Tube preamp in effects loop

[DoryDavis]

I had a thread out last week, great responses. Still wrestling with my live sound.

Taylor 412ce ES1 low impedance into mic input of an AER Alpha. Sat with my duo partner and compared the AER to his Fishman Mini. I think the AER, is almost too good at articulation. It seems to my ear a bit sterile, vanilla. Accurate and clean as heck that is for sure. I know it is a good amp, it has served me well. Over 140 gigs with it and countless practice hours.
I keep thinking of a tube pre, to warm it up, maybe smooth it out. Maybe go in inexpensively to see how it goes with an Art Tube MP.
Can I put this in the effects loop? Still continue to go straight into the amp, but use the effects loop for the pre? Does that make any sense at all? I feel like another pre, in front of the amp (as the Taylor pickups are active) is redundant. Please someone straighten me out here...If I have to throw more money at this I will. On the far other end, I am considering the K4...Thanks!!!!

[Doug Young]

No matter if you put it before the preamp or in the effects loop, you're adding it to the signal chain, so from a "it doesn't make sense to add another preamp" perspective, it really doesn't matter. (Either you have the Taylor preamp going into the Art into the Alpha preamp, or you have the Taylor preamp going into the Alpha preamp into the Art. - There may be a difference in gain-staging, tho.) You're not really looking for a preamp, you're looking for an effect, from the sounds of it. You'd just have to try and see what works and what you like. I think the idea that something that says "tube" in it will "warm up" your sound is a bit of myth. It may or it may not, and there are things that aren't tube at all that can alter your sound. "warm" and "sterile" aren't very well-defined terms, and what one person hears as one, and other pair of ears may hear completely differently.

One thing you might consider is the Baggs Session DI. Between the saturation (which "warms up" your sound) and the mild compression, which smooths things out a bit, you might get what you're looking for. Or not, it's really hard to predict what your ears will like. The Session is pretty subtle, but a tube preamp will be pretty subtle, too.

[DoryDavis]

Thanks Doug,

I am going to make some kind of decision today, and your advice as always has been invaluable. With your patience, I'll ask you a couple final questions.

1.) One consistency for me has been liking the low impedance hookup with my ES1. It is to my ears a hi fi sound. If I got the Baggs session, and hooked it up with phantom power to my mic input on the aer alpha, I'd obviously be coming into the Baggs Session unbalanced. If I ran a trs cord out of the es-1, and used a simple (imp) xlr to 1/4" transformer, would that preserve the hi fi nature?

2.) Or would I be better off with the Session in the fx loop? Then I could still go trs into the aer from the Taylor. However, i would be at square one in understanding how to set the gains within an fx loop.

2a) Looking at the wiring schematic for my aer alpha, it looks like the onboard reverb, which I use, is in front of the fx loop. If I put the Session say, in the loop, could I use the DI out from there to the PA, and would it carry the reverb?

3.) I noticed in another thread, earlier, you mentioned some other methods to "warm up" the sound (and I know this is a slippery term). You mentioned the sans amp acoustic, and the aphex big bottom. I have the budget to get one of these pedals, the Session DI, Sansamp Para (replacement for the acoustic right?), have a good deal on a K4 even, AER Colorizer etc.. I know one set of ears is different from another, do you think the Session is my best shot, and if so, in front or in the loop?

Thanks Doug, or anyone else who can weigh in, no I've got to say THANKS

[Doug Young]

Originally Posted by DoryDavis

sk you a couple final questions.

1.) One consistency for me has been liking the low impedance hookup with my ES1. It is to my ears a hi fi sound. If I got the Baggs session, and hooked it up with phantom power to my mic input on the aer alpha, I'd obviously be coming into the Baggs Session unbalanced. If I ran a trs cord out of the es-1, and used a simple (imp) xlr to 1/4" transformer, would that preserve the hi fi nature?

Right, the session is just a mono 1/4 input, not balanced. I'm not sure if using a DI into the session into the alpha would be good or not. Sounds like a lot of extra stuff in the signal path. This whole thing of staying hi-fi but "warming" up the signal gets us in trouble, it's contradictory. "Hi-Fi" means "accurate", "faithful" to the original source, etc. "warming" up the sound with tubes or effects means "distorting" the signal, altering it in some way. So we want "clean distortion" or "faithfully altered" or something :-) I know some people claim the ES into a balanced input sounds better, I haven't tried it myself. You apparently like something about the sound, but at the same time, you want to change it, so I don't know if preserving the balanced input is helping you or not. Maybe just not being so "hi-fi" would give you the warming you want.

