EQ in Loop of Dual Recto..and how is you recto EQ'ed?

[Adambomb]

I just got an MXR 10 band EQ and this is how my pedal board is set up now. MXR 10 band, Boss DD7 Delay, and last Boss RV5 Reverb in a serial modded effects loop. This is the best sound I can get I think. But I was wanting to find out from other MXR 10 band users how they set the EQ and how they set the EQ on there amps also with the EQ. With a 10 band EQ, how are you guys EQ'ing your pedal and your amp?

 

[R_ADKINS80]

i tried an eq in the loop of my triple with ZERO results. With the mix knob set to where the eq was actually doing anything the amp sounded like crap even before i tweaked any knobs. Anything more than 50% max on the mix and my amp turns to poo. a parallel loop is a bad place for eq's IMO. Eq's need a series loop to be most effective. a parallel loop is more geared towards time based effects like delay, reverb, chorus ect.

 

[coppa]

I do believe he said his loop was series...

I would also like to hear the answer to this one. even with all the knobs at noon the recto voicing is far from flat. So where do you start on the preamp before tweaking the eq?.

 

[Chris McKinley]

This may not be the case, but it sounds like the problems R_ADKINS80 is having may have to do with his EQ being digital rather than analog. A parallel loop is geared not so much toward time-based effects (which most definitely sound like poo through a parallel loop if the effect is digital) so much as it is geared toward analog (read: real-time) effects.

It is the slight lag inherent to digital effects that is responsible for the phase noise when a digital effect is run through a parallel loop. The noise can range from mild white noise to a full-on sine wave siren that blots out the rest of your guitar signal. It has nothing to with what kind of effect it is, but rather how much digital lag the effect causes.

Adambomb,

Your setup sounds pretty nice. What kind of sound are you trying to achieve? And have you already achieved it, or are you wanting some help?

 

[tetsubin]

This may not be the case, but it sounds like the problems R_ADKINS80 is having may have to do with his EQ being digital rather than analog. A parallel loop is geared not so much toward time-based effects (which most definitely sound like poo through a parallel loop if the effect is digital) so much as it is geared toward analog (read: real-time) effects.
It is the slight lag inherent to digital effects that is responsible fo

It's not about digital vs. analog. Even an analog pedal will delay the sound and cause phase cancellations. Thus, a parallel loop needs a pedal which is set to 100% wet.

 

[Adambomb]

Adambomb,

Your setup sounds pretty nice. What kind of sound are you trying to achieve? And have you already achieved it, or are you wanting some help?[/quote]

I'm going for a metal-alternative sound. It sounds pretty good on both distortion channels right now but I was just wanting to know if it would be better to set my EQ on the DR to noon and tweak hard with the EQ in the loop. Sound I set my EQ on the Recto as best as I can...and then tweak with the EQ pedal in the loop?

 

[tonezilla]

I have the MXR 6-band EQ running through the effects loop on my three channel Duel Rectifier. The only thing I've found is to back off on the low end on the EQ or it turns to mud (or poo). Just my two cents.

 

[Chris McKinley]

tetsubin,

Analog pedals have such a (comparatively) short electronic pathway that they do not produce any perceptible signal lag, certainly not enough to cause detectable phase cancellations such as flanging, phasing and chorusing do. Your reference to the need for a 100% wet signal on an effect pedal used with a parallel loop is also not necessarily the case.

Randall recommends it in the instruction manual simply because he would prefer you adjust the mix with the amp's mix control rather than a given pedal's mix control. Doing it that way will preserve as much unaltered tone as possible from the amp, but isn't actually necessary so much as it might possibly be preferred. It should also be noted that with Mesa's parallel loop, it is not possible to achieve a 100% wet signal mix, since even with an effect pedal set to 100%, the amp's loop will allow no more than a 90%/10% final signal mix.

With effects such as delay where there is almost never a 100% wet signal mix, even a parallel effects loop can work just fine if the pedal is analog and set to a lower mix, e.g., 30-40%. The same is true of analog reverbs. EQ's, which Adambomb originally asked about, don't usually offer a mix control and are therefore 100% wet all the time. As such, the analog ones work very well with parallel loops. The digital ones do not.

