Amp Modelers With a Tube Amp?

[abetaque]

It seems that people here are against using amp modelers with their Mesas. For example, I've read that if you're going to use a GT-10 or a Pod X3, then they're fine as long as you turn the amp modeling off and use only the effects.

Why is that exactly? Is it because the modelers weren't designed to run through a tube amp and sound worse than they would through a solid state amp? Or is it just that people think that modelers sound bad and it doesn't make any sense to replace the Mesa sound with an inferior synthetic amp model?

 

[fatoni]

i think the general attitude towards modelers is that they suck or at least 90% of the models suck and then some are simply passable. i guess some are better than others like the digitech gsp something-or-other or the really high end preamp/multieffects...but we already have mesas. and with amps like the mark iv, the power section is so distinct that no matter what preamp i put in there it sounds alot like a mark iv. there is no exact reason people in general like or dislike them. play what you like to hear, if you need a modeler to do that then by all means. as for me the mark iv does it

 

[count_chocolat]

Do what sounds best to your ears and offers the best for your needs.

I use a Boss GT-Pro with either a Rectoverb of a Stiletto Ace, in a 4 cable configuration. For the clean sounds I bypass the Mesa amp and use a model in the Boss Unit. For crunch I use Channel 1 on the amp and for high Gain Channel 2 on the amp.

Why?

The Boss has pristine clean models and if you were blindfolded you could not tell the difference between the Mesa pre on a clean setting and the Model in the GT.

For medium to high gain tones , no modeler I have ever worked with gets me in the zone.

This set up allows me a 3 channels system that's killer.

 

[fatoni]

if you cant tell the difference why do choose the gt pre over the mesa?

 

[insideout]

Do what sounds best to your ears and offers the best for your needs.

I use a Boss GT-Pro with either a Rectoverb of a Stiletto Ace, in a 4 cable configuration. For the clean sounds I bypass the Mesa amp and use a model in the Boss Unit. For crunch I use Channel 1 on the amp and for high Gain Channel 2 on the amp.

Why?

The Boss has pristine clean models and if you were blindfolded you could not tell the difference between the Mesa pre on a clean setting and the Model in the GT.

For medium to high gain tones , no modeler I have ever worked with gets me in the zone.

This set up allows me a 3 channels system that's killer.

+1 exactly 8) only with the GT10 for me.

Before the GT10, if I wanted clean-clean, I had to leave the Deuce channel 1 on fat or tight clean. I forfeited the crunch setting in order to get clean. Now with the GT cleans, I bypass the Mesa for clean, use channel 1 for crunch/blues tones and channel 2 for high gain. It turns a 2 channel amp into 3, plus complete control of effects up front and/or in the loop. All in one unit that is completely assignable by patch.

 

[primal]

I guess my thoughts are if you plan on just putting the amp on the clean channel and using a modeler, why bother spending the money on a Mesa?

Just get an atomic. From what I understand these are tube amps specifically designed for modelers.

Mesa's aren't cheap. I figure most people who are going to spend the money on a Mesa want Mesa sound. Just seems like overkill to me if you plan on spending all that money on a Mesa only to try and get it to sound like another amp.

But hey, if you like it (and can afford it), that's all that matters!

 

[insideout]

I guess my thoughts are if you plan on just putting the amp on the clean channel and using a modeler, why bother spending the money on a Mesa?

This is true if you get a modeler that doesn't have the ability to run 4CM. However, my setup and many others like me, uses both Mesa amp channels to generate tone. The only time my Mesa is bypassed is for clean clean. The GT is simply a tool that allows you to create patches that can do everything you need with one button press. When I create a patch, I can tell it which Mesa amp channel to use, route OD/comp etc into the front of my amp, route chorus/delay/reverb etc into the loop return of my amp. All programmable by patch so there is no riverdancing anymore.

But I agree that if you want to use a modeler as your tone generator, don't buy an expensive Mesa amp just to use it's poweramp.

 

[count_chocolat]

As I said I use the modeler only for cleans. My crunch and hi gain tones come from the amp.
I play in a cover band and need to cover lots of tones. So I have turned my 2 channel amp into a 3 channel.

 

[sbalderrama]

sometimes you want your Mesa to sound like a Marshall. Or an Uberschall. Or Whatever. Its all good.... all this stuff is simply tools for generating tone.

