Mesa WD-800 vs. TT-800 tone differences

[DJ Bebop]

Phil is also using Mesa Subway gear. I got to play at Terrapin Crossroads, his club in the SF Bay area, last year and the backline was a Mesa D800+ and 2 Subway 1x15's all dialed in really well into the house PA. I spoke with the venue tech and he said that for smaller touring gigs Phil was using the same rig.

FWIW, I got to meet Phil at the venue as well. Nice guy

My drummer friend used to live on Canal St., a couple of blocks away. We'd stop by and check it out when I was in town. Also got to meet Phil. Got to tell him the first time I met him, it was 1970 and I was 13

 

[Type-55]

I noticed the WD800 has only one tube in the preamp, while the original WA had 3 tubes.
Is the one tube just for show or does it have a real effect on the tone?

 

[agedhorse]

I noticed the WD800 has only one tube in the preamp, while the original WA had 3 tubes.
Is the one tube just for show or does it have a real effect on the tone?

First of all, the original Walkabout had 2 tubes not 3, one tube in the Walkabout was used to drive the power amp, this is done differently in the WD-800 and is therefore not needed. The remaining tube is used in the preamp very much the same way as in the original Walkabout though with an updated approach that suits the WD's design/performance goals better.

 

[Type-55]

Excellent. Thanks for the info.

 

[paytojt]

I'd like to add since it's been a month or so since I sold my tt800, I don't regret it. Do I wish I had both the wd and tt? Yes! If Mesa were to make a lower wattage tt400 or something, with just the boogie channel, would I buy it? In a heartbeat.

 

[tylerwylie]

The WD is modeled after the Walkabout, the TT is modeled after the Bass 400+ and D-800+.

Different flavors, the TR is of course channel switching between the two onboard channels OR you can substitute a preamp of your choice in place of one of the onboard preamps.

I've been using my WD800 over my TT as a preamp for my home studio and it's been killing it. The EQ section is why I think I'm favoring it now.

Take the DI post-eq out into channel one of my interface, throw the Send into a TC Hall of Fame Reverb 2 with kill-dry turned on into a Neve RNDI into channel two, blend to taste.

These new amps kill as standalone preamps, I've been looking at things like the Broughton P15, Noble, Demeter and other options but have basically settled on using these as amps as preamps.

 

[Jim C]

I've been using my WD800 over my TT as a preamp for my home studio and it's been killing it. The EQ section is why I think I'm favoring it now.

These new amps kill as standalone preamps, I've been looking at things like the Broughton P15, Noble, Demeter and other options but have basically settled on using these as amps as preamps.

Now that's impressive that a standalone MI amp compares with boutique specialty pre-amps.
I haven't read this before but seems very believable based on how much these amps are loved.

 

[tylerwylie]

Now that's impressive that a standalone MI amp compares with boutique specialty pre-amps.
I haven't read this before but seems very believable based on how much these amps are loved.

I think the preamp quality is there and the DI out is very good, I'm going to be doing some testing with these using an extremely short patch cable and a Neve RNDI and compare the Send->RNDI->Mic Pre to the DI Out->Mic Pre. The WD800's frontend serves this purpose very well, I think better than the TT800. That said, through my cabs (2 Aguilar SL115s) the TT800's Subway channel is my favorite as I like the character of the cabs and don't have to do much tweaking with the EQ to get a great sound.

 

[Jim C]

Just reread your earlier post. Were you able to A/B test the TT800 against things like the Broughton P15, Noble, Demeter, etc.?

"The WD800's frontend serves this purpose very well, I think better than the TT800."
Also, are you saying that the DI sounds different between the TT800 and WD800 with the EQ flat?

 

[sunbeast]

Just reread your earlier post. Were you able to A/B test the TT800 against things like the Broughton P15, Noble, Demeter, etc.?

"The WD800's frontend serves this purpose very well, I think better than the TT800."
Also, are you saying that the DI sounds different between the TT800 and WD800 with the EQ flat?

I don't own both myself (only the TT and the Walkabout which inspired the WD), but just to clarify based on my understanding- based on the way he is using them (post-EQ), they will definitely sound different because both preamps are "voiced" rather than flat/hifi amps and there is no ruler "flat" setting on either AFAIK (certainly not with all knobs at noon). The WD is probably more ideal at getting a "flattish" setting simply because it has alot more versatile EQ to work with (similar EQ but flatter starting point than the Walkabout that I have used to record with). Both channels of the TT are pretty EQ-limited by comparison, and both have their own particular mojo that you may or may not like as much.
The pre-EQ DI signal on the TT is driven by the first tube IIRC, not sure if this is the same as the WD. The Neve DI is mostly just a flat input sweetener comparable to the pre-EQ DI of the other amps rather than a "preamp" in itself (though it is technically an amplifier since it is active), while the Broughton and Demeter (depending on the model you are looking at) similar to the Mesa amps are preamps that have their own particular built-in flavors/ EQ circuits (I think the Demeter VTBP can do pretty "flat" hifi though compared to any of the other preamp examples).

 

[tylerwylie]

I don't own both myself (only the TT and the Walkabout which inspired the WD), but just to clarify based on my understanding- based on the way he is using them (post-EQ), they will definitely sound different because both preamps are "voiced" rather than flat/hifi amps and there is no ruler "flat" setting on either AFAIK (certainly not with all knobs at noon). The WD is probably more ideal at getting a "flattish" setting simply because it has alot more versatile EQ to work with (similar EQ but flatter starting point than the Walkabout that I have used to record with). Both channels of the TT are pretty EQ-limited by comparison, and both have their own particular mojo that you may or may not like as much.
The pre-EQ DI signal on the TT is driven by the first tube IIRC, not sure if this is the same as the WD. The Neve DI is mostly just a flat input sweetener comparable to the pre-EQ DI of the other amps rather than a "preamp" in itself (though it is technically an amplifier since it is active), while the Broughton and Demeter (depending on the model you are looking at) similar to the Mesa amps are preamps that have their own particular built-in flavors/ EQ circuits (I think the Demeter VTBP can do pretty "flat" hifi though compared to any of the other preamp examples).

You're correct, I am looking to get a good tone going into the box, and the Mesa amps sound so good that outboard preamps seem redundant. I started doing this after not being happy with the tone I was getting through DI's or going straight into the Hi-Z input on my interface. Pedal preamp were better but really couldn't compare to what I get out of these heads.

 

[Jim C]

I don't own both myself (only the TT and the Walkabout which inspired the WD), but just to clarify based on my understanding- based on the way he is using them (post-EQ), they will definitely sound different because both preamps are "voiced" rather than flat/hifi amps and there is no ruler "flat" setting on either AFAIK (certainly not with all knobs at noon). The WD is probably more ideal at getting a "flattish" setting simply because it has alot more versatile EQ to work with (similar EQ but flatter starting point than the Walkabout that I have used to record with). Both channels of the TT are pretty EQ-limited by comparison, and both have their own particular mojo that you may or may not like as much.
The pre-EQ DI signal on the TT is driven by the first tube IIRC, not sure if this is the same as the WD. The Neve DI is mostly just a flat input sweetener comparable to the pre-EQ DI of the other amps rather than a "preamp" in itself (though it is technically an amplifier since it is active), while the Broughton and Demeter (depending on the model you are looking at) similar to the Mesa amps are preamps that have their own particular built-in flavors/ EQ circuits (I think the Demeter VTBP can do pretty "flat" hifi though compared to any of the other preamp examples).

I don't understand how you can compare the pre-amp section of one amp to another if you don't have them available at the same time let alone perform an A/B test. Basing any opinion on a recording is meaningless IMO.

I'm talking about your original statement that compared the TT to high end boutique pre amps.

 

[sunbeast]

I don't understand how you can compare the pre-amp section of one amp to another if you don't have them available at the same time let alone perform an A/B test. Basing any opinion on a recording is meaningless IMO.

I'm talking about your original statement that compared the TT to high end boutique pre amps.

Sorry that wasn’t me, that was @tylerwylie above (he has both the TT and WD). I only chimed in because I’ve used my Walkabout as a direct recording amp in place of expensive studio pres in the past because for my tastes it sounded better. That will always be a subjective thing, but one thing that isn’t subjective is the comparison of “flat” vs “voiced” preamplification. The Mesas are very much on the “voiced” side of that even when set “flat”, which is likely a big part of why someone might prefer them. I haven’t recorded much with my TT yet, but from the little I have I can definitely tell it will be similarly great for that purpose.

 

[Jim C]

Sorry that wasn’t me, that was @tylerwylie above (he has both the TT and WD). I only chimed in because I’ve used my Walkabout as a direct recording amp in place of expensive studio pres in the past because for my tastes it sounded better. That will always be a subjective thing, but one thing that isn’t subjective is the comparison of “flat” vs “voiced” preamplification. The Mesas are very much on the “voiced” side of that even when set “flat”, which is likely a big part of why someone might prefer them. I haven’t recorded much with my TT yet, but from the little I have I can definitely tell it will be similarly great for that purpose.

