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

[sbalderrama]

I don't care one way or the other if you want to swap the pots. I like to understand the "why" behind things, not just the result. Call it the side effect of an engineering background. Its a little silly to post a thread like this and not expect some people to wonder why it might work.

Not everyone is going to want to pull out a soldering iron and swap pots, if there is a way that gets very similar results just by turning the existing ones then people should know how that works.

Also, to one comment by igrafso above, if the schematics I've seen are correct, with the drive disengaged and the voicing switch in normal, it appears that C1 and C2 are electrically identical, other than a few extra switches in the audio path. So yeah, swapping the pots probably does produce an exact clone, at least for the lonestar special where the part numbers are identical but swapped. I'm not sure if there is a real difference in the pots on the LSC or if it's a typo. I suspect a typo, as I presume the only real differences between LSS and LSC are in the poweramp section.

 

[igfraso]

sbalderrama: I am also an engineer and I just wanted to know the "why".

You put it perfectly. I was just reading the manual in more detail (thanks to this thread started by Charles) and would like to understand if there is any way to mimic this mod by tweaking settings rather than swapping pots.

I don't have the schematics but, if the LSC schematics are as accurate as the Boogie amps schematics, most probably we will never know whether the 2 circuits are electrically identical or not.

Moreover, sometimes, a tiny difference in the circuit will make a big difference in sound. For instance, some people prefer the early version over the latest version of the Lone Star. You don't have the 10W (LSC)/5W (LSS) option, though.
Best regards
Daniel

 

[djw]

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.

I don't care one way or the other if you want to swap the pots. I like to understand the "why" behind things, not just the result. Call it the side effect of an engineering background. Its a little silly to post a thread like this and not expect some people to wonder why it might work.

I think I see what's going on here, guys. Obviously I share what I perceive to be frustration in Charles' tone; but reading about the engineering backgrounds in the "questioners" helps a bit.

Some of the questions about the pot swap, I think, come off sounding like skepticism -- like, "You guys must be out of your minds, this can't do what you're saying." Or, "The 'clone' idea has this or that merit."

That probably isn't what you're trying to communicate, I hope. Your curiosity is raised because you want to know what's actually going on. And unfortunately, I can't help you there because I'm not an engineer! So I can't even really have an intelligent conversation with you about this aspect of the subject at hand. (Although, honestly I wish we were at a barbecue, sharing some cold beverages and having an animated discussion about it. I would probably learn something about my gear...)

I think I reacted snarkily to an earlier poster who just said, You guys are crazy, and then left. That kind of comment is unhelpful and definitely adds to the sense that people are trying to poke holes in the merits of this mod (and in our decision to perform it on our amps). Personally, I think I'm a bit defensive because I take what my ears and hands tell me very seriously. Heck, don't we all take a certain amount of pride in our tone mojo? Isn't that why we're here? It is a little personal.

However, I'm all ears if someone can figure out what is technically going on. But it wouldn't change my decision one way or another, because my ears tell me I did the right thing.

So, no hard feelings here. Hell, I'm a happy man! My Lone Star Classic sounds like liquid gold!

 

[Charles Reeder]

Greetings:

A real 'quickie' here! I think we have missed one another's intent a few times (and I hold myself as guilty as anyone)

When I said that other's shouldn't question the 'why' of the 'mod'; it was because I felt it had been discussed to the point of being tiresome...but I was referring to the 'why' of WHY WE WANT THE SOUND THE MOD PRODUCES!

I am NOT SUGGESTING that anyone shouldn't want to know WHY THE MOD WORKS.

Actually, I am just as interested as any one as to how and why it works... but because I know next to nothing about electronics...I may still 'be in the dark' even if someone figures it out and explains it to me! Oh well.

Regards: Charles

 

[Charles Reeder]

Hey 'djw'...I almost forgot...

How did the gig go? Am I to gather that the 'modded' Lone Star performed satisfactorily at it's west coast debut?

Charles

 

[djw]

Hey sbalderrama & igfraso, one more thing to point out from earlier up-thread:

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.

So it seems that this merits and effects of this move, at least in theory, are sanctioned by Mesa themselves.

And thanks, Charles, the show went great! I didn't manage to get any recordings (I had plans, but...) but I'll post a pic or something. At least you can see it in action. The amp sounded amazing, especially with the Les Paul. I just couldn't be happier with this amp at this point. My Marshall is really sad now.

 

[GeoBull]

I am NOT SUGGESTING that anyone shouldn't want to know WHY THE MOD WORKS.

