|
Post by flapp on Dec 17, 2008 14:27:08 GMT -7
Should I be noticing a volume drop when I plug in my effects loop to the Maz 18? I find that I can still dial in some sweet sounds but the over all volume (and maybe presence) drops off a little. Sounds like a "blanket over the amp" kind of thing. Ideas?
Frank
|
|
|
Post by "Z" Steve on Dec 17, 2008 14:40:37 GMT -7
I don't have a problem on my Maz 38 but I've read here that some users have added a boost or buffer in the loop to help with the signal. I'm sure others will chime in.
|
|
|
Post by kruzty on Dec 17, 2008 14:57:13 GMT -7
Does this only happen when the effect is on? If it happens when it is off, maybe it is not true bypass. If it happens when it is on, it is probably just the effect coloring the tone. Also, if it is a pedal, that could be the problem - the loop is line-level and many pedals can't handle that.
|
|
|
Post by impactblue on Dec 17, 2008 15:37:53 GMT -7
Has anyone noticed that when you have a delay in the loop and you've got alot of power amp distortion going on...that your delayed notes creates more distortion? Slightly fuzzy but interesting....!
|
|
|
Post by mazmaster on Dec 22, 2008 16:12:41 GMT -7
Never had any volume drop issues with FX in the NR loop, but you need to make sure the FX box can handle the hot line level signal. Most high quality rack FX have input and output level controls which allow YOU to control the gain level through the loop. One of the luckiest finds I ever made for the Maz 18 and for my tone overall was as a result of trying to find a Dumbleator (FX loop buffer) for my Quinn SDO D-style head. I ran across the Red Plate FX Loop Buffer in the process and, one day, decided to try to with my Maz 18 Jr NR, which, as most know does not have a buffered loop. OMG!!! The improvement in tone that I got with ANY effect in the loop was monumental, almost like a different amp. The overall tone was smoother and with the I/O level controls, you can stick any effect in there (pedal or rack level) and it'll sound magnificent. Another surprising effect was that it DRAMATICALLY improved low volume tones...much better than any attenuator I've ever tried. Check out the shot below and the settings on the Maz and the loop.
|
|
|
Post by dongiesen on Dec 22, 2008 20:02:19 GMT -7
Where did you get the Red Plate? Website to read about it?
|
|
|
Post by mazmaster on Dec 23, 2008 9:48:00 GMT -7
Where did you get the Red Plate? Website to read about it? redplateamps.com/Buffered_FX_Loop.htmlAlso, do a search on TGP for more info and users' experiences. In 37 years on the instrument, it was one of the best gear purchases I've ever made!
|
|
jboom
Full Member
Posts: 105
|
Post by jboom on Dec 23, 2008 19:45:19 GMT -7
The effects loops in Z amps are not very well designed. They are not buffered. Without buffering the send signal, its probably better to not even use it. The problem that occurs is that the output signal level as well as output impedance vary with the master volume level. So, if you adjust it at one level, it will change when you change the master volume. The other problem is that the signal output is somewhere between pedal level and rack level. The only way to use it properly is to buffer the send signal (and the return) and use a box that can take a line level signal.
The bottom line is: don't use it! Dr Z amps are not high gain and if an amp is not high gain, the most practical thing to do is just run simple time based effects pedals at the end of your signal chain and into the amp input. Basically, after OD and distortion run chorus > delay > reverb > amp input. I have a Maz Jr and love it but the non-buffered loop just isn't practical to use.
|
|
|
Post by cheycaster on Dec 24, 2008 18:51:22 GMT -7
I just got a Maz Junior head and I notice a big difference with my T-Rex Replica in the loop so I dont use it now. I have an older Maz Junior verb combo that I had the Z folks put in a loop and never noticed it effecting the tone as much as the NR head. I'd be real interested in this buffering contraption. Maybe I should quite being so lazy and try my TC Electronic G-FORCE rack into or through it.
