Limitations of the Triaxis

[chipaudette]

Hi All,

On another thread here in the "Rack Pieces" forum, I almost hijacked the thread by sliding into a discussion of the limitations of the Triaxis. Since I really like talking about the Triaxis (with its pluses AND its minuses), and since I don't really like thread-jacking, here's my entree into hopefully starting a discussion on a really interesting topic.

So, when comparing a Triaxis to a Mark II -> Mark IV, here are the feature limitations that have always annoyed me:

1) No EQ sliders. The dynamic voice is effective, but I can't replicate the range of sounds that I get by tweaking the EQ sliders on my Mark II. I miss the EQ sliders terribly. Yes, this is easily mimic'd using outboard effects, which is the whole point of a rack. I still wish that it was in the Triaxis...I mean, to many people, the Boogie Graphic EQ is a crucial part of the Mark sound.

2) No "Pull Shift" on the Treble knob. The Mark amps have pull shift on the treble knob that you enable or disable. The three LD2 modes on the Triaxis all have the equivalent of the pull shift enabled (I have the schematic, I know). There are lots of colors that you can get with the pull shift disabled...mostly at lower gain levels. These are all unavailable on the Triaxis.

3) No "Pull Shift" on the Bass knob: Again, you have a pull shift on the bass knob of the Mark amps. In all of the triaxis LD2 modes, it's configured to be disabled. Again, There are lots of colors that you can get with the pull shift enabled...mostly at lower gain levels. These are all unavailable on the Triaxis.

4) Beware of Clipping the Dynamic Voice: Unlike some other tube-only snobs, I have no problem that Mesa used op-amps in its dynamic voice circuit. There's nothing wrong with that. Unfortunately, they also coupled that decision with a choice to use a lower voltage supply for this circuit. The combination of the two means that you always have to makes sure that you don't overload the imput of this circuit or else you'll get a nasty clipping/saturation sound. The Mark series amps, using a higher voltage supply and discrete transistors, happens to behave much more nicely. I think that they got lucky on the Mark series amps, but who cares how it happened. All I know is that it works much nicer than the implementation on the triaxis.

5) Can't Defeat the "Bright" on Clean Channels: On the mark amps, you can pull or push the volume 1 knob to enable or disable the brightness. On the Triaxis, both R1G and R1Y have the bright permanently enabled. Sure, it's a great sound...unless you want to go for a darker jazzy tone. Of course, a lot of jazzers can still get what they want out of a Triaxis...through excellent finger technique, pluck technique, and tone control manipulation. But, I would love to smooth out my tone by just turning off the brightness like you can on the Mark amps.


Of course, it's equally easy to make a list of things that the Triaxis does better than a Mark amp. Like, say, have foot control access to more than just 2-3 sounds. But, I'm hoping to start a discussion of deficiencies. You folks out there might have other pet peeves with the Triaxis. More importantly, some of you out there might have good work-arounds that'll bring deeper Triaxis joy to me and the rest of the community.

Thanks,

Chip

Mark IIC(+)
Triaxis / 2:90
Fender Deluxe Reverb Reissue
Roland JC-77

 

[ryjan]

If you absolutely have to have every feature of all the amps then get an Axe FX. The Tri is an awesome midi preamp with more useable voicings than any working musician should need. If they made it with 130 modes then someone would no doubt ***** that there should be 131. :roll:

 

[ando]

Geez Chip, you are like a dog with a bone with this one! Did a Triaxis steal your girlfriend or something?? :wink:

I could launch into an extensive list of deficiencies of the Mark V too, but what's the point? The Triaxis doesn't pretend to be everything to everybody. What you call deficiencies are simply decisions made by the designers. You can't include everything on one preamp. The Triaxis does a good job of packing in a great many features. It doesn't pretend to be a Mark V, and let's not forget that it was designed nearly 20 years ago. What do you expect it to do - wash you car and cook you breakfast too? And if it doesn't, it's deficient? You also leave out the fact that some of the aspects of tone change reside in the 2:90 power amp, which the Triaxis is designed to work with. Deep Mode, Half Drive and Modern offer some of the possibilities you say are lacking.

