What do I need to complete a wet/dry rig?

[rstites]

Looks good! I still need to order some of those custom 1/4 inch to XLR cables you had made. I was able to compare the sound of the MPX1 using 1/4 inch and xlr inputs/outputs using my Atomic Firebox. The MPX1s effects do sound a lot better using the XLR ins/outs

Assuming the schematics in the manual are correct, there shouldn't be any difference at all running TRS vs. XLR in/out of the MPX-1. If you're getting a drastically different sound between the two, either the schematic is wrong (doubtful but certainly possible) or that difference is coming from somewhere else in the signal chain.

Now, if you're running a mono into the 1/4" rather than properly balanced TRS, that could definitely make a difference, but would mostly be seen in noise characteristics.

I'm not saying you're wrong here, but it raises red flags to me about it being on the MPX-1 end of things.

 

[ChurchHill]

Now, if you're running a mono into the 1/4" rather than properly balanced TRS, that could definitely make a difference, but would mostly be seen in noise characteristics.

Yeah, balanced vs unbalanced is what I was thinking. Usually, balanced will have higher headroom, too. So, the cables reject noise (when connecting balanced to balanced), the higher signal level allows for a lower noise floor, and it will take more signal before clipping.

While I use a line balancer in my rack to convert unbalanced to balanced, it can be done with just a TS<>XLR cable (without the noise rejection of the balanced cable). Different units handle this differently, so I always check the manual before I do this. Some don't care and you can just use a TRS<>XLR and the ring ends up grounded. Some want the ring not connected to anything, and I suppose that some might want the ring to be connected to the tip, but I can't think of any of the top of my head. I think some units are picky about which pin is hot, too. In any case, I've always been able to track this info down in the manual.

P.S. I'm not talking about the MPX-1 specifically, just in general. I'd guess the MPX-1 is electronically balanced (most newer units are), but I don't remember. If that's correct, you're likely right that there's no difference between TRS and XLR inputs.

 

[rstites]

Good point about the SM26. I've got 2 that use IEC power cables and 1 that uses that weird brick. Looks like a CAT5 network cable or something. Wish they still made them.

That external power supply doesn't (can't) meet modern requirements so they had to discontinue the production of them. I found a sheet on that hidden somewhere on the Rane site. I'm not sure why the discontinued the others. It seems like a real niche product.

That AD202 sounds like an amazing piece of kit!

Sonically, the entire line of Ibanez rackmount analog delays are very good. However, they're all instrument level, they're all fairly noisy for rack equipment (not bad compared to pedals), they all produce exactly one sound at a time (glorified pedal), and they're all full of ancient BBD chips so I worry about them dying and being unrepairable. Additionally despite that mass of chips, they're still pretty limited in delay times. If you can deal with all of that and are willing to pay for them, they do have some wonderful sounds in them. They have nice, warm, but still amazingly clear delays. they have a very nice chorus sound in them, and a nice warm, articulate flanger in there.

The AD100-AD200 are more limited. The AD202 is pretty common and does all of those. It has a nice big knob on the front to select the effect you want. There's also an AD220 that looks like a slightly updated version of it. there's an AD230 which is rare and only does delay and flanger. It's supposed to be great for flanger, but I've never felt able to justify the price the go for second hand.

Now before you go buy one, know that I only have limited experience with the real classic floor flangers. I've had an old MXR forever which I love for the deep woshing Van Halen sound. It's only issue is that's the sound I always gravitate toward with it. I haven't played the ADA or Ross. I just built one of the analog BYOC flangers and really like it so far. My primary flangers for years have been the Ibanez floor units: played an FL-9 out front of amps through the 80's and 90's. I also have the FL-99 which I really like. They're lighter sonically and I tend to use them more akin to a chorus than a deep/obvious flanging sound. The AD's are more of that.

I'm with you on chorus. I've actually never used a chorus pedal in my life for that soupy 80's chorus tone, and I actually dislike most of the traditional chorus units for the same reason lots of other people like them. I have gotten interesting chorus sounds from rack units before, but usually it's on the light end of the things - just enough to thicken things up a bit, not obvious at all.

Anyway, you're absolutely right... nothing inspires GAS more than talking about rigs like this (now including the AD202 in my case).

Here's the one that's been hitting me: skipping the SLO (which is always a pain for anything not dry-straight through), it'd be very cool to built a very straight forward stereo rig with a couple of MKIII Boogies. That'd effectively be four preamp channels into a dual power amp situation and would work great. I have everything I need, except a second MkIII!

 

[ChurchHill]

Thanks for the info on the AD series! I'm definitely going to have to look into those.

