ob1clyde
Member
what was the verdict here reza? you pick anything up?
sleewell2
New member
How on earth can you not get the sig x to stay clean?? Huge amount of user error or bad tubes right there.
That amp has tons of clean headroom. Crystal clear at VERY loud volumes, just dial it in, it's very easy. It's so quick and peppy too, just stays right out in front of a mix.
That amp has tons of clean headroom. Crystal clear at VERY loud volumes, just dial it in, it's very easy. It's so quick and peppy too, just stays right out in front of a mix.
stephen sawall
SEMI ERECT MEMBER
Some of the people who had difficult time with cleans it was the settings they used and the other gear they were using with the amp. I had no problem getting extremely clean louder than I would play any gig.
Fryette amps are absolutely tighter in the bass than Mesa, Engl, Diezel or about any other amp. Taste is subjective.
Fryette amps are absolutely tighter in the bass than Mesa, Engl, Diezel or about any other amp. Taste is subjective.
7 Stringer
Well-known member
sleewell2":367oscld said:
Yup, I had one of the best cleans I ever had with the Sig. Plenty of headroom. Very bell like and snappy. Or I could dial in a very fat and smooth clean too. One of the Sig X strong points is the cleans,IMO. Well, the whole amp is a strong point, I looooved it. Still have my UL though, and that ain't going nowhere.
The Sig X controls respond like no other amp I ever tried, it can do anything. Cleans on every channel,if you want.
Damn, gotta run.
Chris
ob1clyde
Member
To my knowlegde as I recall Fryette designed the amp with a classic clean or as others have stated a Non-Master volume clean. He wanted people to roll the volume knobs back on the guitar to keep it clean.. theres a video out there somewhere in which he demos and states this.. Maybe mine needed a new tube, but Im pretty sure it was a common complaint in the design. I did read of others sacrificing one of the dirty channels in order to have a clean.. But I didnt do that. Like I said at the time I had a Markv and an Invader that pretty much blew it away in the clean channel.. sooo, unless you really just want the fryette sound.. which I think also had alot to do with the Fatbottom P50e's, I found better amps..IMO, I Still own the Invader!
let me explain a little more.. My Band jams.. we turn up. Usually heavy rhythm distortion. But theres an intro or a song with a clean part, turn up the clean channel GAIN (because theres no volume) to match overall band output level.. whered the clean go?? Oh wait, roll the volume knob down.. still not loud enough, hence NO CLEAN for ME.
Im not hear to bash any amp, Im just relaying my experience..
let me explain a little more.. My Band jams.. we turn up. Usually heavy rhythm distortion. But theres an intro or a song with a clean part, turn up the clean channel GAIN (because theres no volume) to match overall band output level.. whered the clean go?? Oh wait, roll the volume knob down.. still not loud enough, hence NO CLEAN for ME.
Im not hear to bash any amp, Im just relaying my experience..
JerEvil
Well-known member
I say Sig: X for sure. I really want another one. I had a D120 and Sig at the same time. Unfortunately had to off both of them. I have a D60 now but really am itching for a Sig...
thiswaythatway
Well-known member
I played a LOT of live gigs with an older VHT Pitbull. It didn't sound good on a Mesa vertical 2x12 with V30's, but sounded great on a 4x12 with Greenbacks.
Motorpud
Active member
One year at Mailman's for the ampfest, there was a UL there and I remember it was pretty much the bottom amp in everyone's mind. Never could figure out all the love for that amp. Driest amp I've ever heard and didn't seem to have as much gain as I expected. Not much fun to play IMO.
7 Stringer
Well-known member
Motorpud":2xdx0l78 said:
Preamp volumes at noon and master at 9?
Gonna sound like shit fo sure.
Master at 3 and preamp to taste should not equal the bottom amp for everyone.
The UL is a masterpiece, cannot imagine it sounding dry or with not enough
gain???
VHT 's are not for everyone it seems.
