Conference napalm::guitar

        First thing that I would think is important, is to define
    your needs (or wants). It's like trying to do your homework
    on a new car. Things like "what will I REALLY use it for?"
    Do I want stereo channels? What is the minimum I can get by 
    with? Etc...
        I play Bass, but I chose an amp and cab setup that gives me the
    most flexibility. Things like the options : I wanted the ability
    to go Bi-Amped, Mono/Stereo, Parametric EQ, Limiting, Aural-
    enhancement, and different speaker combinations. I paid royally
    for it but I got what wanted.
    
    
    /John

    Joe, I personally do not need the programmability, in fact I find
    that having to use midi to control a guitar amp is a disadvantage.
    
    But the unit you mentioned, the Mesa Boogie studio preamp does not
    have any programmability at all. It is totally an analog preamp,
    not unlike the preamps in old Fender or Marshall amps. I own one of
    these and I find the optional features found in this preamp are very
    down to earth. 
    
    Let's talk specifics:
    
    	Front panel - The front panel has controls for the two channels.
    It has gain and volume for the clean channel, Bass treble and mid eq
    controls (shared by both channels), reverb, and gain and volume for
    the lead channel. Mesa also included a few rocker switches for bright
    and fat circuits. No black magic there. Theres nothing unusual about
    the graphic EQ, either. The output levels controls are very handy. They
    allow you to tweak the preamp gain and volumes to taste, without having
    to adjust one channel to compensate for the other. They also allow
    you to drive a power amp with one side, and drive the other side into
    a recording mixer.
    
    	Rear panel - The rear panel has two sets of outputs, Main outputs
    which are designed to drive a power amp, and recording outputs which
    simulate the sound of a tube amp loaded by speakers. Also found on the
    rear panel is the footswitch jacks. These are standard 1/4" jacks which
    are designed to work with regular "short to ground" switches. They give
    you the option of using separate switches for the reverb and eq, or a
    dual switch with a stereo jack. There is also an efx loop with a switch
    to select the drive level to match the loop to line level or instrument
    level efx. The loop has stereo returns.
    
    There is an input on the rear as well as front panel. There is also a 
    channel switch jack on both the front and back panel. This preamp does
    not have 3 channels as you mentioned in .0. It has two channels. You
    can get four differant tones out of it by kicking the EQ in and out,
    but it really only has two channels. The clean channel really doesn't
    crunch much either. 
    
    Granted, not everyone needs *ALL* of the functions of this preamp, but
    many players want stereo, and without the speaker emulating outputs, it
    wouldn't be much of a "recording preamp" now would it. 
    
    The Hughes and Kettner preamps may fit the bill for many players, but
    they are missing many important features. They don't have efx loops,
    reverb, and I don't even think they channel switch. I wanted to demo
    them anyways, but could not find any dealers with the "Blues Master"
    and "Crunch Master" in stock that I could demo. I can't comment on the
    sound of any of these preamps as I haven't demoed them. If they sound
    good, and fit the bill for you, then buy one. 
    
    I think I get the jist of your' note, but I think you should have used
    differant examples to make your' point like the ADA MP1 preamp which has
    128 patches controlled via midi. This is more in line with the "Rocket
    Scientist" scenario you mentioned, although MP1 owners will argue that
    it is very simple to use.
    
	Mark
    

    
    Like John in .1, I bought a fully featured bass amp last time I
    upgraded.  I wanted to assure myself of an amp that would carry me for
    ten years or more.  However, I find myself using very few of its myriad
    of controls.  The EQ stays flat unless, in a given room,  the amp
    sounds "boinky" (I'll cut at 800 Hz) or thin (I'll raise the bass a
    notch to 1:00).  That's it.  I think it's good to have all the EQ
    options, limiter, crossover, etc. in case I come up with a situation
    that calls for it.
    
    As far as guitar amps with controls getting out of hand, I look at it
    this way:  If the amp has a good basic tone, fine, a few controls will
    do the trick.  Old Fenders are a good case in point.  You plug in, it
    sounds nice, need some dirt, add a Tube Screamer and you're flying.  
    
    At home I may play around with all kinds of crazy processing on guitar
    for taping and get some nice sounds, but it seems too fussy to try this
    live.  Maybe it's my bassist mentality and C&W background, which led to
    an extreme KISS attitude.  If I can't arrive at the gig and be ready to
    play in five minutes, it's too complex...
    
    								Brian 
    

    When playing bass, I have an old Marshall and Vox 2 x 15 that suit me
    fine. For guitar I use an old Vox amp (like a smaller version of an
    AC30). Control on both is pretty minimal, but the basic sounds suit me.
    
    Bob

    
    Another thing to keep in mind....If you check the H&K adds, they 
    almost always show a guitarist sitting in front of a rack with 3 
    preamp modules in front of him. I guess they are advocating that
    you buy more than one preamp and switch around to get the variety 
    of sounds. If you do this, you will end up spending just as much
    money (if not more) than the price of a Mesa boogie studio. How
    would you switch from one preamp to another ? The absence of a
    reverb in these preamps dictates that you would have to use them 
    with a separate reverb unit, adding even more cost, and additional
    wiring and rack space.
    
    Keeping things simple definately has it's merits, but there are
    certain minimal functions needed, and reverb is definately one of
    them. Channel switching is another necessity IMHO. The H&K preamp
    have neither.
    
    I also have to wonder how road-worthy the H&K preamps are. I also
    wonder if they are well suited to live situations, or if they are
    really only useful in a studio environment.
    
    Mark
    

      No doubt my KH amps have a lot of flexibility built into the 
    controls. Especially when coupled with the GSP-21 effects unit.
    On a combo (or head) I prefer having seperate tone controls for each
    channel as well as independant preamp and master levels. That way I can 
    always dial in the right amount of crunch and sizzle. 
      The one amp I kick myself for not buying when I had the chance was
    VERY simple in its layout. Two channels, non-switching, just volume, 
    treble, and bass for each channel and reverb (7 knobs, that's all,
    not even a master volume). I had a chance to pick it up for $400
    and I regret not jumping on it. It was a rare VOX AC-40 tube amp
    head made in England. It was a forty watt class A amp that just
    sounded like a million bucks. Not only did it sound great, I'm sure
    it's a collectors item as well.
    
