Alternatives to Triaxis/2:90 rig?

[electrafied]

I've lurked here for a while, not posted much if at all. I got turned onto Mesa rigs by a fellow forumite (ThunderMonkey) who I've been in a band with. Ended up building a Triaxis/2:90 rig that I love (2:90 came from another forumite).

However I'm not in a band at the moment, and don't know if/when I'll be in another, and while I love the tones and flexibility of my current rig, it is way overkill even if I was in a band power wise, and I think I want to simplify overall. And it is HEAVY!

So I'm thinking something like a Mark IV or V. I even like the F-Series (though I'm not convinced of using the Contour mode for my lead boost). Head or combo, I'm undecided? What I really need is a clean/crunch/lead so ideally at least 3 channels. I'd really like to have different effects for clean and lead (which is why I went down the Triaxis route) but if my main goal is to simplify that just might not be feasible. I do love the Mark sounds paired with the MC-90s (but I don't have a cab with those now).

Do I sell my current rig to help finance Mark IV/V with cab? Or just get a combo? Or just get rid of the power amp and keep the Triaxis (which I can still use with a small solid state power amp I have if I needed to)? Where to buy/sell, on here, ebay or trade in at a music go round?

 

[screamingdaisy]

The beauty of something like the Triaxis is that you can have many channels programmed in, whereas with something like the Mark V you only have 3. Obviously not a big deal if all you use is two or three sounds, but if you have a whole list of sounds you use for different purposes it might be something to consider.

If you are after a Clean/Rhythm/Lead setup the Mark V is the better choice IMO. While some people do like the sound of the Mark IV's R2 channel, it's not exactly the highlight of the amp and many people use it like its a clean/high gain 2 channel amp.

The Mark V also has some options that might interest a play at home guy... notably the 10w and 45w power modes. Plus the Mark V's Variac works really well at smoothing the amp out at lower volumes.

 

[tonefordays]

NEVER sell the Triaxis. Never, ever. You will regret it. The versatility cannot be replaced.

 

[electrafied]

NEVER sell the Triaxis. Never, ever. You will regret it. The versatility cannot be replaced.

Yes, I am trying to keep that in mind. I got a reasonably good deal on it, and I do like how it sounds. I need to pair it up with my other power amp (old Rocktron Velocity 150) and see how it sounds. I know if the Velocity won't have the same "umph" that the 2:90 has in a band situation being solid state and lower wattage, but it is far easier to deal with in terms of weight. I'm pretty sure it won't sound "as good" either. Maybe it would be good enough and loud enough to not matter?

 

[electrafied]

The beauty of something like the Triaxis is that you can have many channels programmed in, whereas with something like the Mark V you only have 3. Obviously not a big deal if all you use is two or three sounds, but if you have a whole list of sounds you use for different purposes it might be something to consider.

If you are after a Clean/Rhythm/Lead setup the Mark V is the better choice IMO. While some people do like the sound of the Mark IV's R2 channel, it's not exactly the highlight of the amp and many people use it like its a clean/high gain 2 channel amp.

The Mark V also has some options that might interest a play at home guy... notably the 10w and 45w power modes. Plus the Mark V's Variac works really well at smoothing the amp out at lower volumes.

Well, I got the Triaxis thinking that I would use more that 3 channels, but the reality is that I really don't. But I liked that I could use MIDI to switch channels (even built myself a custom MIDI footswitch that works great) and that got me the ability to potentially have different effects chains for any given channel, which I do use. If there was a Mesa head that had that MIDI controlled switching I'd be all over it (and yes, I could do that with another piece of gear, but adds complexity and cost)!

I guess what is really getting me down is the sheer weight of the 2:90. If I remember correctly when I was looking for a power amp that there wasn't a great weight difference between a 2:90 and the smaller 1U mesa power amps like a 50/50 or even the 20/20, but I can't remember exactly. So I just went with the 2:90 when a good deal cropped up. To deal with the weight I've even considered putting it in it's own rack and having the Triaxis in another, but that starts to negate the whole rack convenience thing and got me to thinking why not just go back to a head? But then I lose all my versatility! GRRRR!!!!

I should probably just shut up and play more!!!

 

[screamingdaisy]

Well, I got the Triaxis thinking that I would use more that 3 channels, but the reality is that I really don't. But I liked that I could use MIDI to switch channels (even built myself a custom MIDI footswitch that works great) and that got me the ability to potentially have different effects chains for any given channel, which I do use. If there was a Mesa head that had that MIDI controlled switching I'd be all over it (and yes, I could do that with another piece of gear, but adds complexity and cost)!

