Limitations of the Triaxis

[chipaudette]

I used to be very guilty of GAS-fueled denial about my own tone and time and touch. The best way I know to make my point is to talk about a couple of sax players I once worked with. The first guy was just outstanding. One of those born musicians who could just flat out play rings around anyone while never giving the impression he was really trying that hard. He also was as nonchalant about his instrument and its care as anyone I've ever known. He was forever scavenging for parts for his old, beat-up tenor sax. Using any reed he could find, paper clips and rubber bands to keep his sax playable. He still smoked every night. Unfortunately, he had all the cliche musician vices which led to his being fired and replaced by this other guy. Now the new guy had a couple of mid-range Selmers and was meticulous in his care of his horns. He would pitch a fit when he couldn't his brand and weight of reed in stock in the local music store. The irony was that he just wasn't very good. He spent most of his time poring over literature on this or that sax rather than practice on what he had. When we had discussions about how he might be able to bring a little more fire to his solos, he would usually blame it on his horn and tell us we should just wait until he got that mark VI he was saving for. That probably would have worked on me had we not just had a player who played a student series Yamaha horn held together with rubber bands and paper clips. That was, for me, the point when I let go a fair amount of GAS.

Wayne

Best post ever.

Chip

 

[Danimal]

Best post ever.

It's a good one, but I'm afraid that title has already been taken. :lol:

 

[metalheadx05]

Honestly, the Triaxis was the ultimate lesson that finally made me realize that nothing is going to do everything well. And for that I will always be grateful. Once I let go of the total flexibility dream and focused instead on refining a smaller number of truly great tones and just using the gear at hand for what it does best, I was a much happier musician.

I feel you on this one. I had my 2 channel Triple Rectifier stolen from me a couple of years ago. After that I decided to go on a tone searching adventure. I got a Randall RM100 because I wanted versatility yet a pure tube tone. Unfortunately, I was let down due to the weak power amp (IMO). The modified modules came close to replicate Diezels, Soldano's, ENGL's, etc. but it just didn't cut it. I decided to go back to Mesa as the other guitarist in my band plays a Triple Rec. After some research I thought the Triaxis would meet my needs as I wanted a Mark tone with the option of my recto which I was used to. WRONG! LD1 red hasn't made it on stage yet.

Markwayne may have it right. After my experience with the Randall and the Triaxis I started to pursue 1 KILLER rhythm tone, 1 KILLER lead tone, and 1 KILLER clean tone instead of many good/great tones. The Triaxis is still in my rig as it's doing it's job consistently. Consistency is KEY for the performing musician as nothing is more embarrassing than working on your rig during a song due to something not working. Talk about losing the connection with your gear = losing the connection with the audience.

 

[gummx97]

this is a nice thread, going from limitations of the triaxis, to settling with what one has for gear. I am in the same boat, after years of spending $$$ on gear, came full circle to just a few good clean tones, a few good overdrive/distortion tones, and just a few effects. guess we all have to go through the process before settling in to the essentials.

 

[mat grant]

Hi,

This is an interesting thread.

I'm new on this forum, I've been playing guitar about 20 years - I've owned a lot of boogie products, I got into the rack systems in the mid 1990s when the band I was in got some money and was doing some quite big gigs.

I first had a Studio preamp that i used with a modded Fender Bassman 135 head, converted into a rack box. This was along with effects, TC2290, MXR129, digitechs etc. Then I got a 395 simul class power amp and a triaxis, into a stereo 4x12 Boogie halfback cab. I used this for a number of years and did loads of gigs. It was brilliant, flexible and completely reliable, worked on small and very big stages just as well. consistently sounded the same every night.

Then i started using the triaxis with a vintage marshall 50 watt head and Marshall 2x12, as I was playing less big gigs and it was more portable.

Then I joined a tribute band and started using a Vox AC30 and a Vox climax (also a 2x12 combo), and got to like the sound of the vox amps. Now i use a Triaxis, a TC2290, a TC G force and both the above Vox amps that have now been modified to have a power amp input.

My take on the triaxis is that it is just one piece of gear in a chain, not a whole system like a combo amp is. It sounds great if you ask me. There are times when I wish it would do slightly different things with the sound - as some people have posted on here. But when you think about what it does do in 1U space, it is brilliant, even today.

The sound I get with my triaxis 2290 and both my vox amps (when cranked) is brilliant, using the vox amps means i'm probably not the typical triaxis user(!) But I included the bit above so people know i have used a full boogie rig before.

