Fender Rumble LT25, Studio 40 & Stage 800

[bhendrix]

I imagine the speaker in the Studio 40 is same junk speaker in the Rumble 40?

Well I've had my Studio 40 for over a week now and it definitely does not have a junk speaker. To me, the sound is very impressive and the cab/speaker handles all the modeling and effects flawlessly. For now, it's mainly used for practice with the volume set at 9 o'clock - which is plenty loud.

As mentioned before, many use the Studio 40 as an inexpensive modeler, then pipe it through a Rumble 200 or the like to achieve performance volumes.

Yessir! Works great - hooked up the Studio 40 to my R500c and can get all the goodies from the Studio 40 at gig/jam volume!

 

[G-Dog]

I imagine the speaker in the Studio 40 is same junk speaker in the Rumble 40? Granted even after a speaker swap it is cheaper by a lot unless you also want the footswitch.

The Fender Rumble Studio 40 is a fine amp for small to intermediate jams and venues, dependingon the presence of percussion. I've played along with a couple dozen acoustic instruments at a time for over a year without having to turn up to noon on the Master. The speaker is exactly the same as the one in the non-modeling Rumble 40, but the Studio also has a tweeter. The preamp and firmware is exactly the same as the Rumble Stage 800, with all the same voices and tones of the Stage in a smaller form at lower cost. It may not have the room shaking force of more powerful amps, but what 40 watter does?

And the footswitch is a terrific convenience for the multiple features that is worth every penny. But, if your pennies are tight, there are used ULT-4 and MS-4 footswitches for cheaper than a new MGT-4 that do exactly the same thing! And Fender will even send you a free magnetic overlay to update the labels on the older switches!

HTH
.

 

[BarfanyShart]

It has a different speaker than the Rumble 40, I dont know that it is per se "better," but I am pretty sure it is different. The speak in the Studio 40 is fine, actually impressive how it handles the different models at different volumes without too much weirdness,, and it is very easy to pipe it into another amp for more volume.

 

[iagtrplyr]

The Fender Rumble Studio 40 is a fine amp for small to intermediate jams and venues, dependingon the presenceof percussion. I've played along with a couple dozen acoustic instruments at a time for over a year without having to turn up to noon on the Master. The speaker is exactly the same as the one in the non-modeling Rumble 40, but the Studio also has a tweeter. The preamp and firmware is exactly the same as the Rumble Stage 800, with all the same voices and tones of the Stage in a smaller form at lower cost. It may not have the room shaking force of more powerful amps, but what 40 watter does?

And the footswitch is a terrific convenience for the multiple features that is worth every penny. But, if your pennies are tight, there are used ULT-4 and MS-4 footswitches for cheaper than a new MGT-4 that do exactly the same thing! And Fender will even send you a free magnetic overlay to update the labels on the older switches!

HTH
.

I knew as soon as Solude wrote that comment it was gonna get interesting. So I went and made some popcorn and was treated to my guys, bhendrix and G'Dog with their retorts, and it won't surprise me one bit if a few more responses show up before bedtime. BTW, I completely agree with the responders.

Like Jim Croce sang, it's never a good idea to spit in the wind, step on Superman's cape, or make an insult about a piece of musical equipment inside that appreciation society's own club posts! Now, a better discussion would've been if Fender made a good decision in not giving the Studio 40 a single Eminence driver found in the Stage 800 or not (possibly more based on $$), but not to on what I always thought was a fine-sounding speaker that was in my Bronco 40, as mentioned by Droopy_TX, I believe.

Okay, I'll step off the soapbox and hand it to anyone else who wishes to comment.

 

[Solude]

Junk was perhaps a poor choice. Maybe, not the same quality as found on the Eminence models or Bassman line, is a better way of putting it. Fair?

I just drove over to my local shop to refresh my experience and to my surprise GK is no longer silent. About the same as the Fender and better than the Ampeg. The other real eye opener was how loud the noise on the Tech21 combo was.

I think I'll stay put for now until I listen to an amp that sings to me. Thanks for the input gents.

 

[G-Dog]

@Solude,
Sorry for the delay, but I wanted to run some tests and gather some data before responding. I have both units. I like and use the both, many times in the same way. I find that both are very capable modelers, and both have their strengths.

Surprisingly, there is not a lot of overlap in the amp models they offer. Here’s a handy table of the amp models on each:

Common and Similar Models
There are actually only two amp models that are identical between the two modelers: the Ampeg B-15NF and the Gallien-Krueger 800RB. Although both units have a classic SVT amp model, source models are not identical. The Fender model appears to be based on the Ampeg SVT-CL amp, whereas the Helix models the Ampeg SVT-VR amp. Although the controls differ on these amps, there is enough similarity between the models to yield a significant overlap in the tones for comparison. However, the Ampeg SVT-VR is undoubtedly the more capable of the two models. The R800’s Sunn 300T model and the Stomp’s Sunn Coliseum 300 are not at all the same models; however, they are very similar. So I found that their tones and sonic ranges overlap enough for these amps also to be used for qualitative analysis.