    							-john R

The most flexable amp I've ever owned in my rivera. The next best thing is
my testerossa preamp...in terms of flexability for performance either the
quattro or testerossa has it hands down on the rivera...in terms of flexability
for "tone" the rivera wins hands down.

What I feel I need for performance is the flexability to set up a minimum of
4 guitar sounds (pre effects), either of my kitties will do this, the rivera
won't.

I keep thinking I'm going to midi up and get real flexable but as I think on
my "programming" strategy for the controller and look at how I use my current
stomp switches I have some serious concerns on being able to maintain my 
current level of flexability. Too many preamp options spoil the program soup...

dbii

    To me (or IMHO), it is ESENTIAL to have EQ for as many channels as
    your rig has...Well, I mean if you have a two channel rig, you should
    have two EQ's.  My Kitty M3 had one EQ for clean AND dirty.  To me
    that amp, while nice sounding, was not flexable at all.
    
    MIDI allows me to have two OD levels, a master and a BUNCH of EQ
    settings (up to 128).  Simply verstile....Errr, versatile anyway.
    ...But I enjoy programming it; admittedly, it's not for everyone.
    
    My one complaint about the MP1 is the high-tech "processed" sound. 
    It's impossible to get that raw-raunchy-clean sound you'd get from a
    beat up old  Marshall JTM45, Fender Twin - whatever.  I guess it
    depends on if you'd consider that important.  When I play the blues, I
    WANT that unrefined sound... When I play metal, I want pure clean
    distortion.
    
    Bottom line ?  Will one amp do it all ?  IMHO, nope.
    When my sick Marshall is repaired, I'll be a VERY happy camper...
    But I'll never get rid of my MP1 (he sez now, knowing the effects of
    GTS).
         

-.1 is close.  A single amp can't and won't ever be able to do it.  But, lots
of companies are going to try to convince you their new whoopie unit can give
you every sound imaginable ... I'm sure the new Boogie sounds great; I'm also
sure it has too many controls (I have a MKIII, which has too many controls).

What I'd really like is four or five amps designed specifically for one sound 
each.  They'd have the following controls: volume, bass, mid, treble, effects
loop.  Then I'd have four or five switches at my feet.  Press one and I get 
the sound I want. Want more sounds; add more amps. 

But, I'd could never affort it; so I use a multipurpose amp, which does a few 
sounds pretty well. As for a big rack; I don't know, most of the ones I've 
heard sound processed -- kind of like chicken parts.  I suppose if you spent 
*enough* money on your rack it wouldn't sound like guitarist-in-a-box.

steve

    Re: .8, .9
    
    I dunno, saying one amp can't do it all is kind of defeatist. 
    Theoretically one amp *might* be able to do it all, but by whose
    standards?  That's the real problem.  Some companies are definitely
    attacking the problem, like Duncan with their interchangable tube
    modules, or ADA with the MP-1, the idea being to attempt to offer a
    "programmable" setup that can get any tone you might want.
    
    Are we there yet?  Of course not.  But we're a hell of a lot closer than
    twenty years ago.  Besides, wouldn't you want to have an amp that does
    it all?  Multiple amp setups are no picnic.
    
    Meanwhile, we bass players are having a grand old time.  One amp has
    done us just fine for a long, long time.
    
    							Brian

Ok, I won't be so defeatist.  One amp might be able to do everything if it was
really 5 or 6 amps specifically designed for one really-good sound each... :)

Just kidding; you're probably right.

re: multiple amp setups.  You are right; they are not a picnic. 

>>Meanwhile, we bass players are having a grand old time.  One amp has
>>done us just fine for a long, long time.
  
Yes and I, for one, am jealous of that fact :) !  I'd rather spend time playing
rather than trying to find a decent tone (oh, I know, that's part of the deal,
blah, blah...).

steve 

    Devil's advocate:  the select few that have found the tone to
    complement their signature style only take advantage of a couple
    sounds.  
    
    If you know the sound you want, you won't need an amp to copy everyone
    on the radio.
    
    Mike

    re: Mr. Debil                                             
    
    Not to claim that I have a "signature style" or anything, but the
    band I'm currently with plays all original music and I use 10 different
    sounds from my MP-1 (one full bank) at different times in only about
    7-8 songs.
    
    Granted, I only use about 5-6 of them often (like I would use at least
    one-two of that five in EVERY song) and two of those are just
    variations on the same basic sound (clean, clean with chorus).  I guess
    if it came down to it, I'd say I use four basic amp sounds (not
    counting efx):
    
    1) warm and clean
    2) crunch rhythm distortion 
    3) smoother kind of singing distortion
    4) biting lead distortion with more gain and top end
    
    I could get #1 and #2 from my Kitty Hawk M3 amp alone (I modeled my
    MP-1 presets for them after it), but couldn't get 3 and 4.
    
    Greg

    
    ;^)
    See, with Greg beating his head against the wall trying to come up 
    with different sounds, I just sit back, use 3 presets on my dsp128+,
    2 channels on my Boogie(most of the time, I just go clean or lead),
    and use the EQ to boost my solo level.
    
    Everytime Greg changes his sound, my rig sounds a little different.
    It's that context thing, you know?
    ;^)
    
    Seriously, I found the control on my Mesa MKIII to be VERY confusing 
    when I first brought it home.  It certainly took me a while.  Now I 
    find them to be very accomodating for the material we are doing.
    
    J.

    
    Oh, by the way, Mike...  Listening to just one Satch CD will tell you
    that he is indeed using all kinds of different effects, and few
    different amps...
    
    J.

    I agree that no amp can produce every tone you could ever want, 
    perfectly. But there are many amps that provide 2-4 sounds that
    are excellant and can be tailored to meet almost any type of 
    requirement. 
    
    The bottom line is that we could make a career out of trying to
    pin down *that ultimate tone* or we could make a career out of
    playing music. What's more important ?
    
