Questions for Current and Former Carbine owners.

[agedhorse]

I periodically look back at our past products and today it’s the Carbine platform.

How many of you use/used the rotary voicing switch?

What position(s) did you use and what positions did you not use (or avoid)?

Did you use the 5 button footswitch?

Our former member the late Chef was a huge Carbine fan, he had mentioned several times making the control continuous rather than switched. Any thoughts on this?

How did you deal with the level differences between the 5 presets?

How does the current voice control on the Subway D-350/800/800+ amps compare with the voicing switch implementation on the Carbines (ignoring the amp’s different native voicing of course)?

I’m trying to understand and evaluate player’s feelings regarding the evolution or refinement of a specific feature like this since times have changed somewhat.

 

[onda'bass]

I so loved that amp!! (M9) I like setting 4 & 5 the most by far, and the graphic EQ was great to roll off the deep bass. I never used the others settings much. It had a nice compressor also If I remember. I have joked in the past that a M9 sound in a stomp box would be heavenly!

 

[bdplaid]

Our former member the late Chef was a huge Carbine fan, he had mentioned several times making the control continuous rather than switched. Any thoughts on this?

I agree, the switched controls were limiting. However, if this is any indication that a Carbine-based Subway amp is in the works, I'm good with either switched or continuous! My vote goes to an M9-type Subway. Love the graphic EQ.

 

[agedhorse]

I agree, the switched controls were limiting. However, if this is any indication that a Carbine-based Subway amp is in the works, I'm good with either switched or continuous! My vote goes to an M9-type Subway. Love the graphic EQ.

Not specifically, just trying to gather information about how some old features are perceived today, and how the evolutions of these features have been accepted (and/or maybe new ways to look at legacy features).

 

[bdplaid]

Not specifically, just trying to gather information about how some old features are perceived today, and how the evolutions of these features have been accepted (and/or maybe new ways to look at legacy features).

One can always hope...

 

[jmattbassplaya]

Never owned a Carbine but was a huge fan of it (what can I say, I was a broke high school/college student)! Would 100% consider a purchase if a modern Carbine was released. I loved how punchy that amp was.

To be honest, the voice control on my D800 doesn’t get utilized too much. I keep it at 9 o’clock and it stays there. I’ll then adjust the EQ as needed, but currently run my lows at 1 o’clock, low mids at 12, high mids at 11, and highs at 2.

 

[sawzalot]

I never had a Carbine amp, nor a D-series amp, but I’m a huge fan of my Subway+ preamp. I use the voicing control to get the bulk of the sound and the eq controls to tweak it.

 

[gtirard]

I never had a Carbine amp, nor a D-series amp, but I’m a huge fan of my Subway+ preamp. I use the voicing control to get the bulk of the sound and the eq controls to tweak it.

By the way @agedhorse why did you stop making the Subway Plus preamp?

 

[groovaholic]

I was a big fan of the M6 - owned a couple of them.

I loved the feel of quick transients combined with super deep/super clear lows and bright highs.

But with all of those lows and highs on tap, the switch positions to scoop mids were useless to me; I only ever used the mid boost positions, but never via the 5-button footswitch.

Only other pet peeve was the taper of the master volume - it went from nothing to bedlam in roughly 5 degrees of rotation, so finding the “sweet spot” was a touchy exercise.

The Subway amps all seem to have compression built-in to couple with the HPF and maximize usable volume + protect speaker voice coils. They are smart and practical amps.

The Carbines seemed to have none of that - which made them totally gonzo and impractical…but also completely bad@$$.

I remember someone referred to his Carbine as “a briefcase nuke” and the metaphor stuck with me because it seemed apt; playing through a Carbine was like drinking from a firehose.

 

[baxter_x]

Did you use the 5 button footswitch?

Ain't you mistaking with the M-Pulse footswitch? MyM9 had a 2 button footswitch.

I really liked the amp. Great design, great compressor, great tone, 2 ohms capable. I loved the amp and I was used to setting the voice knob on 4.
Personnaly, switched or continious isn't important to me.

However I felt there was some weird design choices. My first and biggest complain was the tapper of the master. It was so sensitive I never understood why such a choice. And to mute the amp, you have to pull thet very master! You could make sure everytime you would pull/push it, the taper was so sentitive you would not find the level you set to play your instrument.
Also, the FX loop was placed after the master. Making it unsusable IME as it was always very noisy and hard to control.

