banner

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Help me built an EVH style Wet/Dry/Wet rig (with what I have)

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by dystrust View Post

    The effects in the OP's diagram aren't direct from the preamp. The OP's signal is split after the preamp with the dry portion going through the Splawn's power section. The wet portion is routed through an effects procesor set 100% wet which is then routed through the Mesa 2:90 and pair of guitar cabs. In terms of overall sound it isn't any more harsh than an effects loop, and it actually sounds quite similar to that in practice. The downside is that the effects are colored by the tube power amp and guitar speakers, so they aren't as clear as the post mic / IR rig.
    This was the part that didn't make sense. I assumed that the wet signal was being played through a FRFR system, not routed through another guitar amp and speaker cab.

    This whole thing is much easier to accomplish with PA speakers and IRs for the wet effects. I'm assuming that a rig like this pre dates IRs and self powered PA speakers. Its not clear if there would be any advantage to running wet effects through another stereo guitar rig? I'm assuming they did it this way because that's what they had.

    I could set this up in about 15 minutes in my home studio using my MFX processor and 8" reference monitors set aside my amp. Just run out-1 to my guitar amp (pre effects), and out-2 (with effects and IR) to my monitors.

    I'm left wondering... why? Separating the effects from the main amp signal could offer more punch as the guitar speakers aren't reproducing the effects. And this would only be an advantage at louder volumes. But the downside is that you would lose the directional aspect of a guitar cab that makes it sound like an instrument.

    A creation like this has to be for the 80s touring guitarist who already had everything and is bored and experimenting with ways to improve sound.


    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by Top-L View Post

      This was the part that didn't make sense. I assumed that the wet signal was being played through a FRFR system, not routed through another guitar amp and speaker cab.

      This whole thing is much easier to accomplish with PA speakers and IRs for the wet effects. I'm assuming that a rig like this pre dates IRs and self powered PA speakers. Its not clear if there would be any advantage to running wet effects through another stereo guitar rig? I'm assuming they did it this way because that's what they had.

      I could set this up in about 15 minutes in my home studio using my MFX processor and 8" reference monitors set aside my amp. Just run out-1 to my guitar amp (pre effects), and out-2 (with effects and IR) to my monitors.

      I'm left wondering... why? Separating the effects from the main amp signal could offer more punch as the guitar speakers aren't reproducing the effects. And this would only be an advantage at louder volumes. But the downside is that you would lose the directional aspect of a guitar cab that makes it sound like an instrument.

      A creation like this has to be for the 80s touring guitarist who already had everything and is bored and experimenting with ways to improve sound.

      The way I see it, it’s a way to make a stereo sound even bigger and to keep the main dry guitar clean and punchy. Can I ask why you are concerned with running through a guitar amp and cabs instead of a PA? I don’t think I’d want it to be a PA style, I’d want it to sound like three guitar amps, and potentially have the option to roll some dry guitar in the outside cabs depending on how it all goes.

      It’s something I could never dream of building but I realized my 25 years of gear buying has made it possible I think…
      Oh no.....


      Oh Yeah!

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by Top-L View Post

        This was the part that didn't make sense. I assumed that the wet signal was being played through a FRFR system, not routed through another guitar amp and speaker cab.

        This whole thing is much easier to accomplish with PA speakers and IRs for the wet effects. I'm assuming that a rig like this pre dates IRs and self powered PA speakers. Its not clear if there would be any advantage to running wet effects through another stereo guitar rig? I'm assuming they did it this way because that's what they had.

        I could set this up in about 15 minutes in my home studio using my MFX processor and 8" reference monitors set aside my amp. Just run out-1 to my guitar amp (pre effects), and out-2 (with effects and IR) to my monitors.

        I'm left wondering... why? Separating the effects from the main amp signal could offer more punch as the guitar speakers aren't reproducing the effects. And this would only be an advantage at louder volumes. But the downside is that you would lose the directional aspect of a guitar cab that makes it sound like an instrument.

