Marshall 1936 JCM900 212 16/8 ohm - Sounds Better When...

[devastone]

Re: Marshall 1936 JCM900 212 16/8 ohm - Sounds Better When...

You forgot to turn on your sarcasm font dave.

That isn't "stereo", in fact you will just be using 2 cables to run the same 2 speakers off the same tap on output transformer, so, might as well just use one cable from one 8 ohm out to the mono input on the cabinet.

"Stereo" requires 2 separate power amps there is a lot of cool stuff you can do with it, although it is usually lost when going through a mono PA system.

 

[RolanTHUNDER]

Re: Marshall 1936 JCM900 212 16/8 ohm - Sounds Better When...

Yeah that's true stereo amping there.

Can't wait to share the results here

 

[RolanTHUNDER]

Re: Marshall 1936 JCM900 212 16/8 ohm - Sounds Better When...

You forgot to turn on your sarcasm font dave.

That isn't "stereo", in fact you will just be using 2 cables to run the same 2 speakers off the same tap on output transformer, so, might as well just use one cable from one 8 ohm out to the mono input on the cabinet.

"Stereo" requires 2 separate power amps there is a lot of cool stuff you can do with it, although it is usually lost when going through a mono PA system.

I hear you. I can run two heads thru the same cab since I've got the Orange and Marshall valve heads at my disposal. All I need is another quality speaker cable to do this. Will get one asap.

 

[dave74]

Re: Marshall 1936 JCM900 212 16/8 ohm - Sounds Better When...

You forgot to turn on your sarcasm font dave.

That isn't "stereo", in fact you will just be using 2 cables to run the same 2 speakers off the same tap on output transformer, so, might as well just use one cable from one 8 ohm out to the mono input on the cabinet.

"Stereo" requires 2 separate power amps there is a lot of cool stuff you can do with it, although it is usually lost when going through a mono PA system.

Yeah he's got the goods for true stereo, except not quite all the way. The stereo amping is there but running them through left/right of the same cab won't have much spread. There's still a cool effect, but it's much more intense with a pair of cabs split to the corners.

 

[RolanTHUNDER]

Re: Marshall 1936 JCM900 212 16/8 ohm - Sounds Better When...

Yeah he's got the goods for true stereo, except not quite all the way. The stereo amping is there but running them through left/right of the same cab won't have much spread. There's still a cool effect, but it's much more intense with a pair of cabs split to the corners.

I'm looking forward to a tonal assault in stereo
I'll run my mod FX thru one of the heads.

 

[devastone]

Re: Marshall 1936 JCM900 212 16/8 ohm - Sounds Better When...

Oh, I missed where the Marshall head snuck back in the equation, sorry.

It's better if you can us stereo effects that effect both sides, but it won't be huge since it is a single cabinet.

 

[RolanTHUNDER]

Re: Marshall 1936 JCM900 212 16/8 ohm - Sounds Better When...

Oh, I missed where the Marshall head snuck back in the equation, sorry.

It's better if you can us stereo effects that effect both sides, but it won't be huge since it is a single cabinet.

It's cool.

Is it possible to daisy chain the FX loops of both amps together?

 

[devastone]

Re: Marshall 1936 JCM900 212 16/8 ohm - Sounds Better When...

Not sure what you mean by daisy chaining the effects loops.

The most common way to do stereo would be to use one preamp, then split into stereo through an effects processor in that loop with one stereo out of the processor going back to the "main" amp, and the other going to the effects loop return on the other amp, assuming you can balance the level of the output.

If you want to go into both preamps you will need a splitter, preferably buffered since the guitar signal will see the input impedance of both preamps in parallel.

 

[RolanTHUNDER]

Re: Marshall 1936 JCM900 212 16/8 ohm - Sounds Better When...

Not sure what you mean by daisy chaining the effects loops.

The most common way to do stereo would be to use one preamp, then split into stereo through an effects processor in that loop with one stereo out of the processor going back to the "main" amp, and the other going to the effects loop return on the other amp, assuming you can balance the level of the output.

