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

[djw]

igfraso, the subjects of which you ask are broad enough that one thread can't coherently contain them. Either because of the amp or the because of the personalities that use them or both, we can spend pages talking about which OD pedal goes best in each channel, what different tubes sound like, pups, speakers, etc. People have tried them, results have varied. That's not the point here.

The point of the mod discussed in this thread is that IF you are perfectly happy with Channel 1 as-is and do not wish to mess with it, AND IF you are less satisfied with Channel 2, at least partly because it lacks some of the character that Channel 1 has -- and that discrepancy seems oddly unnecessary to you -- then this mod makes sense. Heck, we all have a thousand different guitars and pickups and many different speakers, and clearly a large number of us think the same thing. So it's not a pickup or speaker thing; it's deeper than that. It's a responsiveness and transparency thing.

cb101, interestingly, switched back to the stock config, which I salute (by the way). I actually do miss something about the way it was before, but not enough to give back what I have now after having done the mod myself.

Does that help?

 

[Mick]

One thing I noticed that seemed odd is that in ch2 with the drive toggle set on clean, (which dis-engaged the drive feature I thought), you can hear the very slightest boost in drive if you switch the other toggle from normal to thicker. No variance from normal to thick however. This really has no bearing on its use, just something I noticed while messing with it.

I need to get a good hour or 2 playing with this to see what I can do with it but for now I'm glad I did it.

The thick/normal/thicker works on ch 2 regardless of the drive control. It's a high frequency filter/boost of sort. It works on the high frequency. You need to turn the treble to atleast 2'o to start hearing the effect.

Thanks ja22y, with Tele style pus my treble control is usually around 1 0' clock. I'll play with it later.

And djw, very well put.

 

[djw]

Hey interested parties,

My version of the Reeder mod will be onstage for the first time this Saturday. If you're in San Francisco this weekend (3/15), come down and check it out in action.

I posted info about this in the Gig Notices thread: http://forum.grailtone.com/viewtopic.php?t=22852

Woo hoo!

 

[MesaFan]

Dude this mod is awesome! I did it last night and am blown away by how much better channel 2 sounds... This is on a LSS by the way.

Thank you for figuring this out!
-Anthony

 

[Charles Reeder]

Hey Everyone!

I'm back!...briefly.

I just want to thank everyone who has tried the mod and posted their impressions thus far.

I really appreciate 'cb101' posting his experience. He ended up reversing the mod; but his insight is especially useful to those who already like channel-2 as it is. It proves that it is probably best to leave it alone if you are perfectly happy with channel-2. Save yourself the bother! But his comments are useful to those who would benefit from the 'mod' too. He very concisely pinpoints the very differences in sound which cause me (and others) to like the results of the 'mod'.

Sure wish I could hear djw's band out in San Fransisco! I know I would enjoy myself even if he hadn't done the mod! Thanks to djw; and everyone for the kind words of approval.

I'm going to keep my interventions to a minimum from now on. I feel the discussions thus far have covered most issues that those who might consider the 'mod' might raise.

I truly hope everyone who tries the 'mod' will take the time and trouble to post your impressions here. Your opinions will be most valuable to others as they try and decide whether or not to do the 'mod' to their Lonestars.

Regards: Charles

 

[djw]

I'm going to keep my interventions to a minimum from now on. I feel the discussions thus far have covered most issues that those who might consider the 'mod' might raise.

I truly hope everyone who tries the 'mod' will take the time and trouble to post your impressions here. Your opinions will be most valuable to others as they try and decide whether or not to do the 'mod' to their Lonestars.

Regards: Charles

Charles, we are much obliged. Thanks also for your testimony on Yellowjackets and other things Lone Star. Cheers, hombre!

 

[jrkooshman]

its funny that I found this thread today, as last night I came to the realization that (after doing the NOS retube on my LSS) that I love love my Ch1, and I was content that my Channel 2 would be my "low gain" drive, and I would use a pedal like a Keeley Rat of BD-2 to goose it.

I also saw this

This sound I'm talking about parallels my very coveted pedal the LTD SR with MOD board.

This is the exact sound that I realized my Ch2 sounds like with my strat. almost to a exact match, so I just figure that I will sell my LTD and use the Ch2 voiced like that.

What I want is my clean channel one to be clean like Kimock, and to have a ballsy Mayerish tone on channel, but then I also want some heavy Allman type tones. Maybe I just need a plexi, but the Rat does a good job for the Allman/Haynes tone.

