Recto with EQ pedal in loop....

[Chris McKinley]

Spherion,

RE: "But it would seem that I'm out of luck using the FX loop at all in that ALL the FX that I have are digital. So where could I possibly put them??". Why, in the effects loop of your other tube amp like I do, of course! Unfortunately, that's not just a facetious answer, that's actually what I've had to do. And not happily, I might add.

RE: "I really would like to avoid stomp boxes and would hate to trade my investment to go the simplistic route just because the "new guy" in my rig doesn't play nice with friends.". Some of my stomp boxes are digital, so that still doesn't help. There's not a lot I or anyone else can say that's likely to help, other than 1) use those effects with a different amp, or 2) do the parallel-to-series mod on your Mesa's effects loop. I'm getting ready to the latter fairly soon myself.

Until then, you'll have to be patient, or go buy some analog versions of the effects you want. If you play live, there is still another possibility for you, in that if you mike your amp into the house P.A., the mixer board for the P.A. often has an effects loops where you could hook in your effects, though of course whether the house will let you do that varies from club to club. Still, if you have the time and permission, this will sound even better than running those effects through the loop, since now you will be affecting the guitar's tone after the power amp and after the mike, which will sound more like a good recording than even running them in the effects loop.

The weird modulation noises are part of having a parallel effects loop and trying to run digital effects in it. It's not just Mesa. Frankly, I wish Randall would have given us the option. Granted, a series effects loop is going to give you a situation where your guitar tone doesn't sound quite as good as the pure Mesa tone run completely dry. That's not a limit of the effects loop, it's a limit of the what the circuitry of effects pedals can handle. They aren't high-fidelity devices, and if they were, none of us could afford them.

However, let's be honest....the effects loop isn't for recording, it's for playing live. At the volumes that live clubs have, you're lucky if anybody in the audience can even make out a Mesa tone at all, nevermind be able to distinguish that it's been slightly diminished due to using effects in the loop. And that's just for the guitar players in the audience. Most of the rest of them have no clue anyway, can't tell a Mesa from a Marshall from a miniskirt, they're just there to have a good time. All they can tell is whether they can hear you in the mix or not.

For playing live, I'd rather have a slightly degenerated signal and still be able to slap some nice juicy delay and reverb on, at least for solos, than to be forced to play with a dry-as-a-bone signal all night. Especially on songs from before 1999, lots of songs don't have bone-dry guitar parts exclusively.

If you're going to record, you're never going to use the effects loop, whether series or parallel, on any amp. The most you'll have is an effect or two like overdrive or wah before the amp. That's all. The rest of the effects aren't going to be little analog stomp boxes or consumer-level digital multi-effects, they're going to be studio-grade dedicated rack effects that most likely belong to the studio itself, unless you're already a celebrity guitarist who can afford his own studio-quality rig. They're also all going to be applied to the post-microphone signal, where your guitar's tone gets the contribution of the power amp and the speaker cabinet's effects on your tone. These are very good effects, and they simply aren't usually available to the live gigging guitarist without a separate mixer that has its own effects loop.

Overall, the parallel design of the Rectos' effects loops is superior in terms of sound quality, there's not much denying that. However, it's so bloody inconvenient to a lot of us working stiffs who might have saved up to lay down some serious coin on a nice digital multi-effects unit and now can't play it in their baby, their nice $1800 Mesa amp. Sucks to be us, I guess.

Frankly, I think one of the reasons why Randall designed the Stillettos to have series effects loops is because he got plenty of feedback from Recto owners saying we wish we could use our modern digital effects with Mesa amps.[/i]

 

[Spherion]

[Shakes head] Oh mannn...

So I spent like $3500 on the Eventide (at the time) and $1800 on a TR and uh, ...oh, ... this just can't be true. Arrrgg!

I've been eyeing the serial FX loop mod. Some say it doesn't really make a difference. Hmm...

Hey, by all means, if the FX loop mod will CURE this issue, hey I'll do it! 'Question is, ...will it? There seems to be some divided opinions.

