Hey guys, thanks for the awesome video! Was a fun watch. To answer your one direct question, Lee: when we were developing the Supreme Soaker, we first had numbers for the different Speaker Tone/Line EQ settings - 1, 2, 3, etc. At some point we found the numbers too cold and impersonal, so we went with names and cities instead, and the idea is to let people make up their own minds and just play! That's also why we don't have specific cabs/amps mentioned on the Soaker. Like Pete says at one point, the cool thing is being able to listen to what your ears tell you, and not just click on the 4x12 setting because you think that's what'll sound best, for example. And for anyone interested, there's loads more info on our website, and we'll also be doing some more in-depth Q&A videos about the Soaker over on our channel soon. Cheers! 😎
Love the realism with Lee starting the episode with a perplexed look on his face while reading the "quick start guide." A recreation of every piece of gear I've acquired in the last five years...
If you want to understand why there is a perceived loss of higher and lower end at lower volumes look up the Fletcher Munson curve. Perception of loudness varies with frequency and SPL. Old school audio receivers had a loudness contour switch to accommodate that and so these kind of devices would need that too but of course that adds an equalization circuit into the mix with its attendant problems including phase anomalies. Some things are just what they are.
I've only directly compared the Ox to the Tone King vs Freyette...and across 3 people testing (fwiw), the Freyette was easily, unanimously, the best sounding. I'd love to try the Palmer. And the Ox was unanimously in 3rd place
Fryette PS attenuators do seem to be the gold standard at doing the job in the most natural sounding and feeling manner. Other attenuators do sound good until you A/B with a Fryette PS and then you don’t want to go back 😊
I arrived at exactly the same conclusion about 18 months ago, and the margin by which the Freyette PS is better is enormous, so enormous that there really is no second or third place. The Ox is a decent recording solution, as an attenuator it is a disaster. While I will stay with the Freyette for sure (I got 4 of them by now), other attenuators that worked to some degree were the Suhr and the Boss Tube Amp Expander - all better than the Ox.
Speaking from an attenuation POV, the Freyette seems to be the #1. The Ox is a great recording unit with a decent job at attenuation. This Palmer seems to add some features that Ox users complain about; fair enough. Lee is right about the gimmicky names though. These units are designed for gearheads, so it sounds like Palmer did not talk to many potential pro/semi-pro guitar players about those labels in beta. The Palmer audio examples here were quite nasal-sounding; hopefully, that was just user error.
people are upset about haviing TRS instead of XLR? ...do they realize they're pretty much the same cable with a different connector and any adapter will work with no loss of quality?
The reason attenuators lose treble and bass when quiet isn't the attenuator, it's your ears. We lose bass and trebble at low volume. That's why vintage hifi had a loudness button to increase bass and treble when playing quietly. Marantz had one that rolled off as you increased the volume. It worked very well. I'm surprised the attenuator doesn't do that.
It's the fletcher munson effect (volume affects what we perceive) when you lower the volume. You'll have to Google fletcher munson curves too much info to type here. I don't own a amp and load box but the way you could test it, I'm guessing here, is attenuate the signal to where you think you're losing frequencies then record that then turn up the volume of the recording and see if the frequencies you think are missing come back to where you thought they were before attenuation. *Edit* for all of you that mix your own music the fletcher munson curve is real, you don't want to mix too loud or too soft. I'm sure if you do some research you could find out what DB range is optimal for mixing.
I know Andertons don’t sell Fryette PS products and need to A/B what they do sell, but to talk about the multiuse boxes and basic reactive load attenuators they do sell (like products in this video) as being the best attenuators in the market for tube amp volume control is quite a stretch. Like Pete says, pure attenuators can only do so much. You need to be able to EQ your attenuated signal to get the natural tone and feel back. That’s why the reamping of Fryette PS products leaves the basic reactive load solutions for dust. The Tone King Ironman II attenuator leave the OX box attenuation behind… until you compare with a Fryette PS and realise there’s just no contest in tone and feel. 🤷♂️
@ThemFuzzyMonsters "Something that no other attenuator can do." That is a quote right from the Fryette website. You're saying you know more than the people that actually built it? Pete Thorn is one of the most reputable UA-cam guitarists, and he called in an attenuator. Am I missing something?
@@ThemFuzzyMonsters it is though it has a load that pulls the power down and then a power tube stage that reamps the signal rather than solid state. Plus there is literally no change in the sound from original. Plus 2 channels switchable and an FX loop which helps everyone using vintage amps . Nothing comes close
to you maybe. I've owned every single unit out there and I found the PS colored my tone way too much. Much prefer the Ironman Man II as an attenuator and Ox for recording.
Nice video lads! I like the concept and I love the analogue gear but the cryptic nature of the EQ naming puts me off. I'll be sticking to my Suhr IR box thankyou very much. IF somebody from Palmer comes out and de-mystifies the EQ naming, I'll probably give it a shot. I've got various iterations of Palmer's PDI loadboxes and I like them... but they can bugger off with all that cryptic guff. 😒
I get not telling you “this is a 4x12 greenback, and this is a 2x12 JBL…” it just makes you assume tones instead of find them. Back when I had a Roland Cube 30 I always thought I wanted to use the fender or Marshall copy sounds, but honestly my ears liked the Metal (5150) modeled tone even though I played rock and blues. It just had it. If I wouldn’t have attached certain ideals and names I would have not wasted time on “which is what I think I like?”
