Studio VS. Quad Preamps

The Boogie Board

Help Support The Boogie Board:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

4nkam

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 2, 2005
Messages
460
Reaction score
0
Location
juneau, ak/phoenix, az
Alrighty, well I've had the Studio and Quad preamps for about a month and in that time, I've been able to get more familiar with the tones that are inside these sweet units. I know that from time to time, there are folks that are curious about how these two compare so I thought I'd throw out an example of how I've been using them and describe the similarities/differences. The STUDIO sections are in BLUE and the QUAD sections are in RED

(these are NOT the settings I used, just a pic I thought I'd put up)
quad1.jpg


Preamps:

The Mesa Boogie Studio and Quad are two sweet preamps from the 80s and their tone lies directly within the Mark Series. The Studio is based on the IIC preamp section and the Quad is based on the IIC (Channel 1) and III (Channel 2). The Quad Channel 1 is basically the same as the Studio preamp, BUT the Quad has three additional controls in the form of pull pots (bass shift, treble shift, mid deep). Because of this, I'm not really going to focus on the Quad Channel 2 since it's really not fair.

Setting:

I like a wide variety of music and because of that, I also like to play a wide variety of music. So I usually try and squeeze as many tones out of whatever I'm using and if I can do it, without much compromise. The bottom line for me when it comes to tones are two straightup categories: Blues and Metal/Hard Rock.

To compare the preamps, I kept these two tones in mind and used two guitars, my alder Jackson dinky with Duncan 59s (split) and my mahogany explorer with EMG 81/60.

Bluesy Tones:

I have actually been playing the Quad more than the Studio, that's what I've been dialing my tones in on. So what I did was this: I fired up the Quad at decent bedroom levels and made sure it's the tone I had been using and liked. I tweaked it a bit and then switched over to the Studio, dialed in the same settings that were on Quad Channel 1 (basically the same as the Studio). Once both preamps' rotary and EQ settings were identical, they were not changed.

The Studio preamp has two modes, rhythm and lead. I started out with my Jackson for the blues tones with the EQ engaged on both rythm and lead modes.. The Rhythm mode provided a really crisp, FAT, round, punchy clean tone. It didn't break up, but it was very responsive to pick attack.

Next up was the Quad Channel 1, rhythm mode with the EQ Engaged. I started playing the same basic lines/riffs and noticed that this tone was also very clean and responded nicely to pick attack, but the low end wasn't as fat as the Studio's. I checked the settings again to make sure it was the same as the Studio's and it was :) But the tone I was getting wasn't quite as thick as the Studio's tone UNTIL I pulled the volume bright, bass shift and mid deep controls. That really brought more life out of the tone and it was pretty much identical to the Studio's tone. Now remember, the Studio ONLY has a bright switch on the Rhythm mode.

Back to the Studio, lead mode. This also has the EQ engaged. All I can say is this is a very sweet sound. It has a lot of sustain and enough gain to play nice and fluidly. It's your stereotypical Santana lead type of voicing, plenty of gain to play solos with but remain very clear and crisp.


Next up was the Quad Channel 1 lead mode with the EQ engaged. Again, this sound was pretty much on the money 100% with the Studio tone. Maybe even better thanks to the additional pull controls.

I also switched over to the Quad Channel two rhythm mode for awhile. This is the perfect tone in between clean and lead. It's nice and dirty, great for blues rock rhythm playing.


So to recap the Bluesy tones, I didn't change any settings at all, only the pull pots on the Quad Ch1 to bump the low end up to the same level of the Studio's. This provided a nearly identical tone :)

Metal/Hard Rock Tones

Out comes the Explorer loaded with EMGs :) First up was the Studio, rhythm mode. I didn't like this tone much, the EMGs were really overloading the tone so I took the EQ out. That helped things a LOT and the clean tone was pretty much perfect. Round, thick and fat with a smooth high end that provided enough sparkle to the tone but didn't dominate the mix.

Switching over to the Quad Channel 1 rhythm mode, the clean tone was pretty much the same, so out went the EQ.

Studio lead mode was kinda flat, so I put the EQ BACK IN and that really brought things to life once again. The tone was nice and crunchy, a lot more gain than the bluesy tone. The EMGs really do a nice job of bringing that tone out more than the low output passives.

Quad Channel 1 lead mode was the same deal, flat without the EQ so I brought it back IN. I must say, the lead tones seem to be smoother on the Quad Channel 1 than Channel 2.

I also tested out the Quad Channel 2 rhythm mode but it wasn't working for me, it was just kinda brittle sounding. It works well with the passives, but not with the EMGs pushing the gain up.


Conclusion:
-The Studio seems to have a more prominent low end response than the Quad does. BUT the Quad can get this tone once you pull a few of the controls (bass shift, mid deep). This also might have been due to tube differences.

-With 2 different guitars, I could basically have two different rigs while using the Quad, WITHOUT changing settings other than taking the EQ OUT while using EMGs:

-The blues tones can be had while using lower output pickups. R1 gives you cleans, R2 gives you dirty grinding rhythm, LD1 gives you a SWEET solo tone full of sustain and soul. LD2 is just over the top leads.