Motorpud
Active member
7 Stringer":1ulcc644 said:
Well, If it makes you feel better there were a lot of good amps there and that was just the least good sounding of all the good sounding amps
I've owned a few VHTs and they all sounded good, especially the D120, I'd still like to pick up a CLX or Sig:x one of these days. I found the UL to be forgettable. Different strokes.
It was a very loud amp though, volume was deafening with that thing
stephen sawall
SEMI ERECT MEMBER
Moterpud if you did not like the UL you probably not going to like a CLX. They are fairly similar sounding. The Sig X is more like the Deliverance. The Rhythm channel on the Sig X is fairly similar to the Deliverance.... But less bottom, raw and much easier to get a good sound at lower volumes. The Sig X and Deliverance fit me better than the Pittbull's. Many people feel the Pittbull's are more sensitive to what speaker and cab than the Sig X and Deliverance. I remember us talking about the Deliverance several times.
maddnotez
Banned
Well-known member
That's shocking about the UL at the amp fest. Wrong tubes, wrong settings it seems.
I did like the 100CL better but the UL I had was the very first run. That could be another factor, what year was the amp made? They made some changes to it over the years.
I did like the 100CL better but the UL I had was the very first run. That could be another factor, what year was the amp made? They made some changes to it over the years.
7 Stringer
Well-known member
Motorpud":20w59875 said:7 Stringer":20w59875 said:
Well, If it makes you feel better there were a lot of good amps there and that was just the least good sounding of all the good sounding amps
I've owned a few VHTs and they all sounded good, especially the D120, I'd still like to pick up a CLX or Sig:x one of these days. I found the UL to be forgettable. Different strokes.
It was a very loud amp though, volume was deafening with that thing
I was just finding it shocking that it was the least favorite amp there. I find the UL so great sounding and versatile. It is one of my favorite amps of all time. And me too have had and played so many great amps.
We each have our own hearing preferences.
But one amp i wanna try out bad is the Deliverance 2 120. That is on my radar list.
Chris
D
dirtyfunkg
Well-known member
A post in praise of the Sig:X.
A couple of nights ago, I had a rehearsal with my band. The bassist wasn't able to make it, so we just did two guitars and drums. We have a LOUD drummer. My main rig has been an Edwards LPC style with JB/Jazz, with main effects in chain being a SD-1 and Hardwire phaser, going into a Diezel D-Moll with a Quadraverb in the loop. I'm using a Midi-Raider for switching.
I found myself really not being present in the mix, no matter how much I increased my mids. The D-Moll just sounded scooped, which can be great in a 1 guitar band but not as much when you're competing with a Trem-O-Verb which was really cranking the mids and sounding great.
After practice, I decided to check out my Sig:X after quite a while of sticking to my D-Moll and/or Marshall (mainly out of convenience). I took some learnings from the GP/DI, with which I've now had extensive time. Started tweaking the Sig:X more and more until I found myself with an awesome, cutting set of distortion tones. No, not anything like my UL was, as I remember, but also nothing like my PB Classic. Super organic and mid heavy in a very Dirt-era Jerry Cantrell style (think of the song Hate to Feel).
Also, a complete departure from the D-Moll sound I had been used to... sort of the Yang on the Diezel Ying. Also, while you may say that there are certain similarities between the Sig:X and a vintage Marshall, the Sig:X just had a sort of saturation that the older Marshalls just don't get out of the box. SUPER tight on the low end also.
I think the biggest thing about the Sig X, though, is the dynamic response. The Sig:X just seems to "breathe" in a way that I haven't felt any other amp do (including my old Fryette UL). I seriously could go from barely pushed to screaming with simple variation in my right hand attack, and the amp just sings. To me, the UL roared--Helmet is a really good example of the Ultra-Lead sound.
I have the Sig:X going through a Genz Benz G-Flex 212 loaded with G12-K85's.
