The Steel Guitar Forum

Dimed=turned to ten

Ah, Thanks Lane. I love your youtube stuff, very helpful

I looked at the reissue twins about 12 years ago. I ended up with a cyber twin. The twin settings sounded way better than the reissue twin. However, not the best amp for steel. I suspect it has something to do with A/D conversion. On the cyber twin you set your input level, the signal is converted to digital and then processed. using the volume pedal on the steel the tone goes from kind of thin to pretty good. I did get a mid seventies twin which sounds much better for steel.

the other guitar player in my band uses a Mustang amp and it is awesome sounding for guitar. haven't played my steel through it but am not surprised that it sounds good. IMHO fender puts out the best modeling combos.

Jim, they (Fender) got it right on the Mustang series. I had an old Cyber-Champ and it was a pain to use compared to the Mustang Amps. About the only thing I think they could improve upon the Mustangs is having it remember your last setting selection, currently mine goes to #00 when you turn the amp on, but an easy work-around is to set #00 to your most used or preferred set up.

Anyone care to post a sound sample of the Mustang?

John Peay wrote:Ok, I have a Cube 80XL and a Mustang I. I know, both ends of the wattage spectrum, not sure how much that will affect my comparison.

I actually found the Mustang I a bit bright/brittle (speaker size perhaps?), and haven't used it since getting my Cube. Now I wonder if I just didn't "mess with it" enough, tweaking it, changing the settings, etc.

Seeing this thread, I'm going to dust off the Mustang; see what I can dial in; and do a better comparison with my Cube.

Will report back later...

Ok, I've been playing through my Mustang I at home, and tweaking on it. FYI I'm playing a Derby SD-10 with a Wallace Trutone pup through a Hilton VP.

Comparing it directly to my Roland Cube 80XL, the Mustang I somehow seems a bit warmer, smoother, less "grainy" than the Cube (I know the Cubes tend to be directional, and I've got a "beam blocker" on mine). Mustang was very clear and clean also, as the OP stated. Of course, the Mustang I has an 8" speaker, and I've got it cranked pretty hot...but now after this test I'm wondering how a Mustang III or IV would compare to the Cube 80...I'm tempted, I must say...

Mostly I'm on the Mustang's "65 Twin" setting with a touch of Hall reverb; bass about 9, treble about 3.5, mids about 4.5, "Bright" switch off. There seem to be some good sounds to be had with the "Bassman" model as well.

Anyone got any good Fuse sound files for the Mustang they'd like to send me to try? And are the III/IV files compatible with the I, as far as loading them in?

i've heard from some knowledgeable folks that these modeling amps don't play well with volume pedals - they need a straight input signal to get the most out of the modeling processors/converters and variable volume playing is not as efficient. in other words you want the strongest signal you can get hitting the converters.
any input on this?
I didn't really notice this with my Roland Cube, but i'm just using it as a lightweight rig anyway.

Jerome Hawkes wrote:i've heard from some knowledgeable folks that these modeling amps don't play well with volume pedals

Hi Jerome, I haven't had a chance to try my Mustang III with my steel as of yet, I just purchased a used MSA Uni last week so I've been a bit busy tweakin' & playin' it thru my trusty PV112 - The Mustang III does have an "Effects Loop" built in and I imagine a volume pedal would work just fine hooked up via the effects loop - but like I say "I haven't had the chance to try it yet". Maybe someone else can chime in about using a volume pedal via the effects loop.

Jerome, I don't notice any problems with a Mustang I or II, with either a Goodrich L-120 or a Telonics VP. it sounds and feels like a normal amp to me. I only use the Twin Reverb setting plus a hall reverb.

I guess I am still wondering how the $329/100 watt SS amp is even in the same sentence with the mighty and proven Twin Reverb !

I don't doubt it's a nice little amp , to a point and certainly has a spot in the market....But even Fender would have a hard time advertising "replace your Twin Reverb with the $329 Mustang III " which they are not.

I go to rehearsals with a Blues Jr..but not to a stage gig. My take would be if Twin's clarity is not good , it's not a good working Twin.

"Dimed" means all knobs up, Fender amps , such as the Twin , have tone stacks that require that knobs be UP not down for dynamic ranges. You don't need the Volume knob dimed..but don't fall short on the tone stack.

The M'tang III looks like a nice amp but I would hesitate to see how it could stand toe to toe with a Twin on the stage...

Greg Spence wrote: The Mustang III does have an "Effects Loop" built in and I imagine a volume pedal would work just fine hooked up via the effects loop - but like I say "I haven't had the chance to try it yet". Maybe someone else can chime in about using a volume pedal via the effects loop.

The driver chip on the output side may be unhappy driving a short for passive pedals. Be careful.

Thanks for the caution Les, I would hate to blow a chip out! I won't be trying the volume pedal thru the effects loop. I'm so glad you mentioned it.

I have to agree with everything Tony says above..
I have yet to see/hear a newer Fender that can stand toe to toe with any of my older hand wired tube Fender twin reverb amps -
they just don't even sound close to my ears but maybe to some others they might.
I have tried many,many amps & I always end up back with the mighty Fender twin reverb amps..
They just have a sound all their own - some folks ( like me ) love that sound & some folks don't.

There is a reason everyone tries to emulate the older hand wired Fender twin reverb amps & Emmons push pull guitars IMHO!
I better leave now
Ron