I guess what is really getting me down is the sheer weight of the 2:90. If I remember correctly when I was looking for a power amp that there wasn't a great weight difference between a 2:90 and the smaller 1U mesa power amps like a 50/50 or even the 20/20, but I can't remember exactly. So I just went with the 2:90 when a good deal cropped up. To deal with the weight I've even considered putting it in it's own rack and having the Triaxis in another, but that starts to negate the whole rack convenience thing and got me to thinking why not just go back to a head? But then I lose all my versatility! GRRRR!!!!

I should probably just shut up and play more!!!

I sold my Recto Pre/2:100 because it was such a pain in the ass to move. Sounded great, but hauling the rack around and manoeuvring through stairwells was a serious pain in the ass. I now use heads. I have a TC Electronic G-System that will change channels, activate the solo boost and functions as a multi-effect and pedalswitcher... but I've never gigged with it. I usually just take an Eventide delay that sits in the loop and maybe a wah pedal. I've had too many things fail on me in the past so I generally try to keep things minimal.

The Mark V is really cool. I like it because I can carry the head in one hand and a Recto 2x12 in the other and they balance out fairly well, plus the cab has wheels so things get easy once I've gotten up/down the stairs. It has most of what the Triaxis has and then some. The only drawback would be if you use one of the Recto modes with your Triaxis... the Mark V doesn't do Recto, so you'll have to come up with a different tone to cover that stuff off.

 

[electrafied]

OK, decision made! Nothing is being bought or sold. Did a sound comparison between the Velocity 150 and the 2:90 and no surprise, the 2:90 sounded so much better. So much so that it makes the weight a non-issue. If I get into a situation where I'm transporting my rig a lot again I'll just put the 2:90 in its own small rack and stack them.

The combo of the Triaxis and 2:90 just works too well together to break them up, and since I've already got them why change a good thing. Appreciate what you got!

Funny enough, I probably would not have even tried the rig with the 2:90 for a while had there not been a sound drop issue when I was running the Velocity. I though it might have been the Velocity itself so I swapped in the 2:90 and it is doing it too, so I'm hoping it is a bad cable or something...

 

[THTH]

Just add a MK IV or MK V combo to your amp list. I bought a MK IV combo and use that in the situations where the triaxis rack is too much. All bases are covered with the choice of either a combo or a rack setup.

 

[bjoneill74]

I have a Mark V and a TriAxis/2:Ninety rig.
It is my opinion that the Mark V is very good, but doesn't sound any where near as good as the TriAxis 2:Ninety.
The Mark V does do things that the rack system wont though.
- variable wattage
- tube rectifier on the lower watt settings of ch 1 & 2
- built in tube driven reverb
- variac power section
- the post pream EQ (TriAxis has 10 limited presets of this)

Each channel has 3 settings. So in all actuallity.. the Mark V has more modes, but in a live situation. You're only able to easily recal 3 through the footswitch (without touching the front/back panels of the amp).

My rack righ which is a Furman Power thing, a Korg Tuner, Eventide Eclipse, Line 6 Mod Pro, TriAxis and the 2:Ninety has to weight well over 100 lbs.
The bulk of the weight it is the 2:Ninety which is about 35 - 40 lbs and the rack itself with the wheel/caster kit (another 35 - 40 lbs).

Perhaps get a Mesa 20/20 and ditch the 2:Ninety for now.

The Mark V is not light.
The head is in the 55-60 lb range for the head version. The combo would weigh more from the extra cabinet woodwork and the speaker frame/magnet.


My opinions..
overall sound - winner - triaxis
clean sound - winner - mark v
mid gain sound - winner - triaxis (I think the IIC+ sound is far better)
high gain - winner - triaxis
high gain 'metal' - slight edge mark v (by slim margin and due to the EQ)
versatility - you could argue a tie
live use - you can't really beat the triaxis if you have a midi foot controller and midi controllable effects systems
recording - both - I honestly think both would be needed for what I do and then some (Royal Atlantic, Road King, Budda amp, Dr Z amp, Vox AC30, Vintage Fender).

YMMV

Brian

 

[electrafied]

Interesting things to consider!

