Go Acoustic vs Es

[conecaster]

We did not solicit this video.



At the end he does comparisons and demonstrates feedback suppression against a Baggs Element.

GoAA was designed from the beginning to kill feedback.

We feel it is not possible to experience amplified sound with cycling and out of control tendencies.

Thanks to Neale for doing all of this work.

[Marshall]

Fun video. It shows the stuff one has to go thru on the installation.

[conecaster]

Originally Posted by Marshall

Fun video. It shows the stuff one has to go thru on the installation.

Thanks Marshall

Its great that Neale is a studio owner.


I looked at his videos and he has some very nice projects with various artists.

I appreciated his testing of the feedback resistance.

I think he had some mike signal coming through the amp, it seems you can hear his voice slightly enhanced when he is talking.

The GoAA guitar is a lot louder at the same amp vol and still suppresses the feedback

For me, Feedback must be controlled. Even at lower vols cycling is having an effect on the output. Having the goal of reproducing the sound of your guitar is important, but having a guitar your can exploit as a performer is just as important.

We want to take feedback out of the equation

[conecaster]

So our videographer Neale has been evaluating the sound through his equipment and has made this video showing his run down of various settings.



Thank you for all of this Neale

[Marshall]

The first video is good. It shows the Goa is a richer sound than the ES2. It does show that there's still some, what I call, piezo edginess in the sound. Much better than the ES2. But i still find running the signal thru a IR pedal gives me a sound I'm VERY pleased with.

[conecaster]

Originally Posted by Marshall

The first video is good. It shows the Goa is a richer sound than the ES2. It does show that there's still some, what I call, piezo edginess in the sound. Much better than the ES2. But i still find running the signal thru a IR pedal gives me a sound I'm VERY pleased with.

I find recording a bridge pickup direct to be less transparent than a whole room experience. So while recording sound through a board is a more direct reflection from the bridge, recording an amp and getting the ambient quality of the room is usually more acoustic in tonality. I think that is the difference you define between the two examples Neale offered.

Most players I know who use our system to record end up with around 70% GoAA. I have asked Pat if he knows the ration of his Moon Dial recording but he has not answered. He just got off the road after 10 weeks.

As I think I have mentioned before, we struggle with how much to EQ the highs. On my guitars I can use the side mount EQ and my size port offers access to DIP switches that alter the low pass filters.



The range on the switches runs from about 3500 Hz to about 10000 Hz.


On the preamp you have, the low pass is set to the brightest option.

We do this because so often people want added highs when playing against other instruments. Personally, I am not as found of the bright sound. I get the impression you have the same perception of brightness I do. But highs can be reduced otherwise. Adding highs means adding gain so if we are choosing one setting it is better to be to bright than not bright enough.

The preamp circuits can be adjusted to reduce the edginess and I am happy to do that for you.

I suspect the older Gibson is not as edgy because it has richer trebles to begin with.

I just wanted to explain it from our end. You are best served altering highs if it has higher hz than you like.

The edginess can easily be adjusted on the side mount EQ setup using DIPs.

Our original ES replacement preamp had the switches as well. But because of how the preamp extends internally from the side the switches received a lot of amplitude and would rattle, so we removed them. We replaced the switches with a treble cut and boost control as one of the 3 ES knobs. I do not think Neale was cutting highs in the video.

In the saddles we attempt to remove the so called quack by how the elements are located and responding to pressure. The elements are not compressed. The design relies on vertical and lateral motion to broaden tonality. So the elements are receiving bi directional load. Not just vertical pressure like RMC, Barbera or Graphtech which are all transferring string load in a vertical direction. Of the 3 you could argue Graphtech is the most bi directional but not like GoAA. All under saddle transducers are decoupled from the strings energy and under vertical compression. This makes their mobility very limited and as a result the output voltage is reduced. It is my perception that this is why the tonality associated with Peizo and other types of under saddle materials have that tone that is disliked.

I am happy you are getting great results from GoAA, no matter how you are doing it.

Better sound starts with feedback suppression.