Room for "real" preamp circuits

[blacksun]

Saw Trace from Voodoo mention in the "Fortin thread" that there was absolutely no room for a similar constructed mesa mark circuit in the small limited randall/egnater mts PCBs. It had to be designed to sound similar without being structurally similar to the original preamp.

I guess this is the case for a lot of preamps but I wonder are there any preamps that can actually be allowed be structurally transposed to the mts boards? What about perhaps less extensive circuitry (eg a plexi)?

Any mods we can expect to be more structurally faithfully similar to the original?

Perhaps this is a somewhat delicate topic but it would be great if some of the community's modders could chime in?? :?:

 

[VitaminG]

I wonder if there's any real value in attempting this anyway. No matter how faithful to the original preamp circuit, every other step of the signal chain is Randall/Egnater. Not to mention users can mix and match tubes in the power section.

I think the magic in what the modders do when they are cloning an amp is to work within those parameters and tuning the preamp to sound as close to the original despite every other step in the signal chain.

 

[Nightdare]

Agreed VG

Do we need a handwired 'plexi' or 'twin' module to get the sound of the real world preamp? (let's keep it at that level the least)

Though I'm certain 'simpler' circuits could be copies of real world amps
(down to the value of caps and resistors) -allbeit in a rerouted modular PCB format-

 

[djd100]

MTS will always be different as there's the V1 in the chassis, and one of the PCB's tube stages is hard-wired as a cathode follower (which can be changed but it's a real PITA). Aside from these issues you can get pretty close if you cut traces and jumper etc.

We build modules for our own use and follow the original schematics as much as possible, and they sound like the real deal as the majority of a tube preamp's sound is in it's tonestack, the location of that tonestack, the coupling caps, the biasing/filtering of the gain stages (and with MTS allowances for V1's gain contribution).

If you get that stuff right you'll be sounding pretty close to the original tube preamp (though of course there are lots of other variables in the real amp like power section iron, NFB, and tubes, PI design, power supply etc, that won't be exact but that's MTS).

Saw Trace from Voodoo mention in the "Fortin thread" that there was absolutely no room for a similar constructed mesa mark circuit in the small limited randall/egnater mts PCBs. It had to be designed to sound similar without being structurally similar to the original preamp.

I guess this is the case for a lot of preamps but I wonder are there any preamps that can actually be allowed be structurally transposed to the mts boards? What about perhaps less extensive circuitry (eg a plexi)?

Any mods we can expect to be more structurally faithfully similar to the original?

Perhaps this is a somewhat delicate topic but it would be great if some of the community's modders could chime in?? :?:

 

[Whoopysnorp]

Hasn't Anthony said that the Stonerverb contains the actual same circuit as the preamp of a real Rockerverb?

 

[GtrGeorge!]

I think this is a great topic...I suspect that there is alot of authenticity that is literally because of the layout of the original schematic. I am an amateur electronics guy..but I do know somethings about physics and it seems to me that the physical layout will have an affect..electrons travel on the outside of wires and when they pass near other components there are inductance currents they face, as well as other phase concerns, and other phenomenon that contribute somewhat to the sound of the ORIGINAL designs.
And of course the other major things that affect the sound are the value of the resistors,caps, etc etc That is by far more affecting of the final sound.
So,to my thinking, we are in a good position with the MTS concept, the essential circuits can be imitated enough for professional work. And at a cost that musicians can afford.
I don't regret my MTS purchases...even if Randall and Bruce seem to ignore Us alot these days. I suspect as soon as certain contracts "twilight" we will see some NEW activity on the design and production front. I hope I am right. I d love to see a 50 watt combo with a use-able loop and 1x12 Celestion, at a reasonable weight. And dont forget the the cab sim out (XLR)
just sayin (my house has no power so I have time to spout off)
GtrGeorge

 

[Kapo_Polenton]

Don't forget that that first preamp tube is "hardwired" in the amp and not the module and the power amp is not flexible so the modders more often than not start with a schematic but then compare what they hear coming out of a donor amp and trying to tone shape with their ears when designing that sound on the modular platform.

