Multi Effects Philosophy

[Spacehog26]

Hopefully that "exchange" with phaboo is over. I mean, who the hell would (or would want to) play through 12 4x12 cabs? Even if they were profoundly deaf? Madness... didn't come across as exactly the most tolerant (or capable of reading between the lines) guy either. Heck, even on my budget I wouldn't buy an Alesis for reverb (I used to use a Microverb 4 back in the day, but that was when my GSP21 Pro was cutting edge stuff!)

Have you (anyone?) got any advice about cheap line mixers? Doesn't need to be anything fancy, and as affordable as possible... I'd prefer not to go down the Behringer route though (the RX1602) as I've had the odd reliability issue with their kit in the past (although I accept that they make some very good, and some very bad, kit). I'm watching a Mackie LM3204 on eBay at the moment, which is probably a bit overkill! The Samson PL1602 is another possibility. I'd probably be looking to mix 4 or maybe 5 stereo signals together, so don't need anything too extreme.

[El Grinder]

I've still always favored a straight stereo rig... Two ears, two different speaker cabinets!

I find it a little pointless for anyone to ever do more than two full stacks (three if it's a W/D/W rig)

After a small wall, two cabinets high and two wide, any bigger doesn't really seem to add much.

Frankly, two 2x12 or two 4x12 cabinets is the most I ever plan on doing.

[Zachman]

 

Hopefully that "exchange" with phaboo is over. I mean, who the hell would (or would want to) play through 12 4x12 cabs? Even if they were profoundly deaf? Madness... didn't come across as exactly the most tolerant (or capable of reading between the lines) guy either. Heck, even on my budget I wouldn't buy an Alesis for reverb (I used to use a Microverb 4 back in the day, but that was when my GSP21 Pro was cutting edge stuff!) Have you (anyone?) got any advice about cheap line mixers? Doesn't need to be anything fancy, and as affordable as possible... I'd prefer not to go down the Behringer route though (the RX1602) as I've had the odd reliability issue with their kit in the past (although I accept that they make some very good, and some very bad, kit). I'm watching a Mackie LM3204 on eBay at the moment, which is probably a bit overkill! The Samson PL1602 is another possibility. I'd probably be looking to mix 4 or maybe 5 stereo signals together, so don't need anything too extreme.

 

 

hehehe that guy just stuck me as strange... Oh well...

 

I used Rane SM26 splitter mixers for years, in my guitar rigs. They're cheap around $100, and worked well. Great routing possibilities. 6 IN- 2 Out OR 2 IN- 6 Out OR 6 IN- 6 Out

[JMPMarshall]

At the moment I intend to run dual mono but stereo is a possibility later. I hadn't really considered a wet dry but I've been looking into the line mixer for some time. The thing I'm curious about is how to vary my effects mixes. I believe my lexicon only has global input and output levels rather than on a per-program basis like I'd prefer and which would seem essential.

 

As far as processing goes unless I use a different loop switcher, second midi controller, or upgrade both loop switcher and foot controller I won't be able to switch my effects in advance of my switching not to mention I'm likely the only one that will notice load time it has more or less become a non-issue.

 

Most of my problems root from the non-availability of rack effects unless somebody comes through and lets me try it, they have it at school, or guitar center gets one used.

 

I haven't really developed a preference for any brand of effects but it would seem to me that a clearer brighter reverb (lexicon staple) would be better than a multitude of realistic reverbs (tc or eventide) unless that reverb can do both the realistic and the not so realistic.

 

I'm curious do you ever use the reverb in your Mark IIIs?

[Spacehog26]

I've still always favored a straight stereo rig... Two ears, two different speaker cabinets! I find it a little pointless for anyone to ever do more than two full stacks (three if it's a W/D/W rig) After a small wall, two cabinets high and two wide, any bigger doesn't really seem to add much. Frankly, two 2x12 or two 4x12 cabinets is the most I ever plan on doing.

