VHT/Fryette Pitbull/Sig X vs Mesa Mk Series amps

[Ancient Alien]

Here's the thing that I've noticed with my very limited VHT experience. They have a great tone, but there seems to be this very dry and almost harsh tone that's underneath everything else, if that makes any sense. Maybe I didn't spend enough time with the combo that I played, but I couldn't completely smooth the sound out for leads like I can do with a Mark IV.
I'd think that with all the tone shaping options of the sig:X, dialing in a super smooth lead sound should be easy. But there's some frequency I'm hearing even in clips that seems to be always present. Thoughts?

I always hear people refer to Fryette/VHT amps as dry.
I never hear that, but thats me.
I think what you are talking about is the tube compression and saturation that is in the Mesa power sections.
I find Mesa Mark series very easy to play and they, for lack of a better term, cover up sloppy playing.
The tightness and accuracy of the Fryettes/VHTs tend to make people play better YMMV
I have never had a problem making a smooth lead tone with a UL, CLX, CL, Sig X, or Deliverance.
But, Mesa and Fryette/VHT are two completely different animals tone wise.

 

[glassjaw7]

Here's the thing that I've noticed with my very limited VHT experience. They have a great tone, but there seems to be this very dry and almost harsh tone that's underneath everything else, if that makes any sense. Maybe I didn't spend enough time with the combo that I played, but I couldn't completely smooth the sound out for leads like I can do with a Mark IV.
I'd think that with all the tone shaping options of the sig:X, dialing in a super smooth lead sound should be easy. But there's some frequency I'm hearing even in clips that seems to be always present. Thoughts?

I always hear people refer to Fryette/VHT amps as dry.
I never hear that, but thats me.
I think what you are talking about is the tube compression and saturation that is in the Mesa power sections.
I find Mesa Mark series very easy to play and they, for lack of a better term, cover up sloppy playing.
The tightness and accuracy of the Fryettes/VHTs tend to make people play better YMMV
I have never had a problem making a smooth lead tone with a UL, CLX, CL, Sig X, or Deliverance.
But, Mesa and Fryette/VHT are two completely different animals tone wise.

Cool, I probably didn't spend enough time with the amp I played. (Can't remember the model, but it was a combo with el-34's if I remember right)
FWIW, I love very tight, responsive amps so that's not the problem I'm talking about. That's the reason I loved the VH4 so much when I played it. I was having an on day as far as playing very clean, and that amp put out exactly what I put into it. The Marks are pretty tight too IMO and don't really cover sloppy playing, they just have a very fluid tone. The VHT's to me sound more "searing". But I'd love to spend some time with a SIG:X.

 

[Devilinside]

Get the sig and don't look back! I had a mark IV and a sig x and my vote definitely goes for the sig. The mark can sound really big but when it's set to sound it's best, it doesn't cut like the sig.

 

[Spaceboy]

Would you guys recommend an Ultra Lead over an Engl Savage for thick distortion for heavier metal (like Nile? )?

 

[Sixtonoize]

I currently own a Mark IV and previously owned a Mark III, and they were both my favorite amps until my UL came along.

Every single time I plug into my UL, I like it more than I did the last time.
...unless I'm playing at apartment-friendly volumes. That amp sucks at low levels.

But, IMO, for an all-around rock/metal amp with great cleans, I haven't owned one yet that's come close to my UL

 

[ConcreteVampire]

I played the VHT 50CL and it was one of the amps I played that I didn't buy and I pissed I didn't. It was smoking!!

50 CL over here.... when I had my Maiden trib my CL (I was Adrian) buried my "Dave's" Mk 3, both live and recorded in a band sitch. I don't blame the amp tooo much, he always dialed up "blanket tone". But it was pretty obvious......

Hey dude! Vintage Modern arrives Wednesday!!

 

[blackba]

For those Fryette amp owners, how well do they do at low volumes? Particularly the sig x.

The mark IV is pretty nice at low volumes, even though the master volume is a bit touchy.

 

[Juggernaut]

they are great at low volumes, that clip I posted of the D120 was a bedroom volumes.....had the same experience with the Sig

 

[yngzaklynch]

Hey dude! Vintage Modern arrives Wednesday!!

I moved my Randall RM100KH and I'm currently selling some other stuff. Not entirely sure what the next gear purchase will be but the Vintage Modern isn't going anywhere. Just make sure you have a nice boost pedal.