|
|
jboom
Full Member
Posts: 105
|
Post by jboom on Dec 24, 2008 19:42:22 GMT -7
The Zout of the Maz JR Send varies from 1.5 ohms to approx 300K ohms as the master volume increases. The Replica delay is listed as 752K ohms. So, as you increase the master volume, less signal will get to the Replica Delay. The Zout of the Replica delay is 10K ohms and the Zin of the return is approx 100K ohms. This should be ok for the return side. The max voltage for the Replica is listed as 1.7Vpp. That should be close but probably ok. The G-Force shows a Zinput of 1M ohm and Zout of 100 ohms with a input/output voltage max of +22dBu. On paper anyway, the G-Force should work fine but you will need to adjust the input depending on the master volume setting. A rack unit with a high input impedance should work out ok as long as you have the ability to adjust the input and output levels on the rack unit. You should set the master volume to a certain level and then optimize the signal level with the rack units input and output level adjustments. This seems pretty complicated and that's why its probably best to just use a delay/verb pedal in the front of the amp.
|
|
|
Post by mazmaster on Dec 25, 2008 9:11:08 GMT -7
The effects loops in Z amps are not very well designed. They are not buffered. Without buffering the send signal, its probably better to not even use it. The problem that occurs is that the output signal level as well as output impedance vary with the master volume level. So, if you adjust it at one level, it will change when you change the master volume. The other problem is that the signal output is somewhere between pedal level and rack level. The only way to use it properly is to buffer the send signal (and the return) and use a box that can take a line level signal. The bottom line is: don't use it! Dr Z amps are not high gain and if an amp is not high gain, the most practical thing to do is just run simple time based effects pedals at the end of your signal chain and into the amp input. Basically, after OD and distortion run chorus > delay > reverb > amp input. I have a Maz Jr and love it but the non-buffered loop just isn't practical to use. The assertion that the Maz 18 loop isn't well-designed and can't be used, isn't entirely true! All decent rack-level gear has high input impedance and low output impedance and I/O level controls, thus providing the buffering/leveling that does not exist in the amp itself. Technically, there are no issues with the NR loop. For example, before I got the Red Plate external Dumbleator loop (described above), I used a TC Nova 'verb directly in the loop and it sounded great. I think it has a 1 Mohm input impedance and 20 ohm output impedance, so it's not loading down the amp at all. The TC Nova also has an auto level balancing mode, so matching levels isn't a problem either. I just calibrate it for the highest master volume I'd ever use, so anything below that works beautifully no matter where it happens to end up at a gig/rehearsal. The extra magic the Red Plate Dumbleator provides is the ability to add another source of gain to the preamp while maintaining any desired output level. I use it to distribute the gain amongst two stages instead of the one in the Maz. It's impedances may also provide slightly different loading/sourcing than the near ideal I/O impedance of the Nova. The overall effect is an extremely smooth, clear and articulate OD tone and the ability to make the amp sound amazingly similar to its cranked tones, but at very low levels. Of course, the Red Plate loop would also allow one to use poorly designed pedal-level FX in the loop while providing the proper buffering and level control.
|
|
|
Post by mazmaster on Dec 25, 2008 9:34:01 GMT -7
The Zout of the Maz JR Send varies from 1.5 ohms to approx 300K ohms as the master volume increases. The Replica delay is listed as 752K ohms. So, as you increase the master volume, less signal will get to the Replica Delay. The Zout of the Replica delay is 10K ohms and the Zin of the return is approx 100K ohms. This should be ok for the return side. The max voltage for the Replica is listed as 1.7Vpp. That should be close but probably ok. The G-Force shows a Zinput of 1M ohm and Zout of 100 ohms with a input/output voltage max of +22dBu. On paper anyway, the G-Force should work fine but you will need to adjust the input depending on the master volume setting. A rack unit with a high input impedance should work out ok as long as you have the ability to adjust the input and output levels on the rack unit. You should set the master volume to a certain level and then optimize the signal level with the rack units input and output level adjustments. This seems pretty complicated and that's why its probably best to just use a delay/verb pedal in the front of the amp. Once again, you're making this too complicated. Using a good rack in the loop is MUCH better and MUCH easier than using pedals out front!!! You just set the Maz Master to a high level (higher than you'll use on the gig) and set the rack input level to the optimal levels to avoid clipping the input and then use the rack output level as your NEW master volume. Set the rack on top of the amp and this new master volume is right at your fingertips. I've played countless gigs with this setup using a Lexicon MPX-100 for 'verb and its output level control as the new master volume. Works great! ANOTHER REASON you should use the loop for time-based FX instead of pedals out front is so that you can get some preamp breakup (which makes all OD pedals sound better) and still guarantee that all distortion occurs BEFORE the time-based FX. Sticking time-based FX in front of the amp prevents you from getting any amp distortion (and still maintaining decent tone). So, there are many good reasons to use the loop for time-based FX and NOT pedals out front.
