All this VHT talk. Sig-X versus UL.

[Moloch]

I traded my Engl Savage120 for a SigX and I'm not happy with the switch:\

I was attracted by the flexibility of the amp more than anything. The best video's I could find seemed to have a pretty good tone, and the name/reputation of the amp was there, so I figured I'd give it a shot. My engl was bought in Japan anyways, so I had to run it through an external transformer, there was a broken knob and some damage to the tolex...so I really just needed to get rid of the thing anyways and I was having NO luck selling it.

But as it turns out, I just really love that Engl tone (Engl & Peavey...I'll swear by both of them for getting MY sound). The SigX does seem to be VERY versatile. The clean channel is awesome, the crunch channel is very close to what I want (so far though no crunch has been better to me than the XXX crunch) and the lead channel stands up pretty well also. But every one of the channels seem to be lacking 'something' for me. Now, I'd probably feel a lot different about it if I could play it at high volumes on a regular basis. The few times I was able to crank the thing I loved the way it kicked the bass around. But there's just something about the tonal character of the gain that I just don't like.

I'm also not a huge fan of the way they set up the gain controls. I don't want my gain to directly affect my eq, it just makes it harder for me to get it where I want it.

I dunno, the SigX seems like a great amp, but it doesn't suit my tastes at all. I'm selling it and getting myself an Engl E530 and a Rocktron Velocity 150 for now.

 

[yngzaklynch]

 

[thiswaythatway]

I traded my Engl Savage120 for a SigX and I'm not happy with the switch:\

I was attracted by the flexibility of the amp more than anything. The best video's I could find seemed to have a pretty good tone, and the name/reputation of the amp was there, so I figured I'd give it a shot. My engl was bought in Japan anyways, so I had to run it through an external transformer, there was a broken knob and some damage to the tolex...so I really just needed to get rid of the thing anyways and I was having NO luck selling it.

But as it turns out, I just really love that Engl tone (Engl & Peavey...I'll swear by both of them for getting MY sound). The SigX does seem to be VERY versatile. The clean channel is awesome, the crunch channel is very close to what I want (so far though no crunch has been better to me than the XXX crunch) and the lead channel stands up pretty well also. But every one of the channels seem to be lacking 'something' for me. Now, I'd probably feel a lot different about it if I could play it at high volumes on a regular basis. The few times I was able to crank the thing I loved the way it kicked the bass around. But there's just something about the tonal character of the gain that I just don't like.

I'm also not a huge fan of the way they set up the gain controls. I don't want my gain to directly affect my eq, it just makes it harder for me to get it where I want it.

I dunno, the SigX seems like a great amp, but it doesn't suit my tastes at all. I'm selling it and getting myself an Engl E530 and a Rocktron Velocity 150 for now.

For some guys the VHT tone just doens't work. Engl's will have more saturation and an easier feel to playing it.

 

[Robotechnology]

A U-L sounds better at low volume than a Sig:X

I've had a U-L for a few years now and had a Sig:X a year ago for a few months. Good amp but, I liked the U-L more. So I sold the Sig:X There is nothing not to like about it though. The Sig:X sounds thicker and saturates clearer than most amps out there. What they go for use make them no brainer amp purchases!

They are different but, not different enough to keep both at the same time. I do have a youtube vid of it:

 

[PeteLaramee]

I had 3 different ULs (and 2 Classics) and I had a Sig X. The sig is like a Deliverance, but much more versatile. I liked the UL better. The sig has the second gain control which also acts as a voicing knob. So if you turn up that gain it also adjusts the voicing. I liked the voicing with the 2nd gain around 10 o'clock (and the 1st gain pegged), but it still didn't have the gain I craved. When I turned up that second gain it changed the voicing too much.

