Why is a single channel amp inherently better than a multi?

[Joost]

I keep hearing so many guys I respect (like David Grissom and John Mayer) repeat over and over that a single channel amp is inherently better and purer in tone than a multichannel amp.

But why? I built and modded my Too Rock to a point where I loved the clean tone. Then I modded the overdrive until I loved that too in conjunction with my favorite clean setting. But the OD gets bypassed completely with a relay in clean mode, so here is my question:

Why would the clean tone suffer just because there's a bypassed, stacked OD waiting on a relay switch?

Why would that be worse than just the pure single channel amp?

I have the same question about the Dumbleator. Many believe it adds to the tone, so why not have it? Why claim it messes up the tone?

What am I missing here?

[diagrammatiks]

it's not.

[Joost]

it's not.

*hahaha* care to elaborate?

[diagrammatiks]

well I dunno what else to say,
there's nothing inherent about a multichannel amp that makes it worse then a single channel amp.

it's easy to eff a multichannel amp up though.

[Structo]

Some people like to say stuff like that to impress people.

Like, I just plug straight into this old single channel Class A amp.
No bells, no whistles, yada yada yada...

Me, I like an amp with good clean and good dirt, I'll take my Dumble.

[John_P_WI]

Single channel amps are simplistic and can be dialed in for some serious great tones. I would argue that Dumble / Two Rocks are still single channel amps, with a Tapped gain structure. Eliminate the extra two gain stages you have clean, add the gain stages you have overdrive. Still one channel, the signal is just taken off half way through... with the compromises of a single channel amp. Of course the HRM tone stack tries to solve this.

CAE, TOL, Engl to name a few are true multi channel amps in which the gain structure and tone controls are individually controlled per channel.

It is my belief that true multi channel amps can be fantastic sounding, it is when compromises are made to save the almighty dollar in manufacturing that poor component choices or short cuts taken can degrade the tone.

Also, comparing a simplistic single channel amp to a multi gain stage multi channel monster amp with more attenuation and high frequency dumping and shaping is like comparing apples and oranges.

Both have their place and use. I would gladly use one of Husky's multi channel amp designs over anything simple from bugera / behringer or any other importer etc....

[Reeltarded]

I prefer single channels because I use the power in each to it's own potential with the gain structure and eq a certain way that doesn't have to split any difference from one sound to another. There are rare amps that are designed to sound pretty good on both, but like... NOT A BOOGIE.. and if you know what I mean, you KNOW what I mean.

I play a lot of non-master amps without any attenuation. I am looking for a way to leave that behind, but that search goes on, and on, and on, and on..

[spiralstairs]

when people say that, they are usually comparing typical 60s amps to typical 90s amps, etc.
I'd also say Dumble is 1 channel, and a Twin Reverb is 2 channel. So how about that - the saying is similar to people with "master volume amps aren't as good as NMV" - they typically mean early plexis to JCM900 etc. I happen to love the larmarMV in a plexi...

[PaisleyTube]

I disagree. I's certainly possible to build a "nice" dual channel amp but (in the case of Dumbles) you're feeding the od-section with a clean preamp (mid-dipped without pab) and that's vey hard to voice for most lead-sounds imo. The red-plate concept is a cool option having two channels "parallel".

Besides that in a Dumble-style-topology just compare (let's say) a blackface TwinReverb with (let's say) a Marshall JMP 1959 or 2203> all the same except for everything after the two 68k input-resistors. Different transformers, voltages, tubes, PI's, pwrsupply-filtering, etc.

hey............ one does have reverb and the other one goes to 11

greetings from Chris (Vleuten)

[spiralstairs]

that being said, I do agree in a large way.

I had a modified old fender with 1 channel BF clean and 2nd channel set to a very trainwreck-inspired distorted channel. I thought it'd be useful to switch between the 2 and have slightly different EQs, and have a clean channel to use as a pedal platform - so even though the TW side gave good cleans with the guitar volume knob, it didn't work well with lots of pedals.

Turns out I just always used the TW side. Riding the volume knob just gave such better results, because it all just sounded together. I guess if the clean channel had a more mid-rich tweedy clean, the 2 channels might go together better. But life was just so much simpler with 1, and I always had a better sound and could just play. I'm also not a pedal freak so my use of pedals is limited.

The d-style works well because you're not trying to drastically change sounds, you're layering on top of them.

[sonicmojo]

I keep hearing so many guys I respect (like David Grissom and John Mayer) repeat over and over that a single channel amp is inherently better and purer in tone than a multichannel amp.

This made me chuckle but doesn't Mayer typically have 4 amps going, more than one at a time to get his tone? Maybe he meant to say that two single channel amps beat a multichannel amp.

[brentm]

I keep hearing so many guys I respect (like David Grissom and John Mayer) repeat over and over that a single channel amp is inherently better and purer in tone than a multichannel amp.

This made me chuckle but doesn't Mayer typically have 4 amps going, more than one at a time to get his tone? Maybe he meant to say that two single channel amps beat a multichannel amp.

His tone sounded great with his fender amps too. He's a pedal effect geek and I think it's easier to control your sound by finding a good amp setting and dialing up the pedals around it. You can get some great singing lead tone with a klon or an ldo (or clone) and a blues jr.

[Joost]

Very cool discussion! Check out this interview. Grissom boldly states here that he has never seen a top level studio guitarist who used an effects loop after 1985. Scroll to 08:50
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MYLiVPoODjU

What do you say about that? Specifically the dumbleator?

[Structo]

I keep hearing so many guys I respect (like David Grissom and John Mayer) repeat over and over that a single channel amp is inherently better and purer in tone than a multichannel amp.

This made me chuckle but doesn't Mayer typically have 4 amps going, more than one at a time to get his tone? Maybe he meant to say that two single channel amps beat a multichannel amp.

That is true.
The last time I saw a newer video of him he had more amps then most bars on open mic jam night.

[Structo]

Very cool discussion! Check out this interview. Grissom boldly states here that he has never seen a top level studio guitarist who used an effects loop after 1985. Scroll to 08:50
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MYLiVPoODjU

What do you say about that? Specifically the dumbleator?

Yeah, well he is also completely endored by Paul Reed Smith, a full ride so to speak.
I would probably sing praises from the mountain top too if I were him.

PRS amps are fine and sound good and his guitars aren't too shabby either.

I think Paul confuses people when he calls his new line the PRS SE amps because SE usually means single ended.
But they are fixed bias two channel.