LSC/LSS owners; are you happy with channel2?Want to fix it?

[Charles Reeder]

Greetings to all the Boogie-Folks; and to Lone Star owners in particular:

This is my first posting on the Boogie Board; so kindly bear with me.

I have read many, many posts about both the Lone Star Classic and the Special and I am well aware that the topic I am about to raise has been dealt with before...but I just want to get a consensus of opinion. I am not seeking 'solutions' or settings.

As either a LSC or LSS owner/user would you say that you are/were less pleased with channel-2 than with channel-1? I will tell you why I ask after I tell you of my experience with it.

I bought my LSC about 2 years ago. I read the available Mesa literature and I fully expected channel-2 to quite literally be a 'clone' of channel-1 if I didn't engage the 'Drive' or the 'thick/thicker' options.

But it wasn't...(a clone that is)...it has a more ragged response...and I have read endless 'tweaking' suggestions which were supposed to help get the response I sought.

Now let me ask you a question...would you like your 2nd channel better if it were an absolutely identical clone of channel-1? Assuming that you were to set all tone, volume and gain controls on both channels identically; and didn't engage either the 'drive' or 'thick/thicker' options; would you prefer the 2 channels to be identical? Can you mentally envision having the tone shaping abilities of the 'drive' and 'thick/thicker' available on a channel that sounded exactly like channel-1? Wouldn't that sound better? Isn't that what you wanted...it's what I wanted...and now have.

I never could figure for sure why Mesa didn't just build the amp that way in the first place...but I have a theory. I believe that they felt they would be criticized for building an amp with two identical channels...fearing some people would say that they could have just built a 1-channel amp with the 'drive' and 'thick/thicker' options foot-switchable and sold it cheaper. They probably would have gotten some such criticism. Me; I prefer the options afforded by having 2 separate but identical channels. I can vary tone and gain settings as well as adding the 'drive' and 'thick/thicker' too.
How many times I was 'torn' trying to decide which gain setting to use on channel-1; because there are several I really like.

Now I can set channel-2 for my alternate channel-1 gain setting and/or add the 'drive' and 'thick/thicker' as well. Let's face it; as the amp comes stock, channel-1 is smoother and more transparent than channel-2. Do I really get any disagreement with that statement?

Well, just last month I stumbled across something in my manual which I hadn't noticed before. Go grab your manual or download the pdf and look at what I found.

On page 34 of my Lone Star manual (I didn't check page number for LSS or LSC version2) you will find a graph picture of the amp with all of the Part-numbers of the various pots and switches.

I noticed that...
On channel-1 the Gain is part#591739 and the Master is part#591047.

Now look at channel-2: the Gain is part#591047 and the Master is part#591739.

The 2-channels use the identical Gain and Master pots...but reversed!

That is the absolute only difference between the 2-channels. No circuit board mods necessary...all you have to do is swap the Gain pot with the Master pot on channel-2 and it is a perfect clone of channel-1. That's it! Nothing else to do...and it sounds so..so..much better!

Let me tell you; when you add the 'drive' and/or the 'thick/thicker' to channel-2 now it just takes off like a bird and sings! It actually gets more distortion and sustain (if you want it); The bass is not muddied and the notes remain articulate even at high volume and saturation levels! It is everything I had originally hoped it would be.

Making this swap is not at all difficult...just 3 wires on each of the 2 pots on channel-2 . Just unsolder the 2 pots and swap them. You will have to remove the amp chassis from the combo or head cab. Then unscrew the screws that hold on the knobs on the gains and masters on both channels.
Remove the retaining nuts and washers that hold the gain and master pots
on both channels from the faceplate.
Pull the channel-1gain and master pots backwards out of the way. You do not have to remove or unsolder the ones on channel-1; just get them out of the way so that you can 'rock' and pull the gain and master pots for channel-2 out.
3 little gray wires are soldered to each pot. Before I unsoldered them I used a magic-marker to label them to make it quick and easy to remember which post they attached to on the pot. Going left to right 1-dot,2-dots, 3-dots. Simply unsolder them and swap the positions of the gain and master pots on channel-2.