Metal/Hard Rock tones can be had while using higher output pickups. R1 gives you a really nice clean, round fat and full of life, R2 is pretty much useless IMO, LD1 has a nice crunch and smooth sustain, excellent leads. LD2 is perfect for my main heavy crunch tone.


-The EQ really brings out the soul of the both preamps. I have to turn it off when using EMGs for my straightup clean tone though, it's just too much gain and starts to breakup.

MJ
 
Thank you for such an in depth comparasion! I have a Quad that I absolutely love and have always been curious about the studio. I feel that the Quad is the most unique sounding preamp you can buy, not to mention extremely versatile. It's amazing how it can be made to fit YOUR style and sound perfectly. It takes awhile but it can be done. It's so dynamic, I think of it more as an instrument than an amp, it's part of my voice.

Thank you again, based on your evaluation it sounds like I should pick up a Studio Pre as well.


Jason
 
I was using a Studio Pre for 1.5 year, I made several studio recordings with that gem. Now I have had a Quad pre for more than half a year, so I know both of them very well. My opinion is that the Studio pre is the Rectifier of the mark series. Has a huge, very thick very fat growling sound like rocks rolling. But has missing frequencies in sound. The strenght of the studpre is its thickness. A simple monster. But to my ears the Quadpre has the professional sound. It simple sounds professional. Very detailed, valuable, perfect frequency ranges, there are no unnecessary frequencies. Compressed, smoother and has more sustain than the studpre. Top high end quality sound. Both channels do that, not mentioning the unlimited variety of settings, the Quad can create many many type of characters. So describing it simple, the Studpre is the cloud, and the Quadpre is the water to my ears. But it`s a matter of taste of course, both unit is a good choice.
 
I've owned in the past ADA MP-1, Marshall JMP-1, Digitech 2101, Rocktron Voodu Valve, Quad preamp, Triaxis, and then went back to quad preamp. Imo there are only a few preamps that can measure up with quad preamp, since it just sounds awesome, CAE 3+SE might be better but I don' t care... I've found my tone allready. Next thing to buy is another quad for more sounds (bad thing for quad is that it has same controls for rhythm 1 and lead 1, also for rhythm 2, lead 2.) That way you can't really get the most out of all sounds available. No MIDI support is the biggest minus for quad preamp... Come on MESA Implant MIDI in your preamps(3axis is ok)! This would make a gigging musician's life much easier...
 
I also compared the Studio Pre to the Quad Pre and had the same results.

As I allways prefered the Quad´s 1st Channel and allways used Bass Shift and Pull Deep as I do on my MK IIC+s , I am completely pleased with the Studio Pre .... except one thing: the reverb.

Quad uses two tanks, a small one and a large one in parallel.
Studio only has a small one stock and it is not as good sounding.
The Quad´s reverb is the best tube reverb I ever heard. I like it more than HighClass digital reverbs like G-Force, Intellifex, Lexicon, ...

I noticed that the reverb transformer is the same in Studio and Quad ...
... I asked some techs if I would damage something if I try out two reverb tanks. They said: no risc.

So I tryed out to add a large reverb tank to the Studio Preamp as it is done in the Quad.

It is working perfect. This reverb is so rich, warm and deep ... I´m going to try out this trick in my MK II C+s , too.
 
Great stuff! :D Nice to get some answers about the differences & similarities. You dont have any clips of the Studio and Quad?
 
4nkam said:
This also might have been due to tube differences.
Thank you for your thoughtful writeup, MJ! Very cool!

I highlighted the sentence above, not to detract from your observations, but to just mention that, in my experience, Mesa preamps really respond to changes in tubes. This means that you can take a good preamp, and optimize it for your own tastes, to become a stellar pre!

Glad to have your excellent comparisons.

- T
 
4nkam said:
Alrighty, well I've had the Studio and Quad preamps for about a month...
did you buy them together?Wasn't the Quad enough to cover your musical style (if it is really capable, whit a little tweaking, to obtain the Studio sound)?Or did you buy also the Studio just to have another "channel" whith the great sound which both preamps can produce?
Last question: you told me about the C+ mod for the studio (is it worth modding the studio?)... is lead mode of channel 1 of the quad like the the studio lead mode with C+ mod?
 
Satchie said:
I've owned in the past ADA MP-1, Marshall JMP-1, Digitech 2101, Rocktron Voodu Valve, Quad preamp, Triaxis, and then went back to quad preamp. Imo there are only a few preamps that can measure up with quad preamp, since it just sounds awesome, CAE 3+SE might be better but I don' t care... I've found my tone allready. Next thing to buy is another quad for more sounds (bad thing for quad is that it has same controls for rhythm 1 and lead 1, also for rhythm 2, lead 2.) That way you can't really get the most out of all sounds available. No MIDI support is the biggest minus for quad preamp... Come on MESA Implant MIDI in your preamps(3axis is ok)! This would make a gigging musician's life much easier...
AMEN BROTHER
 
What were the settings you used for the quad? Having recently gotten one I want to try different settings to find the tone I want.
 
I don't know about you but I got my Quad home last night and I already have it sounding identical to my studio.
 
Back
Top