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

[Charles Reeder]

Hey Ja22y:

I understood what you said about gain and volume... and what you did to obtain a 'match' in gain...

but I am not clear on this...could you clarify?...

Are you saying you did the 'pot-swap' and got these results from the LSS?
Or are you saying that these are your findings with your 'stock' unaltered LSS?

Either way...I can say absolutely; that with my LSC (before the swap) it was impossible to get matching responses from channel-1 and channel-2... no matter how much 'tweaking' was done. It wasn't just a matter of the amount of gain...that was an issue...the 2-channels had completely different Gain and Tone Structures.

I believe that 'planet-x' would agree with me on this.

Regards: Charles

 

[djw]

I can say absolutely; that with my LSC [...] it was impossible to get matching responses from channel-1 and channel-2... no matter how much 'tweaking' was done. It wasn't just a matter of the amount of gain...that was an issue...the 2-channels had completely different Gain and Tone Structures.

I believe that 'planet-x' would agree with me on this.

As would I, at least about my unaltered LSC.

 

[ja22y]

Hey Ja22y:

I understood what you said about gain and volume... and what you did to obtain a 'match' in gain...

but I am not clear on this...could you clarify?...

Are you saying you did the 'pot-swap' and got these results from the LSS?
Or are you saying that these are your findings with your 'stock' unaltered LSS?

Either way...I can say absolutely; that with my LSC (before the swap) it was impossible to get matching responses from channel-1 and channel-2... no matter how much 'tweaking' was done. It wasn't just a matter of the amount of gain...that was an issue...the 2-channels had completely different Gain and Tone Structures.

I believe that 'planet-x' would agree with me on this.

Regards: Charles

Stock, unaltered. May be LSC and LSS doesn't have the same pre circuit. Both ch on mine are very similar to begin with.

 

[Charles Reeder]

Hey Ja22y:

I understood what you said about gain and volume... and what you did to obtain a 'match' in gain...

but I am not clear on this...could you clarify?...

Are you saying you did the 'pot-swap' and got these results from the LSS?
Or are you saying that these are your findings with your 'stock' unaltered LSS?

Either way...I can say absolutely; that with my LSC (before the swap) it was impossible to get matching responses from channel-1 and channel-2... no matter how much 'tweaking' was done. It wasn't just a matter of the amount of gain...that was an issue...the 2-channels had completely different Gain and Tone Structures.

I believe that 'planet-x' would agree with me on this.

Regards: Charles

Stock, unaltered. May be LSC and LSS doesn't have the same pre circuit. Both ch on mine are very similar to begin with.

Hey ja22y:

That may perhaps be the case.. The manual for the LSS does show the same 'funny' thing going on with the pots as the LSC...but perhaps it only affects the onset or range of gain and volume...and doesn't 'constrict' or 'compress' the sound as in the LSC...I just don't know... only having fooled with the LSC.

Hey 'plan-x'...sorry I referred to you as 'planet-x'...'twas a long weekend!

Regards: Charles

 

[simonich]

As far as I know the pre-amp circuit is the same between the LSC and LSS, as is the reverb. The (substantial) difference is of course in the power amp. So if the mods are pre-amp only, which is true if it's gain and master pots, i would think it applies equally to both.

 

[ja22y]

[quote "Hey ja22y:

...but perhaps it only affects the onset or range of gain and volume...and doesn't 'constrict' or 'compress' the sound as in the LSC...I just don't know... only having fooled with the LSC.

Regards: Charles[/quote]

Charles,
ch2 does sound more compressed. In general, when the gain is increased, the tone will be more compress, you'll loose some high and the punchy low. That's the nature of tube saturation. Very characteristic of the Mesas that I've played. That's why some people love it and some hate it.

 

[simonich]

Interesting... the LSS has a different part#. I suspect the 1 digit discrepancy on the LSC is a typo.

AMP & CH / Gain POT# / Master POT#
LSS ch1 / 581739 / 591047
LSS ch2 / 591047 / 581739

LSC v1 ch1 / 591739 / 591047
LSC v1 ch2 / 591047 / 581739

LSC v2 ch1 / 591739 / 591047
LSC v2 ch2 / 591047 / 581739

Then again, maybe not. The External switching jacks and speaker jacks are different between the LSS and LSC. LSS has 619112, the LSC has 618112. The LSS came 2nd, so maybe that accounts for the 1 digit difference?

The following are also 1 digit different part #s between the LSS and LSC...
- channel selection mini-toggle,
- thick/thicker mini-toggle
- The loop send level pot
- slave jack (multi-digit)

Very interesting.