Put everything back together and enjoy the amp the way it always should have sounded (in my opinion)!

The only thing I ask of any of you is that if you do not feel qualified to do this swap...(the insides of amplifiers can be fatally dangerous to the careless)...then please...please...please... take it to a tech to have the swap done.

I would like to hear from anyone who shares/shared my dissatisfaction with channel-2...and from anyone who does this simple swap...I would love to hear from you and see if this swap thrilled you as much as it did me.

Regards in 'Boogiedom': Charles

 

[plan-x]

I will look in to this and try it out. If it works, you will be my hero.

 

[plan-x]

Ok, upon further investigation I noticed the part # given for ch 2 master is not 591739 but is 581739. So this is not an exact reverse swap. Although the swap might still sound good. Since Charles has had this amp for 2 years and this is his 1st post, I'm going to go out on a limb and say What if this is a sabotage and I do this mod and it blows up my amp. Ok I am extemely paranoid. You never know, we live in a day of email viruses, identity theft and cyber attacks, along with unscrupulous society behavior. Must be the fact that I was born and raised in LA and have a certain lack of faith in mankinds nature. But I would like some clarification on this part # discrepansy Charles. Why? Becuase you have whet my appitite.

 

[rvschulz]

I can say that I have noticed that if all settings are exactly the same that Channel 1 is not an "exact" clone of channel 2. I am lost about the desire to mod the amp, as I am not disappointed by the performance ... on the contrary.

Not only do I love my sounds, and I am still tweaking (aren't we all) - as SO MANY TONES come out of this amp ... great tones.

I am curious about what you are trying to do as an EXACT clone ... or if the gain structure of Ch 2 is an issue ....

 

[djw]

Verrrrrry interesting. I'm torn between what rvshultz above says about actually liking Ch2 as-is, and a desire to have a real Ch1 clone.

I'd really be curious to hear this with my ears 'cause, you know, I bought what I bought because I liked it. I don't feel like I'm compromising with my Ch2, though I do find that I like it less at apartment volume levels (and I live in an apartment). But given a chance to open up, Ch2 gets nice and juicy, as in I actively like it.

But the transparency that you speak of is definitely something else.

I think I'll keep this idea in my back pocket for a while. But I like it. Indeed, you could be a hero.

Meanwhile, I know it might be a hassle, but can you post any clips? Nothing too crazy, just some open chords, basic sound samples?

 

[Charles Reeder]

Chuckle!

I will reply 'en block' rather than individually as it is much faster.

1st...I can certainly understand some paranoia in todays society! I can't really fault anyone for feeling this way...it is one of the reasons I used my real name rather than some 'cutesy-pie' made up name...to give some degree of accountability. As to the swap 'blowing up an amplifier'....ask a tech...simply swapping the position of 2 pots will not blow up anything...even if it didn't do what I said it would. Changing out other components...capacitors, resistors etc....or re-routing circuitry might well do that...but a simple 'swap' in the placement of 2 pots would at the worst 'degrade' the sound. And you know what...it did 'degrade' the sound...when Mesa swapped their positions at production!

2nd...as to the part# discrepancy alluded to...I forgot but there is indeed a 1-number difference which I think may be a 'diversion' on Mesa's part. I really think the amp was originally designed to have 2 identical channels and they changed plans near production time for fear of the criticism they might have received...and perhaps were 'covering their tracks'. My only motivation in posting this info...is that I honestly believe that with the swap of these 2 components...the Lone Star is one of the finest amplifiers ever made...and it saddens me to read of other's dissatisfaction with channel-2...and to see how many are being sold off due to this. My conscience would not allow me to do anything but post this info.

