Egnater M4

Well, I'll be confirming my order sometime in the next 48hrs. I have some final questions about the unit itself. As I understand it has both a parallel and serial fx loop as well as a midi port. I won't have any issues running the amp with a DMC ground control or Rocktron All Access will I? Also are the FX loops midi contollable for bypass and do they have individual send/return knobs? I can't seem to find a schematic or a pic of the back of one of these things. Either way I'm getting it, I just want to know how seamlessly it will fit into my rack rig.

chode7 said:

Also are the FX loops midi contollable for bypass and do they have individual send/return knobs?

Click to expand...

The M4's being produced today do not have effects loops at all. The original M4's did, but Bruce eliminated them from the design some time ago.

The Randall RM4 does have parallel & serial effects loops. However, they are not MIDI bypass-able and do not have separate send/return knobs,

Actually, the new M4's (that accept dual channel modules) do not have effects loops (series or parallel)... only the old M4's (that worked with single channel modules) have FX loops.

--B

Maybe this will help:

http://gtrgear.com/Egnater/M4.htm

Wow that blows my mind. The cheaper pre has more features. So maybe I need to rethink my decision. I mean why in the heck would the RM4 have all of that stuff and not the Egnater? If I use single channel eggie modules in the RM4 is it going to affect the tone? I think I may call them tomorrow.

Between now and then maybe some of you folks can help clear this up for me. I have several rack fx units dedicated individually for Reverb, Delay, Modulation, and Filters (also a maximizer). In order to make the best use of all of it I'm assuming I'll be needing an fx loop. I've heard that the difference is tone is significant if the loop is not utilized. Is this in fact the case? Please help!!!! :!: :?: :!: :?:

Features that I believe aren't needed,pre,FX power,thats what the loop does I believe.I love my M4 without all the "stuff".There's a post somewhere about why bruce pulled the loops out.

chode7 said:

Wow that blows my mind. The cheaper pre has more features. So maybe I need to rethink my decision. I mean why in the heck would the RM4 have all of that stuff and not the Egnater? If I use single channel eggie modules in the RM4 is it going to affect the tone? I think I may call them tomorrow.

Between now and then maybe some of you folks can help clear this up for me. I have several rack fx units dedicated individually for Reverb, Delay, Modulation, and Filters (also a maximizer). In order to make the best use of all of it I'm assuming I'll be needing an fx loop. I've heard that the difference is tone is significant if the loop is not utilized. Is this in fact the case? Please help!!!! :!: :?: :!: :?:

Click to expand...

IIRC, Bruce said that getting rid of the FX loops helped to improve the tone of the M4. I honestly have never had the opportunity to compare an M4 with an RM4 head-to-head, but most people who have done that comparison prefer the M4.

IMHO, if you have that many rack effects, you should be using a line mixer/looper (CAE, GCX, Switchblade, etc) rather than relying on an FX loop...that way you can mute the effects you're not using so as not to degrade the tone coming out of the M4. Quite frankly, when you hear how good the M4 sounds, I don't think you will have a need for too many effects...the M4 is not going to need a maximizer or anything like that ;-)

The loops were removed as many people who have larger racks (like you with several pieces dedicated to individual functions) have post effects run in parallel with the output of the preamp - thus preserving the unaltered tone and mixing in the effects. Some people run larger W/D/W (wet dry wet) systems and have no post effects in the signal path, and the dry signal- unaltered sound from an amp head or pre/power amp setup are sent to a cab with that miked, sending its post power amp signal to the processors which is then sent to its own amp (usually in stereo - but can also be mono) and its own cab(s).

When I had my large rack setup (I had 3 preamps and 4 processors) everything was run parallel - and had a mixer in the system with the preamps hitting the mixer with no post effects and each processor hitting the mixer - so no processor saw anything other than the original signal from the preamps, all sent to a pair of 4X12's in stereo. There are a few things that do not work well with parallel post effects (mainly chours, tremelo, a bbe and some other effects), and in the case of that type of processing you would just run the pre into the processor.

Most processors that are made today do alter the tone quite a bit due to the analog to digital conversion (some are much better than others), and the only loop that helps to keep the tone is a parallel loop. The quality of the loop also has a big effect on how well the processors sound. By not having a loop in the preamp, as it is argued by most, helps to make the pre sound better due to less in the circuit. This also allows the end user to choose the type of mixer (loop for lack of a better term) that fits their system.

The single channel Egnater mods sound great in the Randall (I have a RM100 head and combo, a RM4, a M4 and just sold a MOD100) so I use a mix of randall and egnater single in my setups - each have their own distinct sound so they do affect the tone, but not in a bad way. No matter which way you go the tone is great, I've just found for myself I like the single channel setup better.

As to the Ground control or all access - they work great. I have a ground control (old) and a GC Pro - along with an axess MC5 and have no problems with switching any of my rigs.

Wow, what a difference a couple of hours can make. I've learned so much reading the Petrucci gear forum and here. Thanks much fellas. It makes perfect sense now. Less circuitry in the pre=less to interfere with tone. Modulation fx behind the pre and time based fx in the line mixer (parallel). This will also allow me to switch out of my effects and not cut off the tails of my delays.

Last question: I'm guessing I shouldn't skimp on the line mixer. Any recommendations for a moderately priced one?

If you want flexibility, go with the SoundSculpture Switchblade (www.soundsculpture.com). You can pickup the 8 loop version used for around $600 ~ 700. The advantage of the Switchblade is it's virtually limitless routing capabilities. Each preset can be setup to completely change your routing path on the fly. With expression pedals you can pan between amps, preamps, bring an effect in and out, etc. Very cool device and it's extremely transparent (no coloration).

To carry with what Ugg was saying...

If you want flexibility, go with the Switchblade. If you are more budget minded, then check out VooDoo Labs GCX ($350-$400 street). It only does serial looping (whereas SwitchBlade can do parallel), but it has 8 loops also. One drawback to the GCX is that you *have* to use ground control. Although, seems like I remember someone here once saying you could use any MIDI pedal.

Thomas

axecellent said:

To carry with what Ugg was saying...

If you want flexibility, go with the Switchblade. If you are more budget minded, then check out VooDoo Labs GCX ($350-$400 street). It only does serial looping (whereas SwitchBlade can do parallel), but it has 8 loops also. One drawback to the GCX is that you *have* to use ground control. Although, seems like I remember someone here once saying you could use any MIDI pedal.

Thomas

Click to expand...

The GCX responds to MIDI CC messages on channel 16, so it should work with any foot controller where the individual footswitches can be set to send CC on/off messages. I like the GCX but I could see where if the OP had a lot of different rack FX boxes each dedicated to a particular effect (ie one for delay, one for reverb, one for mod/filter, etc), then definitely the Switchblade would be the way to go.