quadraverb?

[glpg80]

It isn't a matter of hooking it up. You either have a parallel effects loop or you don't...

Of course, just taking a line out to the efx unit and then power amp and cab is always gonna be better than an effects loop of any kind. If your amp doesn't have a line out, use a Hotplate. This way you always have a non-tone-sucked dry signal and can use 100% wet effects...

Steve

another q:

pre out/line out is same difference?

I've never seen a guitar amp with an "pre out" (although they may exist, I dunno). I usually see effects loops with a send/return and most are serial. If you want to run w/d/w with a stereo power amp, you can't just send your signal to effects without returning something to the guitar amp. If your guitar amp's loop is parallel, you could do this...

A line out has no return. They can come from the pre or power section and have no "return". Usually they have a pot to adjust the signal level. If you have a "pre out" that is not part of a serial efx loop with a return, it is the same as a "line out"...

Steve

yea my effects loop is serial, but i have a pre-out separate i used to run though the PA system at church back when i first started playing on a stage (god that brings back memories..)

no potentiometer for adjusting levels though. and i have run two 5150's and borrowed one of my buddies 5150 cabs and ran a w/d/w with my G-major. just ran the pre-out into the effects return of the second amp, and ran the effects stereo through amp 2 being slaved off amp 1 for tone.

thanks for elaborating though. i had forgotten about assigning effects in series or parallel. thanks =]

 

[Anonymous]

and i have run two 5150's and borrowed one of my buddies 5150 cabs and ran a w/d/w with my G-major. just ran the pre-out into the effects return of the second amp, and ran the effects stereo through amp 2 being slaved off amp 1 for tone.

I don't see how you could run w/d/w with only two amps, man. You need three amps (or two amps - 1 a stereo power amp) and three cabs (or two cabs where one or both is stereo). Let take my setup. I have a Mojave PeaceMaker. I run the output of that to 1 4x12. That is the dry or "d". I take the line out of the amp to a Lexicon stereo efx unit. I run the stereo efx 100% wet. The left and right outputs of the Lexicon go to left and right channels of a stereo power amp and the left and right outputs of the power amp go to the left and right sides of a stereo 4x12. These are the "w". Thus w/d/w. Of course, if we are getting technical, even my setup is not even w/d/w, it is really d/w/w. But you get my point... If I have three mono 4x12s, I could run the left cab/left wet, the center cab dry and right cab/right wet - w/d/w

Can you explain how you ran w/d/w with 2 5150s?

Steve

 

[glpg80]

its easy

1 amp running 2 16 ohm mono cabinets set to 8 ohms on the slave amp. the other main amp running no effects with guitar input in the input jack, lead or clean channel for tone.

we did it two ways:

first way is running effects send of one amp into the input jack of the second amp. that gave us an EQ for the clean channel of the effects cabinets. that head also ran the effects in the loop (send/return) and gave us the wet signal to the cabinets. your lead tone was switched with amp 1 and guitar was plugged into amp 1.

the second way we did it was with the effects send into the G-major and then ran the out-signal into the effects return of the second amplifier. we didnt want to use the pre-out line out for the effects because the signal strength changed with the increase of volume. i didnt want to cook my g-major or the second amp because i had just got the effects processor. we had volume controls for the outer 2 cabinets this way (which we usually just ran the guitar head at full blast, using the volume control of the second one as the main volume control) , but it could also be done using the input jack to give volume and EQ both independently. remember, both amps had cabinets plugged into them. the second ran the outer wets, the inner was pure guitar tone and the main tone of all cabinets and it ran a single 4x12 itself.

we ran it with a couple band-practices this way. i had my band-practice over at my buddies basement where we did this, and he had his usual band practice there as well. we both used the w/d/w setup this way and it was fucking awsome.

three 4x12 5150 cabs.

