~~Studio Pre vs. Quad Pre~~

[Neptical]

Your probably thinking, ok...not this again. :lol:

I'm still in the 'great debate' of which to pick up still. I thought about the Quad because I can get the extra channel over the Studio. I could use one channel of the Quad for strictly cleans, and the second channel for maybe a rhythm or a lead channel. The unit will be paired up with my Mark III, which will give me 3 completely seperate usable channels. The Studio will give me 1 extra channel...clean or lead.

Since I don't have much experience ( only many moons ago) with either unit, it's going to really depend on which one offers the best tones in your opinion. Are the cleans pretty identical in each? Are the leads pretty smooth in both? Is there anything you like that the other one lacks? From what I've read, it seems the Quad can get more gritty and aggressive ( like the III ) where the Studio will be alot more smooth.

I'm not sure, so if you folks with either ( or both ) units can fill me in, that would be much appreciated in advance. This will help me in trying to get over the great debate and finally settle on a unit. Thanks for your help in advance as it is much appreciated.

 

[markwayne]

Well, I think they are both great choices for different reasons. I have owned both and I still have the Studio pre and I really can't imagine letting it go. So having made that disclaimer:

The quad is an amazing piece. If you need a versatile, live, channel-switcher, it's by far the better choice. You, of course, can easily get two very distinct tones (with zero compromise) and, with a little work (but no compromise), one or two more. However, there is a a lot going on in there and maintenance and repairs and tubes can make it a bit of a money pit if you don't know the history of the unit you end up with.

The studio is a much simpler beast. I've had mine in the shop exactly once in sixteen years (I'm the second owner) and that was to replace caps. The studio is also very versatile, but not in a way that is conducive to live playing. Honestly, I would have to compromise my lead tone to get a truly great, foot-switchable, clean tone. There are great cleans in there and an excellent crunch as well, but you will have to dial them. In short, the studio pre was aptly named.

 

[Shane C]

Howdy, I own a Quad.

There's a review somewhere on here Quad vs Studio if you search. The conclusion was they are 99% similar tone wise so you cant go wrong with either of them for killer tone. The Quad has the studio beat for live use because of the extra channel.. unless you own two studios and get an amp switcher. But make sure you have some way to switch the Quad, either with its dedicated foot-switch or with a midi channel switcher via the 1/4 jacks.

I use Lead 1 for rhythm and lead, Rhythm 2 for my cleans. You just need to dial the input volume on Rhythm 2 at 1.5-2 and its easily just as good as Rhythm 1. Lead 1 just smokes! There's no way Im wasting that channel on clean.


Ch 1 - Rhythm 1: Cleans are just beautiful.

Ch 1 - Lead 1: Its thick smooth and tight, can be very aggressive. And with added PEQ you get some amazing metal tones. :twisted:

Ch 2 - Rhythm 2: Beautiful clean tone to a warm Marshall style mid crunch - I really love this one!

Ch 2 - Lead 2: Sharper and thinner sounding than Lead 1 and also looser, sounds like my old mk3 combo I used to own.


I run my quad through a PEQ dipping the mid range to make it more "modern sounding" for lack of a better word. Ive only had my quad for a few months and so far its easily the best preamp I have ever owned. I sold my Triaxis after getting it.


Ask me anything if you would like to know more.

Shane

 

[Neptical]

Shane, that was an excellent response. That's greatly appreciated kind sir!

Reading your post makes me bring up another question.

You had mentioned getting rid of your Triaxis for the Quad. The Triaxis was another option that's been in my mind lately as well. I thought the Tri would give me a little more variety, especially for more modern-ish metal tones with some great lead sounds. But from what I've gathered, the Tri appears to have more digital sound compared to the Quad that has more organic preamp sound. Not sure...is this true? What made you get rid of your Triaxis to have the Quad?

I love my Mark III's and gathered that the Quad would be a perfect match for them. Any help is much appreciated in advance. Thanks much!