Those old MXR flangers are my favorites. I know what you mean about gravitating towards the VH sound with them, but there are some other really great sounds in there, too. The Ross is pretty close to the MXR, not quite as wooshy, but that could just be differences in components or age. Those FL-9s are fantastic, too! The FL-99 is one of my secret weapons... just an amazing flanger! I've got the RC-99, too, and it's a great chorus for what I like. The ADA is, for lack of a better word, weird. It can get really wacky, but it can be really beautiful, too. Reminds me of Killer of Giants, sometimes.

You know... I've been thinking about doing the same thing, except with a MKIII and a MKIV. Obviously, there'd be some differences due to the power amps, but in combination with the right cabs, that could be a good thing. I've also thought about doing a W/D/W version with the MKIII, my Studio Pre and SwitchTrack 395. It would weigh a freakin' TON, but...

 

[paulyc]

Track down s Loft 450 analog delay/Chorus/flanger...outstanding ! Very clean studio quality effect. Vivian Campbell used one in his Bradshaw rack back in the day (you can see it in action on a chorus sound in a clip called Sound Advice from Hot Guitarist video magazine), total cheese ball video tape from around 89-90 but Viv’s Segment is pretty cool.

 

[rstites]

There's a Loft 440 on ebay right now for $500. Lifeson used these at one point too.

 

[ChurchHill]

Nice! I was checking it out earlier. Of course, I'd love to have one of those, as well as a blue face MXR Flanger/Doubler, but I probably have better things to spend my money on at the moment (thinking about picking up an old Lexicon 300 and have my eyes out for a couple of amps and cabs). I've got a Fulltone TERC and a TC 1210, but a Loft 440 or Ibanez AD202 would be a nice addition.

There is definitely some magic in old boxes like that, designed back in the days when the engineers were used to dealing with analog circuits. Even the old digital units, the ones that are almost all analog (like the PCM42, etc.), it doesn't matter that they only do one sound at a time. It's a great sound!

I always thought the old Roland SBF-325 or SRE-555 would be interesting units to have, too. Prices on both have gotten a little ridiculous, but still... rackmounted tape delay... hell YES!!!

 

[paulyc]

I have the blue face MXR, got it years ago for like $50, great unit. I have an old single space DOD rack mount flanger/doubler also (cool as well), and the old MXR Pitch Transposer.

 

[ChurchHill]

paulyc, you scored on that one! I bet that old DOD is pretty nice, too. I don't have any of their rack stuff, but I have a few old DOD pedals and they're great! Really under-appreciated and still inexpensive. I've got a bunch of old MXR pedals, too, and they compare favorably, as do the old Ross pedals. I do have several old Digitech rack units, basically copies of Lexicon's PCM42 and PCM60. While they're not quite up to Lex's standards, they're pretty good and definitely unique.

 

[ChurchHill]

OK, again, I apologize for the delay in posting these. This is not a good time of year for having a family member in the hospital, but it is what it is. Anyway...

Here's a picture of my main rack in its last configuration. The pedals are mounted in the back. Also attached is a PDF of the signal flow. It's not really laid out really well as I was trying to keep everything on one page and I originally created this just for my own reference. If anyone cares to look and has any questions, please just ask, OK?

Currently, I'm removing the PCM92 and the Eclipse, adding a PCM81 and a TC2290, and replacing the TERC with a TC1210. I don't really want to split up the Studio Pre and 395, so I may put that in its own rack and add a different power amp to this one. I'm going to create another rack with the Eclipse, PCM92, and TERC, and probably some pedals. I haven't decided, yet, if I want to put the Studio/395 in that rack, or have them separate. I'll figure it out eventually...

 

[rstites]

That's a very nice looking rack setup. The signal flow diagram is not the most straightforward I've seen, but with a little looking I followed it fine.

Question #1: Both the tuner through and the preamp feed the compressor, but you only have one output from the compressor. Why feed through the tuner to the compressor?

Question #2: I don't follow how your preamp is routed from the diagram. It appears that your wet signal is running through compression and noise reduction and then mixed/summed back in the preamp before being sent out, or does your whole signal run out through effects and back into the preamp before going out? If so, why that rather than just taking the preamp out through effects and then mixing before the power amp?

Compressor: is that on all the time? Does it mess with native tone overmuch? I've never run post preamp compression......barely run pre-preamp compression with a guitar since I'm a higher gain player.

Noise reduction: similar question. On all the time? Mess with tone? I could use some good noise reduction and was debating how to go about it. I've been amazed at the number of pro rigs that just run the simple Boss pedal (NS-2?) post pedals, pre amplifier.

