The 6550 Experience

[Xplorer]

exactly, this is why i think it'd be interesting to focus more on the fuzz, the settings, things like that.
it shows the DNA on a new angle, and the amps were maybe the same from one night to another but still, it wouldn't chock me if a 45/100 replaced one of the three SL , having an effect on the global tone . It wouldn't chock me either that three SL were used on every nights.
Dave even said that some of the SL were closer to a 45/100 than some others.

the fuzz ... ( and univibe ) it can explain a lot, at least from the experiments i did, which made my imagination work.

i really can't wait to try a west coast modded SL. I also think i could recognize the special night in a blind test, yes for sure. i'm so used to it after hearing it thousands of times since 25 years. As you do, i'm sure you could recognize it.

[Billy Batz]

Assuming gear was changed, especially an amp, sounds like grasping at straws. Id be more inclined to believe the engineer changed the mic angle, and/or locations because he had too much or too little room in the cab mic or to change the EQ because there were things he didnt like playing back the tapes after the first night.

Adrien do you have any reason to suggest where all those different recordings come from? Do you know any of them to be bootlegs. I admit Ive made those assumptions in the past but its precisely because they have the same DNA that Im inclined to believe they all originated from the same mics from the board and its the end result that makes them sound different (ie the version were familiar with was mastered to be an album, at least one couldve been a quick mix for the video and the lo fi sound could easily be conversions from old shitty video audio formats). Even at that time its common to pipe more of the audience mic into the mix for a live video to feel like your in the audience. In any case unless there is something concrete about the source of the recording being other then from the engineers board it doesnt discount anything about it being on the engineers side and not the guitar rig.

Im not trying to play devils advocate but it could be a huge mistake to assume the recordings originated from different places just because they sound shittier, or drier, or more live then the album. And I would disagree 1000% that theres limits to how far the room,mic/position can change the sound. Id like it to be a simple matter of changing a fuzz and thats it with a nice bow on it. If Im totally honest theres just a change to the whole vibe and EQ of the sound that I dont think has anythignn at all to do with gear, If you do dig up it was gear related somehow let me know strait away tho.

[Xplorer]

i understand.
well i don't remember so well the source of it but since there were some private videos made, coming with the sound, from the balcony, from the floor ... also records from the console ...

well, i'm not sure, i can't fully verify it, but i don't think it's a necessity to beware of this that much, it's maybe going too far.

Anyway, you can hear it isn't just a crappy record from another record of better quality made with the same mics used for the final mix by eddie kramer. you can hear how the drum sounds, you can hear the public a lot more and different, you just can hear it.

i think that one or two are genuine bootlegs, and the others are the board, and also a way used by kramer to record the final mix. one record lets you hear the basse like never before. it's not just changing the eq , based on the final mix, it can't be.

i personnaly don't think that it's just about the mic position or something. i mean it could happen but it would still record something which was different that night, from the beginning.

let's perhaps see if working with fuzz settings and mods among other things, on such 6550 amp or even on a 45/100 will give more perspective ,before going to conclusions too early.
There's certainly a lot to look in that direction. And anyway, we couldn't do much about mic placement with the right studio Tools on three full stacks in a Fillmore east, this will hardly happen.

[daveweyer]

I know there were many possible changes from night to night, even from practice to the performance; one common thing was for an amp to blow and be replaced by another amp the next night. Speakers were changed too, and that meant different mic positions. Those early live recordings were mostly a grand experiment, lots of stuff changed, even from song to song.
You might not be able to completely differentiate why these same concerts sound so different.
I'm not sure though that any of that stuff would mask the sound of 6550s or KT66s--it would take a lot of room reflections, feedback from house monitors, etc etc, to hide that signature.

[Xplorer]

off course it's understandable that the room, mic position eq etc can have an effect on the sound but at some point, even this will off course have limits. i mean, it's not infinite, you won't make a pignose to sound like a Superlead 6550 thanks to mic placement, eq, room ... see ?

i mean, it's possible, and i could be wrong on this but i'll continue to do some researchs on the gear way.

I think i remember an interview or something about Eddie kramer being Under the stage, recording this concert, but it may be my imagination going too far.
But if he was Under the stage ... well one second ... he was at the Fillmore, but not necessarily Under the stage. but he could have made some changes from one night to another, that's very possible. changes of mic, mic placement, cab, as well as Jimi could have made some gear changes, or settings changes ..

But i still think that the record is showing something not too transformed compared to how it may have sounded that night.
all the records go in that direction. now these various records can be discussed off course but it's going into some speculation that we can't master much, either way.