I also realize that I get into these dissatisfied times when i haven't had a chance to crank the amp for a while. Channel 2 is a lot weaker at bedroom volumes

here is that LTD tone- http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&VideoID=29637585

not my best playing- it was 6 days after my daughter was born...

 

[sbalderrama]

http://www.schematicheaven.com/mesaboogie.htm

If I am reading the schematic correctly, I have no idea why this mod would have an effect like described. All the pots involved appear to be 1MA pots. I'm not sure what the different part numbers could be for, maybe the taper. It's possible the schematic is wrong, it would be interesting to get real measurements from the pots. How could a simple pot affect the "openness" of the channel all on it's own? If they are truely the same overall value but different taper, then it should be possible to get a good clone of channel one just by turning down the gain pot on 2, you would think.

I'm not denying the results... but I'm just trying to figure out what might be going on.

 

[420dannoboogie]

I do not know what anybody is talking about. My Channel 2 rocks. In fact if I set the two channels identical save for having the drive engaged on channel 2,then, 2 sounds like 1 driven with a tube screamer. Ultimately I believe this is what boogie was going for..ala SRV, hence the Lonestar moniker. Now if you engage the thick or thicker you begin to enter into traditional mark style midrange tones. Why anyone would want two identical sounds from two channels I don't know. I believe the problem may lie with some of you not liking a TS9 based od sound. Which nobody can question as one of the most classic of classic od sounds.

 

[djw]

I do not know what anybody is talking about. My Channel 2 rocks. In fact if I set the two channels identical save for having the drive engaged on channel 2,then, 2 sounds like 1 driven with a tube screamer. Ultimately I believe this is what boogie was going for..ala SRV, hence the Lonestar moniker. Now if you engage the thick or thicker you begin to enter into traditional mark style midrange tones. Why anyone would want two identical sounds from two channels I don't know. I believe the problem may lie with some of you not liking a TS9 based od sound. Which nobody can question as one of the most classic of classic od sounds.

Well... that's all good for you. And yes, at least in my case the issue probably does relate to the fact that I've never grooved on the TS9 vibe that much. Never been able to figure it out. Not my thing.

The question of whatever Boogie was going for with this is, as much as it's been discussed in the thread, pretty much academic at this point. Personally I don't really care why they did what they did, beyond the fun of theorizing about it here.

As for why anyone would want 2 identical-sounding channels: I can say that, as discussed here, the basic disappointment with Ch2 was that it lacked the transparency and character that Ch1 has in spades. And this seemed unnecessary, since you hear 6L6-based amps with beautiful, clear-edged OD out there. And if you don't dig the TS9 thing, as much as Ch2 has its charms as-is, it seems like a compromise if you desire a drive channel with natural, clear OD that matches the character of the clean channel. You're never going to get it quite right with a pedal. Ok, let me clarify: many of us who share this opinion probably feel that we won't get quite what we want out of a pedal. Clearly I'm not alone here.

Anyway, this is also academic because the channels AREN'T identical -- one of them also sports a drive control and voicing options. What this mod does is bring Ch2 around to a starting point that happens to match exactly what we love about Ch1. I'd never say I hated the stock Ch2, but now I can say that I really, really, really love it.

And if I miss the character of the original config... I guess I can always throw a TS9 in front of it.

 

[sbalderrama]

Pulled out my Lonestar which has been closeted for a bit. Going on the theory based on the schematics that the only difference between the pots is the taper, I put all the channel knobs straight up, effects loop bypassed ,reverb off, drive out, normal switch position. Of course there is a difference between the channels in that configuration. Now start dialing down the channel 2 gain while simulaneously raising the master, and I think you get the same effect as what the mod does. I got the two channels to where I really couldn't tell a difference. Lowering the channel 2 gain further actually opened that channel up more than channel one, if by "transparency" you mean space between notes and "piano like sound" from single coils. I'd suggest playing with the settings first before opening the amp up. The mod definately will have an effect on how fast the gain effects the channel though because of the apparent pot taper, so if you want more fine control over the gain then the mod makes sense.

I also opened gain and master all the way on both channels, which should eliminate pot taper from the equation if all pots are the same overall value ( which the schematic claims) and they both have the exact same mushy sound.

