I'm trying to decide if I should build an Airbrake, or how I should build it, stock or with some type of modification. I've read a lot of good things about them but part of the reason that I'm still not sure is I would like to investigate reamping along with lowering my volume (my Express build is currently in process and I anticipate high volume levels along with the great tone).
I've read a few things about some people using a line out to send to effects, with good results. I've heard about an effects loop and have the schematic. I'm thinking about trying that as well.
Has anybody sent the signal from a Trainwreck, whether line out or something else, through effects and sent the signal into to the return of a tube amp and through their speaker cabinet?
I keep hearing that it isn't easy to use effects with the Express so I'm trying to get ideas or use people's experience to help me decide what to do.
Has anybody ever added a line out to an Airbrake?
Airbrake VS Line Out VS Reamping
Moderators: pompeiisneaks, Colossal
-
geetarpicker
- Posts: 917
- Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 8:08 pm
- Location: Nashville, TN
- Contact:
Re: Airbrake VS Line Out VS Reamping
I've been doing this live with my Wreck since the early 90s, to simulate the effects I sometimes add in the studio from the board.
The guitar goes straight to the amp and then straight to the "dry" cab, or maybe first through a Hotplate. I run a separate speaker cord off the second jack on the amp to box where it is padded down to line level with 2 resistors, then that drives the inputs of two Lexicon MX300s. The four total outputs coming off the two units goes to a 4 channel mixer, a small power amp, then out to a separate "wet"cab. Basically I then can have up to 4 "post amplifier" parallel effects. This is a great way to give you the type of effect quality you would have from the mixing board in a studio, but live on stage. You then mic both cabs live. I fit my entire effects rig in a small 4 space rack, albiet a 50lb small rack...
The trick is to find an effects unit that allows you to mute via muting the input, so that when you bypass the effect nothing goes through not even a dry signal. Muting the inputs also allow any effect trails to fade out naturally. The Lexicon units can be configured to operate this way. Quite a few dedicated guitar effect rack units are NOT setup to do this, so you have to check around.
These setups work best for ambient stuff like reverb and delay, and also chorus/leslie type sounds. Some effects like vibrato don't work as well since the dry cabinet can wash it all out a bit.
For the most part I find the effects sound fine on a smaller cab even if the dry is a 4x12. I've tried this with two 4x12s, and in some way the effects get too overbearing. I usually use a 1x12 for effects. However recently I've been experimenting with an even more compact effects cab. By using a H&K Redbox inline with the effects rack (to simulate a guitar speaker tone in the wet send to the effects units) I can then run a small fullrange 1x8" coax floor monitor such as a Microwedge floor monitor. The little 1x8" is expensive, but it sounds really nice and is tiny.
I mounted the Redbox in the back of my effects rack, and I can patch it in when I'm using a full range cab instead of a guitar cab where the cab emulation isn't needed.
I've tried many time to reamp the Trainwreck for the wet and dry tone. Setups where the entire amp is padded down to line level, processed and then brought up again with a poweramp. However something is always lost that way. I like the parallel setup better, as your dry tone is totally untouched.
[img:800:533]http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2005-10/ ... etdry6.jpg[/img]
The guitar goes straight to the amp and then straight to the "dry" cab, or maybe first through a Hotplate. I run a separate speaker cord off the second jack on the amp to box where it is padded down to line level with 2 resistors, then that drives the inputs of two Lexicon MX300s. The four total outputs coming off the two units goes to a 4 channel mixer, a small power amp, then out to a separate "wet"cab. Basically I then can have up to 4 "post amplifier" parallel effects. This is a great way to give you the type of effect quality you would have from the mixing board in a studio, but live on stage. You then mic both cabs live. I fit my entire effects rig in a small 4 space rack, albiet a 50lb small rack...
The trick is to find an effects unit that allows you to mute via muting the input, so that when you bypass the effect nothing goes through not even a dry signal. Muting the inputs also allow any effect trails to fade out naturally. The Lexicon units can be configured to operate this way. Quite a few dedicated guitar effect rack units are NOT setup to do this, so you have to check around.
These setups work best for ambient stuff like reverb and delay, and also chorus/leslie type sounds. Some effects like vibrato don't work as well since the dry cabinet can wash it all out a bit.
