Conference napalm::guitar

    Yeah, try the rig without the wireless and without the FX box.  Those
    are the most likely culprits.  Also if the Yamaha has a level meter
    make sure it's not being overdriven.
    
    							Brian

    I'd agree with that, Tony - make sure your basic sound is good before
    kicking in your rack stuff.
    
    Bob (just getting started with all those toys)

    Tony,
    
    Well the first thing I'd do is not use the effects loop. Try running
    the outputs of your preamp directly into the FX500's inputs. The
    outputs from the FX500 directly into the Poweramp. This has always
    worked better for me than using the effects loop. 
    
    But -.1 and -.2 were right on target also. Check to make sure the mud
    is not comming from your wireless or preamp. Eliminate any possible
    source of mud then add the pieces 1 by 1 until you find the problem.
    
    Brian

    I agree with .3  can the loop.  Loops be useless in stereo rigs,
    me thinks...
    
    jc

    
    Problem is, I never use the rig without effects on, so I don't
    know if the sound is 'right' without the FX500 plugged in.
    
    I'll try tonight with out the loop.
    
    Cheers,
    -Tony

    Dump the wireless, effects junk, and the Peavey power amp (replace with
    Marshall power amp).  All the remaining gear is Marshall and should
    sound great! ;^)
    
    Greg

    Do you suggest genuine "Marshall" condoms for after the gig as well ?
    
    Sheeesh ...  8^)
    
    
    Scary (who's got a Marshall t-shirt)

>    Do you suggest genuine "Marshall" condoms for after the gig as well ?
    
    Got two box's on back order!
    
    Greg (who always practices "safe music")

... Then dump the Marshalls and get a Boogie!

JUST JOKING!!!! *^}

    A Boogie indeed.  Sheeesh, you guys crack me up.
    
    Tone, how'd it go without the FX loop ??  I was thinking over the
    weekend that your preamp has a stereo FX loop.  Is that correct ?
    Maybe I *would* use the loop ??
    
    FWIW, I never use my rack without the FX on either.  It's always got a
    little delay, a little  chorus and a little verb on...It's all quite
    subtle though, unless it's  a lead preset...  But the Mp1 has a mono
    FX loop, so my signal goes from guitar to preamp to DSP128+ to Hush to
    power amp to speakers.  Everything line level except the DSP128 which
    seems to like the added headroom at instrument level...
    
    But then again, all weekend I played *bone dry* with the Marshall 
    (MONO no less!!) and it sounded great...
    
    jc
    

Hmp,

Reality:  The more 'sssssssssssshhhhhhhhhhhhhhtuff ya'll put betwix
da strings and da spik-ers, da more shhhhhhhhhhhhhhhtuff ya
put betwix the strings and da sound..  know what I mean Vern ?

get as much as ya can, out of as little as possible.
(Woa, I should be a politician aye ???!!!!!)

Re: putting stuff between the strings and the sound ....

This is why some of us play a lot of acoustic.

Jim

    	Cooper, Dry is a nice 8`) thing to do! Fx take away from the sound, 
    Throught the loop as it was shown to me, "When I was blind to the Fact!!"
    
    Pierre who will be backing up Farrenheit on April 18,@ Hendi's,Hope to
    see Buck,if your not doing anything!!
    
    				P.I.
    				i
    				e
    				r
    				r
    				e
    
            			

Dry is o.k.,, but I guess I should clarify where I come
from on that.

I like to use effects, I use a Digitech DSP 128+, and basically, that's
about it..  Maybe some Graphic E.Q. to crucnh it up a bit more..

But my Amp (Yamaha 100-212) gets pretty hot once ya learn
how to dangle with the parametric EQ. 

I agree that something needs to be there,,, but I just say there's
a limit to whats necessary...  After that, you just approach the
point of 'diminishing returns'  I think the setup described
in .0 has approached, or corssed over that threshold.

    <<Nady Wireless into the front input of a Marshall 9004 preamp. One
    <<effects send from the Marshall into the rear input of a Yamaha FX500
    <<processor. Two outputs from the effects processor output back into the 
    <<two return jacks of the preamp. Two outputs from the preamp 'output' 
    <<into two A/B inputs of a Peavey M2600 poweramp. Two outputs from the
    <<poweramp into the two inputs of Marshall JCM900 4x12 in stereo
    <<mode.
   << 
    <<This is my basic setup amd the sound is really muddy - 
   


Rock on.

>I agree that something needs to be there,,, but I just say there's
>a limit to whats necessary...  After that, you just approach the
>point of 'diminishing returns'  I think the setup described
>in .0 has approached, or corssed over that threshold.
 
    I agree that there's a point of diminishing returns, but I disagree
    that the setup described in .0 is overly complex.  I think it sounds
    like more then it is because he described it in intimate detail, but
    it's basically one preamp, one effects unit, one power amp, and one
    speaker cabinet.  Not that involved at all.
    
    If you want an example of an overkill system, look at Jeff Coopers...
    
    Greg (who runs dry with a little chorus on clean sounds)

    
    Well, I tried it out and had no luck whatsoever. I couldn't get ANY
    sound out of the set-up once I tried a configuration without using the
    fx loop. The only thing that did come out was very VERY faint (bearly
    audiable) with a lot of hiss.
    
    Still not solved 8^(
    
    -Tony

    
    Yeah, like Greg said.
    
    My set up is very very simple (when the bugger works that is!).

<<I think it sounds like more then it is because he described it in intimate
<<detail

Could be Greg...  

<<basically one preamp, one effects unit, one power amp, and one
<<speaker cabinet.  Not that involved at all.

Hmmm,  I just thought of something...

Aren't we defeating the stereo signal by going into one cab ?

Just curious, cuz when I run my dsp128+ in Stereo, I use another Yahama
amp (a G50112,, not that it matters) but it do-do stereo quite nicely!

Anway, I guess the setup Tony explained confuses me,, Stereo processing,
but are we really sending to 'stereo' output ??? 

	Maybe I'm being vauge as well as confused.... 

Now this could, or could not effect the mud thing,, sumtin about
phasing grabs at me..  Again vauge as well as confused..

>Hmmm,  I just thought of something...                   
>Aren't we defeating the stereo signal by going into one cab ?
    
    No, not defeating it.  It's one of the new Marshall (JCM900 series)
    cabinets that are wired for stereo, there are two jacks on the back and
    with it switched correctly, you get a left/right stereo split between
    the 4 speakers.  Now clearly that's not optimal for the best stereo
    effect since they're so close together, but it should work.
    
    The preamp he's using has stereo effects returns, so he's using the
    effects unit to create a stereo signal from a mono output and then
    routing that to the two sides of his stereo power amp.
    
>Now this could, or could not effect the mud thing,, sumtin about
>phasing grabs at me..  Again vauge as well as confused..
    
    Now that sounds like a strong possibility!  I've heard some of the
    "stereo" efx processors achieve this by reversing the phase on one side
    of the signal.  I'd think the resultant phase cancellation on output
    (especially if the stereo cabinet has no internal baffle between the
    sides) could make it sound muddy or limit the output.
    
    re: Tony
    
    Sounds like you didn't set your efx unit to line level when you put it
    directly between the preamp and the power amp.  The effect you got
    (almost no output, poor sound quality) sounds like what you get if you
    have the efx unit set to instrument level.
    
    Greg (who played with a lot of this type crap before deciding to get
          what he really wanted all along, a nice Marshall stack)

    
    >> Sounds like you didn't set your efx unit to line level when you put it
    >> directly between the preamp and the power amp.  The effect you got
    >> (almost no output, poor sound quality) sounds like what you get if you
    >> have the efx unit set to instrument level.
    
    So, how can I solve the problem ?

    Doesn't your FX500 have a line/instrument switch ??  Set it to line,
    run your cables from the preamp outs, to the FX500, to the power amp.
    
    BTW, I don't think my rig is complex at ALL !  Check out Steve Vais
    rig if you want complex !!  Mines just an A/B/Both box going into
    a rig just likes Tony's (preamp, MultiFX, Hush, PowerAmp - "A"), and 
    going into a bone-dry Marshall 1/2 stack ("B").
    
    Tony, you need to take a power saw to that Marshall cab; Zip that
    puppy right up the middle  :^)
    
    jc

    >Tony, you need to take a power saw to that Marshall cab; Zip that
    >puppy right up the middle  :^)
    
    WHY?  Only an idiot would do somethng like THAT!
    ;)

    Pffft.  ;)

    That wasn't a real Marshall cab he buzzed - a LONG way from it !
    
    Scary (who helped build that cab on a Jack Daniels inspired whim)

    It's a LOT closer now...
    jc

    
    >> Doesn't your FX500 have a line/instrument switch ??  Set it to line,
    >> run your cables from the preamp outs, to the FX500, to the power amp.
    
    Err... Nope. Or at least not one thats visable that is.
    
    -Tony (who has had to work late tonight and has missed his rehearsal and 
    	   is severly PI$$ED!!!).

    yeah, what he said 8^)

    
    I'm pretty sure there isn't a line/instrument level thingy there. Is it
    likely to be labeled something else ? (I am in he UK ya know!)

    Wouldn't think it would be labeled anything else...
    
    But then again, I can't tell if PI$$ED .EQS. "DRUNK" or if
    PI$$ED .EQS. "ANGRY".   ;)  ;) 

    
    
    
    8^P

RE: CHAINSAW/CUTTING IN HALF.		

This is absolutely true!!

I know a guy who,, back in the mid 70s, had a hammond B3, and
was always getting flack about moving it...

sooooo..

he cut the sucker in half, colour coded all the wires,,, and believe
this if you want to,,, would take it apart, and put it back together
every time his band ("Manitoba") played.  Halarious,, but sadly the
B3 didn't last 3 months till it was tottaly toasted from such
a surgical operation.  

He's much smarted, wiser (and older) today of course..  gawd bless him..

		live and learn

    I found that the 2600 needs a lot of high end boost to start performing
    like a guitar power amp - might want to try that - an of course it is
    looking for a line level signal.  Otherwise it is serving well as a
    multipurpose moderate level (about 150 watts per channel - Peavey
    sends you a lab report) stereo amp.
    
    I also find that the room you play in can make even a bright amp
    sound muddy...
    
    Good Luck.
    

    
    Well, the only thing on the back is a switch that reads "-10db/-20db".
    Is that likley to be it ?
    
    re.33
    
    >> I found that the 2600 needs a lot of high end boost to start performing
    >> li ke a guitar power amp - might want to try that 
    
    Err..... Sorry to be a dumbo but can you elaborate on how to boost it.
    Do you just mean crank the eq on the pre-amp ?
    
    -Tony

    Thats it.
    
    Strange though.  The DSP128+ is "+4" for instrument and "-20" for
    line level.  I never noticed the numbers, but that seems wierd.
    It also doesn't seem to give a hoot which position the switch is in.
    I figure it's LOUD and LOUDER !
    
    jc

    
    Well, it says that the level on the FXunit should be set to -20 when
    its fed from a preamp. Should it still be at that level if I'm using
    the FX loop ? Also, what level should the pre-amp be set at ? Still 
    -20 ?
    
    thanks fo the help folks,
    -Tony

    <<Strange though.  The DSP128+ is "+4" for instrument and "-20" for
    <<line level.  I never noticed the numbers, but that seems wierd.
    <<It also doesn't seem to give a hoot which position the switch is in.
    <<I figure it's LOUD and

Actually, I found it does make a difference..  albeit VERY subtle..
Of course, I don't use an effects loop, I plug the DSP128+ inline with 
my guitars, so that maybe the difference if you do use a loop..

Anyway, I've found that it's a bit cleaner, and doesn't peak as fast
when using -20 on Guitar.  +4 is louder yes,,, but I found, distorts much
quicker.  I usually run my output level around 3 oclock and my input
about half up to maybe 1 o'clock 2 o'clock, the dry/effect is negotiable
depending on what I'm doing... .  I found that the input dial is
where I have alot of control over response, and peak headroom.  There's
a sweat spot yo can find where you get a good response out of it,
without exceeding headroom. I try to keep the LEDs out of the red..

I've also found that the output differences (in the Pickups) bewtween my 
elec/acoustic, my strat, casio-midi, and ibanez, are ALL different.  
So changing guitars also means tweaking the controls a bit on the DSP128+.
the trickiest one is the Ibanez,, (hot little tomato..)

    I can only talk about the DSP-128 but there are 2 of those switches on
    the back. I once had one set on +4 and the other on -20 and I seemed to
    loose all my effects, my sound muddied right up, an it hummed like a
    beehive. Does the Yamaha have 1 or 2 switches ? If 2, make sure their
    set for the same level.