I don't really get your obsession with criticizing the Triaxis. It is what it is. If you like it, you keep it. If you don't, get rid of it. It's not marketed as a complete replication of the Mark series amps. It is a simulation of a wide variety of Mark tones. The ability to store unlimited patches of tones, and to interface with other MIDI gear - including EQs which can do exactly what you are saying is missing from the Tri - is what makes this a powerful and desirable piece of gear for many people. You very much romanticize the Mesa 5-band EQ. It's not that fancy or unique. There are any number of EQs on the market that can accomplish what the Mesa-5 band can do. Why do you think they did leave the 5 band graphic off the Triaxis? It's because you can do that outboard if the dynamic voice isn't enough for you. For most people who want the mid-scoop, it is enough.

The Mark V has more performance limitations than the Triaxis will ever have. It's all good and well to talk about the myriad options the V has, but you must admit that being only able to access 3 of them onstage is an enormous drawback. To talk about the pure "tone" issue is to completely miss the point of why somebody might buy a Triaxis - to have all the tones it CAN produce available at any time. Hell I agree that if you want all the sounds of a Mark V, you should buy a Mark V. But for a versatile stage amp, the Triaxis has the Mark V covered by a comfortable margin.

It's not for everybody. But dude, you need to relax on focussing on all the limitations of the Triaxis. It is a very versatile piece of gear. If you want to point out everything it can't do, why not point the finger at every amp ever made? None of them do everything. You preface this thread by saying it is about the deficiencies of the Triaxis, but you do that by comparing it with the Mark series. If you are going to do that, you should equally launch into the extensive list of limitations of the Mark series. Otherwise your premise is illogical.

The Triaxis is more oriented towards the performance player. The Mark V would be more flexible for the studio player. That's the difference. To compare them as you have is to miss the point of their reasons for even existing.

People ultimately select their amp for what it CAN do for them, not what it can't. I'm more than aware of what the Triaxis can't do (there are plenty of features I'd like to have, but can't have), but I bought it for what it can do.

 

[chipaudette]

But dude, you need to relax on focusing on all the limitations of the Triaxis

I'm totally relaxed. I'm here to have fun talking about gear. And it is fun. Ever talk with motorcycle folks, or hikers, or sailors...they all have their current gear love, but they also have some complaints, too. It's fun to talk about both. The positives get lots of air here. Sometimes it's informative to discuss negatives. Sometimes it leads to great solutions...like that TC equalizer unit posted on the other thread. Sweet!

Someone else might have yet more cool solutions. I can't wait to hear them. Also, someone else might have a peeve that I've found a work-around for. Sharing our experience. That's what we're here for.

Anyone ever modded the guts of their Triaxis to address their own concerns? That's another whole thread possibility right there.

Chip

 

[chipaudette]

Hey Ryjan,

How do you work your mid-gain sounds? On a mark series amp, this is where I'll push in the treble knob to defeat the shift. It loosens up the classic Mark focus and makes it sound a little less metal.

On the Triaxis, I use the LD2 modes and dial back the gains. It works pretty well, but it's not as free and easy and the Mark with the Pull shift defeated. LD1G gets me there sometimes, too. But it still still isn't quite right.

For these sounds do you use LD2, LD1, or crank one of the R channels? By mid-gain, I'm thinking classic rock (70s) rhythm playing.

Chip

 

[ryjan]

Hey Ryjan,

How do you work your mid-gain sounds? On a mark series amp, this is where I'll push in the treble knob to defeat the shift. It loosens up the classic Mark focus and makes it sound a little less metal.

On the Triaxis, I use the LD2 modes and dial back the gains. It works pretty well, but it's not as free and easy and the Mark with the Pull shift defeated. LD1G gets me there sometimes, too. But it still still isn't quite right.

