Anje
Active member
Yeah it does.
Hi Zachman, nice to read you! I do remember the good old threads with your massive multi-amp W/D/W CAE rig, good times
Hope you're doing well.
Hi Zachman, nice to read you! I do remember the good old threads with your massive multi-amp W/D/W CAE rig, good times
Hope you're doing well.
romanianreaper
Well-known member
romanianreaper
Well-known member
Right now, as I tip my toe into the Synergy soup, I am starting out with the IR-20, but can easily see myself going to a Syn-2 with rackmount power. Just grab my module and put it into a different chassis. Imagine being able to do this back in the day.
The~Kid
Well-known member
While stuff like this is great IMO and they sound amazing......
I really feel many believe and buy into the illusion that you can just cut and paste shit especially in 2025 and in a sense a naivety when it comes to stuff like this.
Randall MTS was like this too...... Egnater sort of did something similar but not in a modular way.
Seymour Duncan who pioneered the modular system IMO got it right because it was a sort of a way of not exactly replicating amps but of offering a in the ballpark tone of amps that sounded great and ahead of their time.
You simply just can't cut and paste preamps here and there and expect "oh yeah now I have a Deluxe Reverb..... JCM800.... AC30." or whatever......
A lot of the amps character aside from the preamp are in the power section IME and in some ways more so than many guitar players and even me care to think about and take for granted.
Preamps and tone stacks of course have a place and these things sound great but let's not pretend it's so easy as to copy and paste a Mesa Mark ll preamp or a Soldano into one of these and automatically have said amp or a Twin or a Recto or a Matchless or whatever.
IMO again these things sound great but when people buy into this stuff like they seem to be doing ignoring or just going along with the marketing...... Pretty much it's not so copy and paste or cookie cutter and while these things sound great let's not pretend that the power section, transformers and design of a power amp don't account for more of the tone and amp has to bring than we care to think of and IMO take for granted.
These amps such as it's predecessors before like the Randall MTS, Egnater stuff or even the Seymour Duncan stuff never really accounted for the Power Amp and well practically you really can't.
Each amp really has its own thing going on in that regard and while it's easy to copy and paste the preamps..... You really can't do that with a Power Amp section...... Or you can but it would be impractical and stupid expensive and pretty hard to do in either sense.
I really feel many believe and buy into the illusion that you can just cut and paste shit especially in 2025 and in a sense a naivety when it comes to stuff like this.
Randall MTS was like this too...... Egnater sort of did something similar but not in a modular way.
Seymour Duncan who pioneered the modular system IMO got it right because it was a sort of a way of not exactly replicating amps but of offering a in the ballpark tone of amps that sounded great and ahead of their time.
You simply just can't cut and paste preamps here and there and expect "oh yeah now I have a Deluxe Reverb..... JCM800.... AC30." or whatever......
A lot of the amps character aside from the preamp are in the power section IME and in some ways more so than many guitar players and even me care to think about and take for granted.
Preamps and tone stacks of course have a place and these things sound great but let's not pretend it's so easy as to copy and paste a Mesa Mark ll preamp or a Soldano into one of these and automatically have said amp or a Twin or a Recto or a Matchless or whatever.
IMO again these things sound great but when people buy into this stuff like they seem to be doing ignoring or just going along with the marketing...... Pretty much it's not so copy and paste or cookie cutter and while these things sound great let's not pretend that the power section, transformers and design of a power amp don't account for more of the tone and amp has to bring than we care to think of and IMO take for granted.
These amps such as it's predecessors before like the Randall MTS, Egnater stuff or even the Seymour Duncan stuff never really accounted for the Power Amp and well practically you really can't.
Each amp really has its own thing going on in that regard and while it's easy to copy and paste the preamps..... You really can't do that with a Power Amp section...... Or you can but it would be impractical and stupid expensive and pretty hard to do in either sense.
Last edited:
romanianreaper
Well-known member
The Kid, I get what you are saying and you are right but look at it a different way.
Think of all of the modellers out there that are aping a Bogner, Diezel, Marshall, etc. but those algorithms have nothing to do with the amp maker's input. These modules are the preamp circuits, crafted by some of the makers, which is cool.