The reason for wanting to know the why it works is simply to know if it works. It would seem unlikely that all the players who have done the mod are experiencing amp-mod placebo effect. However, if there is truly no electronic difference between the two pots (and I honestly haven't dug into the details of the thread enough to know if that is what is being stated from the anti-mod side, if you will) than the mod itself as a really difference-maker is suspect. Although not completely debunked. There are plenty of people who claim that the difference in sound between an EL-84 and a 6L6 amp is immaterial below clip levels (which is likely technically true); however, my experience is that I can clearly tell the difference between different tubed amps and the similarity between similar tubed amps from different manufacturers. But that argument has been done to death.

I'd be interested in trying the mod but only if I keep my warranty. I've been planning to call Mesa to see if they have dealers in my area who can do it without voiding my warranty. I'll let you know what I find out.

 

[sbalderrama]

I don't think there ever was an "anti-mod" group or anyone questioning the validity of the mod and what people are hearing. Just a curiosity as to what might account for it.

 

[djw]

Ok, I guess I might should post a link to my post-Reeder clip... in case anyone's interested in a sample (this has been posted by me in a couple of other threads today, but I did this right after I did the mod).

Here's the setup:
No pedals, just straight into the amp with my Strat.
Gain: 2:00
Treble: 2:00
Mid: 9:30
Bass: 10:00
Presence: 12:00
Drive: 10:00
Normal voicing
50w, both channels
Tube rectifier
6L6s
Loop is on, output: 1:30.

Recorded at apartment levels... here it is.

 

[Charles Reeder]

hey 'djw'

I enjoyed the 'clonecheck' clip; but due to the rather minimal 'bare-essentials' sound set up on my computer; I couldn't make out your comments.

Ran across the clips you posted for 'SirJackdeFuzz' and managed to download 2 of them. (had trouble with others due to my link). Some very nice playing!

It seems as though everyone else is perfectly happy with their LSC Channel-2 tone, huh? Got more 'interest' from doubters wishing to dispute the validity of the 'mod' for the sake of argument; than from earnest 'tone seekers'.

Talk 'atcha' later! Charles

 

[jamme61]

Just wanted to say thanks for the info. I'm very happy to get some mod info on this site. I too have messed with adding a bright switch mod and have changed the value of pots, to try and dial in what I wanted. I have had a hard time finding any mod info on this site, and when I have posted mod suggestions, I have had little or no response. Once again I hear you, and thank you for sharing the info with me.

 

[djw]

hey 'djw'

I enjoyed the 'clonecheck' clip; but due to the rather minimal 'bare-essentials' sound set up on my computer; I couldn't make out your comments.

Ran across the clips you posted for 'SirJackdeFuzz' and managed to download 2 of them. (had trouble with others due to my link). Some very nice playing!

It seems as though everyone else is perfectly happy with their LSC Channel-2 tone, huh? Got more 'interest' from doubters wishing to dispute the validity of the 'mod' for the sake of argument; than from earnest 'tone seekers'.

Talk 'atcha' later! Charles

Hey Charles! Yeah, I guess it might not be for everyone. Perhaps people are not as dissatisfied with their Ch2 as indications gave us (or it's the warrantee thing). I'm still glad I did mine.... but that's because I'm with you in that my preference is to have a driven channel that, at its core, is discernibly the same as the clean channel, same harmonic base, same responsiveness. And if you're like me, you know that the kind of drive I'm after is not something I can get with a pedal. So this is perfect.

I'm at a point where I'm getting back into performing more after a long hiatus (kids, etc.) and since I'm not living somewhere where I can open up the volume so much I'm really eager to get more of a sense of how it performs onstage and in a full band setting. So far so good, though the stock config was excellent too (louder = better).

Interestingly, post-mod Ch2 sounds better at low levels than it did before, e.g. stock Ch2 was felt half-inflated at low levels, but now it's actually as much fun as Ch1, if not completely at full-mast.

The comments in the clip are just me explaining that I started with the clean channel; then the dirty channel with no drive, same settings; then I click in the drive, at about 10:00.

Thanks for your compliments I always feel like I can't seem to play anything coherent by myself, I get so enamored with the chunk-chunk-making-noise thing that playing a little bit of, you know, actual MUSIC that goes from A to B seems impossible for me off the cuff. It must drive my neighbors absolutely crazy. Maybe we all feel that way.

Tomorrow I take the LSC in for its 10w retrofit, and I'll be using my '65 FDR in the meantime. I guess I'm pretty spoiled to have such options...

Ciao for now.

 

[igfraso]

It seems as though everyone else is perfectly happy with their LSC Channel-2 tone, huh? Got more 'interest' from doubters wishing to dispute the validity of the 'mod' for the sake of argument; than from earnest 'tone seekers'.

Why on earth do you think that anybody that asks questions is a "doubter wishing to dispute the validity of the mod FOR THE SAKE OF ARGUMENT"?

