is the studio .22 good?
- Thread starter blackmesa
- Start date
Help Support The Boogie Board:
Raymund
Member
Soundwise they are definitely in the Mark and F-30/F-50 family. Phantastic clean channel and nice typical Mesa lead channel. The only problem is that you have a quite big volume jump between the 2 channels which makes it a little bit difficult if you play live. On this board someone mentioned a mod for the lead channel which reduces the volume jump.
Still my number one amp since 1984 !
Still my number one amp since 1984 !
Aart
Well-known member
Raymund said:
I don't think it's F like, its more Mark series like but somewat grittier, much rawer. I recommend the one with GEQ if you want to play hardrock/metal.
Great amps btw, especcialy the .22+(has a master volume for the lead channel wich the .22 does not have).
Raymund
Member
Quote from interview with Randall Smith on Mesa Boogie´s website:
"The basic architecture of the F-50 originated around 1980 and first appeared in our Studio .22 – a great sounding but noisy amp. It’s simpler and more stripped down than the Mark II and the basic arrangement more resembles the Mark I."
But whatsoever, I love mine.
"The basic architecture of the F-50 originated around 1980 and first appeared in our Studio .22 – a great sounding but noisy amp. It’s simpler and more stripped down than the Mark II and the basic arrangement more resembles the Mark I."
But whatsoever, I love mine.
Any opinions on newer vs older models? I have a line on an '86 22. I'm not sure of the timeline for this model but think that's an early one. I know from elsewhere on this forum the 22+ had some mods from the original, but I'd appreciate any comments on the sound quality/reliability.
Raymund
Member
I´ve only once played a later Studio 22+ and definitely preferred the tone of the older model. They changed something but I can´t tell you what.
plumptone
Well-known member
The studio .22 was my first Boogie. I bought it in 1987 and played it HARD until the mid-90s, when I (stupidly) sold it to get a DC-3. I never had any problems at all with mine, and back then I was playing out 4 to 6 times a week. In my mind the only reason why the DC-3 is better (if that's the right word) is because you have more control over each of the two channels.
As someone already pointed out, the .22 is a 2 channel amp, but thye single set of controls affects both channels. It takes some playing around with, but I was able to get the thing sounding incredible for what I was playing back then - mostly classic rock.
The graphic EQ is a must have with these amps, because it's key to getting the two channels to work together.
To my ears it sounded like a hot-rodded VOX AC-30 (top boost) in the clean channel, and the overdrive was just creamy Boogie goodness. I regret selling it, but I'm equally blown away by my DC-3, as well as my F-50. They are all great amps, each with their own voice, but clearly all belonging to the same family. If you're looknig for a relatively inexpensive, dependable, straightforward and highly portable tube amp that will have people's jaw's on the floor (you won't believe how loud 22 watts can be), you can't go wrong with a Studio .22.
Cheers.
As someone already pointed out, the .22 is a 2 channel amp, but thye single set of controls affects both channels. It takes some playing around with, but I was able to get the thing sounding incredible for what I was playing back then - mostly classic rock.
The graphic EQ is a must have with these amps, because it's key to getting the two channels to work together.
To my ears it sounded like a hot-rodded VOX AC-30 (top boost) in the clean channel, and the overdrive was just creamy Boogie goodness. I regret selling it, but I'm equally blown away by my DC-3, as well as my F-50. They are all great amps, each with their own voice, but clearly all belonging to the same family. If you're looknig for a relatively inexpensive, dependable, straightforward and highly portable tube amp that will have people's jaw's on the floor (you won't believe how loud 22 watts can be), you can't go wrong with a Studio .22.
Cheers.
bentium
Well-known member
which one do you prefer tone-wise: the dc3 or the .22?
plumptone
Well-known member
It's been so long since I actually had the .22.
I think the DC-3 is a little smoother, but it's probably got more to do with the fact that you have completely independent tone and gain controls for each channel. With the .22 there was always a trade-off: you could get an incredibly good clean sound, but then you wouldn't be able to get such intense overdrive. Conversely, if I wanted a hot overdrive/lead sound, I'd end up with a little more agressive clean sound - which is what I ultimately preferred anyway - gave my strats a bit more edge.
But I think in the end the DC-3 would get the nod if I had to pick between the two. It's got slightly more headroom, as it's rated at 35 watts or something like that, which makes it more than capable of handling most of the small-to-midsize rooms I'm playing now. If I need more, I use my F-50.
I guess the best way to describe it would be to say that the tone of the DC-3 is more refined than the .22.
Studio .22 had a nice bite in clean channel, and was cabable of a very Mark I-like lead sound, but did get a bit less focussed and perhaps darker with gain turned down. It could be very bright if not careful with tone control / eq settings. This amp responded really nicely to rolling off of the guitar volume, but had a noticeable hiss when cranked loud. I used to run it hard, and typically had the master up in the 6 to 8 region, which is loud, and pretty much maxing things out.
DC-3 has a superb clean channel with plenty of clean headroom. Sounds very full. The lead channel sounds great at all but the lowest of gain settings and has a great 3-D quality to it. Doesn't do a traditional "blues" sound all that well, but is capable of incredible high gain tones. Incidentally, if you run a DC-3 through a quad box, it will rip your face off! I rarely get the master volume on this above 4. Also, it takes effects in the loop REALLY nicely.
