Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Posts posted by SteinbergerHack

  1. Originally posted by geek_usa

    every Gibby LP/SG I have picked up that has been manufactured after the year 2000 has felt like utter {censored}.


    Have you played one of the new VOS reissues with the factory PLEK job?


    I'd suggest holding off on your assessment until you do. Those models now come with a fantastic stup from the factory.


    BTW, you can't get the VOS models at GC; the GC Gibson RIs are a 'special' (read: low-cost) model that is only made for GC, and GC doesn't get the ones that go to the Custom Shop dealers.

  2. I find it interesting that nobody has mentioned the following:

    Iron Maiden - REAL guitar work with two players

    Boston - Serious attention to detail in the sound and melodic nature of their work

    Pink Floyd - instrument voicing, writing, etc (OK, they've already been mentioned)

    Def Leppard (early material)

    April Wine

    None of this gets much airplay, but it was serious music.

  3. Originally posted by argh

    so you go into guitar center blindfolded and play everything and take notes and then take off the blindfold and look at the guitars?

    Not exactly, but I have been known to walk into a store and play every Les Paul they have in stock to see which one is really the best....and I've never bought a guitar at GC. Since they don't (and can't/won't) set up their instruments, I won't even waste my time playing them there; until a guitar gets at least a basic setup, you can't really tell much about how it will eventually play.

    Every instrument is different in the way it feels, sounds, and responds, and you can't tell any of that from the shape or finish. I have one guitar that I love to record with that's uglier than homemade sin, but it plays and sounds great.

    I truly don't care what an axe looks like - it's all about the sound and feel.....

  4. Originally posted by McNamara

    I can't afford to play any of the plexi clones you've named, so I'll have to take your word for it on the sound quality. Can you honestly say that if Van Halen II had been recorded with one of these amps instead of a Marshall, it would have sounded "night-and-day" better?

    If you think that's really the case, I'll believe you. It just doesn't seem very plausible.

    Ahem.... The Marshall that EVH used for I and II was reportedly modded for the 'brown sound' by the same gentleman who now designs and builds Bogners, which some would call a 'boutique' amp.

    How many $$$ is it worth to have that level of sound, versus the plain-jane economy stuff that is designed for beginners?

    Personally, I will say that when I sat down and played through my current main amp, I decided that I was not leaving the store without it, regardless of the price. It happened to be the most expensive amp in the store, but that had nothing to do with my decision. My current favorite guitar was relatively cheap in it's day, but it has 'the sound'. I look for the SOUND, features and playability that makes the item right for me, and price ain't on the list of performance features that will affect how it sounds in my bedroom, on stage, or on tape.

    If you really don't think that having the best sound to complement your playing is worth whatever price it takes to get it, then why not just grab a POD and call it a day?

    I'm not trying to be harsh here, but just trying to point out that if you really want a specific tone, it may not come out of a $300 amp. If you're serious about playing the instrument, then at some point, you'll need to get serious about your sound, and that means playing through EVERYTHING you can find, and deciding what combination of guitar, pickup, effects, and amp really gets the job done. If it's a $300 Crate that floats your boat - great! But until you've played through as many different types of equipment as possible, you'll never know if it's really what you need to be at your best.

    I will stand by my statement that price should play no part in this decision - it just determines how long you may have to wait to get the right tools.

  5. Sounds like something shorting out. A high current drain will cause the battery to heat up and eventually pop, as you saw.


    1st - Do you have the battery wrapped in anything? I wrap mine in some thin packing foam as an insulator.


    2nd - Do you have the battery strapped down so it can't move? It's possible that the side of the battery is actually moving around and touching one or more bare conductors (ground) and/or another connection. You can use a tie-wrap to hold the battery in a specific location to keep this from happening. This can either be tied to the pickup wires, or you can drill two small holes in your backing plate to tie it down to (Don't do this with a '59 Les Paul, though:D).


    3rd - Are you sure your input jack is wired right and functioning properly? Depending on the type of switching jack, sometimes they can fail in unusual ways that will cause an intermittent short. Pluggin the cord in halfway can also cause this.


    Hope this helps....

  6. Originally posted by Kevin Pelletier

    For those of you who own a Bogner Ecstasy or have played one extensively please voice your thoughts on an amp that I have never had the chance to play.

    I bought one about a month ago, and it has absolutely changed my outlook on playing. It's really that good.

