Mesa Studio Preamp

[wannabweiland]

Looking at building a rack for myself. Wondered if the Studio preamp with, I don't know, I'll probably get a VHT 2-90-2 or 2100, would be sufficient for heavy modern rock-style stuff (STP, Metallica, Foo Fighters, A Perfect Circle, etc.). Thanks.

 

[phaboo]

I played through a Studio for years and years, first through a 50/50 and then through a 395. It has very nice tone, but for that kind of hi-gain stuff you'll need to get creative. Right out of the box, I don't think it'll really give you the tone you're looking for.

In order to get that tone, I ran a Boss eq ahead of it, to cut some of the guitar's bass and boost things quite a bit, and ran it with the volume on 10 so that it started clipping right from the first tube. The lead drive only ended up on about 3, then, since the signal was already really hot.

I had to do some additional eqing on it before it hit the power amp--I used a 31 band for that. A parametric would have worked better, you don't get so much phase shift then.

It ended up being pretty noisy after all this, so I had to use two noise gates--one ahead of the preamp, and another after. A lot of hardware. It sounded very nice, but all that processing got in the way and there was some tone suckage going on with all that hardware.

I finally dumped it and got two Rocktron Piranhas (one for crunch, one for clean and semi/clean with different tubes) and like that MUCH better. Everything is midi (presets! woo hoo!), and the tone is there out of the box.

 

[reo73]

Sorry, but I disagree with the post above. I currently run a Studio Pre thru a 50/50 and it has enough gain for the tones you mentioned. I would say it is on par with a Mark III or IV in the gain dept. It does not have the modern voicing of a Recto if that is what you are looking for but gain wise it is right up there. Easily will do early Metallica with a sharp V setting on the EQ and Foo Fighters and A Perfect Circle should not be a problem.

Sorry, but I don't understand how you could favor a Rocktron Pirhana over a Studio Pre????

 

[phaboo]

Sorry, but I disagree with the post above. I currently run a Studio Pre thru a 50/50 and it has enough gain for the tones you mentioned. I would say it is on par with a Mark III or IV in the gain dept. It does not have the modern voicing of a Recto if that is what you are looking for but gain wise it is right up there. Easily will do early Metallica with a sharp V setting on the EQ and Foo Fighters and A Perfect Circle should not be a problem.

Sorry, but I don't understand how you could favor a Rocktron Pirhana over a Studio Pre????

The bottom is tighter, the definition is night-and-day better, and the variety of tones I can get with the eq AFTER the crunch--it's MUCH more versatile. I can have a lot of gain, but still hear all the notes in the chord.

It took me awhile to dial in a good tone on the Piranha. It has a VERY wide choice of gain and tone. If you do the usual "guitarist" thing and set things on 10 it'll sound like poo. If you set the gain as high as it'll go, it'll sound like poo in a garbage can. Most guys who think it sounds crappy have tried to set it something like this. BUT, with a good set of tubes (it shipped with crappy ones--they were the first thing to go) it sounds amazing. The Studio was flabby by comparison. It was fine as long as things weren't moving too quickly, but it just cut it past that.

I played through the Studio for a good 15 years, so I know what it's capable of and I can get more out of a Piranha. And, with the Piranha I can get my ENTIRE tone out of the preamp without needing to push the power amp. This lets me get a good tone at just about any volume. I still run it through a 395 for a tube power amp tone, but I run it in Class A and barely push it.

I used the Piranha as a backup preamp for about 5 years, because I thought it didn't sound as good as the Studio. Then, just for the heck of it, I put some Tung Sol's in it and WHAT THE HELL! The thing practically jumped to life. Ate the Studio alive. And, after 15 years, it was nice to get out of that "Boogie" growl into something different.

Another funny thing--I ALWAYS had trouble mic'ing with the Studio. It would just never sound like the amp through the mic. Drove me crazy. I figured I didn't know what I was doing. With the Piranha (and nothing else changed) I just drop a mic in front the the speaker and it's done. Something about the tone--I don't know. It's very strange. But the sound I get recording the Piranha is MUCH better than what I ever got from the Studio.

 

[reo73]

Interesting,

I demo'd a Piranha a couple times and always thought it sounded brittle. Maybe it is the type of unit that needs some good tweaking time, which is what a lot of people say about Mesa gear anyway.

My experience with the Studio Pre, and granted I have only had it for a couple months, is completly different from your description. It is not flabby at all but rather tight in the bottom end with that unique Mesa karaang sound. Also the note definition is great compared to the Mark III I had and it is has tons of gain. The clean is fantastic as well.

 

[phaboo]

Interesting,

I demo'd a Piranha a couple times and always thought it sounded brittle. Maybe it is the type of unit that needs some good tweaking time, which is what a lot of people say about Mesa gear anyway.

My experience with the Studio Pre, and granted I have only had it for a couple months, is completly different from your description. It is not flabby at all but rather tight in the bottom end with that unique Mesa karaang sound. Also the note definition is great compared to the Mark III I had and it is has tons of gain. The clean is fantastic as well.

The Piranha can be brittle . . . I have a few settings that are pretty brittle on purpose. I kind of like the "sandpaper" sound sometimes. I have one or two presets that are just odd sounding things--like playing over the phone or coming over a cheap AM radio. It can be fun for trying to mix things up.

It has a very narrow sweet spot with the input volume, where it just barely overdrives the first tube stage--that's where the good tone is. Too much and it mushes, too little and it's pretty blah. For my pickups, it's just a smidge below three o'clock. Also, it has a LOT of drive--it goes 0 to 70 and it'll mush out too high. I usually only run it between 25-36 or so, depending on the preset. The tone controls swing pretty wide as well, so it's easy to overdo them. My usual setting has everything between -3 and +3 where the controls go from -15 to +15.

The sweepable mid just makes the preamp. There's a nice spot at 2.6k that you can knock down a few notches and it has a really unique tone.

Also, the stock tubes are terrible. Just terrible. I have no idea what they were thinking. When I changed the tubes, it just about took my head off with the original settings. I think they found the mushiest tubes available on the planet and stuck them in. Like I said, it was my practice rig for five YEARS because I thought it wasn't worth the trouble. Then I changed the tubes and all was different.

I really notice the difference in a band setting, with everything up loud. I can hear everything much more clearly . . . even the "oops"es.

The Studio was a little bit "springier," but there were a lot of things that just didn't come through it. Especially muted stuff--I'll do a lot of things that are picked heavily with muting. Through the Studio it didn't seem to come through.

Of course, as always, your mileage may vary.