A tweak guide I did for the CAE 3+ lead sim

J

james...

Experienced
To kick off my project for adding content to the "emulating well known amps" page, I did one on the CAE 3+ SE lead sim. I felt that after 9.0, this sim got WAY better. So I decided it needed some attention. F

If someone could add this to the wiki (link below) that would be great. I suck at it.

-This amp has great tone right out of the gate. Any high gain player will want to check it out. This list of tweaks I think is the key to getting this amp from "good" to "great" territory.
-Start by setting everything at noon. This obviously does not include the presence control which should be set at roughly 6.
-Unlike a lot of high gain amps, the 3+ doesn't really benifit from a drive in front of it. Some may like to try it but I think it introduces fizz
-The 3+ (at least through my system) has a fair amount of fizz that some won't like. The easiest way to get rid of this is the high cut parameter, which I like to set at 14000
-The low cut doesn't do much for this amp. You can try turning it up but I find any more than 45 hz takes away some balls
-The mid control on this amp is very important. Don't be afraid to raise it up quite high. It opens up the sound.
-I usually keep the bass and treble at noon but it's fine to boost or cut them if the application calls for it.
-to make the 3+ more squishy, simply lower the damp knob. And inversely, raise it to make the amp tighter. I personally like it at noon.
-The master likes to stay between 4 and 5. Any higher and the amp starts getting rough like a Marshall.
-The power tube bias, if raised will make the amp more jangly. But for most purposes, it should be left alone.
-Raising the Xformer match to about 6.5 seems to add some mojo to the amp. Try it and see for yourself.

http://axefxwiki.guitarlogic.org/index. ... known_amps
 
I think it sounds better than before. If we just got a Marshall power stage instead of the Mesa, than it would sound even better!
 
tonygtr said:
I think it sounds better than before. If we just got a Marshall power stage instead of the Mesa, than it would sound even better!
Click to expand...

+1,000,000 on that one !

John originally tuned the pre-amp for a "hot-rodded" JCM-800 power section and I'd love to have that option !
 
Mesa? Maybe I'm confused.

-I thought the power section was based of the PT100 or something?

-If it really is a mesa, couldn't we just go to a Marshall sim, change the tonestack and settings to the same as the cae, and have what you are talking about?
 
james... said:
Mesa? Maybe I'm confused.

-I thought the power section was based of the PT100 or something?

-If it really is a mesa, couldn't we just go to a Marshall sim, change the tonestack and settings to the same as the cae, and have what you are talking about?
Click to expand...

No the PT-100 wasn't even in existance when John Suhr originally designed the 3+SE ( he was working with Bob Bradshaw at the time ) ...!

I think the "Legend" is ..., that John designed it ( possibly for Steve Lukather ), but in any event, Luke had one of the first ones available. Somehow "EVH" got a hold of it ( probably through Luke ) and he used it for The Dream is Over ( on F.U.C.K. ) .... And he used it in conjunction with a "hot-rodded" JCM-800 ....

Now it's no secret that most guitarists happen to use it with the MESA 2:90 and I think that's what Cliff modelled into the sim ....

But, I'm not a 6L6 fan, I'd much perfer an EL-34 option !

Someone said that there's a thread on how to simulate EL-34's by manipulating the Advanced parameters, but if there is I can't find it !

Going to a Marshall sim and changing the Tonestack won't come even close to the same thing, because the 3+SE has more gain stages than a Marshall ....
 
R.D. said:
[quote="james...":2y4w63mz]Mesa? Maybe I'm confused.

-I thought the power section was based of the PT100 or something?

-If it really is a mesa, couldn't we just go to a Marshall sim, change the tonestack and settings to the same as the cae, and have what you are talking about?
Click to expand...

No the PT-100 wasn't even in existance when John Suhr originally designed the 3+SE ( he was working with Bob Bradshaw at the time ) ...!

I think the "Legend" is ..., that John designed it ( possibly for Steve Lukather ), but in any event, Luke had one of the first ones available. Somehow "EVH" got a hold of it ( probably through Luke ) and he used it for The Dream is Over ( on F.U.C.K. ) .... And he used it in conjunction with a "hot-rodded" JCM-800 ....

Now it's no secret that most guitarists happen to use it with the MESA 2:90 and I think that's what Cliff modelled into the sim ....