For these sounds do you use LD2, LD1, or crank one of the R channels? By mid-gain, I'm thinking classic rock (70s) rhythm playing.

Chip

I havn't had a Triaxis in almost two years but if I remember correctly I used LD1 yellow for the AC/DC ish stuff or LD2 green with the gains lowered. I remember that I liked some of the factory presets for the classic rock kinda stuff.

 

[chipaudette]

Whenever I go LD1 yellow, I always seem to gravitate to super-saturated, compressed, thick thick thick leads. It's just where that channel tends to take me. Mmm, it's good.

But it's no AC/DC.

Do you remember how you set it up? More gain1, less gain 2? The reverse? No bass, lots of treble? No mids? Lots of mids?

I'm intrigued.

Thanks,

Chip

 

[chipaudette]

Oh, and have you tried an AxeFX? I don't have much experience with any modeling stuff (Line6, AxeFX, or other). Is it decent?

For the AxeFX, what kind of power amp would you pair it with? Would you go solid state for maximum clean power (letting the AxeFx do all the tone), or would you go tube?

Chip

 

[Danimal]

For the AxeFX, what kind of power amp would you pair it with?

I'd advise to go with the rock bottom cheapest you can find. That way when you unload it in a month you're not out that much money. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

 

[MesaGod666]

Pah...limitations of the Triaxis...bwahahahahaha.

Lookie here Chip, whatever the Triaxis lacks it makes up for in tone. That is all.

 

[chipaudette]

Hey MesaGod,

I see that you have a Triaxis plus a 2:90 as well as a 20/20. And you have a Mark V. The guy on this thread...

http://forum.grailtone.com/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=48482

...is asking about the Triaxis vs the Mark V. At the end of the thread (page 3), he's also asking about how well the Triaxis combines with the 20/20. Maybe you could share your thoughts with him?

Chip

 

[allphourus]

I wish I could toggle the external switches for the half power, modern, deep in the midi implementation by assigning them each a midi controller number and change them from within a preset using my foot controller rather then re programing each change in a new preset with the same gain and tone control settings. A small thing really but would be a boon when using them to control units other then the power amp like a compressor or older non midi rack effects. Talked to Randall Smith about that one years ago and he agreed that that would be interesting but that it wasn't possible. There are other ways to do the same thing, dedicated midi switching devices.

I bought mine almost twenty years ago, before the recto mod, loved the original LD 1 Red, It had a real strong plexi vibe to it. I had the mod done and love that, use it the most of all the modes lately ( the past ten years really ) but still wish I had that ninth mode. Oh my, silly me!

I'm a qualified tech, I worked twenty some years in pro audio service before I got the bug to become nature photographer ( silly me again ). I still remain more interest in tone and making music then in circuits. I never bothered to look at schematics for most of my gear let alone look inside my Triaxis until Randall Smith asked if I had, then suggested I do to see how crowded it was in there in reference to these questions about additional features. Ain't much room for any thing else, certainly a miracle of circuit lay out, all that gain and everything packed so tight and never even a hint of instability. That is a chore for a point to point wired amp designer with lots of room to work with and even more critical on tightly packed printed circuit boards like those in the Triaxis.

Welcome to the tone farm, I would suggest you put down the schematics and get down to some honest farming, sounds like you could use a good smile or two.

 

[giorikas81]

I have got to agree with chipaudette here.

It is not that the triaxis is not a great piece of gear. It is. I understand everyone who uses it and loves it. If I were a gigging pro and I was after THAT mark sound that is what I might have bought for a rack. The support it gets, the midi implementation up to a level and even the sound tick the boxes. But...

But it does have limitations, I always had them in my mind and chipaudette put them in words.

A/Bing the triaxis with my old studio preamp revealed all the "worries" of chipaudette here long before he even begin this.

First of all, I don't know how or why, but triaxis lacks in sound quality. Maybe they got it better in the later units I'll never bother though. It was a version 2.0.

