I would appreciate any thought/experience from Studio and Quad owners about that. Do you like your FX in the loop or do you use just one of the main outs to feed the FX unit and then use its outputs straight to the poweramp?
Rack FX for Studio & Quad: loop or after, which is better?
- Thread starter ytse_jam
- Start date
Help Support The Boogie Board:
tonefreak25
Well-known member
At this point on my Pre I go with the second route. G major for effects. I tried the other method and couldn't get it to work well. Just my 2 cents.
elvis
Well-known member
I ran these ways with a SP and 50/50:
FX send -> FX unit -> FX return, Main out to power amp
Serious tone loss due to high FX send output impedance and low FX input impedance.
Main out -> FX unit -> power amp
Less tone problems, still not perfect. Signal too hot for FX unit, had to run main volume super low.
FX send -> buffer -> FX unit -> power amp
This works great. The FX send gives the right level for the FX unit. The buffer fixes the impedance mismatch so the tone is perfect. The FX signal level is loud enough to drive the power amp fine. If I needed more drive, I could use the FX ret -> main out, but so far it hasn't been an issue. Adding this when you don't need it just adds noise.
FX send -> FX unit -> FX return, Main out to power amp
Serious tone loss due to high FX send output impedance and low FX input impedance.
Main out -> FX unit -> power amp
Less tone problems, still not perfect. Signal too hot for FX unit, had to run main volume super low.
FX send -> buffer -> FX unit -> power amp
This works great. The FX send gives the right level for the FX unit. The buffer fixes the impedance mismatch so the tone is perfect. The FX signal level is loud enough to drive the power amp fine. If I needed more drive, I could use the FX ret -> main out, but so far it hasn't been an issue. Adding this when you don't need it just adds noise.
@tonefreak25
Yep, that's the way my Studio sounds better to me too.
@elvis
What FX unit and buffer are you using? I expected a buffer to alter the tone a bit, doesn't it? When I was using an EMG equipped guitar I liked to use the FX send straight to the poweramp, the tone seemed more organic and open. But now that I play with passives and I play just straight out metal, I need the main outs for the extra compression and the more aggressive tone.
Yep, that's the way my Studio sounds better to me too.
@elvis
What FX unit and buffer are you using? I expected a buffer to alter the tone a bit, doesn't it? When I was using an EMG equipped guitar I liked to use the FX send straight to the poweramp, the tone seemed more organic and open. But now that I play with passives and I play just straight out metal, I need the main outs for the extra compression and the more aggressive tone.
elvis
Well-known member
I use a G system. The input on the G system that the SP FX send connects to is designed for line level, so it is only 24k Ohms input impedance. This is super low, so I put a buffer in between so that the SP FX send drives into 1 MegOhm, and the buffer drives the 24k FX impedance with something less than 1k. I have used a JFET buffer that I designed and built, as well as a Valvulator, which I am using now. Both work great, and I doubt anyone could really tell the difference between them by ear.
Buffers are supposed to be designed so that they do not alter the tone. Some are designed more as boosters that also allow little or no gain, so they may not really work well as a true buffer. I have seen other buffers that had really low input impedance or high output impedance, so they are not really buffers at all. You want something that is >500k input impedance and <1k output impedance as a rule.
When adding a (good) buffer, changes in tone usually come from the fact that the buffer is curing a mismatch in impedance so that the signal integrity is better preserved. What this means is that the no-buffer tone is in part the result of filtering that happens in the signal chain because a weak link is used to drive a heavy load, and it can't do it properly. Adding a buffer fixes this problem, so that the filtering is reduced. You may prefer the non-buffered tone, but be aware that it's due to a signal problem, and was never intended to sound that way. Don't let it stop you from using it that way, but don't blame the buffer for causing a tone problem - the real issue is that you don't like the tone your setup was designed to have, and the impedance mismatch makes it more palatable to you.
If you want to believe that pure tube tone is more organic, (or whatever nonspecific adjective you wish), go with the Valvulator. It is a really well designed device that (electrically) looks exactly like a tube amp front end, but is also a fantastic buffer.
Buffers are supposed to be designed so that they do not alter the tone. Some are designed more as boosters that also allow little or no gain, so they may not really work well as a true buffer. I have seen other buffers that had really low input impedance or high output impedance, so they are not really buffers at all. You want something that is >500k input impedance and <1k output impedance as a rule.
When adding a (good) buffer, changes in tone usually come from the fact that the buffer is curing a mismatch in impedance so that the signal integrity is better preserved. What this means is that the no-buffer tone is in part the result of filtering that happens in the signal chain because a weak link is used to drive a heavy load, and it can't do it properly. Adding a buffer fixes this problem, so that the filtering is reduced. You may prefer the non-buffered tone, but be aware that it's due to a signal problem, and was never intended to sound that way. Don't let it stop you from using it that way, but don't blame the buffer for causing a tone problem - the real issue is that you don't like the tone your setup was designed to have, and the impedance mismatch makes it more palatable to you.
If you want to believe that pure tube tone is more organic, (or whatever nonspecific adjective you wish), go with the Valvulator. It is a really well designed device that (electrically) looks exactly like a tube amp front end, but is also a fantastic buffer.
elvis
Well-known member
Oh - and the Gmajor input impedance is only 13k!! So a buffer is really mandatory. You'll lose almost half your signal level driving the SP or QP into that impedance.
while using a g-major with my studio pre, i run from the FX send (set to low level) into the g-major and from there to the power amp.
the FX send of the studio pre sounds better as the main outs to me.
with the quad (had to sell it) i couldn´t hear a difference between fx-out and main outs.
the most important thing is to set the input and output levels correct on the g-major. i´m using this fx-unit since 6 years now, and i´m happy with it.
it´s not a highend unit but it works fine.
the FX send of the studio pre sounds better as the main outs to me.
with the quad (had to sell it) i couldn´t hear a difference between fx-out and main outs.
the most important thing is to set the input and output levels correct on the g-major. i´m using this fx-unit since 6 years now, and i´m happy with it.
it´s not a highend unit but it works fine.