3rd...after doing this swap myself...I personally am for the first time completely happy with the amp. Channel-1 has always been a 'tough act to follow'! Channel-2 didn't actually sound 'bad' to me...it was just that it 'paled in comparison' to the stellar performance and beauty of channel-1

4th....'if it ain't broke...don't fix it!' If anyone is perfectly happy with their 2nd channel...don't change it! Why bother...I am now happy with mine...and I'm not going to change anything else. I couldn't 'audition' a Lone Star before buying..as the nearest dealer was about a 100 miles away...and never had one when I called. I took a serious chance based upon the Mesa literature and reviews and bought on eBay. When I first played it I was more than thrilled by channel-1...it was everything and more that I was expecting. I was disappointed in channel-2.

5th...This is my first post and I can't post sound clips for the same reason...which is... I am ignorant about computers and have none of the things needed to record or post sound clips. I am 56 and never actually wanted a computer; but my son bought me one and installed it for me. He insisted it would be useful. I was dubious. I am now a believer...but still an ignorant one. I tried to 'register' several times before; but my stupidity prevented me. I kept 'googling' for a 'source' for the 'BB' number which is on the opening page! Finally found it last night! As for sound clips...they wouldn't prove anything to the skeptic anyway...if I were dishonest; I would simply play channel-1 and falsely identify it as channel-2.!

Finally...if in doubt...simply call someone with real knowledge and ask..."will a simple swap of 2 potentiometers (volume pots) for gain and master blow up my amp?"
If you are perfectly happy with the amp...well... simply leave it alone!
But,if like me you have really always wished channel-2 sounded like channel-1 then try it. If it doesn't 'float your boat'...switch it back!
I am actually 'shooting myself in the foot' by posting this...because I love the Lone Star sound so much...I am actually looking to buy another one in a different configuration. If everyone who was unhappy with channel-2 did this simple 'mod'...I would find the used market drying up and prices rising! I am actually hurting myself in an effort to help others.

Believe what you will...do what you will. Regards: Charles

 

[simonich]

Interesting discussion for sure. I'm curious on a couple points...

(a) what does Mesa say about this? Anyone ask them? Either about the reasoning for the swap and/or what the actual difference in the pots is?

(b) Who manufactures the pots? Would be interesting to check the specs on them both to understand the difference more. E.g. is there an ohm difference?

I do agree that swapping pots won't do any damage if done properly. Though if there is a significant ohm difference it might make a dramatic difference in sound. For anyone trying this I'd start out with both "off" and move them up slowly. I haven't seen the rest of the channel 2 schematic, so I don't know what the signal path looks like.

 

[djw]

5th...This is my first post and I can't post sound clips for the same reason... they wouldn't prove anything to the skeptic anyway...if I were dishonest; I would simply play channel-1 and falsely identify it as channel-2.!

Hey, no problem, I understand; but I wasn't looking for proof that you were telling the truth about your mod. I wanted to hear your results! And I'd only ask if you felt like you were set up to do it easily.

Right on, though. Welcome to the board.

 

[ja22y]

Hey Charles,
did you measure the value of the pots? That should be the only different in pots. Probably pots in channel 2 allow more gain. Would me good to know the values.
Personally I like ch2 just fine. I don't want 2 identical channels, I prefer ch2 to give me a different voice altogether. The way it is now, it's too similar to ch1, just a tad more gain (I think).

 

[plan-x]

Yeah, welcome to the board Charles. I am interested in this mod because I have had difficulty in accepting the sound of ch 2. Upon switching from ch 1 to ch 2 the sound characteristics change dramatically and in a 3 piece band, it's noticable. The bottom falls out and the mids soar. I prefer a more smooth transition and so does the ears of the audience. It's more professional and less garage. I will give it a try maybe next week when my amp has some down time. Oh, the amp blowing up comment was an exageration.

