Rhoads Signature Marshall?

[Annah]

Randy's been my biggest inspiration during the 25 years I've been playing. Most of what I like is his technique, but I have always loved his tone, even if it is super mid-rangey. I'm sure that anyone who saw him live would attest to the fact that his tone was monstrous on stage.

An important factor one needs to remember in this conversation is that the quality of the recordings was somewhat limited back in the early 80's - be it from the studio gear they used, or from the post-production/duplication methods chosen. Most importantly, in my opinion, I am sure that Diary and Blizzard were mastered for vinyl, which is a totally different mastering technique than for CD/digital, which is what everyone except those of us who were into Ozzy & Randy in the 80's is probably listening to now. Listen to an original vinyl copy on a good tube-based Hi-Fi system and I'd bet my Dimebag pick that you'd think that tone was killer!

As for that amp, hell, I'd love to own one! Ever since I got my TSL100 I've been thrilled with Marshall tone. Mmmm.... TASTY!

If you can tolerate Ozzy's off-key singing, this vid of Randy is phenomenal:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JRbPW...eature=related

[Partial @ Marshall]

Wow. To all the people punking Randy's tone. Is it the player, the amps, or could it possibly the recording techniques used at the time, the media it was recorded onto maybe?...The combo of all? Many variables. What's next? Shall we beat up Jimi? Maybe Stevie? They are old too, using dated equipment with too much midrange. Who was it that put Jackson on the map? A little disappointed with some of the lack of respect shown on this board. But what would I know I am a

PS. The RR Marshall sounded very good, probably not for the price, but good

[TurboLover]

I'm an newbie too. A newbie to this site and forum. Randy Rocked. Still rocks. Always will.

Anyone that has any doubts about that or feels they are a worthy critic, post the cover of your cd that you or your band made that made more $$$ than it cost to produce. Critics, here? on a fukin forum? Critics of Randy R even, that is funny. wow!:ROTF:

[decadentdave]

I'm amazed at how these types of threads always seem to spiral into complete and utter bullshit. O.K., how about this? I never liked Vivian Campbell's tone on Dio's albums, so I would never want to own a JCM 800. How fucking stupid would that be? Go play the thing!

[Endrik]

An important factor one needs to remember in this conversation is that the quality of the recordings was somewhat limited back in the early 80's - be it from the studio gear they used, or from the post-production/duplication methods chosen. Most importantly, in my opinion, I am sure that Diary and Blizzard were mastered for vinyl, which is a totally different mastering technique than for CD/digital, which is what everyone except those of us who were into Ozzy & Randy in the 80's is probably listening to now. Listen to an original vinyl copy on a good tube-based Hi-Fi system and I'd bet my Dimebag pick that you'd think that tone was killer!

no, the recording gear back then was AWESOME!!!!!
yes, mastering for the vinyls is totally different process... all the shitty freqs just don't go on the vinyl...
yes vinyl sounds better than the cd but... but obviously so does vinyl's mastering on the cd than the typical cd mastering

Wow. To all the people punking Randy's tone. Is it the player, the amps, or could it possibly the recording techniques used at the time, the media it was recorded onto maybe?...The combo of all? Many variables. What's next? Shall we beat up Jimi? Maybe Stevie? They are old too, using dated equipment with too much midrange. Who was it that put Jackson on the map? A little disappointed with some of the lack of respect shown on this board. But what would I know I am a

as I said the recording gear back then was incredible... 2 inch tape, great consoles, preamps etc.
Jimi's tone was great.... one of the legendary ones
I would only use "dated" gear

This board has a lot of Randy fans... if people don't like his tone... that isn't a lack of respect for him.

Anyone that has any doubts about that or feels they are a worthy critic, post the cover of your cd that you or your band made that made more $$$ than it cost to produce. Critics, here? on a fukin forum? Critics of Randy R even, that is funny. wow!:ROTF:

so I have to be a master chef to have the privilege to say if some food sucks or does not?
gimme a break

[Partial @ Marshall]

as I said the recording gear back then was incredible... 2 inch tape, great consoles, preamps etc.
Jimi's tone was great.... one of the legendary ones
I would only use "dated" gear

This board has a lot of Randy fans... if people don't like his tone... that isn't a lack of respect for him.

In your opinion Jimi's tone was great, well so was Randy's. They both broke new ground at their perspective times. In some opinions Randy's tone just sucked but some of it spiraled beyond that into disrespect IMHO, and you won't catch me saying anything bad about either...but again opinions. I too use only "dated" gear, point to point wired amps sound better to me than printed circuit boards, pedals better than processors. The recording gear was awesome, but analog is not what younger people are used to hearing. The "cut and paste" perfection of today's digital techniques lack something to my ears, but I won't say they suck, they're just different and warrant as much respect.

[Endrik]

digital has provided is easy editing, mixing and processing... the sound hasn't improved ... cut and paste has always existed... way back it was literally cut and paste... razor blades and 2" tape
I'm sure today's folks would love the power, warmth and depth the old school gear provides but they don't have the possibility to compare the same piece of music... A/B it withe the digital

[toejam]

An important factor one needs to remember in this conversation is that the quality of the recordings was somewhat limited back in the early 80's - be it from the studio gear they used, or from the post-production/duplication methods chosen.

Well, I think recording gear was pretty good even before the '80s. Just listen to anything by Led Zeppelin.

[Cygnus X1]

Well, I think recording gear was pretty good even before the '80s. Just listen to anything by Led Zeppelin.

Or Pink Floyd!

(Sheesh)
Dark Side of the Moon was, and is the Gold Standard!

[texasfury]

........

[randyrhoadsguitar]

i sure i can get one someday. i'm pretty sure they are going to cost around $2,700 just for the head!!! danggg

[javert]

Or Pink Floyd!

(Sheesh)
Dark Side of the Moon was, and is the Gold Standard!

Yeah! Even Live at Pompeii is better quality than a lot of heavy metal releases in the 80s.

[Endrik]

Floyd always had amazing sound and production

[javert]

Floyd always had amazing sound and production

I'm not sure I would say that the Barrett era Pink Floyd had amazing sound and production But Gilmour's new renditions of some of Syd's old songs on David Gilmour in Concert are fantastic. I was never really into Syd Barrett, but Gilmour really brings out the best in his songs and makes them sound so beautiful.

[Annah]

Ah! Good points on the quality of production and recording gear. You guys are totally right! I don't know what I was thinking. lol! Yeah, the old Floyd stuff was amazing! I was especially blown-away by the quality of the audio on Live at Pompeii. Holy crap, that was incredibly well done.

Hmmm.... much food for thought.