Now take it a step further. Let's take the Bogner Uberschall module as an example. A user can pick the price point and authenticity of a Bogner in levels based on what they can afford. If soneone just wants the Syn-1, they can do it or get a Bogner power amp with tubes.
I think people can get caught up in just swapping modules to chase big tones. For me, i'm hoping this is a lightweight, flexible amp.
Think of all of the modellers out there that are aping a Bogner, Diezel, Marshall, etc. but those algorithms have nothing to do with the amp maker's input. These modules are the preamp circuits, crafted by some of the makers, which is cool.
Now take it a step further. Let's take the Bogner Uberschall module as an example. A user can pick the price point and authenticity of a Bogner in levels based on what they can afford. If soneone just wants the Syn-1, they can do it or get a Bogner power amp with tubes.
I think people can get caught up in just swapping modules to chase big tones. For me, i'm hoping this is a lightweight, flexible amp.
R
retrorack
Active member
I don’t think anyone’s saying it’s as easy as copy and paste, voila, perfect facsimile. But when actual amp builders the likes of Steve Fryette, Dave Friedman, or Dr Z come on board or are even doing design work on the preamps, I trust they know better than most about the interaction between preamp and power amp, and how to bring that character from the real amp into a modular system to some degree.
The~Kid
Well-known member
This is true but in business in general I also trust that money comes first amongst anyone in the business/industry......
Not everyone exactly or all the time but on average and well yeah
Just saying and well lets be real here.
The~Kid
Well-known member
That's what's up and IMO that is probably the better way and pragmatic way to approach these amps.
TheGreatGreen
Well-known member
Agree with The Kid in that these modules aren’t replacements for the real amps they represent. I think that's fine though.
I think the best way to approach these things instead is to think of each module like one channel (or two, depending on the module) in a single head, each with different amounts of gain and filtering. You can use them to give yourself as many amp channels as you want to build around the center of the rig, the poweramp and cab.
Everything about your rig that isn't a Synergy module is going to be where most of the overall character comes from, so you should instead pick your modules based mostly on how much gain you want, and the character or filtering of that gain. In other words, don't think of let's say the DRECT module as "this will get me the sound of a Recto" but rather think of it like "this will get me a crapload of preamp gain with minimal filtering" etc.
Now all they need is a system where manufacturers can build poweramps you can swap to on the fly, like with an amp switcher, but where the modules' electricity would then immediately swap over to being drawn from the currently active poweramp. Part of the magic of heads is that the preamp and poweramp draw from the same power supply, so whatever impacts one will impact the other. If Synergy could crack that nut and route all modules to draw power straight from the wall until they are activated, at which point they then flip to drawing power from the active poweramp, I think other amp manufactures really would have something to worry about.
I think the best way to approach these things instead is to think of each module like one channel (or two, depending on the module) in a single head, each with different amounts of gain and filtering. You can use them to give yourself as many amp channels as you want to build around the center of the rig, the poweramp and cab.
Everything about your rig that isn't a Synergy module is going to be where most of the overall character comes from, so you should instead pick your modules based mostly on how much gain you want, and the character or filtering of that gain. In other words, don't think of let's say the DRECT module as "this will get me the sound of a Recto" but rather think of it like "this will get me a crapload of preamp gain with minimal filtering" etc.
Now all they need is a system where manufacturers can build poweramps you can swap to on the fly, like with an amp switcher, but where the modules' electricity would then immediately swap over to being drawn from the currently active poweramp. Part of the magic of heads is that the preamp and poweramp draw from the same power supply, so whatever impacts one will impact the other. If Synergy could crack that nut and route all modules to draw power straight from the wall until they are activated, at which point they then flip to drawing power from the active poweramp, I think other amp manufactures really would have something to worry about.
Last edited:
jchrisf
Well-known member
For a bedroom player like me the IR20 sounds great and I can barely crack the master volume before it becomes too loud but it would be nice to switch between a couple of modules.
I do think these modules can be a replacement for the real amp because I've heard people say they actually prefer the module to the real amp or that they couldn't tell the difference. However, this is probably with an amp that you are not that excited about or wouldn't need every tone it can do. Then when you find a module that blows you away like I have with the DRECT... I'm ready to get the real thing. Other than that I am completely satisfied with the modules and not wanting the real amps they represent. My Bogner and SLO modules do that "thang" that I am totally happy with and I don't need more. I would think the Fender module would be the same way for me.
