Peavey Rockmaster vs. Mesa Triaxis

Oh yeah. I've got my eye on a mint condition Peavey Rockmaster and I'm looking for some advice from some fellow Rockmaster owners (past/present).

What should I be looking for and what should I expect? How does it compare to the Triaxis? What are some problems that you've experienced in the past with the Rockmaster? What did you love about the Rockmaster?

I just sold my Rockmaster and replaced it with a MB quad. I haven't used a triaxis so I can't comment on that but as for the Rockmaster it was really easy to make harmonics and the clean channel was awesome with an 12at7. The effects loops were very handy as well being able to run seperate effects in each channel.

The downside was that it was harsh and buzzy sounding and I was never happy with the tone. I had a 31 band eq on the crunch and ultra channel and although that helped I was always ajusting it and never satisfied with the tone. There was too much mid range, the bass never seemed to sound right and I was wondering if I had strings buzzing on the fretboard. Overall when I plugged into the quad it was instantly a huge step up in tone, smoothness and bass in the right frequencies. Another problem was the rockmaster didn't have any midi.

If I had space and cash I would have just kept it for the clean channel and a unique sounding really harsh sounding ultra channel.

MesaGod666 said:

How does it compare to the Triaxis?

Click to expand...

It doesnt compare at all. The RockMaster is a horrible, 80's metal sounding preamp designed to scoop out every mid frequency that your guitar desperately needs to actually be heard in any mix. If you try to be "Lamb of god-ish" and leave the mids in by boosting them a bit an NOT pulling out the mid-cut knob, then you get nasty nasal honkey tones from it. It's thin, buzzy, and truly captures all the glorious tones that a FREAKING BUMBLE BEE makes when it's just about to sting you. :lol:

The Triaxis on the other hand is a Mesa. A true tone machine. If you are doing metal or rock, it's very useful for lots of sound options live. I never seemed to pair my Triaxis with the right power amp so I always found it to be lacking in the lower mids/bottom end. It does NOT do what a Mark IV does. It comes close but it's not the same thing. It think it represents the previous Mark amps better (Mark III, II C+, I etc) better then the sound of the Mark IV. I have read that if you get a Triaxis, the power amp to get (the only one I didn't try with mine) is the 2:90. It was made for the Triaxis.

I found mine to be most useful doing medium gain stuff on the Mark IIC+ settings. I thought that the mode had the best mids, the most usable lows and the smoothest highs. Ironically, I don't actually like real Mark IIC+ amps... but the Triaxis made that mode really stand out to my ears. It had the best sounds for low, medium or high gain settings to me in the entire preamp.

If you wanna do bad cock-rock, get a Rockmaster... if you want a preamp that is designed to be a tool for your instrument to deliver convincing tones for rock or metal, then yes...the Triaxis will do that for you.
I hope that helped.

vitor gracie said:

It's thin, buzzy, and truly captures all the glorious tones that a FREAKING BUMBLE BEE makes

Click to expand...

Oh, you mean a Peavey! :lol:

I disagree with all that you guys are saying. My Rockmaster, Isn't buzzy at all, and is very big sounding, anything but thin. But you have to pare it with a good power amp too. I love mine. I can easily get a lamb of god tone out of mine, and have lots of mids without it being honky.

vitor gracie said:

If you try to be "Lamb of god-ish" and leave the mids in by boosting them a bit an NOT pulling out the mid-cut knob, then you get nasty nasal honkey tones from it. It's thin, buzzy, and truly captures all the glorious tones that a FREAKING BUMBLE BEE makes when it's just about to sting you. :lol:

Click to expand...

Dear sweet baby Jesus that is funny.

vitor gracie said:

Ironically, I don't actually like real Mark IIC+ amps... but the Triaxis made that mode really stand out to my ears. It had the best sounds for low, medium or high gain settings to me in the entire preamp.

Click to expand...

Ironically, I actually agree with you. I own two Mark V's and two Mesa Triaxis/2:Ninety rigs and I prefer the Mark V's for that thick Mark IV tone. I owned a IIC+ and I found it to be lacking and far more hype than substance (much like the AxeFx...which I don't entirely hate). The Mesa Triaxis/2:Ninety rigs have smoother mids with nicely rounded highs and are extremely versatile when running multiple effects through a signal chain. Plus, they feel really nice when boosted with a nice handwired tube screamer.