 

[Chris McKinley]

Adambomb,

RE: "Sound I set my EQ on the Recto as best as I can...and then tweak with the EQ pedal in the loop?". Yes, that's exactly what you should do. Think of EQing, whether done with a cheap pedal or an expensive pro studio rack, as touching up a photograph using Photoshop. It's always better to start with the highest quality possible on the original photo and then tweak it slightly than it is to start with a bad photo and try to "make" it good with the available filters.

EQ's are for taking a good tone and making it great. They are at their best when they are used subtly. They are not and cannot be a magic box that is a substitute for good tone.

 

[Adambomb]

Adambomb,

RE: "Sound I set my EQ on the Recto as best as I can...and then tweak with the EQ pedal in the loop?". Yes, that's exactly what you should do. Think of EQing, whether done with a cheap pedal or an expensive pro studio rack, as touching up a photograph using Photoshop. It's always better to start with the highest quality possible on the original photo and then tweak it slightly than it is to start with a bad photo and try to "make" it good with the available filters.

EQ's are for taking a good tone and making it great. They are at their best when they are used subtly. They are not and cannot be a magic box that is a substitute for good tone.

Man, that makes total since. Eq the amp as best as I can with the amp eq's and then touch it up with an eq pedal. Thanks man. I was on the right track but I am glad to hear that what I was doing makes since to other people. EQ's can make your tone sound awful when used properly. I have a great sound today cause I fixed the amp EQ first. Thanks for your input Chris.

 

[ltd2recto]

Well I dont use a MXR EQ but I'll chime in anyways. I use both of the EQ's in the Gt 8 in the loop. Very mean middy tone.

Low cut @ 55Hz.
-3db @ 250Hz w/ Q of 2
+2db @ 1.25Khz w/ Q of 2
+4db @ 5Khz w/ Q of .5
-2db @10Khz w/ Q of 8
-3 db @11Khz

Amp settings
Presence - 0
Bass - 9:30
Mids - 0
Treble - 11:30
Gain - 2:00

Vintage mode with a modded TS10 (Drive:0 , Tone:0 , Level:eight). Channel volume about 8:30. Master set to desired volume. Power tubes are GT E34L's.

 

[Chris McKinley]

Why have you completely scooped the mids on your amp?

 

[ltd2recto]

Cause I dont like the freq the amp adds the mids at. Im really picky about mids ever since I bought the marshall 8100 that had a parametric mid knob on it many moons ago. The mids get added in after the preamp via my GT 8 eq & also with the tubescreamer up front. Also the JJ tube in V1 & the el34 power tubes add mids. Trust me, there are plenty of mids in my sound.

 

[tetsubin]

tetsubin,

Analog pedals have such a (comparatively) short electronic pathway that they do not produce any perceptible signal lag, certainly not enough to cause detectable phase cancellations such as flanging, phasing and chorusing do. Your reference to the need for a 100% wet signal on an effect pedal used with a parallel loop is also not necessarily the case.

Randall recommends it in the instruction manual simply because he would prefer you adjust the mix with the amp's mix control rather than a given pedal's mix control. Doing it that way will preserve as much unaltered tone as possible from the amp, but isn't actually necessary so much as it might possibly be preferred. It should also be noted that with Mesa's parallel loop, it is not possible to achieve a 100% wet signal mix, since even with an effect pedal set to 100%, the amp's loop will allow no more than a 90%/10% final signal mix.

With effects such as delay where there is almost never a 100% wet signal mix, even a parallel effects loop can work just fine if the pedal is analog and set to a lower mix, e.g., 30-40%. The same is true of analog reverbs. EQ's, which Adambomb originally asked about, don't usually offer a mix control and are therefore 100% wet all the time. As such, the analog ones work very well with parallel loops. The digital ones do not.

Nope, sorry.
Actually just putting a cable between the Send-Return results in phase cancellations, because the signal paths (inside the amp vs. Send-Return) will have different lengths. To avoid them you have to set the fx to 100% wet, so that no un-effected signal comes through. That's the only way to do it right. You can try and read Peter Diezels VH4 manual...he explains it in 3.2.3.

And, to kill another urban legend, which is time and time again revived on this board: It is not about analog vs. digital. Of course there are digital delay pedals which can be set to 100% wet (Behringer DD100 for example).

