And that was February 82 right?
To me not exactly like his '81 tone but still a lot better than his '82 sounds we hear on the boots.
Like you said to me it sounds like he started using a harmonizer, in those news reports clips at times I think to hear a second delayed guitarsound a bit lower in pitch. It could be a chorus as well. You right about those failing harmonics too. Something was added to his rig (or after miking) that killed all his dynamics....
btw I'm glad Ozzy wants to release some 'unseen' footage from '81.
When i said exactly like tribute i was just saying ya know...Its close enough that we can tell he did not change his core sound though at all.
There is some weird sounds though when that delay kicks on. Its very very very very very tight sounding, the only way i can describe it is 'sick' , thats the only word that comes to mind whenever i heard that sound. Its like they are two completely different guitar tracks, yet playing the same exact thing, yet it just does not sound like normal delay. Not sure, i have been playing for 20yrs now and still have not sat down with a harmonizer yet, when i think of a harmonizer i think of stuff like Ramble On by Zeppelin or Hotel California sounds(yes i know there is two guitarist playing that )
I like John Sykes tone on 1987, but still it's not a very dynamic tone, very pre-ampy. (imo) And yep, I think Randy's '81 spring/summer live sound was some of the best in metal history! I never liked his studio sound on Blizzard that much, DOAM is a little better.
btw: it would be very interesting to hear Pete Mertons (Randy's guitartech) speaking. Small chance now regarding the latest developments with the doc......[/quote]
You guys know alot more about Randy's live tone than I do so I won't comment on that other than to say I agree it would be very interesting to hear what his (Randy's) guitar tech had to say about it.
Regarding Sykes, dynamic would be the wrong word for any description of his tone circa 87, the word you are looking for is HUGE,LOL!!! Bear in mind on Sykes, that his tone during those years was built on Mesa Boogie who, as far as I'm concerned (and as much as I like Peavey), wrote the book on pre-amp gain. I actually like his tone on the first Blue Murder record just a touch better than the 87 WS album, it was slightly less "low-ended" to my ear. I could talk about this kind of stuff all night.
"The Only Two Things In Life That Make It Worth Livin"
I always found it interesting how the tone is different when you listen to Tribute when he finishes his spotlight solo and goes back into the Suicide Solution riff. The tone from the Montreal show is completely different from the Cleveland show and they were just two months apart.
"Everyone says theres nothing new that can be done with a guitar, but when people like Randy come along, they realize they're wrong." -- Angus Young, AC/DC
NoQuattro wrote:I always found it interesting how the tone is different when you listen to Tribute when he finishes his spotlight solo and goes back into the Suicide Solution riff. The tone from the Montreal show is completely different from the Cleveland show and they were just two months apart.
You seriously don't know why it's different on the tribute album spotlight solo???
I do know why it's different, hence why I mentioned Montreal and Cleveland. Two different shows. Any RR fan worth his salt knows that.
"Everyone says theres nothing new that can be done with a guitar, but when people like Randy come along, they realize they're wrong." -- Angus Young, AC/DC
NoQuattro wrote:I do know why it's different, hence why I mentioned Montreal and Cleveland. Two different shows. Any RR fan worth his salt knows that.
oh alrighty then...Definitely chorus on the montreal show and it was through the loop on the marshalls most likely, mine pretty much sounds the same when i run my mxr 3 knob chorus through my 78 JMP's loop. I think during the diary tour it was added at the soundboard which made it sound completely different along with other things.
They were plugged into the monitors, which came after the amps themselves I believe.
Either that or I heard he did this stereo effect where he plugged his delay/echo into one amp, but not the other (Don't know how he would do that with 3 amps. Because he used 3 amps I believe) because from what I understand, if one side (Say right) is the wet signal, then it'll blend with the dry signal to make a clear-ish echo, instead of just muddying the whole thing up.
Like the lunar and solar lights, humanity's unaligned, undefined.
A very good possibility is that he slaved his Marshalls like Ed did.
Also, an echo in front of a crancked plexi doesn't have to sound bad as long the echo signal is not feed to the crancked channel. (hence a plexi has two channels) So signal without delay into the high channel which is crancked, the signal with delay into the normal channel which volume is put not that high. This works very well, giving more depth to the sound. The delay got 'ducked' while playing fast lines and the repeats will only be heard in short moments of silence.
ya know...Its close enough that we can tell he did not change his core sound though at all.