So, I guess that just brings me back to the original situation that I posed in another thread. Triaxis? Pre-amp power amp setups in general? Same issues? Is there no amp that sounds like a TR/DR, or comes close to it, that actually complies with [what should be] today's standards (without spending $2500-3000)?

My GC 30-day is getting really close. Talk about pressure!

Thanks, Chris.

 

[Spherion]

...but isn't putting the FX RETURN on 100% virtually the same thing as the FX loop mod? That's what I'm doing now. Eventide and TC are both pretty high end companies and I think my FX boxes are pretty high enough end to minimalize tone coloration (although I know anything in the chain will to some degree). It just seems like the Recto's FX levels just don't have enough juice.

I seem to get my best tones on channel 3 with the master around 9 o'clock, but that doesn't feed the inputs on my MFX units enough without putting the FX SEND all the way up. Wouldn't that contribute to a lot of the noise? After that, getting an even level between switching the FX out vs. in just turns into another circle.

To be honest, I'm pretty much so confused that I can't keep track of which issues are which. My almost DAILY routine is:

1. Come home from work
2. Turn on amp and unhook stuff to further check as to where the source of the noise is coming from.
3. Try different combinations of wall outlets, then put everything back into the Furman Power Conditioner with no answers
4. Plug in and work on getting a good tone out of CH3.
5. Adjust my FX mixes again to see if I can get a better level for signal to noise ration and noise reduction
6. Try something else that I saw someone post as a possible solution on the internet
7. Play from different parts of the room to elimate the feedback. and/or noise. Turn off guitar volume several times to avoid breaking glass windows.
8. Hit the FX IN/OUT on pedal board to compare levels
9. Readjust FX levels vs. master vs. send levels
10. Get tone deaf to the point where it's acceptable for now (really just moving on to something else out of boredom)
11. Work on CH2 tone
12. Attempt to equalize volume levels to CH3
13. Work on CH1 tone
14. Attempt to equalize volume levels of CH1 to CH2 and CH3
15. Start all over because CH1 is way to quiet.
16. Research, go to bed

Next day...

(See steps 1 -16)

 

[Chris McKinley]

Spherion,

RE: "Hey, by all means, if the FX loop mod will CURE this issue, hey I'll do it! 'Question is, ...will it? There seems to be some divided opinions.". There's not really a debate possible on whether it will "cure" the phase modulation noise caused by a parallel circuit with digital signal lag. It will cure that part, since the circuit of the effects loop is now series and there isn't any unaffected signal for the digital effects signal to compete with.

What may still be a matter of subjective opinion is whether or not the now all-digitally-processed signal is of sufficient tonal quality for the player. This, too, will vary from unit to unit among digital effects. Sampling rate and frequency sampling range are the two biggest factors here in determining quality. There are still some digital effects out there with horrendous tone due to low sampling rate and narrow range of sampling frequencies, but most have come a long way since the dawn of digital in the 80's, and can be quite acceptable if tweaked correctly.

The mod is fairly easy to do, from what others here have said, and looking at the schematic, I would concur. But be warned, ANY time you open up the chassis of any amplifier, there is always the risk of severe shock due to circuit capacitance. That is, the amplifier's circuits can build up a static capacitance charge which can last sometimes for months, and if you touch it, it could possibly injure and/or kill you. At the very least, do not ever open up the amp's chassis with the amp plugged in, even if the amplifier is "off". Because of this risk, I cannot publicly recommend you perform any modification to your amplifier yourself. However, if you do, at least be aware of the precautions necessary.

 

[Chris McKinley]

Spherion,

RE: "...but isn't putting the FX RETURN on 100% virtually the same thing as the FX loop mod? That's what I'm doing now.". No, it's not. Putting the effects return on 100% affects the strength of the signal, not it's mix. On the Recto's parallel loop, you can only ever dial in a 90% wet/10% dry signal; it never completely gets rid of the dry signal. Why Randall chose to do this is mystifyingly dumb to me, since if you were able to go to 100% wet/0% dry, you would then have a series circuit, and none of us would be having these digital problems.

