Synergy Owners Thread

[laxu]

There is a rumor elsewhere that they plan to refresh the SYN1/2 with the optional digital backend stuff. (Power amp emu and IR) Not sure if that’s random speculation or someone has solid intel.

I hate to think what they will cost then, considering what they cost now. I think that would add a lot of usability to them though.

Probably the sensible thing would be to offer them with and without the IR/poweramp sim because if you have e.g two SYN2 units for 4 modules, you probably don't want two separate IR loaders and poweramp sims?

I'm also unsure where they'd fit that in the rack unit, though maybe it wouldn't take up too much space. My biggest concern though would be heat, which would definitely be higher than in something like the IR-X.

Most of the heat inside the box is coming from the tubes in the modules. I don't see this as a problem. Here's a pic of the SYN-2 insides from Synergy's website:

I think you could cram in another PCB somewhere under that flipped one without issue, or make that board larger to bundle in the IR stuff.

 

[MadAsAHatter]

I hate to think what they will cost then, considering what they cost now. I think that would add a lot of usability to them though.

Probably the sensible thing would be to offer them with and without the IR/poweramp sim because if you have e.g two SYN2 units for 4 modules, you probably don't want two separate IR loaders and poweramp sims?


Most of the heat inside the box is coming from the tubes in the modules. I don't see this as a problem. Here's a pic of the SYN-2 insides from Synergy's website:

I think you could cram in another PCB somewhere under that flipped one without issue, or make that board larger to bundle in the IR stuff.

If they would go that direction it might be worth developing a SYN4. 4 module slots in a 2 rack unit with enough room to fit the extra IR and power amp sim stuff.

Something like that would end up being rather pricey; I'd guess at least double the cost of a SYN2, but it would make one heck of a setup.

 

[laxu]

If they would go that direction it might be worth developing a SYN4. 4 module slots in a 2 rack unit with enough room to fit the extra IR and power amp sim stuff.

Something like that would end up being rather pricey; I'd guess at least double the cost of a SYN2, but it would make one heck of a setup.

It would probably be a lot cheaper than 2x SYN2 because you don't need duplicate transformers etc. You basically need a new chassis and a way to hook up 4x module slots and switch between them.

But that's probably a pretty niche product when you have 2 channels in most modules, and would appeal mainly to those who have a bunch of modules and don't want to be pulling them in and out.

 

[Elric]

I think it’s inevitable considering it’s all under the BAD umbrella.

I doubt it, personally... at least if we are talking about a pedal board dock product that accommodates the modules.

I'm sure they have kicked the thought around but the SYN1 is about as small as a module dock can be... If they did it'd likely be some pedal dock that was incompatible with their existing footprint but made the pedal more sensible in terms of footprint/size/cost.

I suspect they're more than happy to continue to build self contained pedals like the IRX using the Synergy back end as long as those continue to sell (and they seem to be an apparent hit). They probably actually make a little more off the pedals as they can resell that same back end over and over again at some small margin.

Those IR-XX pedals likely share a lot of design collateral with the modules already; although they are short a tube, so they seem unlikely to be exactly 1 to 1.

There is a rumor elsewhere that they plan to refresh the SYN1/2 with the optional digital backend stuff. (Power amp emu and IR) Not sure if that’s random speculation or someone has solid intel.

This seems likely at some point, to me. If the SYN20-IR is a hit, I'd expect MkII's of the Syn-1/2 and the higher wattage head.

Imo, probably less than 1% of guitarists have rack gear in 2024. I know it was/is an exclusive/high end approach to guitar gear, but its isn't appealing to the 99% of guitarists who just have a collection of pedals and maybe a couple amps.

Interesting data points. So did you pull these out of the air? FWIW I suspect BAD is probably most likely interested in the demographic buying multiple $400 modules and $500 pedals right now. They also just built a 2U $2500 rack unit that is apparently doing gang busters right now if TGP is to be believed.

So, while I agree that rack units are likely a minority, there are a lot of Axe IIIs, Interfaces, etc, along with the Synergy stuff out in the wild these days and the question is, really: Is it profitable continuing to do so?

They likely do not view people buying stuff like Katana's as their target market, F. ex.

I don't know if the synergy rack modules allow some sort of chaining strategy so you can have 2, 4, 6, 8 of them, but the pedals have a loop and midi so there are alot of options. Routing these in parallel just takes a switcher like a Boss MS3.

LOL. You should probably do a little research before further comment; if you are this out of the loop (so to speak).

 

[Elric]

I finally sent Synergy the email I have put off since I got the SLO II, but in short, the module sucks. I still like their products, but the SLO II was one of the biggest disappointments gearwise since the Mad Professor Loud N Proud (talk about awful!). The SLO II is a muddy mess. Maybe they'll get it right with the SLO III (normally they wouldn't list that a product has been revised on the faceplate, but they should with the SLO II module).