 

[yngzaklynch]

You know that doesn't sound like a whole lotta gain to me

A U-L sounds better at low volume than a Sig:X

I've had a U-L for a few years now and had a Sig:X a year ago for a few months. Good amp but, I liked the U-L more. So I sold the Sig:X There is nothing not to like about it though. The Sig:X sounds thicker and saturates clearer than most amps out there. What they go for use make them no brainer amp purchases!

They are different but, not different enough to keep both at the same time. I do have a youtube vid of it:

 

[Gainfreak]

Correct me if I'm wrong but I remember A lot of guys having problems with the sig x. With that said, Ive played it and I thought it was ok.

 

[stratotone]

Correct me if I'm wrong but I remember A lot of guys having problems with the sig x. With that said, Ive played it and I thought it was ok.

I think the first batch was troublesome overall. That's what scared me off when they first came out. Seemed like there were a lot of issues.

Pete

 

[gibson5413]

I traded my Engl Savage120 for a SigX and I'm not happy with the switch:\

I was attracted by the flexibility of the amp more than anything. The best video's I could find seemed to have a pretty good tone, and the name/reputation of the amp was there, so I figured I'd give it a shot. My engl was bought in Japan anyways, so I had to run it through an external transformer, there was a broken knob and some damage to the tolex...so I really just needed to get rid of the thing anyways and I was having NO luck selling it.

But as it turns out, I just really love that Engl tone (Engl & Peavey...I'll swear by both of them for getting MY sound). The SigX does seem to be VERY versatile. The clean channel is awesome, the crunch channel is very close to what I want (so far though no crunch has been better to me than the XXX crunch) and the lead channel stands up pretty well also. But every one of the channels seem to be lacking 'something' for me. Now, I'd probably feel a lot different about it if I could play it at high volumes on a regular basis. The few times I was able to crank the thing I loved the way it kicked the bass around. But there's just something about the tonal character of the gain that I just don't like.

I'm also not a huge fan of the way they set up the gain controls. I don't want my gain to directly affect my eq, it just makes it harder for me to get it where I want it.

I dunno, the SigX seems like a great amp, but it doesn't suit my tastes at all. I'm selling it and getting myself an Engl E530 and a Rocktron Velocity 150 for now.

For some guys the VHT tone just doens't work. Engl's will have more saturation and an easier feel to playing it.

I owned an Engl Powerball, SE EL34 and a CLX. I would take the CLX every time over the Engl. People mistake the the word sterile for clean IMO. There is a lot of gain but it is clean and not super saturated. I played at bedroom volumes with no problems at all. Ultimately I wanted a different tone (went with a Mark IV and liked it best for my needs). I wouldn't hesitate owning another VHT/Fryette CLX at all. I miss it.

Here are some clips at low volume (from a couple of years ago

Unboosted clips

Boosted with Maxon OD9 (the Killswitch tune was recorded at a higher volume than the other clips)

 

[Gainfreak]

Correct me if I'm wrong but I remember A lot of guys having problems with the sig x. With that said, Ive played it and I thought it was ok.

I think the first batch was troublesome overall. That's what scared me off when they first came out. Seemed like there were a lot of issues.

Pete

yeah, I remember hearing that and that's why I mentioned it!

 

[bstaley]

UL is a flagship amp, and 4 kt-88's is a deferent ball game that than 2 kt-88's.

even though they're claiming 90 or 100watts with the Sig, it's just not the same feel.


the Sig or even an Elmwood M90 feel and play more like a 50 or 60watt amp, than they do a 100 or 120watt amp.

Bro my Elmwood M90 was loud as F$^k. I took it over to bstaleys house and believe me that thing didn't lack volume or tightness. Thick as hell to.

I haven't played the UL but I can assure you the Elmwood played like no 50watt amp. It was a beast. Thick, tight and LOUD!!!

 

[stephen sawall]

Correct me if I'm wrong but I remember A lot of guys having problems with the sig x. With that said, Ive played it and I thought it was ok.

I think the first batch was troublesome overall. That's what scared me off when they first came out. Seemed like there were a lot of issues.