RE: "I seem to get my best tones on channel 3 with the master around 9 o'clock, but that doesn't feed the inputs on my MFX units enough without putting the FX SEND all the way up.". The master control on the amp doesn't affect your effects loop, it affects the signal strength to the power amp, and therefore doesn't help or hurt in terms of what signal your MFX's input sees.

On the bright side, at least I can save you a lot of time on your daily routine by telling you to give up now. :mrgreen: You'll never be able to solve the problem of running digital effects in the loop as long as your effects loop remains parallel. Like all of us Recto owners with digital effects, you're pretty much faced with the choice of either having your effects loop modified to series, or using those effects either before the amp (which isn't usually useful) or running them on another amp. Sorry, man, and welcome to the club.

 

[Spherion]

The master control on the amp doesn't affect your effects loop, it affects the signal strength to the power amp, and therefore doesn't help or hurt in terms of what signal your MFX's input sees.

Then my TR is defective then. When I first got the TR I couldn't figure out what was going with the fact that might FX inputs weren't getting anything but a very, very low signal (bottom LED on the Eventide). Turns out I was so afraid to turn the masters up due to hearing everyone say how loud it was that I simply didn't supply enough signal to the inputs (doh!).

Now if you're referring to the OUTPUT knob when the FX loop is switched on, then yeah, that's how mine works. The OUTPUT knob turns up the power to the power amp. Vice versa when FX loop is bypassed. At that point the Channel Masters apparently supply the level to the power amp.

With FX loop IN (not bypassed) I have to literally turn up my FX send all the way and my master to about 3 o'clock to start clipping 0db on the Eventide. I finally settled for -12db just for the purposes of equalizing the levels. But, like you said Chris, it's probably never going to work.

 

[Chris McKinley]

Spherion,

Nah, your amp is fine, I'm just an idiot. I was talking about the master control of the whole amp, which on a Recto I forgot was called "Output". Channel masters still control preamp output, which does affect how much signal your effects loop will see.

Ultimately, if you have the series mod done on your effects loop, I don't think you're going to have any more problems with sufficient input volume on the Eventide or anything else for that matter. The loop puts out more than enough signal to qualify for the line level signal that some effects are wanting to see at input. But until that loop is series and not parallel, it just isn't going to matter anyway.

 

[Spherion]

Whelp, I gotta little closer tonight. I tried splitting up my FX between my MP-2 and my TR and dedicating one or the other to each.

The MP-2 got the Eventide and Yamaha for reverb in its loop and the TR just got a TC M2000. What a difference!

While the TC M2000 is mainly a delay/reverb, I dialed in a good balance pretty quickly and got away with turning down the FX loop mix without any noticeable phasing. Perhaps yes, the lower volume may be masking the difficulties I was having before, but I'm kinda suspecting there may be a digital mismatch and/or a big impedence difference between the Eventide and everything else.

From what I remember when I bought the Eventide it was 56-bit internal processing. I think the M2000's 24-bit. I thought of that when I was initially hooking them up but figured that since the connections are all analog that it wouldn't matter.

 

[Chris McKinley]

I'm glad you found a working solution. I'm curious though, what are you using for a power amp for the MP-2? And do you then go from that power amp to a separate cab or into the stereo inputs of the 1960B?

So, do you think you're going to stay with that solution, which seems to require two separate amps, or are you possibly going to have the series mod done on the TR?

 

[Spherion]

what are you using for a power amp for the MP-2? And do you then go from that power amp to a separate cab or into the stereo inputs of the 1960B?

I'm using an ADA G500S solid state stereo power amp. When I got the TR the ADA setup has sit dormant in the rack. I ordered a bunch of stuff a few weeks ago (GCX switcher, Ground Control, TC M2000, the TR, etc.) so I've been trying to wrap my head around one thing at a time at this point.

Now, idealistically, I'm probably gonna have to invest in another Marshall 1960B. I bought the switcher with the idea in mind that I would switch between the preamp (like for cleans) and the TR, share the FX loop somehow, then take the ADA group to one cab and the TR to the other.