    I'm pretty fussy about tone, but apparently not quite as fussy as
    some players.  I bit the bullet and paid a high price for both my 
    Twin and my studio preamp. I am determined to make the most of out
    them.
    
    Mark
     

    Well, as Mark J. may debate, the reason I LIKE the KH QT preamp, aside
    from the sound, if the flexibility!  I mean, it's flexible without
    being overtly confusing control-wise.
    
    Buck, who's scared to mess with a Msa MKIV!

    Buck, I won't debate you on the sound or flexibility of the Quattro.
    I didn't recieve a manual with mine, yet I figured out how to use it
    in about 5 minutes. 
    
    The only reason I traded mine in  was because I couldn't do direct 
    recording off of it (to my satisfaction) and that was the major
    justification for buying a preamp. 
    
    To be honest, though, all the horror stories about blown transformers
    and other problems kind of scared me, and that was another reason not
    to keep it.
    
    Anyways, back to the base note. It would be nice if a simple box
    like the H&K blues master could fit the bill, but I really believe
    it would leave me wanting a lot more.
    
    Mark

    Ooops, sorry if I seemed to mis-quote you then, Mark.  I thought moreso
    (that the recording thing) that you somehow didn't really care for the
    sound.  I stand corrected!  ;^)
    
    B.

    
    	As time goes on & I get older, I find myself going more & more 
    in the "less-is-more" vein; years ago, I looked at guitarists like 
    Adrian Belew and tried to work towards that direction; heavy into
    technology to produce that kind of controlled yet manic sound.
    
    	In recent times, I've gone back to where I started-- B.B. King,
    my first (and biggest) guitar hero.
    
    	With that in light, my ideal amp would be medium-sized (no
    stacks!), all-tube, one treble, one midrange, one bass, and 2 volume
    knobs. An old spring reverb would be nice, too. That's about it.
    
    	Granted, one amp will never do it all. Personally, my favorite
    totally clean sound comes from a Roland Jazz Chorus; but it gets
    the absolute worst distortion sound as far as I'm concerned. But
    I'm just not really interested in having a bunch of amps. I prefer
    to use a variety of guitars in order to get different sounds.
    
    	I do use effects, but I keep it at a minimum; I prefer "stomp-
    boxes", although I do use a rack-mount delay. I've never heard any
    kind of distortion unit, rack-mount or not, that could touch an
    Ibenez Tube-Screamer. I've been using one for years.
    
    	Everybody has different preferences & different goals, and different 
    pieces of equipment will fit the needs of each particular player.
    Ultimately, all that matters is the sound that comes out of the amp,
    and whatever it takes to get that sound is okay by me... you've all
    got my blessing. :-)
    
    
    When A Guitar Plays The Blues,
    
    Brad Page
     
    
     

    
    	Well, seems we have covered all 4 quadrants with our opinions!
    It was interesting to hear that one person _likes_ programming in up to
    128 possibilities, while another would like to switch among different
    amps...
    
    But I heard a lot said for the simpler approach, and it seems that
    at least 3 tone controls, besides a volume or two and some effect
    capability (springs or loop), stand out as necessary for the
    minimalist setup.
    
    What do people think of the GT amp that's actually two seperate amps
    in one chassis, that you can switch between? I take it you can even
    "tube up" each side differently, yet, you're still limited to *this*
    sound or *that* sound...not 5 or 6 differences.

    I'm just AMAZED at what's out there, in looking through any of the
    latest guitar rags. You can even get a device to drive your Fender 
    Twin's tube output section with the preamp of your choice! 
    
    	Joe

    Groove Tube preamps and amps are definately esoteric devices. They
    are generally very unique, and aimed at a very limited market. 
    
    I believe the power amp is designed around the principle that "only
    power-tube distortion will do....preamp distortion just doesn't
    produce the sweet overdriven sound that works best for guitar". 
    Rather than switching preamp channels, this beast allows you to
    switch power amp channels. An interesting concept, and I'm sure
    it probably sounds great. I would expect a very high price tag
    (like $1200.00 or more). This concept is the basis for their preamp
    (which actually has a 30 watt power amp and speaker emmulator), 
    and their separate speaker emmulator box, which may be used with
    any power amp. It's a tried and true concept, but expensive to
    implement, and the user remains reliant on power tubes.
    
    Keep in mind that this power amp probably does not do stereo. Then
    again, I could be wrong about this.
    
    I believe all Groove Tube preamps and amps are manufactured by the
    same people who make "A.M.P". Brian Rost can attest to the quality
    and reliability of AMP's products. 
    
    Mark
    

    I've given a lot of consideration to going MIDI, especially since I'm
    doing a MIDI-based group and could drive everything with my sequencer.
    However, after having checked out a number of sophisticated rack-mount
    fx units, I'm still not convinced they would give me the level of
    "dynamic" control I want in a performing situation. By this I mean that
    if I'm playing something and I decide in the middle of it that I want a
    shade more treble, or a tweak more gain, etc, I want to be able to just
    reach over and twist a knob. Some of the controllers come close to
    this, but there's still a couple of steps between you and the sound you
    want. 
    
    Since the debate was going on over one vs multiple sounds out of an
    amp, I thought it might be interesting to list all of the sounds that I
    currently use. My setup is:
    
    	A Gibson ES-345 (alternated with an acoustic) into
    	A Cry-Baby Wah-Wah pedal (used on only about two songs) into
    	A Nobell Sound Studio fx box (similar to a Rockman) into
    	A Seymour-Duncan 100W Combo Amp (2 channel, separate eq)
    
    I have the S-D set up for mild crunch rhythm, and heavy crunch (and
    slightly louder) for rhythm and lead. These are only two of the many
    possible sounds I could get out of the S-D, but in combination with the
    other things they suffice. The Nobell has a built-in compressor, delay,
    chorus, overdrive and distrortion, as well as two distinctly different
    "clean" settings. Here are the basic sounds I use (other combinations
    are possible, and may be used sometimes):
    
    1) Straight rhythm - Nobell Clean 1 into S-D rhythm channel.
    
    2) Heavy (R&R) rhythm - Nobell Clean 1 into S-D lead channel.
    Also serves for Blues leads.
    
