ADA Depot - A Forum To Support Users of ADA Amplification Gear
Miscellaneous => Discussions => Topic started by: rabidgerry on June 26, 2017, 03:10:58 AM
-
Hi guy's, just wondering what we all regard as the best known rack preamp?
I got thinking about this last week when I was talking to a guy about gear and I mentioned I use the MP1. Now normally when I say this to people they react as they have heard of the unit and how legendary it is. This guy didn't react. So this mad me think he didn't know the unit.
But then there have been other people I mentioned about using an MP1 and they have known exactly what it was and about it's reputation.
So tell me, what all do you guy's regard as the best known preamps.
Give me your top 5 rack preamps in order of best known. I assume the MP1 will be in there, but perhaps not :???:
-
Hey Gerry,
You can't talk about rack mount preamps and not bring up the MP-1, after all, that's the one that started the whole thing!
So you want 5 eh?
I can tell you right off the bat not too many preamps impressed me back in the day, because I'm kind of the opposite of most people who were shopping for things like that. I listened for the best clean sound from the preamps I auditioned, instead of the most distorted sounds they could produce. That's because you can make any amp distort, and to whatever degree you want it too, but it's harder to get a good rich clean tone out of them.
So...based on that viewpoint, here are my picks;
ADA MP-1, (later, MP-1 Classic)
Groove Tubes Trio
Soldano X-77, or X-99
Fender RP-1, (only one ever made, with matching power amp and they guy wouldn't sell it) >:(
Mesa Boogie Triaxis
-
but are they the best known? Or the best in your opinion?
I was aiming for more the best known.
MP1 started it all? I thought rack preamps had been out longer. Pretty the Yamamha PG-1 was out a good few years before the MP1. I could be wrong though.
-
I would say, the top 5 best known would be:
ADA MP1
Marshall JMP1
Mesa Triaxis
Mesa Racktifier
Soldano SLO100 Rackmount.
-
Hey RG, do you mean now or then ? I'd pretty much agree with Harleys list but if you include now, then the Axe-Fx and (maybe) Kemper should probably be included. For back in the day I'd include Rockman.
-
Back in the day, Rocktron were popular just because of their affiliation with Bob Bradshaw, but I never liked the tones I got from any of them. They sounded too clinical for my taste.
-
Any era,
just tell me what you think are the top 5 best known rack preamps for guitar.
I'd say an MP1 is better known than an AXE FX. Kempers isn't rack mounted Richard as far as I am aware and therefore I would not say it fits the list. It sits on cabs like an amp head, not in a rack.
Solist list was pretty good. He had the MP1 best known. How many agree?
What Rocktron pre's do you mean Harely?
PS No fx units guy's just preamps, for guitar tone, clean and distortion etc.
-
There is a rack version of the Kemper too, but it still looks like a toaster oven, just in the box.
Rocktron Pirhana, and Chameleon, are the two most popular of those.
-
1) ADA MP-1
2) ADA MP-1
3) ADA MP-1
4) ADA MP-1
5) ADA MP-1
:lol:
Jokes aside, there's no other MIDI preamp on Planet Earth I love and like more than a solid, old, good MP-1.
Marshall JMP1 isn't that bad, but I don't like clean tones and you cannot tweak it as you do with a MP-1.
Triaxis is too sophisticated and expensive (and it suffers from some design defects like internal plastic connectors that tend to dilate due to excessive warming...)...I like the old V-Twin more.
Rocktron preamps (Pro GAP of any version, Chameleon, VooduValve...) sound too "digital" to me (Piranha is not and its tubes powering is hi-voltage (190V), but I never tried it...).
MP-1 is forever and ever for me.
PS- The old Zoom 9150 isn't a bad unit at all...and it's cheap!
PS2- I also loved the Digitech GFX-1 TwinTubes preamp...but the MP-1 is a lot better!
-
Back in the day, Rocktron were popular just because of their affiliation with Bob Bradshaw, but I never liked the tones I got from any of them. They sounded too clinical for my taste.
+1 :thumb-up:
-
Iperfungus
but what do you think are the best known? Not the best. Which do you think are the preamps that everyone has heard off?
Even though I have never played Zoom 9150 I like that you and others rate a lowly 1 tube preamp like that. I keep hearing good things about it.
Anyways.
State the most well known preamps if you will :o
-
Iperfungus
but what do you think are the best known? Not the best. Which do you think are the preamps that everyone has heard off?
Even though I have never played Zoom 9150 I like that you and others rate a lowly 1 tube preamp like that. I keep hearing good things about it.
Anyways.
State the most well known preamps if you will :o
1) Mesa/Boogie Triaxis
2) Marshall JMP-1
3) ADA MP-1
4) Rocktron's preamps
5) Soldano SP-77
About the 9150, you should try one.