I think what Mesa was trying to do was if all pots are in the same location, then channel two is basically channel one with the gain turned up a little higher. Turn the gain higher on channel 1 and you will also lose transparency. Sure it's possible you guys are hearing something different than I am, or maybe what you are hearing is the finer granularity you get in dialing the gain in because of the pot taper. but I don't see the need to go swapping the pots around myself.

 

[loudguitars]

If the only difference between the pots is taper, what you experienced is correct.
There should be a place on the channel 2 gain pot that is exactly like the channel 1 pot. Very interesting! My LSC will be here on Monday, I will experiment and let you know.
Greg

 

[djw]

... I got the two channels to where I really couldn't tell a difference. Lowering the channel 2 gain further actually opened that channel up more than channel one, if by "transparency" you mean space between notes and "piano like sound" from single coils. ... The mod definately will have an effect on how fast the gain effects the channel though because of the apparent pot taper, so if you want more fine control over the gain then the mod makes sense.

I think what Mesa was trying to do was if all pots are in the same location, then channel two is basically channel one with the gain turned up a little higher. Turn the gain higher on channel 1 and you will also lose transparency. Sure it's possible you guys are hearing something different than I am, or maybe what you are hearing is the finer granularity you get in dialing the gain in because of the pot taper. but I don't see the need to go swapping the pots around myself.

This is very interesting. I actually tried this a long time ago, perhaps slightly less systematically than you did; I did try to work with the assumption that the gain controls were only different in terms of taper, but no matter what I did I was unable to get the channels to be identical under any combination, not in terms of responsiveness or breakup or "chimeyness". I've been limited as to how much I could mess with volume at home, so that may have been one of my problems. However, post-mod I don't have this problem: at any level I can get the channels to sound identical with the knobs in the same places (I stated in an earlier post that I have to compensate about :45 up on Ch2's Master level).

Transparency really was the issue for me, and by that I mean the propensity for the channel to maintain the guitar's inherent tonal quality, almost regardless of the gain. Gain amt certainly affects this, but the point seems to be in finding the tastiest balance between an overdriven sound and the original tone. I'm not as technically able to explain what's happening with this as I'd like; maybe finer control over the gain is what I've been after without realizing it. However, I will say that in my experience Transparency has never been something I could "dial in" in an amp; it's something amps seem to have in varying amounts, or not really at all.

In this respect, the difference pre- and post-mod was like night and day for me. There could be additional reasons for this (my tubes, for instance) but in my case my Ch2 went from being sort of transparent, to being very, very transparent. It's a really visceral difference.

Still, I like your methodology.

 

[sbalderrama]

There is definately something to be said for the mod as well, especially if you don't dial in much gain over what channel one gives you, since you do get the finer control, and it's nice to be able to directly match the channels up. Unless Mesa has used pots with completely different manufacturing characteristics in those two positions, I just don't see how swapping pots on its own can affect the overall transparency of the channel.

In some ways on channel two stock the effect is like having a starting amout of initial gain, and then finer control over how much you add to it.

I was testing it again earlier today at a louder volume, and the taper difference seems to be pretty extreme. I had the "gain" on c1 straight up, and in order to get what I considered to be a match, I had the gain on C2 just barely on.

I usually use C2 with the drive engaged though. Dialing in gain using the "gain" knob acts more fenderish to me, in that the bass gets pretty loose. Using the drive knob seems to bring in a tighter gain that doesn't flub out as much.

 

[igfraso]

Let me say again that I am confused by what it is being discussed.
I don't argue with the results because I haven't experience this mod but I am trying to understand the rationale.

You say that by swapping those 2 pots you clone channel 2 to channel 1. Now, reading the manual carefully, you get that the circuits are different for each channel and that the position of the gain pot in each channel is different.

It is like 2 different amplifiers sharing the same chassis, not 1 amplifier with 2 channels.

What I understand is that by swapping the 2 pots you are making a more desirable channel 2 to your ears. That doesn't necessarily mean that you have cloned channel 2 to channel 1.
Just my 2 cents...
Regards

 

[djw]

There is definately something to be said for the mod as well, especially if you don't dial in much gain over what channel one gives you, since you do get the finer control, and it's nice to be able to directly match the channels up. Unless Mesa has used pots with completely different manufacturing characteristics in those two positions, I just don't see how swapping pots on its own can affect the overall transparency of the channel.