As a studio tool Palmer hands down. and if you add a cheap IR player and use the blend at the same time - the possibilities are endless. Sold my OX a while back because it was a very limited IR box (at a very high price). Could do all it does with a 2Note Live and more. The Palmer reminds me of the SPL Reducer (not bad) Or SLP Transducer which I also have. Hate the price but will see. Still think that the OX is a ripp off
I own a Weber mass 200 attenuator which is considered a very nice reactive attenuator for the price. I have used it on both a silver jubilee, a jcm 2000 and my current amp, a ceriatone yeti. Fletcher munson curve, volume difference, sure it makes a difference. BUT! if you have an amp with a good master volume and match volumes with amp attenuated and attenuator bypassed you will hear: the attenuator always sucks tone, especially high end sparkle. Some attenuators like the weber has a treble compensation. The problem is that the high end loss is at a much wider frequency-range than the compensation can ever give back, which is why you might find the sound raspy or less lively. For some amps, using an attenuator will give more than it takes because the amp by design needs the powertubes to be driven properly in order to sound as intended. My point is this: There are alot of well designed amps available today that has a master volume and other switches and knobs to accommodate low volume playing, like the friedman amps etc. And thats where the money should be spent for most of us. Just my opinion based on my experience. Great video as always!
Yea I fortunately have a great master volume as it happens aswell. 100 Watts in my bedroom and it still sounds good at little volume. As you clearly know, not all master volumes are created equally! We are the lucky ones 🎉
They both sounded alright to me tbh- but it's hard to really tell much difference listening online like this. The differences between products like this are subtle- you just about have to listen in person to truly hear the differences.
If you want a night and day light bulb moment with attenuators, just pick one and A/B with a Fryette PS. Once you do you’ll most likely want a Fryette if attenuation is the key feature you’re after. The traditional reactive load solution just takes too much away in tone and feel by comparison.
I find that it's single note lines that I need to listen to, in order to hear loss or gain of overtones...tells me instantly....a real amp over a modeller is a must for me now, after gigging with both situations (using an fm3) ...the speaker emulation sounds better when using a real amp...modeller is good but lacks the overtone magic...I personally feel it's the same with real speaker vs emulation as well...like he said in the end...use a master volume amp....I agree.
They both have a different sonic signature. The Ox sounds more raw, open and forward and the Palmer sounds more like it's compressed to some degree, like a recording. I'll bet they would both work awesome together paired with the right combination of amps
I think its very cool having no references such as 4×12 V30 bla bla bla .... because you then choose only sounds you like and not based on expetation .... great idea Palmer 👍
To me, the Palmer sounds more like an actual amp. It sounds open and very dynamic, very natural and like Lee says it sounds more like an amp in the room. Because of that - compared to other units - you'd probably have to edit more in post to get it working in a mix. The OX Box to me sounds more like a recorded tone, it probably needs less editing to work in a mix, some of the work has already been done. Both units sound great, I guess to OX Box is the overall winner here because let's face it: it's very convenient, intuitive, needs next to no post processing to work in a mix and that's what most guitarists look for nowadays. If you're more the purist type of player, you'd probably like the Palmer more. Out of the two, I'd go analog and choose the Palmer even though it needs a bit more work to get it to sit properly in a mix.
Love you guys, but still don't understand why you do these comparisons (with all this stuff setup, the micing etc.) but still miss to compensate for the Gain attenuation in the DAW ofr yourself and the viewers. Every step of attenuation should be compensated with the equal amount of gain to be able to find out if filtering occurs through attenuation. Or am I missing the point of this? A louder signal is always perceived as better and clearer!!!
That's a great idea for a video. As long as its two Fender style Amps or two Marshall style Amps etc it'd be a great little test for sure. Only say that because it's actually the tone stack that changes an Amps feel and eq the most in my experience so best to compare similar.
The palmer does do that Boston rockman tone pretty well, but it's not really my thing. All analog can only go so far for emulating a speaker. IR's literally capture the speaker to mic behavior which is still missing from an all analog eq component approach.
Nice video guys, but one big miss, NO 4 OHMS impedance. So for all Fender Twin Reverb users, this will not work for us. Why @PalmerGermany why? Why make a product that can work on amps rated up to 150 Watts, but excluded the big amps like a staple like the Fender Twin Reverb (85 Watts) that runs at 4ohms?
A 4 ohm amp running into a 4 ohm load just doesn't sound as convincing as the 8 ohm eqivalent. Your needs are not being ignored...but you wouldn't like the sound of it.
To settle the attenuator argument, just sell the Fryette Power Station. I have both Ox and Fryette PS100. They are both are capable for home and live work, but essentially have to be rigged up differently. The Ox is only good through FoH, and if you like the sound of your cab (which I do), then the Fryette wins hand down.