But what I have found is that the Boogie stuff when I had the full rig was 'too good' - ie it was always under control, always sounded like the amp was not stressed. A lot of my favourite guitar sounds sound like they are amps on the verge of meltdown. That was the only problem I had with the boogie power amp, and why I've gone to Vox combos. The other thing I found was that it was too easy to get a generic sound - because Mesas are well made they sound consistent from one amp to another, not like old Marshalls that all sound different, and that means stuff starts to sound the same.

For me the thing to remember is the triaxis is just a preamp - for me 1/3 of the sound - the power amp and the speakers are the other 2/3 of the sound. But I can get my Triaxis to sound just like the preamp on my AC30, so it's difficult to tell if it's the AC30 on it's own or the rack into the AC30, for me that is a good indication of it's flexibility. But I guess my point is, when discussing 'Triaxis vs Mark IV combo' bear in mind the other differences in the system.

I like the flexibility of the MIDI control of the Triaxis, and that makes it the winner against a boogie combo, I've done gigs with the mark IV combo as hired backline, it was good, but not as flexible. even if I thought the mark IV sounded better, I'd still buy the triaxis. (I did!).

BTW I wholeheartedly agree with the saxophone post!

Cheers, Mat.

 

[markwayne]

But what I have found is that the Boogie stuff when I had the full rig was 'too good' - ie it was always under control, always sounded like the amp was not stressed. A lot of my favourite guitar sounds sound like they are amps on the verge of meltdown. That was the only problem I had with the boogie power amp, and why I've gone to Vox combos. The other thing I found was that it was too easy to get a generic sound - because Mesas are well made they sound consistent from one amp to another, not like old Marshalls that all sound different, and that means stuff starts to sound the same.

Hey, you're cheating. My whole point is that my issues with my Triaxis came down to my failed concept. I wanted a consistent tone from night to night. I think my problem might be that I got what I wanted. I assumed that my rig was the primary variable in my tone equation neglecting the fact that I'm human and, therefore, my ears and touch can be inconsistent from night to night. What I needed was a more organic, partner that would change a little and react to me in the heat of the moment with either gentle forgiveness or with brutal honesty. That's what I feel like I get with my little Mark IV. By using an AC30, I would argue you are getting the same. I've keep an AC30 at our rehearsal space and it's always an adventure to play. I kinda wish I'd thought to try the Triaxis into a small-ish combo instead of just bailing on the whole concept. But I still think I'd miss the knobs.

 

[JAZZGEAR]

Was just browsing trough reading some old post...and felt compelled to reply to the post below....

...and that is, after 20 or so years, the TriAxis is still in production and selling strong....so clearly not everyone shares that thwarted view of the TriAxis

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.

 

[robguitargod1]

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:

+1 and I own an ULTRA

 

[bjoneill74]

I have a few comments on this.
I have a TriAxis (v2 with the recto board - no phat mod) and a 2:Ninety.
I have been using this combination with 2 Mesa recto 4x12 cabs and love it.

I have been reading how great the Mark V's are and finally broke down and got one.
I like to research things a lot, but realized after ordering it that they (TriAxis and Mark V) are kind of meant to do the same thing (cover the Mark series amps).
I started to worry as I kinda want variety when I change or add something.
I worried that they'd be very close to the same thing.

I just got the Mark V a few days ago and my time with it is limited, but...
They sound very very different to me.

I'll start by saying that I love my main rig (TriAxis/2:Ninety) and will likely continue to use it.
The Mark V on all channels seems very noticeably brighter, more focused, more scooped.
I liken it to my old rig with the blankets taken off of the speakers.

I'm not trying to piss on the TriAxis.. I find it warmer (the blanket over the speaker thing works in many instances for me).

More playing around is needed, but they are very different.
I'm not too fond of the cleans on with the TriAxis, but love the clean on the MK V.
I think LD Yellow 2 on the TriAxis works better for me than Channel 2 in the MKV.
Channel 3 on the MK V does some flat out amazing heavy tones that are more focused and less muddy than the TriAxis.

I play mainly prog rock which isn't always in the heavy realm so I very much value everything between sparkly clean and the balls out metal crunch.

I also have a Lonestar 2x12 and an old Studio .22 (which doesn't work correctly.. I'll need to get that fixed or ditch it).
All of these amps are very different.