Triaxis sounded good but compared to the studio preamp was a no no. The sound was less defined, less open less musical less of everything. How much? 10%? 5%? I can't name it but I heard it and I was not the only one. Is it the lack of GEQ? Is it the op amp controlling the dynamic voice? Were the mesa brand preamp tubes responsible? Don't know but it was. I shall also say that the difference in a band mix is not that big of an issue. It is there though. What can I say?

Worse, now chipaudette says that all the mark series switches are "enabled" in the triaxis. I play almost exclusively with them turned off in high volume. I like them in low volume but I want definition for high gain and it is off. Now it almost explains why I never "bonded". Mr James hetfield does have his triaxis modified...Hmm removing some caps and bypassing the loop and the dynamic voice is not such a bad idea.

Third, come on, what exactly is that you will love in triaxis other than lead 2 yellow? And that mostly for leads. Sure it is a great lead/mark sound. But it is not the best around. Its cleans were ...useable. Its other modes...the same. To voice a personal opinion though they were useless. To me at least. Not a great clean sound not a great rock sound. Useable and decent are words that do not fit in the 2000+$ category of this machine. What do I need 20 sounds footswitchable from triaxis if I'll only "adore" one? I'd be much better off with another preamp or two for rock than to rely only on triaxis for that. Bottom line the only excellent sound was lead 2 yellow based. I'll never justify the price for something the older preamps give as a one-trick pony but do it better. Mesa please please re-issue the studio and quad. Add a soldano X88R or marshall JMP-1 or something and you have great versatility for less money. Who will do the carrying though. I really think that people who like triaxis for its cleans sounds or mid-low gain should have a strong point for buying it though.

My main gripe with the studio preamp is the fact that it is basically 1 channel at the time. The triaxis should give me what the studio can, a great clean and a great lead with radically different settings one from another. But the quad preamp does this better for less money.


Yes the 2:90 is triaxis' mate and I sincerely think it sounds best with that power amp. (Although I liked it even better on a brunetti with EL34's it came more "alive")...

But for me it doesn't worth the trouble.


Mark V slays it all day because its versatility does not only come from the preamp but from the whole amp.

On every sound you can have solo boost effects loop GEQ and contour modes mixed at the users taste all footswitchable plus the power amp options. That makes for a lot live sound not just three. Also the mark V is the first mark series preamp that actually goes a long way to cover for rock sounds other than the "clean, blown up fender mark I rock, super articulate mark rythm sound etc". Just ask anybody that uses the edge crunch etc modes.

 

[Danimal]

Mark V slays it all day because its versatility

Hmmm, three options at any one time. Sure sounds versatile to me. Why, that's one more option than a solid-state Crate amp! Versatility incarnate! :lol: :lol:

 

[ljbarbeau]

I have to agree with allphourus.

I love my triaxis and sound is great clean and all of ld2. But midi implementation is weak. A/B switching between a clean and Lead channel per preset would be nice as well. Switching loop on/off via midi seems like a big mistake as well.

Apart from that I only have praise for the tri.

 

[gummx97]

Excellent discussion! I too have a Triaxis and a Mark 4, and I must agree that the clean sound on the triaxis is "usable" at best. I was playing through a SMF 15 watter amp, used to be made by Mark Sampson and had gotten used to the sound. Then, I played my triaxis and, for me, the clean was not as three dimensional like the SMF. My Triaxis is partnered with a 290 and a G Force in the effects loop. The crunch sounds on the triaxis are excellent, but the clean...well, "usable." To me, the limit of the triaxis is the clean sound, but I suppose in a band context, it might be good enough for what it is and what is that is trying to achieve.

My friend also has a reissue twin reverb and to me, the cleans are awesome on that amp.

With respect to the Triaxis and design intent, I think it does what is designed to do well, considering the R & D and engineering that went to the unit. As with any design, there are always trade-offs and compromises, just like any other well-built and well thought-out amplifier design. Finding the middle ground must be the holy grail of amp designers, and we are lucky in that aspect to aid in our quest for tone.