 

[Charles Reeder]

to ja22y:

'Gotcha'...I understand.

to simonich:

It was my 'understanding' as well; that the 2 amps had identical preamps; (I just don't know this for a fact). If so then the pot-'swap' I did on my LSC would work on a LSS as well....

ja22y pointed out that people tend to either 'love' or 'hate' that compression that he finds in the 2nd-channel of his LSS. That of course brings us back to the premise of my first posting.''which is....

"Are you happy with channel-2 of your LSC or LSS?"

If the answer is 'yes'...then leave the amp as is. If the answer is 'no' ...then consider trying this relatively simple experiment (or mod). IE. Swap the gain and master pots on channel-2.

Just a thought:I have to wonder if the differences between the 2-channels is perhaps less noticeable in the LSS than in the LSC. The 'wide-open' bigness of the sound with 6L6s might make it more apparent when the sound is being 'squeezed' or dynamic range limited...whereas in the LSS with EL84s...the natural sound of these tubes is already a bit more 'compressed' to begin with...so perhaps the differences in the 2-channels are less an issue with the LSS. ????

Regards: Charles

 

[Charles Reeder]

Anyway...

We can debate it and discuss it until we're all sick and tired of the subject...but as the old saying goes... 'the proof is in the pudding'.

I have done it...and 'plan-x' has now done it. Check out his posting (page #3...I think). Hopefully; he'll post some more of his observations and findings.

I have a 'sneaky' suspicion that a few 'interested-party-observers' to this forum have tried it as well...but they are not likely to be in a position to share their findings.

I can state with absolute assurance...that this is how my LSC will remain. (with the gain/master pot swap). It is how I thought it was going to sound when I bought it...having read Mesa's promo literature for the LS. I bought mine without being able to audition one; so I was disappointed in channel-2. I am now 'thrilled' with it. The tone I wanted was 'always there' just 'hidden' behind a pot swap. Obviously Mesa did a fabulous job designing this amp from the very beginning...they just chose (for whatever reason or reasons) to 'swap' the pots on channel-2.

Why? To make the channels noticeably different? To forestall criticism? To prevent someone from overloading the preamp with gain or bass? Who knows?! I don't know... and I don't really care. I just love it how it is ...NOW!

Regards: Charles

 

[GeoBull]

I can state with absolute assurance...that this is how my LSC will remain. (with the gain/master pot swap). It is how I thought it was going to sound when I bought it...having read Mesa's promo literature for the LS.

A very interesting thread. A point on marketing: Mesa advertises ch. 2 as this:

>>>
Channel 2 has a split personality. At the flick of a switch, it can clone the clean magic of Channel 1 (with an added touch of blues-roots gain) or kick in an additonal high-gain amplifier with its own dedicated control. With stunning performance inspired by the pivotal Mark I, the interaction of three cascading gain controls unlocks the historic vault of ground-breaking lead sounds.
>>>

With the phrase 'added touch of blues-roots gain' they clearly point out that the channels are not exactly the same.

I do find ch. 2 more difficult to use than ch. 1 (I have both Lone Stars) but I'm starting to get some really great tones from it (I mostly use my LSS but both are great). I appreciate that Mesa designed the second channel the way they did although I see the utility of the mod for certain applications. For me a) I like the difference in channels, 2) the Mesa warranty is generous and I don't want to lose it.

BTW...see John Petrucci's Lone Star settings on his site for a great aggressive ch 2 sound

 

[ja22y]

[quote
Just a thought:I have to wonder if the differences between the 2-channels is perhaps less noticeable in the LSS than in the LSC. The 'wide-open' bigness of the sound with 6L6s might make it more apparent when the sound is being 'squeezed' or dynamic range limited...whereas in the LSS with EL84s...the natural sound of these tubes is already a bit more 'compressed' to begin with...so perhaps the differences in the 2-channels are less an issue with the LSS. ????

Regards: Charles[/quote]

I'm thinking of the same here. Also the 5y3 rect tube has much more sag than the 5u4. So whatever the preamp has is negligible when compares to the bigger factor at the power section.

 

[Charles Reeder]

I can state with absolute assurance...that this is how my LSC will remain. (with the gain/master pot swap). It is how I thought it was going to sound when I bought it...having read Mesa's promo literature for the LS.

A very interesting thread. A point on marketing: Mesa advertises ch. 2 as this:

>>>
Channel 2 has a split personality. At the flick of a switch, it can clone the clean magic of Channel 1 (with an added touch of blues-roots gain) or kick in an additonal high-gain amplifier with its own dedicated control. With stunning performance inspired by the pivotal Mark I, the interaction of three cascading gain controls unlocks the historic vault of ground-breaking lead sounds.
>>>

With the phrase 'added touch of blues-roots gain' they clearly point out that the channels are not exactly the same.

