LaFleur
Joined: May 20, 2009
Posts: 525
Leipzig
|

Posted on Dec 11 2010 04:38 AM
I bought the new TAD Reverb Pan a few days ago and I have to say its better then every pan I have heard before!
I tried nearly every pan (Accutronics, M.O.D., Gibbs)
The TAD rocks them all away! It has much more wetness and a kind of a more aggresiv sound(in a good way).
They even did some research on the old pans and tried to optimize the problems the old pans had. In cunclusion I would say they did a really great job! The second factor is: Its made in Germany! Not in Taiwan or China. So the building quality is superb!
Nowadays you can get everything you got back in the 60s. With the Surfer, G-Spring and the TAD Pan inside you can't go wrong for the ulimate Dick Dale Sound!
Here is the link:
http://www.tubeampdoctor.com/product_info.php?cPath=32_146&products_id=2196
For further information check the Data Sheet!
— http://www.reverbnation.com/bangmustang
http://www.facebook.com/bangmustang
https://soundcloud.com/bang-mustang
Last edited: Dec 12, 2010 11:43:20
|
sonni
Joined: Nov 08, 2006
Posts: 80
Vienna, Austria
|

Posted on Dec 12 2010 08:29 AM
LaFleur
...you can go wrong for the ulimate Dick Dale Sound!
...
|
MissingLink
Joined: Jul 23, 2008
Posts: 488
Edge of the East China Sea
|

Posted on Dec 12 2010 09:15 AM
sonni
LaFleur
...you can go wrong for the ulimate Dick Dale Sound!
...
Yeah, I admit I got a smirk out of that one. Mistakes in grammar, punctuation, spelling, syntax, and style are things I'm inclined to pounce on. Yet sometimes I am horrified to discover just such errors in my own posts, even though English is my first language. No excuse in my case.
I think LaFleur was just excited about finding gear that gets him closer to his dream sound. Completely understandable if you've ever spent money on stuff that failed to do that. Like him, I've tried Accutronics, MOD, and Gibbs. All good in their own different ways, but still not quite doing it for me. Now it looks like I'm going to have to take a shot at one of those TAD things, too.
|
bamboozer
Joined: Jan 18, 2010
Posts: 672
Delaware
|

Posted on Dec 12 2010 09:31 AM
Looks interesting to say the least, also looks expensive.
|
MissingLink
Joined: Jul 23, 2008
Posts: 488
Edge of the East China Sea
|

Posted on Dec 12 2010 09:43 AM
|
bamboozer
Joined: Jan 18, 2010
Posts: 672
Delaware
|

Posted on Dec 12 2010 10:36 AM
|
FritzCat
Joined: Sep 11, 2007
Posts: 685
Sonoma, CA
|

Posted on Dec 12 2010 10:51 AM
Are those available in the US anywhere?
|
LaFleur
Joined: May 20, 2009
Posts: 525
Leipzig
|

Posted on Dec 12 2010 11:49 AM
You can order them directly from TAD. You only need a credit card. I guess every American has a credit card... 
— http://www.reverbnation.com/bangmustang
http://www.facebook.com/bangmustang
https://soundcloud.com/bang-mustang
|
badash
Joined: Aug 18, 2006
Posts: 1732
|

Posted on Dec 12 2010 01:22 PM
MissingLink
sonni
LaFleur
...you can go wrong for the ulimate Dick Dale Sound!
...
Yeah, I admit I got a smirk out of that one. Mistakes in grammar, punctuation, spelling, syntax, and style are things I'm inclined to pounce on.

|
HallmarkSweptWinger
Joined: Jul 27, 2006
Posts: 1284
Berlinesia, Germanifornia
|

Posted on Dec 12 2010 02:32 PM
LaFleur
I bought the new TAD Reverb Pan a few days ago and I have to say its better then every pan I have heard before!
I tried nearly every pan (Accutronics, M.O.D., Gibbs)
The TAD rocks them all away! It has much more wetness and a kind of a more aggresiv sound(in a good way).
They even did some research on the old pans and tried to optimize the problems the old pans had. In cunclusion I would say they did a really great job! The second factor is: Its made in Germany! Not in Taiwan or China. So the building quality is superb!
Nowadays you can get everything you got back in the 60s. With the Surfer, G-Spring and the TAD Pan inside you can't go wrong for the ulimate Dick Dale Sound!
Here is the link:
http://www.tubeampdoctor.com/product_info.php?cPath=32_146&products_id=2196
For further information check the Data Sheet!
Yeah! Thanks for the infos!
They are not very expensive.
I ordered a pan a few minutes ago. I am really excited for it.
These days I play an old Gibbs pan in my blonde Reissue tank. It`s not bad! But I will change it for the TAD soon then and will test it!
My old `63 tank sounds fantastic with stock pan!
— Twang cheers!
Ralf Kilauea
www.kilaueas.de
https://kilaueas.bandcamp.com/album/touch-my-alien
|
DannySnyder
Joined: Mar 02, 2006
Posts: 11067
Berkeley, CA
|

Posted on Dec 12 2010 03:29 PM
HallmarkSweptWinger
These days I play an old Gibbs pan in my blonde Reissue tank. It`s not bad! But I will change it for the TAD soon then and will test it!
My old `63 tank sounds fantastic with stock pan!
Hi Ralf! Please let us know the results, or even better post a youtube video of the test.
We've talked about this before, but it always helps to remind people that vintage pans are very inconsistent, one can't make a generalization about them based on one or two experiences.
My fingers are crossed that these TAD's are good sounding pans. I know their tubes are pretty good.
— Danny Snyder
"With great reverb comes great responsibility" - Uncle Leo
I am now playing trumpet with Prince Buster tribute band 'Balzac'
Playing keys and guitar with Combo Tezeta
Formerly a guitarist in The TomorrowMen and Meshugga Beach Party
Latest surf project - Now That's What I Call SURF
|
dannylectro
Joined: Aug 18, 2008
Posts: 372
Orange, CA
|

Posted on Dec 12 2010 07:34 PM
Looks a lot like the MOD tank, except the finish is different. How does the sound compare to the MOD?
|
scotstandard
Joined: Nov 09, 2008
Posts: 1140
Davenport Iowa
|

Posted on Dec 13 2010 03:40 AM
TAD dose it again! Love to here it.
Giibbs are ALL over the map. I have had dozens. I have 2 or 3 really good ones right now.
— Give me reverb or give me death!
facebook.com/onenightstandards
https://www.youtube.com/scotstandard
scotstandard@yahoo.com
|
LaFleur
Joined: May 20, 2009
Posts: 525
Leipzig
|

Posted on Dec 13 2010 02:31 PM
Looks a lot like the MOD tank, except the finish is different. How does the sound compare to the MOD?
A bit different, it has more wetness and more juice/tone
— http://www.reverbnation.com/bangmustang
http://www.facebook.com/bangmustang
https://soundcloud.com/bang-mustang
|
Tuck
Joined: Sep 02, 2006
Posts: 3166
Denver, CO
|

Posted on Dec 13 2010 03:06 PM
sonni
LaFleur
...you can go wrong for the ulimate Dick Dale Sound!...
I love examples like this. Linguistic explanation: Easy mistake to make if you learn from conversation. It's hard to hear the postive/negative contrast in American English. For "can" the positive is (unstressed) ~ (stressed) (1 = mid central barred i; 3 = low front vowel ae), the negative is (7 = glottal stop). The n is usually just nasalization of the preceding vowel. Looks like a typo, could be a typo, but probably isn't. The actual pronunciations of the negatives of the auxiliaries are pretty wild: : , : , : , : , etc. Or some places they say , , etc. (U = lax/short u or "oo", I = lax/short i) You can actually omit glottal stop in fast(er) speech. Some people omit it at all speeds. Final t is almost always a glottal stop, so as with can't, so with cat, etc., only not nasalized.
I'm betting this is never taught in English as a foreign language classes. It's certainly not taught in English as a native language classes!
Sorry, I now return you to the regularly scheduled discussion of gear. Pans ...
|
badash
Joined: Aug 18, 2006
Posts: 1732
|

Posted on Dec 13 2010 03:56 PM
Tuck
sonni
LaFleur
...you can go wrong for the ulimate Dick Dale Sound!...
I love examples like this. Linguistic explanation: Easy mistake to make if you learn from conversation. It's hard to hear the postive/negative contrast in American English. For "can" the positive is (unstressed) ~ (stressed) (1 = mid central barred i; 3 = low front vowel ae), the negative is (7 = glottal stop). The n is usually just nasalization of the preceding vowel. Looks like a typo, could be a typo, but probably isn't. The actual pronunciations of the negatives of the auxiliaries are pretty wild: : , : , : , : , etc. Or some places they say , , etc. (U = lax/short u or "oo", I = lax/short i) You can actually omit glottal stop in fast(er) speech. Some people omit it at all speeds. Final t is almost always a glottal stop, so as with can't, so with cat, etc., only not nasalized.
I'm betting this is never taught in English as a foreign language classes. It's certainly not taught in English as a native language classes!
Sorry, I now return you to the regularly scheduled discussion of gear. Pans ...
...you can go wrong for both the ultimate Dick Dale sound and with tryin' to explain sh*t!
|
remora1
Joined: Jan 04, 2008
Posts: 1277
San Pedro, CA
|

