Rick-o-sound stereo input (two amps)

swartzfeger

Member
Gang, I'm nearly 3 years past my intended date to finally get an Axe-FX II, but that's ok... I'll just pretend I was waiting for Quantum and an XL+ the whole time. :)

My question is this... part of my gear rebuilding process was buying my main instrument, a bass, and this time I bought a Rickenbacker 4003. There stereo output has been awesome for more effects-laden material (ambient, etc).

That got me thinking -- it would be great to run stereo into the XL+, with the bridge pup going into a Marshall, and the neck pup going into an SVT, and dialing in a Squire-esque vibe. But I only notice one hi-Z on the front of the unit. Is my two amp setup with my Rick possible by using the balanced inputs on the back? That would be great if it was doable. If not, I may just save the $ and go for an AX8.

Also, the two amp scenario got me thinking about this pedal by Tech21 (which I think is no longer made):

TECH 21 - American Woman

The pedal is basically emulating one amp being run into another amp... sort of a verging on feedback/sustain/ebow vibe. Very cool tone. Is it possible to set something like this up in a preset?

Thanks!
 
Yes, you can incorporate either of the back inputs into the patch (though if you're also using the front input, you can't use back input 1 in stereo--the front input is actually "input 1 left"). Most people run both signals into a volume block to split them. I play a Carvin guitar with a piezo in it, and I'm considering adding the acoustic sound into some of my patches. I've also got a 1970 Rick 4001 bass, and I've been thinking about trying this. Of course, you don't necessarily have to have a bass with two separate outputs. You could probably simulate it by splitting your single, front-input signal into two rows on the layout grid, running each through a separate eq block, then running them through their own amps and cabs.

A friend sent me a link to this bass stem of Chris Squire's "Roundabout" performance isolated. It got me to thinking about trying to do just what you're describing. If I get a convincing patch out of it, I'll post it.

 
Last edited:
I use my Rick 4003 with the Axe II in this way using the rear inputs and an insert cable (TRS from the Rick split into two TS, each into its own rear input). I run the bridge pickup through an overdriven SVT model and the neck pickup with a clean Tube Pre model. I also use various other blocks as well.
 

Attachments

  • Rick 4003.jpg
    Rick 4003.jpg
    84.2 KB · Views: 40
I use my Rick 4003 with the Axe II in this way using the rear inputs and an insert cable (TRS from the Rick split into two TS, each into its own rear input). I run the bridge pickup through an overdriven SVT model and the neck pickup with a clean Tube Pre model. I also use various other blocks as well.

I do this too sometimes.

When I am feeling really crazy, I use the crossover block to get things even more divided for different processing possibilities.
 
Great info guys, thanks much. Is there an impedance issue running inputs thru the back via the hi-Z on the front? I don't know anything about impedance and not sure if it makes a difference or not. Thanks!
 
Another thing to consider is using an identical signal path for both pickups, even if you are setting some of the blocks to be transparent. If the path for one is longer than the other, you get phase issues between the two paths. That's one reason why I used the Tube Pre amp sim on the neck pickup instead of no amp model at all. I used a flat IR on the neck pickup for the same reason.

Or you could use a fine-grained delay to make sure the two paths are time aligned. It makes a big difference.
 
Back
Top Bottom