 

[Anonymous]

its easy

1 amp running 2 16 ohm mono cabinets set to 8 ohms on the slave amp. the other main amp running no effects with guitar input in the input jack, lead or clean channel for tone.

we did it two ways:

first way is running effects send of one amp into the input jack of the second amp. that gave us an EQ for the clean channel of the effects cabinets. that head also ran the effects in the loop (send/return) and gave us the wet signal to the cabinets. your lead tone was switched with amp 1 and guitar was plugged into amp 1.

the second way we did it was with the effects send into the G-major and then ran the out-signal into the effects return of the second amplifier. we didnt want to use the pre-out line out for the effects because the signal strength changed with the increase of volume. i didnt want to cook my g-major or the second amp because i had just got the effects processor. we had volume controls for the outer 2 cabinets this way (which we usually just ran the guitar head at full blast, using the volume control of the second one as the main volume control) , but it could also be done using the input jack to give volume and EQ both independently. remember, both amps had cabinets plugged into them. the second ran the outer wets, the inner was pure guitar tone and the main tone of all cabinets and it ran a single 4x12 itself.

we ran it with a couple band-practices this way. i had my band-practice over at my buddies basement where we did this, and he had his usual band practice there as well. we both used the w/d/w setup this way and it was fucking awsome.

three 4x12 5150 cabs.

Ok, I see what you did, and I'm sure it sounded great, but neither of those arrangements are w/d/w...

In order to run w/d/w, you have to be running true stereo effects to your wet cabinets. Both of your wet cabs are running exactly the same signal. That is not true stereo effects. You have to take the left output of your G-major and amplify it and send it to a cab. Then you have to take the right output of the G-major and amplify it and send it to another cab. You would have different signals going to each cab this way - true stereo effects. All you are doing is taking the mono (left) out of the G-major, amplifying it and sending it to two cabs. You are sending identical signals - no reason to have the second wet cab. Do you see what I'm saying. To run w/d/w, which means true stereo effects, left and right to the two wet cabs, you need three amps (or one guitar amp and a stereo power amp). You can't do it with two 5150s even with three cabs...

Steve

 

[glpg80]

its easy

1 amp running 2 16 ohm mono cabinets set to 8 ohms on the slave amp. the other main amp running no effects with guitar input in the input jack, lead or clean channel for tone.

we did it two ways:

first way is running effects send of one amp into the input jack of the second amp. that gave us an EQ for the clean channel of the effects cabinets. that head also ran the effects in the loop (send/return) and gave us the wet signal to the cabinets. your lead tone was switched with amp 1 and guitar was plugged into amp 1.

the second way we did it was with the effects send into the G-major and then ran the out-signal into the effects return of the second amplifier. we didnt want to use the pre-out line out for the effects because the signal strength changed with the increase of volume. i didnt want to cook my g-major or the second amp because i had just got the effects processor. we had volume controls for the outer 2 cabinets this way (which we usually just ran the guitar head at full blast, using the volume control of the second one as the main volume control) , but it could also be done using the input jack to give volume and EQ both independently. remember, both amps had cabinets plugged into them. the second ran the outer wets, the inner was pure guitar tone and the main tone of all cabinets and it ran a single 4x12 itself.

we ran it with a couple band-practices this way. i had my band-practice over at my buddies basement where we did this, and he had his usual band practice there as well. we both used the w/d/w setup this way and it was fucking awsome.

three 4x12 5150 cabs.

Ok, I see what you did, and I'm sure it sounded great, but neither of those arrangements are w/d/w...

In order to run w/d/w, you have to be running true stereo effects to your wet cabinets. Both of your wet cabs are running exactly the same signal. That is not true stereo effects. You have to take the left output of your G-major and amplify it and send it to a cab. Then you have to take the right output of the G-major and amplify it and send it to another cab. You would have different signals going to each cab this way - true stereo effects. All you are doing is taking the mono (left) out of the G-major, amplifying it and sending it to two cabs. You are sending identical signals - no reason to have the second wet cab. Do you see what I'm saying. To run w/d/w, which means true stereo effects, left and right to the two wet cabs, you need three amps (or one guitar amp and a stereo power amp). You can't do it with two 5150s even with three cabs...

