I don't understand why people call the VH4 "compressed".

  • Thread starter Thread starter GiorgioV
  • Start date Start date
G

GiorgioV

New member
I have had this head - 2010 - for a few months now. You hear people left and right calling the VH4 compressed but to me it's anything but.

I mean, yeah, channel 3 does sound super awesome with the gain around 2 o' clock, and it does get fairly compressed if you want it to, but it also sounds just as great, albeit different, with the gain around noon or further backed, and much less compressed.

And channel 2 especially is one of the least compressed channels I've ever played, you can litterally go from clean to full on distortion just with picking dynamic, no need to even touch the volume on the guitar. How is that compressed? I have single channel ptp boutique heads, I have fender based amps, I've played plenty of vintage stuff and they don't do that.

Or maybe I don't understand what compression is.
 
I agree with you 100%. Ch 2 specifically is not compressed at all, very dynamic and has one of the largest gain ranges I've ever seen on a single channel.

I run Ch 3 with the gain around 2 p.m. (albeit with alnico IIs) and I would say it's fairly compressed but again I'm running the gain high. Also, I 100% don't care because it's tight while remaining thick and full with incredible harmonics. I agree though it's not as compressed as people make it out to be. The only channel I feel is highly compressed on the VH4 is Ch4 but it's 100% meant to be that way for leads.

Phenomenal amp
 
There’s many different versions of the amp out there. Some are more compressed than others.
 
That’s why I specified that mine is a 2010. Only one I’ve owned tho.
 
GiorgioV said:
I have had this head - 2010 - for a few months now. You hear people left and right calling the VH4 compressed but to me it's anything but.

I mean, yeah, channel 3 does sound super awesome with the gain around 2 o' clock, and it does get fairly compressed if you want it to, but it also sounds just as great, albeit different, with the gain around noon or further backed, and much less compressed.

And channel 2 especially is one of the least compressed channels I've ever played, you can litterally go from clean to full on distortion just with picking dynamic, no need to even touch the volume on the guitar. How is that compressed? I have single channel ptp boutique heads, I have fender based amps, I've played plenty of vintage stuff and they don't do that.

Or maybe I don't understand what compression is.
Click to expand...
„from clean to full on distortion just with picking dynamic“… YES
My VH4 dont do this but my Einstein does. I love it. Its magic.
compression art ?
 
I think the word they are searching for is "articulate".

Matched with a good Bare Knuckle humbucker, the VH4 on Channel 4-with the gain turned to 70%- will rip your head off.
 
It is compressed. If you hit the input of the amp harder, the sound does not get much or any louder compared to other amps.
imho there is no debate. Even channel 1 is fairly compressed. Compression is not bad. It is what it is.
 
Last edited:
Vin Diezel said:
If you hit the input of the amp harder, the sound does not get much or any louder compared to other amps.
Click to expand...

You're telling me you don't get dynamic range on the 2nd channel? Of course on channel 2 and 3 with the gain up the sound does not get louder, but it does get cleaner / dirtier if you play softer/harder.
 
Vin Diezel said:
It is compressed. If you hit the input of the amp harder, the sound does not get much or any louder compared to other amps.
imho there is no debate. Even channel 1 is fairly compressed. Compression is not bad. It is what it is.
Click to expand...
Really it was just more compressed for the time it came out . Now not so much . Channel 4 is too compressed though
 
GiorgioV said:
You're telling me you don't get dynamic range on the 2nd channel? Of course on channel 2 and 3 with the gain up the sound does not get louder, but it does get cleaner / dirtier if you play softer/harder.
Click to expand...
Compared to a Fryette or an old Marshall there is not a lot of dynamic range in the 2nd channel. I really do not understand what all the fuss is about.
Diezel is kind of made to sound like a studio track. You can record without adding tons of compression later in order to get it to fit in the mix.
If you want a jumpy sound where every miniscule detail of pick attack volume is represented, you play a different amp. That's my opinion.
I could not handle such an amp in a real life situation. Others cannot, either, that's why they're using gain and compression pedals to get a more even sound by reducing the dynamic range.
 
GiorgioV said:
You're telling me you don't get dynamic range on the 2nd channel? Of course on channel 2 and 3 with the gain up the sound does not get louder, but it does get cleaner / dirtier if you play softer/harder.
Click to expand...
that's basically the definition of compression
 
Vin Diezel said:
Thanx, man! ;-)
Click to expand...

I’d like to briefly offer some clarification, because it seems to me that in this discussion about “compression,” we’re talking about two very different things—without that difference being explicitly named. That might explain why some comments appear to contradict each other, when in fact they’re referring to entirely separate aspects of tone and amp behavior.



