I wanna get my rack on..
- Thread starter theaero
- Start date
Help Support The Boogie Board:
ToneAddictJon
Well-known member
Personally, if I was to sell all my stuff and go rack, I'd get the triaxis and some nice outboard processors to tailor my tone even more (plus midi is so nice, I really miss my midi setup). I think the triaxis would take more time to get everything setup perfectly, but would be more rewarding in the end (one button push, all settings change on everything- effects, preamp, whatever else).
Yea I love good midi setups. I got some nice outboard stuffs (gmajor, tuners, etc). And I have a FCB1010. The triaxis CC function looks TIGHT. But I hear tone is far worse than MarkIVs. How are the cleans on TA and MIV?
18&Life
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jan 27, 2007
- Messages
- 889
- Reaction score
- 0
triaxis + gmajor/gforce + 2.90 + 4X12 cab + ground control pro + cry baby from hell + 1 expression pedal .
TONE HEAVEN
TONE HEAVEN
I really dont know where this idea came from, "You cant get mark IV tones from the Triaxis".
I just traded my mark 4 in, for a tri-axis/2:90 rig. I can get the exact same tones from both. Albeit the dynamic voice control is not the same as the graphic EQ on the Mark IV, If you know how to work the EQ and DV on the triaxis you can achieve the same eq curve.
The 2:90 is the power amp from the mark IV, just in stereo, and the Triaxis has the same circuit, as the preamp on the mark. In My opinion, you could not tell the difference.
In dealing with the original question, I would go with the Tri-axis. You can get a lot more tones out of the Tri, and save different EQ/gain settings for different musical scenarios. Also, getting a switching system and programming it, like the GCX audio controller, ended up being a HUGE hastle. The sound results are great, but hauling it around sucked.
Hope that helps!
I just traded my mark 4 in, for a tri-axis/2:90 rig. I can get the exact same tones from both. Albeit the dynamic voice control is not the same as the graphic EQ on the Mark IV, If you know how to work the EQ and DV on the triaxis you can achieve the same eq curve.
The 2:90 is the power amp from the mark IV, just in stereo, and the Triaxis has the same circuit, as the preamp on the mark. In My opinion, you could not tell the difference.
In dealing with the original question, I would go with the Tri-axis. You can get a lot more tones out of the Tri, and save different EQ/gain settings for different musical scenarios. Also, getting a switching system and programming it, like the GCX audio controller, ended up being a HUGE hastle. The sound results are great, but hauling it around sucked.
Hope that helps!
disassembled
Well-known member
I have a pretty nice and compact rig- TA/290, Boss SE 70 half rack effects, Boss MX 10 half rack mixer. I also have a Quad pre that I am really enjoying lately. The TA sounds good and can cop the tones of the Mark Series amps but it takes a while to tweak, the DV is preset so it will always be scooped, and the dynamics are not the same as that of the real amps. The mixer is necessary IMO because you still retain 100% of the original tone.
If you play mostly gained out and compress your tone then the TA will be fairly easy to program. Finding the nice in between tones that have bite on the harder plucked notes but clean up on the soft ones is something that I am working on now. It's easier to get these tones on the Quad but I hope it is possible in the TA with a little bit of work.
I would say the TA cleans meet or exceed the cleans on the Mark IV.
Greg
If you play mostly gained out and compress your tone then the TA will be fairly easy to program. Finding the nice in between tones that have bite on the harder plucked notes but clean up on the soft ones is something that I am working on now. It's easier to get these tones on the Quad but I hope it is possible in the TA with a little bit of work.
I would say the TA cleans meet or exceed the cleans on the Mark IV.
Greg
I have to disagree with most of the previous posts. I've got both a Mark IV short head and a TriAxis-50/50 rig and while you can get the TA to sound similar to a Mark IV it's NOT exact. I still prefer the tone of the Mk IV. After going back and forth A/B'ing the two side by side many times there is definately a noticeable difference. In addition I get a cleaner (hum free) tone from the Mark that I just can't achieve with the TA rig. I find when I use the TA I really only use the Mk IV voices anyway so I don't need eight channels when the three on the Mk IV are enough for me. As for the idea that the TA is in some way better because of the midi control just holds no water. I use a Ground Control Pro/GCX setup with my Mk IV and have full midi control over all of it's functions. If I were forced to get rid of some equipment the Mark IV would be the last thing to go.