BTW.. those looking for midi control for the Mark V --> http://www.rjmmusic.com/miniampgizmo.php
^ That's my next purchase.. The loop switchers look **** cool as well.

Brian

 

[sixfingerpat]

Well i'm just the happiest bunny...i picked up a 20 year old tri axis and a simul 395 yesterday and **** it was so hard switching it off tonight. I was sorta drawn to this post i guess.....i got a 1975 marshall 100 super lead master vol and a dual rec too and i have had most of the classics over the years but the triaxis and the 290/390 blows them all into the dirt. There are many comments about running them with 290's or marshall mono blocks etc but the one thing that seems to be mentioned very little is speaker configurations. For example...your never gonna get the sound of a fender twin with a close back cab or an ac 30 etc as the amps are designed in an open back 2x12 config same with marshalls etc so you really have to consider speakers seriously if you want the ultimate versatility. I have a 4x12 rectifier a 4x12 Marshall and a 2x12 half back boogie with black shadows the marshalls running 25's the rec 75's and the black shadows and the difference is amazing. And thats where you have to think in terms of the amp you are after and the use of half drive full etc. But for me....i feel i have the ultimate in versitility and the tone? mmm? That is why we are here...right? Oh...and my last rig had the 290 in and the 390....well if ya can find one...GRAB IT!

 

[A_Ryder]

I have a few comments on this.
I have a TriAxis (v2 with the recto board - no phat mod) and a 2:Ninety.
I have been using this combination with 2 Mesa recto 4x12 cabs and love it.

I have been reading how great the Mark V's are and finally broke down and got one.
I like to research things a lot, but realized after ordering it that they (TriAxis and Mark V) are kind of meant to do the same thing (cover the Mark series amps).
I started to worry as I kinda want variety when I change or add something.
I worried that they'd be very close to the same thing.

I just got the Mark V a few days ago and my time with it is limited, but...
They sound very very different to me.

I'll start by saying that I love my main rig (TriAxis/2:Ninety) and will likely continue to use it.
The Mark V on all channels seems very noticeably brighter, more focused, more scooped.
(snip ...)
Brian

I followed the link to your web site and I really like your tone, I presume that was all with the Triaxis, it sounded like "the real deal" to me - good work.

In theory you'd expect a Mark V to sound very similar to a Triaxis especially at the pre-amp stage, I know the V has so many power amp options and anything can happen there.

Just curious - did you use the same cabinet and guitars? Did you try sending the Triaxis into the Mark V Return?

Whenever I start thinking the Tri is very different to my C+ or Recto I use those amps as a power amp for the Triaxis, this really helps zone in the tweaking - sure enough it always comes through. Then I plug it back into the 2:90 with a "running start". Amazingly the output level is one of the simplest yet more important settings to match. ...

 

[bjoneill74]

I have a few comments on this.
I have a TriAxis (v2 with the recto board - no phat mod) and a 2:Ninety.
I have been using this combination with 2 Mesa recto 4x12 cabs and love it.

I have been reading how great the Mark V's are and finally broke down and got one.
I like to research things a lot, but realized after ordering it that they (TriAxis and Mark V) are kind of meant to do the same thing (cover the Mark series amps).
I started to worry as I kinda want variety when I change or add something.
I worried that they'd be very close to the same thing.

I just got the Mark V a few days ago and my time with it is limited, but...
They sound very very different to me.

I'll start by saying that I love my main rig (TriAxis/2:Ninety) and will likely continue to use it.
The Mark V on all channels seems very noticeably brighter, more focused, more scooped.
(snip ...)
Brian

I followed the link to your web site and I really like your tone, I presume that was all with the Triaxis, it sounded like "the real deal" to me - good work.

In theory you'd expect a Mark V to sound very similar to a Triaxis especially at the pre-amp stage, I know the V has so many power amp options and anything can happen there.

Just curious - did you use the same cabinet and guitars? Did you try sending the Triaxis into the Mark V Return?

Whenever I start thinking the Tri is very different to my C+ or Recto I use those amps as a power amp for the Triaxis, this really helps zone in the tweaking - sure enough it always comes through. Then I plug it back into the 2:90 with a "running start". Amazingly the output level is one of the simplest yet more important settings to match. ...