 

[Shane C]

Hey your welcome.

Put simply, the Quad just sounds better than the Triaxis. More definition, more clarity, pleasing mid range, very crunchy. The Quad sounds alive. Where as the Triaxis sounds dull, flat and uninspiring.

I believe one of the main factors of this problem is due to the built in mixer on the 5 band EQ that blends the dry sound with the EQ, the higher its set (read the manual to know more). Basically the only time the Triaxis sounded close to the Quad was when the Dynamic Voice was set on 10!! But then because of the pre-set EQ curves you get a **** load of bass!! So your screwed either way. I disagree with the statement that the Triaxis is digital sounding, slightly compressed maybe.. the EQ just sounds way off compared to a real mark amp and the treble control doesn't respond the same way as the good old treble pull knob!!

Don't get me wrong tho, the Triaxis is a solid unit and sounds good.. just not great. It wasn't until I compared the two that I noticed how much different they really are. The Triaxis a fantastic piece of midi gear with awesome capabilities such as controlling parameters in real time! But how many people actually use it?

But at the end of the day you gotta ask yourself.. do I want 8 average Triaxis tones? or 4 killer Quad tones? or 2 killer Studio Preamp tones? You can buy two Studio Preamp's for the price of one Triaxis! The Quads go for a little more than a Studio tho. Remember the Quad or Studio can be setup to be controlled via midi using a Voodoo labs GCX Audio switcher or control switcher and some others, so you can have the same ease of midi switch-ability like the Triaxis.

Im gunna make a bet you will like the Quad more than your mk3's!!


Shane

 

[Neptical]

Shane..again, killer response man! 8)

Your giving me the worst case of gas yet. LOL :lol:

I've been pretty stoked on picking up a Quad either way, and it sounds like I'd be pretty stoked with one. I'm still planning on running it with one of my Mark III's, though ( in a rollable head/rack case). That'll give me all the versatility that I'll need..no doubt. Thanks for the tip on using the Voodoo Labs GCX switcher. I'm planning on possibly switching to rack effects to get my pedals off the floor so I can use just one board to control everything. Will the GCX be able to control all that? ( amp head/quad,rack effects)

Thanks again, man.

 

[Shane C]

Should I say Im sorry?? :lol:

Honestly I just love the Quad, we had band practice on Sunday and I kept saying to my drummer "listen to this tone man!!" "chug chug" ahhh pure crunch heaven!! :twisted:

And yes the GCX will handle everything you mentioned, they have some cool diagrams on the voodoo lab website showing how to wire together a multi-amp setup. Try and find a late model Quad that has midi if you can, the early models don't have it. That way you wouldn't need a GCX switcher if you just wanted use the Quad on its own, but you'll still need some sort of midi foot controller tho. I advise against adding more rack gear than you need, I started off with one 4U rack now I got two 4U's :lol: a rack with wheels sounds good!!


Shane

 

[Neptical]

Should I say Im sorry?? :lol:

Yes, right this very second! :lol:

Honestly I just love the Quad, we had band practice on Sunday and I kept saying to my drummer "listen to this tone man!!" "chug chug" ahhh pure crunch heaven!! :twisted:

That's friggin' awesome to hear. Killer crunch is exactly what I like. What kind of material do you play?

And yes the GCX will handle everything you mentioned, they have some cool diagrams on the voodoo lab website showing how to wire together a multi-amp setup. Try and find a late model Quad that has midi if you can, the early models don't have it. That way you wouldn't need a GCX switcher if you just wanted use the Quad on its own, but you'll still need some sort of midi foot controller tho. I advise against adding more rack gear than you need, I started off with one 4U rack now I got two 4U's :lol: a rack with wheels sounds good!!

