Reeder Mod #1 Opinion

[screamingdaisy]

I don't really want to clutter of the sticky at the top with debate as it is an excellent sticky, just wanted to post some findings.

Since I've re-introduced myself to this forum about a week ago I seen a lot of recommendations for the Reeder Mod, and I'll admit that I've been pretty confused by them.

Most people seem to imply that channel 2 doesn't sound like channel 1, which I felt to be false as I'd dialled channel 2 to sound like a higher gain version of channel 1 shortly after getting the amp.

Anyway, after reading a few threads on the subject it seems that both the volume and gain pot on channel 2 are 1MOhm pots, but both have different tapers. With this in mind I did the following;

- FX loop bypass
- Reverb off
- Set channel 2 EQ to look like channel 1
- Dimed both masters (to take them out of the equation)
- Fiddle with channel 2 gain until it's even with channel 1.

I ended up with something that looked like this;

And after I was happy with the gain setting, I set the channel 1 master to 12:00 and fiddled with the channel 2 master until I felt the volumes were balanced, then I gave the gain knob another small nudge up (and we're talking tiny) to get the tone to balance.

And viola... two identical sounding channels.

I shot a quick video using my camera, but the recording turned out crappy. I'm going to go and re-do it with the mic in a different position.

Anyway, your mileage may vary and all that jazz. I think the the pot swap may be beneficial for those that set their EQ with their eyes as the gain and MV settings will visually match from channel to channel. However, I do feel that you can achieve similar results to the mod simply by ignoring what your eyes see and listening to your amp.

 

[djw]

Awesome. Thanks screamingdaisy, this is really interesting and very cool. Your comments are welcome, and this is well-informed and definitely worthy of debate. (as if it's "mine" to declare it that way :roll: ... but thanks for respecting the intent)

I think I mentioned in the sticky that, at least theoretically -- and you've now proven with documentation, thank you -- it is possible to get the same sounds out of the two channels with the stock configuration. Some will disagree with this in practice, to which I attribute a basic usability problem. For me, I think there are 2 probable culprits along this line:

1.Since the only difference between these pots lies in their tapers, it follows that one of them allows for finer control than the other along part(s) of their sweep, i.e. providing finer or less-fine control over the gain at those places. If the taper of one's gain control, for instance, increases dramatically within a certain range, then it's susceptible to huge jumps from small adjustments, making it potentially difficult to dial in the desired tone. Also, think about the number of possible settings when you combine two infinitely variable controls: they're endless. Throw in the other controls (eq) and it's even MORE endless. So the positions of greater or lesser increase in taper is really important when you're talking about gain stages, as one combination will tend to open up greater control within a narrower range of values; so switching them simply moves that fine control to a difference place in their combined spectrum.

2. The advice about using one's ears, instead of their eyes, to get a sound out of their Lone Star is spot-on and well-intended; it's frequently offered to frustrated Mesa users (of which there are many), and for some people works great. Practically-speaking, however, this can be difficult to accomplish, especially in a live or other group situation. Since the controls are all so interactive, it can take time to dial in the right balance of gain, drive and eq. With other people waiting -- audience, drummers, house sound, etc. -- it can be frustrating and nigh impossible if things aren't going well. (I had this experience with my MkIII back in the day)

I actually think however, now that I've written it, that this mainly falls under the first point: small adjustments make a big difference. Point 2 puts it into practice, in that before (for me at least) I was not able to get the channels to sound similar under practical circumstances. However, what gets lost in this discussion is that the simple ability to make the channels identical is not the point: it's desirable to me, but not as an end unto itself. The point is that Ch2 is much more usable and behaves more like I want it to when it starts from the same starting place as Ch1.

The converse of what you've proven, too -- and I say this to you with all goodwill, but with some snark at the louder skeptics who insisted that we Reeder Mod enthusiasts were just out of our minds -- is this:

Just as it's possible to get the identical sound out of Ch2 as Ch1 without the mod, it is equally possible to get the stock sound out of Ch2 with the mod. The amp just ends up being more to our liking this way. That point isn't really debatable.

