Egnater Third Party Modules

Synergy/MTS Forum

Help Support Synergy/MTS Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

DLX

Member
Joined
Dec 4, 2006
Messages
5
Reaction score
0
I posted this idea on HRI before I was pointed here by a kind gentleman. To sum it up, I suggested the possibility of a market for third party modules that work in the M4 rack and MOD heads like CAE/Suhr modules or a Bad Cat Hot Cat module made by bad cat, a Fuchs ODS module made by Andy Fuchs, etc.

Instead of repeating what has been said, i'll post the link because there are some good thought envoking posts by various people. Make sure you take a look at John Suhr's comments :wink:

http://www.hugeracksinc.com/board/viewtopic.php?t=28824


What do you think?
 
Interesting idea!

Generally speaking, having aftermarket support can really make a product's popularity skyrocket. However, I don't know if that would apply to amps like it does with cars/motorcycles/ipods/etc.
 
The thing I see the problem with is that as many people stated, the preamp is only part of the magic. Bruce has been able to make HIS amp designs shine as they are integrated to work well together in the preamp AND power amp section. If you have an amp builder with a preamp that sounds killer with their power amp section (or maybe even relies on it) and totally different transformers, it might not have the same sound running through a rack setup or even the MOD heads/combos, in a good or a bad way. One thing you were off-mark on in that thread was the fact that not EVERYONE is using an RM4 or an M4. I know it was the big rack forum but even so, there's probably just as many guys using the head versions of the amp as there are rack guys, so that's something to take into account. I personally was using the rack setup before and prefer the sound of the head (I don't know what it is about it, Bruce's power section and tranny are awesome!) and the weight is much lower than that of the rack setup. I could see why that would be cool, I would love to see John Suhr make an aftermarket module of his preamp but I don't know if you would still get the same sound running it in an Egnater head as you would running his entire platform. As some others said, I think a couple of those guys on the list might not want to join in as it could hurt their small boutique market on their amps. Bruce has his own niche in the market as the modular guy, some people would like to be known for their AMP and not having a module for an amp made by someone else I think. Plus I would hate to see a cool guy like Mr. Suhr go out of business (in the amp part, I know his guitars are doing well!) because he's not making enough through amp revenue that he had previously relied on. Someday I'd like to pick up an OD100-SE though! :D Cool idea, and if it happens I'll be lined up myself to grab them, but not sure if it will come to fruition.
 
I think it is a great idea to open up the system. I know people are focusing right now on other amp manufaturers building modules, but I think the very cool benefit is it would open up the system so small mod guys who are doing some amazing work right now might design some killer modules.

That's the benefit of opening up the system.

However, I don't think any amp manufaturer is going to put themselves out of business by putting out a module. It will always be a product unto it's own. It would be no more different than having a line of amps that include combos, 100w heads, 50w heads, etc. It's just another product in the line.
 
Well here's a prime example. I love the tone of Mesa two channel Dual Rectifiers. I tried out Bruce's E'Rect module.... never bought a Mesa because I liked the module through the MOD50 better. Mesa is now officially out a sale. Same thing could happen to guys like John Suhr and Andy Fuchs if they chose to make module, IMO. Not saying it would, but if I were in their shoes I would be thinking about something like that quite seriously. However, with the modules you can only approximate the tone anyways, it's up to your fingers to get you the rest of the way there! :lol:
 
guitarguy510 said:
Well here's a prime example. I love the tone of Mesa two channel Dual Rectifiers. I tried out Bruce's E'Rect module.... never bought a Mesa because I liked the module through the MOD50 better. Mesa is now officially out a sale. Same thing could happen to guys like John Suhr and Andy Fuchs if they chose to make module, IMO. Not saying it would, but if I were in their shoes I would be thinking about something like that quite seriously. However, with the modules you can only approximate the tone anyways, it's up to your fingers to get you the rest of the way there! :lol:


I really think the goal here is to just open up the system. That would be up to Bruce Egnator or whoever holds the rights to the design.


At that point, prospective module builders (be it established amp companies or ones we have never heard of yet) have an established set of specs to work from.


The framework is already there.


The market is there.


The demand is there.


So there is opportunity.... for the right product.


To nix the idea just because one does not see how it would benefit a particular established amp maker does not really make sense to me.


If they see it might work for them, they will jump in. If it does not make good business sense, they won't. Pretty simple.


Opening up the system is the only way to get that process started.


I have a feeling some of the most interesting designs might come from people we have never heard of or are less well known and would have never had the opportunity to start an amp company themselves.


Look at how many little distortion pedals there are out there.