IIC+ plus AxeFx. 4 cable method, so the Axefx can put effects both in front and behind the mesa preamp. I can use either the IIC+ preamp or pick an amp sim from the AxeFx.

 

[phyrexia]

How close can your AxeFX get to the Mark sound?

(oh snap I went there)

 

[sbalderrama]

How close can your AxeFX get to the Mark sound?

Its Mark tone is excellent. In fact it responds to volume control and pick attack IMO better than any Mark I've played other than the IIC+. The Axe's "1x12 black" sounds the most like the Mesa Theile cabs to me if using it through a full range monitor, although I haven't tried the upgraded cabs just released with the new firmware yet.

 

[babow2]

I have played a modeler through my Mesa out of necessity once or twice.

First, someone said "no one uses" modelers." I played a big industry event in Northern California and was hanging with Jeff Watson. He showed up only with a modeler and went direct and sounded awesome. he said that he and Steve Morse spent a lot of time tweaking their modelers to use for quick "guest" gigs. This gig had lots of artists and bands sharing a stage. i did the same thing, plugging in my modeler, first into the "shared" Mesa SOB, then into my LSC, when the shared amp was pulled off stage. I also used it once on stage when my main amp was having some issue and I just plugged the modeler in as a back up. So, there are times and places for modelers, mostly convenience.

Generally, the tones aren't as rich, thick or 3 dimensional from a modeler. I have yet to get a lead tone that sounds as good as a tube amp. Jeff said his key was cranking the modeler through a PA in the studio and tweaking the tone in the exact environment he would play in. they do sound totally different through headphones or computer than through an amp or PA. I don't think they replace a great amp, but they sure come in handy as a back up or in a situation where you don't have the time or ability to set up your regular rig.

Good luck,
Brent

 

[jdurso]

How close can your AxeFX get to the Mark sound?

Its Mark tone is excellent. In fact it responds to volume control and pick attack IMO better than any Mark I've played other than the IIC+. The Axe's "1x12 black" sounds the most like the Mesa Theile cabs to me if using it through a full range monitor, although I haven't tried the upgraded cabs just released with the new firmware yet.

do you use the modellers in the 4CM? If so are you running them on the clean channel or some sort of routing that only uses the power amp of your mark? i'm looking to do a similar setup with my Roadster but instead of the 4CM, i'm going to a W/D/W stereo setup using the axe infront for some of the non-time based fx and the use the roadsters slave out back into the axe for all the time based stuff. Then stereo out of the axe into either 2 powered speakers, a FRFR setup or a more traditional power amp/cab setup. the beauty is using the rg-16 i'll be able to completely remove the axe from my chain to get pure roadster bliss.

BTW i'm using the slave out so i can run the amp in hard bypass mode.

 

[sbalderrama]

do you use the modellers in the 4CM? If so are you running them on the clean channel or some sort of routing that only uses the power amp of your mark?

I'll use the amp and poweramp sims but not the cab sims when running 4cm.
Guitar input -> Axe In, Axe Fx out ( out2) to Mark guitar in, Mark Send to Axe Fx in ( in 2), Axe Out ( out 1) to Mark Return. This way I can use the Mark's preamp by putting the Axe FX loop block in a patch, or I can use any of the Axe's amp sims and it all plays back through the Marks poweramp and cab. Also, the deep, presence, and EQ of the IIC+( or III or IV) are all after the Marks FX return, so they give you some local tone shaping at the amp head without having to mess with the Axe.

 

[SeasonOfPain]

do you use the modellers in the 4CM? If so are you running them on the clean channel or some sort of routing that only uses the power amp of your mark?

I'll use the amp and poweramp sims but not the cab sims when running 4cm.
Guitar input -> Axe In, Axe Fx out ( out2) to Mark guitar in, Mark Send to Axe Fx in ( in 2), Axe Out ( out 1) to Mark Return. This way I can use the Mark's preamp by putting the Axe FX loop block in a patch, or I can use any of the Axe's amp sims and it all plays back through the Marks poweramp and cab. Also, the deep, presence, and EQ of the IIC+( or III or IV) are all after the Marks FX return, so they give you some local tone shaping at the amp head without having to mess with the Axe.

