In search for good tone-high gain: studio pre or other?

[j4q0]

So I am probably asking one question that has been asked before but the thing is that I just recently acquired a Studio pre and although it sounds very nice, the fact that I can't have a nice singing lead at the same time as a nice clean is a bit annoying.
I've followed suggestions about how to dial the rotary eqs and and graphic eq and I've got a very nice lead and high gain sound, though I would still want it to be tighter in the low end.

As if I hadn't spent enough money already (anyone said GAS?), I just found a MKIII head (purple stirpe) and a Quad around the neighbourhood (well one is a bit far so I can't really go and try it)

So my questions:
1. Is it worth it to mod the studio pre to the MKII C+?
2. Is it a better alternative to get the Quad or the MKIII for that matter? As I know the MKIII is more aggressive sounding than the Studio Pre or the MKIIC+

3. Am I better of just getting a MKV and forget about rack gear? Thugh I like my replifex nd my g-major.

 

[JMMP]

So I am probably asking one question that has been asked before but the thing is that I just recently acquired a Studio pre and although it sounds very nice, the fact that I can't have a nice singing lead at the same time as a nice clean is a bit annoying.
I've followed suggestions about how to dial the rotary eqs and and graphic eq and I've got a very nice lead and high gain sound, though I would still want it to be tighter in the low end.

As if I hadn't spent enough money already (anyone said GAS?), I just found a MKIII head (purple stirpe) and a Quad around the neighbourhood (well one is a bit far so I can't really go and try it)

So my questions:
1. Is it worth it to mod the studio pre to the MKII C+?
2. Is it a better alternative to get the Quad or the MKIII for that matter? As I know the MKIII is more aggressive sounding than the Studio Pre or the MKIIC+

3. Am I better of just getting a MKV and forget about rack gear? Thugh I like my replifex nd my g-major.

1) I do not have an answer, as I have no experience.

2) Based on what you have (studio pre, 50/50, 20/20?) I would say adding the quad could be fun, but a huge space requirement. If you bought a mark 3 (simul class? 60/100? 60) and can rack mount it, combined with the studio pre, you have a great rig that the clean can be what you want, and get the high gain from the studio pre, plus keep your effects, and sell your power amps.

3) A mark v could be better for you, and you can keep the rack effects. But I would only do that if you can try out the mark v before buying.

 

[r_cod_81]

To keep a studio pre tight in the low end withch the lead fat ON and keep the lead bright OFF

What are your mid and bass settings? I set them at 3 at the absolute highest, especially w.r.t the bass.

What are your graphic EQ settings? The bass control (80Hz) is much tighter here due to the EQ placement in the signal chain and is thus the best place to add bass.

Caveat - I have no idea whether my Pre has he IIC+ mod, I have the gain on 10 and it's just fine.

 

[j4q0]

JMMP,
Thanks for the comments. Indeed the quad takes a lot of real estate on the rack, which I was trying to keep small and light. Though between carrying a 6 space rack with the 50/50+quad+fx would be pretty much the same as carrying a MKV head.

If I got the MKIII I would sell the Studio Pre, for the same reason that I'm trying to keep things light and relatively small, so the cleans and OD/highgain and leads would come from the MKIII. The one I found is a 60/100 purple stripe version.

r_cod:
I do have the leaf fat on but as a matter of fact I do like it better with the bright on, this give me a bit more bite.
As for the mid and bass, I have them both on 2.5-3 at max. The 80hz slider is the one that I boost to bring back the low end.

So I think I'm actually treating the Studio Pre as I should for high gain, though it seems that I'm looking for something more that it can't really give me, thus my interest in the MKIII, the Quad or the MKV.

Hope I can try my findings this weekend.

 

[JMMP]

The mark III will have the same problem as your studio pre, but worse, as it is shared eq for 3 channels. A quad will give you a clean channel, and a usable crunch channel that shares tone controls with the lead channel (mark III side). And I can personally attest that quads sound amazing. If it is a non-midi quad, make sure it has a foot switch though, as a non midi quad will require a switching system.

 

[j4q0]

JMMP,
Thanks for the advice. I was just thinking that about the shared controls on the MKIII, and since I already have the 50/50 perhaps it makes more sense to try the Quad as opposed to a head, just like you mentioned in your earlier post.
Good thing about the one I found is that it comes with the footswitch, I haven't gotten an answer about if it's midi or not, which would be a huge plus.

So question here, what would be a fair price for one of these preamps? I just saw one on ebay going for about $750 but it's the only one I've seen for sale and I know these prices have been going up and down lately so perhaps that was a fluke of a high paid price.
Also, is it a 3 or 4 RU?