I feel like my ox sucks a lot of tone. In the room it just seems to lose a heap of overtones and texture. Hard to explain but it does seem more sterile. As an attenuator I’ve heard the fryette leaves it for dead.
EQ changes will always be a lot more apparent on distorted tones because the whole frequency spectrum is much more saturated! All the pretty loud harmonics from the distortion will be affected by the EQ changes, which we can hear, rather than on a clean tone, where we got the fundamental and much less and quieter harmonics. I think analog cab sim stuff still has quite a way to go if it wants to beat the IR technology without being super messy and clunky. Odd choice.
With the mix blend option, have they overlooked time of arrival/phase compensation? It certainly sounds like it! When that mic signal is blended in you can hear that scoopy phasey thing going on!
As the original distributor of these products, l have to agree with you. The designer/inventer was always pushing for the mix function. I was less keen. He is absolutely brilliant at designing loads and filters and l don't think he was ever aware their would be phase problems when mixing g in a mic.
@@David-jb6ev It is a great idea and really practical and useful I can see so many uses for that function its great but that time of arrival and phase difference does make a difference and would elevate the feature! Easy fix as well its such a small delay amount! Suppose it needs to be adjustable depending on mic position!
Asks him several times to go thru the settings slower to better hear & feel each setting. Dies so far two clicks at one point & then reverts back to quickly switching again. Lol I know he's trying to get thru the video quicker, but Pete was right to let it breath a bit. If he can't havw a few seconds to get the feel of the setting than neither can the listener. Maybe next time let him give you a nod to switch
Just get a smaller amp.i have a 1 watt valve with a 10" cab. Volume almost at Full. Little gain and its a great sound. I agree amps sound better the harder they are pushed.
Clean sounds okay, but the drive sound doesn't sound good compared to my experience with a captor x. I like more options with attenuation level of the palmer and the stereo effects loop though.
I think I’ll stick with my JHS Little Black Amp Box in the effects loop for $50. Does the same thing if you don’t need the cab sim or fancy features and just want to tame the amp.
Could you put up a comparison with items like the Two Notes Torpedo line, so that we can get an idea of the range of what's available here? I know that, feature-wise, nothing will touch these two. But if you're buying for home rather than a studio, do you _need_ to spend over a grand to get this stuff?
Yes Pete, it's "a volume thing". Nothing, absolutely nothing sounds as good at lower volume. That's the human ear for you..... (Fletcher Munson equal loudness contours, later replaced by Robinson Dadson curves, and then by the catchily called ISO 226)
The OX is way overpriced as it is. So Palmer have made a huge mistake by not seriously undercutting. Especially as the emulation side is clearly not as good. Kind of missed what for me is the main selling point of the Palmer, the ability to do a wet dry wet rig with one amp.
…until you try a Fryette PS and realise it’s not by a good margin. I sold/returned my TK Ironman gear as I couldn’t get the Fryette tone and feel out of my head. It just ruined the TK attenuators for me. Try one if you dare 😊
It's not a very useful comparison, though. What IRs or speaker sims through a full range speaker are simulating is the sound of a mic in front of guitar speaker. Not an amp in a room. They're just completely different things. If you want to do a fair comparison between real amps + cabs and the simulations, put a real miced cab in another room and listen to it through monitors.
@@mrcoatsworth429 yes, I take your point with regard to a direct comparison to a real amp and cab, however, I'm told some FRFR cabinets do "feel" more amp like than others. I know the Line 6 one didn't at all to me (felt the same as a PA cab) but have heard the new Fender ones do. Would just like to see a comparison. I know these things are probably mainly subjective but still interesting and potentially useful to me. I currently run my Helix through the power amp stage of a Roland Jazz Chorus because it feels more like an amp stack.
@@mrcoatsworth429 Accept two of the UA amp in a box pedals have "room" parameters on them- specifically there to emulate the sound of a cab in the room with you. Ppl think they're just a form of reverb- but they're a lot more than that and were never intended to sub for reverb. Imo that's why the two pedals that have it are the two most popular UA amp-in-a-box pedals- the Lion 68 and the Woodrow. UAFX finally figured out that what was missing wasn't even in the amp-- it was the way a speaker reacts with the space it's being played within- natural reverb.
Thanks. I just thought these amps don’t have a conventional jack from the speaker to the circuit. Or al least it’s not visible without removing the back panel. Thanks for the answer
Hey there! I am using the OX Box with my Magnatone Twilighter. Whilst it doesn't have a speaker out jack on the back panel it's not too tricky to set it up. You just need to undo the back panel screws and lower the back casing and you will see the speaker output jack. I just run the lead out the bottom and screw the back back up and it's neat.
@@sleepingatsea3420 Thanks so much for the explanation! Really appreciated. Are you happy with the tone attenuated? Do you think it would be suitable for bedroom/low volume play?
@dariobertagna9817 no problem! Definitely happy with it when used clean or as a platform for pedals. Sounds great at bedroom levels and honestly the headphone out on the OX using its cab sims sounds absolutely incredible. BUT...I don't really enjoy the sound of the amp cranked with it to be honest. I've often wondered if it would be better with the Fryette but don't know. Happy to use it this for cleans or pedals for drive and it sounds great. Hope that helps!
