TriAxis vs Studio Pre

[helen_bach]

Hi!
I know first post, and possibly a touchy area... sorry for that ahead of time, but I do seriously need some feedback. Please.

I have owned a TriAxis for several years. I only really use Lead 2, tend toward the Green sometimes, Yellow others. Lead 1 does not really "do it" for me at all, and for cleans I have other options I typically use, though the Rhythm channels are decent enough.I have played with a few tube combos for Lead 2, and currently have my fav so far: Brimar ECC83's from the 70's in V2 and V4. They just... smooth.. creamy.. articulate...

I am aware of the Op-Amp, and it's function between the Master and Dynamic Voice sections (V3 relation as well). Never had an issue with noise, and never had any issues with the Op-Amp getting hit too hard.

I hit a point where I was going to dump my tube amps and go with a new solution. It did not live up to my expectations, and I luckily held onto my TriAxis. I thought for a bit, and figured since i only really use Lead 2 Green and Yellow, why not buy a Studio Preamp and sell the TA? Should get me in the same ballpark, maybe even make the grass a bit greener. I bought one in absolutely beautiful shape. Very, very little wear.. extremely clean and well kept. Unfortunately, I keep going back to my TA. (sigh)

I really wanted the Studio to be "it" for my Mesa sound. I owned a Quad years ago, but the TA came almost a decade later, so comparison through memory wasn't happening. The Studio is nice, but it just... doesn't do it. When I do a nice Lead 2 Green or Yellow patch with Volume at about 6-7, Lead Gain about 5-7, Mids 7, Treble 6-7, Bass 3, Presence and Dynamic Voice 0, Master 5.. and use the output pots to adjust output volume.. well, I simply cannot get the Studio to come close enough. It feels.. Squishy? Not as articulate for sure. A bit fizzier maybe too. Low end is not as tight; I can back the Bass down to 0 or near 0 to allow the preamp tubes to do their work without the low end muddying it up, and ad it in with the EQ after, but it still.. well, falls short for me. Oh- Reverb on 0 on the Studio. If i kept it, first mod would be plucking that bit of kit out.

With the TA, if I do a patch like described, and then go from that to setting the Dynamic Voice to 1, it is a pretty drastic change. I have used a graphic EQ in the effects loop of the TA to sorta emulate the graphic EQ on the Mesa Mark heads, since the "Dynamic Voice" really does not allow proper tailoring, an alters the sound so drastically simply by "engaging" it (setting to 1 or higher instead of 0); this was one of the reasons I wanted the Studio Pre to be "all that" so I could dump the TA. I figured it would sound similar (at least) to the TA on Lead 2 Yellow with the Dynamic Voice at 0, and with the EQ off on the Studio. Adding in the graphic EQ on the Studio would be similar to when I ran the outboard EQ with the TA... but I cannot even get close.

Did I happen upon a "golden TriAxis" and a dud of a Studio Preamp somehow? Anything I might try to get the Studio to "sing" a bit more? I am using tube and solid state power amps, and I can tailor the TA to perform VERY well with both. I am not doing high gain.. far from it. High gain gets too "furry" and the articulation goes to pot for me (just for me! it is just for my playing style).

Thanks for any help or feedback!

 

[Whoopysnorp]

I assume you've experimented with tube choices in the Studio Pre? Also, what are you using for a power amp?

In my Studio, I have Tung-Sol reissue 12AX7s in V1 and V2 and Shuguang 12AX7s in the other positions (can't remember what 12AT7 I put in the reverb driver position but like you, I leave the reverb at 0 anyway). I was thinking I might try swapping V2 and V3, since V3 is the tube that generates the lead drive, but I'm quite happy with the sound of it as it is. I'm using mine through the effects return of a Mark III, though until recently I used a Simul 395 (incredibly awesome power amp). For me, the Studio Pre is The Thing, but for you it might not be. If you like the Triaxis better, then that's the right choice for you.

Still, make sure you have quality tubes in there before you make your decision! Oh, also, it might not hurt to have it recapped, since it's probably around the right age for it. I haven't recapped my Studio Pre yet, but I did recap my Studio .22 combo, and it made a huge difference in the boldness and clarity of the sound.

 

[helen_bach]

Hi!
Thx for the reply!

I actually swapped the ECC83's I love over. I put one in V3; I checked the schematic, and seeing what was where doing what, I tried V3 and V2 first, then V3 and V1. I popped the tubes from the Studio into the TA, and the TA was still doing well for me. After that, I had the really bad feeling that the Studio would require some time and work to get it feeling like "me." I cannot even recall all the guitars I have gone through finding the ones that were "me," and even then it took time to fine tune things. The TA was similar, but it was simply a little fine tuning and then the tubes cinched it.

I really wanted the Studio to do it, but I am feeling more and more that it simply was not meant to be. I need to sell one of them, and if I recap the Studio, I am afraid I will lose value since it won't be all original any more. I would love to try one with the C+ mod, and take the time to figure how to completely bypass the reverb circuit (including the tube),and try some premium Sozo's, tailor some other parts of the circuit, etc... but, if it still did not fit... eeek...

 

[JT_Marshmallow]

I had a thread about the Studio Pre vs Triaxis comparison here:

http://forum.grailtone.com/viewtopic.php?t=27023&start=0&postdays=0&postorder=asc&highlight=

I know it doesn't answer your question, but I'm sure some info there will aid you in your tonal search.

 

[helen_bach]

Hi!
Thanks!
I did not know all that specific info on the TA, but from hitting the schematic and trying to figure what they were doing what with where and all, it was pretty obvious how people could easily abuse it and get horrible results. The amount of misinformation (modeller, emulator, digital preamp, etc) completely baffled me. I could not understand (at first) why anyone would think that.

Enagaging the Dynamic Voice circuit (although technically signal is always passing through V3 and the two *ends* of the op-amp) irked me in how it jumps from what seems to be one tone to a drastically different tone. I would love to completely remove it from the circuit, and remove the FX loop as well. But, the devalue it would bring.. (sigh). As it is, I simply avoid using either, and utilize effects/EQ pre or post unit.. and then very sparingly.

It is not the same as a single channel A/B type amp head, no way it could be. I do not expect it, never have. But I am just at a loss for the incredible difference in tone between any of the Lead circuits and the Studio Pre. Considering the statements I have seen claiming the Studio Pre to be a *copy* (more or less.. close enough) of a IIc (people even do a mod to go IIc+), and that the Lead 2 circuit in the TA is supposed to have one mode that does the IIc.. well, I figured the two could at least come close in sound.

So, I guess I overcomplicated things...
Bottom line, and what I probably should have asked:

SHOULD the TA be able to produce a similar sound to the Studio Preamp when used for a "classic rock" type gain sound (Studio Preamp with Volume, say, 6-7, Lead Gain about 5-7.. does Lead Master matter that much? I have tried 4-9 on it)? Vice-versa? Or are the two completely different tonal animals, with the two never really producing a similar tone, except for lower gain or clean(ish) sounds? Ignore the DYnamic Voice, and ignore the graphic EQ on the Studio Preamp.. I can add an EQ post if I want one. For me, using Lead 2 Green or Yellow vs the Studio Preamp is like... hmmm.. almost as drastically different as JCM800 vs JCM900. Or maybe.. JMP 2203 Super Lead MV (late 70's) vs JCM800 2203 early 80's?