I have a Quilter ToneBlock 202. I love it. But sometimes I want the flexibility of two channels.
The new Mach 3 looks promising. Has anyone tried the Mach 3 for pedal steel? How does it compare to the 202?
Quilter Tone Block 202 vrs Mach 3
Moderator: Shoshanah Marohn
-
Tom Wolverton
- Posts: 2874
- Joined: 8 May 2008 3:52 pm
- Location: Carpinteria, CA
Quilter Tone Block 202 vrs Mach 3
To write with a broken pencil is pointless.
-
Dan Beller-McKenna
- Posts: 2979
- Joined: 3 Apr 2005 1:01 am
- Location: Durham, New Hampshire, USA
- Contact:
I had the 202 for a while. I used it with the blockdock and a variety of speakers and liked it. After a steel/tele gig where I spent the whole set twiddling knobs every time I switched instruments, I traded that in for the Mach 3, which has two distinct channels.
I like the tone of the 202 better in general. It has less flexibility, but, to my ears, a better core tone. The tone is there in the Mach 3, but there is so much variety that it can be a little hard to nail. Also, while the amp in the Mach 3 is technically removable, it is not set up to carry around as an emergency backup amp the way the 202 is. I needed to acquire a DV Mark micro 50 to fulfill that role.
The Mach 3 does have a couple of advantages, though. As I said, the two channels are a big plus if you are doing double duty (putting an eq pedal in line to accommodate the two instruments never really cut it for me). It is a few pounds lighter (not that the 202 and blockdock are heavy by any metric). And it seems to me that the Mach 3 is noticeably louder. I forget the wattage ratings, but it just seems to get up to a full stage volume (if you're going that rout) without feeling strained compared to the 202. This may be a misconception, never having compared them side by side, but it is how it seemed to me.
There are a few other Mach 3 users on here who seem to prefer it to other Quilters. Hopefully they'll chime in.
I like the tone of the 202 better in general. It has less flexibility, but, to my ears, a better core tone. The tone is there in the Mach 3, but there is so much variety that it can be a little hard to nail. Also, while the amp in the Mach 3 is technically removable, it is not set up to carry around as an emergency backup amp the way the 202 is. I needed to acquire a DV Mark micro 50 to fulfill that role.
The Mach 3 does have a couple of advantages, though. As I said, the two channels are a big plus if you are doing double duty (putting an eq pedal in line to accommodate the two instruments never really cut it for me). It is a few pounds lighter (not that the 202 and blockdock are heavy by any metric). And it seems to me that the Mach 3 is noticeably louder. I forget the wattage ratings, but it just seems to get up to a full stage volume (if you're going that rout) without feeling strained compared to the 202. This may be a misconception, never having compared them side by side, but it is how it seemed to me.
There are a few other Mach 3 users on here who seem to prefer it to other Quilters. Hopefully they'll chime in.
-
Ken Morgan
- Posts: 274
- Joined: 17 Jan 2012 8:04 am
- Location: Midland, Texas, USA
- Contact:
Picked up a Mach 3 couple weeks back, and it is really an overall step up from my other Quilter amps. 2 discrete channels, each with a wide selection of pretty accurate starting points for various amps, is exactly what I needed when pulling double duty. No menus, just knobs is an unmeasurable strong plus.
67 Shobud Blue Darling III, scads of pedals and such, more 6 strings than I got room for
Ken Morgan
Midland, TX
Ken Morgan
Midland, TX