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

[PFDarkside]

I’ve been listening to a lot of Van Hagar, man Eddie’s tone really got huge. I was thinking, I can probably build a Wet/Dry/Wet rig like he was using with the stuff I have.

Step 1: Use the appropriate pedals, Phase 90, Flanger, Tape Echo and an OD for boost. (Do I need a chorus in front?)
Step 2: Splawn Quickrod does a pretty awesome modded Marshall tone
Step 3: Split the signal in the effects loop, returning the “dry” signal into the Splawn and out to a cabinet
Step 4: Send the buffered, ISO out to the G-Major 2, set to 100% Mix, used for Stereo Detune, Stereo Delay and Stereo Chorus
Step 5: send Stereo output of the G-Major 2 to a Mesa 2:90 and to two cabinets

The only things I don’t own are the buffer box for isolated splitting and some patch cables to get it all wired up.

Am I missing anything?

 

[PFDarkside]

The Center cab is a Mesa Road King, run mono. The stereo cabs are a Victory with Creambacks and a Splawn with their speakers. It might make more sense to use the Splawn as center and the open back side of the Road King as the other stereo cabinet.

 

[Demanic]

I’ve been listening to a lot of Van Hagar, man Eddie’s tone really got huge. I was thinking, I can probably build a Wet/Dry/Wet rig like he was using with the stuff I have.

Step 1: Use the appropriate pedals, Phase 90, Flanger, Tape Echo and an OD for boost. (Do I need a chorus in front?)
Step 2: Splawn Quickrod does a pretty awesome modded Marshall tone
Step 3: Split the signal in the effects loop, returning the “dry” signal into the Splawn and out to a cabinet
Step 4: Send the buffered, ISO out to the G-Major 2, set to 100% Mix, used for Stereo Detune, Stereo Delay and Stereo Chorus
Step 5: send Stereo output of the G-Major 2 to a Mesa 2:90 and to two cabinets

The only things I don’t own are the buffer box for isolated splitting and some patch cables to get it all wired up.

Am I missing anything?

Interesting signal chain. The head powers the dry center cab, while the signal from the loop is split off to power the wet sound. I bet that you wouldn't even actually have to stereo treat the wet sound for it to sound good.

Sent from my SM-A115A using Tapatalk

 

[PFDarkside]

Interesting signal chain. The head powers the dry center cab, while the signal from the loop is split off to power the wet sound. I bet that you wouldn't even actually have to stereo treat the wet sound for it to sound good.

Sent from my SM-A115A using Tapatalk

Right now it’s TriAxis into G-Major into 2:90 into Mesa cab and it sounds huge. I’m thinking that adding these other elements will put it over the top. Kind of blending the Splawn/pedals rig with the Mesa/Rack rig.

 

[Demanic]

Right now it’s TriAxis into G-Major into 2:90 into Mesa cab and it sounds huge. I’m thinking that adding these other elements will put it over the top. Kind of blending the Splawn/pedals rig with the Mesa/Rack rig.

I played around with using two half stacks in stereo about 10 years ago. It sounded good and seemed to beef up the single guitar in my three piece. But I determined that I prefer the guitar to have more focus and punch. Now, for a big rig, I'll use a Randall RG120-ES head into two cabs separated by about 8' horizontally. However the right cab is a ported 2x15 and the left cab is a Randall 4x12 with two Jaguars and two 70/80's in an X pattern. So each side has got a different frequency output curve. So it sounds wider than a single half or full stack, but still punchy.

Sent from my SM-A115A using Tapatalk

 

[dystrust]

I'm assuming this is a 'play at home' rig instead of one to gig with; I definitely wouldn't want to have to carry that much hardware up stairs anywhere.

Regarding the chorus out front, I have one in my pedal drawer because a BOSS CE-2 has been my primary chorus sound since about 2004. I can fall back on the G-Major 2 if I want to do something else.

Do you have any PA gear? I actually built a rig similar to this in about 2009 to take the whole wet/dry thing for a test drive. The first iteration used a tube power amp and extra guitar cab like you're proposing, but it was actually the second iteration of the rig that blew me away. I wasn't aware of any sort of affordable reactive load at the time, so I mic'd my dry cabinet and used a mixer & processor for the wet sounds. The outs of the mixer were connected to a solid state power amp that drove a couple PA towers I had sitting around.

