Effects loop on amps?

Sartori · #1 07-07-2009, 12:38 AM

So, I don't really understand this. Is it better to use the effects loop on an amplifier for pedals or to simply hook them up between the bass and the amp's input? Are there differences in sound? If so, what are they?

MNAirHead · #2 07-07-2009, 12:42 AM

too many variables here for truth.

You'd just be getting baseless opinions.

Please post specifics...

Much of this is just opinion.

Foamy · #3 07-07-2009, 12:45 AM

Too many variables, and a lot of flexibility.
Some thoughts...
Some amps' effect loops are parallel and some are serial
Some are easily switched between serial and parallel, some are not
Some of the parallels' loops are blendable, some are not
In "general", pedals are designed for amp input, rack effects for effect loops (uh oh)
If your loop is serial, and a pedal goes bad (for any reason), you're dead in the water, just like if you ran them in front of the amp. A parallel loop can help this - but this is kind of a weak argument for parallel loops.
It always comes down to what works and sounds good for you!

Sartori · #4 07-07-2009, 12:57 AM

Serial? Parallel? What?

For the specific gear in question, I'm using a Mesa D-180 amp. My effects are an Electro-Harmonix Big Muff and a Morley Dual Bass Wah. I might possibly add my reverb pedal back into the mix.

I haven't really used the effects that much with this amp (I just got it). It actually even has two separate effects send/return thingies. So I'm wondering if I should use them instead of running bass -> pedals -> amp. Or, if there is no "better" way to do it, what I should expect if I do so. Most of the time I play "clean," I only use the effects for a few parts in a couple songs.

whoatherechunk · #5 07-07-2009, 12:57 AM

I hate em...and that's coming from an effects junky.

Sartori · #6 07-07-2009, 01:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by whoatherechunk

I hate em...and that's coming from an effects junky.

Why, exactly? I'm not trying to argue. I'm really quite ignorant on this subject.

bongomania · #7 07-07-2009, 01:14 AM

This explains most of it: http://www.ovnilab.com/articles/fxloop.shtml

Let me know if there's any part of it that needs more clarification.

Foamy · #8 07-07-2009, 01:16 AM

If the loop is serial, the signal goes out the loop, into your effects, and back into the loop.
In parallel, it goes to the amp AND out the loop, and the mixed signals into the amp.
In parallel, some amps let you blend the wet and dry signal to your liking.

I would recommend you try it out and I can almost assure you that you'll like the sound better if you just plug your bass into the effects, and the effects into the amp's input - forget the effect loop. But try it both ways.

If we told you A, and you preferred B, you'd do B anyhow, right?

Uribam · #9 07-07-2009, 01:17 AM

I don't really totally understand effects loop either man. It seems usual to have rackmount only through an effects loop and pedals wired between your bass and amp, but not always so. I just personally don't realize the difference. I haven't ever played with any effect other than dunlop wah that I did straight wire years ago. Now that I'm getting polish love I might get other effects and actually learn how to set them up by trial and error. Anyway generally loop is for rackmount effects is what I hear. I may be wrong.

Scott

warwick.hoy · #10 07-07-2009, 01:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Uribam

I don't really totally understand effects loop either man. It seems usual to have rackmount only through an effects loop and pedals wired between your bass and amp, but not always so. I just personally don't realize the difference. I haven't ever played with any effect other than dunlop wah that I did straight wire years ago. Now that I'm getting polish love I might get other effects and actually learn how to set them up by trial and error. Anyway generally loop is for rackmount effects is what I hear. I may be wrong.

Scott

For the most part (not always) rack mount processors tend to be things like Sonic Maximizers, Compressors, Gates, Exciters and the like. In those cases I see why they are intended for effects loops. They take the entire signal, stomp boxes and the preamp section of the amp and do what ever they were designed to do (Maximize, Compress, Gate, Excite). YMMV

It also tends to keep things tidier since outputs on RM units typically are in rear of the unit. Same as the send and return of FX Loops. Again YMMV of course.

Sartori · #11 07-07-2009, 01:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by warwick.hoy

For the most part (not always) rack mount processors tend to be things like Sonic Maximizers, Compressors, Gates, Exciters and the like. In those cases I see why they are intended for effects loops. They take the entire signal, stomp boxes and the preamp section of the amp and do what ever they were designed to do (Maximize, Compress, Gate, Excite). YMMV

It also tends to keep things tidier since outputs on RM units typically are in rear of the unit. Same as the send and return of FX Loops. Again YMMV of course.

Oh, well I don't have any sonic maximizers, compressors, gates, exciters or anything like that. In fact, I don't have anything capable of being mounted in a rack except my amp, and I don't have a rack for it.

The weird thing though is that it has an effects send/return on the back and one on the front. It's strange.

warwick.hoy · #12 07-07-2009, 02:15 AM

If you are talking about the M/B D-180,...I noticed that in some research.

http://www.mesaboogie.com/manuals/D-...ower%20Amp.pdf

Some interesting stuff in there, especially talking about running a 2nd amp of of the FX loop. Bongomania would be a bit better qualified to explain that, but it appears that the output voltage of the FX send is matched to the input sensitivity of the Return. In theory you can use the FX send to send a signal to a second D-180's return (which would be directly into the poweramp section) and run both amps off of the first one's preamp. This may be a reason they put two loops on this amp. Other reasons why it has two FX loops? Versatility I suppose.

EDIT: Re-reading that manual. There mentions a low impedance send, which may not work to well with some fuzzes, the Woolly Mammoth, Fuzz faces and their derivatives. That said if you are using a passive bass, they would be fine at line level.

Sartori · #13 07-07-2009, 02:20 AM

Yeah, all my basses are passive. I am too stupid to use an active bass. Too complicated for me.

SnorLars · #14 07-07-2009, 02:23 AM

Stompboxes are mic level and usually supposed to be used before preamp while fxloop is for rack effects that are at line level.
But experiment is kewl.

warwick.hoy · #15 07-07-2009, 02:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sartori

Yeah, all my basses are passive. I am too stupid to use an active bass. Too complicated for me.

I'd say just run your stomp boxes at instrument level. Bass--->Effects--->Input on Amp. Keep it Simple Stupid.

Sartori · #16 07-07-2009, 02:34 AM

Lol, thanks.

dannybuoy · #17 07-07-2009, 03:09 AM

The fx loop is there so that you can place effects between the pre-amp and power amp. If you have a tube pre set up for overdrive, certain effects like delay/chorus/reverb that sound best AFTER distortion can be placed in fx loop. Only problem is the signal is a lot hotter after it leaves the preamp so it's best suited to rackmount fx that are designed to work at line level rather than instrument level.