fx loop bypass

[natedriver]

I have a 3 channel dual rec that I run with the loop off. I When I run the loop on it seems to bury my pedals sound (big muff, blue box) I have the send and return knobs at normal. I like the more pushed sound with the loop off but I would like to use the output knob more to control overall volume. Is there an advantage disadvantage to running the loop off?

 

[jbird]

I loved that "hard bypass" switch! Just what it say's: Bypasses the loop's circuitry to yield a more purer tone! I'd call that an advantage!

 

[Platypus]

You should run the fuzz / blue box in front of the amp so you're driving the preamp... traditionally the FX loop is good for time based effects.. there's nothing wrong with what you're doing but you'll get a much stronger use of the effect if you run it in front.

 

[Xombie2000]

I hate to hijack this thread however i just have one question that is related. Pretty much I only run Wah and delay. I ended up picking up an Ibanez AD9. Right now I'm running it after my Wah, any real advantage to put it in the loop?

 

[Platypus]

I hate to hijack this thread however i just have one question that is related. Pretty much I only run Wah and delay. I ended up picking up an Ibanez AD9. Right now I'm running it after my Wah, any real advantage to put it in the loop?

Put it in the loop. Time based effects, especially a delay when used in a high gain amplifier and run in front will get out of control as the repeats come back and create distortion on their own.. this can even happen when using a clean mode on the amp, you're also delaying the signal before it goes to the preamp which can cause some wonky sound issues as well. There's nothing 'wrong' with keeping it in front but it's much more reliable and sounds much better in the loop. That and you can control the send/return levels this way which affords much more control of the effect.

 

[kingster911]

Always keep a wah and OD in front of the amp, more direct effect on the tone.

 

[natedriver]

Thank you for your replies I am running the big muff blue box out front and my more pointed question is by bypassing the loop and in effect the output control am I not using as much power tube stage? And if I am not using as much power tube stage would it serve me to aquire a power tube configuration that would break up at lower power? I do love the tone without the loop but am in a way running my amp fairly loudly to (11 oclock channel 3 master bold diode 1 oclock gain modern) I know these amps are loud but some insight on overall volume would help.

 

[Platypus]

Thank you for your replies I am running the big muff blue box out front and my more pointed question is by bypassing the loop and in effect the output control am I not using as much power tube stage? And if I am not using as much power tube stage would it serve me to aquire a power tube configuration that would break up at lower power? I do love the tone without the loop but am in a way running my amp fairly loudly to (11 oclock channel 3 master bold diode 1 oclock gain modern) I know these amps are loud but some insight on overall volume would help.

By bypassing the loop you are doing two things:
1) Cutting out 1 12AX7 from the preamp stage
2) Making your volume single ended (non-master)

By using the loop, you can set your preamp volume (channel masters) to where they should be and then use the output volume control to control the overall volume. This method works out better because you can get more power tube distortion in the mix with this method at lower overall volumes. By playing with the two volume controls, you can find a balance of preamp to post amp distortion and get more of a 'cranked' sound without blowing out your windows.

 

[jbird]

I thought non-master amp's, like some old Marshalls, meant no gain control? So you'd have to crank the volume control, enough to break up the power section! That's not the case with these Mesa's? Even with the loop by-passed! There's still a gain control! Furthermore, I never found the above example, "cranking the channel masters", to achieve a power tube break-up? It's still about the overall volume of the amp! Your not gonna get power tube break-up, by cranking the channel masters, and choking back the overall master? It's a mis-conception!

 

[Platypus]

I thought non-master amp's, like some old Marshalls, meant no gain control? So you'd have to crank the volume control, enough to break up the power section! That's not the case with these Mesa's? Even with the loop by-passed! There's still a gain control! Furthermore, I never found the above example, "cranking the channel masters", to achieve a power tube break-up? It's still about the overall volume of the amp! Your not gonna get power tube break-up, by cranking the channel masters, and choking back the overall master? It's a mis-conception!

Try it, it sounds better if you have to settle for low volumes. It's not going to sound the same as with an attenuator for example but it's better than running your channel master at 9 o clock and getting pure horrible fizz.

It's prob not the definition of non-master as you say there is still a gain control but you're not balancing two volume controls.

 

[jbird]

Ya, I've tried it: #1) Never liked the tone with the loop engaged! #2) The overall master was too sensitive for adjustments, and #3) I never noticed any more/less gain/fizz? Actually with the extra 12ax7 engaged, there was less dynamics, less 3D effect, and more fizz!

 

[Platypus]

to each their own