Oh man, it was impressive listening to you guys do your damnedest to not admit how unimpressed you were. Isn't the idea of an attenuator not to change the sound of the amp -- this Palmer seemed not capable of that. Anyhoo, thanks for demoing this...but I think I'll pass :)
The TRS outputs on the ox box are balanced. Complaining about the lack of XLR is silly. Anyone crying about that is just showing their ignorance. You can buy a set of TRS to XLR cables if you need, and send them out to house as far as needed with no worry.
The Boss one works a little differently - it attenuates the amp to zero & then uses it own 100w solid state amp to drive the speaker. Works well, but its not the same idea as the Ox or Palmer
To me that mic feature makes no sense - isn't the main aspect of these boxes to avoid all the problems I'll get by the use of microphones? What about phase correction when blending in the DI signal? In a studio I can mic at any volume level and the pros how to do it right, so there's no need for using the Supreme Soaker... BTW: Never heard any analog cab sim that sounds as good as an IR - even tone guru and analog fetishist Thomas Blug use digital cab simulation because he knows what's best. Sorry Palmer...
@@digitalchris6681For sure, the Fryette PS is a different beast giving the customer a valve power (re)amp. Some might not want to go down this slightly more expensive route while conceptually having more to go wrong in the Fryette box (but in reality just as reliable as any tube amp you’re using it with), but in terms of tone and feel during attenuation, it is pretty much the gold standard for getting that at any speaker cabinet volume. It also works well of course to re-amp smaller guitar amplifies to make them much bigger sounding.
I think Palmer is stuck in one gear... Everyone moved on from analog sim now that digital is decent... Load box is still ok... Sold both my pdi 04 and pdi 03
That Palmer box sounded like s**t with speaker simulation with gain. Analog speaker simulation is the only analog thing that clearly sounds worse than digital. Sounds flatter and uninspiring with more gain you put thru it. Amazed that Palmer still uses this, especially in a "high end" product.
Hey guys, thanks for the awesome video! Was a fun watch. To answer your one direct question, Lee: when we were developing the Supreme Soaker, we first had numbers for the different Speaker Tone/Line EQ settings - 1, 2, 3, etc. At some point we found the numbers too cold and impersonal, so we went with names and cities instead, and the idea is to let people make up their own minds and just play!
That's also why we don't have specific cabs/amps mentioned on the Soaker. Like Pete says at one point, the cool thing is being able to listen to what your ears tell you, and not just click on the 4x12 setting because you think that's what'll sound best, for example.
And for anyone interested, there's loads more info on our website, and we'll also be doing some more in-depth Q&A videos about the Soaker over on our channel soon. Cheers! 😎
Love the realism with Lee starting the episode with a perplexed look on his face while reading the "quick start guide." A recreation of every piece of gear I've acquired in the last five years...
If you want to understand why there is a perceived loss of higher and lower end at lower volumes look up the Fletcher Munson curve. Perception of loudness varies with frequency and SPL. Old school audio receivers had a loudness contour switch to accommodate that and so these kind of devices would need that too but of course that adds an equalization circuit into the mix with its attendant problems including phase anomalies. Some things are just what they are.
which is why the Ironman attenuator is genius, using math to add perceived loss of frequency.
Exactly this.... I'm always amazed it's hardly ever mentioned.
@@edwardgrassel872 Cant you just compensate with your amp's EQ?
I've only directly compared the Ox to the Tone King vs Freyette...and across 3 people testing (fwiw), the Freyette was easily, unanimously, the best sounding. I'd love to try the Palmer. And the Ox was unanimously in 3rd place
Fryette PS attenuators do seem to be the gold standard at doing the job in the most natural sounding and feeling manner. Other attenuators do sound good until you A/B with a Fryette PS and then you don’t want to go back 😊
I arrived at exactly the same conclusion about 18 months ago, and the margin by which the Freyette PS is better is enormous, so enormous that there really is no second or third place. The Ox is a decent recording solution, as an attenuator it is a disaster. While I will stay with the Freyette for sure (I got 4 of them by now), other attenuators that worked to some degree were the Suhr and the Boss Tube Amp Expander - all better than the Ox.
Speaking from an attenuation POV, the Freyette seems to be the #1. The Ox is a great recording unit with a decent job at attenuation. This Palmer seems to add some features that Ox users complain about; fair enough. Lee is right about the gimmicky names though. These units are designed for gearheads, so it sounds like Palmer did not talk to many potential pro/semi-pro guitar players about those labels in beta. The Palmer audio examples here were quite nasal-sounding; hopefully, that was just user error.
5 seconds in and I'm enthralled. Great job Mr. Editor.
Not sure about this unit: it seems to allow various combinations of eq and speaker settings, but they all result in various unpleasant nasal tones.
I love Palmer gear. Still have my two Palmer PDI-03s which get a lot of use.
people are upset about haviing TRS instead of XLR? ...do they realize they're pretty much the same cable with a different connector and any adapter will work with no loss of quality?
Yep - that threw me as well. 5 mins with cable and soldering iron - this is encountered so regularly it’s a non-issue.