|
|
jboom
Full Member
Posts: 105
|
Post by jboom on Dec 25, 2008 10:58:31 GMT -7
Those are good recommendations. Using an effects processor is a good idea if it has a high input impedance, low output impedance, variable input and output levels and can handle line level signals. Some effects, like G-major have a very low input impedance (approx 20K I believe) and that would probably load it down too much. That type of processor would need a buffered loop. I imagine they keep the input impedance down for noise purposes. I just looked up the lexicon MX200 which is $169 but has an input impedance of 20K ohms. That would probably load down the signal too much. I didn't intend to make it sound more complicated than necessary but wanted to let people know that sticking a basic pedal in the loop doesn't work. I went through that with putting a Boss DD3 delay in the loop and it killed my signal during a gig. Bottom line, IMO, is that if you know what you are doing and get the right processor, the loop is usable but if you are not sure of how to configure it, a pedal at the end of the pedal chain and into the amp input is the most practical solution. I still believe that an unbuffered loop is not a very good design especially since there aren't any good explanations anywhere on which processor to use and how to use it. There are many new designers building buffered loops in their amps, are bypassable and are selectable for both line and effects level. I'm sure its a matter of cost more than anything else. Another point is that since the Maz Jr is not really a high gain amp, the time based effects in the input are not that much of a problem. I typically use an RC Booster > BB Preamp > Boss RV5 Verb > amp input. Its simple, easy and works fine.
|
|
|
Post by mazmaster on Dec 25, 2008 18:18:20 GMT -7
Those are good recommendations. Using an effects processor is a good idea if it has a high input impedance, low output impedance, variable input and output levels and can handle line level signals. Some effects, like G-major have a very low input impedance (approx 20K I believe) and that would probably load it down too much. That type of processor would need a buffered loop. I imagine they keep the input impedance down for noise purposes. I just looked up the lexicon MX200 which is $169 but has an input impedance of 20K ohms. That would probably load down the signal too much. I didn't intend to make it sound more complicated than necessary but wanted to let people know that sticking a basic pedal in the loop doesn't work. I went through that with putting a Boss DD3 delay in the loop and it killed my signal during a gig. Bottom line, IMO, is that if you know what you are doing and get the right processor, the loop is usable but if you are not sure of how to configure it, a pedal at the end of the pedal chain and into the amp input is the most practical solution. I still believe that an unbuffered loop is not a very good design especially since there aren't any good explanations anywhere on which processor to use and how to use it. There are many new designers building buffered loops in their amps, are bypassable and are selectable for both line and effects level. I'm sure its a matter of cost more than anything else. Another point is that since the Maz Jr is not really a high gain amp, the time based effects in the input are not that much of a problem. I typically use an RC Booster > BB Preamp > Boss RV5 Verb > amp input. Its simple, easy and works fine. John, All good points! I guess what I was trying to get across is that whether or not the unbuffered loop works in any given situation depends on a huge number of factors, including your own subjective tonal preferences. Buffered loops don't always sound "better" than unbuffered ones. For example, I also own a Suhr Badger, which is just a fantastic little amp! It, indeed, has a tube buffered FX loop, but for some strange reason, the unbuffered Maz 18 NR loop sounds a LOT better to my ears with both the Nova and Lexicon than does the tube-buffered Badger loop! To my ears, the Badger loop adds a "brittleness" and some harshness and thinness to the overall tone. Many people have said the same thing about the Badger loop on TGP. As for the MXR100, it does indeed have a low input impedance and it definitely slightly darkens the tone in the NR loop due to that