Now, if you plan on making again the same amp with class D power section and fix all those little issues, I'll take it!!!

 

[Wasnex]

I have an M9.

In general I find that most voicing filters are too extreme for my taste. On the M9 I liked position #2 and #4 enough to experiment with them. But I think if you are willing to do the work, it sounds best in position #3 (bypass).

I struggled with some aspects of the M9's basic voicing. Probably the biggest problem is the lows seem too loose and unfocused for my taste. This is normally something I address by trying to create a contour in the lows and low mids that helps tighten and focus the sound. EQ alone did not get me there. To my surprise, dialing in the compressor really seemed to tighten up the lows and make them seem much more controllable.

I also struggled to smooth out the M9's aggressive high mids a bit. I like some air and glass up top, but not a lot of clank and fret rattle. For a long time I felt like I was chasing my tail. I could almost get the sound I wanted, but not quite. My perception is my tweaks would fix one problem and simultaneously create a new problem. Or you might say it seemed like the adjustments were pushing the problems around rather than fixing them. Eventually I found a combination of tone rotary and graphic EQ tweaks that I think sounds great.

If you are curious, here are the control settings for my M9 and Titan. Channel 1 on the Titan is clean and Channel 2 has OD engaged and tweaked just below break up.

My perception is Mesa Graphic EQs often sound best with fairly gentle adjustments. I think the frequency bands must not be centered where I need them to be to produce my desired voicing. For example, I often like the sound of boost centered at 800hz. The M9 has a slider centered at 600hz and 900hz. I have the 600 peaked and a slight dip on the 900. Boosting 600hz reaches too far into the low mids and boosting 900hz seems to get into what I consider gank territory.

 

[shoot-r]

My first M-6 had "Fathom" printed on several of the internal components.
It had a feeling of big, clean, clear, aggressive power behind each note with a fast transient response and a natural high-mid (?) sparkle on the leading edge of each note, (something I've not yet been able to replicate with any other amp.)
It's still my ears all time favorite sound/tone.

I found the M-6's simplicity the easiest to dial in, almost plug and play amp, I've worked with.

There were four things I'd have changed on the original M-6.

1...The taper of the master.

2...The use of the master as a mute with the pull pot.

3...The extreme, uncontrollable, low-end bump when the bass boost was engaged.

4...The M-6's dependability.
(I carried two M-6's, one was a more than a couple of times needed, backup head.)

If a Subway, class D, 800 watt (or 1,200 watt), version of a M-6 Carbine becomes reality, I'll be first in line.

 

[ThinCrappyTone2]

I periodically look back at our past products and today it’s the Carbine platform.

How many of you use/used the rotary voicing switch?

What position(s) did you use and what positions did you not use (or avoid)?

Did you use the 5 button footswitch?

Our former member the late Chef was a huge Carbine fan, he had mentioned several times making the control continuous rather than switched. Any thoughts on this?

How did you deal with the level differences between the 5 presets?

How does the current voice control on the Subway D-350/800/800+ amps compare with the voicing switch implementation on the Carbines (ignoring the amp’s different native voicing of course)?

I’m trying to understand and evaluate player’s feelings regarding the evolution or refinement of a specific feature like this since times have changed somewhat.

I had an M9 and loved it.

Did not use the footswitch at all. Loved the simple visual feedback of a graphic eq. And the built-in compression was handy.

Re: the rotary, I left it in the Flat position all the time. Same with the standard eq knobs. Left them flat, and just adjusted the graphic to taste. Having 3 different forms of stacking EQ was a bit confusing to me. Especially when trying to dial-up a sound quickly, in an unfamiliar space. So I kept two of the EQs flat and just used the graphic to shape the tone.

 

[agedhorse]

Ain't you mistaking with the M-Pulse footswitch? MyM9 had a 2 button footswitch.

I really liked the amp. Great design, great compressor, great tone, 2 ohms capable. I loved the amp and I was used to setting the voice knob on 4.
Personnaly, switched or continious isn't important to me.