Pete is so right about the names of those cab sims. Who cares, see which one sounds best to you!
The editing of these videos is the real MVP
The reason attenuators lose treble and bass when quiet isn't the attenuator, it's your ears. We lose bass and trebble at low volume. That's why vintage hifi had a loudness button to increase bass and treble when playing quietly. Marantz had one that rolled off as you increased the volume. It worked very well. I'm surprised the attenuator doesn't do that.
Totally dig hanging out with tube amp dinosaurs. Great video and gear.
The Fryette (POWER STATION PS-100) is the best attenuator on the market
Fryette PS 100
Power station is the GOAT 🐐
Everything else is just a nice try, but no cigar 😎
It's the fletcher munson effect (volume affects what we perceive) when you lower the volume. You'll have to Google fletcher munson curves too much info to type here. I don't own a amp and load box but the way you could test it, I'm guessing here, is attenuate the signal to where you think you're losing frequencies then record that then turn up the volume of the recording and see if the frequencies you think are missing come back to where you thought they were before attenuation. *Edit* for all of you that mix your own music the fletcher munson curve is real, you don't want to mix too loud or too soft. I'm sure if you do some research you could find out what DB range is optimal for mixing.
Pete's got new shoes. Very smart.
2:45 - 😂
Lectures Pete on how to pronounce Palmer, then proceeds to say “Pamah” for the whole video.
Love you guys!
I know Andertons don’t sell Fryette PS products and need to A/B what they do sell, but to talk about the multiuse boxes and basic reactive load attenuators they do sell (like products in this video) as being the best attenuators in the market for tube amp volume control is quite a stretch.
Like Pete says, pure attenuators can only do so much. You need to be able to EQ your attenuated signal to get the natural tone and feel back. That’s why the reamping of Fryette PS products leaves the basic reactive load solutions for dust. The Tone King Ironman II attenuator leave the OX box attenuation behind… until you compare with a Fryette PS and realise there’s just no contest in tone and feel. 🤷♂️
The fryette powerstation is the best hands down
… but it’s not technically an attenuator.
Love mine.
@ThemFuzzyMonsters "Something that no other attenuator can do." That is a quote right from the Fryette website. You're saying you know more than the people that actually built it? Pete Thorn is one of the most reputable UA-cam guitarists, and he called in an attenuator. Am I missing something?
@@ThemFuzzyMonsters it is though it has a load that pulls the power down and then a power tube stage that reamps the signal rather than solid state. Plus there is literally no change in the sound from original. Plus 2 channels switchable and an FX loop which helps everyone using vintage amps . Nothing comes close
to you maybe. I've owned every single unit out there and I found the PS colored my tone way too much. Much prefer the Ironman Man II as an attenuator and Ox for recording.
well its the ox for me boys, loved the vid.
cheers guys.
Nice video lads! I like the concept and I love the analogue gear but the cryptic nature of the EQ naming puts me off. I'll be sticking to my Suhr IR box thankyou very much. IF somebody from Palmer comes out and de-mystifies the EQ naming, I'll probably give it a shot. I've got various iterations of Palmer's PDI loadboxes and I like them... but they can bugger off with all that cryptic guff. 😒
I get not telling you “this is a 4x12 greenback, and this is a 2x12 JBL…” it just makes you assume tones instead of find them. Back when I had a Roland Cube 30 I always thought I wanted to use the fender or Marshall copy sounds, but honestly my ears liked the Metal (5150) modeled tone even though I played rock and blues. It just had it. If I wouldn’t have attached certain ideals and names I would have not wasted time on “which is what I think I like?”
Honestly I just finished a jam using the UA Sound City plugin and couldn't be happier
I think adding an EQ pedal in the effects loop might help you tame the attenuation differences.
As a studio tool Palmer hands down. and if you add a cheap IR player and use the blend at the same time - the possibilities are endless. Sold my OX a while back because it was a very limited IR box (at a very high price). Could do all it does with a 2Note Live and more. The Palmer reminds me of the SPL Reducer (not bad) Or SLP Transducer which I also have. Hate the price but will see. Still think that the OX is a ripp off
I own a Weber mass 200 attenuator which is considered a very nice reactive attenuator for the price. I have used it on both a silver jubilee, a jcm 2000 and my current amp, a ceriatone yeti. Fletcher munson curve, volume difference, sure it makes a difference. BUT! if you have an amp with a good master volume and match volumes with amp attenuated and attenuator bypassed you will hear: the attenuator always sucks tone, especially high end sparkle. Some attenuators like the weber has a treble compensation. The problem is that the high end loss is at a much wider frequency-range than the compensation can ever give back, which is why you might find the sound raspy or less lively. For some amps, using an attenuator will give more than it takes because the amp by design needs the powertubes to be driven properly in order to sound as intended. My point is this: There are alot of well designed amps available today that has a master volume and other switches and knobs to accommodate low volume playing, like the friedman amps etc. And thats where the money should be spent for most of us. Just my opinion based on my experience. Great video as always!
What do I think? I'm just glad I have a decent master volume on my amp.
