I think in this situation, trading the SM for the TT seems like a backwards move that is going to reduce rather enhance your options. The D800 and TT (or other Mesa) are going to be a lot more similar, so I would think keeping the SM and trading the D800 for a different Mesa head (ie 800+, WD, or TT) would be the way to get what you're after. The D800 will also probably get you more "trade in" value towards something else than the SM, which is "unfortunately" a really good value.
For me, the TT has some deal breaker issues for it being able to be a "one and only" amp, biggest being the weird non-shared effects loops (or maybe that was it, I don't remember offhand). I can neither afford nor want 2 separate signal paths for effects for "clean" and "dirty" (as I would commonly use the 2 channels). My pedal board is already like 40 lbs. The SM has the exact same functionality of individual serial loops plus the shared master loop, meaning you can do everything and more on that front as the TT. I DO really like the idea of the Bass 400 styled preamp, and I hope at some point it will be repackaged in a way that might make more sense for players like me who want to have common effects for both/all channels. Maybe a single channel amp but with dual switchable gain/volume settings (ie with common EQ). I'd rather share EQ and loop than have separate both, even as much as I rely on the separate EQ on the SM.
So yeah, I think you should look at upgrading the D800 to one of those other 3 more fully featured heads, and/or get an adjustable pedal HPF. To me, the SM is only as complicated as you want to make it. If you want simple, just set everything flat and stay on the FET channel with the shaping controls off. The next level would be experimenting with the 2 mid bands to find a musical frequency to cut or boost for each one and just leave them set there. I'm always tweaking mine but that's because my main bass I'm not entirely happy with it's inherent tone (I have a pickup/preamp upgrade planned when budget allows) and also because the controls are responsive enough that I can "stumble" onto great sounds with a lot of different settings, so for me tweaking and changing is part of the fun.
Also, I appreciate the elucidation on the SM/GBE LF extend/boost and relation to HPF. I think I read that here a while ago but kind of forgot about it. I need to play around with the boost setting, because I usually keep the lows flat or even cut, but maybe I can use the LF boost up here and then adjust the bass and/or low mid EQ to get closer to what I'm after. I think at the (relatively modest) volumes I need and the firepower I have (usually into 2 Uber Quads), I can get away with that lower cutoff, especially if I'm compensating for the overall low end to have roughly the same energy but just go a bit lower.
For me, the TT has some deal breaker issues for it being able to be a "one and only" amp, biggest being the weird non-shared effects loops (or maybe that was it, I don't remember offhand). I can neither afford nor want 2 separate signal paths for effects for "clean" and "dirty" (as I would commonly use the 2 channels). My pedal board is already like 40 lbs. The SM has the exact same functionality of individual serial loops plus the shared master loop, meaning you can do everything and more on that front as the TT. I DO really like the idea of the Bass 400 styled preamp, and I hope at some point it will be repackaged in a way that might make more sense for players like me who want to have common effects for both/all channels. Maybe a single channel amp but with dual switchable gain/volume settings (ie with common EQ). I'd rather share EQ and loop than have separate both, even as much as I rely on the separate EQ on the SM.
So yeah, I think you should look at upgrading the D800 to one of those other 3 more fully featured heads, and/or get an adjustable pedal HPF. To me, the SM is only as complicated as you want to make it. If you want simple, just set everything flat and stay on the FET channel with the shaping controls off. The next level would be experimenting with the 2 mid bands to find a musical frequency to cut or boost for each one and just leave them set there. I'm always tweaking mine but that's because my main bass I'm not entirely happy with it's inherent tone (I have a pickup/preamp upgrade planned when budget allows) and also because the controls are responsive enough that I can "stumble" onto great sounds with a lot of different settings, so for me tweaking and changing is part of the fun.
Also, I appreciate the elucidation on the SM/GBE LF extend/boost and relation to HPF. I think I read that here a while ago but kind of forgot about it. I need to play around with the boost setting, because I usually keep the lows flat or even cut, but maybe I can use the LF boost up here and then adjust the bass and/or low mid EQ to get closer to what I'm after. I think at the (relatively modest) volumes I need and the firepower I have (usually into 2 Uber Quads), I can get away with that lower cutoff, especially if I'm compensating for the overall low end to have roughly the same energy but just go a bit lower.
.