 

[JMMP]

Some say the non midi version sounds better. There is definitely a reverb difference, as non midi versions have 2 tanks, and midi versions only have one. I would pay 750$ if I really wanted one, and it is mint. As you said, prices fluctuate, but local sales tend to be very reasonable, maybe low 500s. eBay will have them from 500 to 1100 (I watched one go for that high). It is 3ru if you take the rubber feet off the bottom. Weighs about 23 lbs (IIRC), and is roughly as deep as a 20/20.

Edit: Perhaps search dbone's posts for differences between two quad revisions. I am unsure of how many there were, but he has written some posts about it. One of his rigs consists of two quads, a racto, and a simul power amp.

 

[j4q0]

So got the pics and details of the Quad.
Non midi version with the FU-2 footswitch included, missing a knob and the eq face has some silly scratches. So not really mint. The footswitch looks heavily used too. $600+ship is a good deal?

Also, I look into dbone's postings about the quad and found that you also had a problem with the quad getting a nice clean and a singing lead. May I inquire how did you come around that? As that is also my dilema.

 

[dbone]

Ok take a deep breath and take this all in.
I wouldn't change a thing until you answer a few questions for yourself.
So you have a studio which is basically the upper half of the quad preamp.
This studio is basically is very close to the the Mark IIC+ circutry but you also have the same problems everyone else has because you can't get super high gain tones matched with awesome pristine clean tones at the same time because the channel shares a common input gain circut "volume" input that defines the responce and gain and honestly when they designed it I don't think they thought this would really be a issue because it had more gain than basically anything out there. It was just a different time.
Ok so I have two quads working together through a mesa amp switcher and a 295 power amp with EL84 and 6L6 tubes through a mesa recto 412. The two dials that make the most difference are the input volume and treble knobs.
Input volume is basically master gain and treble brings it up a notch depending on settings. Treble settings above 5 basically add gain and input volume settings roughly 5 and above start heating things up. Personally I had to add the second quad and the mesa amp switcher just to have the lower gain clean settings be clean.
The quad will give you independent
Mark 2 top clean
Mark 3 bottom distortion

 

[JMMP]

That price could be a little high, could be a bargain. Depends on how many buyers are out there right now looking for one.
My "problem" is that I want the mk 2c+ distortion and the clean at the same time (same problem as you and the studio.) The mk 3 side doesn't sound THAT much different, but 2c+ is what I was set on. But let me be clear: the two sides (top and bottom) are completely independent, and you can get a pristine clean (with its own EQ) and a raw, mark series distortion with its own EQ at the same time with a quad. The mk 3 side may not sing quite as well though.

Edit: I don't know you're exact settings, but try lowering the lead gain knob to around 6. This coupled with high volume and treble should make it more clear and not so muddy on the bottom end.

 

[j4q0]

Thanks once more for your replies.

Dbone,
Absolutely understand your statements and opinions. I'm not into getting a bigger rack, 2 Studio Pre (or Quad for that matter) would be just too much space and weight.
Yesterday I got a nice clean sound along with a singing lead from the studio. I think I like better cleans that are almost at break up instead of pristine cleans.

JMMP
I made a little change and actually I brought both the master and lead master knobs past 5, kept the vol knob at 7 and the treble and lead drive at 7, that helped with the clean and with the overall sound. Not muddy, but not low tight either.
So as of now I know what is it that I'm missing: A tight low end chugging high gain rhythm tone.

I also have an MP1 3TM modded and i have to say that it's pretty close to the Studio and the tight low rhythm tones are well, just tight as it can get; and although it sounds amazing for this application, the singing creamy lead type of the MKIIC+ is not there, and truly it just has no comparison; and that's why I was looking into the Quad and Studio Pre (or even MKV)

So, based on your comments and opinions (and some clips I've heard on line) long with the experience that I've had with the Studio Pre, it seems that I would be able to manage my cleans and leads with the Quad's CH1(aka MKIIC+) and get that tighter rhythm tone from the the CH2 (aka MKIII).

About the price, I'm attaching a pic of the front face so you can see what is the condition of that scratch that i was talking about.
There are basically no buyers for this unit around here as far as I'm concerned, I already negotiated and brought the price down to what I said earlier. Need to check if it has the rack mount ears because if not that i going to be just painful.

What are your thoughts?

 

[JMMP]

I think you can duplicate your settings from the studio to the quad's channel 1, and get a lower (but still gainy) singing lead tone, and whichever clean you like, and get a low-mids filled classic rock gain from the rhythm mark 3 side, and high gain chunk from lead on the mk 3 channel. I can't see the faceplate great, but from what I can see, if that's the only problem with it, it is probably worth the 600$ mine did not come with a foot switch, and I paid nearly that much. Not to mention that my quad's body has some scratches. The metal body is stupid sturdy (I think more sturdy than a boss pedal enclosure) and I have no problem believing it will outlive me.