In the '90s we all were addicted to other stuff (the Triaxis being considered the Holy Grail of tube MIDI preamps, followed by less expensive Marshall JMP-1) and considered Zoom 9150 garbage.
What a mistake.
I bought one for 50 euros less than 1 year ago...and it's what kicked me into rack stuff again.
Now it's in my backup rack with a good, old Marshall Valvestate 8080 power amp.
It's a complete unit full of features.
-
Iperfungus, do you have yours set to Linear, or Valvestate? I know a lot of guys like a more linear sound for the MP1, but I personally prefer the added "warmth" provided from the Valvestate. Just curious what yours was set for, as I have the 40 watt 8004.
-
Meas Boogie Triaxis is a very popular preamp, but I found it tedious to dial in a good tone, plus it has one hell of a lag switching from one program to the next.
I never tried the 9150 Zoom, because I had tried other Zoom products and found that all of them were very compressed sounding. So much so that they sounded like they were coming through a long cardboard tube.
The JMP-1 was the best looking Marshall preamp, but not the best sounding IMHO. It was very weak and thin sounding to my ears. Marshall had an earlier one that sounded better, that was the 9000(?)
People who bought the Triaxis or a Marshall preamp were really just paying for the name.
Really, the most popular rack mounted preamps that delivered honest and usable guitar amplifier tones, were the ADA's, Soldano, and Groove Tubes. When I was shopping around for another preamp in the early 90's, I was trying a lot of them out. I found that the ones I liked the most were the Soldano X-77, (SP was the channel switching model, X was the one with the MIDI card in it), The Groove Tubes Trio, (Which could also be upgraded to MIDI channel switching), and the MP-1 Classic.
The Classic had the loudest clean tones and was more affordable, so that made my choice for me. ADA's popularity had dropped considerably by that time because of the MP-2. ( It was too complicated for the simple-minded guitar players). So by that time, the only remaining popular rackmount preamps were the JMP-1, Triaxis, and the Rocktrons.
Up until that point in time, the MP-1 was really the most widely used preamp since it was so versatile and straight-forward, and it was easy to dial in a great amp tone, which you could easily add any effects unit to, to shape your sound the way you wanted it.
-
@Iperfungus you mean 8008 right? And thanks for your preamp submissions :thumb-up:
@Chip roberts
I have nearly bought one of these 8008s before are they any good? I know Billy Gibbons uses them and I have been eyeing up this amp for a while ans also wondering what the valvestate switch can add to the tone or a preamp???? Do tell guy's since you own them.
However I got a Rocktron Velocity for the price that these 8008!!!!!!!!! Which is dirt cheap for a velocity, so I passed on the 8008 as the deal on the Velocity was too good.
I'd still want to know what one of these amps is like though?
@Harley I know what you mean about zoom stuff. However I don't know what you played and I'm assuming it was a lot older like my old Zoom Player 2100. The Zoom G5 however is an excellent sounding unit. May be the best unit they did in regards to MFX units for the floor.
I can also vouch for their multitracks, they are definitely a leader in this field without a doubt. I own two Zoom R24's and linked together, they have the ability to track 16 mics.
This 9150 can't be compared to their MFX units if it's these that you have tried out. I say this because it was a completely new ball park for Zoom to enter into and wasn't just a rack mount of one of their pedals.
I used an old Zoom Player 2100 for years. Served me well, but this was before I knew anything better. Good for starting out I'd say.
Other great zoom gear that I can recommend. Zoom did a range of fully analogue pedals, the most legendary being their copy of a Klon Centaur - the Zoom Pd01
This pedal is an awesome overdrive. Built like a tank and sounded fantastic. Cannot recommend it enough. I sold mine as I had no purpose for it anymore. They reach quite high prices now second hand.
https://www.zoom-na.com/products/guitar-bass-effects/guitar/pd-01-zoom-power-drive (https://www.zoom-na.com/products/guitar-bass-effects/guitar/pd-01-zoom-power-drive)
-
Hey Gerry,
I'll take your word for it on the Zoom gear. It's not like I'm likely to get into anything like that anytime soon.
One thing I did discover about myself along the way by trying out all this equipment, was that I really gravitate more towards the real amplifier tones than the modeled ones. There's just a certain type of Mojo that only happens with a real amp that modeled amps just don't come close to plus, modeled amps don't take outboard effects very well.
For example; I have a smaller combo rig that I use at clubs where a stack would be too much. This consists of a Fender Cyber-Deluxe, and my old Fender Vibrolux Reverb. The Cyber has built in effects which can give me Chorus, Flange, Vibe, Delay and Reverb. Many of these effects are stereo, and the Cyber gives me the option to run a line out to my Vibrolux to give me the stereo wide effects. I place one combo on either side of the stage, and it sounds great. The down side is that I can't add anything to the Cyber-Deluxe, even in the effects loop because it sounds like six truck loads of shite! It models various American and British amps and sounds pretty good doing it, but I can tell the difference even if the audience can't.