Yea I fortunately have a great master volume as it happens aswell. 100 Watts in my bedroom and it still sounds good at little volume. As you clearly know, not all master volumes are created equally! We are the lucky ones 🎉
They both sounded alright to me tbh- but it's hard to really tell much difference listening online like this. The differences between products like this are subtle- you just about have to listen in person to truly hear the differences.
If you want a night and day light bulb moment with attenuators, just pick one and A/B with a Fryette PS. Once you do you’ll most likely want a Fryette if attenuation is the key feature you’re after. The traditional reactive load solution just takes too much away in tone and feel by comparison.
But how do you know wether the mic is in phase withe the line signal or not? (As you blend)
I find that it's single note lines that I need to listen to, in order to hear loss or gain of overtones...tells me instantly....a real amp over a modeller is a must for me now, after gigging with both situations (using an fm3)
...the speaker emulation sounds better when using a real amp...modeller is good but lacks the overtone magic...I personally feel it's the same with real speaker vs emulation as well...like he said in the end...use a master volume amp....I agree.
*cranks up my amp*
Attenuator, what’s that?! 😄
They both have a different sonic signature. The Ox sounds more raw, open and forward and the Palmer sounds more like it's compressed to some degree, like a recording. I'll bet they would both work awesome together paired with the right combination of amps
I think its very cool having no references such as 4×12 V30 bla bla bla .... because you then choose only sounds you like and not based on expetation .... great idea Palmer 👍
To me, the Palmer sounds more like an actual amp. It sounds open and very dynamic, very natural and like Lee says it sounds more like an amp in the room. Because of that - compared to other units - you'd probably have to edit more in post to get it working in a mix. The OX Box to me sounds more like a recorded tone, it probably needs less editing to work in a mix, some of the work has already been done. Both units sound great, I guess to OX Box is the overall winner here because let's face it: it's very convenient, intuitive, needs next to no post processing to work in a mix and that's what most guitarists look for nowadays. If you're more the purist type of player, you'd probably like the Palmer more. Out of the two, I'd go analog and choose the Palmer even though it needs a bit more work to get it to sit properly in a mix.
Love you guys, but still don't understand why you do these comparisons (with all this stuff setup, the micing etc.) but still miss to compensate for the Gain attenuation in the DAW ofr yourself and the viewers. Every step of attenuation should be compensated with the equal amount of gain to be able to find out if filtering occurs through attenuation. Or am I missing the point of this?
A louder signal is always perceived as better and clearer!!!
Nice toys! Listening on headphones the Ox sounds better to use as a DI box to my ears. Just sounded richer.
For some reason Pete’s George Forman comment got me laughing so good. Nice
Maybe you guys should try a comparison between a high-Watt amp through an attenuator and a 5- or 1-Watt amp.
That's a great idea for a video. As long as its two Fender style Amps or two Marshall style Amps etc it'd be a great little test for sure. Only say that because it's actually the tone stack that changes an Amps feel and eq the most in my experience so best to compare similar.
Made it to the end and following instructions :)
I like the idea of - don't get caught up in what you think it is - the name doesn't matter if you like it.
The palmer does do that Boston rockman tone pretty well, but it's not really my thing. All analog can only go so far for emulating a speaker. IR's literally capture the speaker to mic behavior which is still missing from an all analog eq component approach.
Nice video guys, but one big miss, NO 4 OHMS impedance. So for all Fender Twin Reverb users, this will not work for us. Why @PalmerGermany why? Why make a product that can work on amps rated up to 150 Watts, but excluded the big amps like a staple like the Fender Twin Reverb (85 Watts) that runs at 4ohms?
A 4 ohm amp running into a 4 ohm load just doesn't sound as convincing as the 8 ohm eqivalent. Your needs are not being ignored...but you wouldn't like the sound of it.
To settle the attenuator argument, just sell the Fryette Power Station. I have both Ox and Fryette PS100. They are both are capable for home and live work, but essentially have to be rigged up differently. The Ox is only good through FoH, and if you like the sound of your cab (which I do), then the Fryette wins hand down.
great comparison, food for thought. but regarding price I guess its changed since filming ox is 25% more than the palmer.
I feel like my ox sucks a lot of tone. In the room it just seems to lose a heap of overtones and texture. Hard to explain but it does seem more sterile. As an attenuator I’ve heard the fryette leaves it for dead.
TK Ironman II attenuators are more agreeable for tone and feel. But if you want next level gold standard… Fryette PS for sure. 🙂
PALMER FOREVER!
EQ changes will always be a lot more apparent on distorted tones because the whole frequency spectrum is much more saturated! All the pretty loud harmonics from the distortion will be affected by the EQ changes, which we can hear, rather than on a clean tone, where we got the fundamental and much less and quieter harmonics.
I think analog cab sim stuff still has quite a way to go if it wants to beat the IR technology without being super messy and clunky. Odd choice.
Is the editor a fan of Van Helsing? 😅 Having put that up on the screen as opposed to Helsinki :) Great video as usual guys!
only way to find out, if top end is lost is actually volume matching the recordings
New idea for a product shootout video: The best attenuator, which one changes the amps tone the LEAST
Glad my amp has an attenuator built into it. lol
999 btw. LOL
How dare you cover the dB meter with a plant or petes head at almost every camera angle! Animals!
