The 6550 Experience

[bill bokey]

I agree, the recording has to be an important part of the tone. The drums on the Live @ Fillmore East sound nothing like the BOG record. I think I read whoever recorded (or mixed) the Woodstock gig was alos involved in the recording (or mixing) of BOG.
Is there any ifo on the gear used ? mic, console, tape ? All my clips were recorded with a Beyer M160 and a Suder 169 preamp but I'll try different setup next time

[shakti]

Agree 100% about the recording itself. I am invariably disappointed by any recordings I attempt to make, they just don't sound like what I hear in the room anyway. So I am slowly accepting the fact that I may never be able to get a sound clip together that sounds like the real deal. There are just way too many factors that matter. What I am concentrating on, is getting the amp set up so that it *responds* as close as possible to what I hear in the original recordings.

This is my only complaint about all the sound clips I've heard so far, excellent as they all are (C J H's latest, terrific clip included) - I want to hear the whole range of BOG sounds, fuzz and no fuzz, vibe and no vibe, Octavio and no Octavio, all pickup positions, throughout the range of the guitar volume control. Even if what you capture in a recording doesn't sound quite like BOG, I think if you reveal how the amp responds to all those variables, and it gets close enough to BOG, then you have a winner. I've heard lots of clips over the years that capture one specific tone fairly well, but not one that easily captures all the subtle nuances.

[C J H]

Again, thanks for all the compliments.

I still think that shakti and Billy Batz are on the right track here; on the BOG recordings alot of the magic is in the room and micing. One could even go as far as saying that if you were there on that second show on new years day 1970 (with "tonesensitive" ears.. ) you would not have heard it the exact same way as you hear it on the tapes. I guess if budget wasnt an issue Daves idea of hauling gear to the actual loactions would be cool. Would atleast make for a reality-TVshow actually worth watching (.. and hearing).

"This summer on NBC: 20 guitarists, 20 rigs, 1 location..."
Hehe.

Shakti, as far as ampresponse goes I notice two apparent things (there are of course many more) that make this amp behave differently than what Im hearing on the BOG tapes. First is a different, "softer" bass response and a tad of ghosting due to the lower filtering than what a later 1959/1992 head would have. Bass response and overall "flatter" feeling could also be affected by the absence of a mixercap I guess? I wont change the filtering but could jam a mixercap in there and play around with brightcapvalues as per your recommendation.

Another thing not shining through in my clip the way it usually does is the Octavio. Sounds a bit weak and not as sparkly. Either the battery is going flat or I set the level to low.

Anyway next time I´ll try some riffs with just amp, with fuzz, with vibe and so on.

BTW, as far as "machine gun" goes, this is one of my favourites;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kvTxfUmiBxY
Those cleans in the intro just kills me. Too bad this isnt available in better quality, to my knowledge anyway.

[Xplorer]

I agree, the record has some effect but at some point, this effect has some limits and you can still figure things and narrow down the DNA and quite a few things more. Especialy when there are 4 or 5 different recording versions of machine gun from the special night. one of the most interesting is this one that Carlygtr shared earlier, here, very different, unmixed i think, so directly from the theater acoustic. it tells a lot about the tone , please hear again :

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B9SHlV ... sp=sharing

and this one, lower quality, but real bootleg feel ( and there are some more variants ) :

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B9SHlV ... sp=sharing

if you listen you'll also notice some parts on "changes" that were cut on the final mix. same thing occurs on "gotta live together" from some other recordings i have, hear, this is quite a unique recording version, straight from the cab, then from the audience :

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B9SHlV ... sp=sharing

one more thing , please hear how the final mix is different from the audience recording : almost a semi tone below !

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B9SHlV ... sp=sharing

i think that what comes clearly out of it is that ( we can't be sure why, we can't conclude on this ) is that the DNA this night was different of the others, not just because of the recording.
Now, our home made recording will off course make a difference of result, but we should still be able to tell if the right DNA is there or not. And what counts mainly is that it pleases our ears , which all vary from one to the other.
I agree, getting all or most of the various shades of tones would be an interesting quest. We can still work on this despite the variations of recordings.

This while here in Paris ( sorry to be a tad political ) , 12 persons , most of them very famous, and working in an iconic humourous newspaper called Charlie Hebdo were assassinated by Al Quaïda crazy guys just a few hours ago, with ... machine guns .
an attempt to destroy the freedom of expression and charlie Hebdo who did drawings they didn't like.
the country is under the chock. it's a district of paris where i go very often and it feels terrible. and double pain since now a lot of stupid folks do a confusion between muslim and integrist islamism, pleasing the far right.
Damn, Jimi, what you did against war with this jewel certainly applys in this case too .
our thoughts go to the familys.

about the locations , the Fillmore east was unfortunately destroyed a while ago.
btw this Oklahoma is always great to hear, fantastic version, thanks for sharing.