This is why I just bought two tube power amps for my ADA's. I'm going to go as organic as I can with my amp tones and go with that. My Fender amps deliver some of the best clean tones and can take any stomp boxes or rack effects I want to put in them. So can my ADA's, and I have a lot to choose from.
Maybe down the road, if I decide I don't want to take my racks or my Fender amps out, I might consider going with a AxeFX, but that will involve one hell of a lot of programming to get the tones I'm getting now, and I'm not really sure if I want to go through all that hassle.
-
Well some of this is so time dependent, eg we haven't mentioned line6, which from RGs definition, is very well known. The couple of plays through them I've had and they're not shabby, are they for me, no but they have their place. I'm very much like Harley and prefer the real analogue tones (with some analogue & digital Fx mixed in), but horses for courses, whatever works for you. I try to keep my signal path as analogue as I can, and certainly analogue from the guitar to the cabs. But that's me and what I like.
BTW my previous post I mentioned Rockman (not Roctron), The first real "just preamp" I used was the X100, great unit and very expensive back then. Now RG you've taken this further IIRC.. into their rack units (which I really wanted but couldn't afford) but then I got the MP-1 :whoohoo!:
-
Hey Gerry,
I'll take your word for it on the Zoom gear. It's not like I'm likely to get into anything like that anytime soon.
One thing I did discover about myself along the way by trying out all this equipment, was that I really gravitate more towards the real amplifier tones than the modeled ones. There's just a certain type of Mojo that only happens with a real amp that modeled amps just don't come close to plus, modeled amps don't take outboard effects very well.
For example; I have a smaller combo rig that I use at clubs where a stack would be too much. This consists of a Fender Cyber-Deluxe, and my old Fender Vibrolux Reverb. The Cyber has built in effects which can give me Chorus, Flange, Vibe, Delay and Reverb. Many of these effects are stereo, and the Cyber gives me the option to run a line out to my Vibrolux to give me the stereo wide effects. I place one combo on either side of the stage, and it sounds great. The down side is that I can't add anything to the Cyber-Deluxe, even in the effects loop because it sounds like six truck loads of shite! It models various American and British amps and sounds pretty good doing it, but I can tell the difference even if the audience can't.
This is why I just bought two tube power amps for my ADA's. I'm going to go as organic as I can with my amp tones and go with that. My Fender amps deliver some of the best clean tones and can take any stomp boxes or rack effects I want to put in them. So can my ADA's, and I have a lot to choose from.
Maybe down the road, if I decide I don't want to take my racks or my Fender amps out, I might consider going with a AxeFX, but that will involve one hell of a lot of programming to get the tones I'm getting now, and I'm not really sure if I want to go through all that hassle.
Well I wasn't so much talking about their preamp stuff. I'm just saying if their old MFX units/pedals didn't appeal to you don't write their other gear off. I don't think they have too many actual "modeler" units either. The old MFX units like the 2100 I had were not modelers like the later stuff that where actual "modeling" units G5 and 9.2TT.
I dunno what the 9150 is like but I seem to read good stuff about it. Iperfungus we needs clips man. I would not describe this as a modeler either. Unless it say's in the manual some where that it's "designed to model"
And I mentioned their analogue pedals which definitely were great/are great pedals so in that respect, so you mightn't have liked what ever it was you tried which was digital but but don't tar all their output with the same brush. He look Richard......analogue devices!
In regards to your experience with modelers not taking external devices very well.. Well I have to say that's quite a limited experience compared to my own. The Boss modeling range take external devices really well. I use my preamps in fx loop of a GT5 and did many weird things with GT6 and GT8 modeling units including things in front, in the loop and at the output (ART Delay unit for example).
Also no offence, but that fender "amp with stuff crammed in" is not quite in the same league as dedicated floor modeling units or rack modeling units designed with flexibility in mind. I see amps with stuff in them as "novelty" or basic fx. Forgive me if you have a lot more experience in this field, I have responded purely to the Fender Cyber story :thumb-up:.
I had a Marshall AVT150 and this had on-board fx as well. On their own, great. But I would never have combined them as they could not be moved around in the chain should I run something into the loop, so I'm not surprised your results with the Fender sucked. I never used a thing on that Marshall, I used my Zoom 2100 with it. Worked a treat. Didn't use the amp for anything other than clean.
If you like amps so much, why not buy a head? If I wanted a tube preamp and tube power section I would buy a head. It's almost a contradiction saying you are more into real amplifiers then use a rack preamp, particularly an MP1 which is trying to model a marshall.
If I personally wanted all tube or to go the way of real amps I'd buy one and be done with it. I've evolved from modeling units into rack stuff however naturally and really want to exploit the fact I'm using Tube, Solid State and Digital and they flexibility with this. I don't think I could go full tube amp head. It's too "set in stone" or "definite" I like that with rack it's like lego, you can chop and change and without having to have 10 different amps heads. Plus the practicality of no power tubes suits me.