 

[djd100]

I doubt it because it isn't, though the important aspects of the Orange preamp circuit are present so it'll sound like the real deal even if it isn't "identical".

Hasn't Anthony said that the Stonerverb contains the actual same circuit as the preamp of a real Rockerverb?

 

[alowerdeep]

yeah,this is one of the reasons I got rid of my RM100 and all of the modules....I found the modules did a good job of "approximating" certain tones,but I didnt hear enough of a variety to justify having so many.Not to mention,some of the amps I really wanted to sound great as modules,like the Soldano,Recto,Krank.....the modules all sounded good,but they just didnt have the overall sonic quality or were they close enough to the real deal to me,so I wound up selling them...some of my favorite mods were the more modder created mods,like the Mashaldano...thought it was pretty cool....really liked the mts stuff but found myself gravitating back to my regular amps when we started rehearsing again......still miss the rm though...may get a RM50 sometime next year and just grab a Mashaldano and clean,to have a more unique flavor amp to play some....

 

[blacksun]

I've heard that also Anthony's Custom3 contain the same physical circuit as the CAE 3+.

Reason I'm asking is that with the few A/B tests available I always think the real amp surpasses the custom modded mts. Makes me think alowerdeep is spot on here.

I'm a rack guy and use separate preamps and power sections so I wonder if it is the randall power sections in those tests is the weak link or it is the inherent limitations to modify the preamp circuit.

(Note - above is very subtle, I also think eg the axe fx 2 is inferior in feel and in the end musical inspiration contra the corresponding real tube head (compared mesa mark and rectifier, marshall vintage plexi jcm800, slo, diezel etc) the differences are neglect-able in live situations IMO)

 

[alowerdeep]

not taking anything away from the stuff though....Ive actually heard some of the mods that sound better than the real amps....like the S1SO compared to the 5150,the Salation XTC compared to the real XTC,the Stonerverb compared to the Orange rocker 50/100...they seemed to capture the good parts that I liked about the particular amps and lose the bad parts,mainly that fuzzy OD,they were so easy to dial in tones as well.....those just were not the amps I was wanting...the amps I was really wanting were the ones I didnt think were close enough to me.....makes since with all that is involved with amps though I suppose....

 

[djd100]

MTS design forces circuit differences when compared to real amps, unless you modify the head/rack also which nobody does to my knowlege (defeats the purpose)?

None of that matters as the important parts of the preamp's tone equation can be modified giving the MTS modules as good or better "preamp" tone than the real deals, and the various modders have taken this art to new heights.

Also, there is nothing "wrong" with the various MTS power sections either, they are just "different" than some other amps is all (fairly different from many Matchless, Vox, and any Single Ended amps at minimum...).

Again though, the only thing that matters is whether it "sounds good", because, "if it sounds good, it is good"!

I've heard that also Anthony's Custom3 contain the same physical circuit as the CAE 3+.

Reason I'm asking is that with the few A/B tests available I always think the real amp surpasses the custom modded mts. Makes me think alowerdeep is spot on here.

I'm a rack guy and use separate preamps and power sections so I wonder if it is the randall power sections in those tests is the weak link or it is the inherent limitations to modify the preamp circuit.

(Note - above is very subtle, I also think eg the axe fx 2 is inferior in feel and in the end musical inspiration contra the corresponding real tube head (compared mesa mark and rectifier, marshall vintage plexi jcm800, slo, diezel etc) the differences are neglect-able in live situations IMO)

 

[wesarvin]

I agree, some are easier to dial than the real deal. I'd put up with minor tonal compromises for that convenience. Mark X vs a Mark IV for example...

I was the one that did the Bogner vs Salvation XTC clip, and it was the main reason why I sold the Bogner, plus it helped fund the whole MTS rig and then some. One thing though, is that some of the modules are one trick ponies, that XTC being a prime example, as it only really does the Red channel well, though I have to admit it was an older version.

I also compared a friend's Plexi to a Mash All, and they were VERY close (and this is a pre-+ version). Next week he is bringing his Rockerverb 50 mkII and his Twin, and I'll get to do a good comparison of those to my Eggie twin and Stonerverb... It's funny because my Stonerverb was his inspiration to buy a Rockerverb.

