A cabs and heads thread?

[atilla]

I can't count the number of times I've read here that it's important to match a head with the right cabinet. It might be a good idea to pool our knowledge here so we can have a list of cabs and heads that pair up well together. So, if you know a good combination, speak up!

I'll get it started, based on the fairly small number of heads and cabs that I've put rigorously through their paces:

THD Univalve - Avatar 212 with Celestion V30 and G12H30
Carvin MTS - Same
Marshall Silver Jubilee - Marshall 1960A 212 (Pretty sure that's what it is)

That's about all I got. I tend to keep gear a long time and rarely buy new stuff. My Laney AOR100 has never really sounded that great through anything.

[Electric]

I have an ENGL Powerball, and have played through the ENGL Pro and Standard Cabs, a Diezel Front-Loaded cab, a Marshall 1960 Cab, and a Mesa Cab. The ENGL Pro and Diezel sound the best, though I favor the Diezel. The Mesa sounds so-so, and the Marshall sounded the worst with the Powerball.

[Dreamland_Rebel]

while certain heads sound best with certain cabs... the style of sound you are looking to achieve is also a factor to consider.

most modern distortions involve the vintage 30 voicing. while older or classic sounds were achieved with 25w greenbacks or g75t voicings.

also some major amplifier manifacturing companies special order speakers from major speaker manufacturing companies to specific specs, that are based on a common design but custom voiced to better suite that particular companies intended amplifier voicing. Mesa Boogie is a prime example of this.

the equations is still the same. You + eq1 (guitar) + eq2 (amp) + eq3 (cab) = your tone.

[slash]

while certain heads sound best with certain cabs... the style of sound you are looking to achieve is also a factor to consider.

most modern distortions involve the vintage 30 voicing. while older or classic sounds were achieved with 25w greenbacks or g75t voicings.

also some major amplifier manifacturing companies special order speakers from major speaker manufacturing companies to specific specs, that are based on a common design but custom voiced to better suite that particular companies intended amplifier voicing. Mesa Boogie is a prime example of this.

the equations is still the same. You + eq1 (guitar) + eq2 (amp) + eq3 (cab) = your tone.

Nicely said

[jgcable]

the 2 most amp friendly cab selections IMHO are

Marshall 1960A or B with Vin 30's

Marshall 1960A or B with T75's

[markD]

just give my amps a cab with EVM12L speakers and they sound great. more than ANY other factor (guitar included), as long as i am playing through EVM12L series II speakers, i can get MY tone. i have a couple of EV's that were OEM for mesa/boogie, and they are ok in an "emergency" type situation, but they still sound and feel different than the ones actually from EV. the new "black label" EVM's are different too. that's why i search ebay and buy up the old ones whenever i can....

oh, and i put the EVM's in open back cabs.

so, what i have found makes for GREAT tone combos are:

JCM800 2204 -> marshall 1960 with the back cut in half, loaded with EVM12L speakers (weighs about 600 lbs.)

mesa/boogie MKIV -> mesa half back 4x12 loaded with EVM12L speakers (weighs about 699lbs.)

blackface fender tremoulx -> fender bandmaster 2x12 loaded with JBL G12S speakers (weighs about 400 lbs.)

silver face fender bassman 100 -> ANY of the above cabs

rivera M100 1x12 -> combo loaded with EVM12L (came factory with a celestion 75 - YUCK)

rivera M100 head -> rivera cab loaded with EVM12L

rivera S120 -> rivera cabs loaded with....hahahaha, you SHOULD know by now

i really don't like the speaker to be a part of the distortion, which is WHY i use the EV. a 4x12 loaded with those speakers has an 800 watt handling - program, NOT peaked. they peak at a 1200 watt load!!! the sound stays MASSIVE even when the amp is cranked. with the JBL's i use with the fender, those have a 300 watt power rating EACH, so that bandmaster 2x12 can take up to 600 watts program. the JBL is voiced VERY differently than the EV - much brighter and WAY better for clean sounds, whereas the EV is a darker speaker.

these days, i DO use a mesa recto 2x12 (with the back cut in half) loaded with vintage 30's - but ONLY in conjunction with a pair of EV loaded cabs. it helps "thin out" my sound because my bassist plays with a VERY clean, piano-like tone using 2x10's and an 18. my singer had a HARD time cutting through the sound, so i added the mesa, and now she has a PERFECT place in the mix for her voice - which is a little low for a woman.

i use half back or open back cabinets because i find the room fills better when the sound can "vent" itself. being a one guitar band - and i always have been the only guitarist in every band i have played in - i NEED my sound to fill the stage or the room. when i was playing closed back cabs, i'd find that my sound was VERY directional and sounded more "brittle" the further you get away from the cab. plus, i don't care if i have a "tight" bass sound coming from the cab, because it is the bassist's job to fill the low end. my job is to provide the mids and SOME highs...to fill the sonic gap between the drums and bass musically - WHILE allowing the vocalist a place to rest AND be heard clearly.

my band approaches sonics like a painting. most painting have a background, a foreground and a focal point. we mix (live and on CD) with the drums as the backgound (duh) the bass and guitars about equal as the foreground (duh again) and the vocals as the focal point (triple duh). BUT, it is easier said than done. MOST people BELIEVE that is the case, but don't allow the sonics of each instrument the proper place in the "painting".

yikes, this turned into a novel. sorry peoples. i just get excited about this. i have spent YEARS working on it....

