Triaxis FX loop ?

[prodrigu]

I want to try the G-Major via FX loop of the Triaxis but I am a bit confused.

 

The Triaxis manual says the "MASTER" parameter controls the amount of signal sent to the FX loop, but it also does affect the overall volume, so I am assuming this is a serial configuration.

 

The G-Major has a "Kill Dry" function which is optimally used in a parallel setup.

 

My guess is if I want to use these two pieces together via FX loop, I should not use the Kill Dry function on the G-Major. But then what is the point of having the G-Major in the FX loop rather than just in series after the Triaxis ?

 

Thanks in advance !

[simeon]

 

what is the point of having the G-Major in the FX loop rather than just in series after the Triaxis ?

 

 

the only advantage is you can use the volume controls on the triaxis

 

i use a g-force after my triaxis and leave the volume controls on the triaxis set (i control volume elsewhere) and it works very well. some people say they can hear a difference when using the fx loop (worse), but i can't really

 

so either is fine and yes, don't use the kill dry function

 

sim

[gusfmm]

I was just browsing the web on this.

 

This is actually a great question. I've found no explicit explanation documented anywhere (almost...) on what the heck the Triaxis fx loop is good for.

 

...but this one guy who has studied the Triaxis' schematics and come to the conclusion that the FX return comes in before tube V5. V5 is responsible for the last stage amplification, so I'd not expect much coloration there but have yet to try this myself. I will soon though. May be this is what some people have reported as a perceivable difference.

 

You're right, this guy also explains that the signal path in the Triaxis is linear (series), thus the comment about the Master volume controlling both the FX send and the final level coming out of the Triaxis outputs. I did not spend time yet checking out the schematics he's got posted, but now wonder whether the master regulates the voltage feeding the V5 and thus operates in a pseudo-parallel fashion, if I make myself clear on this.

 

Gus.

[simeon]

the easiest thing to do is not worry about it. the triaxis fx loop works just like any other series fx loop in terms of how you go about using it. plug stuff into it and off you go...

 

[gusfmm]

I'm afraid I can't just do that as an act of faith, not my nature...

 

If I were to do that, then the Triaxis FX loop is useless/worthless, in general terms. No reason to use it at all, in the majority of cases. Most guitar rigs would hook the Triaxis before a MultiFX. You just don't need to turn on and off the whole FX loop in this scenario. You'd rather use your multiFX's FX loop to hook the Triaxis into it and turn it on or off depending upon whether you need distortion (or any other "tube sound") or not.

 

Common sense leads me to believe there has got to be an audible difference by hooking your external FX to the Triaxis FX loop, compared to just using the regular outs. Worth spending the 5 minutes it takes to try it.

 

Cheers,

Gus.

[simeon]

I'm afraid I can't just do that as an act of faith, not my nature... Common sense leads me to believe there has got to be an audible difference by hooking your external FX to the Triaxis FX loop, compared to just using the regular outs. Worth spending the 5 minutes it takes to try it. Cheers, Gus.

 

yes of course, but also remember that the loop is programmable, which may be useful if you want to stick a non-programmable compressor or eq in there which you could have running on specific presets for example...(which is pretty useful!)

 

let us know what you think after you've A/B'd it...i've never really tried it

 

sim

[starsnuffer]

Most FX loops on preamps are useless, unless they happen to be parallel FX loops.

 

Some preamps, like the VHT GP3, offer an FX loop that runs at pedal instead of line levels, so it makes sense to put pedals there, and then pro level units in series after the preamp.

 

If you want a parallel setup, you can always get a line mixer.

 

-W

[shredhead7]

The loop on the triaxis is {censored}. The master volume parameter sets the volume on the loop, which makes setting volumes per patch useless. In addition, the send is mono, but the return is stereo. Well, this pretty much means that you will get mono back, as most effects don't split mono to stereo. The recommended routing is from the triaxis outs to the effects stereo ins. Use the effects units internal mix levels to adjust the amount of effect in the signal. This also allows you to attenuate the volume down, but retain the sound.