But, I'm not a 6L6 fan, I'd much perfer an EL-34 option !

Someone said that there's a thread on how to simulate EL-34's by manipulating the Advanced parameters, but if there is I can't find it !

Going to a Marshall sim and changing the Tonestack won't come even close to the same thing, because the 3+SE has more gain stages than a Marshall ....[/quote:2y4w63mz]

Bradshaw designed and built a prototype of what later became the X88R for Lukathers live rig in the late 80s. When Mike Soldano didn't want to continue to develop the preamp, Bob left and did his own preamp under the CAE brand, and brought in John Suhr to help him design it. EVH had one of the earlier prototypes, which he used on some songs on FUCK. This was not Lukes preamp, but a prototype borrowed from Bob Bradshaw.

The preamp was designed with a Marshall power section in mind. Most people do not use a Boogie 290, VHT is more popular ( both Landau and Luke have always used Marshall or VHT poweramps with it ). Bradshaw thinks the preamp sounds way better with VHT than Boogie, he thinks the Boogie sounds alright, but the VHT is better. I've owned 2 CAE preamps, one original, very early 3+ ( formerly owned by Neal Schon ), and a newer 3+SE. I've had them stock, and I've had them modded, and the Marshalls and VHT always sounded way better than the 290. The 290 sounds nothing like a Marshall. It's has wierd and undefined mids compared to a Marshall sounding poweramp.

The preamp is basically meant to be a Marshall-type sound. The first channel is a Twin clone, but CH2 and CH3 ( where the magic is ), are Marshally all the way. The second channel is somewhat like a JCM800, but with more gain, and retains string definition all the way without getting muddy with high amounts of gain, or that icepick effect in the higher freq. that Marshalls often have. CH3 is sorta of a mix between the Soldano X88R CH3 and a hot rodded Marshall. These 2 channels benift ALOT from having a Marshall power section. You get more punch, more definition, and more dynamics, and the preamp really shines then.
 
tonygtr said:
Bradshaw designed and built a prototype of what later became the X88R for Lukathers live rig in the late 80s. When Mike Soldano didn't want to continue to develop the preamp, Bob left and did his own preamp under the CAE brand, and brought in John Suhr to help him design it. EVH had one of the earlier prototypes, which he used on some songs on FUCK. This was not Lukes preamp, but a prototype borrowed from Bob Bradshaw.

The preamp was designed with a Marshall power section in mind. Most people do not use a Boogie 290, VHT is more popular ( both Landau and Luke have always used Marshall or VHT poweramps with it ). Bradshaw thinks the preamp sounds way better with VHT than Boogie, he thinks the Boogie sounds alright, but the VHT is better. I've owned 2 CAE preamps, one original, very early 3+ ( formerly owned by Neal Schon ), and a newer 3+SE. I've had them stock, and I've had them modded, and the Marshalls and VHT always sounded way better than the 290. The 290 sounds nothing like a Marshall. It's has wierd and undefined mids compared to a Marshall sounding poweramp.

The preamp is basically meant to be a Marshall-type sound. The first channel is a Twin clone, but CH2 and CH3 ( where the magic is ), are Marshally all the way. The second channel is somewhat like a JCM800, but with more gain, and retains string definition all the way without getting muddy with high amounts of gain, or that icepick effect in the higher freq. that Marshalls often have. CH3 is sorta of a mix between the Soldano X88R CH3 and a hot rodded Marshall. These 2 channels benift ALOT from having a Marshall power section. You get more punch, more definition, and more dynamics, and the preamp really shines then.
Click to expand...

THANKS for that :!:

Where did you find the info ... :?: John Suhr has talked about it a lot, but never with those specifics :!:
Very cool indeed :idea:
 
R.D. said:
tonygtr said:
Bradshaw designed and built a prototype of what later became the X88R for Lukathers live rig in the late 80s. When Mike Soldano didn't want to continue to develop the preamp, Bob left and did his own preamp under the CAE brand, and brought in John Suhr to help him design it. EVH had one of the earlier prototypes, which he used on some songs on FUCK. This was not Lukes preamp, but a prototype borrowed from Bob Bradshaw.

