VOX AC30CC2

[RK]

I recently had the opportunity to play a VOX AC30CC2 amp. I own a vintage
AC30 top boost,
and great was my astonishment when I was presented to the knobs/switch
lay-out of the AC30CC2. I eventually
found a setting I could live with but the possibilities on this beast is
mildly put, vast! Can anyone here relate to this?

[notbob]

On 2012-05-06, RK <flemm...@mail.tele.dk> wrote:

> mildly put, vast! Can anyone here relate to this?

Could it possibly be that technology has actually progressed, rather
than regressed, in the last HALF CENTURY!?

As much as finicky Fender fanatics would have us believe, the greatest
amps in the galaxy are not pre-64 blackface ______(fill in blank)-lux.

I know it's fashionable to wax poetic about ancient amp-ware from 50
yrs ago, and mind you, I agree to some extent. I usta own a JBL
Metragon speaker system driven by a Fisher 400 tube amp, having grown
up in the high-end hifi vinyl LP era, but c'mon!

I'm shocked and amazed and quite pleased with my cheapo Vox AC30 plug
in earphone amp and my Fender Mustang I amp. They are both a
revelation. OTOH, I also can appreciate the older stuff. I plan to
attempt to build an AX84 tube amp, both to learn and to get a bit of
that nowhere-but-a-tube thing. OTOH, I can only imagine good things
from an amp based on funky ol' tubes, but with newer solid state
goodies added on. I hope you enjoy the newer amp. ;)

nb

--
vi --the heart of evil!
--scream out the window "bitch!" --Bill Burr

[RK]

up in the high-end hifi vinyl LP era, but c'mon!
>
> I'm shocked and amazed and quite pleased with my cheapo Vox AC30 plug

What I think is confusing is the functions of the many knobs and
switches, and I guess
it stems from the wish of keeping the looks of the old panel layout, but
it's just not self explanatory at all!
By the way, a guitarist normally stands in front of his amp but the
panel text is then upside down ????
But to be fair, it is possible to get a decent good vintage like top
boost sound from the beast ;-)

[notbob]

On 2012-05-06, RK <flemm...@mail.tele.dk> wrote:

> But to be fair, it is possible to get a decent good vintage like top
> boost sound from the beast ;-)

Ya' got me. Does it have the ability to switch off all the enhanced
stuff? Seems to me a tube amp w/ SS modeling is no different than a
straight tube amp with a buncha pedals in front. You can unplug the
pedals. Can you disable the SS stuff?

I figure the solid state stuff (SSS?) is good for what it is. The
tube stuff, likewise. Seems silly to acclaim one over the other, they
both having their strengths and weaknesses, specially when so many mix
both together.

[RK]

> Ya' got me. Does it have the ability to switch off all the enhanced
> stuff?

It does, but the way to do this seems sort of messy!

[grinner]

"RK" <flemm...@mail.tele.dk> wrote in message
news:4fa687a2$0$278$edfa...@dtext01.news.tele.dk...

i got rid of mine about three years ago, i had heard there were duds in
amongst them and i must have struck one of these chinee 'beauties'. i gave
it a fair chance but three repairs in 12 months and i waltzed it out the
e-bay door. kept the speakers, swapped in warfdales for the 15 watt
celestion blues.

notwithstanding, the tremelo and tank reverb were loads of fun, i couldn't
get the kind of grunt i eventually wanted but then again they weren't built
for that.

[RK]

Well Grinner, your's another story, as relevant as it may be. My perspective
is, that the
old AC30 panel was understandable, where the new AC30 is gibberish. For
first time users I'd advice
½ an hour gettting aquainted with the beast before your fellow group members
arrive :-)

"grinner" <gri...@nowhere.com> skrev i meddelelsen
news:joqk6k$41o$1...@speranza.aioe.org...

[Jim]

On 5/16/2012 10:52 AM, RK wrote:
> Well Grinner, your's another story, as relevant as it may be. My
> perspective is, that the
> old AC30 panel was understandable, where the new AC30 is gibberish. For
> first time users I'd advice
> ½ an hour gettting aquainted with the beast before your fellow group
> members arrive :-)

I honestly prefer the simple AC30 with the top boost. The Chinese types
add solid state. It's between the preamp and power amp, it's in the
reverb, it's in the tremolo. The more complicated a mass produced
Chinese amp, the more chance for failure. Not to mention build quality.
Most of the ones I played were LITERALLY "falling apart at the seams."
Split tolex at the corners, grill cloth falling off the baffle...

I won't say that they couldn't be dialed in for good tones, but they
didn't sound like vintage Vox to me.

In the end, I purchases a Weber "clone" of the top boost circuit, yet to
be built. If you don't build, there are other Vox type amps out there,
like the Hayseed: http://www.valvetechamps.com/theamp.htm

[RichL]

"Jim" <ask@first> wrote in message
news:y8GdnUTQTOtFZS7S...@posted.isomediainc...

