Egnater 100% MIDI Preamp or Head

[SilverSpoons]

It's a rendering of an Egnater 100% MIDI controlled rack tube preamp. It has the same 9 preamp tones as Egnater has in modules for their M4 Modular preamp, and A/B mode, and an EQ with 4 choices (Bright On, Bass Boost On, Both On, Both Off) and a Serial Loop On/Off. Not the best photo rendering, but you at least can get the idea.

Single Space Unit

Click HERE for full size image.

Two Space Unit (I like this one better)

Click HERE for full size photo.

What do all you die hard rack fans think of something like that?

EDITS: Change Topic Title and fixed typos and added two space unit.

 

[EWSEthan]

Amazing, but is it possible?

 

[aeroic]

Amazing, but is it possible?

In a 1u, I'd say there's no way in hell it'd happen. Maybe 2-3u. I don't see this as an option at all honestly.

Eric

 

[bstaley]

If the modular concept did not exist then I would be all over something like that, however, that preamp, along with most any other preamp is limited to the sounds it comes with. The nice thing about modular is changing sounds on the fly. Now that I've gotten used to that I cannot imagine going without it.

 

[SilverSpoons]

With today's technology it is most certainly possible, the Mesa Triaxis is an 8 tone preamp in a single space and that has been around for years. It uses older technology and it is probably the deepest preamp rack unit known to man, LOL! There is absolutely no real competition to that Triaxis unit. Also, what could be faster for changing tones on the fly than the pushing of a button or turning of a knob.

Just a thought for the future.

 

[aeroic]

With today's technology it is most certainly possible, the Mesa Triaxis is an 8 tone preamp in a single space and that has been around for years. It uses older technology and it is probably the deepest preamp rack unit known to man, LOL! There is absolutely no real competition to that Triaxis unit. Also, what could be faster for changing tones on the fly than the pushing of a button or turning of a knob.

Just a thought for the future.

I've owned a Triaxis...And I'll have to say I disagree with the "no real competition to the Triaxis." I thought there were about 3-4 good tones in that unit. Everything else was just "okay." The flexibility of the M4 Preamp blows the Triaxis out of the market. You can't get Vox tones, Marshall tones, Boogie tones, Soldano tones, etc. out of one preamp.

The Egnater M4 preamp offers the flexibility with MIDI switching, but still you can have the "twist the knob" feel of head. For me, it's the best of both worlds. Then couple the modules can be moved into a Mod50 or Mod100, giving you a preamp or a head with the same exact tones.

 

[SilverSpoons]

I've owned a Triaxis...And I'll have to say I disagree with the "no real competition to the Triaxis." I thought there were about 3-4 good tones in that unit. Everything else was just "okay." The flexibility of the M4 Preamp blows the Triaxis out of the market. You can't get Vox tones, Marshall tones, Boogie tones, Soldano tones, etc. out of one preamp.

The Egnater M4 preamp offers the flexibility with MIDI switching, but still you can have the "twist the knob" feel of head. For me, it's the best of both worlds. Then couple the modules can be moved into a Mod50 or Mod100, giving you a preamp or a head with the same exact tones.

The no real competition I was talking about with the Triaxis is the 100% MIDI that the Triaxis offers in a single space that you cannot get with almost any other tube preamp. If you want a single space MIDI tube preamp, there is just not much out there. I know that the M4 offers some MIDI switching capabilities but it is certainly not 100% MIDI.

I currently use the Triaxis as one of my preamps, and I agree about the Triaxis tones. Tone wise, the Egnater M4 completely beats the Triaxis; although, MIDI control and single space wise the Triaxis has the M4 beat. Now, combine the MIDI control features of the Triaxis AND have all those wonderful tones you can get out of the M4 modules all in one single space MIDI controllable box - That would blow EVERY other preamp out of the market.

 

[marvcus]

With today's technology it is most certainly possible, the Mesa Triaxis is an 8 tone preamp in a single space and that has been around for years. It uses older technology and it is probably the deepest preamp rack unit known to man, LOL! There is absolutely no real competition to that Triaxis unit. Also, what could be faster for changing tones on the fly than the pushing of a button or turning of a knob.

Just a thought for the future.

I've owned a Triaxis...And I'll have to say I disagree with the "no real competition to the Triaxis." I thought there were about 3-4 good tones in that unit. Everything else was just "okay." The flexibility of the M4 Preamp blows the Triaxis out of the market. You can't get Vox tones, Marshall tones, Boogie tones, Soldano tones, etc. out of one preamp.