Testing Method
My testing method was pretty straightforward. I simultaneously plugged my Fender Precision into both a Fender Rumble Stage 800 and a Line 6 HX Stomp. Both of these were fed via USB into separate tracks in my DAW. I used both presets created from scratch, and factory templates as provided on each device, matching parameters as reasonable. I took turns playing through each device, and fiddled with the settings a bit. I am nothing if not a scientific methodologist.

Findings

• On the whole, both modelers performed very well. It was fairly easy to get a good common matching tone on both units.
• Both have a good selection of amps, cabinets, and effects. The Rumble Stage 800 has more amp models; nearly twice that of the HX Stomp; but the quality, clarity, and flexibility of the Stomp models is stellar.

• If I had give an edge to one of the units, I would give it to the HX Stomp. I don’t think that the amp modeling itself is significantly different; but, what is different on the HX Stomp is the inclusion of microphone selection on the cabinet model. Being able to change microphone provides much greater flexibility in tailoring the tone (e.g. controlling “boominess”, mid-range definition, treble highlights without over doing it, etc.).

Noise

• You raised a question on noisiness: The actual HX Stomp, of course, doesn’t make any noise itself. I consider the Rumble 800 to be a pretty quiet unit. It does have a fan, but I would consider the fan noise very low.
• With regarding to signal noise, using standard amps with standard settings, neither device creates a significant amount of signal noise. However, as with any device, real or modeled, if you add a lot of gain to any devices in the signal path, it can get noisy. Particularly a unit like a Big Muff Pi or similar overdrive. If the gain is cranked, you’re going to hear it.
• Overall, though, without using crazy effects or tremendously high gain, both units are impressively quiet. The only somewhat noisy amp is the SWR Redhead. I think that’s a result of the fact that it is such a pristine amp; it’s going to amplify everything.

Recommendations

• Which unit is “better” is really a matter of purpose:

• I think the HX Stomp is a better modeler. That is what it does; but, what it doesn’t do is amplify.
• If you are looking for a device to record with, the HX Stomp is going to offer more flexibility for tweaking your tone. It can create dual-amp paths. It can re-amp a dry signal through other amp models. It is great in the studio and very portable.
• The Rumble Stage 800 is an excellent amplifier, and a very capable modeler. If you are looking for a modeling amp that you can use to play live, and not be reliant on the P.A. for your sound, it is excellent in this capacity. The Studio 40 offers the same tones at a lower volumes for small venues, but it can also be fed through other amps to bolster its volumes as many Rumble fans will attest.

• If you are considering using the HX Stomp on stage, you need to consider how you will amplify and monitor it.

• I have done so successfully, but either the PA will need to able to support the bass, or you will have to run the one of the outputs of the Stomp to an amp or FRFR speaker for stage volume/monitoring.
• Alternatively, if you are able to run the bass through the PA, and are using IEMs, you’re gold.

• Another alternative is to consider the amazing power of “AND”.

• There is a reason I have both. I do all of the scenarios above.
• I use both the Rumble and the Stomp in the studio (via USB, to heck with cab mic’ing) depending on which can better create the sound I want.
• For live play, I generally run the Stomp as an effects unit into the front of my Rumble. In that situation, the Rumble is the modeling unit, and provides room volume and monitoring. The Stomp is relegated to effects and pitch shifting duties.
• In “fly” situations, with a full PA, it’s the Stomp alone with IEMs.

• Regarding noise, as I said, neither unit is noisy through normal use:

• So, avoid overly high-gain effects / amps.
• Or, make sure the song is noisy enough to bury the noise. ;-)

Hope this helps.

Attention: Rumble Club Wiki Edit Alert!

Thank you, again & again, @Droopy_TX. A link to your post COMPARING the Rumble Stage & Studio modeling to the Line 6 Helix has been added to the Rumble Club Wiki page near the middle of the Stage & Studio Links section. That, like all your posts, Droo, is another meticulously researched and thoughtfully presented treatise on this interesting and very valuable subject. Glad I'm able to capture this and link it for future reference.

Thank you, oh SO very much, again & again, Droop, for sharing your insightful experience and views.
.

 

[bhendrix]

And the footswitch is a terrific convenience for the multiple features that is worth every penny

Now that you've had it a few days, how's that GTX-7 working out for ya? If I start using the Studio more in a band setting, I'd definitely want one!

 

[G-Dog]

The Fender Rumble Studio 40 ... speaker is exactly the same as the one in the non-modeling Rumble 40, but the Studio also has a tweeter. ... ...

It has a different speaker than the Rumble 40, I dont know that it is per se "better," but I am pretty sure it is different. ... ...