 

[Charles Reeder]

Back again! To all, and 'simonech' in particular:

No I didn't call Mesa about this. I once called them about a DC-5 (back before I got a computer). I wanted to 'rein in' the gain and 'mud' on channel-2 of that amp. They were very nice; but offered no constructive info. They more or less said "get a different amp". I kept the DC-5 and had some minor success in changing it to my liking (on my own)...but I did get a 'different amp' too...the Lone Star.

Any corporation is more or less going to 'circle the wagons' about any controversial executive decisions so I didn't bother calling. Even if 'the gang' at Mesa did come out of the 60s 'hippie era' (as I did)...success and money have a way of changing one's perspective on matters if you allow it!

As to the pots. I did measure them...but I have forgotten (1-million ohms I think). Whatever it was; I seem to remember that both pots measured the same...so there is a difference in 'taper'...or 'something' else going on in there. Obviously...whether one believes that I am on target about the 'mod' I suggest (or not)...there is 'some real and significant difference' in the pots or they wouldn't have different part numbers.

It would certainly be interesting to 'know' the reason for the change to the production 'layout' (if indeed there was one)...someone else can try getting an answer if they want to...but I have no inclination to bother trying. I would expect either a runaround, out and out denial, or 'no comment'.

Regards: Charles

 

[Charles Reeder]

'plan-x' and others:

Your comments about the sound of channel-2 could have been written by me! Which is why I sought to find a way to get the channels more alike. The only real difference in our positions is that I play in several bands and 'free-lance' a bit...and in all these situations I play with 'at least' 3 more people...so they help to cover up a bit of the tone differences. I might add though...that the sound 'cuts through the mix' much...much better than it did before when using channel-2!

I couldn't get the bass to sound right on channel-2 either...if I turned it up 'everything' got 'mushy'...if I turned it down the sound was 'dead' or flat...and lacked 'punch'. The mids had too much prominence. Now the overall tone is 'firm and round'...like some other things us guys (even older ones like me) like 'firm and round'!

I do not know how to read schematics...and have minimal experience doing any modifications to electrical equipment... I only knew 2 things before embarking on this 'mod' or 'switch'....#1. I was unhappy with channel-2...and....#2. there was just something 'troubling' or suspicious' about the 'reversal' of gain and master pots between channel-1 and channel-2 (even if the manual graph does show a different number than the actual pot) in my amp.

So...I never really expected the 'swap' to make the two channels sound absolutely identical...but I was pleasantly surprised. I should mention at this point that I am still using all 12AX7s throughout the preamp...and have not tried different tube types since making this 'mod'...because I 'found my sound'. I tried 12AT7s and 5751s before I did this and it didn't help enough. It may very well be that tube substitutions in either V1 or V2 could still make the 2 channels sound different even after the 'mod'...I just don't know (or care).

To those who have no interest in trying this...I understand...you do want a difference in the 2 channels. I 'make' them different by setting the gain structures differently on the 2 channels...plus I have the 'Drive' and 'thick/thicker' options available as well. When I play I use 2 different sounds. But now my sounds are 2 different sounds from a 'high-class' amp; rather than a sound from a 'high-class' amp and a sound from a 'mediocre' amp.

Tone is subjective...and 'beauty is in the ear of the beholder' (as well as the eye). To those who are happy with the Lone Star as is...I say...'Amen!'...and I am truly glad you didn't have to go through the ordeal I did to find my sound. To those who hear things with ears more like mine and have been unhappy with the sound on channel-2...check with a tech if you have any doubts about the safety to you or you amp before proceeding. To the rest...give it a try.

Hey... I rather like the idea of being a hero and I think I will be to a few 'select' folks.!

Regards: Charles

 

[ToneAddictJon]

Just as a side note to changing pots, the Mesa manual for the DR actually suggests changing the presence pot on channel 3 to the part number on channel 2 to have identical channels 2 and 3 (or visa versa), and that one pot being a little different makes a huge difference in the overall tonality, so I could see the lonestar being the same, 1 or 2 pots makes a big difference. The lonestar is the next amp I'm getting so it's good to know this option is there, thanks Charles.