The Egnater M4 preamp offers the flexibility with MIDI switching, but still you can have the "twist the knob" feel of head. For me, it's the best of both worlds. Then couple the modules can be moved into a Mod50 or Mod100, giving you a preamp or a head with the same exact tones.

+ 1 to Aeroic's Triaxis statement. The M4 is SOOO much more flexible and versatile. The Triaxis had a pretty good clean on R1 Green. I never used Lead 1 at all and wound up on Lead 2 yellow/red most of the time. The Lead 2 green was a pretty close approximation of a Mark IV. It was great in it's day, though.

As far as your rendering, I've learned to never say never. I think it's cool you are being creative/proactive in coming up with ideas. Keep 'em coming.

 

[aeroic]

I've owned a Triaxis...And I'll have to say I disagree with the "no real competition to the Triaxis." I thought there were about 3-4 good tones in that unit. Everything else was just "okay." The flexibility of the M4 Preamp blows the Triaxis out of the market. You can't get Vox tones, Marshall tones, Boogie tones, Soldano tones, etc. out of one preamp.

The Egnater M4 preamp offers the flexibility with MIDI switching, but still you can have the "twist the knob" feel of head. For me, it's the best of both worlds. Then couple the modules can be moved into a Mod50 or Mod100, giving you a preamp or a head with the same exact tones.

The no real competition I was talking about with the Triaxis is the 100% MIDI that the Triaxis offers in a single space that you cannot get with almost any other tube preamp. If you want a single space MIDI tube preamp, there is just not much out there. I know that the M4 offers some MIDI switching capabilities but it is certainly not 100% MIDI.

I currently use the Triaxis as one of my preamps, and I agree about the Triaxis tones. Tone wise, the Egnater M4 completely beats the Triaxis; although, MIDI control and single space wise the Triaxis has the M4 beat. Now, combine the MIDI control features of the Triaxis AND have all those wonderful tones you can get out of the M4 modules all in one single space MIDI controllable box - That would blow EVERY other preamp out of the market.

I honestly thought my Voodoo Amps Modded Marshall JMP-1 had a better set of tones than the Triaxis I owned. I agree that the M4 isn't 100% MIDI, but at least it's MIDI in the right places . I personally don't need a ton of patches for my tones. With 8 diverse channels, I can cover anything honestly. With most 100% MIDI preamps like a JMP-1 or Triaxis, I always found myself using 3-4 sounds anyways, and did not change a lot from there. So for me personally, being 100% MIDI isn't as much of a "must have" requirement for me for preamps...but for my effects processors...well that's a different story altogether!

I much prefer the "stomp box" approach with my effects processors. So having access to CC to turn on and off specific effects is a must have! Programming a ton of preset patches for my tone always bugged me at gigs, because sometimes I'd have to tweak each patch for the room. It's so much easier in my mind to just turn a knob for a preamp. But again, this is my personal preference

 

[SilverSpoons]

I much prefer the "stomp box" approach with my effects processors. So having access to CC to turn on and off specific effects is a must have! Programming a ton of preset patches for my tone always bugged me at gigs, because sometimes I'd have to tweak each patch for the room. It's so much easier in my mind to just turn a knob for a preamp...

Great conversation!!!!!

I agree 100% about the MIDI controlled effects, that is a MUST, absolutely no exceptions there.

Again, I agree 100% about having the knobs available for "on-the-fly" tweaking, that's exactly why I put them on the rendering. I think that aspect every player could completely agree on

As far as programming a ton of presets...
What I do is program about the basic tones (6-8 for 2 different guitars - my HH and SSS pup guitars are EQ'd a LOT different) then I just copy those tones to the patch channels that I am going to use for any given show. Then I can tweak those "show" tones as needed without messing with my basic tones. It has been pretty successful at not allowing my basic tones to morph over time by tweaking.

We actually aren't too far apart on this, I would just like ALL nine of those Egnater modules built into one single space MIDI controllable rack mountable box. With that kind of Egnater preamp I think I could conceivably get rid of all my other preamps, I'd pay really good money for that possibility!!

I'm sure that Egnater will eventually make at least a single space modular unit, so at least that will be easier for players to add that their racks.

 

[EWSEthan]

I'm sure that Egnater will eventually make at least a single space modular unit, so at least that will be easier for players to add that their racks.

Its called E2 and its coming I still wonder why its not called M2 to be consistent with M4...

 

[SilverSpoons]

Its called E2 and its coming I still wonder why its not called M2 to be consistent with M4...

COOL!!!

 

[aeroic]

I much prefer the "stomp box" approach with my effects processors. So having access to CC to turn on and off specific effects is a must have! Programming a ton of preset patches for my tone always bugged me at gigs, because sometimes I'd have to tweak each patch for the room. It's so much easier in my mind to just turn a knob for a preamp...