Yeah, not to hijack the thread, but I REALLY wanted to like the IIC+...really a lot. It just sounded horrible to me. I certainly didn't expect it to do anything tone-wise that it wasn't...I liked the Triaxis settings (on IIC+ mode) a lot and when I played the real McCoy I thought, hell...the Triaxis and Mark V are trying to be this thing...the real deal should blow them away...but it really didn't. I'm sure somebody is going to crucify me for overturning the sacred golden calf of all Mesa's but it was REALLY BAD sounding. I know it wan't my guitar, or the cabs I ran it through... I guess I was expecting it to float over my head and serve me tea or something and share it's thoughts on enlightenment... lol but it just sorta burped at me.

Back to the Rockmaster... all the crap I talked about it was after I fell out of love with it. There was a time that I really thought it sounded good,..but our tastes develope as we change what we want out of our gear. I am not really a recto snob at all, just out grew the rock master I guess.

For what it's worth, when I owned a Studio Pre paired with a Mesa50/50, honestly that rig was, to me, what I wanted a Mark IIC+ to be. I definitely expected the IIC+ to do what that rig was doing for me so I suppose I had that type of tone in my head. When I listen back on my recordings of that rig (Studio Pre & a 50/50) I still think the tones I made where very good. So if your after a Rockmaster and like the Triaxis/Mark V IIC+ settings, you may want to look into a Studio Pre. It sounds as though we may have similar tastes in the gain department. I also really dug the Mark V's IV settings as well, like more then an actual Mark IV. I know thats weird but it sounded more refined on the V.

Hope that wasn't too confusing... and good luck man.

p.s. I boosted my Triaxis rig with an Exotic BBPre pedal, and I agree, it makes it sound really good. Weird... you don't by chance happen to be Puerto Rican? lol

Do not compare the Rockmaster with triaxis.

It is like to compare a Ferrari with any oher car.

I agree with the comments on the eq'ing of the RM. There was always something to be desired. I tried a boss ge7 and also a 31 band (roland iirc) but neither did the trick. I would just get lost trying to fix what couldn't be fixed. I gave up on the external eq's and realized that to using its (active) tone controls got the best results, for what it's worth.

I have 2 of them since the first one I got had endless channel switching and volume issues. I'm pretty sure it's a design flaw because the 2nd one I bought started having the same problems after about a year of use. I would have to repeatedly plug/unplug the footswitch jack until things worked. It would be around 1/4 volume until it decided to work right.

It's a real bummer that they didn't work harder on its tone and design. It has a ton of tight and usable gain, but the tone and technical issues just make it a nightmare.

I bought the Rockmaster and it's definitely everything I was expecting. Nothing going wrong with it yet, but all of this input is all very interesting. My affinity to the Peavey Rockmaster is that it was the first tube preamp that I ever had the opportunity to own (along with a Peavey 50/50 power amp and two Jackson 4x12 cabinets). It's not that I'm comparing it to a Triaxis (I own 2 of those and love them dearly), it's more about owning it for nostalgia's sake (much like owning a Marshall Valvestate). I just don't want to buy it and hate it. I would like to integrate it with my current rig if I can. It's definitely a one trick pony.

MesaGod666 said:

I bought the Rockmaster and it's definitely everything I was expecting. Nothing going wrong with it yet, but all of this input is all very interesting. My affinity to the Peavey Rockmaster is that it was the first tube preamp that I ever had the opportunity to own (along with a Peavey 50/50 power amp and two Jackson 4x12 cabinets). It's not that I'm comparing it to a Triaxis (I own 2 of those and love them dearly), it's more about owning it for nostalgia's sake (much like owning a Marshall Valvestate). I just don't want to buy it and hate it. I would like to integrate it with my current rig if I can. It's definitely a one trick pony.

Click to expand...

Wait, so you have nostalgia for a preamp that you had the opportunity to own, but never did?

I'm not grasping this, dude.