The results almost defied words; like the tones on your favorite guitar album, or the sound monitoring in the control room as you track, but all around you. I'm not super familiar with Van Hagar, but the tones I was able to get from that rig reminded me of David Gilmour's live sound. In some ways it almost sounded too good; I prefer the slightly more lo-fi sound of my amp's effects loop. Overall the rig was far too much gear to ever move, but kind of fun as a thought experiment.

In today's world you could skip the mic and mixer in favor of a reactive load and IR solution.

 

[PFDarkside]

I'm assuming this is a 'play at home' rig instead of one to gig with; I definitely wouldn't want to have to carry that much hardware up stairs anywhere.

Regarding the chorus out front, I have one in my pedal drawer because a BOSS CE-2 has been my primary chorus sound since about 2004. I can fall back on the G-Major 2 if I want to do something else.

Do you have any PA gear? I actually built a rig similar to this in about 2009 to take the whole wet/dry thing for a test drive. The first iteration used a tube power amp and extra guitar cab like you're proposing, but it was actually the second iteration of the rig that blew me away. I wasn't aware of any sort of affordable reactive load at the time, so I mic'd my dry cabinet and used a mixer & processor for the wet sounds. The outs of the mixer were connected to a solid state power amp that drove a couple PA towers I had sitting around.

The results almost defied words; like the tones on your favorite guitar album, or the sound monitoring in the control room as you track, but all around you. I'm not super familiar with Van Hagar, but the tones I was able to get from that rig reminded me of David Gilmour's live sound. In some ways it almost sounded too good; I prefer the slightly more lo-fi sound of my amp's effects loop. Overall the rig was far too much gear to ever move, but kind of fun as a thought experiment.

In today's world you could skip the mic and mixer in favor of a reactive load and IR solution.

Yes definitely a home-only toy for fun! The Mesa rack/4x12 has never left the house, a head with 2x12 is the biggest I’ll take anywhere.

I was thinking the pedal chorus (which I love the sound of) is a great tone out front, and definitely different from the wide Tri-chorus type sound in the G-Major. I guess that will be a game time decision.

I don’t have any PA gear, it sounds like what you are describing is very close to how the original Bradshaw rack guys did it. Also, you know I’m a huge Gilmour fan, so this might be a ridiculous trip down a tonal rabbit hole. Too bad each amp here isn’t about 1/10th the power, the whole neighborhood is going to hear it.

Also, it was your rack thread that kicked off my thought experiment on this topic. Eventually I can get the GCX and GCP in on the fun too.

 

[Demanic]

I gigged out with mine.

Sent from my SM-A115A using Tapatalk

 

[Gtrjunior]

Do you have a Strymon Mobius?
Or something similar?
I can send you some settings that will nail that chorusy Van Hagar tone in spades.

 

[PFDarkside]

Do you have a Strymon Mobius?
Or something similar?
I can send you some settings that will nail that chorusy Van Hagar tone in spades.

I do have a Mobius. (And a timeline)

 

[dystrust]

I don’t have any PA gear, it sounds like what you are describing is very close to how the original Bradshaw rack guys did it. Also, you know I’m a huge Gilmour fan, so this might be a ridiculous trip down a tonal rabbit hole. Too bad each amp here isn’t about 1/10th the power, the whole neighborhood is going to hear it.

My understanding is that the Bradshaw racks were originally built around the Soldano X88 and later CAE 3+ preamps with a line mixer incorporating several single-effect rack units like the TC2290 Delay, Dytronics Tri-Stereo Chorus, and Lexicon PCM70 into a power amp like the Mesa 295 or Strategy 400. I also remember seeing a diagram of EVH's rig in the mid/late 80s that involved a dummy load and post-gain effects with H&H solid state power amps. I'm pretty sure that EVH was using guitar cabinets, but I don't remember for certain. I also don't remember if that EVH rig was wet/dry/wet, nor am I sure where that idea originated.