I think the DC-3 is a little smoother, but it's probably got more to do with the fact that you have completely independent tone and gain controls for each channel. With the .22 there was always a trade-off: you could get an incredibly good clean sound, but then you wouldn't be able to get such intense overdrive. Conversely, if I wanted a hot overdrive/lead sound, I'd end up with a little more agressive clean sound - which is what I ultimately preferred anyway - gave my strats a bit more edge.
But I think in the end the DC-3 would get the nod if I had to pick between the two. It's got slightly more headroom, as it's rated at 35 watts or something like that, which makes it more than capable of handling most of the small-to-midsize rooms I'm playing now. If I need more, I use my F-50.
I guess the best way to describe it would be to say that the tone of the DC-3 is more refined than the .22.
Studio .22 had a nice bite in clean channel, and was cabable of a very Mark I-like lead sound, but did get a bit less focussed and perhaps darker with gain turned down. It could be very bright if not careful with tone control / eq settings. This amp responded really nicely to rolling off of the guitar volume, but had a noticeable hiss when cranked loud. I used to run it hard, and typically had the master up in the 6 to 8 region, which is loud, and pretty much maxing things out.
DC-3 has a superb clean channel with plenty of clean headroom. Sounds very full. The lead channel sounds great at all but the lowest of gain settings and has a great 3-D quality to it. Doesn't do a traditional "blues" sound all that well, but is capable of incredible high gain tones. Incidentally, if you run a DC-3 through a quad box, it will rip your face off! I rarely get the master volume on this above 4. Also, it takes effects in the loop REALLY nicely.
what's the weight difference like between them? I'm looking at 22s (still waiting to hear about that '86 I mentioned previously :x ) on a friend's reco, mostly because of his sound but also his boasting about it's light weight. I have enough to hump in and out of gigs as it is but if the DC3 is similar in weight maybe I should be looking at that.
Daevid
Member
- Joined
- Aug 11, 2006
- Messages
- 16
- Reaction score
- 0
My Studio 22+ is lighter than my Marshall Valvestate that i used to own (VS230R) and could be lifted with one arm...
One thing i would like to know is how to sort it so there is less hiss out of the Studio 22+. With the Master on 5 there is hiss on the Preamp signal from 1 1/2 til it reaches 9, then no more hiss :shock:
Would changing the Caps help, or changing the preamp tubes?
One thing i would like to know is how to sort it so there is less hiss out of the Studio 22+. With the Master on 5 there is hiss on the Preamp signal from 1 1/2 til it reaches 9, then no more hiss :shock:
Would changing the Caps help, or changing the preamp tubes?
plumptone
Well-known member
The DC-3 is very manageable in terms of weight and footprint. The .22 is a little bit lighter, and had basically the same footprint. I don't know the exact numbers.
6L6C
Well-known member
Yeah me too it was my first too, and like a brain dead moran I sold mine when I got a Mark IV in 93 (I bought my 22 in 87 also. Was so excited with the IV figured I did not need the 22 any more WRONG I miss that amp.plumptone said:
Like you PLUMPTONE that EQ is a must!
Thanks for the comments, folks. I bought the '86 blonde 22 last night (that i had mentioned earlier in this thread), and it sounds great. 
I have yet to play with the foot switch rhythm vs lead, but I think this amp will work well for my needs (small band, small clubs).
I have yet to play with the foot switch rhythm vs lead, but I think this amp will work well for my needs (small band, small clubs).
tommyhawk13
Well-known member
Cool. How much did you pay for it?
$475, which is more than they're going for on ebay but I had the chance to look it over in person and audition it, and didn't have to pay to ship it or wait for it to arrive. OR explain to my wife what that package the man in brown brought me was.
Mesa Boogie really missed the mark on this amp. It could have been great and a classic...but they insisted on putting all those dark sounding orange drop capacitors in the pre-amp section in combo with the Black Shadow 12" speaker.
The result is a dark sounding VOX AC 15 that doesn't have enough power to cut through...not ballsy enough to even play over a 3 piece rock band.
Also, the amp is fragile and not durable.
I heavily modified mine by ripping out the entire pre-amp section and replacing it with clearer, brighter capacitors for a more british VOX type sound the sound is very good. But I would not tour with this amp...very tempermental. Even with the mods it's still not loud enough for live playing...I use it only for recording sessions.
The result is a dark sounding VOX AC 15 that doesn't have enough power to cut through...not ballsy enough to even play over a 3 piece rock band.
Also, the amp is fragile and not durable.
I heavily modified mine by ripping out the entire pre-amp section and replacing it with clearer, brighter capacitors for a more british VOX type sound the sound is very good. But I would not tour with this amp...very tempermental. Even with the mods it's still not loud enough for live playing...I use it only for recording sessions.
tommyhawk13
Well-known member
bsacco said:
Hmm. I wonder why they called it the Studio. :wink:
A more powerful version of this amp was called the 50 Caliber. Same preamp section, bigger power section. My 1 x 12 combo was louder than a 50 watt Marshall JCM, and cut through the bass & drums without a problem.