Steve

you're forgetting pan left/pan right.

i had the option to pan delays left/right to get the true "stereo" feel. thanks for the insight though =]

in all honesty i, myself, couldnt really care. we did it for shits n giggles and i was messing with all the settings in the g-major kinda getting a feel for it ya know?. i would never have any real application to haul 3 cabinets and power amps galore or the nigger rigged second head the way we did it with special pans to each cab. is just a huge mess of cables and blugh.

at least that explains why mike and his new rig has the 295 and the carvin =]

 

[Anonymous]

you're forgetting pan left/pan right.

i had the option to pan delays left/right to get the true "stereo" feel. thanks for the insight though =]

You're welcome!

FWIW, I'm not forgetting anything. Pan left/Pan right has nothing do with what I'm saying, nor does it make for a w/d/w setup. Panning delays left and right and them summing the output to mono does not 'get the true "stereo" feel', m'Kay??

Steve

 

[glpg80]

you're forgetting pan left/pan right.

i had the option to pan delays left/right to get the true "stereo" feel. thanks for the insight though =]

You're welcome!

FWIW, I'm not forgetting anything. Pan left/Pan right has nothing do with what I'm saying, nor does it make for a w/d/w setup. Panning delays left and right and them summing the output to mono does not 'get the true "stereo" feel', m'Kay??

Steve

yes sir

we had chorus in one cab, delay in the other, a dry cab, 3 cabs total. its the closest thing ill ever play to a w/d/w setup and like i said before, it sounded literally like a wall of sound. was truely inspiring to anything you played through it. solos, rhythms, cleans, it may have not been "by the book", but it got us close enough. you have to remember, the gear doesnt matter if you cant play what you need in your fingers or what comes to mind at that second anyway.

if it gives me the same inspiration as a "by the book" w/d/w setup then whats the point?

if i had another friend that had another head, then i could have run stereo through the g-major. its got the connections. but, like i said, for what we had and what we had to use, it might not have been as flexable, but it still worked. ill end it at that and gain the knowledge of what i learned where this topic led at that.

 

[Gainfreak]

The quadraverb was OK when it first came out and I used it for a while but there are much better bang $$$ for the units out there. To be honest with you a Boss Se-50 or SE-70 will smoke a qudraverb in every aspect and so will the intellifex.

You be crazy....those Boss units were awful!!!!! Intellifex was better, but also quite a bit more money at the time. I just sold off the majority of my rack gear and still have a Quad

Well we will have to agree to disagree George. With a few tweaks I could get my Se-50 to smoke and Quadraverb in a heartbeat. Id also like to point out that the Se-50 was also Bob Bradshaws secret weapon of choice for a bang for a buck multi effects box and one of my friends who owns a studio put his SE-50 up against my quad and that was the reason why I sold it.
Hell, I could care less! I always tell people to use what works best for them but I will have to disagree with you about the SE-50.

 

[Anonymous]

The quadraverb was OK when it first came out and I used it for a while but there are much better bang $$$ for the units out there. To be honest with you a Boss Se-50 or SE-70 will smoke a qudraverb in every aspect and so will the intellifex.

You be crazy....those Boss units were awful!!!!! Intellifex was better, but also quite a bit more money at the time. I just sold off the majority of my rack gear and still have a Quad

Well we will have to agree to disagree George. With a few tweaks I could get my Se-50 to smoke and Quadraverb in a heartbeat. Id also like to point out that the Se-50 was also Bob Bradshaws secret weapon of choice for a bang for a buck multi effects box and one of my friends who owns a studio put his SE-50 up against my quad and that was the reason why I sold it.
Hell, I could care less! I always tell people to use what works best for them but I will have to disagree with you about the SE-50.

Joe Holmes was using an SE-70 when I saw him with Ozzy and it was the best all around live rock/metal guitar tone I ever heard. Of course, his Jose-modded amps may have contributed...