 

 

Yeah, I can't see much point going beyond 2 4x12s... to be honest, most of the time at the moment I'm running a single Peavey XXX 4x12 (switched to stereo mode) and it sounds huge, so I've not seen much point in moving beyond that. I have a second (Laney GS412LA) 4x12 cab, but I'm seriously considering selling it, because the amount of separation I get doesn't seem to make a lot of difference to the overall tone. I'm running a straight stereo rig, not W/D or W/D/W or anything (although I tried W/D/W for a short time, it seemed a lot of hassle for not all that much gain. Plus most of the venues I play, we're pushed for space as it is!

[Spacehog26]

I used Rane SM26 splitter mixers for years, in my guitar rigs. They're cheap around $100, and worked well. Great routing possibilities. 6 IN- 2 Out OR 2 IN- 6 Out OR 6 IN- 6 Out

 

 

$100 in the US maybe... they're

[Zachman]

At the moment I intend to run dual mono but stereo is a possibility later. I hadn't really considered a wet dry but I've been looking into the line mixer for some time. The thing I'm curious about is how to vary my effects mixes. I believe my lexicon only has global input and output levels rather than on a per-program basis like I'd prefer and which would seem essential. As far as processing goes unless I use a different loop switcher, second midi controller, or upgrade both loop switcher and foot controller I won't be able to switch my effects in advance of my switching not to mention I'm likely the only one that will notice load time it has more or less become a non-issue. Most of my problems root from the non-availability of rack effects unless somebody comes through and lets me try it, they have it at school, or guitar center gets one used. I haven't really developed a preference for any brand of effects but it would seem to me that a clearer brighter reverb (lexicon staple) would be better than a multitude of realistic reverbs (tc or eventide) unless that reverb can do both the realistic and the not so realistic. I'm curious do you ever use the reverb in your Mark IIIs?

 

 

No... I had an older MKIIB Combo years ago that I LOVED the reverb in, but it was a different circuit and a Hammond Reverb tank which, IMO sounded WAY better than the ones used currently (Accutronic).

 

Bummer about your Lexicon's mix level- I'm not familiar with it as I am w/ the PCM-80 which I have (It does allow for individual preset mix levels)

[Zachman]

$100 in the US maybe... they're

[Spacehog26]

Thanks, I appreciate that, and I'll let you know as and when. I'm watching one of those on eBay too, but it's in the US and I think it'll only run on 110v (I have a power converter thingy but it's huge and I'd rather not lug that around in my rack if I can avoid it!). Thus far, looks like the Mackie may be the best bet, but being 4U it's a bit overkill. I could always use it to submix keyboards as well or something

[JMPMarshall]

The lexicon has per-preset mix levels but it's global in the fact that it runs on all the effects your running grouped. Say you're running delay and reverb you have a global mix level for the two of them rather than a mix for the effects block and a mix for the reverb.

 

I asked about varying mix levels with a line mixer. I know you set your mix with the levels into a passive line mixer but how do you vary them? Do most more advanced effects processors have a per patch output level rather than a global output level like mine has?

[Zachman]

 

The lexicon has per-preset mix levels but it's global in the fact that it runs on all the effects your running grouped. Say you're running delay and reverb you have a global mix level for the two of them rather than a mix for the effects block and a mix for the reverb. I asked about varying mix levels with a line mixer. I know you set your mix with the levels into a passive line mixer but how do you vary them? Do most more advanced effects processors have a per patch output level rather than a global output level like mine has?

 

 

Yes, most processors have per effect block mix levels, global and per preset mix levels. I get what you're saying now, and that would make me crazy too.

 

The following processors will do what you need:

 

Rocktron Intellifex, Rocktron Intelliverb, Rocktron Replifex, TC Electronic G-Major, Yamaha SPX90, SPX90II, SPX 900.

 

Of the processors I listed, they are ALL $300 & under, used- and readily available and I've owned and used them all and recommend them for their quality tones.