I have a Mark V and a TriAxis/2:Ninety rig.
It is my opinion that the Mark V is very good, but doesn't sound any where near as good as the TriAxis 2:Ninety.
The Mark V does do things that the rack system wont though.
- variable wattage
- tube rectifier on the lower watt settings of ch 1 & 2
- built in tube driven reverb
- variac power section
- the post pream EQ (TriAxis has 10 limited presets of this)

Out of all that I think the only thing I'd really desire is the built in reverb (aside from the more compact form factor), though this could be handled via pedal or another rack effect. I understand the desirability of the 5 slider EQ on the marks, but I like my tone very mid heavy and seeing how most like just the opposite I'd never really use it (yes I know you can boost the mids as well with it, but nobody seems to do that, do they?). So I usually keep the Triaxis EQ setting on 1 or lower and just adjust the normal EQ "knobs" to my liking.

Each channel has 3 settings. So in all actuallity.. the Mark V has more modes, but in a live situation. You're only able to easily recal 3 through the footswitch (without touching the front/back panels of the amp).

I only find myself (up to this point) using 3 sounds anyway: clean, rhythm and a "lead" sound. Maybe a 4th that is a "special" sound, usually some crazy effect for a certain section of a song and usually based off of one of the other 3 sounds with added effects. Though I've always had the desire to have a "bedroom" bank, a "practice space" bank and then a "live gig" bank where the volumes and EQs were adjusted appropriately. I think I could only achieve that via the Triaxis. And then I have room for any additional settings. That is one of the reasons why I got the Triaxis to begin with, just never really utilized!

Perhaps get a Mesa 20/20 and ditch the 2:Ninety for now.

That was one of my thoughts. Though I think I'll keep it for now and instead of trying to have everything in 1 rack I'll break it up to make it more manageable. I'll lose some time in set up which is what makes racks convenient, but I find that I'm usually done setting up and tearing down first anyway.

live use - you can't really beat the triaxis if you have a midi foot controller and midi controllable effects systems
recording - both - I honestly think both would be needed for what I do and then some (Royal Atlantic, Road King, Budda amp, Dr Z amp, Vox AC30, Vintage Fender).

I designed and built my own custom midi foot controller and it works like a charm, so I've got that covered. And I'm working on a custom midi switching system for my analog stomp boxes, and barring getting that working I can fall back on my digitech gsp1101.

For recording, do you mic a cab hooked up to your Triaxis or do you use the recording outs of the Triaxis, and if so how do they sound? I am just getting my recording laptop into shape and haven't had the chance to use the recording outs of the Triaxis yet...

jason

 

[bjoneill74]

I have never tried the direct outs of the triaxis.
I always mic the cabs with 57's and/or ribbons, or condensor mics that are backed off from the cabs.

 

[gummx97]

Interesting things to consider!

I have a Mark V and a TriAxis/2:Ninety rig.
It is my opinion that the Mark V is very good, but doesn't sound any where near as good as the TriAxis 2:Ninety.
The Mark V does do things that the rack system wont though.
- variable wattage
- tube rectifier on the lower watt settings of ch 1 & 2
- built in tube driven reverb
- variac power section
- the post pream EQ (TriAxis has 10 limited presets of this)

Out of all that I think the only thing I'd really desire is the built in reverb (aside from the more compact form factor), though this could be handled via pedal or another rack effect. I understand the desirability of the 5 slider EQ on the marks, but I like my tone very mid heavy and seeing how most like just the opposite I'd never really use it (yes I know you can boost the mids as well with it, but nobody seems to do that, do they?). So I usually keep the Triaxis EQ setting on 1 or lower and just adjust the normal EQ "knobs" to my liking.

Each channel has 3 settings. So in all actuallity.. the Mark V has more modes, but in a live situation. You're only able to easily recal 3 through the footswitch (without touching the front/back panels of the amp).

I only find myself (up to this point) using 3 sounds anyway: clean, rhythm and a "lead" sound. Maybe a 4th that is a "special" sound, usually some crazy effect for a certain section of a song and usually based off of one of the other 3 sounds with added effects. Though I've always had the desire to have a "bedroom" bank, a "practice space" bank and then a "live gig" bank where the volumes and EQs were adjusted appropriately. I think I could only achieve that via the Triaxis. And then I have room for any additional settings. That is one of the reasons why I got the Triaxis to begin with, just never really utilized!

Perhaps get a Mesa 20/20 and ditch the 2:Ninety for now.

That was one of my thoughts. Though I think I'll keep it for now and instead of trying to have everything in 1 rack I'll break it up to make it more manageable. I'll lose some time in set up which is what makes racks convenient, but I find that I'm usually done setting up and tearing down first anyway.

live use - you can't really beat the triaxis if you have a midi foot controller and midi controllable effects systems
recording - both - I honestly think both would be needed for what I do and then some (Royal Atlantic, Road King, Budda amp, Dr Z amp, Vox AC30, Vintage Fender).