[DonP]

Marshall Silver Jubilee - Marshall 1960A 212 (Pretty sure that's what it is)

FYI a Marshall 1960A is a slanted 4x12.

[Endrik]

my band approaches sonics like a painting. most painting have a background, a foreground and a focal point. we mix (live and on CD) with the drums as the backgound (duh) the bass and guitars about equal as the foreground (duh again) and the vocals as the focal point (triple duh). BUT, it is easier said than done. MOST people BELIEVE that is the case, but don't allow the sonics of each instrument the proper place in the "painting".

yikes, this turned into a novel. sorry peoples. i just get excited about this. i have spent YEARS working on it....

real artists, producers, engineers etc. think about the elements of music as coulours too.... Jimi Hendrix only spoke about the colours he imagined in his head... he didn't spoke about technical terms and whatnot.
but these days it's more like... "hey I want the guitar sound like this album has... I want that album's snare sound" etc.
and no wonder when you listen to non really hi-budget rock or metal recordings you get kick drums which are tuned as high as the snare... buried bass which doesn't have any juice in the tone... and sterile sounding guitars which are dominating everything.
very few are doing albums like Miles Davis... putting together all the right colours while everyone gives their maximum (artistic) effort and not rely on studio magic.

[markD]

totally. i am mixing my band's latest album, and it has taken me forever to find a good snare that rests in the mix properly. the snare we recorded sounded great in the room while tracking, but now that everything is in mix mode, and delays, reverbs, and effects have been blended in, that snare sounds HORRIBLE. so, i have spent the last week going through snare drums and finding one that can have the presence needed without dominating.

speaking of colors, that is one of the reasons i REFUSE to record on a computer. i use a digital recorder and the drums are triggered, but ALL the effects are older outboard processors. the compressors are analog. the mixer is analog. the guitars and bass are recorded the old fashioned way with close AND room mics, then blended. there is NO editing in the computer. if it can't be played live then the band hasn't praticed enough.

going back to the thread topic, endrik is SO right. we chase certain "tones" and once we get them we don't often think about HOW those tones fit in a mix with the WHOLE band. lately, i have been seeing A LOT of threads about marshall amps. those amps sound great in a mix. my rivera's are a good mix between hot-rodded marshall and an early MK series boogie....two amps that are timeless.

often a great guitar tone sounds like ASS alone, but KILLER within the band context.

this is a cool thread, because like dreamland rebel stated, each piece is an EQ, and if EQ'd properly EVERYTHING will work....

[thetroy]

if it can't be played live then the band hasn't praticed enough.

By that logic pretty much every band in the world hasn't practiced enough.

You really just record one guitar track and one vocal track? I would be amazed if that's the case.

[atilla]

FYI a Marshall 1960A is a slanted 4x12.

Thanks, DonP. I'll see if I can remember what the proper name was and I'll edit it here.

[atilla]

... because like dreamland rebel stated, each piece is an EQ, and if EQ'd properly EVERYTHING will work....

Mark, that's an interesting point. It's something the other guitarist in my band and I think about quite a bit - how our tones interact and stay seperate from each other. He's a mahogany-guitar sort of guy, where I favor swamp ash. I play with more gain, and EQ brighter. And there's that really important point - on its own, your tone might sound great ... but get it in the band context, and it might not work that well. Vice-versa, too.

This makes me think of all those two-guitar bands, where both are plugging their PRSs into Mesas and creating mud.

[toejam]

and no wonder when you listen to non really hi-budget rock or metal recordings you get kick drums which are tuned as high as the snare... buried bass which doesn't have any juice in the tone... and sterile sounding guitars which are dominating everything.

You just described Metallica's Justice album.

[Endrik]

By that logic pretty much every band in the world hasn't practiced enough.

You really just record one guitar track and one vocal track? I would be amazed if that's the case.

that was the case before pro tools for real bands.... bands/players who couldn't play well enough (Lars Ulrich) they manually cut and paste the 2" tape using a razor blade.
you had to play the whole song in... if you fucked it up... you had to start all over again... many bands also played songs in live... all the instruments together... that was a great way for creating an interaction between the band members... that's how you got the real vibe to the recordings.
That's how Miles Davis recorded... he said to the other musicians that they only get one take (they all played together and mostly everything was improvised) making everyone to give their absolute best.

There's still some people who go old-school, but not much. Everyone's so lazy these days that it sucks all the life out of music.

[thetroy]

I was talking mainly about multiple tracks being played simultaneously, not multiple takes forming one single track.

Meaning if markD is in a one-guitar band then he can never have rhythms under leads, no harmonies anywhere, nothing but one single guitar playing at any one time.