Ask the seller (if he is nearby) if you can bring your power amp over and play with it some to find out if you like it. The replacement pot and knob is about 10$ parts from mesa, plus shipping, then just unsolder the old part, and resolder the new part (or get a friend to do it). Not a big deal at all if those are the only problems.

 

[j4q0]

Thanks for your comments, that was my thinking too about the settings and the channels.
Unfortunately, the seller is quite far so it's not really a possibility for me to come by and try it.
According to the seller all pots and jacks are working, it's just that knob that is missing.
So I think I'll go for it. It would have just been so good if it was midi switchable.

By the way, I got pricing from my local Mesa dealer for those knobs at $20 each, not cool.

I'll post my impressions bout the Quad when it's sitting in my rack, hopefully within the next couple of weeks.

Thanks again for the comments and suggestions.

 

[JMMP]

An amp gizmo or mini amp gizmo can do the switching for you if midi is a requirement. They make 2 different cables to work with the quad, so be cautious if you go that route. Different versions use different types.

I ordered a pot and a smaller knob (the one I replaced was an output knob) and it was 10$ plus 10$ shipping. So it came out to $20, but the parts were only 10. I guess $20 and 10+10 are the same though if it is just the knob that is missing, that is good, because a push-pull pot would be slightly more difficult to change.

 

[dbone]

I think you are going to have some fun : )
Play around with them and see what works.

 

[Markedman]

I really love my pre, I mean love! Tubes make a difference but not as much as the the amp or guitar you use. I have no problem getting clear cleans and mondo distortion with my pre, but I use it with a two channel amp and I'm always using my volume knob on my guitar.

 

[j4q0]

So I had some time to play around with my newly acquired gear (which left my GAS fund unavailable for a while :mrgreen: )

I have to say that yes, the tubes in these units makes a lot of difference. My fisrt impression of the Quad was that it is much more nicer sounding that the Studio pre and of course it is much more versatile than the latter.
Since I haven't got new tubes yet, I swapped around some pre tubes that I had lying around (and from another unit) and the Studio Pre got that tightness that some people talk about, still not as thumping tight as my MP1 3TM but still very nice sounding.
These preamps are so high quality I'm just amazed. I'm still trying settings and eventually will decide to either keep both pre or use the quad only. My only wish for this t better is if the quad had the midi switching implemented and that the pull deep functions were available in both outputs.

I have a question about the quad: At first glance it feels that the Lead1 has a lot more gain and it is more aggressive than the Lead2, or based on this experience about the tube swap perhaps the tubes on V11 or V13 (channel 2 input and lead respectively) are not quite good.
Does anyone have the same experience?

 

[JMMP]

So I had some time to play around with my newly acquired gear (which left my GAS fund unavailable for a while :mrgreen: )

I have a question about the quad: At first glance it feels that the Lead1 has a lot more gain and it is more aggressive than the Lead2, or based on this experience about the tube swap perhaps the tubes on V11 or V13 (channel 2 input and lead respectively) are not quite good.
Does anyone have the same experience?

Are you sure the pull deep isn't available on both outputs? I have heard of this problem before, but I don't use pull deep, and the few times I have, I never noticed it being on only one output.

My Lead 1 and Lead 2 are very similar sounding. The Lead 1 is thicker sounding and more crunchy, but slightly less gainy compared to Lead 2 at the same settings. My lead 2 is is definitely the more aggressive one, as well as having a little more gain.

 

[j4q0]

Yes I tried the pull deep and the outputs and each of them exclusive to its own output (A-Lead1 / B-Lead2)
There is a post here (but I don't remember right now where it is) where somebody posted a section of the output schematic and it shows the pull deep for each channel going to its output and other people have noticed this too.

I guess the Lead2 is more aggressive as it has some more bite to the sound, and the Lead1 sounds more smooth, yet to get the same amount of OD/dist I have to set the controls of Lead2 higher than Lead1.

May I ask what configuration of tubes are you using on the quad? Maybe I'm missing something. I'm using Mesa russian-2 type on all except for V21 (input of CH1?) where I have a Mesa spax7-a (I believe that's what it is called).

I wish that somebody that owns another quad lived close (or at a fair not too long drive) so I can A/B the units, being a 20+ year old unit there are many things that could potentially be different due to the aging of the components, thought the core of the unit should remain the same I assume.

 

[JMMP]

The tubes in mine are, I believe, original to the unit. Very old tubes with Mesa etched on the glass. Not modern written on it. My lead 2 settings are lower to get the same level of gain as lead 1.