I usually set Drive at about 10:00 w/normal or thick voicing (per my mood), and gain at 2:00. In fact, for general use I set the knobs on both channels about the same (Gain 2:00, Treble 1:00, Mid & Bass ~9:30, Presence ~12:00). With the voicing and drive disengaged, the two channels sound, feel and behave exactly alike under the new arrangement. And this, really, is what I'd always been after: a nice juicy clean tone in one channel, and the same tone with more edge/drive/grit in the other.

For whatever reason, this is something I could not really get with the stock config, and I can now easily.

So you're right, there might be something else going on that we have not yet identified. Fortunately for me, I don't have to give a flying hoot what it actually is, because the amp does what I want it to now. (I should probably stop getting caught up in these academic discussions about this -- I feel defensive, which is silly -- I'm laughing to myself because the amp sounds so damned good now)

You know, if you want to hear it with your ears you should just try it. Are you really worried about the warrantee?

I did manage to record some a/b clips, before and after and comparing the channels as clones and w/drive. Would it help to hear these, if you can stand my crappy playing?

 

[Charles Reeder]

Greetings...yet again:

I had wished to withdraw from participation in this thread...which I began...because all the explanations have already been given.

Others who HAVE DONE THE 'MOD' have spoken more eloquently than I ever could; and explained our reasons for doing the 'mod'...yet some still 'can't get it'. This is entirely understandable...because...

If you don't own a Lone Star...if you have never owned a Lone Star...or if you haven't spent a great deal of time playing on a Lone Star...then you probably have no idea why we bought the amp in the first place...and thus you cannot fathom our expectations for the sound.

A sizable number of the players who bought the Lone Star had their expectations met and exceeded by the transcendent beauty of the sound produced by channel-1. A very large number of those who loved channel-1 were sorely disappointed by the sound of channel-2. It is this group (and this group only) that this thread is addressed to...those of us who are 'disaffected' by the 'tone-choice' made by Mesa for channel-2.

Those who like channel-2 as it is can ignore this thread and leave their amp as it is...and they should! No one should change their amp if it pleases them! The entire purpose of this thread is to deal with an issue that effects those of us who DESIRE CHANNEL-2 to SOUND MORE LIKE and PERHAPS EVEN IDENTICAL TO CHANNEL-1. No-one (not a single one of us) is trying to tell anyone else that they should want this...we are only telling you HOW TO OBTAIN IT...IF ...(repeat)...IF YOU WANT IT.

The sound we want should be obtainable throughout the FULL RANGE of GAIN ADJUSTMENT on Channel-2. It serves us absolutely no practical purpose to find one or two places on an 'unmodified' Lone Star's channel-2 that can be made to sound like channel-1 at some extremity of adjustment which we would probably never use! We are not trying to make a 'point' or prove anything just for the sake of argument...we are trying to 'craft our tone' the way we want it...and the 'mod' gets some of us there.

No one who does not want the sound this 'mod' supplies is expected to understand our quest or to participate in it. Read of it all you want...but if you do not know what we are seeking by the time you have read this thread (if you have bothered to CAREFULLY read it)...then it is a fairly good chance that you will never understand it...and we can never explain it to you.

The best example I can give you is:...You are reading some-one else's mail...if you are not a member of the 'family'...you can't very well expect to know who Aunt Darla is...or how many kids she has...and why every one in the family is upset about Kenny's present situation...you can't expect to understand and we don't expect you to. So don't worry about it...move on. Those who felt a similar unhappiness with channel-2 are 'family' and immediately understood the purpose of this thread...no one else is likely to...no matter how much they read our 'family's mail!

Fondest regards: Charles

 

[loudguitars]

Greetings...yet again:

I had wished to withdraw from participation in this thread...which I began...because all the explanations have already been given.

Others who HAVE DONE THE 'MOD' have spoken more eloquently than I ever could; and explained our reasons for doing the 'mod'...yet some still 'can't get it'. This is entirely understandable...because...

If you don't own a Lone Star...if you have never owned a Lone Star...or if you haven't spent a great deal of time playing on a Lone Star...then you probably have no idea why we bought the amp in the first place...and thus you cannot fathom our expectations for the sound.

A sizable number of the players who bought the Lone Star had their expectations met and exceeded by the transcendent beauty of the sound produced by channel-1. A very large number of those who loved channel-1 were sorely disappointed by the sound of channel-2. It is this group (and this group only) that this thread is addressed to...those of us who are 'disaffected' by the 'tone-choice' made by Mesa for channel-2.