Given how well this module seemed to sell and the fact that a lot of folks forked $100 just for a purple version of it, I'm going to guess your letter came off as random feedback from some lone nut outlier.

They might silently rev it with some improvements, like Fryette did the Deliverance though if they get enough constructive criticism here on the net, though; so I guess there is always hope!

FWIW, I don't think it is horrible. The problem is it's not an SLO module, really. It's some other thing. It's definitely not my least favorite module and tweaked for lower gain it gets closer to the SLO.

 

[Spaced Out Ace]

Given how well this module seemed to sell and the fact that a lot of folks forked $100 just for a purple version of it, I'm going to guess your letter came off as random feedback from some lone nut outlier.

They might silently rev it with some improvements, like Fryette did the Deliverance though if they get enough constructive criticism here on the net, though; so I guess there is always hope!

FWIW, I don't think it is horrible. The problem is it's not an SLO module, really. It's some other thing. It's definitely not my least favorite module and tweaked for lower gain it gets closer to the SLO.

I haven't tried a whole lot of them, but the SLO II is definitely my least favorite, and no, it is not an SLO as you stated.

 

[GTR37]

I haven't tried a whole lot of them, but the SLO II is definitely my least favorite, and no, it is not an SLO as you stated.

As compared to the OG Slo
I suspect you probably much preferred that one , that’s seems to be the the general comments that it’s odd this one is not as good because the single eq one is pretty much on everyone’s top list

 

[Whizzinby]

I doubt it, personally... at least if we are talking about a pedal board dock product that accommodates the modules.

Yeah I was talking about IRX type pedals but of amps/modules they (BAD) already own or make. Like a IR-SLO or IR-Uber pedal.

 

[Elric]

Yeah I was talking about IRX type pedals but of amps/modules they (BAD) already own or make. Like a IR-SLO or IR-Uber pedal.

Yes, I think we are definitely going to see more of that action. I am under the impression the Friedman stuff was a big hit based on the fact that he whipped out three of them so fast, including the IR-J which had no corresponding model.

The IR-SLO will be a huge hit. Everyone wants an SLO but no one wants to buy one that hasn't already.

 

[Spaced Out Ace]

Yes, I think we are definitely going to see more of that action. I am under the impression the Friedman stuff was a big hit based on the fact that he whipped out three of them so fast, including the IR-J which had no corresponding model.

The IR-SLO will be a huge hit. Everyone wants an SLO but no one wants to buy one that hasn't already.

I hope it's based on the original module, which people online say is better than the second version.

 

[GTR37]

Yes, I think we are definitely going to see more of that action. I am under the impression the Friedman stuff was a big hit based on the fact that he whipped out three of them so fast, including the IR-J which had no corresponding model.

The IR-SLO will be a huge hit. Everyone wants an SLO but no one wants to buy one that hasn't already.

A Bogner XTC IR with blue /red channels and the modes would be killer

 

[Shredder777]

Probably the sensible thing would be to offer them with and without the IR/poweramp sim because if you have e.g two SYN2 units for 4 modules, you probably don't want two separate IR loaders and poweramp sims?

How would the digital backend in the rack work? I believe that the friedman pedals have res/pres/lopass and ampsim which are tuned specifically for those preamps. Each module would have to have its own digital backend, which would need to be developed for each module.

Does the rack know which modules are plugged in? If not, they could offer a menu to select from all the amp types. They could be mix and matched with the modules which would be value added over the pedals. Then i would be interested in the synergy modules.

I think the digital back end combined with analog front end is what elevates them. Preamp played directly into ir not as good. There is some magic tuning going on.

 

[GTR37]

How would the digital backend in the rack work? I believe that the friedman pedals have res/pres/lopass and ampsim which are tuned specifically for those preamps. Each module would have to have its own digital backend, which would need to be developed for each module.

Does the rack know which modules are plugged in? If not, they could offer a menu to select from all the amp types. They could be mix and matched with the modules which would be value added over the pedals. Then i would be interested in the synergy modules.

I think the digital back end combined with analog front end is what elevates them. Preamp played directly into ir not as good. There is some magic tuning going on.

The Syn20 head that's coming out next month should be an idea of how they will be looking at handling the different power amp voicing
They have not said much but it looks like the same as the cathode switch that allows you to set it like a Fender/Freidman or SLO type
they are basically going to apply that same principle to the power amp with 3 settings that are programable per channel
So you could have an SLO with a complimentary power amp response or you could set it to be paired with a Marshall response etc .
The also have a reactance which is said to be a NFB, with all the controls it should be able to deliver a more authentic exp when playing through each module

 

[laxu]

How would the digital backend in the rack work? I believe that the friedman pedals have res/pres/lopass and ampsim which are tuned specifically for those preamps. Each module would have to have its own digital backend, which would need to be developed for each module.