For the most part I find the effects sound fine on a smaller cab even if the dry is a 4x12. I've tried this with two 4x12s, and in some way the effects get too overbearing. I usually use a 1x12 for effects. However recently I've been experimenting with an even more compact effects cab. By using a H&K Redbox inline with the effects rack (to simulate a guitar speaker tone in the wet send to the effects units) I can then run a small fullrange 1x8" coax floor monitor such as a Microwedge floor monitor. The little 1x8" is expensive, but it sounds really nice and is tiny.
I mounted the Redbox in the back of my effects rack, and I can patch it in when I'm using a full range cab instead of a guitar cab where the cab emulation isn't needed.
I've tried many time to reamp the Trainwreck for the wet and dry tone. Setups where the entire amp is padded down to line level, processed and then brought up again with a poweramp. However something is always lost that way. I like the parallel setup better, as your dry tone is totally untouched.
[img:800:533]http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2005-10/ ... etdry6.jpg[/img]
Last edited by geetarpicker on Sat Jan 12, 2008 6:24 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
Jackie Treehorn
- Posts: 236
- Joined: Thu Jan 20, 2005 4:54 pm
- Location: New Orleans, LA
Re: Airbrake VS Line Out VS Reamping
I added a line out to my airbrake to run a separate effects rig. In this clip here http://www.theinside.net/SSRev-01.mp3 the modulated delay is a Lexicon LXP-15 into the power amp section of a JTM45 type amp into a Mesa widebody 1x12. I later switched to a Carvin DCM150 power amp, added a Lexicon Vortex (for tap tempo delays, etc.) and split a Marshall 4x12 to run half wet and half dry. I actually like the solid state amp better; it adds some definition. Also, having two separate cabinets made it difficult to get the mix of dry and effects right; it's a lot easier using one 4x12. Running effects this way has been quite a revelation! It sounds incredible. I've used effects loops in the past (not with any wreck type amps) and pedals, of course, but the wet rig has been a lot more satisfying. It takes more gear to get started, but it is well, well worth it.
When you say reamping, I guess you are talking about running your express into just a load (not an attenuator) and using another amp to amplify both your dry and effected signal. I haven't tried that route but it certainly has some advantages in being able to use a volume pedal to control your entire volume and being able to kill the dry signal and just amplify the effects. I may give that a shot some time. It may be better at really low volume situations than the airbrake on the rheostat setting.
When you say reamping, I guess you are talking about running your express into just a load (not an attenuator) and using another amp to amplify both your dry and effected signal. I haven't tried that route but it certainly has some advantages in being able to use a volume pedal to control your entire volume and being able to kill the dry signal and just amplify the effects. I may give that a shot some time. It may be better at really low volume situations than the airbrake on the rheostat setting.
-
Jackie Treehorn
- Posts: 236
- Joined: Thu Jan 20, 2005 4:54 pm
- Location: New Orleans, LA
Re: Airbrake VS Line Out VS Reamping
Ahhhh...Trainwreck & Lexicon...the perfect combination.geetarpicker wrote:
[img:800:533]http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2005-10/ ... etdry6.jpg[/img]
Re: Airbrake VS Line Out VS Reamping
I have been considering just padding with a resistor and a pot to get down to line level, that's kind of where I started. Electronics is my profession and it can be a curse because the questions are never ending. I started to think about the fact that resistors aren't the same reactive load as a speaker and then on to the fact that I won't get the treble roll off of an actual speaker, etc. I found myself studying the patent for the GT SE-II and scouring the internet for schematics of the PDI-03.
Then I started looking for reviews of both of the units, which led to the mention of other attenuators, each better and worse than the others, depending on who you were listening to.
Geetarpicker (Glen, right?), I love your clips, how close is the tone of your setup to your recordings? I may end up using your method but I don't have any of that gear but if that's what it will take I'll get it. I'm going to try something below first. Again, love the clips, I have to get your CD, you're kind of the blueprint for how these amps should sound (pretty cool, eh?)
Jackie Treehorn, I plan on using the effects loop return on my London Power Standard clone. I would prefer not to get into extra speakers as I don't have any. That way I can use the Airbrake as a load (I've heard enough about it to believe that it is good enough even though it is not a perfect reactive load). I guess I'll try the resistor and pot and send the signal through my effects and then to the return of my amp. That will only cost me the price of the Airbrake. That way, if I like the sound I can get another cabinet and use a wet/dry setup.
Then I started looking for reviews of both of the units, which led to the mention of other attenuators, each better and worse than the others, depending on who you were listening to.