 

I use a Line mixer not so much for level control like a PA, rather as a method of routing the processors in Parallel to each other

[gimme411]

I had an Intellifex, Xpression, IPS-33B and a G-Force. Sold them all for an Axe FX Ultra. Nothing comes close. (Eventide would be on par but not above it. Axe is more versatile, cheaper and better support, ease of use.) A lot of guys run that only with FRFR.

 

 

The spaghetti is cleaned up now.

I use the Axe for all effects and some classic rock ampage and all clean patches. The 3TM Ultra+ MP-1 is all the gain I need. I turn them on and off via loops in my GRX4.

[JMPMarshall]

I found out that the Eventide Eclipse (more processor than I need) has a setting that allows you to pan between presets on switching. This got me looking and I found that the TC M3000 does this as well. The only drawback being is that it only allows you to run one effect then. (This explains why Petrucci uses one with a 2290) I figure if all I'm going to use is reverb and delay I'm better off with a processor that does those two things very well. (I like making weird noise as much as the next guy but that mostly comes from whammy pedal and delay wig out anyways (routing expression pedal to delay time and other things for instance))

 

Does anyone know of any other processor that can fade between presets but without the drawback of only being able to use one processing engine?

 

I'm inclined to think a line mixer would be a very good thing to invest into. In the long run maybe it's better to use two processors and get my reverbs from one of these and something that can do more with drawbacks of longer load time, etc. Thusly this would give me quasi series or parallel routing. (Parallel by splitting my effects between the two processors and series by effects on a single processor)

[Zachman]

 

I found out that the Eventide Eclipse (more processor than I need) has a setting that allows you to pan between presets on switching. This got me looking and I found that the TC M3000 does this as well. The only drawback being is that it only allows you to run one effect then. (This explains why Petrucci uses one with a 2290) I figure if all I'm going to use is reverb and delay I'm better off with a processor that does those two things very well. (I like making weird noise as much as the next guy but that mostly comes from whammy pedal and delay wig out anyways (routing expression pedal to delay time and other things for instance)) Does anyone know of any other processor that can fade between presets but without the drawback of only being able to use one processing engine? I'm inclined to think a line mixer would be a very good thing to invest into. In the long run maybe it's better to use two processors and get my reverbs from one of these and something that can do more with drawbacks of longer load time, etc. Thusly this would give me quasi series or parallel routing. (Parallel by splitting my effects between the two processors and series by effects on a single processor)

 

 

The Eventide H8000 Series will allow this, the Axe-FX will also do this

 

FYI, I use a separate tap tempo control for the Eventide and 2290 instead of CC messages.

[JMPMarshall]

Thanks a lot for your help everybody but especially Zachman for all the help.

 

Now I have one last question, if I were to go for a line mixer would it be worth to shell out the extra cash for a System Mix Plus ($500+) versus the CAE Line Mixer or a regular System Mix? The major advantage I can see for the Plus is that it has a midi cc volume pedal. I could accomplish the same thing by using a standard volume pedal and running the extra cable to and from my rack.

 

My fear is that I would be able to hear all 127 of it's steps.

[Zachman]

Thanks a lot for your help everybody but especially Zachman for all the help. Now I have one last question, if I were to go for a line mixer would it be worth to shell out the extra cash for a System Mix Plus ($500+) versus the CAE Line Mixer or a regular System Mix? The major advantage I can see for the Plus is that it has a midi cc volume pedal. I could accomplish the same thing by using a standard volume pedal and running the extra cable to and from my rack. My fear is that I would be able to hear all 127 of it's steps.

Anytime, you're more than welcome and I am happy to help, when I can.

For me, I chose the CAE Line Mixer it is very transparent to my ears, and I use CC messages to do real time parameter changes with my Eventide (Mix levels, Reverb room sizes, etc...). The other units are set to 100% wet and I program the effect levels by adjusting the output of the units per preset.

Here is a diagram from the CAE Line Mixer manual that shows a typical setup in a guitar rig: Perhaps it'll give you some ideas