8,720
edits
Changes
m
no edit summary
However, BBE fails to go into detail on what exactly the product does to fix this outside of generalizations such as their description of the problem above, and what to expect when using the products. Many perceive no difference in tone unless dialing up the low contour and process controls, which reduce relative midrange frequencies and make guitars more difficult to hear in a mix. So what's actually going on? [http://jvmforum.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=15&t=6146 Here is an excellent analysis of the ''Sonic Maximizer's'' circuit on jvmforum.com.]
''Essentially, BBE's claims about what their device does are true''. There is phase shifting that varies on frequency from 20 - 20,000 hZ Hz and group delay that gets progressively larger - ~2.4 ms at 40 hZ Hz to ~0.4 ms at 400 hZHz. These are fixed values - they are not changed by the variable low contour or process controls, and they are no dynamically reactive to the nature of the input signal. ''However, I have yet to read a single post or find a single audio clip where any of this makes a perceivable difference to the listener.'' The only audible changes that are noticed are when the unit has "low contour" or "process" set off of 0 (fully counter-clockwise). And in that case it is simple EQ - and one that is always increasing the volume of bass and treble, making the tone sound more "hi-fi" or modern, which is usually unnecessary or detrimental to a guitar tone.
'''Bottom line: A BBE ''Sonic Maxmimizer'' is likely no more influential to your guitar tone than a simple EQ with bass and treble controls. While BBE's claims about what its product is doing are true, they are impercievable, at least for guitar applications.'''
Furthermore, the ''Sonic Maximizer'' is not the only device that performs similar phase shifting or group delay. Thus, it may be "overcompensating" or "undercompensating"; and there is no way to adjust this. Even if there was, you would have to analyze every piece of your signal chain to know the "correct" value; and BBE would have to provide the technical details of how their product works for you to dial it in. It seems they are instead content to keep the device shrouded in mystique and hype, perhaps hoping to fool gullible customers who don't take the time to really test their claims into believing they are improving their tone.
I have personally owned the ''Sonic Stomp'' pedal, and I found it to be useless for guitar applications. For reference, the Low Contour control's EQ is centered around 50 hZ Hz and the Process's around 5 khZkHz.
== Peavey 5150 Block Letter (Mk 1) vs. Later Models ==
The first version of the Peavey ''5150'' featured the letters "EVH" in a block-letter style on the right side of the control panel near the power and standby switches. Later models feature Eddie Van Halen's signature in the same location, known as the script version. Many believed that the circuit was changed in between versions, and the first version had a better tone.
Actually, the block letter version has the same circuit as later versions; however, the tonal difference is real, if slight, due to Peavey including different power tubes in the first version. This difference is moot by this point, as all such amps have more than likely been retubed, and those with remaining original tubes probably need to be retubed.
The ''5150 II'' is the same amp as the ''5150'', but with an extra pre-amp tube to add headroom for the clean channel. While the lead channel's circuit should be identical to the ''5150'', there could be different impedance differences that change the tone slightly.
After Eddie Van Halen quit his Peavey endorsement, the 5150 name reverted to him, and Peavey changed the ''5150'' to ''6505'' and ''5150 II'' to ''6505+''. To make matters more complicated, Peavey continued to expand the line with the ''6534+'', which is a ''6505+''/''5150 II'', but with EL34 power tubes instead of 6L6. Meanwhile Eddie founded his own EVH brand, which released the ''5150 III'', manufactured by Fender. This is a 3-channel amp with a different design, although bearing large similarities to the ''5150 II''. Some refer to the ''5150 II'' as "5152" and ''5150 III'' as "5153", making things more confusing.
{{top}}
{{Tone Crumbs|5}}