Until I can afford to blow another $800 on a cab, I posted in another thread about the possibility of using the L stereo 8ohm for the TR and the other (R) for the ADA's. I was told that would work. Haven't had time to try it yet.

I bought the TR since the MP-2 was starting to die (bad battery I suspect) and thought it would be a good time to "upgrade" my setup. I plan to use this setup until the ADA dies completely (or who knows, maybe I'll get it fixed), but I think by the time I'm done it's best to just go with one thing that works for you and make the best of it (ultimately, just the TR with an FX rack). Despite all of my effects (got carried away), I rarely use anything but a little chorus and some delay/reverb. Occasionally a tremolo or wah.

As far as the series mod, it depends. After a little more troubleshooting I think I'll know where the problem lies (Eventide idiosyncracies, mismatching, user error, etc.) and that'll help me determine what route I want to take. I have no fear of going that route if that's what would put EVERYTHING together (after GC 30-day). It kinda bugs me that I can't use all of them together and that I'd have to split up the rack to make use of them, but on the other hand, I still have a lot to learn.

I DO think I'm going to stick with the TR though. I researched pretty heavily before I bought it and listened to tons of audio samples of various amps. It was the TR that stuck out every time. And yesterday, out of frustration, I did a lot of research of various preamps, the Triaxis, and weighed the idea that most heads have the issue I'm having and it pretty much came down to the fact that there really isn't much of an alternative to making this work.

If I go the head route I'm probably going to run into the same thing. If I go the preamp route, well, there's really not that many preamps out there anymore. It's either stick with the sound I like or revert to amp modellers which I'm not going to be doing any time soon.

 

[NoGlassNoClass]

Spherion...while this would work really well with 3 cabs, you could do it with 2 stereo cabs. (sorry to hijack, maybe we need a new w/d/w thread)

If you can get hold of a second cab, run the slave-out from the TR to your rack and power amp. Nothing but EQ and maybe a gate in the TR loop. Set up your FX mix per patch in the various devices and run the stereo outs to the power amp. Cabs side-by-side and running like this:

FX Dry Dry FX
FX Dry Dry FX

Will cure all your level-matching woes, and will sound fantastic trust me.

 

[NoGlassNoClass]

If you wanted to run the ADA (or any other) preamp as well, just split your signal with an ABY box (I think your GCX can do this) and send one side to the TR and the other to the rack instead of slaving the rack off the TR. Between the GCX switching and MIDI you should be able to control the whole mess with a single stomp.

 

[giantstepjoe]

Chris-Thanks for all the useful info. After reading your posts about using the post eq I bought myself a used mxr 31 band rackmount eq for $29.00 + shipping on ebay. It's simply astonishing how much better the tone on my '07 roadster got by cutting back the 200 and bringing up the 100. The bottom is so tight now without having to use the silicon diode. Using the eq in the fx loop really helps you get a more defined sound. It sounded great before but now it's pure magic. I got lucky on the purchase of the eq as well; it happens to be totally noiseless.

 

[Geiri]

Hi guys and thanx for all the helpful information on this thread.
I just wanted to share my experience with digital effects on my DR.

I'm using a tc G sharp and the unit has a switch which allows you to choose wether it's serial or parallel. If I choose the serial setting it sounds horrible but on the parallel setting it gives me no problems at all. So might this be the answer to all our questions ? Tc products having this option or am I missing something. I used to run a line6 echo park in the loop and it never worked no control whatsoever but when I stumbled on the G sharp and hooked up with the knowledge that the amps loop is parallel I've never had any problems. Sorry for the ramblings and I hope this helps.

 

[RoadKinger483]

Would the 100Hz an 200Hz controls on a Boss GE-7 still work on a Roaster a far as controlling the mudd??? I tried it in the FX Loop and it didn't sound to much tighter; just less boomy in a certain area and more bomy in another (if that makes sense). Channels 3 and 4 seem to be voiced differently than my old Dual Rectifier. The Roadster seems to have way more low end and the gain seems clearer or not as thrashy and the regular Dual.