Does the rack know which modules are plugged in? If not, they could offer a menu to select from all the amp types. They could be mix and matched with the modules which would be value added over the pedals. Then i would be interested in the synergy modules.

I think the digital back end combined with analog front end is what elevates them. Preamp played directly into ir not as good. There is some magic tuning going on.

I think you are overthinking it. Basically any poweramp model of a 50-100W poweramp would be good enough. It's not like rack users in the past had typically multiple poweramps, they used one with multiple preamps.

But if they wanted to go to that level of detail, they wouldn't have to identify the modules but just let you pick from a list of poweramp models, just like you pick IRs.

 

[Eagle]

They did the ir section for the X88ir it also has a power amp simulator.
On the X88ir you get xlrs for the digital stuff and the jacks on the main outs are all tube analog.
They have the tech already and you could just reintroduce the Egnator M4 with the ir board from the X88. No market though I suspect because add up the cost of four modules and a more expensive chassis.

 

[Shredder777]

But if they wanted to go to that level of detail, they wouldn't have to identify the modules but just let you pick from a list of poweramp models, just like you pick IRs.

I think they would have to do this. And they would have to develop power amp modeleing for every module. I believe that the reason the pedals sound so good and distinct is because of custom tailored power sim. If they don't do this, then every module is going to sound either too similar or too different.

When you plug different preamp into a poweramp, it homogenizes them (which you dont want), but also an amp with pres/res controls allows you to fit a preamp that is naturally bright or dark. The res/pre/lopass filters I believe were carefully chosen so that the IR series shine. If they gave full range sliders then there would be alot of mismatched settings possible.

 

[JiveTurkey]

These are going to be homogenized to some degree no matter how you approach it.

 

[laxu]

They have the tech already and you could just reintroduce the Egnator M4 with the ir board from the X88. No market though I suspect because add up the cost of four modules and a more expensive chassis.

Afaik the Egnater M4 only supports single channel modules, which is what they were before Synergy. A 4 module thing to me would be just two SYN-2 chassis piled together with shared PCBs, transformer etc.

8 channel amp? Might be fun! The Synergy system doesn't really appeal to me because of the chore of having to swap modules. 4 modules would make that far less frequent, even if it sounds a bit overkill.

I think they would have to do this. And they would have to develop power amp modeleing for every module. I believe that the reason the pedals sound so good and distinct is because of custom tailored power sim. If they don't do this, then every module is going to sound either too similar or too different.

When you plug different preamp into a poweramp, it homogenizes them (which you dont want), but also an amp with pres/res controls allows you to fit a preamp that is naturally bright or dark. The res/pre/lopass filters I believe were carefully chosen so that the IR series shine. If they gave full range sliders then there would be alot of mismatched settings possible.

The SYN5050 is already just one poweramp meant to be used with all the modules, so it's not like the system is designed to have a "Plexi poweramp" or "Fender poweramp".

Using different cabs with different modules would already give you helluva lot more variation than different poweramps.

 

[MadAsAHatter]

Afaik the Egnater M4 only supports single channel modules, which is what they were before Synergy. A 4 module thing to me would be just two SYN-2 chassis piled together with shared PCBs, transformer etc.

I believe later in it's life the M4 did have a revision that supported dual channel modules. There's also a fairly easy mod you can do to the single channel Egnater M4/Randall RM4 that allows you to use dual channel Egnater & Synergy Modules. You just have to swap out the MIDI board. I think Rob @ Jaded Faith in the US and Yuneo in Germany still sell the mod set.

8 channel amp? Might be fun! The Synergy system doesn't really appeal to me because of the chore of having to swap modules. 4 modules would make that far less frequent, even if it sounds a bit overkill.

Here you go. I have another M4 that does dual channel modules. All together I can have a 20 channel amp and it is rather fun LOL.

 

[Eagle]

Afaik the Egnater M4 only supports single channel modules, which is what they were before Synergy. A 4 module thing to me would be just two SYN-2 chassis piled together with shared PCBs, transformer etc.

8 channel amp? Might be fun! The Synergy system doesn't really appeal to me because of the chore of having to swap modules. 4 modules would make that far less frequent, even if it sounds a bit overkill.



The SYN5050 is already just one poweramp meant to be used with all the modules, so it's not like the system is designed to have a "Plexi poweramp" or "Fender poweramp".

Using different cabs with different modules would already give you helluva lot more variation than different poweramps.

No it doesn’t. M4 takes its own two channel modules and all synergy ones two .

They also take Randall modules.