Members isvoid Posted April 1, 2012 Members Share Posted April 1, 2012 I'm smelling what you're cooking. It's not likely you would want both amps to change channels together. Then again, there probably aren't SO many players with two MIDI amps in their rig, but hopefully that's a growing number. Bingo. I've never run 2 midi amps, but all thru the 80s I played A/B rigs, e.g. a Boogie (Mk IIB) and a JC 120. It's a total pain to lug around that many amps, but what I liked. Anyway, 2 midi-able amps, A/B'd, controllable via something like a Mastermind GT (RJM Music) and a Y-Not (also RJM) would have a lot of appeal to like minded guitar nerds, assuming the two amps sported very different topologies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Rock Hardness Posted April 1, 2012 Members Share Posted April 1, 2012 True, but not efficient, because, if I'm understanding what you're saying, then for any given program change to channel 1 you have to account for both amps (i.e. all the respective bits representing settings on BOTH amps have to be accounted for), whereas if each amp enjoys it's own channel program changes to one amp are done completely independent of the other amp. Is my thinking daft? You could work it both ways, but I think he might be trying to avoid puting an interface on the amp? Mine have a "store" switch on the front panels. Conceivably, you could set one amp clean, one amp dirty, hit "store" on both amps, then send the program # signal to both amps to save their respective programs. I quit using two amps years ago. Stereo wiring/ground-loop nightmare. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members isvoid Posted April 1, 2012 Members Share Posted April 1, 2012 Conceivably, you could set one amp clean, one amp dirty, hit "store" on both amps, then send the program # signal to both amps to save their respective programs. That's what I was suggesting as being "not the most efficient approach". It's akin to having to set all your effects settings when you want to kick on delay. Unless I misunderstand, which is possible, have had a migraine for about 2 months. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members guitarbilly74 Posted April 1, 2012 Members Share Posted April 1, 2012 I'm smelling what you're cooking. It's not likely you would want both amps to change channels together. Then again, there probably aren't SO many players with two MIDI amps in their rig, but hopefully that's a growing number. Ok, I see where the confusion is. Each amp will store what channel it is set for a given preset change in its own memory. So let's set up 3 possible scenarios here: Preset 1: both amps on clean preset 2: both amps on lead Preset 3: amp 1 goes to clean, amp 2 stays on lead So this is how you program this: set your controller to preset 1. manually put both amps on the clean channel and press store on each amp. set your controller to preset 2. manually put both amps on the lead channel and press store on each amp. set your controller to preset 3. manually put amp 1 on clean and leave amp 2 on lead and press store on each amp. And so on... So when you move from preset 2 to 3 the second amp DID receive a PC message on MIDI channel 1, but it's staying right where it was before because it stored that presets 2 and 3 are on the same amp channel. You can do this with as many amps and combinations as you want, all within one single MIDI channel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members isvoid Posted April 1, 2012 Members Share Posted April 1, 2012 No confusion, I got that. I just don't think it's an efficient way to program. When I want to program Amp A's settings I don't want to have to concern myself with Amp B's (or C's etc) settings. See what I said about setting effects in my previous post. I'm a programmer by trade, so I think funny compared to "normal" folks. In my my mind my way is better (read "less headache") but I acknowledge mileages vary AND I may be missing something salient. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members DeadNight Warrior Posted April 1, 2012 Members Share Posted April 1, 2012 I agree with it just being set to channel one. If you need to communicate to the rig on several channels for FX units and whatever, those FX units would have to be fairly rubbish to not include the ability to change the channel they receive on. For an amp though, I'd say something that simple would be acceptable. If you really wanted to have it in there though, yeah something like dip switches would be fine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members ShaneV2 Posted April 1, 2012 Members Share Posted April 1, 2012 Defaulting to 1 would work fine for me, if that's ruled out I wonder if the tiny selector G Lab uses would be more expensive than DIP switches? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Rock Hardness Posted April 1, 2012 Members Share Posted April 1, 2012 That's what I was suggesting as being "not the most efficient approach". It's akin to having to set all your effects settings when you want to kick on delay. Unless I misunderstand, which is possible, have had a migraine for about 2 months. It's not really that complicated. Midi always takes some tweeking anyway. Most of that will be in the controller already. Sorry about the headache, man! That sucks! Mojo sent. Hey, Seattle Doug, how many channels on the amp? Any other functions? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members guitarbilly74 Posted April 1, 2012 Members Share Posted April 1, 2012 No confusion, I got that. I just don't think it's an efficient way to program. When I want to program Amp A's settings I don't want to have to concern myself with Amp B's (or C's etc) settings. See what I said about setting effects in my previous post. I'm a programmer by trade, so I think funny compared to "normal" folks. In my my mind my way is better (read "less headache") but I acknowledge mileages vary AND I may be missing something salient. From what I understand, Doug's amp is not a full blown MIDI amp, just an analog amp with MIDI channel switching, so you wouldn't need to be concerned about the amp's settings, just what channel they're on, which takes a second and has to be done anyway, even when dealing with multiple MIDI channels. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Rock Hardness Posted April 1, 2012 Members Share Posted April 1, 2012 Ok, I see where the confusion is. Each amp will store what channel it is set for a given preset change in its own memory. So let's set up 3 possible scenarios here:Preset 1: both amps on clean preset 2: both amps on lead Preset 3: amp 1 goes to clean, amp 2 stays on leadSo this is how you program this:set your controller to preset 1. manually put both amps on the clean channel and press store on each amp.set your controller to preset 2. manually put both amps on the lead channel and press store on each amp.set your controller to preset 3. manually put amp 1 on clean and leave amp 2 on lead and press store on each amp.And so on...So when you move from preset 2 to 3 the second amp DID receive a PC message on MIDI channel 1, but it's staying right where it was before because it stored that presets 2 and 3 are on the same amp channel. You can do this with as many amps and combinations as you want, all within one single MIDI channel. This is perfectly stated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Rock Hardness Posted April 1, 2012 Members Share Posted April 1, 2012 I agree with it just being set to channel one. If you need to communicate to the rig on several channels for FX units and whatever, those FX units would have to be fairly rubbish to not include the ability to change the channel they receive on. For an amp though, I'd say something that simple would be acceptable. If you really wanted to have it in there though, yeah something like dip switches would be fine. +1. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members isvoid Posted April 1, 2012 Members Share Posted April 1, 2012 My gaffe. I was thinking more along the lines of an ENGL E670 (tho not quite that ambitious). Failure at fully reading the original post. Sorry for the superfluous tangents. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members guitarbilly74 Posted April 1, 2012 Members Share Posted April 1, 2012 My gaffe. I was thinking more along the lines of an ENGL E670 (tho not quite that ambitious). Failure at fully reading the original post. Sorry for the superfluous tangents. well that would be nice for sure Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members isvoid Posted April 1, 2012 Members Share Posted April 1, 2012 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members isvoid Posted April 1, 2012 Members Share Posted April 1, 2012 Kinda off topic -- but folks implementing midi systems should take a page from rjm music -- their midi setups, example: programing the rg16 from a mastermind -- are so easy midiots can do it -- and fast -- no manual necessary. just sayin' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members ShaneV2 Posted April 1, 2012 Members Share Posted April 1, 2012 Kinda off topic -- but folks implementing midi systems should take a page from rjm music -- their midi setups, example: programing the rg16 from a mastermind -- are so easy midiots can do it -- and fast -- no manual necessary. just sayin' RJM makes some killer stuff for sure. Their new Mastermind GT sounds amazing on paper: http://www.rjmmusic.com/mastermind-gt.php Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members isvoid Posted April 1, 2012 Members Share Posted April 1, 2012 Yep, I was hoping the GT would be coming out this quarter but no such news. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Rock Hardness Posted April 1, 2012 Members Share Posted April 1, 2012 RJM makes some killer stuff for sure. Their new Mastermind GT sounds amazing on paper: http://www.rjmmusic.com/mastermind-gt.php HOLY {censored}! Makes my GC Pro look like the Wright Flyer next to an F-22! But board tape is cheap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members ShaneV2 Posted April 1, 2012 Members Share Posted April 1, 2012 HOLY {censored}! Makes my GC Pro look like the Wright Flyer next to an F-22! But board tape is cheap. Haha yeah. I'm not even sure I could justify switching to the rack gizmo and mastermind GT since my GCP and GCX do pretty much everything I need, but the RJM stuff is top notch. One thing they do that I wish Voodoo Lab did is have the MIDI in jack on the front of the rack unit . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Rock Hardness Posted April 1, 2012 Members Share Posted April 1, 2012 Haha yeah. I'm not even sure I could justify switching to the rack gizmo and mastermind GT since my GCP and GCX do pretty much everything I need, but the RJM stuff is top notch. One thing they do that I wish Voodoo Lab did is have the MIDI in jack on the front of the rack unit . I see your point, but all my crap is in a Pedalsnake, so back load works fine for me. Four expression cables? I barely use two. I mean, I am all about technological overkill, but who is this designed for? Wendy Carlos? The Edge? Dr. Octopus? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Sixtonoize Posted April 1, 2012 Members Share Posted April 1, 2012 I don't think that you can ever go wrong with extra flexibility, especially if it's something that most users won't ever have to think about. All amps come stock to receive on Channel 1...if, for some reason, a power-user needs to set the amp to receive on Channel 7, he can flip a couple of DIP switches. Unless, of course, the added complexity becomes a real cost driver...then it really depends on your target market. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.