Great conversation!!!!!

I agree 100% about the MIDI controlled effects, that is a MUST, absolutely no exceptions there.

Again, I agree 100% about having the knobs available for "on-the-fly" tweaking, that's exactly why I put them on the rendering. I think that aspect every player could completely agree on

As far as programming a ton of presets...
What I do is program about the basic tones (6-8 for 2 different guitars - my HH and SSS pup guitars are EQ'd a LOT different) then I just copy those tones to the patch channels that I am going to use for any given show. Then I can tweak those "show" tones as needed without messing with my basic tones. It has been pretty successful at not allowing my basic tones to morph over time by tweaking.

We actually aren't too far apart on this, I would just like ALL nine of those Egnater modules built into one single space MIDI controllable rack mountable box. With that kind of Egnater preamp I think I could conceivably get rid of all my other preamps, I'd pay really good money for that possibility!!

I'm sure that Egnater will eventually make at least a single space modular unit, so at least that will be easier for players to add that their racks.

I totally hear ya man. Only issue with something static like this idea, is that when Egnater comes out with new modules, that 1U item will be static, and not easily updateable. The beauty of the modular idea is that if a new modules comes out, I buy it, and just rip one module out, and put another in . But, I do agree on the size factor. A 2U rack is a bit larger / heavier than something 1U. Egnater is coming out soon with the E2, which is a 1U, 2-module rack preamp that will hold 2 of their modules. But, it will be of similar design to the M4, but it will have the ability to be run with an amp in the efx loop with an insert. Meaning, you can run your amp's preamp or the E2 with MIDI switching. In theory making your 2-channel head into a 6-channel head (2 from your head...4 from the E2). That'll rock when you couple it with a Suhr Badger or a Egnater Rebel. Great tone, lots of flexibility and something really portable.

I honestly don't see Egnater going in the route of a fully MIDI preamp. Although I do agree that's damn cool. The market is driving great tone at a portable price with the simplicity of a head. Hence look at a lot of the "cool gagdets" coming out...like the Rebel, Blackstar, Suhr Badger, etc. Couple that with that Egnater is doing w/ the M4 / Mod50, you've got the best of both worlds. Ultra-portable rigs, with a TON of flexibility.

I do miss at times the programmability of my JMP-1. Being able to save off some weird tones here and there for certain sounds. But I honestly do that more with effects nowadays. You might want to check out Fractal Audio's AxeFX, as it's a VERY INTERESTING effects processor / amp simulator all in one. Damn cool unit!!!

 

[SilverSpoons]

...You might want to check out Fractal Audio's AxeFX, as it's a VERY INTERESTING effects processor / amp simulator all in one. Damn cool unit!!!

The spec's read a lot like my Rocktron Prophesy II and it certainly looks similar.

More modules, wow I think they have that covered for quite a while. Of course I suppose they could add some fancy "boutique" signature modules.

 

[SilverSpoons]

Let's see if my general understanding of the Egnater modular system is reasonably accurate.

1. Modules all have exactly the same controls.
2. Modules all have (2) tubes in them - 12AX7's probably.
3. Modules are all physically the same size with the same board connections to the M4 housing.
4. Modules each have a different circuit boards, thus creating the different tones.

Out of the box thinking:
Am I missing something here or is the circuit board the ONLY thing that is truly different between the different modules. If that is true; then wouldn't it make perfect sense to build a rack unit that would contain all the things that are common to each module and then only have to switch the actual circuit boards. Might sound a little radical but I bet you could fit a bunch of those "little" circuit boards in one little space and still make the unit "modular" just modular in a little bit different way. If designed properly you would get one set of knobs, one set of tubes, one set of MIDI controls, and switchable "little" circuit boards, all tucked in one nice little package. If designed properly, I just bet the size of the little switchable boards could be decreased to no more than 3" X 3" and quite thin - bet you could fit a bunch of those inside a single rack unit. Interesting?

I am a manufacturing design engineer and I ask these kind of questions all the time and drive my VP's crazy, LOL! I will say that, in the long run, these kind of questions certainly spur product development along a new more productive and more profitable path.

 

[aeroic]

Let's see if my general understanding of the Egnater modular system is reasonably accurate.

1. Modules all have exactly the same controls.
2. Modules all have (2) tubes in them - 12AX7's probably.
3. Modules are all physically the same size with the same board connections to the M4 housing.
4. Modules each have a different circuit boards, thus creating the different tones.