However I felt there was some weird design choices. My first and biggest complain was the tapper of the master. It was so sensitive I never understood why such a choice. And to mute the amp, you have to pull thet very master! You could make sure everytime you would pull/push it, the taper was so sentitive you would not find the level you set to play your instrument.
Also, the FX loop was placed after the master. Making it unsusable IME as it was always very noisy and hard to control.

Now, if you plan on making again the same amp with class D power section and fix all those little issues, I'll take it!!!

Regarding the footswitch, I mistakenly mixed up a concept schematic with the 5 foot switchable voices for the production unit which allowed eq to be switched along with voicing on/off. The 5 voice switching has been used in some guitar products and was explored for the Big Block and Carbine amps but ultimately not implemented.

 

[baxter_x]

Regarding the footswitch, I mistakenly mixed up a concept schematic with the 5 foot switchable voices for the production unit which allowed eq to be switched along with voicing on/off. The 5 voice switching has been used in some guitar products and was explored for the Big Block and Carbine amps but ultimately not implemented.

Interesting.

This reminds me I didn't answer your question about it.
Everytime I had one (MPulse 600 and Mesa Titan), I loved the features on it, the possibilities it offers, but unfortunatly, I ended up not using it.
Once the amp was set, I would just plug my bass into it and then just play.

However, the design of the Titan was very cleaver IMO. In case you don't need the big footswitch, you could plug a simple single ou 2 buttons one on the back of the amp to use only one or 2 features.
I thought that was very nice.

 

[Element Zero]

Same I never owned one but wanked on the M6 and M9 nearly everyday when I worked at my local GC back in the day.

I am the opposite though. Recently I’ve been REALLY enjoying running the Voicing control dimed and the EQ to taste with the Bright switch on. Talk about aggressive.

Never owned a Carbine but was a huge fan of it (what can I say, I was a broke high school/college student)! Would 100% consider a purchase if a modern Carbine was released. I loved how punchy that amp was.

To be honest, the voice control on my D800 doesn’t get utilized too much. I keep it at 9 o’clock and it stays there. I’ll then adjust the EQ as needed, but currently run my lows at 1 o’clock, low mids at 12, high mids at 11, and highs at 2.

 

[D.A.R.K.]

I periodically look back at our past products and today it’s the Carbine platform.

How many of you use/used the rotary voicing switch?

What position(s) did you use and what positions did you not use (or avoid)?

Did you use the 5 button footswitch?

Our former member the late Chef was a huge Carbine fan, he had mentioned several times making the control continuous rather than switched. Any thoughts on this?

How did you deal with the level differences between the 5 presets?

How does the current voice control on the Subway D-350/800/800+ amps compare with the voicing switch implementation on the Carbines (ignoring the amp’s different native voicing of course)?

I’m trying to understand and evaluate player’s feelings regarding the evolution or refinement of a specific feature like this since times have changed somewhat.

I had an M6 paired with a Bergantino NV 215. To date, the loudest setup I've ever owned. My Carbine suffered a defect that disrupted signal flow, but was sent a part that resolved the problem (don't remember what it was exactly). I bought this amp coming from a walkabout which just wasn't quite enough power. Completely different sound. I used the rotary quite a bit. I did not own the foot switch. I liked the simple control options. I do not recall a particular setting preference, but would often use 4 for a bit of mid boost (more due to cabinet I believe). Since I would set one sound to work with for the night, no level differences between settings were a concern. I preferred the voicing knob on the D800+ I had (both pale in comparison to the Walkabout EQ, for me).

 

[Al Kraft]

I own all three Carbine models and find the M3 the easiest to use just in a simple plug and play kind of way. It has all the Carbine traits but in a "slightly gentler overwhelming power" kind of presentation. That head and GK Neo cabs are really good together, literally as nice sounding as with the old Mesa PH cabs. That head is well-voiced for my purposes and the EQ gives me plenty of flexibility to dial-n whatever I need to fit into a mix.

Playing the M6 is a like the first time I fired a 44 Magnum handgun...really loud, the most power I have felt hit my chest other than being on a jet fighter flightline, and the kind of smile that only comes from enjoying something almost too excessive to be practical. I don't use the voicing switch in anything other than the neutral position very often. There is already so much "in your face" top end and earth shaking low end, that a scooped setting wasn't all that desirable for my purposes. The mid forward settings can occasionally be useful.