Steve

 

[Greazygeo]

The quadraverb was OK when it first came out and I used it for a while but there are much better bang $$$ for the units out there. To be honest with you a Boss Se-50 or SE-70 will smoke a qudraverb in every aspect and so will the intellifex.

You be crazy....those Boss units were awful!!!!! Intellifex was better, but also quite a bit more money at the time. I just sold off the majority of my rack gear and still have a Quad

Well we will have to agree to disagree George. With a few tweaks I could get my Se-50 to smoke and Quadraverb in a heartbeat. Id also like to point out that the Se-50 was also Bob Bradshaws secret weapon of choice for a bang for a buck multi effects box and one of my friends who owns a studio put his SE-50 up against my quad and that was the reason why I sold it.
Hell, I could care less! I always tell people to use what works best for them but I will have to disagree with you about the SE-50.

No sweat Ralph....I tried those units back then and didnt like them at all. Might be good for a Boogie though...

My favorite unit was actually the Midiverb II, that kicked butt, presets only though.

 

[Anonymous]

you're forgetting pan left/pan right.

i had the option to pan delays left/right to get the true "stereo" feel. thanks for the insight though =]

You're welcome!

FWIW, I'm not forgetting anything. Pan left/Pan right has nothing do with what I'm saying, nor does it make for a w/d/w setup. Panning delays left and right and them summing the output to mono does not 'get the true "stereo" feel', m'Kay??

Steve

yes sir

we had chorus in one cab, delay in the other, a dry cab, 3 cabs total. its the closest thing ill ever play to a w/d/w setup and like i said before, it sounded literally like a wall of sound. was truely inspiring to anything you played through it. solos, rhythms, cleans, it may have not been "by the book", but it got us close enough. you have to remember, the gear doesnt matter if you cant play what you need in your fingers or what comes to mind at that second anyway.

if it gives me the same inspiration as a "by the book" w/d/w setup then whats the point?

if i had another friend that had another head, then i could have run stereo through the g-major. its got the connections. but, like i said, for what we had and what we had to use, it might not have been as flexable, but it still worked. ill end it at that and gain the knowledge of what i learned where this topic led at that.

Listen man - I don't want to continue arguing but there is NO way you could have had a dry cab, chorus in one cab and delay in the other without three amps. Forget "by the book". What you are saying is ABSOLUTELY PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE... Honestly, I don't mean to be rude, but you don't know what you are talking about. I don't care how you panned it, I don't care how you set it up, if you take a mono out from a G-Major, amplify it and send it to two cabs, the only physical possiblity is for both of the "wet" cabs to have EXACTLY THE SAME SIGNAL. That means that if you set the G-Major for Chorus and Delay, regardless of panning, or sending one effect left and one right, or however you want to describe it - and you sum it to a mono output, the ONLY POSSIBILITY is that both "wet" cabs would have had chorus AND delay. PERIOD. There is no argument here...

Once again, I'm sure it sounded awesome. Once again, I understand that you don't care if it was really w/d/w. I also understand that the tone you got inspired you...

All that is cool, but you DID NOT have delay in one cab AND chorus in another AND a dry cab with only two amps and a mono effects output signal. Can you now see that that is physically impossible and that you are wrong in saying you did? Do you understand that panning would not make that possible from a mono effects signal? If not you have no understanding at all of how guitar rigs work...

Sorry for the rant, but your insistence on the physically impossible as fact is more than a bit frustrating...

And please don't lecture me on playing and how gear doesn't matter if you can't play. It has nothing to do with what we are talking about and I assure you my fingers and mind are working just fine in terms of getting out what I hear in my head... Dude - you kinda come off as a know it all who will never admit they are wrong. Prove ME wrong here, ok... just say you were mistaken...

Steve

 

[70strathead]

I still have mine from back in the day and remember at the time it came out it worked good for me, but i never used multiple effects..just delay and boosted it with BOSS EQ pedal in the loop to try to give it more "UMMPH" as it mess with the signal chain natural sound. Iended up purchasing the Roland SD-1000 which i thought was great sounding, especially in the studio. Now i just use the Quadroverb for P.A. ..which works great for what it is.