Anyways digressed here big time :facepalm:
-
RG: I hear what yer saying about 'if you want tubes, get a tube head'
I did that very thing when my MP-2 was slowly dying - I bought a tube combo and a multi FX device. Did it sound good? YES. But it was very limiting. I could only get 1-2 great distortion tones and lots of cool clean tones from the FX. Maybe a 4 channel amp would get me there, but my 2-channel wasn't doing it for me.
Just because rack gear takes a 'component' approach to preamp+poweramp+FX to get the job done doesn't mean it isn't all toob baby! haha. But, I do see your point, it seems contradictory
BTW: I have heard plenty of modelers I liked, until it was used on stage with a band involved. In that context, I really haven't been impressed with any of them. A buddy of mine has the latest/greatest modeling gear all the time, none of it impresses me (right now he has a Line6 Helix pedal = pretty lights, but no presence in the live mix).
-
BTW: I have heard plenty of modelers I liked, until it was used on stage with a band involved. In that context, I really haven't been impressed with any of them. A buddy of mine has the latest/greatest modeling gear all the time, none of it impresses me (right now he has a Line6 Helix pedal = pretty lights, but no presence in the live mix).
Well you gotta know how to use them. A big thing came for me when I realised, not using the cab sims and just using real guitar cabs, shit got REAL! DAM Real!
So for me, going FRFR, never did the whole heap, but I did us cab sim with guitar cabs. And yes I probably didn't through too wekk back then. But the day when I turned the the cab sim off by accident happened, and suddenly there was a seismic shift! The tectonic plates moved!
A bucket load of grunt arrived and replaced my sanitised HI-FI tone. Suddenly there was all this rough and I was like "shit what do I do now??" I would say from then on I got an idea of better tone. This is why also MFX units for younger generations or new to music gear folk can be dangerous, as you may never know what it is you are actually meant to be looking for. Back when I used my Zoom 2100 I hadn't a clue about bedroom tone translating to live tone. But they day I turned that cab sim off my Boss GT6 changed everything. So I rocked Modeler into real cabs for a few years.
Then got an MP1. Shit didn't change right away there either, but at least by then I new what to work towards.
-
Not a fan of modelers myself. I had a pod HD500 a few years back, it was alright but not really the tone I was looking for. Some of the fx were lacking a bit.
Rocktron preamps:
I have owed the Voodo Valve which did have some really good tones clean and dirty. I miss this pre, might pick up another. The Pirhana I still own (not currently in my rig) great for searing metal tones but not really good for mild crunch. Cleans are ok.
Prophesy, played on one for a couple weeks. Similar to the voodoo valve nice pre. Cleans were tastey, OD was also tastey. Like a voodoo valve on steriods.
Marshall JMP1:
currently in my rig and used daily. Cleans are meh, all dirty tones are very good. The trick is to run an eq in its loop and a sonic maximixer behind it. Opens it up and thickens the tone.
ADA MP1 & 2:
Also in the current rig and both used daily. Exceptional tones from both of these units, clean and dirty.
Digitech:
2101 Great sounding, good feel but a pain in the a$$ to dial in. Owned one about 5 years ago. Worked better for FOH and recording than for a backline.
GSP1101 have one now, cleans are nice, dirt models not so much, has more of a real amp feel to it than the pod did. Don't think this will be staying. Might sell this and the Pirhana and pick up a prophesy.
:metal:
-
Iperfungus, do you have yours set to Linear, or Valvestate? I know a lot of guys like a more linear sound for the MP1, but I personally prefer the added "warmth" provided from the Valvestate. Just curious what yours was set for, as I have the 40 watt 8004.
:thumb-up:
I liked Linear more with the MP-1...it's more like the B200s: transparent.
But I use it with a Zoom 9150 and I do prefer Valvestate's warmth there (I use a stereo tube power amp with the MP-1 now).
-
Meas Boogie Triaxis is a very popular preamp, but I found it tedious to dial in a good tone
+1
I never tried the 9150 Zoom, because I had tried other Zoom products and found that all of them were very compressed sounding. So much so that they sounded like they were coming through a long cardboard tube.
Well..I had a 9030 for long time and tried other Zoom stuff...back in the past, as I wrote, everyone was looking the 9150 as a stinky useless toy.
But coming to today I've found that we did not understand it at all at that time: it has NOTHING to do with other Zoom's rack stuff.
And it has a very effective EQ that helps a lot to shape the overall tone.
Compression depends on how you set it, but it has the same amount of that as the MP-1 when you tweak it.
It worth a try if you find one around: it could require some time to fine tune tones, but then you will discover something new about that preamp/multifx.
Underrated as nothing else.