[Billy Batz]

off course it's understandable that the room, mic position eq etc can have an effect on the sound but at some point, even this will off course have limits. i mean, it's not infinite, you won't make a pignose to sound like a Superlead 6550 thanks to mic placement, eq, room ... see ?

But were not making a pignose sound like a superlead. Were making a superlead sound like a superlead it just sounds better.

I honestly cant hear it. The one video has the same audio even as the camera is at different perspectives. The 60s camera was not recording the sound. It probably came off the board. When you say the board recordings, anything coming strait from the board would be coming from the same source as what would eventually be on the album. The recordings from other nights sound crappier and honestly I think its simply because they sound drier. I dont think they had the mics in the same position for those recordings on other nights. They are way closer to the amp. That or theres just no room mics mixed in. I dont know how crazy the engineers got with micing. Probably fairly simple. I dont see this as unique to BoG. I think a lot of hendrix live recordings sound bad because theres not enough room and I think most new music sounds bad because theres not enough room.

The reason people are unhappy with the sound of the recordings theyre making is because to get a good room sound from a blazing marshall you need a HUGE room.

Those sets of recording I made years ago with the amp and mic in the same position, same settings, just changed the EL34s to 6550s, the difference was audible but very subtle.

[Xplorer]

that's a possibility, but since i can't experiment much with that, i'll continue to do some researchs on the gear way.
there was a time when we were trying to get this bog tone with some el34 amp, and we were saying that the difference in tone was due to the mic placement, room etc ... when now even your home made records get very very close with this west coast mod and various settings from one to the others of you guys. congrats again btw.

[Billy Batz]

I only mean to say, at this point, weve exhausted much of the gear related things. We went back and forth about 6550s 10 years ago now. Bass vs Lead vs 45/100. Different fuzz circuits. I always thought it was 6550s from when I first tried them but 6550s did not make the recordings from t he other nights sound like the recording we all are after. A split vs shared cathode doesnt change the sound that drastically on record. Neither do tubes. Not as much as speakers and mics. I can give 50 marhall people a recording of me on a marshall and ask them what era marshall, 66, 67, 68, lead, bass, 2203, and Id get 50 different answers.

[bill bokey]

Xplorer, can you share some of those recordings ? Maybe do a similar clip to what C J H posted earlier.
The two recordings I've heard from the second night were from the same source, that's the album and the video. I'd like to hear more...

[Xplorer]

i see, but i still think that the west coast mod, this way, is a bit different from what happend 10 years ago, and we weren't looking at the fuzz the same way.
i have some quite optimistic hopes and i don't feel that the gear related thing is exhausted.
just some patience, we'll get there

[Xplorer]

Bill, see the page before, i've shared some of these records.
maybe i'll put more later.

[Billy Batz]

He posted them on the last page.

[Billy Batz]

i see, but i still think that the west coast mod, this way, is a bit different from what happend 10 years ago, and we weren't looking at the fuzz the same way.
i have some quite optimistic hopes and i don't feel that the gear related thing is exhausted.
just some patience, we'll get there

I didnt mean theres nothing left to try. Just that amp tweaks and tubes were not getting from point A to point Z. Im all for continued experimentation. I guess Im a little late to this thing but what does the west coast mod entail? Is it the fuzz mod you mentioned before or an amp mod?

[Xplorer]

i'll post what i got on the bog records, soon , and you'll even hear the first part of the concert, with the harlem boys and girls singing. it talso ells about the sound, it's a different recording way.
also a little movie of right when they go from 1969 to 1970, and you can see the amps from behind.

then do what you want with that for the ways that fit you better. i'll continue quite a bit on the gear way, simple mods and settings . fuzz mod yes, bc108c , input, output cap, clean fuzz, wild but still transparent fuzz ( not zz top fuzz way up, see ? different ) .
i really don't feel things are stuck if i'm going this way. some experiments i did gave my big hopes.

[bill bokey]

Ok, sorry I missed your post Xplorer.
I listened to the first 4 (the last one is a zip file, didn't download it...) and to my ears they all come from the sound desk, the vocals are at the same level on all recordings. I heard a bootleg of the previous night and you can hardly hear the vocals ! I also read somewhere (can't remember where though) that it was near impossible to hear the vocals during the show...

A split vs shared cathode doesnt change the sound that drastically on record. Neither do tubes. Not as much as speakers and mics. I can give 50 marhall people a recording of me on a marshall and ask them what era marshall, 66, 67, 68, lead, bass, 2203, and Id get 50 different answers.

+1