Bass Gear Magazine Editor-in-Chief, tombowlus, has spoken with Fender technicians at length about the Rumble Stage and Studio amps as part of his journalistic beat and has graciously settled some speculative wanderings here on TB. When some of us thought the Stage & Studio must surely have special FRFR speakers for modeling service, he reported that the Stage 800 shares the same Eminence speakers as the Rumble 500 and its matching 210 cab, and that the Studio 40 has the same speaker as the non-modeling Rumble 40.
.

 

[Bottom Octave]

@Solude,
Sorry for the delay, but I wanted to run some tests and gather some data before responding. I have both units. I like and use the both, many times in the same way. I find that both are very capable modelers, and both have their strengths.

Surprisingly, there is not a lot of overlap in the amp models they offer. Here’s a handy table of the amp models on each:
View attachment 3889812

Common and Similar Models
There are actually only two amp models that are identical between the two modelers: the Ampeg B-15NF and the Gallien-Krueger 800RB. Although both units have a classic SVT amp model, source models are not identical. The Fender model appears to be based on the Ampeg SVT-CL amp, whereas the Helix models the Ampeg SVT-VR amp. Although the controls differ on these amps, there is enough similarity between the models to yield a significant overlap in the tones for comparison. However, the Ampeg SVT-VR is undoubtedly the more capable of the two models. The R800’s Sunn 300T model and the Stomp’s Sunn Coliseum 300 are not at all the same models; however, they are very similar. So I found that their tones and sonic ranges overlap enough for these amps also to be used for qualitative analysis.

Testing Method
My testing method was pretty straightforward. I simultaneously plugged my Fender Precision into both a Fender Rumble Stage 800 and a Line 6 HX Stomp. Both of these were fed via USB into separate tracks in my DAW. I used both presets created from scratch, and factory templates as provided on each device, matching parameters as reasonable. I took turns playing through each device, and fiddled with the settings a bit. I am nothing if not a scientific methodologist.

Findings

• On the whole, both modelers performed very well. It was fairly easy to get a good common matching tone on both units.
• Both have a good selection of amps, cabinets, and effects. The Rumble Stage 800 has more amp models; nearly twice that of the HX Stomp; but the quality, clarity, and flexibility of the Stomp models is stellar.

• If I had give an edge to one of the units, I would give it to the HX Stomp. I don’t think that the amp modeling itself is significantly different; but, what is different on the HX Stomp is the inclusion of microphone selection on the cabinet model. Being able to change microphone provides much greater flexibility in tailoring the tone (e.g. controlling “boominess”, mid-range definition, treble highlights without over doing it, etc.).

Noise

• You raised a question on noisiness: The actual HX Stomp, of course, doesn’t make any noise itself. I consider the Rumble 800 to be a pretty quiet unit. It does have a fan, but I would consider the fan noise very low.
• With regarding to signal noise, using standard amps with standard settings, neither device creates a significant amount of signal noise. However, as with any device, real or modeled, if you add a lot of gain to any devices in the signal path, it can get noisy. Particularly a unit like a Big Muff Pi or similar overdrive. If the gain is cranked, you’re going to hear it.
• Overall, though, without using crazy effects or tremendously high gain, both units are impressively quiet. The only somewhat noisy amp is the SWR Redhead. I think that’s a result of the fact that it is such a pristine amp; it’s going to amplify everything.

Recommendations

• Which unit is “better” is really a matter of purpose:

• I think the HX Stomp is a better modeler. That is what it does; but, what it doesn’t do is amplify.
• If you are looking for a device to record with, the HX Stomp is going to offer more flexibility for tweaking your tone. It can create dual-amp paths. It can re-amp a dry signal through other amp models. It is great in the studio and very portable.
• The Rumble Stage 800 is an excellent amplifier, and a very capable modeler. If you are looking for a modeling amp that you can use to play live, and not be reliant on the P.A. for your sound, it is excellent in this capacity. The Studio 40 offers the same tones at a lower volumes for small venues, but it can also be fed through other amps to bolster its volumes as many Rumble fans will attest.

• If you are considering using the HX Stomp on stage, you need to consider how you will amplify and monitor it.

• I have done so successfully, but either the PA will need to able to support the bass, or you will have to run the one of the outputs of the Stomp to an amp or FRFR speaker for stage volume/monitoring.
• Alternatively, if you are able to run the bass through the PA, and are using IEMs, you’re gold.

• Another alternative is to consider the amazing power of “AND”.

• There is a reason I have both. I do all of the scenarios above.
• I use both the Rumble and the Stomp in the studio (via USB, to heck with cab mic’ing) depending on which can better create the sound I want.
• For live play, I generally run the Stomp as an effects unit into the front of my Rumble. In that situation, the Rumble is the modeling unit, and provides room volume and monitoring. The Stomp is relegated to effects and pitch shifting duties.
• In “fly” situations, with a full PA, it’s the Stomp alone with IEMs.

• Regarding noise, as I said, neither unit is noisy through normal use:

• So, avoid overly high-gain effects / amps.
• Or, make sure the song is noisy enough to bury the noise. ;-)

Hope this helps.