The JMP-1 was the best looking Marshall preamp, but not the best sounding IMHO. It was very weak and thin sounding to my ears. Marshall had an earlier one that sounded better, that was the 9000(?)
People who bought the Triaxis or a Marshall preamp were really just paying for the name.
I totally agree...also about the Marshall 9000 preamp!
We forgot to mention the Mighty Mesa Quad...a very very good preamp!
It just has a problem: it weights as a tank, it's big like a whale and you need 3 sherpa guys to carry any rack you put it inside.
-
@Iperfungus you mean 8008 right?
Yes, exactly.
I have nearly bought one of these 8008s before are they any good? I know Billy Gibbons uses them and I have been eyeing up this amp for a while ans also wondering what the valvestate switch can add to the tone or a preamp???? Do tell guy's since you own them.
I'd still want to know what one of these amps is like though?
What I've found about the 8008:
1) it's affordable
2) it's a reliable workhorse
3) it's powerful and transparent (Linear) or more warm (Valvestate): you can choose what you prefer more based on the preamp you connect to it
4) it has 100% Marshall tone
5) you've not to worry about tubes and bias
-
I dunno what the 9150 is like but I seem to read good stuff about it. Iperfungus we needs clips man. I would not describe this as a modeler either. Unless it say's in the manual some where that it's "designed to model"
Modeler? Not at all.
It's a full analog tube preamp with integrated digital multi-fx...no modeling there (just some A/D-D/A conversion, of course).
It's too old for being a modeler... :lol: :lol: :lol:
About samples, it's hard to find some around..
I'll see what I can do...I'm not that good at "sampling" tones... :dunno:
-
Well that's what I thought :thumb-up:
How old is it Iperfungus? I thought I saw these around 94-97 era. In which case Modellers where born Thanks to Boss GT3 and GT5. But I still wouldn't call it a modeller.
Samples? Mic, cab/amp HIT RECORD! BAM!
-
Haven't been through all posts, but it seems the Engl 5xx preamps aren't listed as well-known, and I'd say, especially among metal players, they're quite known.
Disregarding the numbers, I might pick:
ADA MP-1 and MP-2, Rocktron Piranha/Chameleon models, Marshall JMP thingy, Mesa Triaxis, Line 6 Pod HD, Digitech GSP-1101, Digidesign 12-something, Axe-FX, Engl 530 (570/580), Bogner models, Soldano models, some Roland models
as the most known rackmount pre's - completely dropping discussions on build-in effects or not.
EDITs on Engl and Rocktron models + added Roland, as my list is mostly about which IMHO are the most known ones.
mmnn... maybe the Bogner and Soldano rackies are that known.. :dunno:
-
In terms of modelling, as I am a "younger" player, I cut my teeth on the Line 6 Spider II. So, for me, I didn't really know what I was missing; the Spider gave me what I needed. When Line 6 came out with that same model, the Spider Valve, I yearned for that for years until I finally got one about two years ago and WOOF! That thing screams! The Sovtek 12AX7s and digital effects sounded killer; it had the added warmth of a tube amp but with the effects built-in; which is what appealed to me about modelling amps in the first place.
It then occurred to me that, if what I want is a smart amp that can switch between clean/dirty and turn different effects on with the touch of a button, maybe I should look into building a rack. That, in tandem with that I thought it would complete the "Eighties" package to have a rack of vintage gear in the background of my videos, and now here I am. I am now a tube snob.
To respond to your question about the Valvestate, as I've only played my rig through the 8004 and MosValve 1162, my review is-I like it. I prefer it to the MosValve as I found the MosValve too bright. If I had one gripe it's that it doesn't have volume controls on the front like the 8008 does.
-
Well that's what I thought :thumb-up:
How old is it Iperfungus? I thought I saw these around 94-97 era. In which case Modellers where born Thanks to Boss GT3 and GT5. But I still wouldn't call it a modeller.
The 9150 is from the early '90s...
I had one of the first Boss GX-700 units paired with my 1.38 MP-1 after I sold the Zoom 9030 (that BTW had a FULL analog preamp section...and DSP based digital FX): GX-700 and his bigger cousin, the Roland GP-100, were based on COSM technology for the preamp and comp/drive pedals section, with other digital effects based on a DSP processor (as are FX on the 9150, which probably leads some people to confusion about modeling...).
GX-700 was introduced some years before GT3 and GT5 pedalboards, but the Zoom 9150 was already around since some years.
Samples? Mic, cab/amp HIT RECORD! BAM!
It would be that easy if only I had a mic and some recorder to connect it... :lol:
-
Well that's what I thought :thumb-up:
How old is it Iperfungus? I thought I saw these around 94-97 era. In which case Modellers where born Thanks to Boss GT3 and GT5. But I still wouldn't call it a modeller.
The 9150 is from the early '90s...