Thanks!
I used the TriAxis/2:Ninety/2 - Recto 4x12 cabs. Mic'd with a pair of Shure 57's.
The guitar on the most recent release was mostly my Ernie Ball Music Man JP 7 string, but I did use my Strats here and there.
I also sparingly used the Mesa Lonestar 2x12.
Oh.. I borrowed a friends Roadster for the metal-esque heavy parts in Springsong (which is likely the song up on the site).
The Cleans and Leads are all the TriAxis rig though.

The first album was mainly Ibanez 7 strings and I didn't have the Mesa Recto Cabs at that point. They were BLB 2x12's with Celestion GT75's rather than V30's.

I haven't tried running the TriAxis into the return of the Mark V yet, but may do so just for fun.
I'm starting to think that the Mark V won't be replacing my TriAxis/2:Ninety rig anytime soon.
I do like it, but need to spend more time with it. It's very versatile.

 

[FedWar]

I have a few comments on this.
I have a TriAxis (v2 with the recto board - no phat mod) and a 2:Ninety.
I have been using this combination with 2 Mesa recto 4x12 cabs and love it.

I have been reading how great the Mark V's are and finally broke down and got one.
I like to research things a lot, but realized after ordering it that they (TriAxis and Mark V) are kind of meant to do the same thing (cover the Mark series amps).
I started to worry as I kinda want variety when I change or add something.
I worried that they'd be very close to the same thing.

I just got the Mark V a few days ago and my time with it is limited, but...
They sound very very different to me.

I'll start by saying that I love my main rig (TriAxis/2:Ninety) and will likely continue to use it.
The Mark V on all channels seems very noticeably brighter, more focused, more scooped.
I liken it to my old rig with the blankets taken off of the speakers.

I'm not trying to piss on the TriAxis.. I find it warmer (the blanket over the speaker thing works in many instances for me).

More playing around is needed, but they are very different.
I'm not too fond of the cleans on with the TriAxis, but love the clean on the MK V.
I think LD Yellow 2 on the TriAxis works better for me than Channel 2 in the MKV.
Channel 3 on the MK V does some flat out amazing heavy tones that are more focused and less muddy than the TriAxis.

I play mainly prog rock which isn't always in the heavy realm so I very much value everything between sparkly clean and the balls out metal crunch.

I also have a Lonestar 2x12 and an old Studio .22 (which doesn't work correctly.. I'll need to get that fixed or ditch it).
All of these amps are very different.

BTW.. those looking for midi control for the Mark V --> http://www.rjmmusic.com/miniampgizmo.php
^ That's my next purchase.. The loop switchers look **** cool as well.

Brian

Hi guys,
This is my first post and I wanted to resurrect this thread to share my findings on my personal quest for perfect tone.
I have a TA + 2:90 myself and I could not get over :
1) the blanket effect
2) the dynamic voice which was not really what I needed

So instead of buying me a new boogie I found these fixes and I want to share them with you!

For the *blanket effect*: the cause is the presence control, which can be approximated to a low pass shelve filter.
It is removing the fizz indeed but is is also removing too muchife from the sound.
Solution: disable the presence by setting it to 10, and compensate by lowering the presence on the 2:90 and also by lowering the highs if required.
This would work especially with lead 2 modes.
For the *dynamic voice* ditch it in favor of Mesa 5 band eq pedal. The dynamic voice is dumping the 750hz band too much and it is not handle the 2200hz band too well, which IMHO is critical to ha be a great mark sound. The dynamic voice is too nasal so to speak!
Last but not least the tubes do the difference too.
I found out that the TA is not digging well the higher gain ones, (I. E. Sovtek). A mix of EH and jj + tung sol 5751 in v3 is what I found best so far.

Now with all of these fixes when a/b-ing my sound (triaxis into 2:90 into 2 notes captor + good ir) it seems on par with other pres, like the quad, the studio, or other mark heads.
I'm talking about sound quality here, I agree that each has its own voice but at least now the TA is as a good as the others.

Let me know what you think!

 

[little-b]

To the op,
Limitations aren't much imho.Theres a few but there are workarounds for them as previously stated.
1.dynamic voice- an outboard eq in the loop....many eqs to choose from.My favs are mesa 5 band,source audio eq,tc electronic 1128.
2.no in between tone knob settings.The outboard eq can pretty much cure this and some folks don't need the in between settings.
3.Tubes..no brainer here,many upgraded 12ax7s
to try
..even tho I own a mkiic+,2 colis,and and IV, the triaxis is so much fun,its very versatile,you can program a ton of presets, Its just a really nice,fun piece of gear to play.