All that said, screamingdaisy, I'm truly psyched that you took these steps. I look forward to hearing your recordings, so please post them, and definitely fire back.

 

[plan-x]

djw your to kind. I was never, I say never(!) able to clone ch's. Further more, if, running both masters full tilt does accomplish this, it's not applicable for playing live and ch switching with precise settings of vol. and gain. And lastly, a few dozen LS owners must be stupid to fall for Charles Reeders "the Pig has no clothes" scam. Oh yeah, one more thing, until you swing both ways, you'll never taste the other side. Ok, I have ranted enough. Why, because the mod is the real deal and I hate to see people be misled.

 

[screamingdaisy]

I actually think however, now that I've written it, that this mainly falls under the first point: small adjustments make a big difference. Point 2 puts it into practice, in that before (for me at least) I was not able to get the channels to sound similar under practical circumstances. However, what gets lost in this discussion is that the simple ability to make the channels identical is not the point: it's desirable to me, but not as an end unto itself. The point is that Ch2 is much more usable and behaves more like I want it to when it starts from the same starting place as Ch1.

I think that from a user perspective the advantage to this mod (in my mind) is that it makes setting up channel 2 more intuitive, since it makes it so much easier to replicate settings from channel to channel. And, since Boogie EQ's are not naturally intuitive (to most people) every little bit helps.

I think this is further exacerbated by Boogie's suggestion in the manual to keep the drive lower than the gain... which would naturally lead people to turn channel 2's gain up, thus changing both the tone and response of the amp.

That said, my feeling from experimenting with the suggested settings in the manual is that Randy intended people to use channel 1 for clean and overdrive using the guitar's volume knob to fine tune where you're at, then switch to channel 2 for fat/cutting lead tones and higher gain rhythm, again using the guitar's volume knob. I don't think it was his intent for channel 2 to simply be a higher gain version of channel 1 with people doing their clean/rhythm switching that way.... though the manual does provide one example of this (that doesn't work that well) should you decide you want to do it that way.

------------

Anyway, below is the clip. It's nothing fancy (quite the opposite)... mostly just me repeating bits while jumping back and forth between channels. I think this was the fifth attempt at getting decent sound quality, and I don't typically play while bouncing my foot off a channel switch, so if you guys could do me a favour and not judge my playing by this clip it'd be appreciated. :lol:

I mostly dialed in the EQ to nail the feel of the two channels, and thus concentrated on getting chords to respond the same, but if you listen closely to the 4 note bit near the end you can hear that one channel is slightly brighter than the other. I think I could've EQ'd this out had I spent more time trying to dial in that end of the spectrum, but at this point we're splitting hairs since I easily could've made the slightly darker channel brighter than the brighter channel by bumping the presence.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ezU-9G2LYs

 

[screamingdaisy]

djw your to kind. I was never, I say never(!) able to clone ch's. Further more, if, running both masters full tilt does accomplish this, it's not applicable for playing live and ch switching with precise settings of vol. and gain.

I put both masters wide open to take their taper out of the equation and focus on the gain. Once the gain was set, their tapers were removed from the equation and I could set the masters. If I had attempted to set both the gain and masters at the same time I may have spent hours chasing my own tail.

 

[SonOfIAm]

Thanks for the great post screamingdaisy, well done and very informative! I too agree that you can make both of the channels sound identical, just takes a bit of tweaking. The question I have is why is it such a big deal to some? Mesa does describe channel 2 as a "slightly higher gain clone of Channel 1" (manual) but I don't think they intended them to be identical. I have found channel 2 to be basically channel 1 with overdrive.
That being said, with the "Drive" on I found channel 2 to be a bit dark and not quite as responsive in certain situations as I would like so I tried the Reeder Mod (took me about 15 minutes). I for one like it very much and don't see going back. I now have the highs I felt were missing and it has made the distortion more open and less compressed feeling. It also responds better to my Tele and OD and the sustain seems to have improved. It is definitely worth exploring since it is just as easy to reverse.