The very first example given of the API preamp lunchbox concept is really a perfect example of how all this could work.

.
 
All the discussion about third party modules got me wondering about the future of our amps. Specifically, how far can a designer go on the features of a module? For example, wouldn't it be possible to add effects to the modules? A savvy designer could produce an artist's "signature sound" including some chorus or delay or whatever controlled by one small extra knob.

It would be something like the boutique pedal industry.

Man, there's a big opportunity here I think!
 
That would be pretty sweet but judging by the space used on the board by just the preamp I don't know if they would be able to fit many more components onto each module would they? I'd love to see something like that too, just wondering if they COULD do that? Maybe Bruce will chime in to talk some more about these ideas!! :)
 
guitarguy510 said:
That would be pretty sweet but judging by the space used on the board by just the preamp I don't know if they would be able to fit many more components onto each module would they? I'd love to see something like that too, just wondering if they COULD do that? Maybe Bruce will chime in to talk some more about these ideas!! :)


I'd be sort of surprised to see effects on a module... but with all the little distortion pedals people run in front of amazing amps, I can certainly see incorporating different fuzz ideas or filters.


But who knows?


One difference between the pedal market and the MTS module market is the pedal market is open to all guitarists..... where as the module market is much smaller and contained to people who have the MTS system (Egnator, Randall, etc)


Still though, if the system becomes more popular and established, that would just increase the viablity of third party modules.... thus increasing the viablity of the system.

.
 
The problem i see with it is such: when people buy a boutique amp, they are shelling out quite a bit of money; not only for great sound, but for a status symbol as well. We all drool at the site of a bogner badge, or those glowing bad cat eyes, and it would be quite detrimental to those companies to have a product that functions with...dare i say it...a randall?

Yes fellow mts friends, we love our amps. They sound wonderful and cover a lot of bases musically. However what question do you get the most when out with the mts head? In my experience its been:

"Thats a randall?!" ::twisted up face of disgust::

Its not the status symbol like the amps that sometimes cost the same price, or even our modules attempt to emulate. Theres a reason we all know about the star power that is out there using them, but no one wants to take a dive and have their name on the artist roster, and thats because in the end it is a randall.

Ferrari performance for the price of a jetta? I think so.

These things rule and this post was not in any way to bash randall as a company, simply the facts are the facts.

Now what would be cool is for randall to make it easy to mix and match and make youre own modules. Hand painted face plates! different tolex and grill options outside of the black and metal! theres a lot to be done here( RD/MAN!!!).

Get on it d00ds, i know a lot of you are quite handy with a soldering iron!
 
I don't think this would put amp manufacturers out of business as, like was mentioned, a person has to first have Egnater or Randall equipment in the first place for a module to work. And no matter how much they try, I don't think a modular setup can sound exactly like an amp it is trying to emulate. Could get very close, but not the same. To sound exactly the same, you'd have to have the same power section, tubes, etc. If people start making all those changes when they want a new sound....well, it might just be easier to buy the amp that the module is trying to emulate.

The E'Rect module might sound different than a real 2 channel Dual Recto, but whether it is *better* or not is subjective. The point is that M/B lost a sale to you, but they might not to the next guy as he may well prefer the real deal amp and not the module.

So I would see an amp manufacturer making modules as an extension of their existing line....not a "cannibalizer".

With that said, do I think other amp builders would be interested in doing this? I'll just say that I'd be REALLY surprised if they would do this. Mainly because they are doing what THEY want to do......having to conform to another maker's modular system takes away some freedom....and I don't think they'd wanna mess with that.
 
BTW, I love owning gear that is looked down upon. Aside from being all around cool amps, one of the main reasons I bought the Randall amp is because hardly anybody knows what they are...it is something unique and different, which I like. My favorite distortion pedal of all time is the Zoom 5000....I love that pedal. People look down on it because it is a Zoom (until they hear it) and I actually *like* that.

I've owned a 2 channel Dual Recto since when they were somewhat unusual and different (yes there was a time). I also have the Randall Recto module in my RM50B. If I have spare time sometime, I'd like to make a recording playing both amps into the same speaker and see who could guess which one is the real Recto and which one is the module.
 
I think that boutique amp makers in general will be reluctant to build mods for Bruce's design. It goes against the end-to-end design philosophy of guys like Suhr, Fischer, etc.

That said, it is way interesting that John Suhr would even tip his hat to the modular approach. So maybe there is hope that the M4 will become the API Lunchbox of the guitar amp world.

In a way it's too bad that Randall and Egnater have tied the mods to existing signature sounds. I think both have their own signature tones, and they are very different! Both cool, to be sure, but different character for each.