My M9 is at its heart an M6 as all my heads went back to the factory for full updates and my M9 was downrated to 600 Watts...although you'll never convince me it's actually missing the 300 Watts it supposedly lost. The compressor on the M9 is exceptional by any measure and one of the best I ever used that was a "built in feature" on a head. I like the graphic EQ a lot more than the voicing switch for the same reasons mentioned above. To me there is a lot in common between the GK sound and the Carbines, especially the GK MB heads. There are differences, but to me they are less noticeable in a busy mix which is where both brands (and models mentioned) shine.

As for a voicing control, IMO Andy hit it out of the park with the circuit design and implementation on the SW series. That particular variable control is a true benchmark and orders of magnitude more useful and musical for my purposes than the Carbine 5 position switch or a typical one dimensional "changing the degree of scoop" voicing control. Of all the compressor designs on heads, I think the one on the M9 would make many people happy enough to lose their current outboard compressor..

In general I almost never use footswitches or off-board pedals/effects, except for a HPF.

 

[baxter_x]

To me there is a lot in common between the GK sound and the Carbines, especially the GK MB heads

Exactly my experience too!

 

[Wasnex]

I'll address some more aspects of the OP.

I own the footswitch that came with the M9, but probably would not use it for gigging. If I did, the most likely feature I would use is the mute. The pull mute on the Master was a poor choice if you ask me. It's pretty much impossible to use the mute function without accidently changing the level. Keep in mind, a slight bump on the Master results in a very noticeable change in level .

My philosophy on using an amp factors into why I don't see the footswitch and voicing filters as an attractive option. While I can certainly appreciate the idea of using a variety of different sounds live, I view it as unrealistic. In fact, I typically find it ranges from difficult to impossible to even get one sound that I am really happy with. Perhaps I am just too darn picky. Regardless, there is no way I would be happy switching between the various presets without having the time and ability to nominalize levels and tweak the tone across all presets.

The primary role of my stage amp is to serve as my personal monitor. The intent is to hear as clearly as possible without blowing out the room.

I generally use the amps controls to dial in what I need to hear to play well. Before dialing in the amp I set the controls on my bass as follows:
Volume: Wide open
Bass and Treble: At the center detente
Blend: On my #1 I fade slightly to the neck. On most other basses I fade slightly to the bridge.
Piezo: Polarity set for clarity and focus rather than big loose lows. Piezo volume slightly above mid-way. This adds a bit of air and smooths out the attack a bit.

I usually run a DI between my bass and amp, so the amp has no bearing on the signal the audio tech is using to deliver bass to the house.

During the show, I use the bass's controls to tailor my sound for some songs. For example, I might fade a bit to the bridge pickup and bump the Bass control to compensate for the thinner sound. Or I may dial back the piezo and Treble if I play with a pick.

If I need an overall change, I reach for the amp.

Also my sound is generally clean and free of effects. This isn't really a factor with the Carbines because they are clean machines. Even if it's possible to gain up to preamp to get some grind, the taper of the Master would make it impossible to use the extra gain. As a result I run the gain lower than I want, so the Master is easier to adjust.

I would be more inclined to use the footswitch with the Titan. I have Channel 1 set up to bypass the OD circuit. This results in a cleaner, more solid state sound. Channel 2 has the OD circuit engaged and dialed in just below break up. IMHO this gives Channel 2 a looser, bloomier tubey quality. So I could see switching between Channel 1 and Channel 2. I could also see the Solo boost function as potentially useful.

I don't really see much benefit in switching the Titan's OD in and out without changing channels. The OD circuit has a fairly noticeable baked in tone, that is darker and seems to have a bit of a mid-boost. I wind up adjusting the tone controls on Channel 2 to compensate for the OD circuit's voicing. Basically my goal with using the OD circuit is to change the feel, rather than change the tone.

Regarding the ability to use a variety of tones live. Years ago I built an IEM-based PA system. It used electronic drums and had no instrument amps on stage. I spec'ed a top of the line rack-based Digetech processor for guitar. For bass I spec'ed an ART SGX Nightbass, which was also a rack-based processor. The idea was to program and save a variety bass presets, so I could tailor my sound to better suit different styles of music. Unfortunately the Nightbass was backordered and did not come in until after I left the group; so I never got to try it out. I think the idea has potential with this sort of system, but I think it would still be challenging and labor intensive to pull it off well.