 

[plan-x]

That vid does make it sound really close. The issue that I had, and many others as well was kicking in ch 2 for some OD work(in a live setting, cause we paid enough for this gig machine) and having a lack luster rhythm tone. Dark and muddy. It wasn't pulling it off, so we were resorting to pedals. After the mod, the original ch1 tone came thru. And thats what I paid for. That big bold pig.

Here is a clip I made a while back. It's a 3:00 clip with the first half being a reverb demo for someone on the board, but half way thru I kick in the 2nd ch, and you can hear the clarity and similarity of the 1st ch. This was done with a digital cam and there are some audio overload peaks. But I believe this does tell the story.
http://s118.photobucket.com/albums/o82/plan-x/Head%20cab/?action=view&current=ReverbTest.flv

 

[av8or3]

Nice clip Plan-x, I performed the Reeder mod to both my Lonestars and like them both better. FWIW, the part numbers in the Owners Manual didn't match what I had on one of the pots, but I had two of the same pots,one on each channel. After swapping the ones on channel 2 to match their locations on channel one I too was able to "visually" clone channel 1. And it does make set-up and tuning the amp to the room easier. Love the sound, the mod works! Enjoyed tour website too!
see 'ya, Jim

 

[plan-x]

Good for you av8or3! Jim, your another satisfied customer. Thanks for the listen on the web site. And thanks to the "Pig whisperer" Charles Reeder.
Hey Jim, what's your rig? Like have you posted a pic in the LS pic section. What speakers in your ext cab, what cab, what axe? I love to visit web sites or get info on you boogie bros.

 

[av8or3]

Plan-x, in my signiture pic I'm playing my '61 Les Paul (SG,the real deal!) It dosen't go out much and when it does I carry it with me everywhere (bar,bathroom,ect),it never leaves my hands. I took it out on this occation to use it with my newly acquired MKIIB 'cause they sound soooo good together.

 

[av8or3]

Plan-x, in my signiture pic I'm playing my '61 Les Paul (SG,the real deal!) It dosen't go out much and when it does I carry it with me everywhere (bar,bathroom,ect),it never leaves my hands. I took it out on this occation to use it with my newly acquired MKIIB 'cause they sound soooo good together. If the pic was bigger you could just see the "Boogie" namplate on the little amp behind me.

That is the only vintage instrument I own,I also have a Les Paul Custom,Fender Custom Shop '60 Strat and a Ric 360/12.
I ordered my Lonestar & extension cab in the same colors as the Special (boring,I know but I like the colors)
Stock Celestion speakers in everything,except the MKII,it has an EVM-12L

I was toying with the idea of installing 2 additional Mesa handles on the top of the Pig like what you see on the Vox AC-30 to help with hauling it around,what do you think of that? Everyone agrees that the Classic sounds better at gigs than the Special, but when it comes time to hook up and go I often take the Special 'cause it's easier on my back.

see 'ya, Jim

 

[plan-x]

Around here the blue pig is boring, so your "LSS colored" LSC is the star and I think that set up is very classy looking. The LP SG guitar is the guitar that stole my heart and I wanted when I was a sprout. That handle Idea could do the trick. I actually lift the pig as little as possible, utilizing the casters as much as possible. If I use my ext, the pig sits on top and I push the stack around. I've dealt with 4x12 rigs in the past, and this is definitely better.

 

[pine]

Around here the blue pig is boring, so your "LSS colored" LSC is the star and I think that set up is very classy looking. The LP SG guitar is the guitar that stole my heart and I wanted when I was a sprout. That handle Idea could do the trick. I actually lift the pig as little as possible, utilizing the casters as much as possible. If I use my ext, the pig sits on top and I push the stack around. I've dealt with 4x12 rigs in the past, and this is definitely better.

I actually changed to the 3" casters instead of the stock 2" casters for off road/4-wheeling purposes. Now if I get going fast enough, I can almost always clear the ravine.