 

[chipaudette]

Worse, now chipaudette says that all the mark series switches are "enabled" in the triaxis.

Just to clarify on this comment made above, the Triaxis LD2 modes are hardwired with *many* (but not all) of the Mark series pull switches enabled. Specifically, based on the schematic of Triaxis, the LD2 modes are wired this way:

Equivalent Settings relative to Mark IIC+ or Mark III:
Volume 1 knob, "Bright" is pulled
Treble knob, "Treble Shift" is pulled
Bass knob, "Bass Shift" is NOT pulled
Master knob, "Pull Deep" is pulled...sort of
Lead Master, "Pull Bright" is pulled

Equivalent Settings relative to a Mark IV:
Gain knob, "Pull Fat" is pulled
Lead Drive, "Pull Bright" is pulled

Note that the Mark IV lead channel has no equivalent of the Mark IIC+ "pull bright" on the volume 1 knob. Since the Triaxis LD2 modes have this enabled, the Triaxis LD2 is a little different than the Mark IV lead.

Also, the Mark IV lead channel has no equivalent of the Mark IIC+ "pull shift" on the bass knob. But, the Triaxis LD2 channels do not implement this feature either, so it is the same as the Mark IV in this respect.

Finally, neither the Mark IV nor the Triaxis have the option for the "Pull Deep" seen on the Mark IIC+ / Mark III. The "Pull Deep" is tied up with how the Mark IIC+ / Mark III do the recovery from the Effects Loop. The Mark IV and Triaxis do things a little different. But, if I had to choose I'd say that the Mark IV and Triaxis are wired similar to the Pull Deep being enabled.


So, to return back to the original statement, if you're a Mark IIC+ or Mark III user, the Triaxis LD2 modes are hardwired similar to having all the knobs pulled except the Mid and Bass knobs pulled. If you are coming from a Mark IV perspective, the Triaxis is hardwired to have the Pull Fat and Lead Drive "Pull Bright" enabled.

Chip

 

[giorikas81]

Mark V slays it all day because its versatility

Hmmm, three options at any one time. Sure sounds versatile to me. Why, that's one more option than a solid-state Crate amp! Versatility incarnate! :lol: :lol:

As opposed to the triaxis actually circling 500 presets for sounds that are pretty much alike...yeah that is good.

It is three, channels with or without boost with or without the GEQ enabled with or without the contour knobs, plus the power amp options.

 

[Danimal]

It is three, channels with or without boost with or without the GEQ enabled with or without the contour knobs, plus the power amp options.

Sorry, forgot about the equalizer. Make that four options. Twice as good as a solid state Crate amp! :lol: :lol:

 

[chipaudette]

I can't believe that we're having this pissing contest regarding versatility. Both setups are incredibly versatile. And why all the taunting with the Crate talk? Ouch.

Both amps are incredibly versatile. There's always a question over how many of those sounds are actually usable or inspring. A JCM800 purist, for example, would say that not one of the Mark V or Triaxis tones is actually usable. So, whether it's 1 mesa sound or 1000 mesa sounds, they're all crap to them. But that's another whole discussion.

I think that the argument over versatility totally comes down to how many sounds one wants on a foot-switch. If you want lots of sounds to be foot-switchable, the Triaxis is better.

For other people (like me), flipping switches with your fingers and tweaking knobs is just fine. I got fingers and I'm gonna use them. Even if it means I have to stop playing for a second. I play with my buds, not for 10000 people. My buds can stand not hearing me play for a few seconds while I kick over to a new sound. Therefore, I don't care about foot-switchability at all...I just care about having a wide array of inspiring sounds.

If that's your goal as well, then the other Mark amps might be even better, depending on what you like. Maybe even a JCM800 might be the best choice. Sure it's a one-trick pony, but oh what a trick it is. Mmm. I guess that's why it's good that a man is allowed to own more than one amp.

Chip