I had one of the first Boss GX-700 units paired with my 1.38 MP-1 after I sold the Zoom 9030 (that BTW had a FULL analog preamp section...and DSP based digital FX): GX-700 and his bigger cousin, the Roland GP-100, were based on COSM technology for the preamp and comp/drive pedals section, with other digital effects based on a DSP processor (as are FX on the 9150, which probably leads some people to confusion about modeling...).
GX-700 was introduced some years before GT3 and GT5 pedalboards, but the Zoom 9150 was already around since some years.
Samples? Mic, cab/amp HIT RECORD! BAM!
It would be that easy if only I had a mic and some recorder to connect it... :lol:
I own all those units GX-700 and Roland GP100
Believe it or not the first on the floor was the GT5 and then the GT3 was launched after as scaled down version. GX700 which was basically a rack GT5 with some extra stuff.
GX700 was 1995, GT5 was 1996 so I'm sure what really was the case was the GT5 was still in development while the GX700 came out. They have the same processor chip.
But COSM was in those units first, however I think Roland GP8 and GP16 were attempts at amp modelling, kinda.
Must check out the Zoom 9030
-
But COSM was in those units first, however I think Roland GP8 and GP16 were attempts at amp modelling, kinda.
Naaaaaaaaaaaa....GP8 had physical circuits of ANALOG Boss pedals inside (ok, delay was digital...) + patches + MIDI. :thumb-up:
GP16 was probably all digital, but no physical modeling...intended as an attempt of EMULATING the output response of some other devices through algorithms executed by advanced DSP processors (Digital Signal Processor).
Line6 started messing with physical modeling...and now I do not remember if COSM appeared after or before first Line6 products...
All that modeling is based on DSP processors, of course: something must run the code... :lol:
But the equation DSP = modeling is not necessarily always verified.
About the 9030...have a try to 9150 instead: it's better A LOT.
-
I can probably only think of 5 preamps that really made a difference. ;)
ADA MP-1 (of course)
Marshall JMP-1
Engl 530
Rocktron Pro GAP
Mesa Triaxis
Peavey Rockmaster
My very first rack anything was an MP-1. I wanted something new (to me, then), had some spare money, and a choice between the MP-1 and a Rocktron Chameleon. I flipped a coin, as the salesperson couldn't give me any info whatsoever about either one of those two choices, and came home with the MP-1. Later on, I got a Rocktron Pro GAP from a studio that was going out of business. I liked it enough to keep it around for a few years. Eventually I sold it to fund other things though. It was pretty good for not having any tubes. The Noise Gate is one of the best around; no menus, no fuss, reach over and adjust the single knob on the front panel to where you need the Noise Gate set and done.
I've heard about the JMP-1 but the reviews weren't favorable in my eyes. The going price was just too much for me to "just try out" as well.
Same with the Triaxis. I knew a few people with a Triaxis and while they were happy with it for the most part, I couldn't see paying that much for one of those either. The lag time (as mentioned) was a problem as well as the time needed to really dial your tone in. But I've never personally plugged into one, and feel like I'm not missing anything anyway. lol My general Live guitar tone may be somewhat loosely based on "that" Mesa tone, but I like to spread the tone around a bit anyway.
Also know a local guy with an Engl 530. He demo'd some of that for me when he bought my Peavey Classic 120 poweramp some years ago. Seemed pretty good, but fairly one-dimensional IMO. Kinda set it where you like it and that's all you get. No program changes available, maybe it had a switch between Clean and Overdrive? I can't remember.
Ah, but I do lust after a Peavey Rockmaster. It's so basic, so primal inside there, I dream of using it for recording some really heavy shit. A very mild OD setting.....just a pinch of boost at the Input.....multitracked maybe a dozen times........per side......drool....
-
Wow, did I open a can of worms with my last post or what?!? :lol:
I forgot to mention that there have been several people in this forum who have the Zoom 9150 and all have made similar comments about it. Like you Max, they like it too. So in regards to the earlier Zoom gear, these must be a vast improvement over them. I'm just not into them as a matter of personal preference.
@ Gerry, That is what I have now is amp heads. The preamps and power amps are just integrated components that can be mixed and matched. With the ADA preamps, it's like having a truck load of different amps in one box. That's the beauty of it. It's still all analogue. The ADA's don't model, they are circuits that re-route through different sections to get the tones they produce.
And I totally agree about the cab sims. I've always turned them off when using the Fender Cyber-Deluxe because I believe the cab sims are only good for direct recording or FOH. I can't use them at all in the Fender because it comes through the speaker when you do, it's not like having a MicroCab that I can place before or after the power amp and send to a mixer only. Also with the Fender, I never try to dial in the tones I need when I'm by myself and playing, I only do that when I'm working with a band, because it's the only way to get a good overall mix with it.
