W/D/W Using The FX-Loop Vs. A "Line Out Box"?
Moderators: pompeiisneaks, Colossal
-
DarthTangYang
- Posts: 23
- Joined: Sun Jan 22, 2023 8:41 pm
Re: W/D/W Using The FX-Loop Vs. A "Line Out Box"?
Ok, so, hmm. But I only see one amp in the diagram, the Marshall Plexi Super Lead. Plus the H & H Power Amp at the end.
And what is that "Ohmite VARIAC" thing, and the "Dummy Load"? What do they do?
And what is that "Ohmite VARIAC" thing, and the "Dummy Load"? What do they do?
- Reeltarded
- Posts: 10189
- Joined: Sat Feb 14, 2009 4:38 am
- Location: GA USA
Re: W/D/W Using The FX-Loop Vs. A "Line Out Box"?
Imagine other amps with other loads plugged into the mixer.
The dummy is the load instead of speakers because tube amps must have a correct load or die in fire. There would be a jack providing a line level output from that to the mixer.
A fully featured audio mixer has controls on each channel for 2 or more aux sends. These sends represent the inputs of effects units. There are sets of aux returns or the outputs of the devices can be routed back through unused channels. On early Bradshaw rigs, Roland 8 to 12 channel mixers were pretty much the standard thing for multi-amp setups. 3 auxes were not enough so a second mixer is used for splitting sends and routing all non-global effects.
Global effects refers to system global, like a master eq, a shared delay or an end of mix reverb.
CAE is Bob Bradshaw. You can look at 100s of custom setups made specifically for touring artists since the 80s. Skip Joe Perry's newest rig. Just because you can do a thing never means you should..
.. like, I own a banjo. I choose not to play it. That is the punchline to the joke, "What is the difference between an asshole and a gentleman?".
The dummy is the load instead of speakers because tube amps must have a correct load or die in fire. There would be a jack providing a line level output from that to the mixer.
A fully featured audio mixer has controls on each channel for 2 or more aux sends. These sends represent the inputs of effects units. There are sets of aux returns or the outputs of the devices can be routed back through unused channels. On early Bradshaw rigs, Roland 8 to 12 channel mixers were pretty much the standard thing for multi-amp setups. 3 auxes were not enough so a second mixer is used for splitting sends and routing all non-global effects.
Global effects refers to system global, like a master eq, a shared delay or an end of mix reverb.
CAE is Bob Bradshaw. You can look at 100s of custom setups made specifically for touring artists since the 80s. Skip Joe Perry's newest rig. Just because you can do a thing never means you should..
.. like, I own a banjo. I choose not to play it. That is the punchline to the joke, "What is the difference between an asshole and a gentleman?".
Signatures have a 255 character limit that I could abuse, but I am not Cecil B. DeMille.
-
DarthTangYang
- Posts: 23
- Joined: Sun Jan 22, 2023 8:41 pm
Re: W/D/W Using The FX-Loop Vs. A "Line Out Box"?
Ok, so if all effects are in all 3 Amps then why use 3 amps? Or are the mix of wet and dry different in all 3?
Re: W/D/W Using The FX-Loop Vs. A "Line Out Box"?
The fx aren’t in all 3 amps. The Marshall is dry, no delays or detunes etc, just generates awesome tones. Into a dummy load with a line out.
That line out signal feeds the fx, and a stereo wet dry mix is created, either in a dedicated stand alone mixer, or in the built in wet dry mixers in the fx units.
That feeds the HH stereo power amp, which powers the speaker cabs.
A dummy load is used because a cranked Marshall through a cab generates devastating sound pressure levels that the sound guy can’t control.
A variac is used to lower the mains voltage fed to the Marshall, which helps to create the brown sound, reduce its power output a bit, and to reduce the stress on the valves, perhaps helping them to last longer.
That line out signal feeds the fx, and a stereo wet dry mix is created, either in a dedicated stand alone mixer, or in the built in wet dry mixers in the fx units.
That feeds the HH stereo power amp, which powers the speaker cabs.
A dummy load is used because a cranked Marshall through a cab generates devastating sound pressure levels that the sound guy can’t control.
A variac is used to lower the mains voltage fed to the Marshall, which helps to create the brown sound, reduce its power output a bit, and to reduce the stress on the valves, perhaps helping them to last longer.
https://www.justgiving.com/page/5-in-5-for-charlie This is my step son and his family. He is running 5 marathons in 5 days to support the research into STXBP1, the genetic condition my grandson Charlie has. Please consider supporting him!
-
DarthTangYang
- Posts: 23
- Joined: Sun Jan 22, 2023 8:41 pm
Re: W/D/W Using The FX-Loop Vs. A "Line Out Box"?
Ok, but Reeltarded said a few posts up:
I'm slightly confused here. Are you two talking about two different types of setups? And if so, what's the main difference?Reeltarded wrote: ↑Mon Feb 06, 2023 8:10 pmYes, all three amps have access to delays, modulation, and reverbs because of the auxes provided by a mixer. This is how a Bradshaw rig works.
- Reeltarded
- Posts: 10189
- Joined: Sat Feb 14, 2009 4:38 am
- Location: GA USA
Re: W/D/W Using The FX-Loop Vs. A "Line Out Box"?
1 amp setup vs channelized 3 amp setup. None of these amps drives any speaker.
Marshall-loadbox-effects stack-solidstate power amp-speaker cabinets
The difference between setups is an ABY switching rig on the floor to pick amplifier inputs and a mixer where the amplifiers are represented as channels. Just like if everyone in a 4 piece band sang. There would be 4 microphone inputs at a mixer. There are three guitar channels in my local mixer. There are two output channels. The amps are panned right down the middle and the effects are hard-panned L R because they are stereo delay and reverb.
