Your nemesis in MTS

Synergy/MTS Forum

Help Support Synergy/MTS Forum:

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

Mattfig

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 22, 2010
Messages
5,688
Reaction score
1
Location
Hurtling through space on a wet rock.
What can't you rid from your tone in MTS that you wish you could?

For me, it's the inconsistent volumes of each mod....Some squeal when up high but have to be to compete with some at half volume and quieter....It's been getting better over the years and I use ISP G Deci's so it's quiet....Just a nuisance...If you don't open them they sound thin but some can't handle being opened very much....
 
Mattfig said:
For me, it's the inconsistent volumes of each mod....Some squeal when up high but have to be to compete with some at half volume and quieter....It's been getting better over the years and I use ISP G Deci's so it's quiet....Just a nuisance...If you don't open them they sound thin but some can't handle being opened very much....

Me too! Drives me crazy! It's very frustrating trying to match volumes between a clean and dirty modules; when the clean modules volume is nearly maxed out and you try to turn up the dirty module to its sweet spot, it?s way louder than the clean. No big deal if you?re recording or just jamming but for live use you end up having to deal with a compromise knowing your dirty module is not at its full potential.
 
For me, I've found that having the same modder's mods in one amp helps keep noise levels more consistant... I only have 1 donor left, & will have the same modder do the work. My other 3 modules really "hang" well together.

So, whith that being said... I wish all of the modders would collaborate on a "standard" for allowable noise on high-gain modules. For me, that would take care of a number of problems that normally require me to add additional gear to my otherwise simple rig.
 
The noise is a product of amplification and bandwidth. The more gain, the more noise. Every time you add a gain stage you amplify everything from the previous stage minus what ever filtering (tone controls).
 
The question is why is there such a difference "trying to match volumes between a clean and dirty module." The reason is that to make the sound
"dirty" you have to literally make it louder i.e. increase the gain, and, in some modules, add gain stages, which increases the volume(signal voltage)
To make a clean module "louder" you would have to add an additional stage to raise the level without distortion or an additional master volume on the power amp that would switch with the modules. That's what you have in effect when using an RM4 and an RT2/50.
As Rob has said, there are limitations to what can be done because you can't alter V1, the first preamp tube circuit and the phase inverter and power amp.
I mentioned modeling because a digitally modeled sound is not created by driving an analogue circuit into distortion so the levels can be set arbitrarily.
 
Kc2eeb basically covered most of the truth behind this complaint and the MTS system. To expand on this:

1: The shared first stage is significant. However, another issue is what pertains to the clean/high gain balance more so than that. The signals from the modules all come back together at the same point in the signal flow. One of the freedoms allowed when designing a multi-channel amp is deciding where and how you mix your clean and gain channel back together. This is a freedom the MTS system can not afford you.

2: Noise is a function of both amplification and bandwidth. This also ties into the design philosophy and artistry of the designer to an extent. It's part of what makes all of us different.

From experience, I'll tell you Salvation mods tend to have much more saturation and bandwidth limiting throughout than my work does. SG's work tends to use bandwidth limiting, particularly at the output. Dave F tends to drive stages hard, limit between them and use particular parts for lower noise in particular applications. I am a bit more of a purist in my philosophy and prefer to design for use live an loud. I add and take away in stages throughout the flow without ever being too extreme in any one stage. This may be far less exciting to play at lower levels in a bedroom, but it comes alive cranked up with the band and keeps noise at absolute minimums. Those are my paramount design goals.

I think at some point a lot of reflection will go back to the amount of flexibility and talent that was available to this platform for years. I'd be hard pressed to think of another gear platform that had so many talented folks providing their services at such an affordable price all at once.
 
kc2eeb said:
The question is why is there such a difference "trying to match volumes between a clean and dirty module." The reason is that to make the sound
"dirty" you have to literally make it louder i.e. increase the gain, and, in some modules, add gain stages, which increases the volume(signal voltage)
To make a clean module "louder" you would have to add an additional stage to raise the level without distortion or an additional master volume on the power amp that would switch with the modules. That's what you have in effect when using an RM4 and an RT2/50.
As Rob has said, there are limitations to what can be done because you can't alter V1, the first preamp tube circuit and the phase inverter and power amp.
I mentioned modeling because a digitally modeled sound is not created by driving an analogue circuit into distortion so the levels can be set arbitrarily.

