Guitar Effects Processor & tube amp question

[mduke]

I have recently made the transition from solid state to an all tube amp. I purchased a second hand peavey valveking 212 - replaced the stock speakers with celection vintage 30's, tubes were weak, so I put in all new Groove tube gold series (3 12ax7, and 4 6L6GC) and the amp sounds great (far better than with the stock tubes/ speakers). My question(s) is this....

I'm wondering about a what would be the best multi-effects processor to use. will all this digitally processed stuff make me loose that great tube tone? Is it kind of counter-productive to use digital effects with a tube amp (I'm sorry if this question seems stupid - but i am totally new to tube amps). There are some processors with tube pre-amps - is there any benefit to these? Does it make seance for your guitar to go through a pre-amp on your effects board, then go through another pre-amp in your amp? or is it pointless.

Any help here would be great.

Thanks

[dodona]

VOX Tonelab LE.

[Steve Conner]

That's a controversial question. Some people like to use a digital multi-FX unit with a tube amp, others prefer to use only old-fashioned analog stompboxes with true bypass, yet others refuse to put anything between the guitar and the amp.

If you like playing metal, you can set up the amp for a good clean tone, and use the multi-FX to get distortion. But I imagine the Valveking has some pretty decent distortion already.

If you want reverb, delay, etc. it's better to use a processor in your amp's effects loop, than one between the guitar and amp. This is because these effects sound much better after distortion than before, and the effects loop is wired after the dirty channel's distortion circuit.

If your amp has a parallel effects loop then only the wet signal goes through the digital stuff, which is my favourite setup. OK, so actually I prefer spring reverb to digital.

[mduke]

Thanks a lot,

the amp does have an effects loop but I was uncertain exactly how it worked. I play a wide variety of music, from metal, to rock, country, pop, etc....and I find the multi effects super convenient for obtaining many different sounds, especially because my band is a mostly cover band, and we have quite a mixed set.

I also own a line 6 spider III, which is what I've been using for the past several years up until now, but after playing through the valveking, I don't care to play through the line 6 ever again, lol. but I miss the convenience of the Line 6's effects.

To get the rage of sounds i need, the stomp boxes are not very cost effective (which is important for me right now), as I would have to buy many of them.

Have you had any experience with the processors that have tube preamps? or does it not even make a difference since the amp has a preamp of it's own.

Thanks again

Mike

[Mark Hammer]

The tone that people savour tube amps for is a product of many elements, including the tube rectifier, the output transformer, and the power tubes. In the case of multi-FX that sport a "tube", what you're looking at is pre-amp tube tone exclusively, and none of the other aspects that make up a tube amp. Now, in fairness, that may well be the part that you like best, and there's nothing wrong with that. But it is not the whole show.

As for digital multi-FX, we are not a long ways off from it, but we are still not quite there yet when it comes to the organic feel of analog distortion. As far as everything else, goes, though, digital can do a great job, whether its time-based effects or other filter or modulation stuff. the conundrum, though, is that those are the sorts of things you generally want to map onto an already distorted signal, not insert before the signal is distorted. So Steve's suggestion to use a multi-FX unit in the amp's effect loop is eminently sensible. Your distortion sounds can be produced via an analog booster or distortion pedal of some kind in the usual position before the mp, OR you can use the amp's front end to produce the distortion.

[mduke]

Thanks for the reply Mark...I'll get my head around all this stuff one of these days!

I know that with tube processors, we're only looking at preamp tube tone only, but what if that tube processor is then plugged into an all tube amplifier (which is what I want to do)- in your opinion, will it sound better than or more tube like (for total lack of a better term, lol) a solid state amp?

[Chuck H]

Odds are if your looking at a processor that has a tube as part of the preamp that it is in itself a preamp and has multi gain settings and distortion settings available. This sort of processor is intended to go in front of the amp.

There are other processors that don't include distortion settings and most of these are intended to go in an effects loop.

The difference is non obvious but it's as simple as whether or not a processor offers preamp voicings or just effects like reverb, delay, phase shifting, chorus, etc. If a processor offers preamp voicings like individual channel eq and distortion settings then it is probably intended as a preamp more so than an effects unit.

Effects processors go in the effects loop and preamp type units go in front of the amp or use your amp as a "slave" (read on).