 

[ja22y]

Very interesting thread. I'd expect the pots value to be different. Theoretically then if you turn the pots wide open (max), then essentially it's like 'bypassing' the pots altogether, so the 2 channels should sound identical, if pots are all there is.
I think that the reason ch2 sounds different is because of the extra gain stage of the drive, the tapping point of the thick/thicker. Those mini toggle sw may not be 'true bypass'. Just like when you engage the loop in, it changes tone due to the extra circuits.
A schematic will surely clear this up.

 

[medwards1969]

Are you guys saying that you combed through the amp's circutry, compared every component and circuit path, and found every component to be identical except for the part numbers of these two potentiometers? Wouldn't just turning one potentiometer to a different position give you the same circuit resistances, or does it go into a higher resistance for example, that cannot otherwise be acheived through adjustment?

You checked every part number/size rating on every component?

 

[Charles Reeder]

To medwards1969:

Quote from medwatds1969:
"Are you guys saying that you combed through the amp's circutry, compared every component and circuit path, and found every component to be identical except for the part numbers of these two potentiometers? Wouldn't just turning one potentiometer to a different position give you the same circuit resistances, or does it go into a higher resistance for example, that cannot otherwise be acheived through adjustment?

You checked every part number/size rating on every component?"

Nope (I) am not saying anything of the kind! I couldn't read a schematic if my life, your your and the entire worlds life depended on it! Nor was any comparison done 'except' to look at the Part Numbers for the pots in the manual.

Being frustrated at the sound of channel2; with no competent amplifier technicians within practical driving distance...I merely decided to swap the placement of the gain and master pots on channel-2 and see what (if anything) it did.
Channel-2 now sounds exactly like channel-1 (if I want it to)..if I adjust all the controls identically on the 2 channels. I have had the amp for 2 years and am familiar with its sounds...and they now sound the same. I have had others listen as I switched between channels with all controls set the same. No one could tell a difference.

That CANNOT be done as you suggested 'merely' by fiddling with the controls. Stock...channel-2 is incapable of sounding like channel-1 under any circumstances irregardless of how it is set. Lone Star owners are aware of this. Whether they are happy or unhappy with channel-2; they know the 2 are not identical.

Regards: Charles

 

[medwards1969]

If I were you I wouldn't be able to resist calling Boogie and baiting them to talk about this. Tell them that it WILL become an industry wide obsession if they don't respond. This forum has power if nothing else!

I just find the whole thing fascinating. It makes me want to go re-read my manual cover to cover, fishing for inferences about that.

 

[simonich]

If I were you I wouldn't be able to resist calling Boogie and baiting them to talk about this. Tell them that it WILL become an industry wide obsession if they don't respond. This forum has power if nothing else!

Exactly. They may not want to get into the particulars of both channels and how close they are, but how can they not answer the simple question about the pots??? :shock:

Also, Charles, since you already did the mod to your amp, can you measure the pots for us and at let us know if they are different values? Also, are mfg part #s visible on the pots once you opened up the amp chassis, and if yes, are they the same or different?

 

[Charles Reeder]

Hey medwards1969 and simoich:

'Baiting' Boogie is not really tempting to me...and the truth is; I am so technically ignorant about electronics that they could easily 'bury me' in technical jargon....tie me in knots and leave me more confused than ever!

Besides...I actually think the Mesa folks are a great bunch of people...from what I have read they really do care about their products and the people who use them....and I have no desire to make them feel uncomfortable.

I simply think that they were faced with a decision about how to 'voice' the Lone Star's 2nd channel and ...MADE THE WRONG DECISION!....nothing malicious or underhanded...just the WRONG MARKETING DECISION!