Re your method: "I simultaneously plugged my Fender Precision into both a Fender Rumble Stage 800 and a Line 6 HX Stomp." What did you use to split the instrument output and feed it simultaneously into both devices?

 

[SoulReflection]

I knew as soon as Solude wrote that comment it was gonna get interesting. So I went and made some popcorn and was treated to my guys, bhendrix and G'Dog with their retorts, and it won't surprise me one bit if a few more responses show up before bedtime. BTW, I completely agree with the responders.

Like Jim Croce sang, it's never a good idea to spit in the wind, step on Superman's cape, or make an insult about a piece of musical equipment inside that appreciation society's own club posts! Now, a better discussion would've been if Fender made a good decision in not giving the Studio 40 a single Eminence driver found in the Stage 800 or not (possibly more based on $$), but not to on what I always thought was a fine-sounding speaker that was in my Bronco 40, as mentioned by Droopy_TX, I believe.

Okay, I'll step off the soapbox and hand it to anyone else who wishes to comment.

Well, since you handed the soapbox over:

"Like Jim Croce sang, it's never a good idea to spit in the wind", I believe it was the PC way of saying a liquid lower down...just my .02 worth .

 

[Droopy_TX]

Re your method: "I simultaneously plugged my Fender Precision into both a Fender Rumble Stage 800 and a Line 6 HX Stomp." What did you use to split the instrument output and feed it simultaneously into both devices?

You know, when I re-read that part of my write-up, I thought to myself, “That kinda sounds like I was using a splitter of some sort.”; I wasn’t. It was an over-simplification of what I was actually doing; but, I decided against editing that statement, hoping I wouldn’t get called on it... but I knew someone would.

What I was actually doing is this:
My P-bass was plugged into the instrument input on the HX Stomp. The Left/Mono output of the HX Stomp was connected to the instrument input of the Rumble Stage 800, sending an instrument-level signal.

The USB outputs from each of the units were plugged into a powered USB-3 hub connected to my computer. On the computer (MacBook Pro, Mojave OS, Logic Pro X 10.5.1 DAW) I created an aggregate audio device combining the input from both devices into a single virtual multi-channel audio input device which I defined as my source input device in the DAW. I assigned the left USB channel from each of devices as the inputs into two separate mono instrument tracks. This allowed me to switch the input of the instrument tracks between mono and audio as I was testing.

When playing the HX Stomp, since it was the first device in the physical signal path, I would simply solo its track and play. When switching to the Rumble Stage 800, I would solo its track, put the HX Stomp in bypass mode, and then play.

So, what I was intending to confer is that I could switch between the source devices in less than a second. So, it was neither simultaneous nor instantaneous; but, the A/B switching was very quick, in order to have memory of the prior preset fresh in my mind.

So, sorry to disappoint if you were hoping for a decent signal splitter. I have looked into signal splitters before. The more affordable ones seemed dicey (perhaps asking for grounding issues), and the more costly ones were excessively so.

The way I use my Stomp live (as a transposition effect) requires that the signal be taken after the Stomp and before the amp if I want to send a signal to the PA. So, I am resigned to using the Stomp as a splitter when necessary.

Sorry for the inaccuracy, but it was for the purpose of clarity rather than deception.

 

[iagtrplyr]

Well, since you handed the soapbox over:

"Like Jim Croce sang, it's never a good idea to spit in the wind", I believe it was the PC way of saying a liquid lower down...just my .02 worth .

Oh. Well, with Covid-19 and everything...

 

[Bottom Octave]

You know, when I re-read that part of my write-up, I thought to myself, “That kinda sounds like I was using a splitter of some sort.”; I wasn’t. It was an over-simplification of what I was actually doing; but, I decided against editing that statement, hoping I wouldn’t get called on it... but I knew someone would.

What I was actually doing is this:
My P-bass was plugged into the instrument input on the HX Stomp. The Left/Mono output of the HX Stomp was connected to the instrument input of the Rumble Stage 800, sending an instrument-level signal.

The USB outputs from each of the units were plugged into a powered USB-3 hub connected to my computer. On the computer (MacBook Pro, Mojave OS, Logic Pro X 10.5.1 DAW) I created an aggregate audio device combining the input from both devices into a single virtual multi-channel audio input device which I defined as my source input device in the DAW. I assigned the left USB channel from each of devices as the inputs into two separate mono instrument tracks. This allowed me to switch the input of the instrument tracks between mono and audio as I was testing.

When playing the HX Stomp, since it was the first device in the physical signal path, I would simply solo its track and play. When switching to the Rumble Stage 800, I would solo its track, put the HX Stomp in bypass mode, and then play.

So, what I was intending to confer is that I could switch between the source devices in less than a second. So, it was neither simultaneous nor instantaneous; but, the A/B switching was very quick, in order to have memory of the prior preset fresh in my mind.

So, sorry to disappoint if you were hoping for a decent signal splitter. I have looked into signal splitters before. The more affordable ones seemed dicey (perhaps asking for grounding issues), and the more costly ones were excessively so.

The way I use my Stomp live (as a transposition effect) requires that the signal be taken after the Stomp and before the amp if I want to send a signal to the PA. So, I am resigned to using the Stomp as a splitter when necessary.

Sorry for the inaccuracy, but it was for the purpose of clarity rather than deception.

The input impedance of the HX Stomp is the determining factor here, as well as its output impedance into the 1 Megohm input of the Rumble, which would be significantly lower than the output impedance of the P-bass pickups, which (approximately) doubles every octave; that is, the DC resistance of the pickups is equal to the impedance only at low frequencies, rising sharply with frequency. The HX Stomp output would be seen by the Rumble quite differently from the P-bass pickups. For an apples to apples comparison, a direct box with two equivalent outputs, one into each device, would level the playing field. Even though the direct box outputs wouldn't be the same as the output of the pickups themselves, it would at least be the same for each signal path.

I write this not to be a stickler, but because you clearly have a scientific interest in this and have gone to some length to seek an answer experimentally, with careful attention to detail.

 

[Droopy_TX]

I write this not to be a stickler, but because you clearly have a scientific interest in this and have gone to some length to seek an answer experimentally, with careful attention to detail.

Understood, agreed, and thanks.

 

[Droopy_TX]

The input impedance of the HX Stomp is the determining factor here, as well as its output impedance into the 1 Megohm input of the Rumble, which would be significantly lower than the output impedance of the P-bass pickups, which (approximately) doubles every octave; that is, the DC resistance of the pickups is equal to the impedance only at low frequencies, rising sharply with frequency. The HX Stomp output would be seen by the Rumble quite differently from the P-bass pickups. For an apples to apples comparison, a direct box with two equivalent outputs, one into each device, would level the playing field. Even though the direct box outputs wouldn't be the same as the output of the pickups themselves, it would at least be the same for each signal path.

I write this not to be a stickler, but because you clearly have a scientific interest in this and have gone to some length to seek an answer experimentally, with careful attention to detail.

@Bottom Octave,
Firstly, apologies for my terse response last night. Now that I've had a chance to sleep, I have to admit that your points raised a keen level of concern with me.

As you rightly indicate, the input impedance level could certainly have a significant impact on the modeler tones. And, further, I omitted one additional, and potentially highly significant, component from the signal chain I described. I pretty much always use a Line 6 Relay G10 wireless device both at home and live. So, not only was my bass not plugged directly into the Rumble Stage 800 when testing, it was never plugged directly into the Stomp either; but rather via the wireless.

And, though I was not trying to do a strict shoot-out between the two modelers, this was more simply to provide @Solude my subjective judgement informally comparing the quality of the common amp models the two share, I certainly do not want any glaring inconsistencies in the process to taint my results.

I am not that concerned about the effect the G10 had on the Stomp, because: 1) I have used it for a long time, both directly connected and via the wireless, and I have never had any tonal issues switching between the two, and 2) because my overall assessment was that its modeling edged out the Rumble Stage 800. However, especially in this forum, I want to make certain the Rumble was well-represented, and not impeded by the indirect instrument connection.

So, in order to test the effects the connectivity might have had on my assessment, rather than redo-ing my initial test, I ran this alternate test (which tests both the initial review results, and illustrates differences among connectivity methods):

I setup another test project in my DAW, and created 3 instrument tracks to record each of my connection methods: 1) wireless via bypassed Stomp, 2) direct into bypassed Stomp, 3) direct into Rumble Stage 800. I used the standard "Basic Bassman Overdrive" preset which I find to be a nice balance of clean, grit, and thump, and recorded two passages using each of the connection methods. One passage was the bass riff in the intro of Rush's "Xanadu" (which covers 2 octaves), the other was the signature line of Stanley Clarke's "Lopsy Lu" (which covers 3 octaves). I did my best to record each with the same playing intensity.

Once recorded, I balanced the volumes among the tracks and compared the results. Not surprisingly, plugging the bass directly into the Rumble Stage 800 yielded the hottest recording level among the tracks. Surprisingly, the track using the G10 wireless was hotter than plugging directly into the Stomp.

However, once the track volume levels were balanced, there was not a significant effect to the modeling results. Certainly the guitar signal when directly connected was "cleaner", kinda like the treble or mids had been tweaked just a bit for more upper-end clarity; but not a significant change to the overall amp model tone.

Again, if one were strictly judging the accuracy of the models, or the responsiveness of the sag/bias/etc., then a strict adherence to connectivity methods would be a necessity. In the case of this general comparison, and given these testing results, I think my initial findings stand.

However, none of this is in any way intended to impugn the veracity and importance of your observations, and I appreciate that you raised them.

Hope this helps.

 

[iagtrplyr]

@Bottom Octave,
Firstly, apologies for my terse response last night. Now that I've had a chance to sleep, I have to admit that your points raised a keen level of concern with me.