I’ll stick with the Bugera PS1 for now..👍🇦🇺
With the mix blend option, have they overlooked time of arrival/phase compensation? It certainly sounds like it! When that mic signal is blended in you can hear that scoopy phasey thing going on!
IMHO, it makes this feature completely useless.
As the original distributor of these products, l have to agree with you. The designer/inventer was always pushing for the mix function. I was less keen. He is absolutely brilliant at designing loads and filters and l don't think he was ever aware their would be phase problems when mixing g in a mic.
@@danielmauric8491 Maybe completely useless is harsh but it is certainly is something that is effecting the tone!
@@David-jb6ev It is a great idea and really practical and useful I can see so many uses for that function its great but that time of arrival and phase difference does make a difference and would elevate the feature! Easy fix as well its such a small delay amount! Suppose it needs to be adjustable depending on mic position!
Asks him several times to go thru the settings slower to better hear & feel each setting. Dies so far two clicks at one point & then reverts back to quickly switching again. Lol
I know he's trying to get thru the video quicker, but Pete was right to let it breath a bit. If he can't havw a few seconds to get the feel of the setting than neither can the listener. Maybe next time let him give you a nod to switch
Does anyone just make a good attenuator without all the bells and whistles? I don’t want IRs and all that, just want to tame a 100w going into a 4x12
The Sequis load box.
Tone King Iron Man II.
@@RodVonLongrod yikes, $800. Might as well get all the bells and whistles
Just get a smaller amp.i have a 1 watt valve with a 10" cab. Volume almost at Full. Little gain and its a great sound. I agree amps sound better the harder they are pushed.
Clean sounds okay, but the drive sound doesn't sound good compared to my experience with a captor x. I like more options with attenuation level of the palmer and the stereo effects loop though.
I think I’ll stick with my JHS Little Black Amp Box in the effects loop for $50. Does the same thing if you don’t need the cab sim or fancy features and just want to tame the amp.
Noob here. Watched several vids without succes, but that's the option I wanted. Thanks!
Dinosaur Pete would be a great band name.
Could you put up a comparison with items like the Two Notes Torpedo line, so that we can get an idea of the range of what's available here?
I know that, feature-wise, nothing will touch these two. But if you're buying for home rather than a studio, do you _need_ to spend over a grand to get this stuff?
Yes Pete, it's "a volume thing". Nothing, absolutely nothing sounds as good at lower volume. That's the human ear for you..... (Fletcher Munson equal loudness contours, later replaced by Robinson Dadson curves, and then by the catchily called ISO 226)
I wish my tinnitus was at a lower volume. :P
@@bigfatengineerMmm. I discovered attenuators/power soaks too late in my career too.
Wait until you have an old crone nagging in your ear, I'm sure you'll see the appeal of lower volume! 😂
@@cchavez248oh so true. I'd rather use headphones turned up than an attenuated cab.
The OX is way overpriced as it is. So Palmer have made a huge mistake by not seriously undercutting. Especially as the emulation side is clearly not as good.
Kind of missed what for me is the main selling point of the Palmer, the ability to do a wet dry wet rig with one amp.
I had Marshall one, regret selling it. Quite expensive stuff.
Isn't the 5th "Speaker Volume" setting on the UA OXBOX a bypass...? I might be wrong...
The best attenuator is- tone king Ironman ii
That's true!
…until you try a Fryette PS and realise it’s not by a good margin. I sold/returned my TK Ironman gear as I couldn’t get the Fryette tone and feel out of my head. It just ruined the TK attenuators for me. Try one if you dare 😊
so I tried it, and there are nuances that I don't like in it. Thanks anyway!
Well the best attenuator is the Fryette Powerstation by a country mile so there goes that argument.
pretty nice guys !
Interesting...how about a comparison of different FRFR's....against some real cabinets too maybe to see how Lee and Pete think they feel "in the room"
It's not a very useful comparison, though. What IRs or speaker sims through a full range speaker are simulating is the sound of a mic in front of guitar speaker. Not an amp in a room. They're just completely different things.
If you want to do a fair comparison between real amps + cabs and the simulations, put a real miced cab in another room and listen to it through monitors.
@@mrcoatsworth429 yes, I take your point with regard to a direct comparison to a real amp and cab, however, I'm told some FRFR cabinets do "feel" more amp like than others. I know the Line 6 one didn't at all to me (felt the same as a PA cab) but have heard the new Fender ones do. Would just like to see a comparison.
I know these things are probably mainly subjective but still interesting and potentially useful to me.
I currently run my Helix through the power amp stage of a Roland Jazz Chorus because it feels more like an amp stack.
@@mrcoatsworth429 Accept two of the UA amp in a box pedals have "room" parameters on them- specifically there to emulate the sound of a cab in the room with you. Ppl think they're just a form of reverb- but they're a lot more than that and were never intended to sub for reverb. Imo that's why the two pedals that have it are the two most popular UA amp-in-a-box pedals- the Lion 68 and the Woodrow. UAFX finally figured out that what was missing wasn't even in the amp-- it was the way a speaker reacts with the space it's being played within- natural reverb.