The Synergy system totally beats the modelers though. I'm ready to sell my Fractal and Helix.
NinjaRaf
Well-known member
I think of it as an option that’s pretty close but a fraction of the cost. Put it under a mic and you can’t tell the synergy uber from a real uber. Maybe I want some engl flavor and bigger flavor but I know these will never be my main amp, so these will get me that flavor without having $50k wrapped up in 15 amps. Maybe it won’t be exact, but from my experience with some of these modules and the amps they’re based on, it’s close enough for something that isn’t gonna be my main sound.
romanianreaper
Well-known member
Anyone have the SLO II and Marshall JMP modules? I am getting the JMP module next and was wondering what to expect comparatively yo the SLO II. I'm a Marshall guy and has always been my tone so just curious what folks think.
jchrisf
Well-known member
Speaking of comparing the real amp to the modules... I just ordered Fryette's PS-2A so I shouldn't have a problem cranking a 50/100 watt amp up in my little home studio/office.
fek
Well-known member
I have both of those. When I load up the JMP and SLO into a SYN-2, they are quite different. The JMP took me longer to dial in and I am still tweaking it. Seems to be louder than the SLO, but that could just be the way I have the volume knobs set to get the crunch I want out of the JMP.
Without spending a lot of time bouncing back and forth between the two, I have not found a good match yet using the JMP for crunch and then the SLO for leads as an example. They sit in pretty different tonal frequencies, at least how I have them set up today, and the tone change sounds odd to my ear when going back and forth like that. Keep in mind that I have almost always preferred using one main rhythm tone and then adding a pedal or two for leads.
I have tomorrow off so the plan is to have some quality playing time tonight. Will do some more digging on finding other tones out of the JMP. So far, using the basic trick of keeping the bass knob low, or off to start has been working out the best. Way more low end in there than I expected.
CarlF
Well-known member
I got both. Like Fek says, they occupy different tonal areas. The JMP is a bit louder. I set both modules moderately, then use OD pedals to boost.
One thing I noticed on the SLO II. Seems there is bright-cap activity if on the Overdrive side. On the Crunch mode, I don't hear a bright cap and IMO it could use it. Why put the bright cap on one mode and not the other?
I set both sides of the SLO II to overdrive. One w/ the Gain at 9:00, the otther at 10-11 o'clock.
Love them both but I don't see them as a good match if you were running two modules.
Most of these modules are very high gain, so I'm going to go for the B-Man next. Have one clean-crunch module and the other high gain.
mentoneman
Well-known member
good points. when i see guys purchasing every module available it seems a bit cart before the horse. i also think that is a normal guitar gear junkie mentality!
if guys are doing so to ultimately find the one that works best for a specific need i get it. if you have a studio or cover band and need to cover many styles i get it.
but ultimately it might be best to determine a direction first for a clean, rhythm and lead sound that is cohesive to one another. it may help narrow down choices.
speaking of racks:
mentoneman
Well-known member
just a thought—can you just flip how you’re using the SLO?
meaning use the blue channel for lead and red channel for crunch?
i did this with the bogner/halfer triple giant preamp i had—the high gain ch 3 i used for crunch and the lower gain ch 2 i used for leads and it was cooler.
the beginning of this vid is the TG demo and jump to 5:56 for a quick demo of the SLO v1 module i had in my rig at the time for comparison.
fek
Well-known member
Facepalm moment for me. Didn't think about that, but a great idea that I will play around with tonight! Makes sense on paper to me.
CarlF
Well-known member
I could, but neither channel cleans up well with the Gain set more than 9/10:00. The SLO II's Overdrive mode cleans up better because it has a bright cap. That's why I set both channels to Overdrive. The Crunch mode is a disappointment. I have the X88ir and that Crunch mode is killer and it has a bright switch (on or off)
I think one day I'll get the original SLO module.
mentoneman
Well-known member
sounds like a great reason to hook the X88ir to the Syn SLOII with the 4CM unless you’re dead set on keeping the two rigs discreet.
but hard to imagine needing the SLO II and X88ir in the same rig! animal!
Similar threads
- tcrash
- Member Classifieds