@ Richard, I didn't bring up the Line 6 because it's not just a preamp, it, like the Fender I own, has all the effects and cab sims in it too. I did audition one of those when they came out and found that they sounded pretty good until I tried the reverb with the tone I was using and that was the worst one I've heard. I'm sure they improved it since then, but at the time I started laughing when I heard it because it reminded me of the old Silvertone reverb, very boing-y and rubbery sounding. Definitely not my cup of tea.
I'd like to reply to a few more of these posts, but I have to get ready for work. Before I do, I will just contradict myself here a little bit, by saying that while I'm not a huge fan of the modeling amps, I'm about to take the plunge and buy a modeling guitar. A Fender G5 Stratocaster to be exact. I'll have it here sometime next week, and this is an experiment for me to see if I can get the same concept from a guitar that I get from my amps. i.e. can I get a ton of different guitar tones from one guitar, as opposed to to bringing a car load of guitars to a gig? We'll find out, and that will be posted in a different topic.
-
Since I been a massive Triaxis user I´d like to chime in some....
With Triaxis FW V2.0 (units srl# 1701 and up) I never ever ever had any lag in switching or whatsoever.
Dialling in the Triaxis (or any Boogie Mk typology amp) you gotta keep in mind that the initial tone controls are in before/in between the gain stages and not post gain like the Marshall type where you can set everything to noon as a starting point - wouldn't´t work with a Boogie Mk.
Tone wise it all comes down to preferences in the end....I prefer the Mk typo gain/distortion/character over lets say Marshall or the likes... I also don´t like the Recto sound.
My 2 cents - bash away :wave:
-
@Iperfungus
No I didn't mean it like that, I just mean GP8 and GP16 were kinda precursors to the COSM range, which they were.
GT5 and GX700 have analogue drive section just like GP8.
I have the GL100 also and that is every boss OD/Distortion pedal in a rack mount.
@Harley
I'm still not sure what it is you are referencing with Zoom gear. Vast improvement over which gear exactly? I already mentioned their MFX pedals did improve from the 90's to the 00's, but their recording units, drum machines and other gizmos were not bad from way back. In fact no one can squeeze more features into a product than Zoom, this is a trait of theirs from over the years. Perhaps a lot of early stuff was garbage for guitar, but definitely their was other tech they made that was decent even in the early years.
Mind you Iperfungus is referencing some earlier units that I have no experience off that seem a lot more advanced and professional than the unit I started out with which I guess reeked of digital however plenty of bang for yer buck and as a teenager it was the shit :poop: for me!
If I could tell with the 9150 was from then we truly would have a starting point as to when they may be nailed a rack preamp with analogue and digital tech inside. I listened to some demos online and I didn't like the hi gain I heard, sounded pretty fake. Although some medium gain shit sounded really good.
check this
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QyUxDyeC2ek (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QyUxDyeC2ek)
No I dunno if the guy did this recording direct in, but if he did I'm telling you now it would sound even better using actual guitar speakers. Some of this is not bad at all, especially if it is using some kinda onboard speaker sim, so if you bring real guitar cabs into the picture perhaps the results would better. The second song sounds like ASS btw! Smoke on the Water though is excellent.
I get ya though if you'd never use anything Zoom. I'd never use anything Line 6 for example.
-
Hey Gerry,
I don't really remember which Zoom unit it was to be honest, it belonged to a friend of mine and he had me plug into it when I was at his house. It wasn't a rack unit though, it was a floor unit. In any event, I wasn't impressed. It certainly didn't sound anything like the 9150.
-
I promise I wil let this go :lol: after this question
do you remember when? Early 90's? Mid 90's Late 90's or 00's?
The 9150 doesn't sound anything like my old floor unit, I'm wondering if you used a unit from the 90's. The defo progressed with floor sound gear from late 90's onward. I just checked out their latest flagship model, ugliest piece of gear I've ever seen! I bet though it sounds good and has great features. Looks like the last zoom pedal I had only upgraded.
Since I been a massive Triaxis user I´d like to chime in some....
With Triaxis FW V2.0 (units srl# 1701 and up) I never ever ever had any lag in switching or whatsoever.
Dialling in the Triaxis (or any Boogie Mk typology amp) you gotta keep in mind that the initial tone controls are in before/in between the gain stages and not post gain like the Marshall type where you can set everything to noon as a starting point - wouldn't´t work with a Boogie Mk.
Tone wise it all comes down to preferences in the end....I prefer the Mk typo gain/distortion/character over lets say Marshall or the likes... I also don´t like the Recto sound.
My 2 cents - bash away :wave:
So basically the Triaxis ended you MP1 love :lol:
Ah, but I do lust after a Peavey Rockmaster. It's so basic, so primal inside there, I dream of using it for recording some really heavy shit. A very mild OD setting.....just a pinch of boost at the Input.....multitracked maybe a dozen times........per side......drool....