The above quote from GeoBull:

Hey GeoBull:

Language is indeed a funny thing! Different people can read or hear the exact same words and walk away with different interpretations of it. It's not worth a squabble...but...I'll explain how 'it read' to me.....

The portion of the phrase "... At the flick of a switch, it can clone the clean magic of Channel 1 (with an added touch of blues-roots gain)..."...

To me it read that BEFORE flicking a switch it was already a Clone of channel-1; and flicking the switch (which I presumed was one or both of the 2-switches peculiar to Channel-2) gave the 'added touch of blues-roots gain'!

To be considered...(highly subjective I know)...I heard "no magic" on channel-2 either before or after flicking switches....but channel-1 has always been magical.

Whether I am right or wrong is pretty irrelevant; but I hasten to point out that NOW ...my channel-2 is indeed a clone of channel-1; and the simple 'flick of a switch' does transform it into a higher gain version!...and it's a higher gain version 'with magic'!

...oh well...

Certainly the warranty matter is a legitimate concern for many people...but I'll be honest; I wasn't going to keep mine if I couldn't find a way to get channel-2 where I wanted it...so the warranty became of 'no-concern'...at least to me.

Also, it seems to me that a 'mod' as simple and 'non-invasive' as this could be handled by a special 'exemption' from Mesa that would keep an owner's warranty intact.

BTW,I did find some sounds on channel-2 that I could 'use'...but they were never what I really....really wanted from that channel.

Regards: Charles

 

[Charles Reeder]

[quote
Just a thought:I have to wonder if the differences between the 2-channels is perhaps less noticeable in the LSS than in the LSC. The 'wide-open' bigness of the sound with 6L6s might make it more apparent when the sound is being 'squeezed' or dynamic range limited...whereas in the LSS with EL84s...the natural sound of these tubes is already a bit more 'compressed' to begin with...so perhaps the differences in the 2-channels are less an issue with the LSS. ????

Regards: Charles

I'm thinking of the same here. Also the 5y3 rect tube has much more sag than the 5u4. So whatever the preamp has is negligible when compares to the bigger factor at the power section.[/quote]

Very good point...worthy of consideration.

Charles

 

[Charles Reeder]

Hi again:

I keep thinking that I need to lay off commenting on this topic and let others 'take it' where (if anywhere) it is going from here...but I always seem to find something else to say!

I decided to go back and re-read every comment 'to date' including mine. Although it has already been stated;...there seem to be two basic and clearly defined 'camps' participating in this thread...not much indication of fence straddlers! Those two 'camps' being.....

#1. Those that are perfectly happy with Channel-2 on the amp (LSC or LSS) as it comes stock from Mesa.

.......and......

#2. Those that are basically unhappy with Channel-2 on the amp (LSC or LSS) as it comes stock from Mesa.

I am very impressed by the decorum exhibited sofar by all those who have posted. This is something of a controversial topic...yet it has not generated any unpleasantness or rancor on anyone's part! No one has called any one stupid or tone-deaf because they either; preferred the amp stock or wished that channel-2 sounded more like channel-1.

Not the subject of this posting...but this may say something about Mesa owners in general and perhaps Lone Star owners in particular. The same 'musical maturity' that has drawn them to choose this Mesa product may be seen to exhibit itself in a general maturity of attitude; and respect for others and their opinions and tastes. That's good!

But that separation into the two camps remains; and as stated it seems to be a pretty clear dividing line with little or no 'gray area'.

So....Mesa why not consider making the amp available with a 'voicing' switch to toggle between the 2 configurations? There are other amps offered with 'multiple voicing' options. It could be done quite simply by utilizing 2 custom made 'dual-ganged' pots (different versions are already frequently used in other designs). A flip of a toggle switch or a tug on a pull/switch would instantly re-route the circuit to the respective portions of the 2 pots that would implement the change.
I did find a few 'acceptable' settings on channel-2 before I did the 'mod'. Now that I have the 'security' of having the amp sound the way I prefer it...I might actually feel freer to use the other option were it conveniently available. The same might apply to the others who prefer the 2nd channel 'as is'...they might find some settings on the 'modded' version of channel-2 which they would like as well.

Mesa has already re-issued the LSC once with the 10-watt option. Many people would love to have the 'drive circuit' foot-switchable too...right?

Well then, why not have a 'Grand Re-Release' of the LSC and LSS with ALL of these changes implemented?...

The 'voicing switch' would allow toggling back and forth between the second channel as it now is; and the 'true-clone' version I now have.