[gusfmm]

The recommended routing is from the triaxis outs to the effects stereo ins.

 

Again, all you're getting is a split mono signal out of the Triaxis. On my Eventide GTR4000, I can simply take the left out of the Triaxis, and route it in whichever way I want internally in the Eventide. No need to use both out jacks. I'm actually saving $10 not using a patch cable that way...

[Gorgon90]

 

.. as most effects don't split mono to stereo.

 

 

I know my Alesis Quadraverb GT and Yamaha EMP-100 definitely split things to stereo, and I'm pretty certain that my Zoom 9150 and Viscount EFX-10 also both do this. Mono in with stereo out if using an effect that gives a stereo effect like chorus, reverb, ping pong delay etc.

[gusfmm]

Just an update.

 

From my personal stand-point, I can confirm the FX loop is not appropriate to do what I had suggested I wanted to try. If you route your multiFX into the fx loop, you do get the advantage of that last stage of the Triaxis's tube processing, but the fact that it seems the fx loop is parallel and leaves a straight raw signal summed to the fx return signal, and you can't control the volume of that, renders it useless to me. A pity.

 

So as mentioned by some of you, the only way to patch it in your signal is simply coming out of the Recording or Main outputs, depending on what sound you prefer the most.

 

Gus.

[simeon]

 

Just an update. the fact that it seems the fx loop is parallel

 

 

no, the fx loop is serial

[gusfmm]

Simeon,

 

Well, what I meant by that is that the signal coming back into the fx loop returns is mixed with a "raw" signal inside the Triaxis. That I call parallel. I tried it myself. The problem is that there is no way to adjust the level of that parallel signal path within the Triaxis, so you always hear it.

 

If I just wanted, for instance, to use a clean patch using exclusively your multiFX and sort of bypassing the Triaxis, there is no wat to do that because of the aforementioned issue.

 

So what I do now (and used to do before this wanderings) is:

 

Guitar > multiFX IN > multiFX loop SEND > Triaxis IN > Triaxis recording OUTS > multiFX loop RETURNS ......

 

That way, you can fully bypass the Triaxis if so needed. Again, this all we already knew, so I'm just repeating myself a bit here.

 

Gus.

[prodrigu]

Thank you very much for your contribution (particularly to Gus and Simeon). I will try to experiment a bit more with the Triaxis FX loop based on your inputs.

[Zachman]

I'm afraid I can't just do that as an act of faith, not my nature... If I were to do that, then the Triaxis FX loop is useless/worthless, in general terms. No reason to use it at all, in the majority of cases. Most guitar rigs would hook the Triaxis before a MultiFX. You just don't need to turn on and off the whole FX loop in this scenario. You'd rather use your multiFX's FX loop to hook the Triaxis into it and turn it on or off depending upon whether you need distortion (or any other "tube sound") or not. Common sense leads me to believe there has got to be an audible difference by hooking your external FX to the Triaxis FX loop, compared to just using the regular outs. Worth spending the 5 minutes it takes to try it. Cheers, Gus.

 

Better still, take a line out box from your power amp thta is being fed by the traixis, and send THAT line signal to your fx Input, then run the FX output back to the loop return.

 

[gusfmm]

I got to tell you, I like that idea Zach! That'd be the ultimate refinement for your signal routing, specially if you want to build a Monster Rack!!!

 

Thanks for sharing!

 

Gus.

[Zachman]

I got to tell you, I like that idea Zach! That'd be the ultimate refinement for your signal routing, specially if you want to build a Monster Rack!!! Thanks for sharing! Gus.

 

 

Seriously, even just running W/D/W with just an Intellifex, for example, your sound is HUGE, by way of comparison, so a Monster Rack isn't a requirement to notice enormous benefits in tone.

 

The other thing that guys do is mic their middle dry cabinet, send that signal to a mic preamp (Chandler), take the mic preamp out and feed their rack effects, then run into their power amp, or a pair of powered "wet" speakers.