2.) Or would I be better off with the Session in the fx loop? Then I could still go trs into the aer from the Taylor. However, i would be at square one in understanding how to set the gains within an fx loop.

That would certainly be an option with any device, so you can preserve the direct input into the alpha.

2a) Looking at the wiring schematic for my aer alpha, it looks like the onboard reverb, which I use, is in front of the fx loop. If I put the Session say, in the loop, could I use the DI out from there to the PA, and would it carry the reverb?

Sure, it would pass it thru, but of course it would be distorting and compressing the reverb along with your guitar. Probably not ideal, but the session is so subtle it probably doesn't matter.

3.) I noticed in another thread, earlier, you mentioned some other methods to "warm up" the sound (and I know this is a slippery term). You mentioned the sans amp acoustic, and the aphex big bottom. I have the budget to get one of these pedals, the Session DI, Sansamp Para (replacement for the acoustic right?), have a good deal on a K4 even, AER Colorizer etc.. I know one set of ears is different from another, do you think the Session is my best shot, and if so, in front or in the loop?

No idea here, since it's really personal taste. There are tons of ways to alter (distort) a signal. Some sound good, some bad, some just different. Most of the things you list are going to be quite subtle. I've never tried the K4 or colorizer. I hear good things about the K4. I've heard that the colourizer is nice, tho I seem to recall someone here trying and sending it back because it "coloured" the sound (surprise...). The Aphex Big Bottom is probably the most dramatic of the effects you list, tho that doesn't necessarily mean it will be a good sound, or what you want. It's basically an "exciter", which means it adds harmonic distortion, which is also what the Session does. The problem is that people do the distortion in different ways, as electric players know: a Marshall doesn't sound like a Fender, or a Boogle, or... even tho at some level, even the circuits are very similar.

My suggestion would be to try things. If you buy something, be sure you can return it, or order a bunch of things if you can, and do a shootout, then return anything you don't like. Words kind of fail us in these situations, what you want it some sound that you think is "good", and it all comes down to hearing a bunch of things and seeing what you like, unfortunately.

[midwinter]

In another thread somewhere, a few of us noted that that Art pre is a POS. Don't waste your money; you'll very likely wind up just throwing it away.

Originally Posted by DoryDavis

Maybe go in inexpensively to see how it goes with an Art Tube MP.

[DoryDavis]

Doug thank you for the informed responses, taking the time. And midwinter thanks for weighing in too.
My mind was locked into one way of thinking about this. First thing I did was try unbalanced. With new eq at the amp and on the Taylor, I got close to the balanced sound, and liked the sound a bit better in some ways.
Then I went to the music store where they luckily had a couple of boxes.
I tried a Taylor through a Fishman mini, unbalanced, with the Acoustimax. It wasn't my cup of tea.
The other box they had, and it was previously off my radar, was the Fishman DEQ, the one with the built in effects. Even with the effects (and compression) off, this thing made, to my ears a huge improvement on tone. I actually laughed.
I know the extra pre amp seems redundant, but for whatever reason, this thing made the notes ring out so nicely. I got used to it fast, then unplugged it and realized what I had been missing all along.
My guy at Sweetwater had previously recommended the Fishman Platinum, the latest version. I have no place to try that out., Naturally I've read what I think to be all the threads on this board concerning that. I don't know how similar that circuitry is to the DEQ. I know there is not a lot of attention on the DEQ here on the board, while numerous threads on the Platinum.
Anyway, a couple points. 1.) Thanks Doug for your great responses. I just had to get out of my own way. 2.) Anyone that is playing straight into your amp- I think the sound can be improved. I just couldn't see it before. I never really understood the term "musical" as applied to a box. Now I do. Thanks everyone. I'm going to go lift a glass for good amplified acoustic guitar tone! I might just buy this DEQ, although it is missing some features I was hoping for (mid sweep, mute, ex loop). BUT the effects on board sound really really good, and it'd be nice to have one box that would carry that. The reverb on my AER is nice, but a one trick pony. 2 choices of reverb (or delay!) on the DEQ. Not to mention chorus that I'd use lightly, maybe once in a while. Sorry for the ramble. I feel like I just made a significant step here...