If you want to go into both preamps you will need a splitter, preferably buffered since the guitar signal will see the input impedance of both preamps in parallel.

My idea is to run the modulation FX pedal output into the return of the Orange then the send of the Orange into the return of the Marshall and finally the send of the Marshall into the input of the pedal. Wondering if this could actually work.

 

[devastone]

Re: Marshall 1936 JCM900 212 16/8 ohm - Sounds Better When...

That made my head hurt, I don't follow.

Guitar > Orange Input > Orange FX Send > Mod Pedal In > Mod Pedal Out 1 > Orange FX Return / > Mod Pedal Out 2 > Marshall FX Return

 

[RolanTHUNDER]

Re: Marshall 1936 JCM900 212 16/8 ohm - Sounds Better When...

That made my head hurt, I don't follow.

Guitar > Orange Input > Orange FX Send > Mod Pedal In > Mod Pedal Out 1 > Orange FX Return / > Mod Pedal Out 2 > Marshall FX Return

Guitar into ABY splitter>both heads inputs.

one pedal in the loop.

Pedal output>Orange return>Orange send>Marshall return>Marshall send>pedal input

Definitely confusing and I have no idea if this will work but in text form it seems like a workable loop...or not...

 

[devastone]

Re: Marshall 1936 JCM900 212 16/8 ohm - Sounds Better When...

You'll want a buffered splitter, the guitar will see both heads in parallel which will 1/2 their input impedance.

"Pedal output>Orange return>Orange send>Marshall return>Marshall send>pedal input" makes no sense, a mono pedal will only work in one loop, not sure what that will do.

If you use a splitter and run both heads, and have a true stereo pedal (meaning stereo ins and outs), you could run one side in the Orange loop and the other side in the Marshall loop, otherwise, if it is mono in, stereo out, see my earlier post and use one preamp. Again, if it is a mono pedal, it will only work in one loop.

 

[RolanTHUNDER]

Re: Marshall 1936 JCM900 212 16/8 ohm - Sounds Better When...

You'll want a buffered splitter, the guitar will see both heads in parallel which will 1/2 their input impedance.

"Pedal output>Orange return>Orange send>Marshall return>Marshall send>pedal input" makes no sense, a mono pedal will only work in one loop, not sure what that will do.

If you use a splitter and run both heads, and have a true stereo pedal (meaning stereo ins and outs), you could run one side in the Orange loop and the other side in the Marshall loop, otherwise, if it is mono in, stereo out, see my earlier post and use one preamp. Again, if it is a mono pedal, it will only work in one loop.

Oh man I forgot to mention its a stereo FX pedal with two A and B outputs
But now I need to confirm if it has 2 inputs as well. Should. Just need to go check

 

[devastone]

Re: Marshall 1936 JCM900 212 16/8 ohm - Sounds Better When...

What is the pedal?

 

[RolanTHUNDER]

Re: Marshall 1936 JCM900 212 16/8 ohm - Sounds Better When...

What is the pedal?

Zoom Choir multi FX.

 

[RolanTHUNDER]

Re: Marshall 1936 JCM900 212 16/8 ohm - Sounds Better When...

Zoom Choir 5050

 

[devastone]

Re: Marshall 1936 JCM900 212 16/8 ohm - Sounds Better When...

I actually used one of those a few decades ago, great sounding pedal! It only has a mono in, so you can only use on preamp with it, fx send of the Orange or Marshall > Zoom input, then the outputs go to the fx returns on the amps so one of the amps is just functioning as a power amp.

 

[RolanTHUNDER]

Re: Marshall 1936 JCM900 212 16/8 ohm - Sounds Better When...

I actually used one of those a few decades ago, great sounding pedal! It only has a mono in, so you can only use on preamp with it, fx send of the Orange or Marshall > Zoom input, then the outputs go to the fx returns on the amps so one of the amps is just functioning as a power amp.

Sorry about the late reply! Glad to hear it. It is a great sounding FX pedal indeed and from the '80's I believe although I don't know exactly which year model mine is. Now it makes more sense in terms of the signal chain. I'll try this experiment and let you know how it goes