I was using a clean and dirty module as an example of a behavior that bothers me in MTS. The volume inconsistencies are in no way exclusive to dirty modules being louder than clean modules. In fact, the loudest module I have is a dual Vibe Deluxe which is very clean in the vibe mode.

Obviously different circuits will yield different outputs. I thought the point of this thread was to express what bothers you about MTS; for me it that it?s so close to being perfect for my needs but when switching between multiple modules you have to compromise a bit to get even levels on each module. Still better than carrying a rack of amp heads, load boxes and switcher to accomplish the same thing. :D
 
I agree that the MTS system IS close to ideal considering the limitations of it's design parameters.
Consider this:
I have a RM4, a RM50 and a RT2/50. The only one of the three that gave me no problem was the RM4. The RM50 needed a new Power Amp circuit board and output transformer and the RT2/50 had a shorted lead to the bottom channel. All new, out of the box, BUT, I stayed with it because of the sound and design concept. It is amazingly versatile in a way a non-modular system could never be.
Complaints? Sure.
The RM50 should have had a separate bias pot for each tube like the RM100 has and the pots should be multi-turn, a more substantial output impedance switch would be nice, and better input and output jacks.
The effects loop has been discussed.
Rob, thanks for the kind words.
 
The volume differences can be fairly easily remedied if using separate preamps and power amps. IMO this is a insignificant price to pay for the pleasure of actually using real tube circuitry.

For example, in my case if I want keep a pretty clean rig I just put the M? into my Engl E850/100 that has two footswitchable "sounds" with separate volume, depth and presence. Problem solved.

I also fancy the idea of a user friendly amp easy to maintain, switching tubes etc. Few competitors ever had those options. Quality and Randall build quality IMO don't always go hand in hand though
 
I dislike the power surge at start up on my M4 set up. The on / off switches are on the back so I leave them on. When I turn on the power conditioner the modules get a pretty good jolt.
 
That's why I mentioned the RM4 with the RT2/50. You then have 4 pre-amps and 2 power amps which can be selected via the MIDI foot switch,1 pre-amp
to either power amp.
 
Jaded Faith said:
...From experience, I'll tell you Salvation mods tend to have much more saturation and bandwidth limiting throughout than my work does. SG's work tends to use bandwidth limiting, particularly at the output. Dave F tends to drive stages hard, limit between them and use particular parts for lower noise in particular applications...

This is very interesting! Could you expand upon this even further Rob?
By limiting saturation, do you mean reducing the signal amplitude before going into a specific gainstage or is the limiting within the tube gainstage itself?

With bandwith limiting, do you mean cutting out frequencies in some sort of way? Is this also done in the 12ax7 stages?
 
1) For me, it's the feel. After playing MTS for years and now being almost out of it, I realize how much better my VHT Pitbull feels versus my MTS system and the 3 modules I kept. The same goes for my 5153. When I'm on the clean channel, I can feel the notes blossoming and when I'm on the dirty channels I can really feel the magic. I can't feel that on my MTS setup.

2) There's also this overall tone that my RM100's (Poweramp) give my modules. For some of the mods, this tone works. It works for my MarkUS for whatever reason. On my Stonerverb, it adds this sound that an Orange rockerverb doesn't naturally have.

3) why were Scott's modules so **** quiet compared to Rob', Antoin and Dave's designs?
 
Never being able to get the feel / organic'ness' out of the RM100 power section...drives me crazy.
 
kc2eeb said:
That's why I bought the RM50 and the RT2/50. You can push the power section and get "that sound."

I totally agree, the RM50, even bone stock....is so much better. You can push it and get some nice juice out of the power section without killing yourself.
 
Top