It is great, I used on our latest album, but finished the rest of the tracks using an MP1. It's about 60/40 for the Rockmaster on there. I've modded the one I recorded with. I think I need to play around with the caps though as if I dial in lots of gain I feel attack is lost on the bass strings a tad ever since I changed out a cap on the tube board to allow more low end through. The other I own needs a service, it's dropped out put big time :dunno:
-
Wow, did I open a can of worms with my last post or what?!? :lol:
I forgot to mention that there have been several people in this forum who have the Zoom 9150 and all have made similar comments about it. Like you Max, they like it too. So in regards to the earlier Zoom gear, these must be a vast improvement over them. I'm just not into them as a matter of personal preference.
Personal tastes are something we cannot debate about! :thumb-up:
No worms around...
I just found that it looks like the 9150 has been designed from people different from whom designed the 9030 or other Zoom stuff: a completely different animal.
It's quite impossible to find some decent clips of the 9150 around and that's a shame...because its tones are way better than what you can hear in those clips.
-
@Iperfungus
No I didn't mean it like that, I just mean GP8 and GP16 were kinda precursors to the COSM range, which they were.
GT5 and GX700 have analogue drive section just like GP8.
You're right! :thumb-up:
-
Iperfungus you never answered my question about the Marhsal Valvestate 8008 man? Back a few posts.
-
Iperfungus you never answered my question about the Marhsal Valvestate 8008 man? Back a few posts.
Sorry mate...which question? I missed it... :dunno:
-
Iperfungus you never answered my question about the Marhsal Valvestate 8008 man? Back a few posts.
Sorry mate...which question? I missed it... :dunno:
I have nearly bought one of these 8008s before are they any good? I know Billy Gibbons uses them and I have been eyeing up this amp for a while and also wondering what the valvestate switch can add to the tone or a preamp???? Do tell guy's since you own them.
-
I have nearly bought one of these 8008s before are they any good? I know Billy Gibbons uses them and I have been eyeing up this amp for a while and also wondering what the valvestate switch can add to the tone or a preamp???? Do tell guy's since you own them.
To me, it's a very good power amp...not simply a reliable workhorse.
It delivers 100% Marshall tone, no way.
And today it's cheap.
A friend o' mine (I bought my TA '70 power amp from him) had 4 power amps:
1) Marshall 9005
2) Marshall 9200
3) Marshall Valvestate 8008
4) the TA '70 he sold to me
When he decided to reduce the number of items, he started comparisons and A/B testing with preamps (Marshall JMP1 and ADA MP-1), the power amps and different cabinets.
At the end, he kept the 8008...for the above reasons: it has the Marshall tone, it's reliable, it works fine with anything you connect to it, it has a good amount of power, it's silent, it's just 1 unit and it doesn't weight like a B-52.
9005 and TA '70 have been sold already...and the 9200 has not yet because of some issues on a channel (probably tubes..), but I bet it will go as well.
I bought the TA '70 when the channel B on my B200s had issues, but I already had the 8008 paired with the 9150 and I kept it: that is a very easy-to-use and complete backup rack.
About the Linear/Valvestate, the Linear mode reminds me the B200s in some way....while the Valvestate adds some warmth that can be useful in some cases: it depends on the preamp.
With the MP-1 I liked the Linear more (same tone as with the B200s), while with the 9150 I prefer Valvestate (Linear makes it sound too "bright").
Coming back to the '90s, I remember a lot of people and friends using Valvestate power amps (8004 or 8008) in their racks and none of them was disappointed.
It survived through all these years and some people still uses it with a Kemper (also Rocktron Velocity power amps are renowed in the same way).
There must be a reason why... :thumb-up:
-
Preamps I've had:
MP-1 (several) mostly stock
MP-1 Classic : Still my go-to amp
MP-2 Used it for years, even bought a second one for a backup. It didn't sound the same, so i traded it for a guitar...I was bouncing back & forth between the MP-2 and the Classic. Now, it's my backup
Digitech GFX-1 Twin Tube: Surprisingly good. Not fun to set up patches, you literally had to scroll through EVERY damn effect to save a patch.
Peavey Transtube ProFEX: Probably the closest thing to an MP-2, with cool dials for the tone controls. I can't even find them anymore..may have dependability issues, I cannot confirm this, mine worked fine.
Power amps:
Marshall 8004: Great little amp, surprisingly loud. No presence knob :/
ADA B200s: Great SS amp, warm and clean...again, no presence knob :/
ADA MicroFet: meh
ADA MT100: GREAT sounding amp, but too delicate for the road. I killed two of them in seconds
ADA MT200: GREAT sounding amp, with a MF'ing presence knob :banana-jazz-smiley-emoticon:
ADA T100s: GREAT sounding amp, weighs more than a 2001 VW GTi full of fuel
None of that has anything to do with the initial question, so...the best KNOWN preamps (according to me) are:
ADA MP-1
Mesa Tri-Axis
Marshall JMP-1
Rocktron XXX (Piranha, ProGap, etc.)
Other stuff....