Why can't you understand that the world is not against you?

 

[Charles Reeder]

Quote: "Why on earth do you think that anybody that asks questions is a "doubter wishing to dispute the validity of the mod FOR THE SAKE OF ARGUMENT"?

Why can't you understand that the world is not against you?" Unquote

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

I Never said 'ANYBODY' that asks...did I?...merely pointed out that postings 'for the sake of argument' outnumbered those made by people really wishing to know.

I don't think 'the world' is against me'. Believe me...people who enjoy 'argument for argument's sake' are not actually so much concerned with being 'against' anyone... as they are interested in asserting themselves...and the choice of which argument to engage in is entirely incidental.

In other words...they'll find someone to argue with and something to argue about...no matter what. I would say that there is ample evidence of that to be found...here and elsewhere.

 

[zappaslaughter]

Wow! This thread has gotten GNARLEY!

I have been reading this thread since it's creation, and although I am not one of the people disasatified with chanel 2, I have noticed it is very distictive from ch 1.

I have decided to post, because since dwj posted the clips, it is plain to see that this mod does indeed do somthing to ch 2. no matter how i fiddle with my ch1 and ch2, I cannot make them sound the same. I can see where the impetus to make them sound the same comes from, having the ability to add the drive to the ch 1 sounds would simplify the rig. and I must admit it sound kick ass.

I won't be doing the MOD, but I can see it's merits, and it quite plainly does do somthing to the sound on ch 2. listen to the clips, I can't get my LSC to do that no matter how much I fiddle. you can even hear dwj changing the chanels in the clip.

I think I will just buy a high end boost pedal to use on ch 1, and I think I can attain a similiar effect, and at the same time leave the "muddy" vibe in ch 2 alone. after all it is usefull in some musical contexts, such as old frank zappa songs like apostrophe.

 

[zappaslaughter]

Hey, tell me more about this 10 W retrofit. I think I could get into that. I live close to the mesa homebase. are you haveing it done there? how much does it cost? when you get it back, tell me how you dug it.

 

[Charles Reeder]

posted by 'zappaslaughter'

Quote: "Wow! This thread has gotten GNARLEY!

I have been reading this thread since it's creation, and although I am not one of the people disasatified with chanel 2, I have noticed it is very distictive from ch 1.

I have decided to post, because since dwj posted the clips, it is plain to see that this mod does indeed do somthing to ch 2. no matter how i fiddle with my ch1 and ch2, I cannot make them sound the same. I can see where the impetus to make them sound the same comes from, having the ability to add the drive to the ch 1 sounds would simplify the rig. and I must admit it sound kick ass.

I won't be doing the MOD, but I can see it's merits, and it quite plainly does do somthing to the sound on ch 2. listen to the clips, I can't get my LSC to do that no matter how much I fiddle. you can even hear dwj changing the chanels in the clip.

I think I will just buy a high end boost pedal to use on ch 1, and I think I can attain a similiar effect, and at the same time leave the "muddy" vibe in ch 2 alone. after all it is usefull in some musical contexts, such as old frank zappa songs like apostrophe."

Unquote:

Hey 'zappaslaughter' (great name by the way,,,conjures up pictures of weasels ripping flesh!)

Chuckle! Yes indeed it has gotten 'gnarley' hasn't it!?

It is inevitable... human nature being what it is... but it is still 'fun'...isn't it?

You have made some very valid points for Not doing the 'mod' and I respect them. Indeed channel-2 'as is'...does serve a function for certain sounds...and if you can get whatever else you might want with the addition of some pedals...that is great.

In my case...I am very 'Old School' in my taste in amplifier tones...and the 'mod' serves people like me very well. Presently (subject to cange on a whim) I use no pedals as a general rule...other than an EQ pedal... for either a solo-boost in my smaller amps or to correct for some bizarre room acoustics.

Although the sound of channel-2 (as is from factory) is actually well suited to recreate some sounds heard on some recordings....I have been doing my 'own thing' tone-wise for years...and I don't personally care for that tone very much (channel-2 factory) and I simply didn't use it but on rare occasions. For the vast majority of songs I use the tone and gain structures that I prefer rather than trying to re-create someone else's tone...and the 'mod' allowed me to do that with the Lonestar.

BTW, none of my personal tone preferences are meant in any way to be a criticism of anyone else's tone choices...we should all be 'in this' to create music to please ourselves first and foremost...and it would be very boring if everyone wanted to sound like me or indeed anyone else!

Thanks for your post, Charles____

 

[djw]

Hey, tell me more about this 10 W retrofit. I think I could get into that. I live close to the mesa homebase. are you haveing it done there? how much does it cost? when you get it back, tell me how you dug it.

