Can RM4 Parallel FX loop be modified to stereo?

[Prickstein]

Hi all,
I'm planning my new rack which I want to base around an RM4 but am wondering if the parallel FX loop can be modified to have a stereo return? It would be great to be able to put an FX processor in there and be able to use the fx blend instead of combining the signals of the RM4 and processor in a seperate mixer, so the RM4 IS the mixer and plug the RM4 outs straight into the power amp and get stereo delays etc?
Tech Heads, is this doable?
Rick

 

[TheAbomb12]

I think it would be easier to do this:


RM4-> Stereo FX processor->Left Poweramp Input
...........................................->Right Poweramp Input


edit: oops, didn't notice what you said about parallel loop...

 

[Prickstein]

I'm trying to avoid the RM4 going "through" the FX processor so when I don't want verb or delay, it's a purer signal path.
I also want to incorporate a GCX switcher into the setup so I can put my Adrenalinn into the path in place of the RM4 and send the stereo outs into the RM4 returns. That way I just have one volume knob on the front of the rack to deal with. Nothing worse than getting a roadie to turn you up during the gig while they try and work out which volume knob is the one.

 

[TheAbomb12]

A parallel loop setup is easy, and so is stereo-- but a stereo parallel loop is harder I guess...I have no idea what it would be like to mod in a stereo parallel loop.


Personally I suggest getting a switchblade routing system, as I believe it will provide you with exactly what you want...without modding the crap out of your RM4 (you know, soldering, rewiring, drilling holes, all that jazz).

 

[3 Mile Stone]

Or buy an effects proccesor with a mixer feature. Most of teh Rocktron and T.C Electronics units have this feauure. Then you just program the mixer in each patch to be where you want it.

 

[Prickstein]

Personally I suggest getting a switchblade routing system, as I believe it will provide you with exactly what you want...without modding the crap out of your RM4 (you know, soldering, rewiring, drilling holes, all that jazz).

Wow, thanks for the heads up! The Switchblade does indeed look like the answer. Anybody here use one? Any issues? Transperancy?

 

[TheAbomb12]

Talk to John C, I still think he has one in his rig...


however, I would have to add as my own opinion-- If you're only using 1 delay/reverb unit the switchblade is kind of overkill (I don't know what you're running though). Are you noticing THAT much tone suck/sound coloration when your effects are run in serial? I know such things are an issue when running a rack setup, but only after wiring up multiple effects in the loop.

I know some people who NEED to run their effects in parallel-- but I also know a lot who just *think* they need all their effects to be parallel, true-bypass, super-duper transparent etc etc and end up having severe (and unnecessary) GAS attacks.

Seriously, too much complication.

I would definitely just consider hooking up your FX serially; in stereo; and just balance out all your level first (too see how it really sounds) before getting the switchblade, cause it does cost a lot. If you have already done that, then ignore what I just said.

 

[Prickstein]

Well the setup I hope to have soon is a RM4 or M4 (taking the place of my trusty ADA MP1, R.I.P), my old quadraverb for delays, reverbs etc, Adrenalinn, Hotcake and EQ pedal into my Carver power amp, soon to be upgraded to a RT2/50. I'm thinking the cheapest version of the switchblade will do just fine. I'll probably add more stuff as I go as well, it never ends.

 

[3 Mile Stone]

I beleive the Quadra-Verb by Alesis has a built in mixer. Some one here once told me that and that it should be one of the ones you can set up to sound pretty good with minimal suckage.

 

[fatang]

You could try to find an old DMC System Mix or Rocktron Rack Interface, both have simple line mixers built in. The System Mix is not very big so you could mount it in the back of the rack.

I imagine you could convert one of the paths in the RM4 Pre/Post to an additional out but the reverse engineering would be crazy with regard to time and price.

Robert

 

[seeker]

There are several ways to go stereo, but it depends on how much $$ you want to spend. I have 2 M4s going into a Mesa 20/20, using the send and returns of each in the serial loop. If you use the parallel loop you'll find that adjusting the mix on each preamp will drive you nuts. The next alternative is to go direct out of the preamp using the pre loop output jack, into one input ( mono) of one of many FX processors with a stereo left/right output to your poweramp ( 2 channel, or Stereo). There are some switching units you can use, Bradshaw, Switch blade, etc , that will work as well. Two heads would work well too, this is my current setup:
FX send from one amp head to my Lexicon MPX-1, the returns into both amp heads, and then one speaker output form each to the cabs. This way one preamp section of head # 1 is used, and on the 2nd head the preamp is bypassed leaving all tone and EQ controls inactive on #2 and active on head # 1. I could also use the send and returns from both heads and blend a clean on # 2 with high gain on #1, and use both EQ's and drive/gain controls.
As far as converting the FX loops to stereo on the RM4, that's beyond my gizmo tweeking ability. It seems much simpler just to split the preamp signal path with an FX processor.

Howard

 

[SacredGroove]

Hi all,
I'm planning my new rack which I want to base around an RM4 but am wondering if the parallel FX loop can be modified to have a stereo return? It would be great to be able to put an FX processor in there and be able to use the fx blend instead of combining the signals of the RM4 and processor in a seperate mixer, so the RM4 IS the mixer and plug the RM4 outs straight into the power amp and get stereo delays etc?
Tech Heads, is this doable?
Rick

I'd love to have this done my RM4. There are already 2 post-loop outputs, so why not have 2 parallel returns and assign the post-loop outputs as L-R?

I have a GCX switcher that I've been trying to incorporate to solve this.

Scott