 

[Blaklynx]

AJH,

There's nothing wrong with putting an EQ in front of the amp, as long as you remember that is has much less total influence on the tone there than in the post-preamp effects loop. Sometimes I use an EQ in both locations at the same time. The before-amp EQ is to cut bass frequencies just slightly and boost highs just slightly before the signal hits the preamp.

Then, after the preamp, I rebalance those frequencies by boosting bass just slightly and cutting back highs just slightly in the effects loop EQ. What this does is hit your preamp hard with lots of highs, causing greater saturation of those frequencies. Highs can take more saturation without sounding muddy than lows can. By cutting lows before the amp, you let the preamp saturate the hell out of the whole signal's frequency range without crossing over into mud for the lows.

Then, because you want your lows back for the final sound, you boost the lows in the effects loop back to where you want 'em. But because those lows are still articulate rather than muddy, you get bass without mud. It's a thing of beauty.

Also, you slightly cut back on your highs in the effects loop EQ to bring the highs back to the balance you want them at, but because they were pushed so hard into the preamp, now all of a sudden your highs are supersaturated and sing like a choir of angels.

The overall result is almost like what you would get if you could turn up the Recto's gain to 100%, but selectively cut out all the muddying frequencies.

All of the above is for when I use two EQ's at once. If I'm only using one EQ, it goes exclusively in the effects loop so that I can tailor the already great Mesa tone to sound more like one type of music or another. For instance, if I'm playing some Metallica, I'll do the classic mid-scoop on the EQ. If I'm doing some classic Les Paul/Marshall type of rock, I'll start with flatline, then cut 200 Hz about 2-4 db, bump 400 Hz about 2 db, and bump 800 Hz anywhere from 4 db (KISS, Aerosmith, B.O.C., Led Zep, Journey) all the way to 10 db for that singing Boston solo tone. For the latter, I also use a germanium-based treble booster that I built myself in front of the amp. When I do, even on a Rectifier I don't even have to wait for feedback to start before I get sweet, singing overtones....much like a hot-rodded Marshall.

Hit the nail on the head! Exactly what I do to varying degrees of the EQ sliders. EQ's are your friend! You can do so much with them.

At the moment trying to find other tones, I turn down the treble to around 9oclock, turn mids up to 2~2.30oclock, bass down to 11oclock. Presence about 8~8.30oclock. Gain around 12oclock. I push the input with a Danelectro Daddy O (great pedal!) and set the EQ's sliders accordingly.

With this setup and amps tone controls set this way, I scoop the mids on the EQ in the loop a little, push the upper frequencies a little bit to add some treble and push the 8kHz slider about 7~8dB to have a little presence. It's a nice full sound.

Interestingly, if you start turning the treble dial up, the mids start to sound more scooped, or less full and the bass drops a touch. It's Mesa's 'interactive' tone controls doing this. Very noticeable with the mid dial turned up so high. Using the treble control can in some way 'fine tune' this particular setup.

I'm still experimenting but so far, I really like what I hear. But like everone else, it depends where you are standing (your ears) relative to speaker position. This has such a huge influence on what you hear.

Experiment! You have nothing to lose and everything to gain (no pun intended)...

Oh, and if you add another EQ after all your effects in the loop, put an 'upside down smiley face' (pushing the mids up above zero) and adjust the level output up or higher than unity, you can kick this in as a solo boost. You'll get a fair increase in volume. That's for you guys losing the solo boost function on your DR's when doing the effects loop mod (so I hear.....). So there's your solo boost solved.......

 

[Blaklynx]

Further to my post above....