loading. But, guess what? To my ears THAT sounds good! It smooths out the distortion tones and I can easily add back all the brightness I could ever need with the Maz 18 front panel EQ. In fact, if memory serves, I'd say I probably got more compliments on tone during the gigs I ran the MXR100 "raw" in the NR loop than with any other rig! (I didn't get the Red Plate external buffer till after that band split up.) As for running the amp clean with all OD and time-based FX upfront, that is certainly a very cool way to go too! But, I've always found I get closer to nailing the distortion tones I like best when I set the amp so it's just on the verge of breakup and then hit it with OD pedals with more than a unity output level so as to slightly overdrive the amp and combine the pedal OD with the amp OD. When doing that, I'm forced into moving my time-based FX past the preamp, which gets overdriven whenever I stomp on a "soloing" OD pedal out front. So, getting the Red Plate Dumbleator has been a major "discovery" for me for the Maz 18 rig! It not only solves all the technical issues and adds a bunch of flexibility (with its bright switches, I/O level controls, ability to add another gain stage, ability to add another tube swap tone variation, etc), but it just plain makes both the FX and the overall amp tone sound so much better at all output levels! If you own ANY amp with an unbuffered FX loop, I cannot recommend the Red Plate Dumbleator highly enough! You will truly wonder how you ever got along without it! -Dave
|
|
jboom
Full Member
Posts: 105
|
Post by jboom on Dec 25, 2008 19:00:58 GMT -7
I took at look at the Red Plate online and it seems like a great box. Its a bit pricey at $300 but seems like it would work well. I guess the idea is that it is tube buffered and the 2 front knobs control the send and return levels.
You're right about the buffered loops. Apparently the buffering circuit, whether tube driven or solid state, has an impact on tone. It seems the less expensive, solid state buffered loops are more likely to do that. The tube ones seem to work much better.
|
|
|
Post by benttop (Steve) on Dec 26, 2008 14:40:59 GMT -7
I still believe that an unbuffered loop is not a very good design especially since there aren't any good explanations anywhere on which processor to use and how to use it. There are many new designers building buffered loops in their amps, are bypassable and are selectable for both line and effects level. And the reason we're not using those amps is the loop circuitry sucked the tone out of the signal path. I've used Rivera amps for a long time, and I LOVE his loops, but his amps sure don't sound nearly as cool as any of my Dr. Z amps. That's the problem with any electronics design - what are the trade-offs, and what are the real goals. If the absolute primary goal is the best tone ever, then you might have to design in a trade-off on the loop. Or maybe you have a design goal that involves keeping the cost to the poor working musician down where he can afford it. Personally, I'd rather my amps sound the way they do than the way my Riveras did, and at this price, I'll take it the way the Doc designed it.
|
|
jboom
Full Member
Posts: 105
|
Post by jboom on Dec 26, 2008 16:08:49 GMT -7
I still believe that an unbuffered loop is not a very good design especially since there aren't any good explanations anywhere on which processor to use and how to use it. There are many new designers building buffered loops in their amps, are bypassable and are selectable for both line and effects level. And the reason we're not using those amps is the loop circuitry sucked the tone out of the signal path. I've used Rivera amps for a long time, and I LOVE his loops, but his amps sure don't sound nearly as cool as any of my Dr. Z amps. That's the problem with any electronics design - what are the trade-offs, and what are the real goals. If the absolute primary goal is the best tone ever, then you might have to design in a trade-off on the loop. Or maybe you have a design goal that involves keeping the cost to the poor working musician down where he can afford it. Personally, I'd rather my amps sound the way they do than the way my Riveras did, and at this price, I'll take it the way the Doc designed it. Do you use the loop in your Dr Z amp? If so, how do you have it connected? Does is work well?
