Advice Needed For Complex Preamp/Poweramp Combination Issues

[Octavarius]

What would be the best way to set this "theoretical" rig up considering tone when it comes to chosing power sections?

Mark IV
Mark IV
Lonestar

I'm looking for a smart way to keep the best tone from each amp as possible. It has always bothered me that when you're running a stereo rig (using two power sections or one stereo poweramp) you have to compromise when it comes to the power sections. The ideal solution would be to run a dual stereo setup (two Mark IV's and two Lonestars, each pair through it's own stereo "rig") But when you want to keep things simple and using only one stereo poweramp, what would be the best solution?

a) Run everything through the Mark IV power sections?
b) Slave the Lonestar through the Mark IV power sections?
c) Slave everything through a Rectifier 2:100 poweramp? (heard somewhere that those are very ... "neutral", but then again I heard somewhere else that they are not...)
d) Put all the preamp sections through a Rectifier 2:100 poweramp?
e) Do c) and d) only through a 2:90 poweramp?
f) Find a transparent poweramp somewhere and slave everything through that?

This is considering tone of course, not money. And again, it's a theoretical rig.

 

[ToneAddictJon]

with that kind of setup I would do a wet/dry/wet, running the 2 mark IV's in stereo with fx and the lonestar in the middle dry with 3 seperate cabs (I'd do 3 1x12's but that's just my preference). There's no reason (imo) to run a seperate power amp when you already have 3 nice power amps right in front of you. You'd also have to get a switching system to change channels on all the amps at the same time and fx as well.

Option 2- run your signal into one of the mark iv's or the lonestar (whichever you prefer) and run the line out into stereo fx into the other 2 amps, this again requires 3 cabs, and would be a wet/dry/wet setup.

This seems overkill to me, and personally I would stick with one amp (whichever I liked best for whatever project) and get a stereo power amp (whichever fit the situation, probably a 20/20 for me) and again run a wet/dry/wet setup, with the amp dry in the middle, running the slave out to fx then into the stereo poweramp. I'm not sure what possible use this would be, because the average listener at a concert couldn't tell the difference between delay and flange, and is completely overkill, unless you are signed, have unlimited funds, sell out arena's and have enough roadies (and techs) to handle all of that.

 

[Octavarius]

with that kind of setup I would do a wet/dry/wet, running the 2 mark IV's in stereo with fx and the lonestar in the middle dry with 3 seperate cabs (I'd do 3 1x12's but that's just my preference). There's no reason (imo) to run a seperate power amp when you already have 3 nice power amps right in front of you. You'd also have to get a switching system to change channels on all the amps at the same time and fx as well.

Option 2- run your signal into one of the mark iv's or the lonestar (whichever you prefer) and run the line out into stereo fx into the other 2 amps, this again requires 3 cabs, and would be a wet/dry/wet setup.

This seems overkill to me, and personally I would stick with one amp (whichever I liked best for whatever project) and get a stereo power amp (whichever fit the situation, probably a 20/20 for me) and again run a wet/dry/wet setup, with the amp dry in the middle, running the slave out to fx then into the stereo poweramp. I'm not sure what possible use this would be, because the average listener at a concert couldn't tell the difference between delay and flange, and is completely overkill, unless you are signed, have unlimited funds, sell out arena's and have enough roadies (and techs) to handle all of that.

Yeah, I know it's overkill. I'm just trying to figure out solutions for problems like this. It's just theoretical. In this case, the player would use each of the heads for different applications, and all require stereo effects, so it can't really be a w/d/w setup. The heads would go through a Mesa Amp Switcher and then to a stereo effect processor.

I'm really into rig-systems and stuff like that, so I'm just figuring out complex setups like this.

 

[medwards1969]

Stereo Rigs are great, but I have gravitated towards focusing on the classic tones:

Marshall NMV + bright fuzz + G12H30 speakers - dry
Fender Deluxe + dark fuzz + cleaner speakers - w/spring reverb

For the Marshall tone I have a Mojave Scorpion
For the Fender tone I have a Lonestar

This gets 90% of the tones I want.
I don't worry about whether I have the classic tones any more - these amps can do it.

 

[plumptone]

I don't think there's any way to make this work so that everything is in stereo, but it's an interesting problem. If I had those three amps, here's what I would do.

Run the guitar into non-loop effects into an A/B/Y box. Come out of output A into Mark IV #1, and output B into the Lonestar.

Come out of Mark IV #1's effects send and run into your loop effects, the last one of which would have a stereo output. Run the left output back into Mark IV #1's effects return. Run the right output into the effects return of Mark IV #2. This way you are using the Mark IV preamp and two identical Mark IV power sections. If I'm not mistaken, this should give you an awesome full sound that is benefitting from stereo treatment, but that can be channel switched with the Mark IV #1 footpedal.

With the A/B/Y box, you'd be able to toggle between the Mark IVs in stereo and the Lonestar in mono with only non-loop based effects...OR...since it's an A/B/Y box, you'd be able to run the Mark IVs in stereo PLUS the Lonestar at the same time. This would be interesting. I guess that's pretty much a stereo wet/dry/stereo wet set-up.