Ah yes, the big question... I have a friend who's a top-notch amp tech, and he's going to do it for me. I don't know how much he's going to charge yet, but he estimated maybe ~2 bills. He hasn't done this before, but I trust him with pretty much anything... he's a real magician.

So, I'll report back when it's done, hopefully next week. My understanding -- unverified by myself -- is that Mesa won't do this, though to be fair I probably should have called them myself just to make sure. Hey, do you want to do it? They're open tomorrow... I have no excuse, I probably live closer to them than you do. I just happen to live a lot closer to my friend than I do to Petaluma.

 

[Charles Reeder]

Just wanted to say thanks for the info. I'm very happy to get some mod info on this site. I too have messed with adding a bright switch mod and have changed the value of pots, to try and dial in what I wanted. I have had a hard time finding any mod info on this site, and when I have posted mod suggestions, I have had little or no response. Once again I hear you, and thank you for sharing the info with me.

There does seem to be a scarcity of modding info on this site. If you ever scour some of the other major amp sites you'll see a lot more modding info in evidence.

I think that this may partly be due to the fact that Mesa actually offers a pretty broad spectrum of 'tone' and 'style' choices in their stock amplifiers. I believe this diversity of available sounds cuts down on the necessity of mods (to a big extent).

For comparison look at Rivera. I own several Rivera's and I do like them...but basically most seem to be variants on the same 'theme'...ie the 'Brit'-Channel and the 'Blackface'-Channel. Various cuts and boosts, 'add-ons', and options abound...but when you pick up a Rivera...any Rivera...you will know pretty much what to expect and find a familiar basic tone.
The same applies to Fender. In spite of the myriad' of models, sizes. speaker configurations and wattages...they all are more or less variants on a couple of basic themes...which are subtly different; but all still recognizable as 'Fender'.

This sameness invites experimentation and 'modding'...to get that certain 'something' that puts the amp 'over-the-edge' and makes the amp an expression of the individual and his tone.

In contrast...the relatively wide tone palette that Mesa offers tends to get a player much nearer to their 'tone-goal' right out of the box. Of course I've noticed mods such as changing the effects loop from 'parallel' to 'series' and the like; but there really are very few 'mods' being proffered.

Of course there are always the 'malcontents' like me who are not satisfied with the 'stock offerings' and feel a need to change things! But even I was perfectly content with Channel-1 of my Lonestar...and the purpose of my 'mod' was merely to get Channel-2 to sound more like the 'sonic-perfection' I perceived in Channel-2. So for the most part...Mesa had satisfied even me. I still feel that the amp should have been offered as it is after my 'mod' (or with a toggle-switch to change between the 2 voices)...but that is a relatively minor criticism.

So perhaps the lack of 'mods' reflect what a good job that Mesa is doing in 'getting us there' tone wise from the 'get go'. Yes, I have put in 'bright caps' on my Lonestar....but I have done that to about half of my other non-Mesa amps as well...so it is a matter of individual taste...not reflective of a failing in the design of the Lonestar.

The 'neglect' your postings of 'mods' has suffered may be due to the vast majority of players being satisfied with things as they are. I have read some postings on this thread that basically reflect some individuals' disbelief that I would WANT TO CHANGE ANYTHING about my Lonestar!

That said...a few people who were seeking what I was from their Lonestars have tried the 'mod' and liked the results. That's all I ever intended to do...offer them the choice...and so I am glad that I posted it.

Regards: Charles

 

[BobL]

After reading this thread in it's entirety I decided last night that I would apply the change to one (1) of my Lonestars. In a side by side comparison with my other Lonestar, which included recording them both it seems to me that although the channel presence is enhance, the bottom is not quite as stiff as it first was. And before it's said, that difference is noticible between the two Lonestars as well, and it is a change that was not an issue in the past.

Second, I had read here where the pots may be of a slightly different manufactures part number. That was NOT the case here, and all of the part numbers matched.

Another effect of this mod appears to be slightly thin sound with effects pedals that I currently use, although this might be attributed to my need to experiment a little more. And before I get slammed let me tell you that my effects pedals are about as good as they get. Grey Ross compressor, original TS-808, original AD-9, and so on. Tonight I'll replace them with my duplicate set and move out the TS-808 for a Fulltone OCD, Keeley Compressor and try a few other pedals as well.

Now with that said, the point I'm making, based on the ears I've used playing as a touring pro for over 45 years is this. Mesa may have gotten the 2nd channel tone characteristics correct to begin with. So we'll see what the deal is after this weekend. Until then this jury's still out, but I wish to thank you for the suggestion and your efforts.