Greenevil
Well-known member
I agree with the above post. I have a Triaxis and a Mark IV (both early versions) and you cannot get the two to sound the same. The dynamic voice does not compare to the actual graphic EQ. Don't get me wrong the TA is a great sounding amp but for people to say the Mark IV and TA can sound the same is way off base. Maybe if you use an external graphic EQ with the Triaxis it may sound similar but even then it's just not the same. The TA compared to the actual Mark IV head sounds thin, plus the Mark IV has voicing options that the TA doesn't... anyway haha getting off topic here. If you want versatility the Triaxis is def. a great choice! It's a great live rig and offers channel upon channel of tones. Not to mention with midi control you can really nail a sick tone and have total control over your effects. Best thing (if you are able to) is to try both out and test the functionality of each setup and see what suits your live needs best...
18&Life
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jan 27, 2007
- Messages
- 889
- Reaction score
- 0
Howitzer said:
+ 1.000
Perhaps people's ears are different so what is good to one is bad to the other.
:wink:
Greenevil
Well-known member
Agreed, there is no one right or wrong opinion. Whatever sounds good to your ears is what matters...
Greenevil
Well-known member
Don't you mean the Trimark IVC+? :wink:
Greenevil said:
If you are talking about SPECIFICALLY the mark IV channels, then yes, there are voicing options not available on the TA. If you take all three of the lead channels and do a shoot out against the MkIVs lead, I can get the same tones out of it, barring the class a options, or the triode/pentode options.
In 2 years of owning a mark IV, i have never changed those, so i dont really add them into the equation!
18&life is right though, different strokes for different folks!
disassembled
Well-known member
Am i the only person that really likes the tone of Mark amps with OR without EQ? It seems everyone is comparing the mark IV to the TA but they are using the GEQ on the Mark IV to their personal settings. Of course that is going to sound WAY different and makes it necessary to have an external EQ. The TA is preset with a 100% scooped setting on the DV and all you are doing is mixing the DV into the signal and not changing that scooped setting one bit.
Comparing the TA and Mark IV WITHOUT the DV or GEQ brings you much closer IMO but the dynamics are not as good in the TA. (as well as missing the gain switch, fat, and bright pull switches).
The circuitry is much different in the TA than in a Mark amp but Mesa tried to compensate in the TA (i think they did a good job).
If you really want to hear some great dynamics pick up a quad pre. It is probably the most versatile compact analog preamp they have made (it's like 2 Mark II amps put together). I would say the Quad will outdo the Mark IV for rhythm and lead tones but the Mark IV has a better clean.
Greg
Comparing the TA and Mark IV WITHOUT the DV or GEQ brings you much closer IMO but the dynamics are not as good in the TA. (as well as missing the gain switch, fat, and bright pull switches).
The circuitry is much different in the TA than in a Mark amp but Mesa tried to compensate in the TA (i think they did a good job).
If you really want to hear some great dynamics pick up a quad pre. It is probably the most versatile compact analog preamp they have made (it's like 2 Mark II amps put together). I would say the Quad will outdo the Mark IV for rhythm and lead tones but the Mark IV has a better clean.
Greg
EdgeOfDarkness
Well-known member
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2007
- Messages
- 159
- Reaction score
- 0
I am waiting on a Quad right now.
Hopefully I will get it this week.
Hopefully I will get it this week.
disassembled said:
Oh, thanks dude, I was done GASsing.
'Cause I already HAVE Lonestar cleans in my Rec Pre... I could get a Quad and run one preamp into each channel of my 20/20... :twisted:
You're running your quad into a 20/20, right? How's it working out for ya?
disassembled
Well-known member
The quad is run into a Simul 290. The 20/20 has been put on reserve status. I actually just pulled it out to make a 2 space head (Triaxis and 20/20) to get together with some folks for a jam session.
I haven't run the Quad into the 20/20 yet but I imagine it would sound just as good as it does with the TA.
Greg
I haven't run the Quad into the 20/20 yet but I imagine it would sound just as good as it does with the TA.
Greg
Greenevil
Well-known member
I have a Quad as well, and I agree that thing smokes! I use it with a Strategy 400 or a 2:90 with the deep and modern switch which sounds amazing. But then again, it really depends on the type of music you play and/or what sound you are going for... All I know is that I have a serious problem/addiction with old school Boogie gear! 8)