    3) Really heavy rhythm (like ZZ Top) - Nobell Overdrive into S-D rhythm
    or lead channel.
    
    4) Contemporary lead (lots of sustain) - Nobell Distortion into S-D
    rhythm or lead channel.
    
    5) Rhythm (Setup (1)) with chorus (I use chorus very rarely, and even
    less often with lead).
    
    6) Acoustified electric - Setup (1) with tone switch on ES-345
    moved over 2 notches - gives a lighter sound and saves me the trouble
    of switching to acoustic.
    
    7) any of the above with Wah-Wah.
    
    8) Straight acoustic - Acoustic guitar into Nobell Clean 1 and S-D
    rhythm (or bypass on the Nobell).
    
    9) Electrified acoustic - Add chorus and/or delay to (8).
    
    
    That comes to a total of about 10 distinct sounds that I use regularly.
    I use the balance of the pickups on the Gibson and the tone controls to
    fine-tune things during performances to get just the "right" tone for
    any given song.
    
    I second the emotion that no one amp can provide all possible sounds,
    at least not optimally. I didn't say it wasn't *possible*, just that
    nothing on the market satisfies this need. I also don't consider
    practical to switch guitars all the time to get different sounds - I
    have enough stuff to carry as it is. I've striven to use equipment that
    has maximum flexibility in terms of the variety and quality of sounds I
    can get with the least overhead.
    
    - Ram

>    I believe all Groove Tube preamps and amps are manufactured by the
>    same people who make "A.M.P". Brian Rost can attest to the quality
>    and reliability of AMP's products. 
    
    Actually, the GT stuff is made by SWR who were an offshoot of AMP (or
    so says AMP, SWR definitely hit the market after AMP with a very
    similar amp head).
    
    Ask Rick Calcagni about SWR quality and reliability...like how he
    smoked his first SWR head  8^)  8^)  Well, anyone can get a lemon....
    
    
    						Brian

    
    I don't know what to think about the wildly complex gear that
    guitarists can choose from.  I've heard lots of folks with racks full
    of stuff who sound great, and others who sound only so-so.
    
    I guess the ultimate for me would be an amp with all of the controls
    except volume hidden behind a panel.  That way, I could set 'em up once
    and then get 'em out of the way. 
    
    I don't tend to change my sound lots, though.
    
    Kevin
    

    I think in the long run, folks will own single type amps for single
    sounds.  I will refuse to belive the "1 amp for 1000 sounds" idea.
    
    Look at the Duncan Conv?  There are more of them out for sale used then
    you would belive.  Just because folks could not run them.  
    
    I do belive it's better to work on personal playing then how many
    sounds can my amp make.  If your chops are together, you can plug
    into anything.  The xtras may help you refine them, but you need
    them in the 1st place.  
    
    If you must switch (or even MIDI) 1000 sounds, then there are fine
    units to do that.  But, more and more folks are "amp-switching" then
    "channel switching".
    
    AND....there will someday be a glut of 1 space rack mount effects/
    preamps/etcs up for sale someday.  Cheap, because the "new kid on
    the market" is out.  Buy it then, much cheaper, and then try it out.
    
    Jay Tashjian
    

    I absolutely agree. Most of the people that have influenced my
    playing style have one or two signature sounds. A good example 
    is Larry Carlton. His guitar playing is immediately identifiable,
    yet his playing is always fresh and exciting. Whether I'm listening
    to a Steely, Donald Fagen, or Larry Carlton solo album, his playing 
    is recognizable. Somewhere along the line he switched to Valley
    Art's "strat-type" guitars and Dumble amps, but he still sounds
    like Larry Carlton. 
    
    I'm not interested in copying anyone's tone exactly, but I do strive
    for the same level of quality in my tone. For example, Carlos Santana
    has always had one of the best tones in the guitar world. I love the
    way he makes his guitar sustain and feedback. I try to get a similar
    effect at times, but I want it to sound like me, not Carlos.
    
    For years I played through a silver-faced Twin which really only
    produces one sound...clean. I was anxious to get a better amp that
    could channel switch and provide both clean and distortion. Now that
    I have my new "The Twin" I feel that I have the capability I need and
    really don't need another amp. 
     
    I also have a Mesa Boogie studio preamp. I suppose if I were like a
    lot of other people, I would buy a midi patch bay and set up my gear
    so that I could switch between the preamp in the Twin and the Mesa
    preamp, so that I could have more sounds available. I'm not interested
    in doing this. Whether I'm using the Twin or the Mesa, I set up two
    sounds and switch between them. That's enough for me.
    
    I wouldn't mind owning a few more vintage amps for their collectable
    value, like an AC30, a 4x10 Bassman, etc. But I wouldn't get them 
    because I need them, but because I simple like collectable stuff.
    
    Mark

    
    	Taking the term "control flexability" in a different way, how
    does the Guitar community feel about the amount of control they
    have, or would like to have, using the Volume Control On The Guitar
    Only?
    
	Letting the imagination run wild, say you could go from a JC
    120 clean sound to a cranked Marshall 100W lead sound with a 1/4
    turn on your volume control, (keeping the same overall volume level)
    - would that be useful to you? Or do players unilaterally prefer foot 
    switches for sound changes?
    
    	I've seen a fella do something like that playing though a HiWatt 
    combo...all he did to go into this rippping lead was reach down and 
    turn his volume up about 1/4 turn.
    
    	Joe

I could be wrong, but I think most guitarists have used their guitar volume
control to "back off" the gain and clean up the tone some.  I've even seen
a few guys use the tone control to get different sounds during leads, etc.

Steve Morse uses both the guitar volume and tone controls with incredible 
flexibility.  And he can do it on the fly without so much as a pause between
notes....Makes me sick.

Personally, if I have to change things quickly while I'm playing, I'd rather 
have everything on the floor in front of my feet.  But, that's due mainly to 
my lack of technique when it comes to diddling with those controls while I'm 
playing.  I might have a different opinion if I was better at it.