 

[ChurchHill]

Thanks! An yeah, the diagram isn't the greatest, but I've seen worse, too.

Ah, yes, the trick I'm pulling on the compressor. Basically, I was out of loops, but I still needed a way to bypass the comp, which doesn't have a bypass switch. The RJM has a tuner out that's taken from the buffer out, so not part of the rest of the signal chain. The tuner does have a mute switch on it, though, and an output, and the compressor has a side-chain input. So, I'm using the mute switch on the tuner, controlled by a port on one of the Voodoo Lab function controllers, to either send a signal to the comp's side-chain or not. When nothing is present at the side-chain (tuner muted), the compressor won't compress. However, if I let the signal pass through the tuner, the compressor will use the side-chain to control the amount of compression. Since the signal passing through the tuner is the same as the guitar >> buffer output, the compressor is actually tracking the guitar and not the output of the preamp (an added bonus, since I don't have to change the compressor when I change anything on the preamp). Hope this makes sense...

guitar >> buffer >> buffer out 1 >> loop1 in >> [...] >> pre-amp out >> comp in>> comp out >> effects in
............................ buffer out 2 >> tuner in >> tuner thru >> comp side-chain

Basically, the compressor is on all the time, just not compressing all the time. Hopefully a little more consistent tone that way, too. It doesn't seem to color the sound much, if at all, and not in a bad way.

The ISP Decimator actually has two gates in it (technically downward expanders, I believe). One comes in just after the RJM buffer (which I didn't show in the above explanation of the comp side-chain). This signal feeds the side-chain for both gates) and is passed out of the first gate according to Gate 1 settings. It's on just enough to reduce extraneous noise when I'm touching the strings (in other words, just barely on). After the Gate 1 out, the signal goes to the CryBabay, then passes through the first four loops of the RJM (the pedals that come before the amp). Out from that loop goes to the pre-amp and comes out from the effects loop send, which feeds the comp in (as above). The Comp out feeds the Gate 2 in. Gate 2 is controlled (via internal side-chain) by Gate 1. So, it opens and closes based on what's coming out of the guitar without regard to any added level, noise, or gain. Finally Gate 2 feeds the input of the RJM loop 5-8. Hope this makes sense, too.

guitar >> gate 1 in >> gate 1 out >> crybaby >> rjm loops 1-4 >> pre >> comp >> gate 2 in >> gate 2 out >> rjm loops 5-8
.............................. side-chain out.................................................................................... side-chain in

This is basically the same routing used by the Boss NS-2 using 4CM and works in the same way. I've used an NS-2 for many years, and just got the ISP Decimator because it was rack mount. I'm considering replacing it with a Drawmer DS201, even though I'd have to wire the side-chains myself. I think the ISP Decimator messes with the tone a little bit (no worse than the NS-2) and the attack and release are fast enough that it doesn't cut off the pick attack or cause the loss of any sustain.

Yeah, both are technically in the signal chain at all times, even if the comp isn't actually doing any compression. Everything changes the tone to a greater or lessor degree. The comp is pretty transparent, the gate rolls a little high end off, but nothing that isn't easily compensated for by running the treble (or highest GEQ band) up about 1/2 to 1 number setting. Seems to help brighter guitars, too, so definitely not a bad thing. I think the Drawmer might be a better solution, though, at least more transparent. Not sure I can say the NS-2 is any worse, either. The NS-2 was certainly good enough for me for a long time (I still have it, too).

I put the compressor post-pre because that's more like what they do in a studio where compression is often used after the track is recorded. In this case, it acts more just to level things out, as opposed to how I would typically use a comp before the amp, for example, a different feel, the add a little boost for a lead, or just get that spank out of a Tele (if I ever played country, which I've thus far avoided. The new configuration may have a comp in front as well as this comp behind the pre. Just FYI, I usually use the rack comp almost always for cleaner sounds. Pedal comps I would use almost always for leads.

 

[rstites]

The hardest part of the diagram was that it took me a bit to locate the guitar. Really, it isn't that bad - took me a minute or so of looking at it to figure out the general gist and another 5 minutes to think through everything and come up with my questions.

Makes sense on the tuner/compressor. I assumed the compressor was acting a bit more like a limiter protecting the A/D's from clipping for all the various units, but a little post processing makes sense. I assume it's very light, unnoticeable sonically. I like that in a compressor.

I do need a noise gate. If I run a dry sound (SLO), I'll need to run it out front so probably pedal. If I go to more of a traditional-true rack setup, like you have, I could see the preference for running it post gain stages.