If you are using your amps distortion channels then you don't want to run effects into the input because the nuances of reverb, delay, etc. get lost when you distort them. To put it another way, you don't want to distort the reverb, you want to reverberate the distortion (or chorus or whatever). If you are using the distortion properties of a preamp/effects processor (but not the distortion of the amp) then you should run into the input of your amp or "slave" your amp because the processor already has things configured as they should be.

If your processor is set up as a preamp/processor it is also possible to run your guitar into the processor input and run the processor output to your amps effects input. Bypassing your amps "preamp" section all together and using your amp as a "slave" since the processor is already doing the job of preamp. Remember, much of the tube mojo is in the power amp. Most processors with preamp voiceings are set up to run at different output levels to allow you to run into an amps input or effects loop input for this reason.

A few effects processors are set up to run either way. As a preamp/processor or as just an effects processor. This can be confusing but with the info your getting here you should be able to make the distinction. The nice thing about these units is versitility. You can use it as a basic signal processor but then, "OH NO, my amp just shit the bed in the middle of a set"... So you can reconfigure the processor as a preamp/processor, plug into any spare amp or the PA and finish the gig. Just one convenience these types of units can offer.

Now... Tube in the processor vs. no tube? Some processors include a tube partly because of mojo. They are trying to sell you tube tone. Whatever that means to them. But many, if not most of the greatest recordings in rock and pop music were done with a transistorized distortion box into a tube amp. I would say that listening is the best solution. Buy what sounds good.

In the end my highly biased opinion, based on the fact that you play in a band that does a vast array of styles is that a normal effects processor (or one that can be used that way, bypassing any distortion or preamp) in the effects loop would work best for you. If you like the amps distortion sound then use it. If you don't then use the amp on it's "clean" channel and use a distortion box that is to your liking.

Most processors offer a MIDI advance or control. This will allow you to choose the effects arrangement for each song in your set. The amps channel pedal/s or a distortion pedal will allow you to choose the basic tone. Perhaps add a wha pedal to the front end and now you can cover any song on the planet.

JM2C

Chuck

[Alex R]

I have noticed that most of my more experienced guitarist customers have ended up using a clean tube amp with a pedalboard. This may be because of the pressures on a professional guitarist to produce a very wide range of sounds - but whether or not, they seem happy with the setup despite the obvious fact that it's not all-tube. It's also more economical and reliable to keep your tube equipment simple, and add any necessary complexity with solid state add-ons. It's a broad-brush statement I know, but generally when manufacturers try to put lots of channel-switching etc into tube amps, reliability suffers.

[Chuck H]

I'll back that 98%. That is, yes, that's how most average players do it. The 2% caveat being that when you see the best guitar players, maybe your favorites, they aren't using pedal boards. They use some effects in the loop and others on the floor, as it should be depending on the most appropriate location for each type of effect. Sometimes they use multi amp setups. My point is that if you really want to sound good then learn the nature of this gear and how to use it to it's best advantage. If you don't want to learn and mediocre tone is fine because it's good enough and easy to do then what does that say about a players musicianship? It's not that much to learn about in the big picture when you consider the tonal advantage it will return for the rest of a players lifetime.

[Steve Conner]

I have noticed that most of my more experienced guitarist customers have ended up using a clean tube amp with a pedalboard.

Every wedding/covers type band I've ever seen, the guitarist was using some Line6 type digital thing, more often than not plugged straight into the PA. These guys do it for a living and they care more about how much gear they have to cram into their van, and how much it costs, than about that last bit of tone. And they're usually pretty good guitarists.

I imagine any good pedalboard-type processor would have an option to bypass itself completely, so you can have the raw tone of your amp when you want it, but also switch the amp to its clean channel and augment it with effects. That way you can have the best of both worlds. Some of the high-end processors, like the TC Electronic ones, also have relay outputs to take over your amp's channel switching and incorporate it into the patch settings, so you can automate that.

Personally, I'm far from being a working musician, but I've never been in a situation I couldn't blast myself out of with a Strat, a tube amp, a Tube Screamer and a wah-wah pedal. For extra corque sniffing points, the Tube Screamer could be substituted for a germanium Fuzz Face.