I have an Axe-FX ultra on the way to use just this kind of a setup (Mark IV, 4x12 Traditional cab).

One question I had on this that may be Boogie-specific: when using the 4CM, is there any issue with the line-level loop output from the Axe overdriving the guitar in on the Mark? Do you have to adjust/trim the output at the FX loop output block on the Axe?

 

[sbalderrama]

One question I had on this that may be Boogie-specific: when using the 4CM, is there any issue with the line-level loop output from the Axe overdriving the guitar in on the Mark? Do you have to adjust/trim the output at the FX loop output block on the Axe?

Yeah, there can be an issue with that. I found it useful to use a DI ( Whirlwind in my case) in reverse to lower the out level into the Mark and make the Out2 knob useful over a wider range. The ground loop switch also came in handy to eliminate hum. When I first hooked up I had a lot of hum, and running the reverse DI got rid of about 1/2 of it, and the ground lift got rid of the rest of it.

 

[jdurso]

One question I had on this that may be Boogie-specific: when using the 4CM, is there any issue with the line-level loop output from the Axe overdriving the guitar in on the Mark? Do you have to adjust/trim the output at the FX loop output block on the Axe?

Yeah, there can be an issue with that. I found it useful to use a DI ( Whirlwind in my case) in reverse to lower the out level into the Mark and make the Out2 knob useful over a wider range. The ground loop switch also came in handy to eliminate hum. When I first hooked up I had a lot of hum, and running the reverse DI got rid of about 1/2 of it, and the ground lift got rid of the rest of it.

ground lift on the mark or on the axefx?

BTW, i'm loving the fact i'm not the only one on BB that is going to the Axe for FX. I feel like some of the guys on the Fractal forum are a little too much into the audiophile/hi-fi world and anytime you bring up the forbidden T word you get ignored. There are some great guys over there and wealth of knowledge, but i feel like wanting to use the Axe primarily for FX is almost like a slap int he face to some of those guys.

 

[SeasonOfPain]

When I first hooked up I had a lot of hum, and running the reverse DI got rid of about 1/2 of it, and the ground lift got rid of the rest of it.

ground lift on the mark or on the axefx?

Where is there a ground lift on the Mark? I never even knew one existed!

BTW, i'm loving the fact i'm not the only one on BB that is going to the Axe for FX. I feel like some of the guys on the Fractal forum are a little too much into the audiophile/hi-fi world and anytime you bring up the forbidden T word you get ignored. There are some great guys over there and wealth of knowledge, but i feel like wanting to use the Axe primarily for FX is almost like a slap int he face to some of those guys.

I can see both sides of the story. A lot of people get truly defensive about their beloved gear, especially after a substantial investiture of money (applies to both tube amps and the AxeFX). I'm just hoping that the unit will serve as a great effects unit and a reliable yet good-sounding backup, in addition to expanding my tonal palette.

 

[jdurso]

I can see both sides of the story. A lot of people get truly defensive about their beloved gear, especially after a substantial investiture of money (applies to both tube amps and the AxeFX). I'm just hoping that the unit will serve as a great effects unit and a reliable yet good-sounding backup, in addition to expanding my tonal palette.

i'm in the same boat as you. really since i havent bought one yet i still throw around the idea of getting the eclipse but the more i hear the clips and the flexibility of the axe, the more i lean that direction.

as for the lift, i dont remember a ground lift on the mark, thats why i was asking.

 

[sbalderrama]

ground lift on the mark or on the axefx?

Ground lift on the Whirlwind DI in between them.

BTW, i'm loving the fact i'm not the only one on BB that is going to the Axe for FX. I feel like some of the guys on the Fractal forum are a little too much into the audiophile/hi-fi world and anytime you bring up the forbidden T word you get ignored. There are some great guys over there and wealth of knowledge, but i feel like wanting to use the Axe primarily for FX is almost like a slap int he face to some of those guys.

yeah, I kinda agree. I happen to think alot of people would be better off starting with the axefx into the power section of their fav tube amp and cab. I think alot of people overcomplicate it by going full FRFR which brings a whole lot more variables into play to getting a good sound. Its pretty no brainer to get good sounds using the Axes preamp and power amp sims into your own poweramp and cabs.

And of course the Axe is top notch as just an effects unit well.