The preamp was designed with a Marshall power section in mind. Most people do not use a Boogie 290, VHT is more popular ( both Landau and Luke have always used Marshall or VHT poweramps with it ). Bradshaw thinks the preamp sounds way better with VHT than Boogie, he thinks the Boogie sounds alright, but the VHT is better. I've owned 2 CAE preamps, one original, very early 3+ ( formerly owned by Neal Schon ), and a newer 3+SE. I've had them stock, and I've had them modded, and the Marshalls and VHT always sounded way better than the 290. The 290 sounds nothing like a Marshall. It's has wierd and undefined mids compared to a Marshall sounding poweramp.

The preamp is basically meant to be a Marshall-type sound. The first channel is a Twin clone, but CH2 and CH3 ( where the magic is ), are Marshally all the way. The second channel is somewhat like a JCM800, but with more gain, and retains string definition all the way without getting muddy with high amounts of gain, or that icepick effect in the higher freq. that Marshalls often have. CH3 is sorta of a mix between the Soldano X88R CH3 and a hot rodded Marshall. These 2 channels benift ALOT from having a Marshall power section. You get more punch, more definition, and more dynamics, and the preamp really shines then.
Click to expand...

THANKS for that :!:

Where did you find the info ... :?: John Suhr has talked about it a lot, but never with those specifics :!:
Very cool indeed :idea:
Click to expand...

Too much time over at HRI, and various interviews around the web. Also talked to Bob about the preamp a couple of years ago. ;)
 
tonygtr said:
Too much time over at HRI, and various interviews around the web. Also talked to Bob about the preamp a couple of years ago. ;)
Click to expand...

I hang @ HRI too, but somehow I missed that !

Do you have personal experience with the VHT Power Amp., ? I don't, so I don't know anything about it, except a lot of players love it ?!?

THANKS AGAIN !
 
R.D. said:
tonygtr said:
Too much time over at HRI, and various interviews around the web. Also talked to Bob about the preamp a couple of years ago. ;)
Click to expand...

I hang @ HRI too, but somehow I missed that !

Do you have personal experience with the VHT Power Amp., ? I don't, so I don't know anything about it, except a lot of players love it ?!?

THANKS AGAIN !
Click to expand...

Yes, I owned a Classic ( the one everyone wants the get, very rare ), a 2902 and I have tried a 2502.

They are very nice, especially the Classic. I would descripe it as a Marshall with extended range. It may not be that in design, but that's what it sounds like. I've heard that the Boogie 290 is basically a Marshall power section, but it sure doesn't sound like it ;)
 
tonygtr said:
I've heard that the Boogie 290 is basically a Marshall power section, but it sure doesn't sound like it ;)
Click to expand...

I'd have to agree there, especially since it's running 8 6L6's and no EL-34's ?

Maybe the 2:100 ? It looks like it could be biased for either ?

Whatever the case, I'd LOVE to somehow get the option to run the 3+SE sim into a modelled EL-34 power output section !

Sounds like I'm not the only one either ! That's good to know, because I was beginning to think maybe I was ....

Maybe if we "drum" up enough interest, Cliff will figure out how to do it ?

Thanks for all your information !
 
I thought it was "the marshall power section was what JS thought sounded the best" but the 2:90 was the stereo amp that sounded the best?
 
RobertH said:
I thought it was "the marshall power section was what JS thought sounded the best" but the 2:90 was the stereo amp that sounded the best?
Click to expand...

Possible. I've think I've read somewhere that Suhr said it was the closest thing to a Marshall they could find, and that's saying alot :mrgreen:
 
Thanks for the info!

Just to clarify for a NOOB - how do I set up the marshall power amp rather than the mesa in the AFX patch? Or are you guys saying it can not be done?

I actually think the CAE3+ is one of the best models in the Axe - in my limited time with the unit. I am not at all thrilled with the Uber or Slo patches - they lack any three dimensionality whatsoever but the CAE is pretty good.

Steve.
 
R.D. said:
SteveTurner said:
Or are you guys saying it can not be done?
Click to expand...

Yes ! Right now, we're saying it can't be done without A LOT of patching gymnastics .... :cry:
Click to expand...

Oh thanks I did read it right. :)

I do agree - not a huge fan of the 2:90 power amps - EL34s all the way for me.

Steve.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom