A comparison - Triaxis / Quad

[Kupke]

Hi Guys,

I'm currently running a Quad with a 20/20 in my rack, and I'm totally digging the sound of all channels. Unfortunately there's 2 flaws that make me want to lose the Quad. (at least as it is currently situated in my rack, since I might keep it for fun)

- 3 rack spaces (i'm a no-hassle kind of guy, so I want to keep my rack as small as possible, preferrably 6 HE max.)
- Shared controls on Rhy1 and Ld1.

I can easily combine settings on the Mk III module of the amp. Yet I can't combine a good clean sound with a good lead from the Mk II bit. I've got a lead sound coming from Ld1 that sound exactly how i want, but since I have to put the master on 7 or 8, that means my clean channel goes in overdrive. Really unfortunate, since that's pretty much the only concession i've had to make with the Quad. And I really love this piece of equipment.

Now what I'm having in mind is to switch to a Triaxis. I've played one, but not intensely. I've read a lot about it. And it seems that the Triaxis has the ability to get very close to the tone of a Mk II or III (on top of lots of other features) so I would think it would be possible to get a similar tone on the triaxis that i can on the Quad. The thing that worries me though, is the Dynamic Voice option. I have no way to control the actual EQ per preset like i can with the 5-band EQ correct? Apart from that, I really like what the Triaxis has to offer, but I'm mainly wondering how close the Triaxis gets to the amps the models are copied from and how I can tweak the EQ on those presets. There seemed to be some opinions on both sides of the fence in a recent topic here, but it's hard for me to conclude whether the Triaxis is right for me.

As for testing, I think it took me about a month to get a good feel for what knobs to turn for what sound on the Quad. This will probably be worse on the Triaxis, meaning I probably wouldn't be able to get an idea of what the Triaxis can and can not do like a long-time user could.

Hope you can help.

Greetings,

Ralf

 

[disassembled]

The triaxis is not as smooth nor is it as dynamic as the quad. With that being said if you need a much better clean the Triaxis is the way to go.

You also have to take into account that the TA only does a scooped V shape on the GEQ (ie Dynamic Voice) and it pales in comparison to a mark IV's or a Quad's GEQ section. If you need the GEQ turned on at all times and have it set to anything other than a 100% scooped V then you might be really disappointed in the TA for that aspect. Personally, i like the tone of the TA without the DV or with the DV at a low setting. The same goes for the Quad: i like the tone with or without the GEQ which lends to much more tonal diversity IMO.

I am keeping both the TA and the Quad because sometimes i need a two rack rig (TA and 20/20) where other times i am able to use a bigger rig (Quad and 290).

I love the dynamics of LD1 with the gain at about 3 it just feels like the amp is really affected by my playing and not just compressing the hell out of the signal.


If you work on it I bet you could come to a great setting on the Quad that gives you exactly what you want for clean and lead. If you can I would suggest saving enough dough for a TA and then taking the plunge to try out. Keep it for a few months at least and then decide if it's right for you. Just keep your eyes peeled (you might be able to catch one for 800 or less on the bay).


Greg

 

[Kupke]

Thx Greg, that's pretty much exactly the answer I was looking for. I use the GEQ on pretty much all the channels. (except clean iirc) And the fact that the TA has certain simulated settings of the 5-band GEQ doesn't appeal to me. Even more so because the GEQ can be very sensitive at it's extremes and give you an edge in any direction you're looking for. I feel that is where the TA would limit me. I suppose I could give it a try some time in the future, especially since the 2.0+ version has the rectifier sound put in, which I wouldn't mind taking for a spin. (even though it might not resemble a rectifier exactly) but for now I think I'll expand my rack to 8HE for my other rack units. Unless someone else has another solution of solving this matter.

Maybe someone else can comment on the subject as well?

 

[eagle]

Loose the 20/20 you'll be amazed how bad it is compared to a 2/90 ,or better a VHT poweramp.

 

[disassembled]

Loose the 20/20 you'll be amazed how bad it is compared to a 2/90 ,or better a VHT poweramp.

I disagree I owned the 20/20 up until last week and have to say it sounds the same at low levels where most people practice at. The 20/20 doesn't have the headroom, bottom end, or simul class of the 290 so it isn't the same at full bore but the 20/20 gets you a nice breakup and compresses at high volumes. So, to call it bad is pretty ignorant IMO.

I just recently sold my TA and will be selling my Quad/290 soon too in favor of a Mark IV head and thiele cab set. The rack thing was fun but I need things to be more compact than a stereo power amp and a 212 cab in case I play a really small place with limited stage space (common in Japan).

Back on topic: I sat down and tried to tweak the TA to sound like the Quad's LD1 on a low gain setting and got pretty close but i had to do some weird settings in the TA. The difference in circuitry is really apparent as the Quad had much more depth to the tone and was a bit easier to get the tone I liked where with the TA i had to compensate by taking away here and adding there. Also, like i mentioned in another thread the TA has junky dynamics and IMO really shines only if you have the gain way up and compress everything. That's another reason for wanting to go with a head setup.

In a band situation would I notice? If all is going well I should be focusing on my playing and not worrying that my treble should be at 3.5 instead of 3.0.


Greg

 

[eagle]

The 20/20 was a pile ,I had one for years and didn't believe it could be the problem until a tryed a VHT and a 290 no comparison at ANY volume .

 

[soundpurist]

The 20/20 was a pile ,I had one for years and didn't believe it could be the problem until a tryed a VHT and a 290 no comparison at ANY volume .

Yeah but which one got the best natural midrange sound? IMHO the 20/20 is best one a ever heard for lead sound and clean (not at high volume though).

 

[eagle]

VHT 2/50/2 EL34's any volume makes the 20/20 sound solid state or broken ,yes I sent it to mesa to get fixed turns out it was meant to be that bad . :roll: :lol: :lol:
Just get the VHT you won't regret it.

 

[soundpurist]

VHT 2/50/2 EL34's any volume makes the 20/20 sound solid state or broken ,yes I sent it to mesa to get fixed turns out it was meant to be that bad . :roll: :lol: :lol:
Just get the VHT you won't regret it.

That's all right i already got the 2:100 but my recto pre is in repair since about two months (they ordered pieces and received only half of it ) but i was looking for somekind of spare amp (maybe a mark series) or power amp for playing at low volume (with studio pre if i could get a good deal on, it could go in my rackmount to complement my recto pre.

 

[soundpurist]

VHT 2/50/2 EL34's any volume makes the 20/20 sound solid state or broken ,yes I sent it to mesa to get fixed turns out it was meant to be that bad . :roll: :lol: :lol:
Just get the VHT you won't regret it.

That's all right i already got the 2:100 but my recto pre is in repair since about two months (they ordered pieces and received only half of it ) but i was looking for somekind of spare amp (maybe a mark series) or power amp for playing at low volume (with studio pre if i could get a good deal on, it could go in my rackmount and be use at will with my switchblade GL).

 

[eagle]

The old 395 was killer but hard to find and heavy.

 

[CoG]

sorry eagle, I've used the 20/20 a lot, and the only problem with it is that it's two hundred bucks and change per power tube, which seems like a lot to me.

It's an EL-84 amp so obviously it's not going to add a ton of bottom end to your preamp voicing, but nothing that fits in one space will and you get great lively cleans and leads.

It is definitely worth a shot in any situation where an 18-50 watt amp would be able to cut it.

 

[eagle]

sorry eagle, I've used the 20/20 a lot, and the only problem with it is that it's two hundred bucks and change per power tube, which seems like a lot to me.

It's an EL-84 amp so obviously it's not going to add a ton of bottom end to your preamp voicing, but nothing that fits in one space will and you get great lively cleans and leads.

It is definitely worth a shot in any situation where an 18-50 watt amp would be able to cut it.

Since when are EL84's expensive ?????
the real thing wrong with power amp is is sounds like ****.
an old valvestate 8008 that I binned years ago sounded better .

 

[CoG]

Since when are EL84's expensive ?????
the real thing wrong with power amp is is sounds like sh!t.
an old valvestate 8008 that I binned years ago sounded better .

lol, I mean it costs $800 and has 4 EL84s= $200 per tube. sorry it didn't work out for you. I'm happy with mine.

 

[Paul Secondino]

Hi Guys,

I'm currently running a Quad with a 20/20 in my rack, and I'm totally digging the sound of all channels. Unfortunately there's 2 flaws that make me want to lose the Quad. (at least as it is currently situated in my rack, since I might keep it for fun)

- 3 rack spaces (i'm a no-hassle kind of guy, so I want to keep my rack as small as possible, preferrably 6 HE max.)
- Shared controls on Rhy1 and Ld1.

I can easily combine settings on the Mk III module of the amp. Yet I can't combine a good clean sound with a good lead from the Mk II bit. I've got a lead sound coming from Ld1 that sound exactly how i want, but since I have to put the master on 7 or 8, that means my clean channel goes in overdrive. Really unfortunate, since that's pretty much the only concession i've had to make with the Quad. And I really love this piece of equipment.

Now what I'm having in mind is to switch to a Triaxis. I've played one, but not intensely. I've read a lot about it. And it seems that the Triaxis has the ability to get very close to the tone of a Mk II or III (on top of lots of other features) so I would think it would be possible to get a similar tone on the triaxis that i can on the Quad. The thing that worries me though, is the Dynamic Voice option. I have no way to control the actual EQ per preset like i can with the 5-band EQ correct? Apart from that, I really like what the Triaxis has to offer, but I'm mainly wondering how close the Triaxis gets to the amps the models are copied from and how I can tweak the EQ on those presets. There seemed to be some opinions on both sides of the fence in a recent topic here, but it's hard for me to conclude whether the Triaxis is right for me.

As for testing, I think it took me about a month to get a good feel for what knobs to turn for what sound on the Quad. This will probably be worse on the Triaxis, meaning I probably wouldn't be able to get an idea of what the Triaxis can and can not do like a long-time user could.

Hope you can help.

Greetings,

Ralf

By switching to the triaxis, you'll save 2 rack spaces. Not a big deal for me.IF you're happy with the sound of the quad then keep it. The triaxis in comparison will sound less dynamic and narrower. By narrower I mean that the quad takes up more sonic space with its wider low end and more open treble.

As for power amps, the 20/20 works incredibly well with the triaxis. My triaxis and others I have played all sound very bass heavy and midrange heavy. The 20/20 balances this out very well because it doesn't have a lot of low end. I however use the VHT 2502 with my triaxis.

As for the Quad, I love the old 50/50 . Tons of power and a very organic sound. I find the 290 less organic.

 

[straitouttahell]

The triaxis is not as smooth nor is it as dynamic as the quad.

nuff said.

 

[straitouttahell]

Just get the VHT you won't regret it.

I've tested the 2/50/2 deeply and I think it ain't any better than the 20/20, unless you had to play Wembley without micing.