Out of the box thinking:
Am I missing something here or is the circuit board the ONLY thing that is truly different between the different modules. If that is true; then wouldn't it make perfect sense to build a rack unit that would contain all the things that are common to each module and then only have to switch the actual circuit boards. Might sound a little radical but I bet you could fit a bunch of those "little" circuit boards in one little space and still make the unit "modular" just modular in a little bit different way. If designed properly you would get one set of knobs, one set of tubes, one set of MIDI controls, and switchable "little" circuit boards, all tucked in one nice little package. If designed properly, I just bet the size of the little switchable boards could be decreased to no more than 3" X 3" and quite thin - bet you could fit a bunch of those inside a single rack unit. Interesting?

I am a manufacturing design engineer and I ask these kind of questions all the time and drive my VP's crazy, LOL! I will say that, in the long run, these kind of questions certainly spur product development along a new more productive and more profitable path.

Well this is true to a "point." All modules do have a circuit board, all modules have 2 12ax7s. But the design of each circuit board is different. The circuit boards are vastly different in design with each module..i.e....some EQ pre-gain...some after gain...etc. What you described is interesting, and I guarantee Bruce thought about this to a point. But the thing is...for most of us here, not all preamp tubes fit well with all modules. Meaning. I really like the 5751 preamp tube in V1 of a low - mid gain tube for instance. I really like a Chinese tube in V1 of higher gain tubes. What you describe would limit the "tweakability" of each module we have today. What you describe would be a BUNCH more expensive because it would require each module to use a common set of components, and have some sort of way to be able to route the signal for EQ to be pre / post gain..etc. etc. It's a lot more complicated to design / implement based on what Bruce has designed today. Bruce's design today pretty much leaves the entire preamp to each module we have today. The M4 chassis is rather simplistic in design as it only provides very few functions. Basically an input buffer, MIDI switching, etc etc.

The cost of entry into the M4 is really not that bad for a boutique preamp with such versatility and tonal varieties. I've never found 2 amps let alone 1 that can do the variety of tones that the M4 can.

 

[SilverSpoons]

...for most of us here, not all preamp tubes fit well with all modules. Meaning. I really like the 5751 preamp tube in V1 of a low - mid gain tube for instance. I really like a Chinese tube in V1 of higher gain tubes. What you describe would limit the "tweakability" of each module we have today. What you describe would be a BUNCH more expensive because it would require each module to use a common set of components, and have some sort of way to be able to route the signal for EQ to be pre / post gain..etc. etc. It's a lot more complicated to design / implement based on what Bruce has designed today. Bruce's design today pretty much leaves the entire preamp to each module we have today. The M4 chassis is rather simplistic in design as it only provides very few functions. Basically an input buffer, MIDI switching, etc etc...

Thanks for the feedback, I never thought about end users switching the preamp tubes in the modules for different tone, that is really good point!

If you left the MIDI the way it is right now - As for the design and cost of doing what I talked about, designing would be very easy for an Electrical Engineer, and in the long run having the commonly used components put in the housing and not in the modules will always, Always, ALWAYS be cheaper for everyone involved. The manufacturing efficiencies and less overall components used will guarantee a tremendous savings for all. ROUGH NUMBERS HERE -> The modules would probably come close to costing 75% less to produce, thus reducing the overall cost to the consumer by a HUGE margin; as for the housing, once you get into production the increase in cost there would probably be between 10-15% Overall savings to consumer would probably be in the area of 30-35% for a unit with 4 modules in it. Could you imagine a rack unit with all nine modules in it for about $500 less than you currently pay for the M4 with 4 modules, that is the reality of manufacturing efficiencies.

Of course the tube switching is a VERY good point!! I'll have to think about that a bit more, my idea would probably have to be an entirely different product that would compete with the current modules and that wouldn't make much sense, would it?

 

[aeroic]

...for most of us here, not all preamp tubes fit well with all modules. Meaning. I really like the 5751 preamp tube in V1 of a low - mid gain tube for instance. I really like a Chinese tube in V1 of higher gain tubes. What you describe would limit the "tweakability" of each module we have today. What you describe would be a BUNCH more expensive because it would require each module to use a common set of components, and have some sort of way to be able to route the signal for EQ to be pre / post gain..etc. etc. It's a lot more complicated to design / implement based on what Bruce has designed today. Bruce's design today pretty much leaves the entire preamp to each module we have today. The M4 chassis is rather simplistic in design as it only provides very few functions. Basically an input buffer, MIDI switching, etc etc...

Thanks for the feedback, I never thought about end users switching the preamp tubes in the modules for different tone, that is really good point!