        A creation like this has to be for the 80s touring guitarist who already had everything and is bored and experimenting with ways to improve sound.

        A rig like this separates the effects for pretty much the opposite reason. We all love the way guitar speakers color the sound of our amp, but they tend to be too colored for most other sources. This rig was invented in order to not color the sounds of effects; especially reverbs and delays. The resulting sound is the closest thing I've heard to a recorded sound that you can actually play in a live context outside of a sophisticated modeler that allows you to essentially build the same rig inside the box.
        Originally posted by crusty philtrum
        And that's probably because most people with electric guitars seem more interested in their own performance rather than the effect on the listener ... in fact i don't think many people who own electric guitars even give a poop about the effect on a listener. Which is why many people play electric guitars but very very few of them are actually musicians.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by PFDarkside View Post
          The rig you are describing is the standard Bradshaw rig that many artists used and was solidified after the early experiments. I think it all started from Landeau needing to get the post recording effects into his live tone, and that started with a mic’ed cab, an outboard rack and PA type amplification. I think Bradshaw or someone in that camp developed the load box that allowed a line level signal to be taken off from the speaker signal, which was fed into the rack gear (and that’s what Ed did). This was for vintage, non loop Marshalls and Fenders. I think he also modded Landeau’s deluxe tickets include an early version of an effects send to avoid the need to mic. The final incarnation was your description with the separate preamp, rack units and lower amps.
          It's entirely possible that I have the timeline all kinds of messed up; my brother was always more into that history than I've been. My first introduction to rack gear was when I learned that Metallica and Megadeth were using that type of rig in the 90s. Next thing you know I found an ADA MP-1 and Marshall 9005 power amp for cheap and fell in love with instant one-button patch changes. Unfortunately it couldn't hold a candle to my Marshall Jubilee in terms of tone, so the cycle started whereby I was always looking for a rig that sounded as good as the 2555 with that sort of switching functionality. It only took about 20 years to find

          Originally posted by PFDarkside View Post
          From an Ed standpoint, my understanding is that the Balance era was the final step in that process, going Wet/Dry/Wet, partially because it keeps that dry center tone for clarity and in case any of the rack stuff went down mid show. For recorded tones he probably just had stereo.

          Maybe it is an arms race? I was all-in two years ago until you all said “figure out how much that thing is going to weigh”. It came in a 150lbs. so that’s where it stopped. Right now it’s the Furman, TriAxis, Rack Wah, G-Major and 2:90 and is quite heavy. (Also a reason that it’s staying right here at home). Finally, I currently own everything above except the ISO box, which I think should be $50-$100, not so bad. Also hence the lack of matching cabs anywhere.

          I’d love a Mastermind! But if I’m not gigging it’s just as easy to stomp on things when needed, and if absolutely necessary do a second SKB with the GCX and effect shelves.
          I know the struggle. I helped my brother build a rack rig around a Mesa Studio Preamp and Simul 395 in 2008/2009 with a 10U Mesa shock rack. The thing ended up being so heavy that we had to split the power amp out into its own 4U case. That helped a lot, but it was still a beast to move. We built the wet/dry/wet rig I referenced earlier from elements of that rack and some of my gear for a fun experiment in the summer of 2009.

          Originally posted by PFDarkside View Post
          Thanks for making that reply.

          It seems like I’m on track. I’m good with it being guitar amps/cabs now. Maybe a power level iso box after the Splawn power amp would be better to get the flavor, the 2:90 is very neutral (and powerful).
          They're more expensive, but I can't recommend a reactive load highly enough. It'll let you split the signal like this, record 100% silently, or even run to FOH without a mic if you have some sort of IR solution. I haven't pulled the trigger yet, but I'm planning to add a BOSS IR-200 to my Torpedo Captor for live use or zero-latency monitoring. I like that the IR-200 can be run dual-mono, so I can put an IR on one output for monitoring but also run one channel without an IR for changing the cab in the box later.​

