Head or Preamp layout?

[glpg80]

Which do you guys prefer and why?

I am at a conundrum between the two, and i have a few projects that could use opinions from people who use or prefer one or the other and why.

Personally i would not mind going rack preamp but i just havent, i have an opportunity now to go that route in my next adventure but want to know from others why they prefer either option.

FWIW this is high wattage applications, 15W amps are extremely versatile so the rackable option is of course more weight to carry - easy choice there

So which do you like/use/prefer?

 

[NS10Fan]

I've always preferred amp heads, and I wish I could tell you because of reasons other than looks. Thinking of RackSystems builds as an example, they can be ultra clean and in their own way, a sweet look, but I've always preferred the look of a nice amp head and matching cab to a 4-space poweramp and preamp. Plus with a rack, there's generally room to add more, and a lot of people don't know when to say when. Good luck in your quest!

 

[jlbaxe]

It seems an amp head and its preamp section work better together but a few rack pre amps with the right rack power amp sound great also. If you have aAmp head you can run a preamp through the return loop and save buying a power amp. My mesa and Bogner work great for this.

I had an Egnater M4 matched with a RT 2/50, really liked the tones I was getting out of it. There was something always lacking with my Carvin Quad X and ADA MP-1 compared to my Mesa III. The Axe-Fx ultra sounded perfect through my RT2/50

If you go rack I think it is safe to say a Solando, Bogner fish, CAE, Eggy M4 or Tol, JMP1 or mesa preamps would be a good choice with the right power amp. For power amps a RT 2/50, VHT 2 50 2, 2 2 90 2 or 2100, 2150 or the Mesa or marshall power amps.

It comes down to what you feel and can get out of what you are using. To me I like my Bog and mesa heads but the Axe II sounds great any way I run it with my set up. You could spend a lot buying and trying pre amp power amp combinations til you find the best matched for you.

 

[petejt]

I prefer the aesthetics & appearance of an amp head.

 

[glpg80]

so other than asthetics, has anyone ever ran a rack/poweramp setup that they felt (literally and figuratively) offered more in comparison to a similar amp head due to the ability to mix/match as you see fit?

 

[sinfish]

I like a rack setup as you can have a more customized tone when mixing and matching pre and power. I disagree with JLBAXE. I think A rack pre and a separate power amp tend to work better as you generally have more options on the pre signal before it hits the power amp.

I also like that fact that I can dramatically change my sound with just replacing a pre or adding a second pre to my rack.

As Far a weight is concerned. I'll take a rack over a shock resistant 2 head rolling case any day.

Plus a lighted up rack looks damn good on stage.

 

[blackba]

I voted amp head and its mostly for the power amp options. Not many mono power amps (stereo is nice, but I don't need it). Also, most power amps have more power than I need, I mean I don't really need 100Watts per side regardless of how good it sounds. The main concern there is the cost to retube a 100/100 power amp is high.

 

[jlbaxe]

The Egnater M4 dual ch is, in my opinion only, the most flexible rack pre paired with a RT 2/50 for 6L6 tubes and E34Ls at the push of a midi switch.

I had 2 RT 2/50s and sold them, like an idiot. I just bought one that needed repair and it's in the shop. When it is fixed I am going to A/B it with the VHT 2 90 2 I just bought. But the RT is a beast of an amp.

 

[Mr. Burton]

My vote goes to rack and is heavily influenced by flexibility. The Egnater M4 matched with Gmaj2 and Rivera TBR5 covers more ground than any traditional setup I've had over the years. I can't think of any other tube preamp produced that offers more unique channel options. I opted for the TBR5 as I did not want the power amp to do much in the way of coloring the tone. I find that with 6550's it is very neutral and there are very few tube power amps that surpass 160w per channel.

If flexibility is not a concern, then I think the traditional amp head would be best. In any case, find an amp that does what you need it to do.

 

[jcj]

Depends on how complex a setup you're talking about.....

If you're talking a full blown rack, with multiple pre's, effects, switching, etc., then you're talking about significant cost...don't really know that you can compare that to a head.

What do you need it to do?

 

[mboogman]

I like the hybrid design myself.

I'm running my Egnater M4 into the power section of a Mesa MKIII red stripe. It's all racked up, and is pretty massive, but It's the best I've had my rig sounding in a long time. Recently had the VHT 2-90-2, which was pretty killer as well. In fact, I couldn't say that one is definitely better than the other, but just different. The Simul-Class power section of the MKIII kills with the Marshall-ish, and Voxy tones from the M4. Having some patches that are just the MKIII head by itself, no FX, and then having any of the Egnater mods with as many FX as I can throw at it. Does it all.

 

[Fenderoid]

I voted amp head.Although the rack stuff s way more versatile there is a difference at the mojo an amp head.It feels mre 'pure' .

 

[Shark Diver]

I like both, well actually I use rack amp heads, not traditional heads. But once I got the right power amp I've been able to get some equally great tones with a pre/poweramp set up. I think one of the biggest reasons people prefer heads is because they buy a pre amp for versatility. So, if all the channels aren't the greatest ever than they go back to their one channel head and it's what they are use to. In reality most multi channel heads aren't known for more than one channel either. Take a VH4 for example. Channel 3 wonderful, then a lot of people are so-so on the amp. I'd like to try a single channel clean preamp made to take pedals, sort of Hiwatt-ish. Then I bet a lot of head guys might be drawn to a pre/power amp rig for some of the rack advantages.

That being said, in a world where a lot of guys think adding a loop to an amp ruins it, separating the pre/power sections into separate units is sacrilege.

 

[Shawn Lutz]

I never got into the rack shit. I rebelled against it when the game seemed to be cram as much rack shit as you can I thought about it and almost did but since I was gigging with a bunch of JCM800 2203/04's and liked my tone I never bit the bullet. I saw some awesome racks that sounded great but I couldn't help but wonder how the guitar would sound without running through a million rack I/O's

 

[Shark Diver]

I never got into the rack shit. I rebelled against it when the game seemed to be cram as much rack shit as you can but I couldn't help but wonder how the guitar would sound without running through a million rack I/O's

Yeah, that was pretty bad for a while. In 8 spaces you could put your favorite pre (2), a VHT Classic (4) and an Eventide H8000 (2) run in parallel, and have an amazing stereo rig. Make it 10 spaces and you could make it W/D/W with a Matrix for fx (1) and a good conditioner (1).

 

[some dude]

I use either a 3 or 4 channel head with a TC G-System and power conditioner. No real need to have a giant rack to get different sounds these days.

 

[jlbaxe]

Axe II and a power amp,cab. Done!

 

[rottingcorpse]

i did the 20 space rack thing in the 90's. 3 different preamps, switching system, t.c./eventide/rev7, etc.

i sold it all off in early 2000. realized i didn't need all that. just need a good amp head and a gate. much easier to move too.

 

[Even Bigger D]

I use a CAE 3+SE and Soldano SM-100R with a 4x12. I've never encountered another setup that offers the same features and tone. I'd run a rack just to get those two pieces of gear in the same place even if I didn't want to run any other rack units.

 

[Code001]

I prefer heads, but I'm not sure why.