I want to try the Mesa studio preamp, but they've become pretty desirable. It strikes me that a second MkIII (or another Mk) would get me both the extra power amp section and two more switchable sounds: functionally more like the quad preamps - I recall lusting over one of those at a local store back in the early 90s. Used it was going for well over $1k at that time, way out of my budget when thinking about everything else I'd need for the rack setup at that time.

 

[Econ]

In a w/d/w setup, shoul the dry cab be bigger than the wet cabs usd or could they be of the same size?

 

[rstites]

Cab size really doesn't matter here. The only thing I'd say for cabs is make sure the outside cabs are identical. They can even be quite a bit different than the center dry for voicing. You can always EQ the stereo wet tones for them.

You can certainly run three identical cabs. Plenty of pros run three 4x12s for W/D/W. Plenty of others run a center 4x12 and 1x12s or 2x12s for the stereo wet. I'd stick with bigger in the center and smaller outside if you're starting from scratch: less money to drop into speakers!

 

[ChurchHill]

In a w/d/w setup, shoul the dry cab be bigger than the wet cabs usd or could they be of the same size?

While I typically use three 4x12s for W/D/W, there's no reason of which I'm aware that the cabs have to be the same size. As rstites pointed out, the wet cabs don't even need to be voiced the same.

I've seen many rigs with the dry cab as either a 4x12 or a 1x12 and the wet cabs being either two 1x12s or one 2x12 with a 1x12 sitting on top.

I think the only things that matter are that you're getting the sound out of them that you want along with the portability (and price) that works for you. I'd even go so far as to say that none of the cabs need to have the same tonality. I've run both W/D/W and W/W with two or three different cabs and found it can give a nice stereo separation by default. They have to be somewhat similar, though, as I wouldn't want all my highs to be coming from one cab and all the lows from another. However, combinations like a V30, a K75, and a CL80 should work well together, or a G12-65, an M20, and an M65. Of course, it's all about what sounds good to you and ultimately works best for you.

 

[Econ]

Anyone else cares to post pictures of yiur w/d/w rig?

 

[guitarmike]

That's a very nice looking rack setup. The signal flow diagram is not the most straightforward I've seen, but with a little looking I followed it fine.

Question #1: Both the tuner through and the preamp feed the compressor, but you only have one output from the compressor. Why feed through the tuner to the compressor?

Question #2: I don't follow how your preamp is routed from the diagram. It appears that your wet signal is running through compression and noise reduction and then mixed/summed back in the preamp before being sent out, or does your whole signal run out through effects and back into the preamp before going out? If so, why that rather than just taking the preamp out through effects and then mixing before the power amp?

Compressor: is that on all the time? Does it mess with native tone overmuch? I've never run post preamp compression......barely run pre-preamp compression with a guitar since I'm a higher gain player.

Noise reduction: similar question. On all the time? Mess with tone? I could use some good noise reduction and was debating how to go about it. I've been amazed at the number of pro rigs that just run the simple Boss pedal (NS-2?) post pedals, pre amplifier.

I run a w/d/w rig every Sunday at church. Some weeks it is just me and the drummer, I needed to fill out the sound. My amp is a 1974 Marshall superlead modded by Friedman, one of the mods is a line out. Since nothing goes through the loop, I do not need a noise gate for the amp. I do have an ISP Decimeter pedal at the start of the effects chain but only need it once and a while. When I use the loop on the amp the ISP works great.

 

[guitarmike]

In a w/d/w setup, shoul the dry cab be bigger than the wet cabs usd or could they be of the same size?

While I typically use three 4x12s for W/D/W, there's no reason of which I'm aware that the cabs have to be the same size. As rstites pointed out, the wet cabs don't even need to be voiced the same.

I've seen many rigs with the dry cab as either a 4x12 or a 1x12 and the wet cabs being either two 1x12s or one 2x12 with a 1x12 sitting on top.

I think the only things that matter are that you're getting the sound out of them that you want along with the portability (and price) that works for you. I'd even go so far as to say that none of the cabs need to have the same tonality. I've run both W/D/W and W/W with two or three different cabs and found it can give a nice stereo separation by default. They have to be somewhat similar, though, as I wouldn't want all my highs to be coming from one cab and all the lows from another. However, combinations like a V30, a K75, and a CL80 should work well together, or a G12-65, an M20, and an M65. Of course, it's all about what sounds good to you and ultimately works best for you.

My w/d/w rig was built on the cheap. One of the wet cabs is an old Jackson vertical 2x12 with low end emminence speakers and the other is a monitor wedge. They are powered by an old heavy Peavy stereo pa head. It sounds great.

 

[Econ]

Just ordered 2 Friedman 1x12’s for the rig. Still need to get the Matrix poweramp, mixer and the effects system thet I’ll be using.