          Originally posted by PFDarkside View Post
          In terms of effects I think what I’ll end up with is:
          Center: Dry
          Left: -9cents & ~400ms delay
          Right: +9cents & ~800ms delay

          I’m not sure if I’ll have phasing issues due to the digital conversion in the G-Major. With just the delays it would be fine. I guess if I tear everything apart and rebuild like this we’ll find out!
          The detune and delay values feel very VanHagar-ish, and they'll probably sound huge as a lead patch though I'd expect it to turn into a jumbled mess for just about anything else. I've never been a huge EVH fan, so it's possible that I'm completely wrong about that too

          I'm running through an effects loop, but my lead patch on the G-Major 2 is bit of room reverb in semi-parallel routing with dynamic delay at ~300ms set for maybe 2-3 repeats IIRC.
          Originally posted by crusty philtrum
          And that's probably because most people with electric guitars seem more interested in their own performance rather than the effect on the listener ... in fact i don't think many people who own electric guitars even give a poop about the effect on a listener. Which is why many people play electric guitars but very very few of them are actually musicians.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by PFDarkside View Post
            The way I see it, it’s a way to make a stereo sound even bigger and to keep the main dry guitar clean and punchy. Can I ask why you are concerned with running through a guitar amp and cabs instead of a PA? I don’t think I’d want it to be a PA style, I’d want it to sound like three guitar amps, and potentially have the option to roll some dry guitar in the outside cabs depending on how it all goes.

            It’s something I could never dream of building but I realized my 25 years of gear buying has made it possible I think…
            PA gives alot more flexibility.

            If its an at-home rig, you could use the PA system to also play backing tracks. If its for small shows, you could use the PA for vocals.

            If you want a completely different sound for a song, the PA could be used for the dry signal w/ IR and disable the main cab.

            Doing it with a PA gives several advantages. The only advantage of doing it with guitar cabs is to theoretically give more punch.

            When you set this up, you are going to have to determine if the advantage is from the wet/dry/wet setup, or just because there is more wattage.

            Also, I think if you already have two guitar cabs, and two amps, you already have what you need to take advantage of stereo spread. I just don't see this being worth anything.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by PFDarkside View Post

              I do have a Mobius. (And a timeline)

              Forum bro SFW shared these with me a while back. I wasn’t looking for that VH tone but on my experimenting I noticed that if I turned the mix up it really got close to it.
              Play around with these and see what you can come up with.

              Comment


              • #22
                Using a W/D/W rig is simply like bring the studio to a live show.

                In the studio/DAW, you typically pipe the dry guitar track out to another buss track with reverb, delay, Eventide, etc... then blend with fader.

                If I were doing W/D/W, this would be how (note: no need for amp FX loop when doing this):

                guitar
                |
                stomps before amp
                |
                amp
                | (amp speaker out)
                Suhr ISO Line Out -> dry speaker cab
                | (Suhr ISO Line Out line out)
                Stereo FX (rack or stomp; chorus, reverb, delay, Eventide, etc)
                | |
                Stereo power amp
                | |
                L R wet speaker cabs

                You don't need a mixer at all; that's overkill
                My SoundCloud
                Rig Talk FoS Forum
                My YouTube

                "More contributors, less hacks"

                Comment


                • #23
                  It's that simple.
                  My SoundCloud
                  Rig Talk FoS Forum
                  My YouTube

                  "More contributors, less hacks"

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by LLL View Post
                    Using a W/D/W rig is simply like bring the studio to a live show.

                    In the studio/DAW, you typically pipe the dry guitar track out to another buss track with reverb, delay, Eventide, etc... then blend with fader.

                    If I were doing W/D/W, this would be how (note: no need for amp FX loop when doing this):

                    guitar
                    |
                    stomps before amp
                    |
                    amp
                    | (amp speaker out)
                    Suhr ISO Line Out -> dry speaker cab
                    | (Suhr ISO Line Out line out)
                    Stereo FX (rack or stomp; chorus, reverb, delay, Eventide, etc)
                    | |
                    Stereo power amp
                    | |
                    L R wet speaker cabs

                    You don't need a mixer at all; that's overkill
                    So basically the only difference between what I posted and your proposal is to swap from Suhr Buffer to Suhr Iso Out and move it from effects loop to post Poweramp, right?
                    Oh no.....