[C J H]

Read about what took place in Paris today, horrible is the only thing that comes to mind. At these times it feels like where ever you are not many days pass without a harsh reminder the f-cked up place our world has become.

Leaving politics and on to your clips; How do you mean we should conclude that there is "different DNA" going on? By my understanding even a mic right on the grillcloth is gonna be affected by the room the amp is in, since this affects how "big" the sound is and how long it takes before soundreflections come back to the mic? Not to mention how different mics and preamps affect tone/sound. What I can say relative to my own clips and these recordings is that I definitely have the amp set to clean for BOG-tones.

NOT saying that you are wrong Xplorer, just trying to clarify, not least for myself, how recording equipment affect and "colour" the tone of amps and instruments so that we all continue the search from a somewhat unified ground.

I remember seeing some pics in the other west coast thread showing mics just hanging by the lead in front of the cabs.. the lead itself held in place in between the cabs and the amp and the top cab. Did I dream, if not, was this from BOG?

Pics showing if we are talking about dynamic or condensator mics and a rough idea where, relative to the speakers, these are directed, should narrow down our search considerably.

[Xplorer]

How do you mean we should conclude that there is "different DNA" going on? By my understanding even a mic right on the grillcloth is gonna be affected by the room the amp is in, since this affects how "big" the sound is and how long it takes before soundreflections come back to the mic? Not to mention how different mics and preamps affect tone/sound. What I can say relative to my own clips and these recordings is that I definitely have the amp set to clean for BOG-tones.

i just want to say, precisely, that as you can hear in the various bog recordings of the same night , all with different mics , mic positions, from bootleg quality to final mix, through console recording, there's something constant, what i'd call the DNA. And this DNA isn't the same as what we can hear from the various other recording versions of the other nights, which also show something constant, different, despite the various recording methods and mics and mic placement etc.

this DNA could be just about a variation from the fuzz, anything, but what has been captured is constant , from one recording version to another, of the same song. just heard through various filters, but still here.
if you hear the clips, you'll certainly hear that. and if you compare it to the other nights various record versions, you'll notice something different, behind all the various colorations coming from the various recordings.

this said, i think that despite the different acoustic that we have, the different mics, mic placement, different coloration etc ... we can still recognize something particular which doesn't depend on the recording coloration. what we recognize is either close or far from the Hendrix records.


in other words, it's like to recognize a fender or a marshall , through various recording versions, coming from various mics, various tape, mic placement, room, etc etc ... behind all these colorations, you can still notice something. and that's the thing which does this bog tone, that you can still hear through various colorations, because yes, recording, room etc, affect and color what they capture, off course.

[daveweyer]

Even with all those differences, doesn't the basic sound of the amp/guitar shine through?
You can do a lot of coloring, EQ, effects, mics, rooms, etc, but there still seems to be a very identifiable "sound generator" which the ear easily recognizes; it's somehow able to subtract all that other stuff to know the genuine thing.
Probably an age old trait for recognizing certain dangerous sounds in the jungle-- in spite of numerous changed circumstances, background noise, hills and valleys, etc.
Wouldn't you say?

[Xplorer]

Exactly

[daveweyer]

CJH, those clean tones at the beginning are amazing, huge dynamics, set off by a lot of room sound. That's how my mind hears 6550 power, what else gets that clean and dynamic?

[C J H]

Dave; funny you should say that since that Norman, Oklahoma recording was what got me onto 6550s in the first place.

Of course the amp and guitar and effects will shine through. Haha, I think I need to clarify what Im trying to say here..

Xplorer, I think we are trying to say the same thing but from a different approach and therefor confusing each others points. What I am trying to say, not definitely, rather my hunch is; the BOG sound and its uniqueness is not due to a special amp or fuzz or something that Jimi used that night. In comparison with other recordings I feel the uniqueness of the BOG recordings is mainly contributed by the room and the recording gear/technique.

Listen to this little mix:
https://soundcloud.com/pippo1448/mg-comparision

Its the intro from Machinegun from all 4 BOG shows (in chronological order) and then May 30th 1st show from Berkeley at the end. As far as recording roughness goes compare 1st BOG show with the berkeley clip, about the same to my ears. As for amp tones; I hear alot of similiarities between 4th BOG show and that Berkeley clip BUT; the way the "reverb" comes through is way different. Berkeley sounds almost like its outside while BOG is more distinct with tighter lows and brighter highs?

So in short, my hunch: a shared cathode 1959 with filtering ala late plexis, 6550s in class B will get close enough ampwise for a basis to Jimis 1970 tone, finetuning lies in different NFB, V2 cap, brightcaps 12at7 and so on. However these last ones are "nuancing" while the factor of the room and micing can change the tone ALOT. My hunch that is whats adding alot of the "special BOG magic" compared to other 1970 shows. Are you with me on this Xplorer?

In other news; micing of the lower cab looks like a sm57ish angled at the middle of the cab, top cab looks like it has a larger typ mic (prob a condenser) at the top left speaker but its really har to distinguish from Buddys´drummics. I dont know how was the engineer on location but Eddie Kramer did the mastering for the album?

[Xplorer]

Xplorer, I think we are trying to say the same thing but from a different approach and therefor confusing each others points. What I am trying to say, not definitely, rather my hunch is; the BOG sound and its uniqueness is not due to a special amp or fuzz or something that Jimi used that night. In comparison with other recordings I feel the uniqueness of the BOG recordings is mainly contributed by the room and the recording gear/technique.

well, this is exactly the opposite of what i'm trying to say

[Xplorer]

Its the intro from Machinegun from all 4 BOG shows (in chronological order) and then May 30th 1st show from Berkeley at the end. As far as recording roughness goes compare 1st BOG show with the berkeley clip, about the same to my ears. As for amp tones; I hear alot of similiarities between 4th BOG show and that Berkeley clip BUT; the way the "reverb" comes through is way different. Berkeley sounds almost like its outside while BOG is more distinct with tighter lows and brighter highs?

interesting clip to compare things, nice !
this may help show that we're not talking about the same thing. i hear a big difference between the main bog concert and these Berkeley versions, although they have a lot in common. i don't attribute that to the room and recording, i'm hearing a different DNA. BUT , it could be the same amp anyway, west coast mod. Maybe just a variation of fuzz , affecting the DNA, i'd focus more on that than the room or mics.

[C J H]

Haha, well atleast we cleared that up. As I said Im not claiming whats right or wrong, just trying to establish what different approaches we are discussing.

When I have the time Ill redo the reverbmix on my clips as it is way too "far back" or wet now, compared to what I hear on BOG. I started, but not perfect yet. The point would be to have a "filter" to apply to try to replicate the room and depth of BOG or Fillmore if you will (applicable to the room and mics Im recording with). Keyword; TRY. Im no Eddie Kramer..

But I guess this would make it easier to establish if changes to the amp, speakers, fuzz and so on (DNA, hehe) brings me closer or further to the specific BOG sound. Well see how it turns out.

And just to clear it up, that comparison clip is (in order);
1st show BOG (dec 31st 69)
2nd show BOG (dec 31st 69)
1st show BOG (jan 1st 70)
2nd show BOG (jan 1st 70)
1st show Berkeley (may 30th 70)

EDIT:
Bill Bokey, yell if you feel we are steering this too far from the 6550 discussion and Ill put up a new thread.

[Xplorer]

Haha, well atleast we cleared that up. As I said Im not claiming whats right or wrong, just trying to establish what different approaches we are discussing.

sure, me too

this would still link a lot with this 6550 thread anyway, if it's about the 6550 amp in various conditions.

one more thing that makes me personnaly think that it's more about the fuzz or something else rather than the acoustic, room, recording, is that the other machine gun versions from the Fillmore east , sound more like Berkeley and the examples you've shown, although it's been recorded in the same room.

this could lead to : how the west coast amp 6550 ( it looks a lot like this one although the 45/100 gets there too, with a slight difference ) reacts , under various conditions.

[shakti]

Just a thought:

there were three full stacks in use at BOG. Does anyone honestly believe that all three amps were switched between the two nights? And if only one amp was switched; how much of an effect would that have on the overall sound? Just in relation to this talk about the amp DNA and all.

I haven't been able to listen to the mix clips just posted, will do when I find the time. And while I hear some differences in tone between the shows, I'm not consistently able to say which songs/performances are from which night in a "blind" test. Also, some songs seem to have been played with a fuzz on one night, and without a fuzz on others, especially the songs with cleaner sounds and no need for full on fuzz.

All that said; I agree that there is a difference, and that most of the best tones are from the second night. But is it simply a matter of setting the amp differently? Or a different fuzz?