Posted on Dec 13 2010 04:55 PM
Tuck
sonni
LaFleur
...you can go wrong for the ulimate Dick Dale Sound!...
I love examples like this. Linguistic explanation: Easy mistake to make if you learn from conversation. It's hard to hear the postive/negative contrast in American English. For "can" the positive is (unstressed) ~ (stressed) (1 = mid central barred i; 3 = low front vowel ae), the negative is (7 = glottal stop). The n is usually just nasalization of the preceding vowel. Looks like a typo, could be a typo, but probably isn't. The actual pronunciations of the negatives of the auxiliaries are pretty wild: : , : , : , : , etc. Or some places they say , , etc. (U = lax/short u or "oo", I = lax/short i) You can actually omit glottal stop in fast(er) speech. Some people omit it at all speeds. Final t is almost always a glottal stop, so as with can't, so with cat, etc., only not nasalized.
I'm betting this is never taught in English as a foreign language classes. It's certainly not taught in English as a native language classes!
Sorry, I now return you to the regularly scheduled discussion of gear. Pans ...

— Bill S._______
|
MissingLink
Joined: Jul 23, 2008
Posts: 488
Edge of the East China Sea
|

Posted on Dec 13 2010 07:48 PM
badash
Tuck
sonni
LaFleur
...you can go wrong for the ulimate Dick Dale Sound!...
I love examples like this. Linguistic explanation: Easy mistake to make if you learn from conversation. It's hard to hear the postive/negative contrast in American English. For "can" the positive is (unstressed) ~ (stressed) (1 = mid central barred i; 3 = low front vowel ae), the negative is (7 = glottal stop). The n is usually just nasalization of the preceding vowel. Looks like a typo, could be a typo, but probably isn't. The actual pronunciations of the negatives of the auxiliaries are pretty wild: : , : , : , : , etc. Or some places they say , , etc. (U = lax/short u or "oo", I = lax/short i) You can actually omit glottal stop in fast(er) speech. Some people omit it at all speeds. Final t is almost always a glottal stop, so as with can't, so with cat, etc., only not nasalized.
I'm betting this is never taught in English as a foreign language classes. It's certainly not taught in English as a native language classes!
Sorry, I now return you to the regularly scheduled discussion of gear. Pans ...
...you can go wrong for both the ultimate Dick Dale sound and with tryin' to explain sh*t!
Many people really are interested in language and the expression of ideas. To others, these things are "sh*t."
|
Icetech
Joined: Dec 16, 2006
Posts: 892
Macomb Mich
|

Posted on Dec 14 2010 10:50 AM
BTW... i kinda agree that you can go wrong with the dick dale sound... its a bit too IN YOUR FACE for me:)
— I wanna play just like him when i grow up...
|
Tuck
Joined: Sep 02, 2006
Posts: 3166
Denver, CO
|

Posted on Dec 14 2010 11:09 AM
No problem. I realize it was OT though relevant and I apologize for the OT aspect, but I notice people having problems with those negatives all the time. Said aloud this is all actually much clearer. Like watching somebody play vs. tab. Native fluency speakers don't notice the oddities. They've been trained to hear the abstract structure (the original historical situation) implied by the spelling.
Try this: the way the average American says "can't" sounds a lot like "can" looks, spelled. The way they say "can" sounds like either kin or can, depending on whether they accent the word for contrast.
He'k'n do it. I'k'n do it, too.
but
She can do it; I can't.
But the final "'t" in "can't" doesn't sound like the t in Teisco and is nearly inaudible to non-native speakers. It is the sound you get for "t" in American eaten or button, or "Cockney" bottle. Or in the middle of "uh uh" meaning no. This mysterious sound is called a "glottal stop" in phonetics.
If you speak some variety of British English this may all sound very strange and implausible. If you speak American English and you are a really good speller it will probably sound equally implausible because you have learned to "hear" the spelling. It may not apply very south of the Mason Dixon Line, either.
|