Geetarpicker (Glen, right?), I love your clips, how close is the tone of your setup to your recordings? I may end up using your method but I don't have any of that gear but if that's what it will take I'll get it. I'm going to try something below first. Again, love the clips, I have to get your CD, you're kind of the blueprint for how these amps should sound (pretty cool, eh?)
Jackie Treehorn, I plan on using the effects loop return on my London Power Standard clone. I would prefer not to get into extra speakers as I don't have any. That way I can use the Airbrake as a load (I've heard enough about it to believe that it is good enough even though it is not a perfect reactive load). I guess I'll try the resistor and pot and send the signal through my effects and then to the return of my amp. That will only cost me the price of the Airbrake. That way, if I like the sound I can get another cabinet and use a wet/dry setup.
Re: Airbrake VS Line Out VS Reamping
FWIW I have had extremely good results using a Weber MASS (old one, old-style case) as a load and the line out from the MASS, taking that signal into a Line6 POD XT Live (regular POD XT will work) and using it for effects and cabinet modeling. I just set the amp model to "no amp" and then select a cabinet model and fool with the mic settings and that kind of thing. I usually just use the 4x12 greenbacks cab model and the SM57 off-axis mic model. I play this rig plugged direct at a large church 5x per week and it sounds really good.
If you had other effects (such as rack effects) you needed to use, this would work by putting the effects downstream of the POD, or between the MASS and the POD, depending on your preference and the effects. I tend to run my pedals in front of the amp and then use delay and trem in the POD.
I am building a prototype amp right now with a resistive load and a vol/tone control for the line out. I hope to replace my complicated amp + MASS rig at church with a "desktop" amp (low-watt amp with built in load and line out). Mostly I want something purpose-built that I can leave at church and get my Serena back home so I can use it to record. The amp I am building for this purpose is a Revelation Littlerock, kind of a wreck inspired low-watt amp, but in my case I'll build in the line out to work in this environment.
I have a friend who has been using a similar rig for home recording. He uses one of his old Marshall-style amps into a Weber MASS and then out of the line out into a DI, records dry and uses a convolution effect and impulses he made using his own mics and cabinets to do the cabinet modeling. He says it sounds better than his cabinet recordings because it's more tuneable and he doesn't have to attenuate the speaker to make it tolerable to record at home.
Anyway, these are just some ideas. As attenuators go, I think the MASS has more of an organic feel to it than other resistive attenuators like an airbrake, it's more dynamic and compresses and does those kinds of things more like a cranked cabinet would do. Some people don't like this element and want the more immediate, solid feel of a resistive attenuator. It's a matter of preference. I like the MASS. The MASS does knock off a fair amount of top end when you use it to feed a speaker (as an attenuator) and there's no way to get it to sound transparent. I figure most TW-type amps have top end to spare.
See ya-
If you had other effects (such as rack effects) you needed to use, this would work by putting the effects downstream of the POD, or between the MASS and the POD, depending on your preference and the effects. I tend to run my pedals in front of the amp and then use delay and trem in the POD.
I am building a prototype amp right now with a resistive load and a vol/tone control for the line out. I hope to replace my complicated amp + MASS rig at church with a "desktop" amp (low-watt amp with built in load and line out). Mostly I want something purpose-built that I can leave at church and get my Serena back home so I can use it to record. The amp I am building for this purpose is a Revelation Littlerock, kind of a wreck inspired low-watt amp, but in my case I'll build in the line out to work in this environment.
I have a friend who has been using a similar rig for home recording. He uses one of his old Marshall-style amps into a Weber MASS and then out of the line out into a DI, records dry and uses a convolution effect and impulses he made using his own mics and cabinets to do the cabinet modeling. He says it sounds better than his cabinet recordings because it's more tuneable and he doesn't have to attenuate the speaker to make it tolerable to record at home.
Anyway, these are just some ideas. As attenuators go, I think the MASS has more of an organic feel to it than other resistive attenuators like an airbrake, it's more dynamic and compresses and does those kinds of things more like a cranked cabinet would do. Some people don't like this element and want the more immediate, solid feel of a resistive attenuator. It's a matter of preference. I like the MASS. The MASS does knock off a fair amount of top end when you use it to feed a speaker (as an attenuator) and there's no way to get it to sound transparent. I figure most TW-type amps have top end to spare.
See ya-