Rectoverb settings:
Vintage mode
Gain 12.30~1.30oclock
Treble 9oclock
Mids 1.30~2.30oclock
Bass 10oclock
Pres 8.30oclock
Master 10oclock
Output 11oclock
(Crank master and output and the amp starts to shine)

Preamps V1 Sylvania 5751, others JJ's
Power valves JJ 6L6's, run in EL34 mode (yeah, I know....... bias.... blah blah)

MXR 10 band in loop (frequencies left to right):
Vol@0
31.25@-6dB
62.5@2dB
125@0
250@-5dB
500@3dB
1k@-5dB
2k@-5dB
4k@+3dB
8k@-2dB (I thought I had this higher but this is where it's at at the moment)
16@+3dB

OD pedal, Danelectro Daddy O (so underated.....):
Vol 1.30oclock
Bass 1oclock
Mid 11oclock
Treble 1oclock
Drive 9oclock

Guitar:
Ibanez RG440 (yep, a nice 84 model that kicks a*s!!) with JB Custom Custom in bridge position.

Also, for a nice rounded tone for lead playing, turn the tone control down on your guitar! The highs won't peirce. In fact, the upper register on the guitar will have a nice rounded tone that reminds me of using a front pickup. Try it. So many guitarists just don't use the tone control........ crazy.......

I've also got a heap of other drive pedals to test (about 25 OD's / Dist's). My next test will be the MI Audio Tube Zone. This pedal is pretty bass heavy and has a sh*tload of controls on it. I've played with it and it's very promising. The tone controls are very wide ranging and minimal adjustments can throw things into chaos. Love it.

I'm also pushing the input with another pedal for a more saturated lead tone. I have a Zoom Tri-Metal pedal after the Daddy O and by jeez, this pedal is killer. Even on it's own this thing is something else. They don't come up for sale often but look into them if you think they may suit you.

I'm still experimenting with the above pedals I've stated but so far it's pretty good for what I'm trying to acheive as another tone. It may not be your sound but half the fun is to simply experiment. Just simply adjusting the treble on the amp will yield a different tone. Very noticeable with the above settings. Surprised me.

Hope this helps a little and opens another chapter in finding another tone.....

Note: Your settings may need to vary so adjust things as you see fit. Goes without saying, really.

 

[greg_moreira]

im obviously late on this one, but just to further reinforce some of whats been said(and to get off topic a little as well heh).....the MXR 10 band in the loop of my recto has been the single most influential stomp box Ive tried. Massive tone shaping is possible, and Im only playing with a 10 band here. Ive used other pedals that do exactly what I wanted them to do, but never one single pedal that has made as much of a difference.

I tell you another thing....this pedal works great as a front end clean boost as well. I have not tried it in this configuration with my recto. I bought a maxon od first for out front, then the MXR for the loop and Im real satisfied with the maxon out front and the EQ in the loop....so why mess with a good thing right. But with a few other amps, I have tried the MXR out in front with great results.

Take this EQ and throw it in front of a fender amp(for example), turn the volume up on the pedal to really drive the front end.....and with the individual sliders, you can slam the preamp with only the frequencies you want to emphasise, as opposed to an overall boost thats dependant on the particular od pedals frequency curve.

For example I take my NOS blues junior and dial in a nice texas blues tone in the amp as is. then put the 10 band in front of it, add a little volume to hit the preamp harder, and then use the sliders between(and including) 1K and 8K and boost these to taste. It starts to really thicken up and get a little richer and gutsier sounding. Its a convincing tone thats better than the OD alone(to my ears at least).

I cant see why this same principal wouldnt work in front of a recto as well. One in front of the amp to get the low cut going like with the typical od, and boost it as well, and add another one in the loop for further tone shaping options. And if it does work well.....the MXR is a cheaper alternative to most OD pedals that are commonly used.

 

[Blaklynx]

+1 with above. Agree about EQ in front. I have two EQ's. One in loop and one in front of amp, sometimes post OD and other time Pre OD. I need to buy another EQ pedal to stop swapping pre/post.

Pre OD you can shape which frequencies you want to drive harder/or emphasise more. An EQ post OD can really help shape your drive sound, rather than use the tone control on the pedal. Let's face it, a single tone control sounds rather bland.

This is what it would look like:

guitar>EQ>OD>EQ>amp--->EQ in loop---->out

That'll give you a lot of flexibility to shape your sound.