 

[glpg80]

you were not there. you did not hear slap back delay go from one cab, to the other with a mono connection. it may of sounded like shit and not 100% true but it did.

I FUCKING SAID IT WAS CLOSE. im not a rich bastard that has all that equipment. i said it was close for what we had to work with. at the time i was the one borrowing one of the cabs i own now AND another guitar head that i didnt even own.

you dont mean to be rude? take your physical bullshit and shove it up your ass. i said this once, and i will say this again. i did NOT have another amplifier to run a by the book wet dry wet rig, if i did i would have. but did i? no i did not. i made do with what i had and used EQ settings to make up for it to get it close.

know it all? dude fuck you. i tried to say what i heard in a nice way and you go off. i know what the hell i heard. i have 2 ears. unless you can replicate it using the same exact gear then shut it

i said ill take the knowledge i learned from you and leave it at that. i even thanked you for it. but dont stand here and correct my ass when you were not physically there to hear it OR have the same fucking rig.

THE END.

 

[glpg80]

I still have mine from back in the day and remember at the time it came out it worked good for me, but i never used multiple effects..just delay and boosted it with BOSS EQ pedal in the loop to try to give it more "UMMPH" as it mess with the signal chain natural sound. Iended up purchasing the Roland SD-1000 which i thought was great sounding, especially in the studio. Now i just use the Quadroverb for P.A. ..which works great for what it is.

alot of people downgraded them to PA use. i read alot on how well it worked for PA's but not guitars - i had never even heard of it until i went to ADA's forum and saw a cuople rigs with it in there.

im definately going to look at either the intellifex or just taking the g-major i have and using it for the rack effects and running stomp boxes for the 5150 setup.

 

[70strathead]

I still have mine from back in the day and remember at the time it came out it worked good for me, but i never used multiple effects..just delay and boosted it with BOSS EQ pedal in the loop to try to give it more "UMMPH" as it mess with the signal chain natural sound. Iended up purchasing the Roland SD-1000 which i thought was great sounding, especially in the studio. Now i just use the Quadroverb for P.A. ..which works great for what it is.

alot of people downgraded them to PA use. i read alot on how well it worked for PA's but not guitars - i had never even heard of it until i went to ADA's forum and saw a cuople rigs with it in there.

im definately going to look at either the intellifex or just taking the g-major i have and using it for the rack effects and running stomp boxes for the 5150 setup.

Yep, Whatever works for u. intellifex is great, probably the best for capturing natural echo for sure. . I personally stopped using digital racks years ago( especially in marshall amp loops ) and shifted to echoplex's only. I bought one for 50$ back then and that first sucker has been my soul mate all along till now. Beautiful, yet , dark sounding. i like un dark.


good luck
A

 

[glpg80]

I still have mine from back in the day and remember at the time it came out it worked good for me, but i never used multiple effects..just delay and boosted it with BOSS EQ pedal in the loop to try to give it more "UMMPH" as it mess with the signal chain natural sound. Iended up purchasing the Roland SD-1000 which i thought was great sounding, especially in the studio. Now i just use the Quadroverb for P.A. ..which works great for what it is.

alot of people downgraded them to PA use. i read alot on how well it worked for PA's but not guitars - i had never even heard of it until i went to ADA's forum and saw a cuople rigs with it in there.

im definately going to look at either the intellifex or just taking the g-major i have and using it for the rack effects and running stomp boxes for the 5150 setup.

Yep, Whatever works for u. intellifex is great, probably the best for capturing natural echo for sure. . I personally stopped using digital racks years ago( especially in marshall amp loops ) and shifted to echoplex's only. I bought one for 50$ back then and that first sucker has been my soul mate all along till now. Beautiful, yet , dark sounding. i like un dark.


good luck
A

the ones that take the cartridges/tapes? ive never had the pleasure to play one. ive also never heard anything bad about them, not once! =] true analog tone is awsome indeed.

