ShamefulAddiction
Well-known member
- Joined
- Aug 23, 2008
- Messages
- 62
- Reaction score
- 0
So I've noticed some things recently in experiementing with the FX loop of my tremoverb...
Especially with my DD6. The feedback (echo count) seems much cleaner and better off when set in front of the amp than in the effects loop. Same with my SC9 chorus. Ultimately this led to me to havea ll of my effects in front of the amp and none in the effects loop.
When my DD6 would have the last couple of repeats they would seem very muffled almost "buzzing" sounding... I had my send/mix settings at about 10-25/90 respectively and all the results were the same. I put the DD6 in front of the amp and it sounded great. Almost mimicked an anologue in its taper, so I'm wondering.. have others had issues with the performance of their parallel FX loops? Is this the nature of the beast? It's no problem for me to bypass the loop completely and just run everything in front... but it just seems superfluous for Mesa to have put a parallel loop in the mix if these are the results it gives.
Especially with my DD6. The feedback (echo count) seems much cleaner and better off when set in front of the amp than in the effects loop. Same with my SC9 chorus. Ultimately this led to me to havea ll of my effects in front of the amp and none in the effects loop.
When my DD6 would have the last couple of repeats they would seem very muffled almost "buzzing" sounding... I had my send/mix settings at about 10-25/90 respectively and all the results were the same. I put the DD6 in front of the amp and it sounded great. Almost mimicked an anologue in its taper, so I'm wondering.. have others had issues with the performance of their parallel FX loops? Is this the nature of the beast? It's no problem for me to bypass the loop completely and just run everything in front... but it just seems superfluous for Mesa to have put a parallel loop in the mix if these are the results it gives.