The wet/dry rig I built was inspired by a forum post on either TGP or Huge Racks where someone shared their supposed gigging rig. They had a Blankenship Variplex and Fender 2x12 (don't remember if it was a Twin or Pro), both mic'd into a mixer for the wet sounds. I got as close as I could with the gear I had on hand.

Also, it was your rack thread that kicked off my thought experiment on this topic. Eventually I can get the GCX and GCP in on the fun too.

Is this the start of a rack 'arms race' on the forum? If that's the case, I'm not expecting to win :lol: I'm basically done at this point unless a really great deal pops up on an RJM Effect Gizmo and I decide to pull the trigger.

OTOH you know you want a Mastermind GT... I can't be the only one.

 

[Top-L]

Questions...

Are the effects sent to stereo speakers just wet effects or do they also contain direct signal?

Are the effects post Mic, or like in your diagram, direct from the preamp ..which would be harsh? With IRs this kind of setup is almost trivial. if you have to Mic before effects, more difficult.

 

[dystrust]

Questions...

Are the effects sent to stereo speakers just wet effects or do they also contain direct signal?

With wet/dry rigs in general, the stereo speakers are wet only. If you want a 'big' rhythm sound through all three cabinets, the secret is to run a short slapback delay through the wet cabs with a single repeat at maybe 30ms. For an even bigger sound, run a slightly different delay time on each side of the stereo field.

Are the effects post Mic, or like in your diagram, direct from the preamp ..which would be harsh?

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.

With IRs this kind of setup is almost trivial. if you have to Mic before effects, more difficult.

Using a mic instead of IRs requires a bit more hardware, but it's not super difficult. If I were building that today, I'd use a dummy load with a thru output (like the Two Notes Torpedo Captor) to allow my amp to drive the dry cabinet with effects added post-IR to the wet cab(s). It would look very similar to the OP's diagram, except that the Two Notes would be between the amp and cabinet, I'd replace the 2:90 with a SS power amp, and I'd use PA cabs instead of guitar cabs for the wet portion of the signal.

 

[PFDarkside]

My understanding is that the Bradshaw racks were originally built around the Soldano X88 and later CAE 3+ preamps with a line mixer incorporating several single-effect rack units like the TC2290 Delay, Dytronics Tri-Stereo Chorus, and Lexicon PCM70 into a power amp like the Mesa 295 or Strategy 400. I also remember seeing a diagram of EVH's rig in the mid/late 80s that involved a dummy load and post-gain effects with H&H solid state power amps. I'm pretty sure that EVH was using guitar cabinets, but I don't remember for certain. I also don't remember if that EVH rig was wet/dry/wet, nor am I sure where that idea originated.

The wet/dry rig I built was inspired by a forum post on either TGP or Huge Racks where someone shared their supposed gigging rig. They had a Blankenship Variplex and Fender 2x12 (don't remember if it was a Twin or Pro), both mic'd into a mixer for the wet sounds. I got as close as I could with the gear I had on hand.



Is this the start of a rack 'arms race' on the forum? If that's the case, I'm not expecting to win :lol: I'm basically done at this point unless a really great deal pops up on an RJM Effect Gizmo and I decide to pull the trigger.

OTOH you know you want a Mastermind GT... I can't be the only one.

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.

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.

 

[PFDarkside]

With wet/dry rigs in general, the stereo speakers are wet only. If you want a 'big' rhythm sound through all three cabinets, the secret is to run a short slapback delay through the wet cabs with a single repeat at maybe 30ms. For an even bigger sound, run a slightly different delay time on each side of the stereo field.


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.


Using a mic instead of IRs requires a bit more hardware, but it's not super difficult. If I were building that today, I'd use a dummy load with a thru output (like the Two Notes Torpedo Captor) to allow my amp to drive the dry cabinet with effects added post-IR to the wet cab(s). It would look very similar to the OP's diagram, except that the Two Notes would be between the amp and cabinet, I'd replace the 2:90 with a SS power amp, and I'd use PA cabs instead of guitar cabs for the wet portion of the signal.

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).

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! :chairfall

 

[Top-L]

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.

 

[PFDarkside]

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…

 

[dystrust]

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.

 

[dystrust]

​

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 :lmao:

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.

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.​

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 :lol:

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.

 

[Top-L]

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.