 

[twostring]

plumptone has a good concept there, but here's what I would do.

For one, I wouldn't try to run stereo with 3 amps. It is destined to end up a mess of switching units and complicated MIDI programming. I would pair down to two amps, which I'm guessing you'd want to Lonestar for cleans and the Mark for dirty tones. So now, with the two amp setup, I would probably invest in a GCX system and a stereo effects processor (probably a G-Major or the like). So, with those hardware considerations in mind...

1. Connect your guitar to GCX loop 1. Loop send goes to the input on the Lonestar, loop output goes to the input on the Mark.
2. Run the effects send on the Lonestar to the loop 2 send on the GCX.
3. Run the effects send on the Mark to the loop 2 output on the GCX.
4. Run the GCX loop 2 input to the input on the G-Major.
5. Run the left output from the G-Major to the effects return on the Lonestar.
6. Run the right output from the G-Major to the effects return on the Mark.

Now you should be able to switch heads using a simultaneous switch command on loops 1 and 2. What this should do is switch your input A/B style to direct your guitar signal to the input on either head. It also should switch what amp signal the G-Major sees at the same time. Since the effects loops on both amps are series, the amp should read whatever tone is coming back into the effects return jack. This should allow for a fairly interesting stereo tone with your dual power amp sections. You would probably want to invest in a MIDI mouse or something similar for amp channel switching as well.

 

[Octavarius]

Thanks for the replies and suggestions.

This may seem overkill to many of you, but think of it as an abstract rig ala Petrucci type of complexity.
Though all of you posted some very interesting solutions, the only real problem is choosing the best sounding stereo power section for this type of setup. The amps, effects and the switching is all figured out, I only asked if someone had a recommendation for a power amp that gives the best sound of every head used.

Running 3 or more amps in stereo is easy though. If you run them through a Mesa High Gain Amp Switcher (which is similar to a looper, only designed for amps, preventing ground loop issues) the amp signals get mixed to a single output that goes to the effects, and then to a power section.

Now, as we know, it's impossible to run a stereo setup with 3 power sections, and it's impossible to run each amp through it's own power section when running a stereo setup. So you'd have to compromise.

(The power section not used, would be running with a dummy load or something similar)

At first I was hoping there's a neutral stereo tube power amp somewhere that would deliver the sound of each head (slaved into it) transparently. There's the Mesa Baron poweramp, but it's a HiFi poweramp, so it's probably not so well suited for guitar rigs. :lol:

BUT! The real question here is if someone with experience with pre- and power amp combinations knows which stereo power section would give the best results?

The Mark IV power sections? The Recto 2:100? The 2:90?

I guess you'd just have to try them all and see which solutions sounds better.


For the record, I always try to find solutions to problems like this. That way I get more experienced with various setups and how they work. So no, I'm not intending to buy this, and no, I'm not insane.

 

[ToneAddictJon]

I gotcha now. Ok heres how the setup would go (for me)
I'd get two 2:90 power amps.

Mkiv (#1) would use it's power section plus one of the 2:90's (#1) power sections. Running fx stereo in the loop and running the stereo out to the 2:90 (#1)

Mkiv (#2) would do the exact same thing as Mkiv (#1) and run to the other side of the 2:90 (#1)

Now the lonestar would be in a unique position because you could run it three different ways
way 1- Run the output of the lonestar into a dummy load and run the send into a stereo fx unit into both sides of 2:90 (#2)

way 2- Run the lonestars power into an amp (dry) and send the signal to a stereo fx unit into both sides of the 2:90 (#2)

way 3- Run the lonestar as half of the stereo signal and split the other half into one of the inputs of the 2:90 (#2)
:twisted:

 

[Octavarius]

I gotcha now. Ok heres how the setup would go (for me)
I'd get two 2:90 power amps.

Mkiv (#1) would use it's power section plus one of the 2:90's (#1) power sections. Running fx stereo in the loop and running the stereo out to the 2:90 (#1)

Mkiv (#2) would do the exact same thing as Mkiv (#1) and run to the other side of the 2:90 (#1)

Now the lonestar would be in a unique position because you could run it three different ways
way 1- Run the output of the lonestar into a dummy load and run the send into a stereo fx unit into both sides of 2:90 (#2)

way 2- Run the lonestars power into an amp (dry) and send the signal to a stereo fx unit into both sides of the 2:90 (#2)

way 3- Run the lonestar as half of the stereo signal and split the other half into one of the inputs of the 2:90 (#2)
:twisted:

Nice.

Any spesific reason for choosing the 2:90 as the power section?

 

[ToneAddictJon]

Nice.

Any spesific reason for choosing the 2:90 as the power section?

If going big, go BIG!!! :twisted:
The voicing would be most similar to the Mark IV's power section (simul-class) and if building a rig like this, I don't think the 20/20 would cut it, the 2:fifty wouldn't be able to handle the arena's without mics, so it's really between the 2:100 and 2:90, of which the 2:90 is simul-class. The other option to throw in there would be a couple of old coliseum power amps for even more power :twisted: :twisted: