Question about 2 channel amp preferences

[Ric Vice]

I've been reading some comments over the years concerning 2 channel amps and was wondering if player's tastes or needs have changed or if a second channel is still as useful as it was when we brought out the original GBE series (750 & 1200), followed up by the ShuttleMax? I'm wondering in the context of the Big Block which has global eq, and the Titan which is more like the GBE.

If 2 channels is important, how important is individual eq per channel, channel switching, channel mixing and other foot switched features?

I'm just trying to bring myself up to speed with your help, since I have been out of the 2 channel preamp market for a while and may have missed some of the evolving trends.

If you’re a Doubler, like me, then it’s absolutely essential. There needs to be channel switching, mute and boost.
That’s why the new Gentzler/Gollihur acousic array combo, is so atractive to us. My only wish is that it provided a full 48 volts to the phantom power,
which apparently isn’t possible in that
small amp. Just my take of course.

Ric

 

[Red Planet]

Correct, it's much more difficult than it might seem. I haven't forgotten about you guys however...

It woukdbe interesting to see the productiin numbers of WAs as compared to the other Mesa bass amps. It might prove a theory of mine.

 

[BrianVengeance]

I will say this- if the amp has an outboard pedal to switch channels/boosts/mute etc, make the cord that connects this pedal to the amp detachable from both ends with burly connectors. No amount of strain relief will keep the cable/pedal joint from failing during repeated wrapping of playing gigs. Being able to disconnect the cable and wrap it up carefully would be great. This is the only issue I’ve encountered with my SM 9.2

So this actually got me thinking a bit.

I think my biggest annoyance with 2+ channel amps has a significant amount to do with switching. Most of the solutions that I've seen for managing the two cables strike me as grossly inelegant. The engineer in me knows there has to be a better solution than zip ties and roughly matching cable lengths, the OCD side of me wants the zip ties and cabling to be Done Right(tm), and the time manager in me wants to spend my time on more valuable things than redoing the 1 of the 2 pedalboard cables that is brainlessly simple if I just ignore the channel switching and use stomp boxes.

An ideal solution would be to have a foot switch that can happily live on a pedal board using the available power, and not require a second cable, or worse, a bespoke cable to pass audio and the switching signal. Keeping to a single cable motif, would prefer to avoid Bluetooth or other wireless technologies and keep it on the wire.

@agedhorse how viable would it be to have a "pedal" that passes audio but embeds a digital signal (MIDI?) in the audio signal to control channel switching on the amp?

 

[agedhorse]

Anything is possible, but the trickier you get the less standard it becomes down the road. Contact closures are forever supported

 

[Fishheadjoe]

I think the TC knocked it out of the park with their feature set in the 450/750 product line. What I'd like to see is an amp with similar feature sets, but with a Mesa power section added.
TC lost it's audience with the power or lack there of the that line. A good opportunity for their competition to run up the middle on them.
Fishheadjoe

 

[NKBassman]

I generally set the HPF to the limits of my speaker....how do you use it?

Set by ear as needed for whatever situation.

 

[beans-on-toast]

An issue with some of the legacy products is that they were not designed for servicability. The chasis’ were tightly packed in not a lot of real estate. Power tubes uncomfortably close to transformers can have consequences.

Always a difficult balance to find when it is constrained by size and features.

 

[PullThePlug]

With one channel setup for hpf, the other for lpf? And a sweepable crossover for both? If I'm not mistaken, that is essentially a bi-amp arrangement:

View attachment 3001724

I actually had something different in mind.

Each channel had an eq and both lpf/hpf. It would look like:

Input ->
Channel 1 hpf -> eq -> lpf
Channel 2 hpf -> eq -> lpf
Output

Kinda like an SWR SM900 with an hpf/lpf for each channel, able to bridge to use independently.

EDIT: Uh oh, formatting didn't come through on the post. I tried to clean it up as well as I can.

 

[Downunderwonder]

I actually had something different in mind.

Each channel had an eq and both lpf/hpf. It would look like:

Input ->
Channel 1 hpf -> eq -> lpf
Channel 2 hpf -> eq -> lpf
Output

Kinda like an SWR SM900 with an hpf/lpf for each channel, able to bridge to use independently.

EDIT: Uh oh, formatting didn't come through on the post. I tried to clean it up as well as I can.

Add discreet inputs option and DI outs and it's good for doublers.

 

[HolmeBass]

So this actually got me thinking a bit.

I think my biggest annoyance with 2+ channel amps has a significant amount to do with switching. Most of the solutions that I've seen for managing the two cables strike me as grossly inelegant. The engineer in me knows there has to be a better solution than zip ties and roughly matching cable lengths, the OCD side of me wants the zip ties and cabling to be Done Right(tm), and the time manager in me wants to spend my time on more valuable things than redoing the 1 of the 2 pedalboard cables that is brainlessly simple if I just ignore the channel switching and use stomp boxes.

An ideal solution would be to have a foot switch that can happily live on a pedal board using the available power, and not require a second cable, or worse, a bespoke cable to pass audio and the switching signal. Keeping to a single cable motif, would prefer to avoid Bluetooth or other wireless technologies and keep it on the wire.