Awesome, that's pretty sweeet. Got to remember the tip on the late model Quad as well. As far as rack gear, it would just be my Furman P/C, Korg Tuner, Intellifex (or) Chameleon for effects, and the Quad...with one of my Mark III's on the bottom head space. Definitely rack on wheels! 8)

Sweeet, thanks again for the GAS. LOL

 

[Danimal]

Don't get me wrong tho, the Triaxis is a solid unit and sounds good.. just not great. It wasn't until I compared the two that I noticed how much different they really are.

This is interesting. I've been recording lately and noticed that I really just kept using the same four or five sounds over and over again out of the 80 presets I've got. My initial thought was "maybe I need a Quad instead." Then I thought, "nah I'm sure I'll use all those modes down the road." Now I'm just plain not so sure. I want to at least TRY a Quad now, you've got me sold on the notion that it's even better than my beloved TriAxis...

 

[Shane C]

That's friggin' awesome to hear. Killer crunch is exactly what I like. What kind of material do you play?

Hard Rock/Metal.

As far as rack gear, it would just be my Furman P/C, Korg Tuner, Intellifex (or) Chameleon for effects, and the Quad...with one of my Mark III's on the bottom head space.

That sounds good, Im using a Digitech 2101 for FX and EQ. Ive been looking at upgrading to a TC Electronics unit but Im being put off by all the bad reviews of both the G major and G major 2 suffering patch changing issues.

Then I thought, "nah I'm sure I'll use all those modes down the road."

I hear ya, I only used 2 modes on the Triaxis - rhythm yellow and lead 2 yellow.

I want to at least TRY a Quad now, you've got me sold on the notion that it's even better than my beloved TriAxis...

I'll say this, out of the box the Triaxis is more modern sounding than the Quad.

When I was comparing the Triaxis and Quad through my VHT 2502 I set both units to a flat EQ and similar tone settings and found the Triaxis has about 6db less mid range presence than the Quad, which makes it sound flat and lifeless. Even when I tried to dial in some more mid's it just sounded worse.

The Quad has that 80's mid range bark and crunch (which I love). But for convincing metal tones I feel it needs more scoop so I add a PEQ and rip out some mid-range (700-800hz) medium Q level and it just sounds amazing. BUT it still retains that bark and crunch!! Which the Triaxis is devoid of no matter that you do.


Shane

 

[Danimal]

I hear ya, I only used 2 modes on the Triaxis - rhythm yellow and lead 2 yellow.

I use them all except the Mark I modes, I have yet to find a use for them. The thing is, I have the Lead modes all set for similar things, so each has a rhythm and lead tone that I go back to even though they all sound pretty much the same. The difference is of course Lead 1 red which is set up to sound like a Rectifier and is a sound I'd miss with the Quad. However, even though it's fun to play around with, I'd probably never record with it because I just don't need anything that heavy.

The Quad has that 80's mid range bark and crunch (which I love)

As do I. I think I'm starting to get sold on the idea...

 

[Shane C]

Danimal,

Do you have a TX4 Triaxis? Mine was a TX5 with the fat mod Recto and honestly it sounded terrible.


Shane

 

[Danimal]

It's definitely a TX4 non fat version. I had a fat mod version years ago and it was horrible and unusable. The original version sounds very close to my old Rectoverb, but just a little too tame because it's not going through the same power section (I've got a 395).

 

[Neptical]

Shane,

So, I found out that the Quad I want to purchase doesn't have the midi so I guess it's the older one. Think this should matter in purchasing it?

Also, I read that the older Quad was based more off the Mark II while the newer one was based more off the Mark III. How true is this? While reading the Mark II version has sort of an old school feel where the Mark III has a more modernish feel ( tighter and more aggressive). If that's anywheres near the truth, then I'd like the later version as you mentioned. You think they're both similar or really that far tonally apart?

I don't know...I guess I'm asking for more help. :lol:

Thanks again, man.