When I refer to an amp as “not compressed”—especially in the context of praising Diezel amps—I’m speaking primarily about the playing feel and dynamic response to picking. In this sense, “compression” means the loss of expressive range: how much does the tone react to how hard or softly I pick? Does the amp reward nuanced articulation and intensity shifts? From my perspective, Diezel amps are the opposite of overly compressed in this regard—they offer a highly touch-sensitive, articulate, and responsive playing experience. That’s what I meant when I described the notes as “exploding from the hand.” For me, this responsiveness is part of what makes Diezel amps feel like true works of art: they blend precision and power with a remarkable musical depth and sensitivity.



The other meaning of “compression” that has come up here is a technical one—focused on output level consistency. In this context, “compressed” refers to how much the signal’s volume changes in response to different picking intensities. An amp might be described as compressed in a positive way if it delivers a strong, steady output with minimal volume spikes or drop-offs. From a mixing standpoint, that’s a real advantage: the signal sits well in a dense mix and requires less post-processing to control transients or manage dynamics.



So, both uses of the term “compression” are valid—but they describe very different things:

• One refers to the musical feel and expressive response during performance,

• the other to signal consistency and mix-readiness from a production perspective.



I think some of the confusion in this thread may stem from this ambiguity. When I praised Diezel amps for not feeling compressed, I wasn’t criticizing their output behavior at all. Quite the opposite—I was highlighting their expressive dynamic range, which I personally find inspiring and musically rewarding.



I hope this helps to clarify the discussion a bit and allows us to appreciate Diezel amps for what they are: technically refined, mix-ready machines that also preserve a deep sense of musical expressiveness and control under the player’s hands.
Greetz
 
Dominik said:
I’d like to briefly offer some clarification, because it seems to me that in this discussion about “compression,” we’re talking about two very different things—without that difference being explicitly named. That might explain why some comments appear to contradict each other, when in fact they’re referring to entirely separate aspects of tone and amp behavior.



When I refer to an amp as “not compressed”—especially in the context of praising Diezel amps—I’m speaking primarily about the playing feel and dynamic response to picking. In this sense, “compression” means the loss of expressive range: how much does the tone react to how hard or softly I pick? Does the amp reward nuanced articulation and intensity shifts? From my perspective, Diezel amps are the opposite of overly compressed in this regard—they offer a highly touch-sensitive, articulate, and responsive playing experience. That’s what I meant when I described the notes as “exploding from the hand.” For me, this responsiveness is part of what makes Diezel amps feel like true works of art: they blend precision and power with a remarkable musical depth and sensitivity.



The other meaning of “compression” that has come up here is a technical one—focused on output level consistency. In this context, “compressed” refers to how much the signal’s volume changes in response to different picking intensities. An amp might be described as compressed in a positive way if it delivers a strong, steady output with minimal volume spikes or drop-offs. From a mixing standpoint, that’s a real advantage: the signal sits well in a dense mix and requires less post-processing to control transients or manage dynamics.



So, both uses of the term “compression” are valid—but they describe very different things:

• One refers to the musical feel and expressive response during performance,

• the other to signal consistency and mix-readiness from a production perspective.



I think some of the confusion in this thread may stem from this ambiguity. When I praised Diezel amps for not feeling compressed, I wasn’t criticizing their output behavior at all. Quite the opposite—I was highlighting their expressive dynamic range, which I personally find inspiring and musically rewarding.



I hope this helps to clarify the discussion a bit and allows us to appreciate Diezel amps for what they are: technically refined, mix-ready machines that also preserve a deep sense of musical expressiveness and control under the player’s hands.
Greetz
Click to expand...
That’s perfectly said. I feel like when people say “diezel amps are too compressed” they absolutely refer to the first meaning you described, as in they sound flat and not articulated. Which is not at all the case.
 
GiorgioV said:
That’s perfectly said. I feel like when people say “diezel amps are too compressed” they absolutely refer to the first meaning you described, as in they sound flat and not articulated. Which is not at all the case.
Click to expand...
To me they are articulate, but lack the raw/open gain structure of other amps. Wouldn't use the term flat, but round in the low end, slow on the attack, and compressed and processed sounding is how I'd describe every Diezel I've owned. Not for me.
 
MetalHeadMike said:
round in the low end, slow on the attack, and compressed and processed sounding is how I'd describe every Diezel I've owned.
Click to expand...

Mine is not slow in the attack at all, the low end isn't overly round and I also wouldn't call them processed. Polished, I can get behing.
Especially surprised about the "slow on the attack" thing, doesn't fit the bill at all.
 
GiorgioV said:
Mine is not slow in the attack at all, the low end isn't overly round and I also wouldn't call them processed. Polished, I can get behing.
Especially surprised about the "slow on the attack" thing, doesn't fit the bill at all.
Click to expand...
VH4 is one that I haven't played/owned, so good to know. I've almost grabbed a VH4 many times but the experience I had with the other models steers me away.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top