                    Oh Yeah!

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by PFDarkside View Post

                      So basically the only difference between what I posted and your proposal is to swap from Suhr Buffer to Suhr Iso Out and move it from effects loop to post Poweramp, right?
                      Roughly, I suppose.

                      I looked at your diagram and it didn't quite make sense with the lines... nor the "returning the signal to the Splawn" statement.

                      I don't know how the Splawn is configured as far as the FX loop goes, but you're guaranteed the full monty of preamp, phase inverter and power amp tubes in the signal going out - if you use a Line Out box (like the Suhr), for the obvious reason that you'd use a Speaker Out jack into the given Line Out box.

                      You simply need to tap a line out signal from your amp - use a Line Out Box (from your amp Speaker Output) that provides a Line Out plus a Speaker Out (to go to your dry cab)
                      My SoundCloud
                      Rig Talk FoS Forum
                      My YouTube

                      "More contributors, less hacks"

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by LLL View Post

                        Roughly, I suppose.

                        I looked at your diagram and it didn't quite make sense with the lines... nor the "returning the signal to the Splawn" statement.

                        I don't know how the Splawn is configured as far as the FX loop goes, but you're guaranteed the full monty of preamp, phase inverter and power amp tubes in the signal going out - if you use a Line Out box (like the Suhr), for the obvious reason that you'd use a Speaker Out jack into the given Line Out box.

                        You simply need to tap a line out signal from your amp - use a Line Out Box (from your amp Speaker Output) that provides a Line Out plus a Speaker Out (to go to your dry cab)
                        I use the Two Notes Torpedo Captor for something similar in my rig; though I'm recording the line out signal. The differences are that I run my effects through my amp's loop because I'm going for a slightly more lo-fi sound, and I can safely unplug the speaker cabinet for silent recording.
                        Originally posted by crusty philtrum
                        And that's probably because most people with electric guitars seem more interested in their own performance rather than the effect on the listener ... in fact i don't think many people who own electric guitars even give a poop about the effect on a listener. Which is why many people play electric guitars but very very few of them are actually musicians.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by LLL View Post

                          Roughly, I suppose.

                          I looked at your diagram and it didn't quite make sense with the lines... nor the "returning the signal to the Splawn" statement.

                          I don't know how the Splawn is configured as far as the FX loop goes, but you're guaranteed the full monty of preamp, phase inverter and power amp tubes in the signal going out - if you use a Line Out box (like the Suhr), for the obvious reason that you'd use a Speaker Out jack into the given Line Out box.

                          You simply need to tap a line out signal from your amp - use a Line Out Box (from your amp Speaker Output) that provides a Line Out plus a Speaker Out (to go to your dry cab)
                          Behringer Ultra G does the same thing, and the cab sim is surprisingly good if not disabled.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            To me the idea of having delay and mod at the beginning defeats the idea of wet-dry-wet as the FX will get propagated on all 3 speakers, but I am sure that is gonna be a huge sound anyway.
                            Who took my guitar?

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by IMENATOR View Post
                              To me the idea of having delay and mod at the beginning defeats the idea of wet-dry-wet as the FX will get propagated on all 3 speakers, but I am sure that is gonna be a huge sound anyway.
                              The stomps serve to replicate the earlier 70’s type sounds straight in (I prefer phaser and flanger in front of the amp, then Echoplex for a Slapback) then the rack/wet tone would be reverb, more broad digital delay, detune, chorus, etc. That’s the theory anyway.

                              In my smaller, all pedal setup I go Wah, Fuzz, compression, Univibe, phase and flanger ahead of the distortion, then delay after. We’ll see and pedal chains are flexible.
                              Oh no.....


                              Oh Yeah!

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X