The amplifiers do not drive speakers. The solidstate amp after the effects stack (or mixer) drives the speakers.
The only device my guitar amps plug into is: https://www.palmer-germany.com/en/produ ... -04?c=2141
I hardwire the left side closed and use only the middle output. It isn't effected (or afflicted) by speaker 'simulation'.
Marshall-loadbox-effects stack-solidstate power amp-speaker cabinets
The difference between setups is an ABY switching rig on the floor to pick amplifier inputs and a mixer where the amplifiers are represented as channels. Just like if everyone in a 4 piece band sang. There would be 4 microphone inputs at a mixer. There are three guitar channels in my local mixer. There are two output channels. The amps are panned right down the middle and the effects are hard-panned L R because they are stereo delay and reverb.
The amplifiers do not drive speakers. The solidstate amp after the effects stack (or mixer) drives the speakers.
The only device my guitar amps plug into is: https://www.palmer-germany.com/en/produ ... -04?c=2141
I hardwire the left side closed and use only the middle output. It isn't effected (or afflicted) by speaker 'simulation'.
Signatures have a 255 character limit that I could abuse, but I am not Cecil B. DeMille.
-
DarthTangYang
- Posts: 23
- Joined: Sun Jan 22, 2023 8:41 pm
Re: W/D/W Using The FX-Loop Vs. A "Line Out Box"?
Ok, so I managed to find the episode where Dan & Mick adress the whole "proper W/D/W" vs their own version which they call "TPS W/D/W".
First they demonstrate the "proper" way to do it and at 10:20 Dan talks briefly about the possibility of running the signal out through the Speaker Out into some form of Line Out Box (like some of you have suggested here) and splitting the signal there, but the way they do it here (which according to Dan is the most common way to do it) is by splitting the signal in the FX-Loop, just like I had planned to do.
First they demonstrate the "proper" way to do it and at 10:20 Dan talks briefly about the possibility of running the signal out through the Speaker Out into some form of Line Out Box (like some of you have suggested here) and splitting the signal there, but the way they do it here (which according to Dan is the most common way to do it) is by splitting the signal in the FX-Loop, just like I had planned to do.
-
pdf64
- Posts: 2932
- Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2011 9:23 pm
- Location: Staffordshire, UK
- Contact:
2 others liked this
Re: W/D/W Using The FX-Loop Vs. A "Line Out Box"?
Using an fx loop will certainly work, no one’s saying it won’t.
But if your dry amp power amp is adding to the tone more than negligibly (eg presence control at a non minimum setting) the signal at the fx send won’t be the full picture.
But if your dry amp power amp is adding to the tone more than negligibly (eg presence control at a non minimum setting) the signal at the fx send won’t be the full picture.
https://www.justgiving.com/page/5-in-5-for-charlie This is my step son and his family. He is running 5 marathons in 5 days to support the research into STXBP1, the genetic condition my grandson Charlie has. Please consider supporting him!
-
DarthTangYang
- Posts: 23
- Joined: Sun Jan 22, 2023 8:41 pm
Re: W/D/W Using The FX-Loop Vs. A "Line Out Box"?
Yes, I've asked around and there seem to be quite a number of people who claim Line Out is the way to go with this so that's what I think I'll do. However, the "Suhr Line Out Box" which seem to be the one most people recommends is out of stock in the 3 places here in Europe that I know sell it. One of those places is Thomann (Germany) and they say it will be back in stock in about 5 months
So, does anyone know of a Line Out Box more readily available here in Europe (preferably within the EU) with the same features as the Suhr?
- Reeltarded
- Posts: 10189
- Joined: Sat Feb 14, 2009 4:38 am
- Location: GA USA
Re: W/D/W Using The FX-Loop Vs. A "Line Out Box"?
here is a Cameron Atomica in stereo with a Rockcrusher as load
Signatures have a 255 character limit that I could abuse, but I am not Cecil B. DeMille.
-
DarthTangYang
- Posts: 23
- Joined: Sun Jan 22, 2023 8:41 pm
Re: W/D/W Using The FX-Loop Vs. A "Line Out Box"?
But isn't a Load Box something you use if you're not going to hook up the amp to a speaker cabinet? I do have a cabinet... And I plan to use it... I need something that will split the signal after the Speaker Output bringing one of those signals to Line Level so that I can run it back to my pedalbord and through my wet effects. While the other signal goes straight through to my 2X12 cab. Something like the Suhr Iso Line Out Box.Reeltarded wrote: ↑Sat Feb 18, 2023 3:51 am here is a Cameron Atomica in stereo with a Rockcrusher as load
Besides, that thing costs a small fortune
- Reeltarded
- Posts: 10189
- Joined: Sat Feb 14, 2009 4:38 am
- Location: GA USA
Re: W/D/W Using The FX-Loop Vs. A "Line Out Box"?
Blocked. Good luck.
Signatures have a 255 character limit that I could abuse, but I am not Cecil B. DeMille.
-
DarthTangYang
- Posts: 23
- Joined: Sun Jan 22, 2023 8:41 pm
Re: W/D/W Using The FX-Loop Vs. A "Line Out Box"?
Damn, what's wrong with this guy? He's got some serious issues 
Re: W/D/W Using The FX-Loop Vs. A "Line Out Box"?
Build one yourself, it‘s only a pot and a resistor
Re: W/D/W Using The FX-Loop Vs. A "Line Out Box"?
And a signal transformer, to break earth loop hum between different items of mains powered (and earthed) equipment.
https://www.justgiving.com/page/5-in-5-for-charlie This is my step son and his family. He is running 5 marathons in 5 days to support the research into STXBP1, the genetic condition my grandson Charlie has. Please consider supporting him!