    I view it as actually having 4 channels: Green, Plexi, Blue, and Red.

    Plexi mode is as described: if you're looking for the classic Page/Angus Young Marshall tone - this is it. I haven't heard anything closer without actually having an old Marshall.

    Blue is a great high-gain Marshall (almost 'brown sound') tone, with red being a super-gain for newer metal and lead work. Red won't quite get to 'nu-metal', though - you want the Uberschall if that's your gig. Green is clean - IMHO, this is the weakest channel on the amp. It's still very decent, but it takes some serious tweaking to get a really good clean sound, while the rest are effortless to get a great tone.

    At the half-power, Class A, 'old' setting (triode), you have reduced the power level to what is a great practice-amp. At full-power, Class AB, 'new' (pentode), it will detonate the room with a 4x12 cabinet.

    The tone settings are touchy - a very small adjustment will make a BIG change, so it's a bit surprising just how wide the range of adjustment is. Also, the amp maintains a pretty defined sense of attack, so it will show flaws in picking inconsistencies and timing more than most amps. These two characteristics are (I believe) responsible for a lot of the criticism this amp gets. If it is set up poorly in the store (scooped mids, for example) and you don't try to set it right, you may believe it sounds horrible; also, if you are used to relying on a 'fuzzy' or compressed (i.e., modeller) sound to cover inconsistent fretting, you won't like this amp, as it will bring out ALL the nuances of your style, including those you may prefer to leave hidden.

    Hope this helps......

  7. Originally posted by Panopticon

    1. Why did you go this route over a modeler?


    2.What do you use?

    Either a Bogner Ecstasy or a Marshall 3203 with a 1966 2x12 cabinet.

    3. How does it sound?

    Bogner sounds awesome; Marshall sounds just decent, but still better than any modeler I've tried.

    4. Any regrets?

    None, except that I should have ditched the rack stuff and bought the Bogner sooner.

  8. My personal preference in fretboards (based on which guitars I end up picking up and playing the most).

    Phenolic (Steinberger) - GREAT feel! I wish I could get this fretboard on a Les Paul, Jackson, or PRS....

    Rosewood - Feels very natural, with good tactile feedback.

    Raw maple - Still playable, but too 'grippy'. Not as 'slick' as RW.

    Finished maple - Zero tactile feedback. I have real trouble playing these, as I have difficulty 'feeling' string bends into pitch.

  9. Originally posted by jeverist

    Please go buy John Coltrane's "My Favorite Things" album immediately! Hopefully you'll be cured of your love for Kenny G. style sax.

    OK, I should have said 'sax hook', not 'sax line'. Besides, it ain't Kenny G-style if it's on alto sax, right?:D

    (BTW, I love Coltrane, Davis, et al, but it just ain't hummable enough for this list, IMHO....)

  10. All of my guitars have either EMGs or Duncans (always a JB in the bridge spot). They are both great; the Duncans have a touch more 'thickness', but the EMGs cut through the mix a bit better, and are quieter. The level shift is the big issue; I have to adjust the gain settings to account for the higher output of the EMG guitars when switching guitars.

    The EMGs actually sound really good for Jazz, also, IMHO...

  11. Originally posted by peavey2112

    Ever wonder if Jesus was a roaming self prophet?


    I think jesus was a real guy who thought he was the son of a god or at least wanted weak people to believe that and it just snowballed over time.

    It's an interesting premise, and there is certainly a foundation for this view.

    Here's the rub; if you accept this premise, then it stands to reason that much of the dialogue atrributed to him (primarily in the Gospels) would be reasonably accepted as his philosophy.

    This philosophy has been widely accepted over centuries; even those who have an intense hatred for organized religion generally do not disagree with Christ's core teachings about relationships between people and societies. Often, these dissenters even unknowingly espouse Christian doctrine as an 'alternative' to whatever religion they are currently fighting. No such strength of thought can be attributed to a Jim Jones or a David Koresh - they simply weren't sane enough to make statements and take philosophical positions that withstand the scrutiny of time.

    To take the purely secular analytical approach, I would see Jesus more as a latter-day Plato or Socrates, with a touch more mysticism thrown into the mix, since he was primarily dealing with a strongly religious populace.

  12. Originally posted by JDE

    some lights, for example, will make some p'ups make a noise regardless of how well a guitar is shielded.

    The cheapo Home Depot dimmers (and some expensive systems, as well) create TONS of EMI (ElectroMagnetic Interference).