[mduke]

Thanks Chuck,

I think you're right about the normal effects board into my loop being the best option for me. And for me the wha pedal goes without saying. My local music store has a great return polocy, so that I can buy a board, and take it home to see if it's what i want - and they give you 30 days to return it, so it's a pretty safe bet.

Some great advice here, I appretiate the effort on your part.

[mduke]

The amount of gear you have to carry is definately imprtant. the last show I played (actually it was a local festival) I had borrowed my buddies Line 6 POD so that I could plug directly into the PA, but the sound guy there insisted on micing my amp instead. He said the outs don't sound as good. It ended up sounding great, but i'm not sure if iw owuld have sounded any less great if i had played through the POD. have you heard of this line out / mic situation before?

[Mark Hammer]

I wouldn't consider what you see high-end players doing as the basis for decision-making in one's own case. Remember that such players have the latitude to define their own tone and play their own material. A pedalboard may enable them to achieve their distinctive sound, and address all their needs for their own material (some of which may well be created using that pedalboard configuration). It is also the case that the "pedalboard" a given pro player has is under the control of a tech at the side of the stage who does all the anticipatory switching remotely, as well as setting up whatever peculiar idiosyncratic combination of stuff in front of the amp, and in the loop, that works for that player.

Not all other guitar players have such decision latitude, or such support. In their case, they may have to be able to cover a very broad range of sounds, and replicate them easily and quickly. In which case, you just know there is going to be a digital multi-effect pedal in there somewhere, because all that real-time toe-tapping isn't going to cut it.

I think it is also fair to say that a high-end player is also more likely to come across the obscure things while touring, whether vintage or contemporary boutique, where the more typical player goes to their local stores and sees all the regular stuff, much of which is one-pedal-many-functions, intended to make a wide array of potential customers happy.

[Chuck H]

I wouldn't consider what you see high-end players doing as the basis for decision-making in one's own case. Remember that such players have the latitude to define their own tone and play their own material.

It doesn't take a crew of people to be in control of your own amplification. To default to a mac 'n cheese pedal board/processor instead of setting up your own sound seems like a compromise to me. To me it's strange that players would use generic, run of the mill gear, 'everybody does this except the pro's so it's good enough for me too' is a cop out. Where's the effort and where's the point??? I guess if all you ever expect from the experience is 'ordinary'.?. I can sit at home and watch other people play guitar too but it's not very satisfying. Just sayin'.

Not all other guitar players have such decision latitude, or such support. In their case, they may have to be able to cover a very broad range of sounds, and replicate them easily and quickly. In which case, you just know there is going to be a digital multi-effect pedal in there somewhere, because all that real-time toe-tapping isn't going to cut it.

Yes, any player can take control of their tone. My nieghbor drives a Dodge for his commute. Can't I drive my Ford? Or even a hotrod I built in my own garage if I choose?

My cover rig is really simple and allows tons of control. I'll admit that I lend my own thing to the parts I play so "MY" tone is more relevant than an excact tonal replica. That should be a goal for any guitar player IMHO. What is music if it's not art???

If a player chooses to be average then he/she will be.

I think it is also fair to say that a high-end player is also more likely to come across the obscure things while touring, whether vintage or contemporary boutique, where the more typical player goes to their local stores and sees all the regular stuff, much of which is one-pedal-many-functions, intended to make a wide array of potential customers happy.

Again, so be average and typical. I think most players have heard and researched to some degree the aspects of tone and how they might get closer to what they want. I don't believe there are hoards of mindless guitar players wandering into Guitar Center saying "make me sound common because that's better than bad and the most I should hope for." No way. Save a little money, buy or even build what you want, learn how to use the tools of the trade and freaking live it.

JM2C

Chuck

[Steve Conner]

learn how to use the tools of the trade and freaking live it.

The point is, those cheesy digital floorboards ARE the tools of the trade. And wedding band guitarists are "living it" probably more than you or I: that is the reality for most professional musicians. The images of musicians in the media aren't reality. They bear the same relation to the average professional musician as you or I do to a lottery winner.

By definition, most people are average, therefore pandering to the mediocre is where most of the money is. The Internet changed that somewhat with the "Long Tail" phenomenon. For example, it brings boutique amp builders in contact with guitarists with OCD and lots of money.

You wouldn't be commuting in that hotrod for long, even in the dream scenario where your commute was dead straight and exactly a quarter mile, with one set of lights at each end.