Those who like channel-2 as it is can ignore this thread and leave their amp as it is...and they should! No one should change their amp if it pleases them! The entire purpose of this thread is to deal with an issue that effects those of us who DESIRE CHANNEL-2 to SOUND MORE LIKE and PERHAPS EVEN IDENTICAL TO CHANNEL-1. No-one (not a single one of us) is trying to tell anyone else that they should want this...we are only telling you HOW TO OBTAIN IT...IF ...(repeat)...IF YOU WANT IT.

The sound we want should be obtainable throughout the FULL RANGE of GAIN ADJUSTMENT on Channel-2. It serves us absolutely no practical purpose to find one or two places on an 'unmodified' Lone Star's channel-2 that can be made to sound like channel-1 at some extremity of adjustment which we would probably never use! We are not trying to make a 'point' or prove anything just for the sake of argument...we are trying to 'craft our tone' the way we want it...and the 'mod' gets some of us there.

No one who does not want the sound this 'mod' supplies is expected to understand our quest or to participate in it. Read of it all you want...but if you do not know what we are seeking by the time you have read this thread (if you have bothered to CAREFULLY read it)...then it is a fairly good chance that you will never understand it...and we can never explain it to you.

The best example I can give you is:...You are reading some-one else's mail...if you are not a member of the 'family'...you can't very well expect to know who Aunt Darla is...or how many kids she has...and why every one in the family is upset about Kenny's present situation...you can't expect to understand and we don't expect you to. So don't worry about it...move on. Those who felt a similar unhappiness with channel-2 are 'family' and immediately understood the purpose of this thread...no one else is likely to...no matter how much they read our 'family's mail!

Fondest regards: Charles

Charles, for you this has gotten way too personal. No one means any disrespect to you personally. The quest for sell expression through music is very personal. But, we are talking about swapping a couple pots!!!!!

Thank you for sharing this information, it is the reason I read this board.
Your discovery is another tool that we can use, another option in our arsenal. Thanks for being a trail-blazer so to speak.

The "Reeder Mod" will be discussed in this forum for a long time.
Thank you for sharing your discovery and the resulting dialog.
Greg

 

[igfraso]

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.

Regards in 'Boogiedom': Charles

It is understood that you are not going to force anybody to mod Channel 2. It is also understood that you were advertizing this mod as a way to make channel 2 an absolutely identical clone of channel 1.

Just as you came out with this mod by reading the manual (and skipping the numeral difference, by the way), in the same way I am trying to understand the rationale of your discovery. Reading the manual in detail (thanks to your thread here), I see that the manual talks about the LS having those pots working in different places of the circuit.

In my understanding, this contradicts your original statement. This is not necessarily bad. If many people have tried your mod and they like it, I cannot be happier. One more option for so many talented players.

The only thing I am just trying to say here is that, most probably, you are not cloning the 2 channels, if I read the manual properly.
If it is a good mod, then congratulations!
Regards

 

[Charles Reeder]

Loudguitars...

Thanks for your kind words...but I am not really taking this personally...as a matter of fact 'djw' has been fielding most of the answers lately and taking the brunt of the 'disbelief'.

It is just that I sensed frustration arising in those who couldn't seem to understand the whys of our decision... and in those trying to explain it as well. The best explanation I could give was the analogy to 'family mail'... and in a very real sense it does apply....

After all the thread was initially addressed to: "LSC/LSS Owners". The field was then narrowed by the query: "Are you happy with channel-2?" The field was narrowed still further by: "Want to fix it?" This question which sought to establish if any one was unhappy enough to actually do something about it...established the purpose for what followed...

Although I do believe we can all learn valuable insights from reading every other thread...there is a point beyond which we are not capable of fully understanding what others seek; and so we are not really qualified to comment on it...

For example...I do not play 'Heavy Metal'...at all...and the desire for the sound of the 'Rectifiers' just totally eludes me. I don't criticize those who want that...I just don't share their desire. But I recognize that; and I wouldn't think of plowing into their threads by asking 'Why'...and...derailing their ongoing discussions by trying to force them to 'rationalize' to suit me. It would be pointless.

That was my only purpose...in the 'family mail' comment...and I feel quite pleased that a few people have already understood and benefitted from my original posting and the 'mod' it presented.

Thanks, Charles