Can you use either of them with a magnatone twiligher combo? Would be great if you guys can show how to hook a combo amp
You just run the speaker output of the combo into the attenuator & attach the speaker to the attenuator
Thanks. I just thought these amps don’t have a conventional jack from the speaker to the circuit. Or al least it’s not visible without removing the back panel. Thanks for the answer
Hey there! I am using the OX Box with my Magnatone Twilighter. Whilst it doesn't have a speaker out jack on the back panel it's not too tricky to set it up.
You just need to undo the back panel screws and lower the back casing and you will see the speaker output jack. I just run the lead out the bottom and screw the back back up and it's neat.
@@sleepingatsea3420 Thanks so much for the explanation! Really appreciated. Are you happy with the tone attenuated? Do you think it would be suitable for bedroom/low volume play?
@dariobertagna9817 no problem! Definitely happy with it when used clean or as a platform for pedals. Sounds great at bedroom levels and honestly the headphone out on the OX using its cab sims sounds absolutely incredible.
BUT...I don't really enjoy the sound of the amp cranked with it to be honest. I've often wondered if it would be better with the Fryette but don't know. Happy to use it this for cleans or pedals for drive and it sounds great. Hope that helps!
Oh man, it was impressive listening to you guys do your damnedest to not admit how unimpressed you were. Isn't the idea of an attenuator not to change the sound of the amp -- this Palmer seemed not capable of that. Anyhoo, thanks for demoing this...but I think I'll pass :)
Oh great, more options - just what I need! 🙄😉🤪
The TRS outputs on the ox box are balanced. Complaining about the lack of XLR is silly. Anyone crying about that is just showing their ignorance. You can buy a set of TRS to XLR cables if you need, and send them out to house as far as needed with no worry.
Good comparison!
What happened with the Waza Tube Expander? I feel like everybody was on fire for it when it was released at NAMM and then never saw it again.
That tells you everything
The Boss one works a little differently - it attenuates the amp to zero & then uses it own 100w solid state amp to drive the speaker. Works well, but its not the same idea as the Ox or Palmer
@@markntexas8265 Not really. Plenty of people still feel the Boss is a better overall unit compared to the Ox box.
The Palmer sounded digital and the ox still sounded like the amp to me
Confused, was the Laney actually used in this video?
I love my OX Box
Wot does this do that the 2 notes Don't? Apart from phone socket?
To me that mic feature makes no sense - isn't the main aspect of these boxes to avoid all the problems I'll get by the use of microphones? What about phase correction when blending in the DI signal? In a studio I can mic at any volume level and the pros how to do it right, so there's no need for using the Supreme Soaker... BTW: Never heard any analog cab sim that sounds as good as an IR - even tone guru and analog fetishist Thomas Blug use digital cab simulation because he knows what's best. Sorry Palmer...
... those names ... ... BUT wasn't music about hearing just use your 🦻👂s
Good sounds from this Palmer ... like it
Analog all day
Cool. I would however like to know what's going on: Three months in to 2024 and not a single klon shootout!?
😂😂
Ox Box for sure
I’ll stick with my tone king ironman2🤘🏻🤘🏻
Good choice.
They are great… until you try a Fryette PS and then you realise the basic reactive load concept is rather flat and muted by comparison.
@@djt6546 The Fryette also uses a reactive load as a power soak (rather than adjustable attenuator) but then re-amplifies it.
@@digitalchris6681For sure, the Fryette PS is a different beast giving the customer a valve power (re)amp. Some might not want to go down this slightly more expensive route while conceptually having more to go wrong in the Fryette box (but in reality just as reliable as any tube amp you’re using it with), but in terms of tone and feel during attenuation, it is pretty much the gold standard for getting that at any speaker cabinet volume. It also works well of course to re-amp smaller guitar amplifies to make them much bigger sounding.
George Lynch?
What a beautiful, professional looking device that's ruined by the hokey settings names.
Attenuator?
I hardly know her…
The boss expander is better ?
I'd avoid the Palmer just because of the naming convention they used on that box.
George Thorogood! Yes indeed. And not to forget Yngwie George Malmsteen.
De la fis? What does that mean? 😮
19:17 short german incarnation
That product is aiming at a very rarefied audience.
yeah, Palmer is top-range. Bonamassa uses their speaker emulators live.
I think Palmer is stuck in one gear... Everyone moved on from analog sim now that digital is decent... Load box is still ok... Sold both my pdi 04 and pdi 03
Notice a lot of UA boxes for sale on Reverb lately, guess peeps trying to get the next best thing?
I noticed lots on ebay too and prices are dropping.
They have that UA OX pedal now. I am guessing that is why.
I wish I had the issue of attenuating a Soldano head. Digital seems to be the way to have your cake and eat it too these days.
Compare that to the cab clone Pete!
This kind of feels like it was designed by 3 different teams who never met and all got slightly different briefs lol
That Palmer box sounded like s**t with speaker simulation with gain. Analog speaker simulation is the only analog thing that clearly sounds worse than digital. Sounds flatter and uninspiring with more gain you put thru it. Amazed that Palmer still uses this, especially in a "high end" product.