|
|
|
Post by benttop (Steve) on Dec 26, 2008 20:59:33 GMT -7
Do you use the loop in your Dr Z amp? If so, how do you have it connected? Does is work well? I have used the loop in the Stingray, and the Maz Jr with success. I've also been flummoxed by trying to use inferior effects in both of those loops. By inferior I mean, not designed to work well with an unbuffered loop. All of my TC Electronic rack mount gear falls in that category. But my Yamaha SPX-2000 works perfectly in either one, as does my Rocktron stuff and even my Marshall effects processor. I was able to get the G-System to work by adding a line driver on the amp's send. But in the end, I just don't like using a lot of effects with my Dr. Z amps. It fouls the whole point of having the greatest tone around. Yeah, I can make it sound right, but I find that the effect, if used to where you can hear it, masks the tone enough that I'm not willing to live with it. So for the most part I run dry. I have a pedal board with a delay and chorus as well as some dirt boxes, and I think I turn on the delay for one song and the chorus for one song. That's not enough delay and chorus for me to patch in a separate rack. Now, all you TC Electronic fans can start throwing rocks at me.
|
|
jboom
Full Member
Posts: 105
|
Post by jboom on Dec 27, 2008 1:32:29 GMT -7
That was my original point that the most practical thing to do is add some time based effects at the end of your pedal board and that's it.
|
|
|
Post by mazmaster on Dec 27, 2008 12:49:35 GMT -7
I took at look at the Red Plate online and it seems like a great box. Its a bit pricey at $300 but seems like it would work well. I guess the idea is that it is tube buffered and the 2 front knobs control the send and return levels. You're right about the buffered loops. Apparently the buffering circuit, whether tube driven or solid state, has an impact on tone. It seems the less expensive, solid state buffered loops are more likely to do that. The tube ones seem to work much better. $300 for an "authentic" PTP Tube-based Dumbleator is actually quite a "steal"! Two-Rock charges $2000 for theirs and Bludo charges $795, unless you buy an amp from him, at which point, you can get one for $495. Pretty good description here: www.bludotone.com/kidneypie.htmOnce again, I can't ever imagine playing my Maz 18 NR without one again, even if I didn't have any FX at all in the Dumbleator loop. As Brandon says above, even without FX plugged in, it smooths out the tone of the amp and gives it a perceived 3-D effect. It so transforms the tone of the amp that I think the good Doctor should offer one for use with the NR.
|
|
|
Post by mazmaster on Dec 27, 2008 12:51:47 GMT -7
I still believe that an unbuffered loop is not a very good design especially since there aren't any good explanations anywhere on which processor to use and how to use it. There are many new designers building buffered loops in their amps, are bypassable and are selectable for both line and effects level. And the reason we're not using those amps is the loop circuitry sucked the tone out of the signal path. I've used Rivera amps for a long time, and I LOVE his loops, but his amps sure don't sound nearly as cool as any of my Dr. Z amps. That's the problem with any electronics design - what are the trade-offs, and what are the real goals. If the absolute primary goal is the best tone ever, then you might have to design in a trade-off on the loop. Or maybe you have a design goal that involves keeping the cost to the poor working musician down where he can afford it. Personally, I'd rather my amps sound the way they do than the way my Riveras did, and at this price, I'll take it the way the Doc designed it. Once again, stick a Dumbleator in the loop and it not only solves all these problems, but actually improves the baseline tone.
|
|
|
Post by mazmaster on Dec 27, 2008 12:53:29 GMT -7
Do you use the loop in your Dr Z amp? If so, how do you have it connected? Does is work well? I have used the loop in the Stingray, and the Maz Jr with success. I've also been flummoxed by trying to use inferior effects in both of those loops. By inferior I mean, not designed to work well with an unbuffered loop. All of my TC Electronic rack mount gear falls in that category. But my Yamaha SPX-2000 works perfectly in either one, as does my Rocktron stuff and even my Marshall effects processor. I was able to get the G-System to work by adding a line driver on the amp's send. But in the end, I just don't like using a lot of effects with my Dr. Z amps. It fouls the whole point of having the greatest tone around. Yeah, I can make it sound right, but I find that the effect, if used to where you can hear it, masks the tone enough that I'm not willing to live with it. So for the most part I run dry. I have a pedal board with a delay and chorus as well as some dirt boxes, and I think I turn on the delay for one song and the chorus for one song. That's not enough delay and chorus for me to patch in a separate rack. Now, all you TC Electronic fans can start throwing rocks at me. I repeat, stick a Dumbleator in the loop and, even if you don't use FX, you will not believe that you ever lived w/o one!
|
|
jboom
Full Member
Posts: 105
|
Post by jboom on Dec 27, 2008 17:34:30 GMT -7
It would be interesting to hear John Suhr's MiniMix (http://www.suhrguitars.com/tonetools.aspx) with the dumbleator.
