Premier Rock Forum

MoreSpaceEcho wrote: However I submit the following as Worst Headstock Ever

I don't think that would be too bad on a guitar with a more modern shape (the Albert Lee Music Man perhaps). But if the guitar is basically Fender Strat just fully go there.

(how about those PRS John Mayer Strats with PRS headstocks.. barffff)

Drummer in my old band got a new DW kit circa-2004/5 and it sounded great! Have never really gotten the hate on them based on hearing those drums all the time for several years.

MoreSpaceEcho wrote: Tue Oct 25, 2022 10:28 am I wouldn't say I hate it, but I've never been super into ________. Everyone else makes them sound good, but not me.

This is a whole other thread. The unpopular, I know, but I just dont get it thread.

I don't mind the PRS headstock, but the bird inlays are a deal-breaker for me.

Also I dont hate the Music Man headstock, but it's def worse with traditional guitar styles. Strats need strat headstocks (see PRS) but on the St Vincent or Albert Lee models I think its much less objectionable.

Dr Tony Balls wrote: Tue Oct 25, 2022 10:51 am but on the St Vincent

That one may bug me the most. The guitar has such thought out Firebird-y angles yet that lazy Strat-esque headstock makes it look like a partscaster.

Now a Stingray: yeah that's both round and unique so the headstock works fine.

On that note: Fender acoustics with Strat-y headstocks. It wouldn't be enough to get me to buy a Fender acoustic anyway, but just... don't.

Re: pedal with 3-band EQ objection. It’s not the mid itself and in fact, I could deal with tone and mid just fine. But I’ve never played through a pedal with a 3-band EQ that wasn’t either really thin and shrill at any setting, or artificially bass-boosted in an unusable way, presumably to compensate.

I have no idea why. Too many gain stages?

penningtron wrote: Tue Oct 25, 2022 11:02 am

Dr Tony Balls wrote: Tue Oct 25, 2022 10:51 am but on the St Vincent

That one may bug me the most. The guitar has such thought out Firebird-y angles yet that lazy Strat-esque headstock makes it look like a partscaster.

Now a Stingray: yeah that's both round and unique so the headstock works fine.

On that note: Fender acoustics with Strat-y headstocks. It wouldn't be enough to get me to buy a Fender acoustic anyway, but just... don't.

might as well add this monstrosity to the fire. dammit dave!

biscuitdough wrote: Tue Oct 25, 2022 11:08 am Re: pedal with 3-band EQ objection. It’s not the mid itself and in fact, I could deal with tone and mid just fine. But I’ve never played through a pedal with a 3-band EQ that wasn’t either really thin and shrill at any setting, or artificially bass-boosted in an unusable way, presumably to compensate.

I have no idea why. Too many gain stages?

You can have a three band eq with no gain stages at all - outside of the TMB control setup, the addition of a mid control to a treb/bass setup might have a decent amount of insertion loss, so I think you end up with pedals using active controls for their three band and these are easy to do poorly, or rather a lot of pedal designs as copies so they may have copied a an unfortunate design in that regard. a passive tone control is very simple and low insertion loss, and easy to operate/think about.

From a psychological perspective I hate having pedals with 3-band EQs because it's just more that I'm going to screw around with and end up with a mess of filtering through even just the 3-4 pedals I use at any given time.

tallchris wrote: Tue Oct 25, 2022 10:44 am Drummer in my old band got a new DW kit circa-2004/5 and it sounded great! Have never really gotten the hate on them based on hearing those drums all the time for several years.

I've been playing a set of mismatched DWs for years. They sound awesome, the look like an old Volvo station wagon. Maybe I'm feeling like everyone needs to know I'm not a tone lawyer by including that detail.