what's the fuss about?

[xspiderfingersx]

roody; i saw this page get bumped up and i forgot to reply to you again!
Yeah i understand where youre coming from, i play big shows quite often with my band and i use high end gear for the most part; but 3k for a head is just plain retarded man! I dont get it! haha

 

[Songman68]

There are possibilities to the modules sounding the same.

1) Amp is turned off
2) Input Cable broken
3) Bad Tubes
4) Bad Speaker
5) Your hearing aid needs batteries

There are probably others but I can't think of anyother quick ones...

FM

Thanks for the valuable information! I never would have thought to turn the amp on. :shock: The things you learn...

I just wanted to state my opinion and I appreciate the thoughtful replies from most of the readers. The comment: "...its got a lot more to do with the player then most of us care to give credit for" is very true.

The MTS isn't for me. You may be very happy with yours and that's great! To each his own. Thanks.

You are free to state your opinion, but if you don't like them then why bother posting here at all?

 

[roodyrocker]

xspiderfingersx; I'm tellin' ya that Uberschall is just brutally beautiful sounding Just palyed it out last saturday night and the amount of killer gain I can get out of it yet have it be dead quiet on stage when not playing is unreal. The tone from that thing just generates tons of compliments which is nice particularly when that comes form a non-guitar player who knows nothing about that amp. It took me a long time to commit to spending that much on an amp and its definetly a keeper for me

 

[joey_truelove]

I got this to say about this thread:

* The samples at Randalls homepage are very limited in terms of span and versatility. Don't let these fool you.
* If it's the same guitar it will sound somewhat similar regardles of the amp you run it into. The character of the guitar will always be there.
* As has been brought up: Egnater modules are the real deal. These may look much like Randall modules, but then Epiphones look much like Gibsons too.
* Brand and type of the valves in the pre-stages are vital. All being of Randalls own choice, that's the Randall sound.
* Power valves does have an impact on sound too, but maybe more so the transformers and power section. The Randall 2/50 will sound like a Randall power-amp, EL-34s or 6L6s used.

A bit of looking into you can have neutral sounding pre-amp valves in your amp, the brand each respective amp-manufacturer used in the modules. Same goes for the power valves, though here valves have to be more versatile. Going to extremes I'd use a Marshall poweramp with the Marshall tones, a Mesa amp with the Rectifier sounds and so on...

 

[motokev]

I have the:
1. TWEED
2. PLEXI
3. TOP BOOST
4. SL+

uhhhh, they sound different

:shock:

 

[LRStrat]

My general impression is that ALL of the MTS preamp modules basically sound the same. [cue gasps, "what the f...?" reactions, etc.] What I mean by this is they all have the same basic tone. They do have various EQ and gain differences but they all basically sound like the same amp. A multi-purpose amp that really sounds like the originals DOES NOT EXIST! If it did, it would cost $10,000 or more and most, if not all, professional guitarists would be using it. Even Marshall and Fender have trouble recreating the sounds of their own vintage amps!

I appreciate Randall's attempt at creating a flexible amplifier but unless a major technological development occurs, it's all in vain. MTS seems to be an over-hyped tube version of digital modeling amps. They may get "close" to the tone but they never really get it.

I had my RM4 out of the box and in 10 minutes I was amazed in the difference in tones between modules!!!
I do have the Mesa ALL TUBE power amp with switch track that I switch between clean and dirty tones.

Unfortunately there is no known cure for tone-deaf-ites

 

[okstrat]

Well heck, let's whip out the 'amps I owned' card then. Here's a list of some of the stuff I've owned: (stuff with a * I still own)

Marshall Plexi (early 70s, sold it when I was kid, what the hell was I thinking?)
'77 Marshall JMP 50 watt head
'83 JCM 800 2203 stock
JCM 800 2203 Voodoo modded
JCM 800 2205
JCM 800 2210 (owned two)
Marshall valvestate (early model like Prong used)
Silver jubilee 50 watt Marshall
JCM900 high gain dual reverb Marshall
VHT Pittbull 50CL (two)
Budda Superdrive 18
THD Univalve
Gretsch 60's combo (no idea, it was small)
Silvertone head and cabinet (2 channel, head fit in the back of cab)
Mesa Mark III
Mesa .50 EL84 (2)
Mesa Dual rectifier (early rev. chassis, SN was in the 200s)
Mesa Dual Rectfier Rackmount (2)
Mesa Single recto
Mesa 5/25 Express head
Mesa .22+ (2)
Fender '58 tweed princeton
Fender '68 Princeton Reverb
Fender '70s champ (2)
Fender '70s Princeton Reverb
Peavey block letter 5150
Line 6 Vetta
Line 6 Flextone III
Line 6 Spider Valve 2x12
*Soldano SLO Clone (2) (still own one of these)
Soldano HR50+
*Matchless Spitfire clone (self built)
*Marshall 18 watt clone (self built, 2) (still own one)
*Trainwreck Express clone (building)
*Trainwreck Liverpool clone
*D'lite 22 (Dumble clone w/22 watt power section)
*Bogner Ecstasy 101B
*Fab Fox (lol)
*Randall RG80
*Randall RM100
*Randall RT2/50 power amp
*Randall RM4
*Randall RM50
*Randall RM20 head
*Randall RM20 combo
*Peavey VTM60 (self modded)

And I'm sure some I forgot. I've been fortunate to experience a lot of amps, and in my opinion, and especially after being modded, the RM series can get more divergent tones than most channel switching heads.

Why?

Most amps that have more than one channel share stages - when you kick in the 'lead' channel, it puts another tube in line with the others and might switch in a different eq. EVERY channel on the RM100 has a totally different signal path other than the first tube. Most channel switching amps don't have this.

In my opinion, even stock, if you played the amp in person, you'd have a tin ear if you thought the blackface sounded like the deluxe or the clean module. Ditto for SL+ vs Plexi, or even Plexi vs Brown.

Again, just my opinion. I get the feeling the original poster was being troll-icious though, most people who toss bombs like this and have only a few posts have a bit of an agenda in mind.

Pete

 

[JKD]

They do have various EQ and gain differences but they all basically sound like the same amp.

I appreciate Randall's attempt at creating a flexible amplifier but unless a major technological development occurs, it's all in vain. MTS seems to be an over-hyped tube version of digital modeling amps. They may get "close" to the tone but they never really get it.

That's really not true...you must have a tin ear or you didn't really explain yourself well.

If you'd said there are a lot of similar sound modules based on Marshall tones, you'd have been closer....but you only have to take a look at the sheer number of modifications that are available for reall Marshalls....people are constantly chasing their (or an improved) version of that tone.

MTS seems to be an over-hyped tube version of digital modeling amps.

The amp sounds nothing like solid state digital modelling....and where is this hype you speak of? It's still kind of an underground thing still that hasn't gained much of a wide audience...as hoping the Hammett stuff would change that but no go so far - apparently the Lynch stuff is outselling it

They may get "close" to the tone but they never really get it.

I think that's a fair comment..without the same variablility in power section they are only going to get close...but I'll take 95%...even 85% for the flexibility the platform offers.