P.S.: I'm not saying it will not work doing it any other way; hey, and some people like phase cancellations. It all depends on the situation: phase cancellations are a sound shaping factor when using a 4x12" or any other cab with more than one speaker!
De gustibus non est disputandum. But, what I'm trying to get across is the technical facts. And they are like stated above. Even if you don't think you can hear the phase cancellations with an analog pedal not set to 100% wet, they are there. You can't deny the laws of physics. (But some people will again and again try.)

 

[nomad100hd]

BBE sonic stomp also did not get along with the parallel loop, but it affects the phase relationship of different frequencies.

 

[Chris McKinley]

tetsubin,

No need for an apology...especially since I'm not wrong. You're starting to sound a little like the guy who has to be the smartest guy in the room.

RE: "Actually just putting a cable between the Send-Return results in phase cancellations, because the signal paths (inside the amp vs. Send-Return) will have different lengths.". Well, if you're going to be that pedantically technical, even a cable is not required. Simply running two circuits whose signal pathways have any discrepancy in total circuit resistance, no matter how small, will result in the two signals being out of phase (the correct term is phase discrepancy, since cancellation may or may not occur and full cancellation is statistically unlikely).

The question is, by how much? As I mentioned previously, what matters is perceptible signal lag. If the discrepancy is small enough, the human ear cannot perceive it. This threshold is, btw, well below the discrepancy required for full cancellation. Therefore, as lag increases, one would notice a difference in the perceived sound well before actual cancellation occurs. For most people, this threshold falls between 2 and 4 milliseconds of discrepancy. Anything smaller than that (such as what would occur with almost all analog effects circuitry) will not be perceived whether it technically exists or not.

RE: "To avoid them you have to set the fx to 100% wet, so that no un-effected signal comes through. That's the only way to do it right.". Apparently you don't remember my mentioning that on a Mesa parallel loop, it is impossible to achieve a 100% wet signal of any kind, since the maximum the circuit allows is 90% wet/10% dry. By your logic, it is physically impossible to avoid phase discrepancy. Thankfully, for reasons explained previously, that is not necessary.

RE: "And, to kill another urban legend, which is time and time again revived on this board: It is not about analog vs. digital. Of course there are digital delay pedals which can be set to 100% wet (Behringer DD100 for example).". It has nothing to do with urban legend, but rather with electronics and physioacoustics. It also has nothing to do with whether or not a given digital effect can be set to 100% wet signal. What matters, and all that matters, is the effective lag in signal.

Since the Mesa parallel loop maximizes at 90% wet regardless of the effect used, there is always at least a 10% unaffected signal being produced. Since this signal follows a shorter pathway (in terms of length and total resistance of the circuit), it will produce perceptible sound before an affected signal does. The question isn't if it will happen that way, since the loop's circuit design guarantees that it will, but a matter of how much discrepancy is produced.

Generally speaking, analog effects do not have long enough total circuitry nor high enough net circuit resistance to produce a signal lag that exceeds that 2-4ms threshold. Therefore, the discrepancy that they do produce is not perceived by the human ear. IOW, there is no effective signal lag.

Digital effects, on the other hand, regularly produce discrepancies that exceed the perceptibility threshold since their circuitry length (not usually their resistance) can be many times that of analog circuits and because their internal circuits employ processing buffers which add even more lag. The result, typically at least, is a lag that is not only perceptible (as added white noise at minimum), but can be large enough to produce not only phase cancellations, but phase coupling, which results in a very nasty high-pitched sine wave noise that usually smothers out the rest of the guitar signal altogether.

Therefore, the general discernment between analog and digital effects is entirely appropriate, since, in general, analog circuits do not produce perceptible phase noise and, in general, digital circuits most certainly do. Is it possible to have a digital circuit that is fast enough not to produce perceptible lag? Or an analog circuit that is slow enough that it does produce perceptible lag? Of course. It's just that it occurs so rarely that it is negligible for the purposes of most discussion.

RE: "Even if you don't think you can hear the phase cancellations with an analog pedal not set to 100% wet, they are there. You can't deny the laws of physics.". Who cares? If it's so small that it can't be heard, it doesn't matter if it's technically there or not, since one is also not able to deny the laws of physiology.