I owned two Seymour Duncan 100W Convertibles in the late 80s. They had removable single tube modules that you could swap out to create a variety of gain profiles for it's two channels. Sound familiar? The Duncan is really the grandfather of the Egnater modular approach, but I have to rate it as a failure since these heads (and combos) have not gained a reputation as collectable in spite of their rarity. Of course, Bruce has perfected what was really ahead of it's time back then.

Some people automatically look down on amps that seek to emulate other amps. Heck, I have seen the M4 described as a "tube modeller." Huh? Maybe Randall and Egnater should remarket/rename the entire line and get away from the "sounds like" thing. It's a bad move for the reputation of the brand name. Look at Focusrite, a respected name now gets slagged for producing the Liquid Channel and lately the Liquid Mix. People suspect and even hate copy-catting. And that's too bad, because they are missing out.

Matt
 
And I think Randall has been permanently scarred by the RG series. Even with Dime endorsing them, many people hated them - including me.

I have had to look beyond that, and some people can't do it.

Matt
 
twenty4_7spy said:
I think that boutique amp makers in general will be reluctant to build mods for Bruce's design. It goes against the end-to-end design philosophy of guys like Suhr, Fischer, etc.

That said, it is way interesting that John Suhr would even tip his hat to the modular approach. So maybe there is hope that the M4 will become the API Lunchbox of the guitar amp world.

Whats funny about the API lunchbox is that several manufacturers make essentially an identical preamp based on the same 312 design. Most manufacturers also make exactly the same preamp or compressor in a 19' rack version as well...

Some people automatically look down on amps that seek to emulate other amps. Heck, I have seen the M4 described as a "tube modeller." Huh? Maybe Randall and Egnater should remarket/rename the entire line and get away from the "sounds like" thing. It's a bad move for the reputation of the brand name. Look at Focusrite, a respected name now gets slagged for producing the Liquid Channel and lately the Liquid Mix. People suspect and even hate copy-catting. And that's too bad, because they are missing out.

Matt

I don't really have any issues with the M4 being described as a tube modeller... all I really care about is how it sounds, and darn good it is. I agree, people are missing out... those arguments that modules won't sound identical to their complete amp counterparts could be considered an argument against the modular design and concept as a whole. Its merely a case of different strokes... If true accuracy was the issue who would buy an egnater amp? Its not identical... but it sounds superb so who cares.
 
guitarguy510 said:
Well here's a prime example. I love the tone of Mesa two channel Dual Rectifiers. I tried out Bruce's E'Rect module.... never bought a Mesa because I liked the module through the MOD50 better. Mesa is now officially out a sale. Same thing could happen to guys like John Suhr and Andy Fuchs if they chose to make module, IMO. Not saying it would, but if I were in their shoes I would be thinking about something like that quite seriously. However, with the modules you can only approximate the tone anyways, it's up to your fingers to get you the rest of the way there! :lol:

If you owned an M4 or MOD head and egnater didn't have an E'rect module, would you still buy a Mesa dual recto? But look at it the other way around, if Mesa sold a recto module would they still be out a sale?

I'd go as far to say that there are more people who will forgo a sale from a specific amp builder completely, then there are chances of people choosing the modular adaptation over its head or combo counterpart.

If Andy Fuchs made an ODS module and sold it for $600 I'd buy it... but he doesn't, and im not going to run out and buy an ODS amplifier because of that fact. By having a module he would be gaining a sale that would otherwise not exist.

The fact that my M4 has four slots doesn't mean I would have considered buying four different makes of amp if Egnater didn't exist.

How many people here are planning on buying a CAE 3+ rack to add to their M4 or MOD head? Probably far less than the number of people who would consider buying a CAE 3+ influenced module if it ever existed. I'd buy a CAE 3+ influenced module as well... but I'd never buy a CAE 3+ rack unit. Another sale gained that wouldnt happen otherwise.

Im sure im not the only person who would consider buying the module version, but not the entire rack... Thats why I say balancing the price is important, so that these extra sales that would have otherwise never happened outweigh the loss of the selected few who change their mind and choose a module over the head or combo.
 
If just one maker agreed to make a mod, it would go a long way toward "legitimizing" the modular approach in many people's eyes.

In the meantime, I'm gonna crank up my Eggie SL RT2/50 rig and wake the neighbors before I go work . . .

Matt
 
I could only imagine what some of the great amp builders and the great garage engineers could come up with.I love the modular design and I love the sound of the MOD50,every module has a tasty flavor all its own.It would really be interesting to see what an open source modular community would do.Endless possibilities.I'm drooling already!!!!!!!!
 
Top