Diezel or Fryette?

[witeter]

Im currently waiting to sell my Mesa Single Rectifier and the amps i have in my radar for my next purchase if the money comes in quick enough(!) will either be:
-Diezel Einstein 50w
-Fryette Sig X

What are your opinions on those amps? which one is the best for sounds and live use? thanks

[darkbluemurder]

I have had a VH-4 once which I bought used. Did not really care for its tone and traded it in later. Workmanship was top notch. Transformers, power tubes, pots and jacks are chassis mounted - rest is printed circuit board of excellent quality.

I only had a brief experience with a Pitbull Ultra Lead and that was a fine sounding amp. Fryette also uses printed circuit boards of excellent quality. He also mounts the power tubes on the PCB but given the fact that the amps are not designed to overdrive the power tubes that should not be a problem.

Soundwise I prefer Fryette. I thought the VH-4 was way too dark. The Einstein may be different though.

Best to try both amps. If you have to buy without being able to try first, get a trial period.

Cheers Stephan

[witeter]

Thanks for the info-a big imperative for me is that it has to be an amp that cuts through a mix in a band situation.

[Dmoney]

He also mounts the power tubes on the PCB but given the fact that the amps are not designed to overdrive the power tubes that should not be a problem.

Overdriven or not, I'd say there is still potential for some collateral damage and burnt PCB's. That said the Fryette stuff is as well built and reliable as the best of anything else.

[MDV]

Not played those exact ones.

Played:
CL100EQ (own one)
Deliverance 60
VH4
Herbert

All good amps, but if put a gun to my head and made me choose between the brands...well, who am I kidding, you dont need the gun: the fryettes kill the diezels IMO.

They are very differently voiced though (all 4), and the 'family sound', such as I've been able to discern it from 2 amps from each brand is also very different.

The diezels are much wetter, more saturated and compressed, more 'polished' right out of the cab, but then some complain they sound 'processed' rather than polished, and I can certainly see where they're coming from there.

The VHTs are more raw, aggressive, tighter, punchy, transparent (by which I mean they reveal your playing better, for better or worse, and they allow greater differentiation between guitars) and all round more in your face, but you may find them in need of taming or saturating. They seem to be an aquired taste. I loved them instantly, as do many, but some dont take to them very well. Often that has a lot to do with the fact that with a VHT, some people suddenly go 'THERE THE NOTES ARE!' and merrily get on with loving the hell out of their clarity, and some people go 'WHERE DID THE MISTAKES COME FROM!??!?!' and dismally proceed to hate the clarity. A lot of thats to do with the masses of gain, but lack of saturation.

[Telerocker]

Fryette! Lots of punch, agressiveness and tone. Played the Sig X in a shop (with a strat, sorry). Great amp, just not my amp.

[witeter]

Hmmm intriguing- thanks for the opinions,etc my heart is going more with the Diezel at the moment if im honest-at least i think either way itll be a step up :-)

[hunter]

I would either get the Einstein or wait for the new one they showed on Musikmesse (working title D-Moll). Was like a pimped Einstein with some bells and whistles.

I tried the Sig:X and didn't care much for it. It seemed a bit stiff and lifeless to me.

I like the Einstein better than the VH4 personally, but it's Channel 1 - Mode 3 where the music happens for me, perfect for Metallica or Iron Maiden. I did not so much like Channel 2 - but Ch2 is very modern with lots of gain, compression and low end, so it might just be what you need.

[witeter]

Hey hunter thanks for that- i was envisioning using channel 1 mode 3 for rhythm and channel 2 for lead-it seems that the head im specifically looking at also has a footswitch that allows you to access all the various modes-making it even more versatile.

[HairyChris]

Hi, I own an Einstein (the 100w version, prototype), so can comment a bit. I was running a Mesa Dual Rec previously. The Einstein doesn't have the slam of the Recto but thoroughly slapped it tonally in all other areas. I sold the Mesa after buying the Diezel, so for a couple of weeks I had the majesty of running both. That was... spectacular!

I live on Ch2 Mode 3, it's like a less stiff version of the VH4's Ch3 with much the same tonality. It doesn't sound processed, IMO, but then again I use AlNiCo Warpig 7s into it which batter the pre-amp. Rolling back opens the channel out nicely. The clean (Ch2 Mode 1) is fantastic.

Word of warning, the Einstein is a 2 channel amp. The mode switch mod has disadvantages, main one being that there is a massive volume difference between clean mode and the other 2. Clean is significantly louder. This issue has been brought up on the Diezel forum several times, and there isn't a solution for it. Peter Diezel doesn't have anything against the mod itself - I think that my amp was the first to be done - but obviously it breaks warranty and has to work within the confines of how the amp was designed. I don't use the switching, just roll back volume.

Personally I'd try for the 100w version for the headroom, but that's me. One thing to note is that most of the demos of the Einstein are of the hard-rock/early Metallica type of bent. Don't let that fool you, it can get really nasty and is touch responsive when you dig in.

I can't comment on the Fryette, although I do have friends who play them. I agree with the rawer sound to them, but that may not suit your style - in the same way that the VH4 didn't suit mine! I would like to have a play on a Pitbull to see what it does for me...

I'll stop babbling now.

[hunter]

Hey hunter thanks for that- i was envisioning using channel 1 mode 3 for rhythm and channel 2 for lead-it seems that the head im specifically looking at also has a footswitch that allows you to access all the various modes-making it even more versatile.

I have done the same mod, it's an easy one. I compensated the volume differences with the two masters, so I would use Master 2 to get the clean mode up to volume, run Master 1 for rhythm in Mode 3 and use Master 2 Mode 3 for leads. It's easier if you have remote switching with a GroundConrtol, Amp gizmo or something obviously

[witeter]

Ah riiiight-i basically need to go from clean to heavy rhythm and then go to a lead sound from there.
So i wouldnt be able to do Ch1: mode 1 for clean, Ch1:mode 3 for rhythm, and Ch:2 + Master 2 for lead+solo boost?

[hunter]

Ah riiiight-i basically need to go from clean to heavy rhythm and then go to a lead sound from there.
So i wouldnt be able to do Ch1: mode 1 for clean, Ch1:mode 3 for rhythm, and Ch:2 + Master 2 for lead+solo boost?

You can. You run Master 2 Channel 1 Mode 1 for CLean, Master 1 Channel 1 Mode 3 for Rhythm and Master 2 Channel 2 for Lead (or adjust Channel 2 channel volume to make it the lead with Master 1

All clear? :-)

[witeter]

Ah yes but...i wouldnt be able to get the lead sound to be at a higher volume-as it would either have to be at the same volume as the clean or the same volume as the rhythm?

[hunter]

Ah yes but...i wouldnt be able to get the lead sound to be at a higher volume-as it would either have to be at the same volume as the clean or the same volume as the rhythm?

You can.

Mode 3 Ch1 is by itself louder than mode 1 Ch1, so you would use the Masters to compensate that different. And Ch2 has an independent Channel volume, so you can set that the way you like anyways and use either Matser with it.