• TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
    Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
    Join free Log in
    Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.

Driving both inputs - Mesa 400 Plus

#21
that is correct, channel one is lower gain, but it also affects the volume. Plus, channel 2 seems to have (IMO) more heft in the notes then channel one (perhaps because of the overdrive/distortion?).

I run my MTD Kingston Artist through channel 2 and just keep the output on the bass low...
 
#22
I thought that might be the case,...I don't have the manual, bought it used, but found a link for it. My Mod Q5 does have an EXTREMELY hot output, so I'm thinking channel one only for her. Will try my Lakland in passive mode through channel 2 and see if there actually is a problem or not with the channel. Thanks for the words of wisdom.
 
#23
Don't know if this helps you any, but I love to run my 69 SVT with both channels. Channel 2 is pretty flat, and channel 1 has a great midbass hum that I love but also seems to have a mid scoop that I don't, so if I run them together I get flat + a midbass boost. I'm down with that :bassist:
 
#24
I wonder if my Marshall VBA400 also does this trick. There are two inputs one for active and one for passive bass. I wonder if when I play both at once there will be noticable difference. Although I have Stingray 4 I put it into passive because it is louder and have much more live, but I wonder what will happen when use them both. What do you think?
 
#25
Bunyo said:
I wonder if my Marshall VBA400 also does this trick. There are two inputs one for active and one for passive bass. I wonder if when I play both at once there will be noticable difference. Although I have Stingray 4 I put it into passive because it is louder and have much more live, but I wonder what will happen when use them both. What do you think?
Click to expand...

are they separate circuits? i.e. does each input have its own volume control? if not, it will be a parallel connection (like using the "1" and "2" inputs on one channel of a vintage type fender amp) and as such will not (or at least *should* not) make any difference.
 
#27
One volume control?

My 400+ has one Master and a volume/gain for each input.

I only bought this new yesterday and was just searching around for general info and found this thread---

Now I'm thinking a stereo to y mono cables, out of my Ric 4003's' "Rickosound" jack could be very interesting:cool::cool:

Anyone tried this?
 
  • Like
Reactions: jagi_san
#30
T.B.A. said:
One volume control?

My 400+ has one Master and a volume/gain for each input.

I only bought this new yesterday and was just searching around for general info and found this thread---

Now I'm thinking a stereo to y mono cables, out of my Ric 4003's' "Rickosound" jack could be very interesting:cool::cool:

Anyone tried this?
Click to expand...

I think the one volume control comment was directed at another amp.

Channel 2 sounds better that 1 on the 400+, but using both is nice. If you think about it a little bit you will realize the usefulness of having 2 channels with independent volume controls that can be run together.
 
#38
Pitbull Growl said:
Has anyone tried running their pedalboard thru one input and running clean un-effected bass thru the other yet?
Click to expand...

I did this with my MXR M80 - sending the clean parallel input out to the clean channel of the Mesa 400+ and the effected out to the other input.

One of the best bass sounds I ever achieved was with the "tube sim" engaged on the M80 and a bit of mid scoop on the high gain input and dry out in the lower gain input. :)

The distortion was pretty sweet too.
 
#39
toobalicious said:
how would this be superior to using the effects loop?
Click to expand...

Not every effect pedal likes being in a line level effects loop.

Has anyone tried running their pedalboard thru one input and running clean un-effected bass thru the other yet?
Click to expand...

That's what I'm talking about. Run your favorite sounding channel clean, runt he effects into the other one, blend the 2 to taste.

You know all those cool guitar effects that work with bass, but rob the signal of its low end, so you can't use them? Now you can. Get your low end from the clean channel, blend with the effect.
 
#40
toobalicious said:
how would this be superior to using the effects loop?
Click to expand...
Because by running it in the effects loop you don't have stereo-like seperation and the ability to blend the clean vs effected lines thru the use of 2 seperate volumes... then an overall volume (Master) to customize your sound and retain all your lows and that awesome Mesa low-mid punch... Ya dig?

You know how the Big Bass Muff has that "Blend" knob?? Well think of it as a blend knob for your entire effects chain.

NecroticImbecil said:
That's what I'm talking about. Run your favorite sounding channel clean, runt he effects into the other one, blend the 2 to taste.

You know all those cool guitar effects that work with bass, but rob the signal of its low end, so you can't use them? Now you can. Get your low end from the clean channel, blend with the effect.
Click to expand...
BINGO!!

rpsands said:
I did this with my MXR M80 - sending the clean parallel input out to the clean channel of the Mesa 400+ and the effected out to the other input.

One of the best bass sounds I ever achieved was with the "tube sim" engaged on the M80 and a bit of mid scoop on the high gain input and dry out in the lower gain input. :)

The distortion was pretty sweet too.
Click to expand...
Yeah I noticed that when I run my pedals into the input, I lose that percussive punch that attracted me to the Mesa 400+ to begin with. I figured this would be the best way to retain it. I'm glad someone else came to the same (or at least a similar) conclusion and it worked out. I'm looking fwd to trying this out myself.
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back