 

[Shane C]

Neptical,

Getting an older Quad only means your going to need a 1/4 jack to midi switcher if your wanting to run the Quad with FX and channel change all at once. The Voodoo lab Control switcher is a great choice if your on a budget and only want to control the just Quad and no other amps, it has four channel inputs and cost only $140us. Look on Ebay or Amazon.

Otherwise your going need the GCX or equivalent if you want to incorporate another amp like your MK3, which is a great idea btw.

Also, I read that the older Quad was based more off the Mark II while the newer one was based more off the Mark III. How true is this? While reading the Mark II version has sort of an old school feel where the Mark III has a more modernish feel ( tighter and more aggressive). If that's anywheres near the truth, then I'd like the later version as you mentioned. You think they're both similar or really that far tonally apart?

Where did you read this? Sounds like someone has confused that info with this: Channel one of the Quad is based off the MKIIC/MKIIC+, Channel 2 is based off the MK3.

All Quads sound the same as far as I know, I could be wrong? Best to email Mesa and ask. Ive read a **** load of posts regarding the Quad and never read anything like that. Even If someone had two Quads side by side and claimed they sounded different there is a lot of factors that could be involved like tubes and capacitors which can affect the tone. If there were differences I wouldn't consider it anything to worry about.

My Quad is old and sounds bad *** baby! Built in 88. I did re-cap it recently tho, a few Capacitors were leaking so I changed the whole lot. That's something to consider when buying old gear!

Peace!

 

[Neptical]

Thanks, Shane! Yeah, I'll probably have to use the GCX since I really plan on incorporating my Mark III into the rig. I'm hoping it takes to the III's power section well enough..although from what I've heard it even seems to sound pretty **** good like that as well.

Yeah, that old vs. new Quad story is just browsing through the internet reading one persons take on it. Thought I'd check in with you to see if it was really true. Either way, I'm stoked to pick one up. Sounds like these things are beastly. I've read numerous times though that this is one of Mike B.'s favorites, and highly recommended. Of course, all this is no cure for my gas. :lol:

 

[Danimal]

Where did you read this?

http://forum.grailtone.com/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=47177

 

[Shane C]

Hey, thanks for the link.

Now Im curious to know which model mine is.

I still think there's too many factors that can affect the tone from unit to unit like bad resistors, bad caps etc etc (When I recapped, the floor noise was reduced, tone improved) And without another comparison or some info from an authority on the matter were just going to propagate more hear-say.

I could add more fuel to this fire, I read late model Triaxis's sound better than old ones! See how that works? :lol:
I learnt something from that post tho that I didnt know! I wondered why the pull deep knob didn't seem to do anything.

Main out & recording A: Deep works only in channel 1
Main out & recording B: Deep works only in channel 2
Effects send: Deep doesn't works in any channels

Here's an idea.. how about pull deep working on both channels!! :shock:

Shane \m/

 

[Neptical]

Shane...how does the "Hidden Treasures" two switch sound??? That's sounds really bad a$$. I'm really excited to hear that. Still curious on the old vs. new Quad but as you mentioned, I'm betting there's too many factors to be introduced to make any difference...if any. Interesting note on the 'pull deep' feature. Looks like I'll have to take my pick on that one. I really like it to add that big sound to my rhythm on my III's, so I'd probably take channel 2 for that and keep channel 1 for the leads. Who knows..just speculating. I'd like to get some nice Fender cleans going as well which I know the unit has plenty to offer.

Just sorting my brain out what I want to do. I'd be interested in comparing it side by side to one of the Studio's if I can find one for pretty cheap after the Quad.

 

[Whoopysnorp]

Where did you read this?

http://forum.grailtone.com/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=47177

Without having second examples of 1Ds and 1Es to use as comparisons, we can't really say the difference is due to the model variation. In my experience, Boogie gear simply differs from piece to piece, especially the older stuff (which could be due to the components aging in various ways). Probably not to the degree that old Marshalls do, but these are still hand-built, living, breathing pieces of equipment.