@agedhorse how viable would it be to have a "pedal" that passes audio but embeds a digital signal (MIDI?) in the audio signal to control channel switching on the amp?

There are quite a few assumptions in here that certainly don’t apply to me. It seems like your mental model has the channel switcher pedal living on the pedal board, and so I am guessing the “two cables” are the switcher’s cord and the audio signal cord.

But I would never put the channel switcher on my pedal board. So I would never zip tie my audio cable and the switcher’s cable together. Sometimes I use a different amp and I want my pedal board to remain amp agnostic. The channel switcher pedal needs to live on its own on the floor. I sure don’t want to dedicate pedal board real estate to the channel switcher pedal!

So I want what I asked for: a cable for the switcher that has connectors at both ends so when I pack my gear for a gig the switcher is not instantly putting strain on the cable coming out of the channel switcher.

You know, a big part of engineering is listening. Your “solution” is expensive, and would really tick me off.

 

[BrianVengeance]

There are quite a few assumptions in here that certainly don’t apply to me. It seems like your mental model has the channel switcher pedal living on the pedal board, and so I am guessing the “two cables” are the switcher’s cord and the audio signal cord.

But I would never put the channel switcher on my pedal board. So I would never zip tie my audio cable and the switcher’s cable together. Sometimes I use a different amp and I want my pedal board to remain amp agnostic. The channel switcher pedal needs to live on its own on the floor. I sure don’t want to dedicate pedal board real estate to the channel switcher pedal!

So I want what I asked for: a cable for the switcher that has connectors at both ends so when I pack my gear for a gig the switcher is not instantly putting strain on the cable coming out of the channel switcher.

You know, a big part of engineering is listening. Your “solution” is expensive, and would really tick me off.

As mentioned, your post got me thinking about one of my pet peeves - wasn’t intending that to necessarily solve for your scenario. Exploring the possible, however absurd on its face, can be a useful exercise. Since I’m not trying to derail the thread, will take the contemplation elsewhere.

 

[flojob]

Because, it's not the same as having two independent channels with their own EQ.

How come? URB to channel A, EB to channel B, Y channel to programmable EQ pedal that saves a few presets, to the amp.

 

[Jeff Scott]

How come? URB to channel A, EB to channel B, Y channel to programmable EQ pedal that saves a few presets, to the amp.

Does your ABY pedal also switch out the amp's EQ when you switch back and forth so it does not add to the pedal EQ's influence? Probably not. Some of us want simplicity; pedals aren't always the solution.

If each channel on the amp/preamp is truly a complete channel strip, so to speak, not just a couple of inputs that are switched to the single preamp/EQ section there is no need for the added complication of extraneous pedals and cables. YMMV. IME and all that.

 

[flojob]

Does your ABY pedal also switch out the amp's EQ when you switch back and forth so it does not add to the pedal EQ's influence? Probably not. Some of us want simplicity; pedals aren't always the solution.

If each channel on the amp/preamp is truly a complete channel strip, so to speak, not just a couple of inputs that are switched to the single preamp/EQ section there is no need for the added complication of extraneous pedals and cables. YMMV. IME and all that.

You lost me.
You have a pedal that can store a couple EQ presets. Use the electric, use preset 1. Switch to upright, use preset 2. Aby for obvious reasons
I think a rational person is plugging into the amp, THEN setting the eq pedal presets to where it sounds good coming through the amp.
Just an idea how you could solve the problem. Probably less than the cost of a new head. Certainly less of a wait.

 

[wildman2]

I can see the want/need for a two channel setup whether it's for clean/dirty or a two different bass setup, say reg bass and a ueb or just active/passive. Whatever design should use the KISS method though keep it simple and stupid easy.More grins and giggles makes it more expensive and more of niche product which means lower sales (maybe). That said id imagine separate tone controls would be the way to go ,simple duplication of electronics.A foot switch would be nice but not 100% needed unless each channel has a return/send then it gets complicated again.
Agedhorse how complicated would it be to put the controls for the d800 (not 800+)on top of the amp instead of the front?

 

[Downunderwonder]

You lost me.
You have a pedal that can store a couple EQ presets. Use the electric, use preset 1. Switch to upright, use preset 2. Aby for obvious reasons
I think a rational person is plugging into the amp, THEN setting the eq pedal presets to where it sounds good coming through the amp.
Just an idea how you could solve the problem. Probably less than the cost of a new head. Certainly less of a wait.

The OP asked what we wanted in the way of a two channel amp. Get over it.

 

[flojob]

The OP asked what we wanted in the way of a two channel amp. Get over it.

Show me your badge cop.

 

[agedhorse]

Agedhorse how complicated would it be to put the controls for the d800 (not 800+)on top of the amp instead of the front?

Not easy, but few things are impossible.

 

[wildman2]

Ok was just wondering how complicated.Cost prohibitive probably more than anything?Or complete redesign of control structuring.

 

[Wasnex]

Not easy, but few things are impossible.

Top mounted controls is probably not the right answer for a two channel amp, but there does seem to be increasing interest in the concept of small pedal board mounted amps with top controls....you may have seen this thread Seymour Duncan Power Amps - 700w and 170w