 

[Mattfig]

I agree, some are easier to dial than the real deal. I'd put up with minor tonal compromises for that convenience. Mark X vs a Mark IV for example...

I was the one that did the Bogner vs Salvation XTC clip, and it was the main reason why I sold the Bogner, plus it helped fund the whole MTS rig and then some. One thing though, is that some of the modules are one trick ponies, that XTC being a prime example, as it only really does the Red channel well, though I have to admit it was an older version.

I also compared a friend's Plexi to a Mash All, and they were VERY close (and this is a pre-+ version). Next week he is bringing his Rockerverb 50 mkII and his Twin, and I'll get to do a good comparison of those to my Eggie twin and Stonerverb... It's funny because my Stonerverb was his inspiration to buy a Rockerverb.

Looking forward to these results!

 

[wesarvin]

It should be good. Since it's for an album, time is limited. I'm just gonna tap a DI line while he's tracking, and then run it through a reamp box into my rig after he leaves. Speakers will be slightly different, but performance and mic signal chain will be the same.

 

[djd100]

Cab/Speakers/Mic (position) has as much or more influence on an amp's sound than the preamp/power amp, so if you don't compare with the same Cab/Speakers/Mic (position) the comparison is useless.

It should be good. Since it's for an album, time is limited. I'm just gonna tap a DI line while he's tracking, and then run it through a reamp box into my rig after he leaves. Speakers will be slightly different, but performance and mic signal chain will be the same.

 

[wesarvin]

Well, if you know the limitations, a wise ear can look past those issues. Call it useless, but it's better than no comparison at all.

 

[audiomidijace]

I am totally on the other side of this issue. From the time Roland and Line 6 started doing amp modeling up to the MTS modules, I've NEVER cared if something sounded "exactly" the same as the original or not. All I've ever cared about is does it sound and feel good "TO ME!"
I've never even had the chance to TRY many of the real amps that we have module clones of available for MTS! I'd never had a chance to play a Splawn amp, but I was excited as hell to try the QuickMod! And it sounded great to me! I'm just happy to have so many GOOD tone choices with MTS. I've played $5000 amps that sounded like *** to my ears. So it's never been about the brand name or the price of the amp for me. It's all about tone! The fact that I can spend $300, have a module shipped and land on my office desk and have a completely different sounding, kick *** tone when I get home is just THE ****! :twisted:
I'm more worried about recording techniques and trying to capture the sound properly. I'll take a well recorded JF-XTC module tone over a badly recorded Bogner Ecstasy tone everytime! :roll:

 

[wesarvin]

I am totally on the other side of this issue. From the time Roland and Line 6 started doing amp modeling up to the MTS modules, I've NEVER cared if something sounded "exactly" the same as the original or not. All I've ever cared about is does it sound and feel good "TO ME!"
I've never even had the chance to TRY many of the real amps that we have module clones of available for MTS! I'd never had a chance to play a Splawn amp, but I was excited as hell to try the QuickMod! And it sounded great to me! I'm just happy to have so many GOOD tone choices with MTS. I've played $5000 amps that sounded like *** to my ears. So it's never been about the brand name or the price of the amp for me. It's all about tone! The fact that I can spend $300, have a module shipped and land on my office desk and have a completely different sounding, kick *** tone when I get home is just THE s*&t! :twisted:
I'm more worried about recording techniques and trying to capture the sound properly. I'll take a well recorded JF-XTC module tone over a badly recorded Bogner Ecstasy tone everytime! :roll:

Does our forum have a "like" button? :lol:

 

[Kapo_Polenton]

Hey wesarvin, if you are going to reamp, why not use Redwirez cab impulses? Pick the same cab and speakers and there you go, same "rig" for comparison? They sounded pretty solid when I tried them and although they seem a tad too consistent / efficient (whatever word you want to use to describe what you hear) they do sound pretty realistic. It will def. level the playing field and they have a free greenback cab you can play with.