The other thing is that you can't get *drastic* changes in tone that way; at 
least not with the current controls.  I would think it impossible to go from
Fender-Twin-with-JBLs-clean to Mesa-Boogie-MKII-everything-on-10-dirty with 
your volume control.  But, I can do it by switching between the two amps.

steve

    Personally, I like being able to change the sound with the volume
    control.  Roll off the volume to clean things up, crank it up for more
    distortion.  Almost any tube amp will allow this.
        
    Greg

    Well, from what I have read, the Groove tube guitar preamp 
    allows you to do just that. It has "gain sensitive" inputs. 
    When using the GT preamp, the volume control on your guitar 
    essentially becomes a distortion control. The output of the 
    preamp remains constant regardless of the amount of "amplitude" 
    the input sees. This has advantages and disadvantages. Keep 
    in mind it was designed specifically for the recording studio 
    environment, where a recording engineer has control over the 
    sound both at mastering and mix-down. This preamp doesn't allow
    you to channel switch, but the gain-sensitive inputs make channel
    switching a moot point anyways. The biggest drawback to this
    preamp is the price (~$1000.00) which puts it out of many people's
    reach.
    
    Another device that I have seen advertized (but it doesn't appear 
    to have caught on) is called the "datacaster". This is a rotary 
    switch which replaces one of the pots on your guitar. It allows
    you to select several differant "patches" via midi. This could be
    driven into one of the midi-controlled preamps like the ADA MP1
    or GP8, or it could be driven into a midi-patchbay controlling an
    analog tube preamp.
    
    Mark
    

    I tried the GT preamp and hated it!
    
    How can I say this nicely...it sounded like a Boogie, only worse!
    
    Wait, that didn'tcome out right, do you know what I mean?

    One feature I wish more amps would include is a separate
    eq for each channel. It's the only gripe I have with the
    new Marshalls.
    
    Often I find that tone settings which sound good on the 
    clean channel don't sound good on the distortion channel. 
    Sometimes this doesn't matter, since I use different pickups 
    for clean and distorted work. I assume the new Boogies have
    separate tone controls for each channel (hence the multitude
    of knobs).
    
    -Tom

    Yes and no..... Some of the eq knobs are shared by two channels. 
    This is true with the mid-range controls on the two eq sections. 
    IMHO Mesa boogie should have provided completely independant eq's 
    for each channel on the Mark IV. Especially when you consider the
    price and the number of knobs this beast already has.
    
    Regarding the GT preamp. I think it's a case of "you either love
    it or you hate it". When I considered the price and the features
    it has/doesn't have, I concluded that it definately was not for me,
    and I never even demoed it.
    
    Mark
    

    RE: .33
    
    Amen brother.  Thats exactly why I bailed my kittyhawk...
    
    jc (Who has to be flexable)

    
    What really kills me is that the tone I like for tinkering by myself
    will not have definition with the full band behind me.
    
    As far as flexibility goes, I'd like being able to go from that
    Metallica crunch to that country twang and everything in between with 
    my Boogie.  IMO, there's nothing more flexible than a Mesa...
    
    J. (Who also wants to be flexible without going to a full MIDI rack)
                                                             

    re: .36 Isn;t that the truth. I set up my testerossa in the studio and
    then spent and hour backing the mid and the gain off at rehersal...
    
    dbi

    While everyone is talking knobs, knobs, & more knobs, let's try the
    other end of the rainbow....
    
    What would you want on a single channel amplifiers for controls?
    
    Let there be no more then '7', including the master Vol output.
    
    Can man live with just 7 controls?  6 & MV?
    
    Judging from what we see coming our way, companies think we need alot
    of toys.  "My amp's got more knobs then your's does..na..na"
    
    I would like some feedback in this matter, and thank you in advance.
    
    Jay
    

    RE: Jay's single amp channel design...I could live with the following
    design:
    
    CONTROLS: Preamp   Gain   Master   Bass  Low mid  High Mid  Bright
    
    COMMENTS: Fender   Boogie          120hz  700hz     3K        8K
              style    style
    
    I lived for quite a long time using a 12wt Marshall transistor head
    plugged into a power amp for volume, and was very happy with that. You
    had to tweek controls constantly, but I loved the range of sounds from
    it!  For those not in the know, they are GAIN MASTER BASS MID TREB.
    
    B.

    I couldn't live with it. I find two channel amps to be the minimum
    required and 3-4 much more preferable, independant tones for each are
    preferred
    
    dbii

    I did mean to explain, this could be part of a 2-channel amp, but could
    we keep to 7 controls, say per channel.
    
    Remember: The toy with the most 'candy' spends the most time in the
              shop!
    
    I did get a chance to peek into a few new Boogies, and must admit the
    QC is higher then normal.  Good job M/B!
    
    Jay
    

    -1
    
    I'll still liove with a single channel amp design.
    
    Buck, who's been playing single channel Marshalls for 15 years now.

    Yeah but Buck, it wasn't that long ago that you were using a rack
    that contained 3 preamps. I seem to recall you were using an ADA MP1,
    a Lee Jackson/Metaltronix, and a KH Quattro in one rack. I guess you
    got carried away by all the technology and finally came back down to 
    earth.
    
    I take the middle road these days. I played through a silver-face twin
    for too long with only one tone. These days I insist on having two tones
    with channel switching. More presets would be nice, but that's not  a 
    necessity for me. 
    
    Mark

    Actually on a Boogie Mark III or II, if you take off the presence
    control and the reverb, you meet the 6 + Master criterion.
    
    Hmmmmmm..., not bad,
    
    Will

    -2
    
    Actually, it was a MP-1, Quadraverb, and an SP-1000 combo.  LESS IS
    MORE!!  
    
    Buck, much happier with fewer options.

    I checked out a Mesa Boogie Mark IV last Friday at Daddy's. I was 
    amazed at how small it was...One of the smallest Boogie combos I've
    seen. I had the misconception that the Mark IV had 4 channels that
    could be pre-set, but I found out it only has three. From that
    standpoint, it isn't much differant than the Mark III, except for
    more EQ and bells/whistles. 
    
