Mesa Quad Preamp: The Ultimate Alternative to the 2C+ Reissue!?! (Michael Nielsen video)

  • Thread starter Thread starter nightlight
  • Start date Start date
Exo-metal said:
It can be better modded but that is a lot of work. Take my word for it.
Click to expand...
Yep.

Stock one I played long ago was basically a Mark III. Which is to say, abrasive mids/highs to my ears. Tight gain, and a ton of it but...
just not for me.
 
I had a Quad and toured it. Very flexible, but....

Here is my personal experience (long)

I had a Mark III Coli that I loved, but, of course rack gear was the fad in the late 80's and I already had a TC2290 in a small rack, so I decided to by the Quad and Strategy 400. At first testing at home, I was quite disappointed...

I hooked it up as described in the manual and double checked everything and still, no dice. What was my issue? The feel was overly compressed and did not have the attack and depth of the Coli. I was really, really disappointed....

I called Lab sound in Westminster where I traded in the Coli to buy it back, but it had already sold...

So, I analyzed the issue a decided to experiment by eliminating another set of gain stages in the return of the Quad.

I used the send of the Quad into input of the 2290. The output of the 2290 would normally go back to the Quad and then from the Quad outputs to the Strategy 400 power amp. I bypassed the Quad returns and sent the outputs of the 2290 straight into the Strategy 400. This did it! I had the attack and directness I wanted. I was much, much happier. It wasn't as direct as the Coli, but close enough... I used this rig for 4 years and toured the Southwest for at least 300 gigs...

It was pretty epic....lol...

I used the top row of the Quad for my clean and lead tones.

I used the bottom row for my crunch and heavy rhythm tones.

The onboard spring reverb sucks bad IMO and would oscillate if you had it too high. I never used it and preferred rack digital reverb to it.

I controlled the channels via the relay output controls in the first four loops of the TC2290.

Much more complicated than our choices today, but it worked....
 
Last edited:
Fusionbear said:
I had a Quad and toured it. Very flexible, but....

Here is my personal experience (long)

I had a Mark III Coli that I loved, but, of course rack gear was the fad in the late 80's and I already had a TC2290 in a small rack, so I decided to by the Quad and Strategy 400. At first testing at home, I was quite disappointed...

I hooked it up as described in the manual and double checked everything and still, no dice. What was my issue? The feel was overly compressed and did not have the attack and depth of the Coli. I was really, really disappointed....

I called Lab sound in Westminster where I traded in the Coli to buy it back, but it had already sold...

So, I analyzed the issue a decided to experiment by eliminating another set of gain stages in the return of the Quad.

I used the send of the Quad into input of the 2290. The output of the 2290 would normally go back to the Quad and then from the Quad outputs to the Strategy 400 power amp. I bypassed the Quad returns and sent the outputs of the 2290 straight into the Strategy 400. This did it! I had the attack and directness I wanted. I was much, much happier. It wasn't and direct as the Coli, but close enough... I used this rig for 4 years and toured the Southwest for at least 300 gigs...

It was pretty epic....lol...

I used the top row of the Quad for my clean and lead tones.

I used the bottom row for my crunch and heavy rhythm tones.

The onboard spring reverb socks IMO and would oscillate if you had it too high. I never used it and preferred rack digital reverb to it.

I controlled the channels via the relay output controls in the first four loops of the TC2290.

Much more complicated than our choices today, but it worked....
Click to expand...
All this just to make it functional for you but far from what it needs to even approach the IIC+ mods as told to me from the factory.
 
Last edited:
Racerxrated said:
Yep.

Stock one I played long ago was basically a Mark III. Which is to say, abrasive mids/highs to my ears. Tight gain, and a ton of it but...
just not for me.
Click to expand...
That’s CH2. CH1 is definitely based on a 2C (don’t know if a + or not). I’m not a big fan of III’s either but CH1 is much better.
 
Problem with the Quad, is they’re not easy to find and if you do, it may need repair and not be a price you like. Considering you need power if you’re not going to use an existing amp or maybe an amp/speaker sim, adding to the cost. The reissue may still be the ticket. Easily available, warranty and you can gig with it more easily.
 
Also you can’t use the preamp without either the FU-2 plugged in or something in the switching jacks in the back.

If you decide, what about the Studio Pre and go looking. Make sure it has rack ears on it as they have not been available from Boogie for years and would need to be fabricated from scratch as there is no after market ears that I could ever find.
 
Last edited:
Exo-metal said:
All this just to make it functional for you but far from what it needs to even approach the IIC+ mods as told to me from the factory.
Click to expand...

Try my captures. Best with low gain pickups that don't have tonnes of bass on them. I used the James Tyler I recently acquired to decide on the tone. Guitar was tuned to E standard. If you feel there's too much low end, just slap an overdrive in front.
 
Fusionbear said:
I had a Quad and toured it. Very flexible, but....

Here is my personal experience (long)

I had a Mark III Coli that I loved, but, of course rack gear was the fad in the late 80's and I already had a TC2290 in a small rack, so I decided to by the Quad and Strategy 400. At first testing at home, I was quite disappointed...

I hooked it up as described in the manual and double checked everything and still, no dice. What was my issue? The feel was overly compressed and did not have the attack and depth of the Coli. I was really, really disappointed....

I called Lab sound in Westminster where I traded in the Coli to buy it back, but it had already sold...

So, I analyzed the issue a decided to experiment by eliminating another set of gain stages in the return of the Quad.

I used the send of the Quad into input of the 2290. The output of the 2290 would normally go back to the Quad and then from the Quad outputs to the Strategy 400 power amp. I bypassed the Quad returns and sent the outputs of the 2290 straight into the Strategy 400. This did it! I had the attack and directness I wanted. I was much, much happier. It wasn't as direct as the Coli, but close enough... I used this rig for 4 years and toured the Southwest for at least 300 gigs...

It was pretty epic....lol...

I used the top row of the Quad for my clean and lead tones.

I used the bottom row for my crunch and heavy rhythm tones.

The onboard spring reverb sucks bad IMO and would oscillate if you had it too high. I never used it and preferred rack digital reverb to it.

I controlled the channels via the relay output controls in the first four loops of the TC2290.

Much more complicated than our choices today, but it worked....
Click to expand...
I remember reading years ago that taking the FX send out of the Studio Preamp was closer to the actual C+, then using the main outs.
 
Tone Monster said:
I owned one that was modded to IIC+ specs. It sucked. Into a Strategy 400 to boot.
Click to expand...
Ya I picked one up in 2001 for $300 Canadian. Glad it was cheap, as it didn't impress me. My friends Triaxis, as well as the mkiv I got later, smoked it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top