As you rightly indicate, the input impedance level could certainly have a significant impact on the modeler tones. And, further, I omitted one additional, and potentially highly significant, component from the signal chain I described. I pretty much always use a Line 6 Relay G10 wireless device both at home and live. So, not only was my bass not plugged directly into the Rumble Stage 800 when testing, it was never plugged directly into the Stomp either; but rather via the wireless.

And, though I was not trying to do a strict shoot-out between the two modelers, this was more simply to provide @Solude my subjective judgement informally comparing the quality of the common amp models the two share, I certainly do not want any glaring inconsistencies in the process to taint my results.

I am not that concerned about the effect the G10 had on the Stomp, because: 1) I have used it for a long time, both directly connected and via the wireless, and I have never had any tonal issues switching between the two, and 2) because my overall assessment was that its modeling edged out the Rumble Stage 800. However, especially in this forum, I want to make certain the Rumble was well-represented, and not impeded by the indirect instrument connection.

So, in order to test the effects the connectivity might have had on my assessment, rather than redo-ing my initial test, I ran this alternate test (which tests both the initial review results, and illustrates differences among connectivity methods):

I setup another test project in my DAW, and created 3 instrument tracks to record each of my connection methods: 1) wireless via bypassed Stomp, 2) direct into bypassed Stomp, 3) direct into Rumble Stage 800. I used the standard "Basic Bassman Overdrive" preset which I find to be a nice balance of clean, grit, and thump, and recorded two passages using each of the connection methods. One passage was the bass riff in the intro of Rush's "Xanadu" (which covers 2 octaves), the other was the signature line of Stanley Clarke's "Lopsy Lu" (which covers 3 octaves). I did my best to record each with the same playing intensity.

Once recorded, I balanced the volumes among the tracks and compared the results. Not surprisingly, plugging the bass directly into the Rumble Stage 800 yielded the hottest recording level among the tracks. Surprisingly, the track using the G10 wireless was hotter than plugging directly into the Stomp.

However, once the track volume levels were balanced, there was not a significant effect to the modeling results. Certainly the guitar signal when directly connected was "cleaner", kinda like the treble or mids had been tweaked just a bit for more upper-end clarity; but not a significant change to the overall amp model tone.

Again, if one were strictly judging the accuracy of the models, or the responsiveness of the sag/bias/etc., then a strict adherence to connectivity methods would be a necessity. In the case of this general comparison, and given these testing results, I think my initial findings stand.

However, none of this is in any way intended to impugn the veracity and importance of your observations, and I appreciate that you raised them.

Hope this helps.

I’m just impressed that you knocked off Geddy Lee and Stanley Clarke in the same decade. As for everything else, don’t sweat it, Droopy. Happy Fourth!

 

[G-Dog]

Re your method: "I simultaneously plugged my Fender Precision into both a Fender Rumble Stage 800 and a Line 6 HX Stomp." What did you use to split the instrument output and feed it simultaneously into both devices?

You know, when I re-read that part of my write-up, I thought to myself, “That kinda sounds like I was using a splitter of some sort.”; I wasn’t. It was an over-simplification of what I was actually doing; but, I decided against editing that statement, hoping I wouldn’t get called on it... but I knew someone would.

What I was actually doing is this:
My P-bass was plugged into the instrument input on the HX Stomp. The Left/Mono output of the HX Stomp was connected to the instrument input of the Rumble Stage 800, sending an instrument-level signal.

The USB outputs from each of the units were plugged into a powered USB-3 hub connected to my computer. On the computer (MacBook Pro, Mojave OS, Logic Pro X 10.5.1 DAW) I created an aggregate audio device combining the input from both devices into a single virtual multi-channel audio input device which I defined as my source input device in the DAW. I assigned the left USB channel from each of devices as the inputs into two separate mono instrument tracks. This allowed me to switch the input of the instrument tracks between mono and audio as I was testing.

When playing the HX Stomp, since it was the first device in the physical signal path, I would simply solo its track and play. When switching to the Rumble Stage 800, I would solo its track, put the HX Stomp in bypass mode, and then play.

So, what I was intending to confer is that I could switch between the source devices in less than a second. So, it was neither simultaneous nor instantaneous; but, the A/B switching was very quick, in order to have memory of the prior preset fresh in my mind.

So, sorry to disappoint if you were hoping for a decent signal splitter. I have looked into signal splitters before. The more affordable ones seemed dicey (perhaps asking for grounding issues), and the more costly ones were excessively so.

The way I use my Stomp live (as a transposition effect) requires that the signal be taken after the Stomp and before the amp if I want to send a signal to the PA. So, I am resigned to using the Stomp as a splitter when necessary.

Sorry for the inaccuracy, but it was for the purpose of clarity rather than deception.