    The things I thought were advantageous:
    
    The foot switch had just about any function you could want. For
    example the auto EQ function is incorporated into the footswitch.
    You can kick it into straight lead, or lead with eq by hitting one
    of two foot switches.
    
    The footswitch has "ears" sticking out each side (like rack ears), 
    and it screws right to the rear panel for transporation.
    
    separate "presence" controls for each channel.
    
    A few things that I thought were dis-advantageous:
    
    The reverb knob is rear-panel mounted. This is only a minor nit, and
    many Boogie combos have this same design. Reverb is generally a set-
    it-and-forget-it function anyways. 
    
    The knob for manually channel-switching is rear-panel mounted. In my
    mind, this is a major dis-advantage. Chances are, if the channel switch
    knob is in-accessible, it will probably never be used.
    
    The foot-switch jack is a DIN connector, as apposed to 1/4" phone
    jacks. This may be a very reliable way of designing it, but it does
    not lend itself to interfacing with midi-patchbays, or other external
    control devices.
    
    I didn't bother to demo this amp, since I am not in the mood for a new
    amp anyways. My guess is it sounds as good as any other Boogie, and
    allows more flexibility so that you can set up 3 distinct sounds
    eq'ed exactly the way you want them.
    
    Mark
    

    re -1
    
    Well how about the major disadvantage of cost. Boogies have always been
    a high cost amp but I think flexibility be damned for the price you
    pay. If I need "flexability" like that I'll take my Fender the Twin any 
    day, and do what you did by getting a Mesa preamp with the difference 
    in $$. And, I'd probably still have enough to order a three topping pizza 
    with extra cheese (four toppings might be pushing it).
    
    Which brings me to my question for you Mark - Seeing as how you 
    have the "Twin", and the Mesa preamp, how does your "Twin" compare in
    sound to the Mesa? This is presuming that you can make a side by side
    comprison - ie that you have a different power amp for the Mesa as
    opposed to just running it into the power amp of the "Twin". My feeling
    is that the "Twin" although expensive, but not as much as the Boogie,
    is a better buy. I contend that if for no other reason (but not
    exclusively), you get more for your $$$ by virtue of 2-12's instead 
    of a single.
    
    "sakman" 

    Well, if I tried to compare the Mesa preamp with "The twin" and used
    a differant power amp and differant speakers, I don't think the test
    would be very fair or accurate. 
    
    I have used the Mesa Boogie studio preamp into the power amp of the
    Twin (effect return jack), and I find the tone is very similar. Pretty
    much any tone I can get out of the Twin, I can get out of the Mesa and
    vice-versa.
    
    I also play the Mesa Boogie preamp through my stereo PA system. Bear
    in mind that the tone is bound to be differant for several reasons.
    I generally use the recording outputs when I do this (since this
    duplicates the sound of a mic'ed up amp). The sound is being produced
    by a solid-state power amp, and a pair of horn-loaded Klipsch stage
    monitors. I can pretty much tweak this setup to get any tone I want,
    but the warmth of the Twin reverb power amp, and the Emminence speakers
    cannot be matched for "warmth". Another trick I have been using is to
    drive the stereo outputs through my PA, and connect the monitor send
    to the power amp input of the Twin. This gives me the stereo efx 
    through the PA, and the warm mono signal through the Twin. This works
    surprisingly well, and is very full-sounding.
    
    Mark 

    I think the flexability you need depends on the type of music you play. 
    When I was doing metal, 3 tones was plenty - clean with chorus, crunch
    rhythm, and high gain lead.  When I played country, it was still
    basically 3 tones - clean with chorus, clean lead, and a dirty rhythm
    which could also be used as a lead patch.  But the music my band is
    doing now (classic rock, southern rock, blues) requires a few more
    tones.  I use 16 patches on a GP-8.  And that's so I can copy some of
    the tones used on those cover songs, you know little signature sounds. 
    But, if I didn't have the GP-8 I'm sure I could get by with a lot less. 
    The other guitar player in the band uses a Fender Super Reverb (I
    think, 60W into 4x10's) and a Chandler Tube Driver with a Les Paul.  He
    uses 3 settings and has a killer tone.  It's all in what you get used
    to.
    
    Scary 

    I think 3 or 4 tones are enough too.  At least at a footswitch's
    control.  But does this mean folks want to go completely MIDI?
    
    I mean, I just can't picture alot of folks playing thru gear controled
    by some Macintosh.  I may be wrong.
    
    IF that's the case...alot of players I know better get their computer
    'chops' down too.  Alot of them can't handle Bass-Mid-Treble.
    
    And remember, the more 'patched' in/out busses, the more a
    "solid-state" sound.  After awhile, you might as well play thru a
    Zoom walkman-type unit.
    
    Defeats the "tube lovers" concept, huh?
    
    What happened to the days of a player just pluging in to almost
    anything?  Is it because music styles have grown beyond that?
    
    OR..does the guitar/bass player of today need the 'candy' keyboard
    players wanted?  A box for everything, and everything (pluged) in
    it's box?
    
    Remember, you say it here first....years from now, there will be a huge
    used glut of these '19" boxes' selling cheap by players who either
    wants the newest 'candy', or layed back and bought a Twin with EV's.
    
    Jay Tashjian
    

    My four sounds are tube sounds...
    
    Each channel should have the following controls, even the clean channel
    
    Volume
    Master Volume
    Bass
    Mid
    Treble
    Bright
    
    and a presence control is nice too!  (that's 7 per channel)
    
    I hate sharing tone controls between channels. A la boogie etc. You can
    always get one good sound and one lame one your pick clean or dirty but
    never both
    
    I love my kittie it's the closest thing to this
    
    dbii

    Re: .50
    
    I think that's what happened is that *styles* grew to accommodate the
    *gear*.  Fuzz, wah-wah, envelope filters, chorus, phasers, flangers, etc.
    have all had their day in the sun where *someone* used one on a record
    and soon everyone wanted to have one.
    
    Now that the technology makes it possible to have multi-FX avaialble
    super cheap, players are flocking to them and using them, to some
    extent with the same lack of taste that they showed with every *other*
    effect fad.
    
    Other than the use of chorus with jazz players, most guys playing jazz
    and blues have stuck with the "gimme a guitar and a Twin" attitude
    throughout all these FX fads.
    
    To me, the big win with digital FX is that good, quiet reverbs and
    delays are now available super cheap...heck, Sam Ash is selling Boss
    stomp reverbs for $75.  It used to cost *ten times that* to buy a
    decent spring unit 15 years ago....not to mention what Echoplexes sold
    for, compared to a digital delay stomp box of today.
    
    The next trend is going to be more FX in the amps themselves.  Peavey
    has already marketed amps with digital FX on board and tried to sell an
    amp a few years ago that had 10 (!!!) preset channels that could be
    controlled by MIDI.  I think this will be a big deal in low end amps
    (you know, stuff in the $200-300 range, 20-50 watt combos).  Already
    lots of these babies come with stereo amplification and chorus on
    board.  
    
    What I wanna know is when am I gonna be able to get a new amp with
    tremelo?  I can't do those Neil Young covers without it  8^)  8^)
    
    
    						Brian

    Actually, after thinking about it I think what I'd rather see then
    three or four tone controls per channel would be something like a 5-7
    band graphic EQ per channel.  That would give more flexability all the
    way around.  Then with a gain control that would be all I'd need.
    
    An amp with two to three channels set up this way would be great.
    
    I've been wondering why amp manufacturers aren't using graphic EQs in
    place of the standard bass/mid/treble controls for awhile now.
    
    Greg

    >I've been wondering why amp manufacturers aren't using graphic EQs in
    >place of the standard bass/mid/treble controls for awhile now.
    
    Carvin tried this on their Guitar/Bass heads in the late 70s/early 80s.
    Needless to say it didn't float too well in the marketplace!!
    
    Then there were the old Acoustic heads that had graphic EQs on them
    as well as the passive tone controls...they were equally bogus
    sounding!
    
    I think noone got it right til Boogie came along!
    
    Of course pre-gain EQ and post-gain EQ are two totally different
    ballparks!

    Yes, styles changed the effect business.  I too say lots of *big*
    players suck without their boxes.  But in the hands of a good player,
    the boxes are tools that help the players grow.  Seems everything
    comes/goes around.
    
    Graphic EQ's made with I.C.'s (like the Carvin) never got accepted
    by the public....to "PA" sounding, and they do not interface well
    with tubes.  The Boogie uses hand picked transistors, hench they
    do the job differently, and sound better.  Vox did a Graphic EQ
    using tubes that is a killer!  Needs rare center-tap pots though.
    (if you need a schematic, e-mail me).
    
    As for Trem/Vib units, no one did/does it better then the VOX AC-30
    which is one reason why it's still made, despite QC problems.
    
    Maybe someone should build a tube EQ/Trem/Vib unit?
    
    As for reverb units, new ones are cheaper, quiter and better sounding,
    but the old spring units still sound the best, unless you got $$$$$$$
    for digital units.
    
    Nothing is perfect, I'm afraid.
    
    Jay Tashjian
    
    PS:  the Vox AC-30 is still the ONLY unit with TRUE Vib/Trem.  E-mail
         me for a schematic, and see how it's done.
    
    

    Personally, I'd rather see parametric EQ.  Being able to choose the
    center frequency (and in true parametrics the "width" or Q of the EQ)
    is much more useful than the fixed bands of a graphic IMHO.  The best
    of both worlds can be found on amps like the SWR and AMP bass heads,
    which give you 6 bands of EQ, two shelving for the low and high ends,
    and four semi-parametric bands to cover the middle.
    
    Some older tube heads had semi-parametric EQ, remember the midrange
    select switch on Ampegs or the "range expanders" on Traynor heads?
    
    							Brian

    yes. those Traynors had nice tone circuits.  Shame they could not hold
    up for long.
    
    I dug out a old catalog on a Orange OMEC (Orange musicial & electronics
    corp) (The same UK folks who made Orange amps) programable Solid state
    head, which never made it over here.  4 presetable channels, 806,737
    combinations per channel (so they said) using 12 push button controls.
    
    It was, as most UK solid state units, built poorly.  I did have the
    chance to fix one and play thru it.  Not bad, but limited because of
    the fact most sounds were repeated in real use.  Still, folks wanted
    these things even in 1978.
    
    Then there was the Delta tube amp, with switches labeled "GIBSON,
    FENDER, MARSHALL, TELE, DELTA" and they made the amp sound JUST
    like those units.  A Great unit, if you ever find one.  Built by
    ex-Acoustic Employees, and current Schecter owner.
    
    
    
    Nothing new under the sun, I guess...
    
    Jay.
    

    Anyone seen the new GT preamp?  It's got three seperate channels titled
    "Clean", "Mean", and "Scream".  The ad claims that the clean channel
    sounds like a Fender, the Mean like a Marshall, and the Scream like
    something hot-rodded a lot.  
    
    Sounds interesting, but I suspect that it's probably grossly overpriced
    like the rest of GTs stuff seems to be.  Anyone tried one or seen a
    price on it?
    
    Greg

    I've seen one.  It is ok, a bit overpriced.
    
    It tries for that vintage look, and fails.  It's not too bad sounding
    but the clean sound is almost too clean, the scream too much gain.
    
    GT electronics do not sell too well, because of the $$$ and the smaller
    discount offered to dealers.
    
    Jay.
    

    Hey Jay,
    
    What are your impressions of the M1000?
    
    Buck, very curious to know!

My perfect rig would have four components:

1) Speaker System
2) Power Amplifier with EQ.
3) Signal Processor
4) Foot Controller

The speaker system is self explanatory. The Power Amp has an EQ to compensate
for whatever room you're playing in. The Processor is programmed and once set
never has to be tweaked. The foot controller changes patches. There is no big
reason why these can't be integrated in a single enclosure ( except the
controller, of course ).
								John.

    The M1000 is a nice sounding unit, but very poorly made, and ugly as
    sin.  EVERY store I have seen them in says..."sounds great, can't
    give it away....".   A real shame, because it's a good design, and
    very playable.  I've fixed about 4 of them.  ALL were built with
    cheapparts, and poor workmanship.
    