 

[AmpliFIRE]

I'd love to spend some time with a D60

 

[FIREBALL]

I'd love to spend some time with a D60

its great with a ts8o8

 

[Bob Savage]

Hey Bob, since you've owned a UL, could you compare the two? I'm curious. Thanks!

Pete

I completely stink at describing sound so I probably don't have a lot of verbal input that would be valuable.

The UL is stiff and stern whereas the DL is firm and authoritative.

Part of my love for the D60 is it's simplicity. The last several years leave me enjoying simple amps such as the Shiva, Ubershschall, JMP (boosted) and D60. Very few controls but they get me where I want to go.

It's probably good to also keep in mind that with my "gig" I only have to sound like myself. You do covers so your ear is going to be looking for things mine isn't (or not?).

In any event, the UL was a kickin' amp that seemed to make lead playing very easy, but I didn't get out of it what I wanted for leads. The D60 doesn't give me all "the goods" on leads easily as the UL but with a little extra work I like what it does better and it gives me exactly what I want my rhythm tone to sound like.

The End.

 

[stephen sawall]

For those Fryette amp owners, how well do they do at low volumes? Particularly the sig x.

The mark IV is pretty nice at low volumes, even though the master volume is a bit touchy.

they are great at low volumes, that clip I posted of the D120 was a bedroom volumes.....had the same experience with the Sig

+1 .... But like all amps they sound better turned up a bit. It is just a matter of setting all the controls to get the best sound at different volumes.

I think it is pretty clear from all the reply's that everyone has different taste.

 

[MetalMongolito]

One thing I like the the Pitbulls is the EQ. If you want more treble you just turn it clockwise and you get pure treble, with some other amps you get alot of other shit when doing that, additional gain and fizz

Another thing I like is the cleanliness of them, they take pedals so good it's almost unreal.

For those Fryette amp owners, how well do they do at low volumes? Particularly the sig x.

The mark IV is pretty nice at low volumes, even though the master volume is a bit touchy.

Can't answer for the Sig X but of all the Mesas I tried I think that the Pitbulls are much better at low volumes. I think Mesas especially the MKIV and the Rectifiers really need a bit of cranking to sound good.

 

[spawnofthesith]

On the note of people saying Marks don't cut.... you know guys you don't HAVE to run the GEQ in a scoopy V for teh metuhl tonez...

 

[Devilinside]

I agree, you can set it up different than the classic V, but when I had mine even setting it a little different it did not have near the cut the sig had. Don't get me wrong the mark sounded awesome it just seemed like The mids have to be dialed back a little to get the best tone from it. When I tried to boost my mids I got a very undesirable sound from mine.

 

[Sixtonoize]

I can't vouch for the D series or the SigX, but my UL sounds pretty lame at low volumes.
My Mark IV handles low volumes MUCH better.

The UL doesn't really sound "right" until about 9:00 on the Master, and it doesn't really sound GLORIOUS until about 10:00.
And of course, those are two different levels of ridiculously loud.

 

[stratotone]

Hey Bob, since you've owned a UL, could you compare the two? I'm curious. Thanks!

Pete

I completely stink at describing sound so I probably don't have a lot of verbal input that would be valuable.

The UL is stiff and stern whereas the DL is firm and authoritative.

Part of my love for the D60 is it's simplicity. The last several years leave me enjoying simple amps such as the Shiva, Ubershschall, JMP (boosted) and D60. Very few controls but they get me where I want to go.

It's probably good to also keep in mind that with my "gig" I only have to sound like myself. You do covers so your ear is going to be looking for things mine isn't (or not?).

In any event, the UL was a kickin' amp that seemed to make lead playing very easy, but I didn't get out of it what I wanted for leads. The D60 doesn't give me all "the goods" on leads easily as the UL but with a little extra work I like what it does better and it gives me exactly what I want my rhythm tone to sound like.

The End.

Thanks for the info. I'm doing cover gigs but not worried about copping the exact tones - as long as I have a good clean, dirt and dirt+volume to poke leads above the mix then I'm happy. My favorite thing about the UL is the clarity - I love hearing all the parts of a chord and how immediate the notes are. Mesas are very murky IMHO in comparison, and let you get away with murder. VHTs always have kept me on my toes.

Doubt I'll ever get a D60/120 because of the one channel-ness and lack of fx loop, but a sig:x may be in my future.

Pete

 

[orangekick]

Every time I turn on the Sig X, I smile. It's almost like the first tube amp that I ever owned. I was so geeked to just play back then. That's where this amp puts me.

 

[Digital Jams]

Can't speak for the Sig-x but man do I love the UL, that amp is like a razor and super focused with great articulation.