I think that as the time drew near to the actual release of the Lone Star...they lost sight of the 'target group' to whom the Lone Star was most likely to appeal. It is a group of guitarists wanting more conventional tones and gain structure (for the most part).

Well they stayed on target with channel-1; but took a chance (the wrong one in my opinion) with channel-2. By reversing the gain and master pots; the Lone Star sounds more like the compressed or 'squeezed' nasally tone some Mesa amps are known for. The 'swap' seems to 'squeeze out' the extremes of both the bass and treble frequencies....as a result the bass loses 'punch' and the highs lose their 'shimmer'. Contrary to the majority 'take' on channel-2; I don't actually believe it is 'too-bassy'; I believe it doesn't have enough bass! (or Treble)...and people are often trying to compensate for this by turning the bass (that is there) up too high which just muddies up the bass and midrange even more. I believe their (Mesa's) considerable history of pioneering this compressed sound 're-asserted' itself in the final moments before release...and they just couldn't help themselves!

In case it isn't obvious...I don't 'know' any of this...I'm just hypothesizing and 'second-guessing' a group of people who know far more about building amps than I ever will! But it does seem to me a 'likely' scenario...because...well...MY Lone Star NOW SOUNDS PERFECT! (at least for my needs; and on both channels too)...and the only reason(s) I can come up with for the amplifier not being released this way from the 'get go' is some kind of last-minute 'change of heart' about the concept on their part.

I believe they threw the 'high-gain' crowd a bone...by compressing the sound of channel-2. I believe this was a mistake. A mistake more in marketing than design. The 'high-gain' crowd will NEVER be satisfied with the Lone Star and the group of guitarists (like me) who want a more 'conventional' 2nd-channel are deserting them in droves!

Be that as it may...there are many people who are perfectly happy with the amp as is....but there are also many people unhappy with it as well...and the vast majority of them are unhappy because of channel-2. Many are selling theirs because of this. Just take a look at ebay on any given week! I have filled up my storage space of eBay 'Watched Items' with Lone Stars being auctioned!

I believe they (Mesa Boogie) need to 're-think' channel-2 (perhaps announce it as well)...so that people will 're-audition' channel-2...and 'voice' the Lone Star as mine now is (or at least offer it as a same price option).

All that said...I look forward to hearing from anyone who has finally 'taken the plunge' and tried the very simple 'swap' or 'mod' I outlined in my first posting.

Regards: Charles

 

[Charles Reeder]

Hey simonich:

Apparently I was posting at the same time as you or I would have answered about the pots in my other 'lengthly-tome'!

I was re-tracking the time line when I did this 'swap' based upon where I played...and apparently it has been more like 2-1/2 months since I did this!

You must realize that when I did it...I really didn't expect the spectacular results I obtained...so I wrote nothing down. When I got it done and actually heard the results I was so happy that I forgot everything else for the time being...as I played the amp!

As best as I can recall...it seems like both pots measured at 1-million ohms...just not sure. But I do remember that 1-pot gave 2 different readings based upon how long I held the probe on it. ???This could have been an anomaly in my equipment...OR...it could possibly point to the employment of a specially designed pot...which had added resistance built into the bass range...I simply don't know. I am not qualified to make any such assertions...just hypothesizing. My multi-tester acted the same way as when measuring the ohms on a speaker (if you've ever done this you know what I mean)...it gave an initial higher reading then settled on a lower reading as it finally read DC.

Yes both pots did have parts numbers on them...I didn't write them down or anything. I simply took them out and swapped them.

Would I take the amp apart and remove the pots to get the parts numbers and to take readings again? That is what it would entail...dis-assembly and unsoldering. I really...really...don't want to do that if I can avoid it.

I keep hoping some-one else will try this and post their findings. Practically anyone with any technical knowledge could shed more light on this than me. I am going to give this a little time...and hope someone else chimes in...after all my only real qualification is with the 'sound' that resulted. Just what I was looking for..but dared not hope for!

Regards: Charles