wait. no...it shouldn't be that hard to rewire the mini jazzmaster after all...

i'm not going to do this tomorrow, but it's an idea.

i suppose, i could get another cheap strat and put alnicos in it. right?

i used to have a very, very cheap tele copy but it disappeared. it's not a priority.

but, if i could ever find a jazzmaster copy with alnicos...that's the last type of guitar i'd be seriously interested in, but it's not feasible, and i know it.

unfortunately, fender put humbuckers in the jazzmaster minis, which makes it hard to rewire them.

so, i spent the day running around (technically, walking and biking around) and now have the following in my possession:

- the two purple and pink tanktops came in the mail

- i picked up the behringer umx61 this morning. mine is grey, with some mild yellow staining, presumably from being near to an ashtray for an extended period. i had to play through some pops (indicating it hadn't been used in a while), but the keys all work, and, if anything, they're a little hyper-sensitive. that's fine.

it cost me $95 cdn, used.

this device has two major purposes for me:

- it replaces the keys on the jx-8p, which were stuck. it's a common problem with 80s rolands, and i just never fixed it. but, my 49 key dx100 is just a little lacking. i guess i never counted it - i though the jx had 88 keys. it turns out it has 61, too. so, if anything, i'm getting two extra octaves with the behringer...

- it will finally give me access to a control surface, if a minor one. i'm probably not going to go all knob-twiddly, but it is useful for tactical use to be able to physically turn a sweep, and i've really never been able to do that. the jx has a control surface, but i didn't get it in the package, second hand. it's just something i've never had in front of me...and something i've long intended to rectify..

i'll go over this in more detail later in the megapost, but i consider this to be a replacement purchase and a sidegrade.

i'm going to need to spend tonight finding a way to get it to hover over the jx. many years ago, i used to have a sideways bookcase that had the jx on the bottom and the dx100 up top. nowadays, i have them lined up on two tables that adjoin at right angles. the behringer is about 5 kg, which isn't much more than the dx (3  kg), but is roughly twice the length, which distributes the weight differently. i fear a flimsy option may be disastrous. so, the obvious thing to do is get a keyboard rack, but what does that actually cost?

- i also got a fender mini squire for $200 cdn total (including tax):

(mine is red and doesn't say hello kitty)

now, why would i buy myself a guitar for a child? because i needed some single coils, and i know that a guitar with single coils is never going to become my main guitar. i have two epiphones with humbuckers, and that's my usual sound and i'm actually totally happy with it. but, i'm looking for variation, here - that's what i'm doing this month, filling in tonal options in preparation for a recording stage.

i don't have hundreds or thousands of dollars for something more pro, so the question becomes why you'd spend 2-3x as much on a full range squire, or some other fake strat, and then play it twice a year.

i also have exceedingly small hands, so the things this guy is complaining about aren't relevant to me....

i'm also not intending to play much like he is. as i bought it for the thinner pickups, and i'm more of a blues guitarist than a metal guitarist, it's intended use is more for a jimi hendrix, mark knopfler, srv or early corgan type sound. i'm looking for that "sweet strat tone" - or, at least, for the physical characteristics underlying it, to warp mbv-style. 

remember: jazzmasters had single coils, too.

i bought the guitar used, but the frets make it clear it's never really been played. minus the cosmetic scratch on the backplate, it's really a brand new guitar, for about $80 (cdn) less than retail. so, i didn't just get a cheap guitar, i got a good deal on a cheap guitar.

i've plugged it in and it works...

this item does not replace a previous one, because i've actually never had an s-s-s strat. the ibanez rx40, once fixed, will replace the defective ibanez hss (or hsh? i don't remember|) that i sold in 2003.

now, let me eat...

the other thing i have to point out is...

my guitar tone never gets cheesy or cliched. i'm very conscious of this. i just don't do it.

so, this recording combination - an antique altec 683b + a flat marantz condenser mic + tertiary line-ins when possible, all while using mini-amps as a source - should both give me the tones i'm imagining and give me a unique quality, just a je ne sais quoi that i try to integrate into most of what i do.

that is really the reason why i'm more interested in sticking with the altec, at least to start.

i mean, i've been using it for years, and i have no real complaints about it. i'm just trying to make sure i have all of the option, right this minute - these are decisions that will be binding for the next 10 years.

this is the frequency response for the marantz - the mic is totally flat, which is what i'm told i'm supposed to want.

that means you get everything and have to eq it, which is fine - i'm going to do that, anyways. i'm more concerned about the mic missing shit than the mic picking too much shit up. i know how to go in and dial in ranges...

i can't find a similar graph for a dixon md1178, but i suspect it's a more flat response in the high end than the altec, shure or sennheisers - which makes sense, as it's a vocal mic, by design.

as i'm going to usually be recording guitars, the next question is whether a sennheiser e609 is worthwhile, and if i even want to look at a 906, instead.

this is the frequency response of a shure sm57, which i'm going to plug the altec in for instead (because it's less muddy on the bottom end, and brighter on the top):

looking at the graph, it's actually easy enough to understand why these mics sound like shit when recording distorted guitars - they roll-off before the fucking d string. all your power chords are getting attenuated - of course they sound like shit. like, is this a joke? it's not - i know it's not. but, it cuts around 150 hz, stays flat around the rest of the range of the guitar and rolls up after 3 khz (which is strictly the realm of harmonics, distortion, and effects, to a guitarist), then wobbles a little and crashes somewhere well beyond anything you can realistically hear as anything but noise.

this is the e906, which has three presence switches, and is quite similar but doesn't have those cuts at the top, as much:

watching reviews, i noticed that the e906 sounded less muddy and more clear than the sm57 and you can see why - it actually rolls the bass off even more, cutting the mud created by a putting the mic an inch from your amp out (you have to let low frequencies expand first, kids - otherwise you just get mud), and tweaking the presence so it's more relevant for guitar distortion frequencies. it's still flat over most of the spectrum of the guitar (although it starts a little later...), but it hones in the boost where a guitarist really wants it. so, the benefit of the e906 over the sm57 is that the e906 should sound sparklier at the top because it picks up more of the harmonic parts of the distortion - and it does. clearly. sort of. the 906 also has a presence cut that lets you flatten it out almost entirely. but, if you don't want that - if you want your guitar to sound like it's going to kill somebody's mom - then the shure is probably still the meaner, more evil option. you can scare your kids with it...

is that worthwhile to me? well, the 683b likely already does that for me, even if i can't find a frequency response. the mild difference in the 683b v the sm57 sounds like the difference in the above graphs.

so, i should not just stick with the 683b as an improvement over the sm57, but should hold to it as a primitive version of the same improvement made by sennheiser.

now, look at the 606 over the 906, though:

the 609 comes in far earlier - letting you decide if you want more bass or not by eqing it out later. it's more suited for a guitar, in that sense. further, those harmonic distortion frequencies peak high and fade more slowly than the 906, even opening up space for a frequency space that could only be occupied by feedback and hiss. this mic will pick up the good parts of your guitar tone and the bad parts of your guitar tone equally, and force you to deal with it in the mix stage.

i'm going to be recording with small amps that have small speakers and for that reason will produce more usable bass at closer ranges.

i'm going to wait for the marantz to get here and experiment a little, but i've decided that the 609 is the one i want, if i feel i need a better choice.