    Also, flourescents create a 120Hz EMI signal that a guitar amp input can pick up.

    The best way to cure a 60/120Hz hum/buzz is to start by using a better cable, then work towards shielding the electronics cavities on the guitar. A 20-foot guitar cable has more surface aree to pick up radiated EMI noise than everything in your guitar combined.....

    Of course it's also possible that a guitar can have a ground connection loose, thus creating an internal antenna. Even a new, expensive instrument can have a solder joint vibrate loose in shipping.

  13. Originally posted by code_blue

    My dad is a pretty "evil" man, there are times when he seems to treat me like a normal person, but there are others where he literally wants me to die and burn in hell forever. He has lots of issues, and after going through the most extreme verbal abuse you could imagine (from the age of 3 to now at the age of 23) I still turned out a polite person in general (maybe not on the internet) but in real life I have morals so strict that I stand by, you would be surprised at how nice I try to be to your average person. I put myself in the shoes of others often, and have lots of compassion, I would be the nicest person in hell, if hell were to exist.

    I am not looking for sympathy, or to be saved, but I am still wondering why a person that calls their self religious could be so mean (my dad).

    So thats where I get my stereotypes from,

    I can see where this might lead you to a schism.

    Please understand, though, that being a Christian, or devout Jew or Muslim, or an atheist, does not in itself make someone a better or worse person - that's up to each of us individually to decide on a daily basis. Someone could fully believe in Christ, but still choose to do very un-Christian things - does that mean that Christianity is wrong, or that Christ's teachings led him/her to do those things?

    Similarly, an atheist can act in a manner indistinguishable from the teachings of Christ - does that make him a de facto Christian through action?

    My point is this: You can always find good and bad examples of people who adopt any faith or belief system. These examples, though, should not be the basis on which you judge the merits of the system.

    Personally, I think Christ's teachings are extremely valid and relevant. I also wish the televangelists and the so-called 'religious right' would shut up ond go away so that people wouldn't be turned off to the concept of studying the New Testament as a serious treatise on human relations - I believe that they do far more harm than good.

    There's lots of good on both sides of this debate. I just wish for a day when people will be open-minded enough to study BOTH before they make a snap decision based on somebody else's propaganda. I guess I'll be waiting for a long time......

  14. Originally posted by ebrecordings

    [i'm certainly not against Christianity in any way (unless of course it intrudes on my own way of doing things, which it has since my room mate has a church group here every mondays, and they always seem to want to 'talk to me').

    Why is it so bad that people might want to share what they've found?

    If a group of musicians were hanging out and said "Here - listen to this! It ROCKS!", would you be offended if it happened to be a musical style you didn't like? I might say - "No thanks - I'm not into that", but I'd never be offended because someone wants to share something that they find cool or interesting.....

    Yes, there is a fine line between sharing and being holier-than-thou, but I think a lot of non-Christians have decided that they find Christianity itself offensive, which I simply don't understand. Where has tolerance gone?

  15. Originally posted by 17 Tubes

    Actually, that's a good point at this juncture, because it would signify that scientists are actually using a bit of restraint.

    So far, "religion" affords us no such luxury, and what a shame that is.

    Actually, I'd suggest that the REAL researchers and theologians BOTH apply reason and logic to their positions.

    However, it seems that the dimestore physicists (those who only get their info from web searches and loosely remembered college intro courses) and TV evangelists (those who use the shadow of religion for personal gain) try to place everything in absolute terms. This makes it easier for the unthinking masses to accept their diatribes, and allows them the latitude to stake out an all-or-nothing position that defies discussion and dissent. It does not, however, provide any real illumination on the subject matter.

    Funny, but the men & women I know who actually hold doctorates in physics and theology get along quite well and find that they have much in common. Indeed, most of the physicists are quite religious (though perhaps not heavily tied to a particular church), and most of the theologists subscribe to the idea that evolution is our latest description of the physical method God used to create the life forms on our planet.

    I observe that it is primarily those who are very limited in their scope, and thus hold a very black-and-white view of the world, who seem to find this to be a war between competing concepts rather than as a discussion of differing attempts to explain the unknown (and unknowable). Faith and belief in God is not an inherent obstacle to the use of scientific principles to model the systems that make up our world, nor is an understanding of physics (or biology) an impediment to an understanding of Christ's teachings.

  • Create New...