The input impedance of the HX Stomp is the determining factor here, as well as its output impedance into the 1 Megohm input of the Rumble, which would be significantly lower than the output impedance of the P-bass pickups, which (approximately) doubles every octave; that is, the DC resistance of the pickups is equal to the impedance only at low frequencies, rising sharply with frequency. The HX Stomp output would be seen by the Rumble quite differently from the P-bass pickups. For an apples to apples comparison, a direct box with two equivalent outputs, one into each device, would level the playing field. Even though the direct box outputs wouldn't be the same as the output of the pickups themselves, it would at least be the same for each signal path.

I write this not to be a stickler, but because you clearly have a scientific interest in this and have gone to some length to seek an answer experimentally, with careful attention to detail.

@Bottom Octave,
Firstly, apologies for my terse response last night. Now that I've had a chance to sleep, I have to admit that your points raised a keen level of concern with me.

As you rightly indicate, the input impedance level could certainly have a significant impact on the modeler tones. And, further, I omitted one additional, and potentially highly significant, component from the signal chain I described. I pretty much always use a Line 6 Relay G10 wireless device both at home and live. So, not only was my bass not plugged directly into the Rumble Stage 800 when testing, it was never plugged directly into the Stomp either; but rather via the wireless.

And, though I was not trying to do a strict shoot-out between the two modelers, this was more simply to provide @Solude my subjective judgement informally comparing the quality of the common amp models the two share, I certainly do not want any glaring inconsistencies in the process to taint my results.

I am not that concerned about the effect the G10 had on the Stomp, because: 1) I have used it for a long time, both directly connected and via the wireless, and I have never had any tonal issues switching between the two, and 2) because my overall assessment was that its modeling edged out the Rumble Stage 800. However, especially in this forum, I want to make certain the Rumble was well-represented, and not impeded by the indirect instrument connection.

So, in order to test the effects the connectivity might have had on my assessment, rather than redo-ing my initial test, I ran this alternate test (which tests both the initial review results, and illustrates differences among connectivity methods):

I setup another test project in my DAW, and created 3 instrument tracks to record each of my connection methods: 1) wireless via bypassed Stomp, 2) direct into bypassed Stomp, 3) direct into Rumble Stage 800. I used the standard "Basic Bassman Overdrive" preset which I find to be a nice balance of clean, grit, and thump, and recorded two passages using each of the connection methods. One passage was the bass riff in the intro of Rush's "Xanadu" (which covers 2 octaves), the other was the signature line of Stanley Clarke's "Lopsy Lu" (which covers 3 octaves). I did my best to record each with the same playing intensity.

Once recorded, I balanced the volumes among the tracks and compared the results. Not surprisingly, plugging the bass directly into the Rumble Stage 800 yielded the hottest recording level among the tracks. Surprisingly, the track using the G10 wireless was hotter than plugging directly into the Stomp.

However, once the track volume levels were balanced, there was not a significant effect to the modeling results. Certainly the guitar signal when directly connected was "cleaner", kinda like the treble or mids had been tweaked just a bit for more upper-end clarity; but not a significant change to the overall amp model tone.

Again, if one were strictly judging the accuracy of the models, or the responsiveness of the sag/bias/etc., then a strict adherence to connectivity methods would be a necessity. In the case of this general comparison, and given these testing results, I think my initial findings stand.

However, none of this is in any way intended to impugn the veracity and importance of your observations, and I appreciate that you raised them.

Hope this helps.

OMG! Cat fight! Knock down, drag out!! A real ol' fashioned bare knuckles no-holds-barred barney!!! Place yer bets, ladies and gentlemen! Place yer bets! Step right up! Just two bits admission! It's the grudge match of the century! Professor Bottom vs Doctor Droop!

Ah'ight, fellas, I wanna excitin' fight fer thuh payin' customers, ya get me? They want blood and you gotta give it to 'em, ok? Now get out there and may the most ruthless, uncouth bastich win!

I mean, could you both BE any more polite and respectful? Now THIS is how you have a civilized discourse. Why, I don't think I even detect much disagreement here! uh, ... ummm, . . . . In fact, now that I have reviewed the tapes of the initial skirmish, I do believe that they are actually in total agreement!! Wha...? But...! Hey, youse guys!

Ok, ok, break it up. Nothing to see here. Move along, move along. ... . . . .
.​

 

[Bottom Octave]

OMG! Cat fight! Knock down, drag out!! A real ol' fashioned bare knuckles no-holds-barred barney!!! Place yer bets, ladies and gentlemen! Place yer bets! Step right up! Just two bits admission! It's the grudge match of the century! Professor Bottom vs Doctor Droop!

Ah'ight, fellas, I wanna excitin' fight fer thuh payin' customers, ya get me? They want blood and you gotta give it to 'em, ok? Now get out there and may the most ruthless, uncouth bastich win!

I mean, could you both BE any more polite and respectful? Now THIS is how you have a civilized discourse. Why, I don't think I even detect much disagreement here! uh, ... ummm, . . . . In fact, now that I have reviewed the tapes of the initial skirmish, I do believe that they are actually in total agreement!! Wha...? But...! Hey, youse guys!