The bottom line is that digital effects produce enough lag to cause undesireable noise in a 90/10 parallel loop and analog effects do not, no matter what mix level you choose.

 

[nomad100hd]

i agree with the guy above

 

[tetsubin]

Well, I don't care what I'm sounding like. I'm just telling the truth. Just consider this:
Your theory will have to change when one puts multiple analog pedals in a loop. Just enough to make the cancellations be heard.
What I say - which is actually what every amp manufacturer (Peter Diezel is just an example) will tell you (those **** guys are always trying to be smarter than everyone else! - btw: I don't count ad hominem arguments as real arguments) - will stay the same, no matter if you put a analog, a digital or whatever in the loop. I prefer to tell people how it is.
If one likes the sound of an analog pedal which can not be set to 100% wet in a parallel loop or not, well, I could care less.
I want to give anyone who asks the information to at least be able to figure out what goes wrong when things go wrong. And that is not a question of digital vs. analog in a parallel loop.

I think I have been a little unclear with all the talk about 100% wet.
I'm quoting you:
"Since the Mesa parallel loop maximizes at 90% wet regardless of the effect used, there is always at least a 10% unaffected signal being produced. Since this signal follows a shorter pathway (in terms of length and total resistance of the circuit), it will produce perceptible sound before an affected signal does. The question isn't if it will happen that way, since the loop's circuit design guarantees that it will, but a matter of how much discrepancy is produced. "
I totally agree.

But I do not mean setting the loop to 100% wet. I mean setting the fx to 100% wet, so that no unaffected signal passes through. Then you will not get any phasing issues at all, because the unaffected signal travels inside the amplifier and ONLY the affected signal is added. Voilá, no phasing issues! Be the fx analog or digital.

I'm gonna post what Peter Diezel says, because the quoted portion of your reply shows I didn't get my point across:
"There are 2 ways to handle effects signals. If you use the serial return, then the signal path of your VH4 is interrupted, the signal is sent to the processor, gets more or less processed, then sent back to the serial return into the power amp. Digital effects units often digitize this signal, then process it, then convert it back to analog, then send it to the amp. This is called ADA conversion. It is necessary for digital effects units to do this to your guitar signal, so that it becomes a digital code which the processor can read and understand. Your tubes, however, need a old fashioned analog signal, so the processor needs to convert the signal back to analog before it goes back to the amp. Generally, even in highest quality effects processors, this causes a change in the original signal, typically a loss of tonality and warmth, also noticeable as a “harder” sound. When you use the serial loop for an effects unit like this, then your signal will have been ADA converted at least once. Tone junkies and vintage freaks alike will more than likely have hives developing by now. But - as always, there is a better way. Use the Parallel loop and the mix control in the front determines how much effect signal is being added to the original signal, which now still flows through the amplifier. There is always an analog connection between the send and return jacks; a parallel loop!
Important: You must set the mix control on the effects unit to 100% wet when using the parallel loop. Otherwise there will be nasty phasing problems resulting in unsatisfactory tone. The signal portion that is unaffected by the mix control in the effects unit would reach the amplifier at a different time due to the cabling, and cause phasing cancellations."
(http://www.diezel.ch/en/products/pdf/vh4_manual_english.pdf)

 

[nomad100hd]

the only think i don't like about having to use the amp's mix knob for the mix is maybe i want one FX to sound stronger than the other.I modded my amp for series because of a my sonic stomp, but i will say i never bothered to set my mix knob to 100% inside the digital MFX i was using. I usually only use 1 FX at a time and all my single pedals are true bypass so the build up of multiple pedals becomes less of an issue.

 

[tetsubin]

the only think i don't like about having to use the amp's mix knob for the mix is maybe i want one FX to sound stronger than the other.I modded my amp for series because of a my sonic stomp, but i will say i never bothered to set my mix knob to 100% inside the digital MFX i was using. I usually only use 1 FX at a time and all my single pedals are true bypass so the build up of multiple pedals becomes less of an issue.

Yeah, there are limitations with a parallel loop. It's not a perfect solution. And it's not a question about which one is better, but which one suits my needs.That's why I like amps with both a serial and a parallel loop (like the Diezel or the Roadking).