Thanks for the correction.
I was watching some You Tube videos last night.
It seemed like one could dime the treble, bass, or mids and not have a huge amount of EQ with the TT.
Not that this is a problem as it all sounds very musical but was surprised as this doesn't go nearly as well with most amps as the amount of gain or reduction at X frequency is often in the 12 - 15r dB range meaning that going full cut or boost is usually not so musical.

I couldn't find specs for the amount of EQ available on each frequency band. Is it less than the usual 12-15 or is it just the Q of the filter that makes it seem more gentle?

 

[12bass]

Thanks for the correction.
I was watching some You Tube videos last night.
It seemed like one could dime the treble, bass, or mids and not have a huge amount of EQ with the TT.
Not that this is a problem as it all sounds very musical but was surprised as this doesn't go nearly as well with most amps as the amount of gain or reduction at X frequency is often in the 12 - 15r dB range meaning that going full cut or boost is usually not so musical.

I couldn't find specs for the amount of EQ available on each frequency band. Is it less than the usual 12-15 or is it just the Q of the filter that makes it seem more gentle?

Tried the TT-800 briefly at a local store a while ago and found that the Boogie channel had a very nice "tubey" voice, but that there wasn't a whole lot of tonal variation available.... more like just variations on that single theme. Didn't play around with the Subway channel as much, though it seems to have a more capable EQ section. Guessing that the difference might be explained by the Boogie channel having a passive tone stack versus the active circuit in the Subway channel. Haven't tried the WD-800 in person yet, but from videos I've seen, I might like it better as it offers a nice basic voice along with more tone-sculpting options.

 

[agedhorse]

The TT’s boogie channel is indeed based on the Bass 400 “theme”, but there’s a greater (expanded) range to the eq than on the Bass 400. The Subway channel has even greater range of eq than the boogie channel, but based more on a D-800+ theme.

In practice, there’s plenty of range on both channels.

 

[sunbeast]

Thanks for the correction.
I was watching some You Tube videos last night.
It seemed like one could dime the treble, bass, or mids and not have a huge amount of EQ with the TT.
Not that this is a problem as it all sounds very musical but was surprised as this doesn't go nearly as well with most amps as the amount of gain or reduction at X frequency is often in the 12 - 15r dB range meaning that going full cut or boost is usually not so musical.

I couldn't find specs for the amount of EQ available on each frequency band. Is it less than the usual 12-15 or is it just the Q of the filter that makes it seem more gentle?

The TT’s Boogie channel is inspired by the Mesa 400 amp, which (like most early Mesa gear) had a passive EQ based on the classic Fender Bandmaster/Bassman TMB circuit. The Alembic F-1X/F-2B and Demeter VTBP pres are also variations on this circuit, as well as a number of other pres over the years (the modern Fender Bassman tube heads, Verellen, etc). The EQ control is limited compared to an active tonestack, but highly effective at dialing in great useable tones with minimal fuss. You can find cool tones with any of the controls at 0 or at 10 (though because of the design, if you turn all the EQ controls to 0 you get no sound!). Of course if you don’t like the general flavor of it then you are pretty much out of luck with that channel. I played a 400+ for years and loved it, so I knew that EQ voicing appealed to me.

The second channel (“Subway”) has a more standard modern active EQ and a single semi-para mid band, I think mostly inspired by the Mesa D-800+ except tube driven in this case (but a bit paired down). Between the two there is definitely a lot of ground covered!

 

[tylerwylie]

I don't understand how you can compare the pre-amp section of one amp to another if you don't have them available at the same time let alone perform an A/B test. Basing any opinion on a recording is meaningless IMO.

I'm talking about your original statement that compared the TT to high end boutique pre amps.

This is correct, I was looking at obtaining a high end outboard bass pre and came to the realization that the frontends to these amps are killer and the DI outs are killer and that the outboard pres were likely superfluous at least in my application.

 

[Jim C]

This is correct, I was looking at obtaining a high end outboard bass pre and came to the realization that the frontends to these amps are killer and the DI outs are killer and that the outboard pres were likely superfluous at least in my application.

But you never actually physically compared them; just thought about quality based on reviews or recordings.
The assumption might be correct but the statement has no foundation.

 

[sunbeast]

But you never actually physically compared them; just thought about quality based on reviews or recordings.
The assumption might be correct but the statement has no foundation.

I don’t think he really made a statement comparing the quality. He said he had been looking into recording preamp options, but realized he already had adequate (for him) preamps built-in to his amplifiers. Seems pretty fair to me, as someone who pretty much discovered the same the first time I recorded something direct out from my Walkabout. I preferred the feel and flavor to the more linear/clean pres I’ve used in studio situations, so for me. Hifi pres are great if that’s the flavor you’re looking for, but there are so many other flavors that may be as good or better subjectively.