Ok, ok, break it up. Nothing to see here. Move along, move along. ... . . . .
.​

No disagreement at all, Doggy! I have the utmost respect for Droopy's desire to get to the bottom of the matter and for his approach, not to mention the careful documentation in his report to us. Impedance bridging is a critical issue, as is the resonant peak of most pickups and how that is affected by such things as cable capacitance (speaking of passive basses now. In buffered-output active basses, that's not typically an issue). I wrote my response in an effort to ensure that all variables were accounted for other than those introduced by the modeling devices under test.

My experience with A/B testing is based on using an A/B/X box between the rig and the tester, where—after getting familiar with the sound of A and then with the sound of B presented at the same loudness—the tester pushes the X button and the box randomly presents either A or B. Neither the tester nor anyone else knows which has been selected by the box. The tester listens, and then decides it's either A or B by pressing the A or B button. The box then tells you whether you've guessed correctly (just like in the old Hit or Miss TV show). Statisticians generally agree that a minimum of 12 correct guesses out of 20 is the threshold for reliability. The playing field must be level; i.e., A and B must be equally loud, and there should be no tell-tale hints such as low-level noise or coloration in one of the signal paths that is absent in the other. In the absence of an A/B/X box, Droopy was doing everything he could to level the playing field, and I was merely inquiring about how he set up the two signal paths under test. The only additional step I might suggest is that he have someone else do the switching while he listens, and that there should be no verbal or non-verbal communication between them, such as one might expect, say, in the third hour of a wine-tasting! Our eyes often fool our ears (which is why there is now an EQ plug-in with absolutely no markings on it—you adjust the knobs purely by ear.)

 

[G-Dog]

No disagreement at all, Doggy! I have the utmost respect for Droopy's desire to get to the bottom of the matter and for his approach, not to mention the careful documentation in his report to us. Impedance bridging is a critical issue, as is the resonant peak of most pickups and how that is affected by such things as cable capacitance (speaking of passive basses now. In buffered-output active basses, that's not typically an issue). I wrote my response in an effort to ensure that all variables were accounted for other than those introduced by the modeling devices under test.

My experience with A/B testing is based on using an A/B/X box between the rig and the tester, where—after getting familiar with the sound of A and then with the sound of B presented at the same loudness—the tester pushes the X button and the box randomly presents either A or B. Neither the tester nor anyone else knows which has been selected by the box. The tester listens, and then decides it's either A or B by pressing the A or B button. The box then tells you whether you've guessed correctly (just like in the old Hit or Miss TV show). Statisticians generally agree that a minimum of 12 correct guesses out of 20 is the threshold for reliability. The playing field must be level; i.e., A and B must be equally loud, and there should be no tell-tale hints such as low-level noise or coloration in one of the signal paths that is absent in the other. In the absence of an A/B/X box, Droopy was doing everything he could to level the playing field, and I was merely inquiring about how he set up the two signal paths under test. The only additional step I might suggest is that he have someone else do the switching while he listens, and that there should be no verbal or non-verbal communication between them, such as one might expect, say, in the third hour of a wine-tasting! Our eyes often fool our ears (which is why there is now an EQ plug-in with absolutely no markings on it—you adjust the knobs purely by ear.)

Gee, Perfesser! "Don't know much about his-tory. Don't know much trigger-nometry. But I do know that I [respect] you. And I know that if you [respect] me, too. What a wonderful world this would be."

Yeah, I eventually got the drift that there wasn't no disagreement. But most of the other stuff was jus' way over my head. My grandkids all got Xboxes but the onliest guitars and basses that plug into 'em don't even have strangs! What's that a-boot? And I ain't never seen no amps of any kind plugged into 'em. So, I ain't EVEN fixin' to try any o' what yer talkin' 'bout. I'll jus' take yer word fer it. And, sorry, but I ain't never made it to the third hour of a wine tastin', so ya lost me there, too. Yeah, Ima lightweight, just like my Rumbles and jus' one of my Bassman amps.

"Our eyes often fool our ears"?!? Well, now, I don't recall hearing my eyes telling no jokes! But, whatever you say. I know not to trust my eyes too good 'til I can git my cataracks done, like Mrs. Dog did a year or so ago. Man! She don't hardly ever even need glasses no more, 'cept fer threadin' needles! My eye doctor says another year or so and I can git mine did! Woo hoo!

But, seriously, sir, thank you, very much, for assuring that an otherwise academically excellent review is so much more scientifically rigorous. I am steeped in the most profound humble gratitude that this esteemed symposium of such an underlying technologically complex thesis has enticed those savants amongst us whom are not only capable, but fortunately willing, to fathom the depths of these intricacies for the ultimate benefit of we lesser mortals. And for that, my most honorable sir, I thank you and the demonstratively erudite DROOOPY_TX.
.

 

[iagtrplyr]

And I ain't never seen no amps of any kind plugged into 'em...
.