Pete

yeah, I remember hearing that and that's why I mentioned it!

The problem was with one resistor near one of the preamp tubes. Several of the first batch had this problem. Since then nothing else.
Other than that I have heard of nothing.

 

[stephen sawall]

So, does the Sig-X do low volumes well?

Yeah this is a big issue for me to. I have little ones so...

I use my Sig X at TV volumes often and like the results I get. I set it up a lot different than when I am playing with a band.

 

[stephen sawall]

You know that doesn't sound like a whole lotta gain to me

I would say on the lead channel it is in the same ball park as a Mesa Mark amp .... give or take a bit.

 

[stephen sawall]

I'm also not a huge fan of the way they set up the gain controls. I don't want my gain to directly affect my eq, it just makes it harder for me to get it where I want it.

If you check it out you well find all amps do this. Some do it more than others. For me this works great for shaping the sound. The gain, master, etc on all amps effect the EQ.

 

[nbarts]

A U-L sounds better at low volume than a Sig:X

I've had a U-L for a few years now and had a Sig:X a year ago for a few months. Good amp but, I liked the U-L more. So I sold the Sig:X There is nothing not to like about it though. The Sig:X sounds thicker and saturates clearer than most amps out there. What they go for use make them no brainer amp purchases!

They are different but, not different enough to keep both at the same time. I do have a youtube vid of it:

Awesome demo! Finally someone who doesn't dial in a shitload of gain. Kinda makes me wanna try one, nice rough midrange. I wish I had time for it.

 

[Moloch]

I'm also not a huge fan of the way they set up the gain controls. I don't want my gain to directly affect my eq, it just makes it harder for me to get it where I want it.

If you check it out you well find all amps do this. Some do it more than others. For me this works great for shaping the sound. The gain, master, etc on all amps effect the EQ.

Not like the sigX, I don't believe so anyways. Sure the gain & whatnot is going to affect the actual tone on any amp. But I think the sigX is actually set up to specifically alter x/y/z (frequencies) when a/b/c (gain1/2) is at whatever position.

I dunno, I just didn't like it. Today I'm ordering a new preamp for myself, probably the e530

 

[stephen sawall]

Every amp I have ever seen shifts the tones from upper midrange to lower midrange as the gain is turn up in the preamp. Some it is a lot more apparent than others.

If you go look at this manual of the of the Dual Rectifier on page 3 of the manual under "controls" and "gain" you well see it pretty much has the same description of how it changes the balance of tone. I have never seen a amp that does not do this.

http://www.mesaboogie.com/manuals/2chRecto.pdf

"1) By itself the GAIN Control has basically three tonal regions -

Low ( 7:00 - 11:00 ) provides the cleanest, least saturated sounds and in this region the sound will be brighter and contain more upper harmonics lending a three dimensional character to the sound.

Middle ( 11:15 - 2:00 ) enhances the saturation and replaces some of the upper harmonics with a richer, warmer quality and a fuller bottom end response. Not yet fully saturated, this region is the easiest place to get a great sound in both channels. This region contains many of the RECTO’S best sounds...especially for soloing due to the crucial blend of an expressive attack combined with ample sustain.

High ( 2:15 - 5:00 ) saturates the signal and enhances low and low mid frequencies. While this region provides the maximum saturation and therefore sustain, if also compresses and softens the attack characteristics. For this reason we suggest using this higher region of the GAIN Control sparingly and only when maximum sustain is needed."

Here is the one for the Sig X where it talks about "Gain I" on the lead and rhythm channel.

http://www.sfdamp.com/manuals/SigX_SFD.pdf

"Gain I - Increases the gain and saturation amount as you rotate the knob clockwise. As the gain increases the tonal balance is shifted from a treble and upper mid emphasis, which produces a up front sparkling tone, to a lower mid and bass emphasis, which produces a thick meaty tone."

No amp is for everyone ..... we all have different taste.
Cool preamp you are getting.