• 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.

Question about 2 channel amp preferences

#161
Regarding EQ...what is optimal really depends upon how the amp will be used. I would be happy with a variable global HPF on the the output, but many would prefer variable HPF early on each preamp. Many bass players seem to like the KISS approach, especially in regards to EQ, but upright bass players would really benefit from fully parametric EQ or at least tunable notch filters. If the amp is set up to produce distortion, (IMHO) it is also very helpful to place a variable HPF and at least two bands of semi parametric EQ before the drive stage so you can tune the envelope of the over drive.

I would advocate for channel EQ and also global EQ on the output. In essence, I believe the Genz GBE1200 does this...as each channel has a dedicated 5-band EQ and the output section has three additional tone shaping controls...not exactly EQ, but the controls do effect tone.

IMHO, the needs of electric/upright doublers and players who want an amp optimized for distortion are divergent in many instances. Maybe at some point, it would be a good idea to break the thread out into related focus groups, so ideas can fully develop along related paths.
 
#163
I really liked how on the genz amps, you could use either channel separately or, mix the two. And, if you are going to mix them, give at least one of them a great range of od. Each should have their own eq. Shared eq sucks, always a bad compromise. Yes, it should be footswitcheable. A good example would be the billy sheehan modded pearce preamp, only with walkabout tones.
 
  • Like
Reactions: agedhorse and Wasnex
#164
I was not a fan of the titan's od sound but, the walkabout with a high set hp filter and the gain up high is one of the most useful, hopefully overdrive sounds ever. Very tweakable so, it covers alot of ground for different players. Blend that in with a lp'd sound and you have overdrivenn, angry tube tone at any volume.
 
Last edited:
#165
agedhorse said:
How many of you would be interested in a channel that COULD be overdriven like some of Randy's legacy models? Is this of any value or do you guys who use overdrive prefer a specific pedal instead?

Speaking of pedals, would there be any interest in a bass overdrive pedal (with or without tubes), maybe based on some of our past overdrive oriented amps or pedals?
Click to expand...
For me personally one channel is enough since I don't do overdrive bass. The variable voicing you already have is enough. I would love to see a d800+ with a tube pre amp though.
 
#167
donahue said:
OD is Mesa's specialty. I'd love to see a Class D with a tube preamp and an od channel. Maybe there could be a separate eq for each channel, but make the knobs stacked. One line of knobs but the top part of the stacked knob is for the od and bottom for the clean. That would be fairly intuitive.

Flame suit fully on: I sold my newer Mesa gear because it was kind of vanilla flavored. Albeit super creamy delicious vanilla, but I like my Mesa crunchy with sprinkles and chunks of goodness in the middle. Just my opinion. Go easy. :)
Click to expand...
I'm completely in the opposite camp. I bought the d800+ because of its clean warm sound and versatility. I have no interest in overdrive bass sounds.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jim Carr
#168
@agedhorse . A few other points.

On od. With the walkabout, for clean tones, I preferred to set the passive tone stack for as truly flat a response as possible (cut bass alittle, max mid, treble at noon), and use the active eq for adjustments. For overdrive tones, I remember mostly chatting bass, mid and treble around noon. This gives you more grtit and grind than fart and blat.

On compression. These days I like to prefer to eq frequencies above 500hz pre compression and those below 500hz post compression. The reason being, if you want to boost upper mids and treble for aggressive tone and play with an aggressive attack, you are going to also hear lots of harsh clicks and clacks. Running the comp after smooths out the annoying sounds. Also, you can then boost lows or low mids for punch without triggering the comp to hard and therefore sucking down all those high mids. I've been doing this for the last few years and have been so much happier.

For reference, I use a boss lmb3 comp and either an BMC2 or q-strip to boost upper mids pre comp and then, use amp eq to adjust below around 500hz.
.......please, don't put out an amp with a pre eq'd mid scoop. Let us start with flat response with all eq at noon. It pisses me off when I have to use most of an amps eq to correct that crap, then not have enough left for real adjustment. Thanks
 
#170
agedhorse said:
Note that the WA's bass & treble eq is fully active, only the mid is passive.
Click to expand...

Right, I was just looking at the schematics this morning. I would absolutely love to see something in a genz shuttlemax series format. Only, with a really good sounding tube front end. Dual active 4 band eq. Power section like the Magellan, or better. Basically a better shuttlemax 9.2 with more guitar like od.

My idea about running post and pre eq's when od and compression are involved would be something that nobody really has done too much and could be a really marketable feature. On top of being very useful.

Lets say you have 1 more clean channel and one more overdriven channel. The clean could have a compressor after the hi mid and treble eq, and before the low mid and low eq. The od channel would have an od circuit in that slot since, overdrive is a form of compression. That would be clever.
 
  • Like
Reactions: donahue
#171
I personally think a tube front end is (I almost said overrated but that's too subjective) unnecessary, and all I have to do is listen to my D800+ to think so, keeping in mind I also have a medium squash compressor on at all times. Just another element(s) to fail, and sound wise I feel that tube power sections (do NOT want, just to be clear) have more of what people think they want than tube front ends do. Yeah, that was an opinion :P
 
#172
MM HD130.jpg

I run the dry out from my pedal board to one channel and the effects out to the other channel into my 1970s Music Man HD-130. Channel volume is adjusted at the head as well as master volume. Sounds extremely full. If you wanted to double, you could as well. The head is 38 lbs.
 
#173
HolmeBass said:
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
Click to expand...

@HolmeBass - I had the exact same thought putting my SM 9.2 pedal on my pedalboard. A friend of mine wired it for me as you said - detachable at both ends. Made all the difference. And the "pedal" cable was just like a patch cable, same on both ends.
 
  • Like
Reactions: HolmeBass and agedhorse
#180
Jeff Scott said:
Two channels that are identical, with their own EQ was ideal for me back in my gigging days. I wouldn't mind such a product as a preamp only version, one with independent outputs as well as a combined mono out. And, a single tuner out that reads both channels.



Yes... exactly. Most of my basses have combination mag PUPs and piezo loaded bridges and stereo output jacks. I would like to be running the mags to one channel and piezo to the other so I could EQ and process them independantly. Then, for gigs, run it to a class D power amp.
Click to expand...
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back