It is supposed to turn a buffered serial effects loop into a parallel loop. I haven't tried a parallel loop before but it should give you more control over the wet/dry mix.
|
|
|
Post by mazmaster on Dec 28, 2008 18:38:11 GMT -7
It would be interesting to hear John Suhr's MiniMix (http://www.suhrguitars.com/tonetools.aspx) with the dumbleator. It is supposed to turn a buffered serial effects loop into a parallel loop. I haven't tried a parallel loop before but it should give you more control over the wet/dry mix. Yeah, that would be an interesting experiment!
|
|
drsam
New Member
Posts: 31
|
Post by drsam on Apr 20, 2021 14:49:09 GMT -7
I know this is an old thread, but my reply is here because people will continue landing here as long as Maz amps are popular- so probably forever. A lot of talk is here about which kinds of effects have different impedence... thats all fine, but it kind of skirts th real answer. The whole thing boils down to the fact that the fx loop is only buffered on the return, so its like putting an extra 20+ feet of cable capacitance into the path when you use a loop with no output buffer. May as well not even have a loop that way. The FX loop was an afterthought when Z designed the Maz. If you're accustomed to amps with more modern designs, you're used to having amps with fx loops that are buffered on BOTH send and return. If you want to use it, just find a good external buffer, like the TC bonifide, and use a short, low C cable like George L from the send to the buffer, then run a cable to your loop items from the out of the buffer. It will still sound different than not using the loop, but you won't get the "wet blanket" effect so much. That's how it is designed: its an old school style, classicly designed amp, with simple circuitry. More modern amps with loaded down signal paths don't sound like it. Not even sure why he bothered with a loop... maybe for marketing reasons? Not everyone has a sound in their head that is affected by high end/ presence loss caused by extra C in the circuit, so there's bound to be those who don't hear what you do in this regard. For those who hear it, its usually a big deal. At that point, you have to decide whether its the right amp for you or not. If you got it because of the glorious tone it makes without using the loop, then you have to decide whether that glorious chimey tone is worth going full on old school and ditching the loop, or if you can live with laying a buffer on top of the amp for the send, or even if you'd be better off with a different kind of amp. Personally, I kept mine and I bounce back & forth between an all in front fx rig or buffering the send to use the loop. It sounds best with no loop, but the amp is prone to break up with any volume, so some of the effects just don't sound as good out front. I remain torn between old school style, all out front set up or using the loop "Sanford & Son" style with a buffer box hanging off of the amp from a 8" george L cable half of the time when I accidentally kick the send cable a little. I haven't considered a different amp because, on the whole, its just the best amp I've ever played. Also, due to my age, I grew up without the common existence of FX loops anyway, so not using a loop is something I can live with as a trade off for the aMAZing tone(ya, i did that ). Loops are handy. Maz tone is awesome. You finally just have to make a choice of priorities. That's my 2 cents worth of advice.
|
|
drsam
New Member
Posts: 31
|
Post by drsam on Apr 20, 2021 15:14:04 GMT -7
Has anyone noticed that when you have a delay in the loop and you've got alot of power amp distortion going on...that your delayed notes creates more distortion? Slightly fuzzy but interesting....! That would be the case with any tube amp. Think about it... you're getting power amp break up, which means that anything it amplifies gets distorted, right? Preamps AND Fx loops are BOTH ahead of the power amp. The power amp is the last stage. So: anything from anywhere is amplified there and, logically, when it breaks up everything is distorted including anything from the loop.
|
|