If you left the MIDI the way it is right now - As for the design and cost of doing what I talked about, designing would be very easy for an Electrical Engineer, and in the long run having the commonly used components put in the housing and not in the modules will always, Always, ALWAYS be cheaper for everyone involved. The manufacturing efficiencies and less overall components used will guarantee a tremendous savings for all. ROUGH NUMBERS HERE -> The modules would probably come close to costing 75% less to produce, thus reducing the overall cost to the consumer by a HUGE margin; as for the housing, once you get into production the increase in cost there would probably be between 10-15% Overall savings to consumer would probably be in the area of 30-35% for a unit with 4 modules in it. Could you imagine a rack unit with all nine modules in it for about $500 less than you currently pay for the M4 with 4 modules, that is the reality of manufacturing efficiencies.

Of course the tube switching is a VERY good point!! I'll have to think about that a bit more, my idea would probably have to be an entirely different product that would compete with the current modules and that wouldn't make much sense, would it?

If you look at the circuits these modules are emulating, there isn't that much "overlap" in circuitry. I think Bruce already put as much "common components" in the chassis as he could. Just look at the circuit board of a eggie module...they are VASTLY different when comparing a SL to a EG5...or a DLX to a E-Rect. I'm not disagreeing with you here...but I just think that it's a difficult thing to compare, as the 1U midi preamp solves one problem and the modules solve another. I personally am more than happy with the money I spend on my Egnater gear. There's nothing that comes even CLOSE to this tone, versatility, etc in this small of a package. But that's me

I think the modular idea at this point is the right market for Egnater to tackle. It offers extreme flexibility, tweakability, and maximum tone. I personally prefer the M4 design to the Triaxis type preamp design, because the one thing that will go wrong is probably the module first. If it does...have a backup an swap it out in a gig. Same with tubes...tubes are SOOO easy to swap out with the M4. Another issue I have with the Triaxis type approach, is there are lot more parts that could go wrong. The M4 takes vintage design and keeps it simple..and add's a modern flair w/ MIDI along. That way you get the benefits of newer designs with the tones of old . Looking at the target market Egnater is pushing for, I would have to say most would want a simpler to use preamp...and what's simpler than gain, lows, mids, treble, and volume per module . Having to deal with patching and such like w/ the Triaxis / JMP-1 I had...I just don't miss it. I don't miss having to edit a patch...save it..etc. during a gig. I much prefer to just turn a knob honestly.

You have to keep in mind the target audience...guitar players like simplicity with maximum flexibility. I think the current M4 gives you that. It's simple enough for most guitar players to use...but flexible enough for the pro users...

Eric

Eric

 

[SilverSpoons]

...If you look at the circuits these modules are emulating, there isn't that much "overlap" in circuitry...

I agree 100% that the circuitry on the boards themselves are vastly different.

...I think Bruce already put as much "common components" in the chassis as he could...

Here is where I have to disagree, I think there was a "choice" made at the time to do it the way it was done. I'm not saying it was the wrong choice, I am saying that there IS a different way that can increase productivity, reduce cost for everyone, maintain all basic functions and possibly add more features.

Similarities between the modules are:
Input, Output, All Controls, and Tube Sockets.

What differs is the signal path and the additional non-similar components that are between the similar components, this is where the vastly different circuitry comes in.

Based on that, the circuit board and additional non-similar components are the ONLY things different between the modules. Question is, would it be to Egnaters advantage or disadvantage to simplify the modules and put more components in the chassis, thus making the product cost less to produce and pass on those savings on to the consumer making it more price-point attractive to some consumers.

-------------

I also thought about your statement about changing the preamp tubes is a really, REALLY valid issue. How about this, Egnater has developed the "tube mixing" thing in their amps, maybe that same idea could be used for the preamp tubes thus giving the consumer the ability to mix and/or switch between two sets of preamp tubes. That might solve that problem.

With all this built into a preamp, my original 1U I believe would be too small, so here is a really quick rendering of a 2U:

Click HERE for full size photo.

I'm not trying to change to world here or say everything is wrong the way it sits, just discussing future possibilities.
Really good discussion going here, how about some more of you reading this topic chime in on the discussion.
Spoons

 

[guitarslinger]

I think it's a great idea, and I think it would be awesome.

I think there are only about three different circuit boards though.

Clean

COD

Dirty

Am I wrong?

I mean, couldn't some midi controlled relays switch a handful of caps to instantly turn an SL2 into an EG 3/4 or EG5? (assuming the pot values are the same) or, a TD into a VX?

Maybe, it should be three rack spaces, and have what looks like 3 sets of knobs, like an M4 with only 3 slots filled, and then use the upper left corner for the buttons, mode, preset select, etc.