 

[70strathead]

alot of people downgraded them to PA use. i read alot on how well it worked for PA's but not guitars - i had never even heard of it until i went to ADA's forum and saw a cuople rigs with it in there.

im definately going to look at either the intellifex or just taking the g-major i have and using it for the rack effects and running stomp boxes for the 5150 setup.[/quote]

Yep, Whatever works for u. intellifex is great, probably the best for capturing natural echo for sure. . I personally stopped using digital racks years ago( especially in marshall amp loops ) and shifted to echoplex's only. I bought one for 50$ back then and that first sucker has been my soul mate all along till now. Beautiful, yet , dark sounding. i like un dark.


good luck
A[/quote]

the ones that take the cartridges/tapes? ive never had the pleasure to play one. ive also never heard anything bad about them, not once! =] true analog tone is awsome indeed.[/quote]

yep thats it. I have a couple of them and one of them from 1973. I play strats so it really can tame those highs from a single coil and everything just seems fatter and organic, sounding and feel wise. I have the H&K Replex too, which is fabulous as a backup and no tapes required.!

You should definitely try one in your lifetime .

 

[jcj]

Joe Holmes was using an SE-70 when I saw him with Ozzy and it was the best all around live rock/metal guitar tone I ever heard. Of course, his Jose-modded amps may have contributed...

Steve

Hey Steve,

You a friend of Joe's?

 

[jcj]

you were not there. you did not hear slap back delay go from one cab, to the other with a mono connection. it may of sounded like shit and not 100% true but it did.

I FUCKING SAID IT WAS CLOSE. im not a rich bastard that has all that equipment. i said it was close for what we had to work with. at the time i was the one borrowing one of the cabs i own now AND another guitar head that i didnt even own.

you dont mean to be rude? take your physical bullshit and shove it up your ass. i said this once, and i will say this again. i did NOT have another amplifier to run a by the book wet dry wet rig, if i did i would have. but did i? no i did not. i made do with what i had and used EQ settings to make up for it to get it close.

know it all? dude fuck you. i tried to say what i heard in a nice way and you go off. i know what the hell i heard. i have 2 ears. unless you can replicate it using the same exact gear then shut it

i said ill take the knowledge i learned from you and leave it at that. i even thanked you for it. but dont stand here and correct my ass when you were not physically there to hear it OR have the same fucking rig.

THE END.

Easy.... This is supposed to be fun.....He's just trying to help. As are the rest of us. Don't take it the wrong way.

 

[glpg80]

you were not there. you did not hear slap back delay go from one cab, to the other with a mono connection. it may of sounded like shit and not 100% true but it did.

I FUCKING SAID IT WAS CLOSE. im not a rich bastard that has all that equipment. i said it was close for what we had to work with. at the time i was the one borrowing one of the cabs i own now AND another guitar head that i didnt even own.

you dont mean to be rude? take your physical bullshit and shove it up your ass. i said this once, and i will say this again. i did NOT have another amplifier to run a by the book wet dry wet rig, if i did i would have. but did i? no i did not. i made do with what i had and used EQ settings to make up for it to get it close.

know it all? dude fuck you. i tried to say what i heard in a nice way and you go off. i know what the hell i heard. i have 2 ears. unless you can replicate it using the same exact gear then shut it

i said ill take the knowledge i learned from you and leave it at that. i even thanked you for it. but dont stand here and correct my ass when you were not physically there to hear it OR have the same fucking rig.

THE END.

Easy.... This is supposed to be fun.....He's just trying to help. As are the rest of us. Don't take it the wrong way.

no love for the weak or weary. he told me to prove him wrong, so i did

in all honesty i did learn alot from this thread and from steve. but im not admitting to something that is wrong vs close, with a member of a forum who i dont even know personally with a tone issue i heard first hand. close is close enough for what i heard. dont tell me im wrong 100%. it was as close to a w/d/w rig as ill ever get. ive said that maybe 8 times now. but he insists im 100% wrong. dont tell me its wrong, when you were not even there. i stand by my point and argue it because thats exactly what happened.