I designed and built my own custom midi foot controller and it works like a charm, so I've got that covered. And I'm working on a custom midi switching system for my analog stomp boxes, and barring getting that working I can fall back on my digitech gsp1101.

For recording, do you mic a cab hooked up to your Triaxis or do you use the recording outs of the Triaxis, and if so how do they sound? I am just getting my recording laptop into shape and haven't had the chance to use the recording outs of the Triaxis yet...

jason

Check out the Radial JDX, it's a direct box that goes in between the speaker out of your power amp and your speaker/cab. Been using it in live gigs and recording,sounds really good.

 

[jeff5]

I've thought about doing the same (don't have a 2:90 though, 50/50), however I do use a lot of the channels on my Tri. I like a lot of different sounds and it's fun to experiment. (actually addictive!) Not only that, since I'm in into a lot of diverse styles of music I would be hard pressed to find an amp that can do as much as the Tri can. I don't play out either, but if I was in a band and had to lug stuff to rehersals and gigs, I would probably downsize my cabinet to a 2X12 and split up the power amp and pre-amp/effects etc. into two different racks to make it more portable. That being said, I'd love to own or try a Mark IV/V and even the new Recto some day, either in combo or head format. That would have to be in addition to my Triaxis (and justified with the wife!) as I just don't ever see myself selling my Triaxis.

 

[elvis]

There's a 20/20 in the classifieds section right now.

I tend to use about 5 presets for general-purpose stuff. I also like to have a couple more for specific stuff, usually to mimic a specific amp sound or artist/song.

I have moved from a stereo rack setup to amp head + speaker cab just for a change of pace. I think there are 2 competing approaches:
1. Have lots of tones, so each song gets the "perfect" tone.
2. Make everything work with one or 2 tones, such that your playing is showcased more than the tone.

I spent a long time covering songs with a lot of variation in tone and FX, trying to get it to sound "right". Then I saw a good guitarist in a cover band who had ONE tone (not even clean and dirty, just a decent dirty tone). Everything sounded GREAT, because he was a good player, and because the exact tone was really not required to reproduce the song in a way that still resonated with the listener (me). In the end, the great players basically had one tone (EVH, Hendrix, Page, etc). The new crop of "tone crafters" make some wonderful, inspiring sounds, but they are also great players. I'll bet if Petrucci or Timmons or any of the other greats were limited to one tone, they would still sound incredible.

I think that the real beauty of something like a Triaxis is the ability to mimic a number of amps, just to fuel my moods. In a blues mood? Mark I is in there. Metal? Mark IIC+ or recto are in there. 60s? AC30 is in there. 50s? Fender (to a degree) is in there. Now I don't need a bunch of amps.

I have managed to get away from the Tri by using a Dyne (gets me Fender plus 2 flavors of Marshall) and a Mini Recto. Add a Tube Driver and I get pretty much any tone. Except for a Mark, which I find I never really liked. If I decide to go that way, I still have a Studio Preamp...

NOTE: I will probably never sell my Triaxis. It is certain that I will change my mind and go back to a rack eventually, or wind up driving the Tri into my Dyne or something goofy like that. Not so sure about the 2:90 though. Just too much amp for me. I really like the 50/50.

 

[jeff5]

You make a lot of really good points Elvis, especially about focusing on playing rather than tone. I catch myself sometimes obessing too much about pick ups or my rig and not playing enough. That's when I just kind of say, no more tinkering for a few months, just play.

With regards to the different channels on the Tri I definitely think you can go overboard. Having a different tone for each song would be kind of crazy! I usually have a bank of presents for each guitar as they're all different with different pick ups. And some are down tuned which necessitates different settings as well. Within the group of presets for each guitar, I might have a few different gain settings (high, medium, low, face melting!) a clean setting, maybe a pushed vintage amp/blues setting, etc.

 

[Jackie]

I think that the real beauty of something like a Triaxis is the ability to mimic a number of amps, just to fuel my moods. In a blues mood? Mark I is in there. Metal? Mark IIC+ or recto are in there. 60s? AC30 is in there. 50s? Fender (to a degree) is in there. Now I don't need a bunch of amps.

+1

I use 1 Clean tone, 2 Drive tones (rhythm and lead) with the band.

Then I have 3 banks of sounds for effing around by myself at home, ranging from clean+acoustic sim to crunch tones to Recto madness... oh, the sin of indulgence :twisted: