Discussion in 'Amps [BG]' started by LiquidMidnight, Jul 15, 2013.
...yet many of my favorite amps seem to have it, so I just deal. Anyone else in the same boat?
My new to me mesa buster head has the fender tone stack. Glad I read the manual and didn't try and figure it out on my own. Here's a link for anyone that would like a good explanation of how to use a fender type tone stack http://www.mesaboogie.com/manuals/Buster Bass 200.pdf
Log in or Sign up to hide this ad and more.
I love it.
nope, I love the Fender tone stack, never had a problem getting the tone I need. Also pretty happy with Baxandall too.
Same here, but for me onboard EQ is my go-to regardless of what scheme the amp uses.
I've been able to get some good sounds with amps using Fender tone stacks, but I still dig something that will let you get more mid-forward and cut more treble if you need it. Especially the cutting treble part.
What exactly makes them your favorites if you don't like the tone stacks?
Hmmm. I always thought the Fender tone stack was , turn the Mid all the way to the right to eliminate the mids, thus the " 2-10-2 " setting. Unless I'm reading the Mesa manual wrong, it says to turn the Mid all the way " down " , which I'm assuming is all the way to the left ( pictured in the manual at about 9 o'clock ) ? What am I missing here ?
Fender style mid control is cut only. So '10' is flat.
There is no mid-boost on a fender tone stack.
+1 good question.
I dumped my F1X for the same reason.
My first thought as well.
I thought that more control would be best,, but I love the sound of my F-1X enough that I don't care. My bass has enough mid control that it's not needed at the preamp, I guess.
A Fender tone stack like the Alembic F-1x benefits greatly from the addition of a parametric EQ so you can dial in the precise spot and amount of midrange boost to supplement what you've got out of the tube. For me it's a slight bump at 500 Hz and it's perfection.
An amp is more than just its tone stack. I often like everything else about them. I love my 400+, but I do tone shaping with its graphic EQ. If I get into a new room and need to cut lows or add highs, I like just cutting lows or adding highs rather than dealing with an interactive EQ, especially since the 400+ already has a rather in-depth EQ section with the Fender tone stack, the graphic EQ, and a number of push-pull pots.
My favourite amp has a fender type stack with a fixed mid, and a separate active boost only mid.
That sounds quite versatile.
Never had a problem getting a good sound out a Fender stack as far as I know...I rather like them. You simply turn knobs until it sounds good...just like any other amp. Just means you might have to stray a ways from center with the knobs that's all.
I agree with you. The Fender/Baxandall circuit sounds great. The Alembic F2B was my go-to preamp for a long time. However it's counter-intuitive, and I often missed a mid-boost. So, I sometimes used the F2B with another preamp or eq.
The lack of treble-cut was never a problem for me; for that I'd use the passive tone control on the bass. But that's not the same as using active EQ to cut treble, so I understand Jimmy's need.
+1 to that, which is why my F1-X was replaced by an Interstellar Overdrive.
The IOD has everything I desire, except for its anemic output.
The foot switch controllable grind and foot pedal blend make the IOD very useful.
The low gain structure completely sucks when used with passive basses having low output pickups.
Separate names with a comma.