Then I got to thinking... and set it back up with my RJM Amp Gizmo. Daisy chained the midi between my Rocktron Midi Raider, Diezel D-Moll, Alesis Quadraverb, and the RJM for controlling the Sig:X. Decided to set up some quick patches for the basic sounds I like: Clean, Pushed, Heavy Rhythm, Lead, Lead Delay, Clean Reverb, Clean Phased Delay, Flanged Heavy.
Holy shit, the combination of the two amps just crushed. No excessive noise, and the phasing did not sound off on any setting. The way the Sig:X was set up, it filled out everything I thought the D-Moll was missing, and it added a dynamic response that the Diezel just doesn't have, even with Ch 2 and 3 gain at like 7:00.
Also, and this is pretty even between the UL and the Sig:X--the Fryette effects loop is one of, if not the best out there. The D-Moll series effects loop just did not match up with it using the Quadraverb.
I've reaffirmed my belief in the Sig:X. It can do the low end heavy thing, but man, it's got some mids in there that just KILL!
A couple of nights ago, I had a rehearsal with my band. The bassist wasn't able to make it, so we just did two guitars and drums. We have a LOUD drummer. My main rig has been an Edwards LPC style with JB/Jazz, with main effects in chain being a SD-1 and Hardwire phaser, going into a Diezel D-Moll with a Quadraverb in the loop. I'm using a Midi-Raider for switching.
I found myself really not being present in the mix, no matter how much I increased my mids. The D-Moll just sounded scooped, which can be great in a 1 guitar band but not as much when you're competing with a Trem-O-Verb which was really cranking the mids and sounding great.
After practice, I decided to check out my Sig:X after quite a while of sticking to my D-Moll and/or Marshall (mainly out of convenience). I took some learnings from the GP/DI, with which I've now had extensive time. Started tweaking the Sig:X more and more until I found myself with an awesome, cutting set of distortion tones. No, not anything like my UL was, as I remember, but also nothing like my PB Classic. Super organic and mid heavy in a very Dirt-era Jerry Cantrell style (think of the song Hate to Feel).
Also, a complete departure from the D-Moll sound I had been used to... sort of the Yang on the Diezel Ying. Also, while you may say that there are certain similarities between the Sig:X and a vintage Marshall, the Sig:X just had a sort of saturation that the older Marshalls just don't get out of the box. SUPER tight on the low end also.
I think the biggest thing about the Sig X, though, is the dynamic response. The Sig:X just seems to "breathe" in a way that I haven't felt any other amp do (including my old Fryette UL). I seriously could go from barely pushed to screaming with simple variation in my right hand attack, and the amp just sings. To me, the UL roared--Helmet is a really good example of the Ultra-Lead sound.
I have the Sig:X going through a Genz Benz G-Flex 212 loaded with G12-K85's.
Then I got to thinking... and set it back up with my RJM Amp Gizmo. Daisy chained the midi between my Rocktron Midi Raider, Diezel D-Moll, Alesis Quadraverb, and the RJM for controlling the Sig:X. Decided to set up some quick patches for the basic sounds I like: Clean, Pushed, Heavy Rhythm, Lead, Lead Delay, Clean Reverb, Clean Phased Delay, Flanged Heavy.
Holy shit, the combination of the two amps just crushed. No excessive noise, and the phasing did not sound off on any setting. The way the Sig:X was set up, it filled out everything I thought the D-Moll was missing, and it added a dynamic response that the Diezel just doesn't have, even with Ch 2 and 3 gain at like 7:00.
Also, and this is pretty even between the UL and the Sig:X--the Fryette effects loop is one of, if not the best out there. The D-Moll series effects loop just did not match up with it using the Quadraverb.
I've reaffirmed my belief in the Sig:X. It can do the low end heavy thing, but man, it's got some mids in there that just KILL!
stephen sawall
SEMI ERECT MEMBER
I use G12-K85's with my Sig-X for doing heavy stuff.
D
dirtyfunkg
Well-known member
stephen sawall":ho8zxqxs said:
It's a GREAT combo. That speaker is my favorite for high gainers.