A third button on the channel/solo footswitch would allow bringing the 'drive-circuit' into play at will. Or the 'drive' circuit could be wired into the jack on the back of the amp that currently accesses the reverb. Another 2-button footswitch could be available for the 'reverb' and 'drive' functions.

None of these features would add hardly anything to production costs; and could actually be added without passing along a retail price increase. (If Mesa was feeling generous). The single biggest expense would be the reverb/drive foot-switch and cable...if the decision was made to 'pair' these two on a separate foot-switch.

The amp would remain instantly recognizable as a 'Lone Star'...both aesthetically and tonally. And importantly...it would not require any admission of right or wrong insofar as the original 'voicing' decision is concerned. It would merely be adding an 'option' that some players 'clamored' for.

Any thoughts on this?

Regards: Charles

 

[medwards1969]

I hereby dub thee, the "Reeder" mod!

There! Branded and set in stone! You can't undo it! It's hopeless!

Here comes your 15 minutes!

 

[Charles Reeder]

Gee!

I'm not worthy; but I want to thank my agent, all the voting members of the society; my pre-school nanny, my mother.....

Actually I just hope I have my pants zipped if anyone's taking pictures!

 

[djw]

Charles, I like the way you think. It would certainly be nice to have more footswitchable voicing options on-hand.

I've always appreciated the ease-of-use and simplicity of the current setup, and I'd venture a guess that Mesa kept it this intact on purpose. In retrospect, it seems like a simple selection of options, though.

 

[Joel]

This thread has caught my curiosity. Every time I use my Lone Star, I enjoy playing it more. I love tweaking knobs between sets. I want to unlock its sonic nuances, little by little.

As far as the switcheroo, I have never wanted to change Channel 2. I spend about 90% of my time on Channel 1 for most gigs. I use such a different tone for Channel 2 that I never really tried to clone Channel 1, but I will be checking back to hear from more folks who try it.

 

[plan-x]

More reviews: I finally got a chance to sit down with my LSC's new mod for about an hour and was able to dial in some interesting tones. I of course did the clone thang, and it does it perfect. Ok, so I pushed the gain and got a gain-clone, very nice! As I've stated before, I like kicking my footswitch to get a clone with OD when playin in the band. That way nobody falls out of their chair or whips around saying what just happened to the sound! This sound I'm talking about parallels my very coveted pedal the LTD SR with MOD board. Lets face it, one the most desired pedals is the Tim/Timmy. And these pedals are acclaimed for their transparency. IMO the way ch 2 is set up from the factory is like a cheap tube screamer clone. Ooooh...crouch, what no lightning! Well what the hey, I paid enough for this amp, full price at GC, and I have a pedal board with 3 OD's(sometimes 4 + ambient effects) to make up for this TS clown ch.
Whoa! gotta mellow out, on a rant! Anyway, I decided to kick in the drive to about 11:00 with the gain at 1:00 and BAM! , Angus meets Eddie, Bitchin stuff. Then I pegged the drive and WOW! A silky, thick growl from a power chord sustaining with symetric smoothness. After that I backed off to a 10:00 drive and 1:00 gain with cloned EQ to obtain a really nice OD that straddles the line for a touch sensitive edgy-drive.
I recommend this mod if for no other reason but to seek and find new tonal frontiers as should all red blooded American guitarists do! Thanks again Charles! Rock on Baby!

 

[Charles Reeder]

To everyone:

Checkout plan'x's latest remarks about the effect of the 'mod' on his LSC.
Anyone considering this...should probably ask John aka 'plan-x' about the results and about his opinion as to how easy it was to do the 'mod'.

He has a link (on several of his posts) to a site with recordings of his band with him playing the Lone Star (Before The Mod). I believe his playing amply demonstrates his qualifications to take any questions you might have.

Hey 'plan-x':

Glad its working out so well for you! I had the feeling you would get a lot of use from it. You know when I first posted about the mod; I was tempted to be as enthusiastic as you are about the mod...and as critical of the sound of the unaltered 2nd channel on the LSC too.

But I figured that if I did that (since it was my mod) everyone would just think I lacked any objectivity and was grossly exaggerating how much better the amp now sounds. The truth is channel-2 doesn't just sound how I always believed it could...it sounds far better! With the 'mod' It exceeded my wildest expectations every bit as much as channel-1 did the first time I heard it.

I've asked others to post you some questions. I believe you are in a sense uniquely better qualified than I am to answer some of them. I hope you don't mind. Doing what you did in your last post should be most helpful to many others. Tell them what ODs etc. you found necessary to get 'your sound'; and what if any of them you no longer need. That is an area that I can't help them with at all.

At any rate keep us all informed of your findings and impressions.

Thanks a bunch! Charles