    
    Jay
     

    Jay,
    
    How do you feel about KittyHawk construction ?
    The M3 I had had lousey welding in the chassis, but seemed rugged.
    The circuitry seemed pretty hacked too.  At first I attributed that
    to being a "Josh Special", but even my Quattro preamp seems pretty
    hacked too (ergo, rugged but fugly).
    
    jc

    That's what killed the KH in real life, as many of the specials
    sold by the LP group were re-hacked.  A shame, let's hope the new ones
    are made better.  I have schematics, if you need them.
    
    Jay
    

      I agree with Jay. You can attribute part of the KH/LPMG split
    to a percussion company (Latin Percussion) trying to expand into
    amps too quick. They desperately needed a tube expert on board
    to get these imported KH's up to snuff. I really don't think
    they were even close to having their sh*t together in the technical
    department. Keep in mind LPMG had mucho orders for the Quattro,
    but were forcing dealers to take the slow moving heads and combos
    it they wanted ANY preamps. The only KH head/combo that really sold
    well was the M1. The M3 was listed at too high a price for an amp
    with limited flexibility, the M1 wasn't that much more $, but offered
    a lot more versatility. 
      Versatility = MP-1 / but QT's and TR's come darn close (especially
    if your effects have a 7 band graphic like the GSP-21! B-}. )
    
    							-kaBOOM-

    
    
    After playing with the Marshall JCM 900 for a while, I've come to
    respect the amp a lot.  It's only got two channels, and the eq is
    shared, but I'm able to get switchable clean and lead sounds that I
    really like.  A good crunch rythm sound is the lead channel with the 
    guitar volume backed off.
    
    Of course, there are limits to this setup.  I don't always get the
    "exact" sound for every song; there are lots of compromises.  A little
    too dirty here, too clean there, etc.  But then, it does keep things
    real simple on stage and I like that a lot.  With me, if I have lots of
    switches available, I feel like I paid for 'em so I might as well use
    'em.  Ditto on effects.  With this amp, I feel like I have to do the
    best I can with what I've got and not worry about the hardware.
    
    It does give me an excuse with the band, though. I say stuff like
    "Can't sound like the solo on the record 'cuz he has a rack full of
    stuff to get that sound."
    
    Then again, I'm not able to say stuff like "I would have nailed that
    solo if my mumbledyfratz had been working right." 
    
     8-)
    
    Kevin
           
    

    I know how ya fdeel Kev, I played with this band this past weekend and
    I was FAR too dirty.
    
    
    
    But I LOVED it!
    ;^)

    No such thing as too dirty, IMHO.  ;)  ;)
    
    Ever play the Eagles with your gain on 20 ??
    
    Wagagagagagagagagaaaa...

    Revisiting this one a bit...
    
    In the latest Fender Frontline rag, they have a column about going
    without racks that instead pushes the multi-amp approach, get a
    Twin for clean, Bassman for crunch and Deluxe for shred, etc.  
    
    This would be pretty ho-hum since it's a real old hat idea but to see
    Fender pushing it now that the pendulum is swinging towards the retro
    gear (not to mention that Fender sells no rack FX) is interesting.
    
    Anyway, it seems players still want to have lots of tones on tap, but
    are somewhat leary of the rack units filling the bill.  Or at least
    that's the new party line...five years ago the racks were ready to rule
    the world.
    
    So what's the next trend going to be?  8^)
    
    
    							Brian

    The biggest issue here is live performance; using a completely
    different amp for different sounds might be practical in a studio
    setting, but can get a tad cumbersome at gigs.
    
    Seems to me that most of the variation in sounds could be attributed to
    the preamp, and to some extent the cabinet (in particular, whether it
    is a closed or open-backed design). So, if one is looking for the
    ultimate in flexibility from a guitar rig, it might be worth having two
    or more preamps that can be selected from an AB switch, all feeding a
    common power amp. As for the cabinets, in most live situations the cab
    is close-miced and therefore the close/open back issue is moot.
    
    As for effects, it depends on what type of effect you are referring to.
    I would suspect most peopole continue to prefer the flexibility of
    external effects (either rack or stomp-boxes) for such things as chorus
    and reverb; as opposed to using what the amp provides built-in. If you
    are talking about "distortion" effects, that's another story, as the
    preamp plays into this to a large extent.
    
    I can't get all the sounds I need in my bass rig out of any single
    preamp, so I select between three: ADA, Trace Elliot and a GK 800. The
    preamp outputs are routed through a MIDI mixer which "mutes" the
    preamps not in use at any given time. It's all controlled by a MIDI
    footswitch. The output from the mixer then drives the power amp section
    of the GK800, which feeds SWR 4X10 and 1X18 cabs. I also use a balanced
    line-level output from the mixer to feed the FOH mix. Outboard effects
    are connected to effects loops on the mixer, and are also under MIDI
    control from the footswitch.
    
    So, for me the answer is still the rack... it just depends on what
    you put *in* the rack.
    
    Brian

    
    
    Years later, less is still more!  Reissue amps rule the scene, racks
    are in hiding!  Amazing turn of events from when .0 was written.
    
    Kevin
    

    
    	This note's title has been misspelled for 6 1/2 years now.
    
    	Just thought you'd like to know.  8^)
    

    re: .71
    
    Everything goes in cycles Kevin. In a few years everybody will want
    to fill up a 12 space rack again. 
    Hey, loads of blinking LED's are cool looking right?    ;^)
    
    
    
    Fred (who gigs in a 10 piece band with a miked 40 watt Vibroverb reissue
          and is more than loud enough)
    

    
    
     ...in a few years? I think one of the best things that's happened to
    rack gear the last few years is that after trying to offer a
    smorgasbord of effects, the emphasis is on quality. I am way down in
    the number of spaces, but the tone has improved considerably. 
     FWIW - I think the new Rocktron and Marshall rack gear is the best
    stuff for guitar. The new Digiteh 2112 looks interesting, but I'm still
    evasive after my GSP-2101 (and GSP-21) days. 
     Then again I do just plug into the VOX AC30 or REXX combo as well.