If I ever get the chance, I'm likely to get a used AC30BM (Brian May) model.
One control -- volume.
Treble boost operated by footswitch.
Switch to enable running with two power tubes instead of four (presumably
with suitable circuit adjustments).
Pair of Alnico Blue speakers.
Tube rectifier.
I auditioned one once (when they were still for sale new) but the situation
was such that I couldn't crank it up all the way.

I can score one for $1350 on e-bay but that's still too rich for my blood.

[jim]

I guess you'd REALLY have to like the one tone that it's designed for.
I have the schematic, somewhere. IIRC, it lifts the cathode bias
resistor on one pair of EL84, but doesn't move to another OT tap. I was
planning on doing both on my build. But since I now plan to install the
power scaling variable B+ on the output stage, I don't know if it's
worth it or not.

There are plenty of good treble boosters that I can put in front (you
own one), so I don't feel a need to incorporate that into the amp.

I could probably sub the Brian May channel for the normal, and the other
as the top boost plus trem. There's some good info here:
http://fryerguitars.wordpress.com/2009/03/05/brian-may-ac30-modifications-peter-michalowski-version/
A lot of the clones just forget the vib/trem channel because it
simplifies things much.

[RK]

> I honestly prefer the simple AC30 with the top boost. The Chinese types
> add solid state. It's between the preamp and power amp, it's in the
> reverb, it's in the tremolo. The more complicated a mass produced Chinese
> amp, the more chance for failure. Not to mention build quality. Most of
> the ones I played were LITERALLY "falling apart at the seams." Split tolex
> at the corners, grill cloth falling off the baffle...
>
> I won't say that they couldn't be dialed in for good tones, but they
> didn't sound like vintage Vox to me.
>
> In the end, I purchases a Weber "clone" of the top boost circuit, yet to
> be built. If you don't build, there are other Vox type amps out there,
> like the Hayseed: http://www.valvetechamps.com/theamp.htm

We hire an equipped practice room twice a month, it's very convenient that
all the gear's there, but the AC30CC2
is a problem to dial in every time someone else has been using it. Another
odd thing is that if I connect an extra jack to the amp input (if I wanted
to switch between two inputs the active input changes level
dramatically, seems like something mechanically in the amps input circutry
is switched when the extra jack is inserted??????)

[Jim]

Try messing with the "channel link" switch. I looked at the schematic
briefly, but it's a nightmare to follow:
http://www.bymcomunicacion.com/pvecino/Esquema_Vox_AC30CC2_CC2X.pdf

It's odd that Vox thought it was important to include the tube rectifier
and that the same time put solid state OpAmps in the signal path! I'm
sure that they use the rectifier as a marketing tool. How about the
solid state?

[Les Cargill]

Doesn't seem that odd to me. A tube recto is a perfectly cromulent
design choice - "sag". I wonder if the post-PI master volume is
why ( how does *that* work, BTW - two ganged pot elements? Oy!)

Opamps just do differently-symmetric distortions or act as buffers.
I'm not sure I don't prefer reverb spring drivers as SS - why do you
want "tubeyness" on a spring reverb? I'd prefer a nice crisp amp
with low noise and lots of headroom for that.

I think the Blues Deluxe does SS reverb, but a Deluxe Reverb Reissue
does t00b for reverb. I rather like the 'verb better on the Blues
Deluxe - it's broader-band. Seems like the reverb on a DR is harder
to master.

but really, I'm digging the onboard digital reverb thing these days -
it allows tuning the reverb to the room... a live room, you
can use something shorter than a spring model.

> I'm
> sure that they use the rectifier as a marketing tool.

Might actually be there for operational reasons. You're thinking cost
problems? Probably not at scale. They're trying to do a cost
reduced AC30, so yeah, to an extent - a t00b recto is more like
an AC30 ( one of 'em, anyway ).

> How about the
> solid state?
>
>
>

--
Les Cargill

[RK]

> Might actually be there for operational reasons. You're thinking cost
> problems? Probably not at scale. They're trying to do a cost
> reduced AC30, so yeah, to an extent - a t00b recto is more like
> an AC30 ( one of 'em, anyway ).
>
>> How about the
>> solid state

Why didn't the chinese produce a clone of the vintage AC30 top boost!
That would have done the trick. The panel layout would have been
selfexplanatory
the only thing that should have been altered was the panel text which should
be reversed
upside down so it could be read when standing in front of the amp?

[Jim]

But with that tube, and the way the Vox is biased, you don't get the sag
that you get on other amps.

> I wonder if the post-PI master volume is
> why ( how does *that* work, BTW - two ganged pot elements? Oy!)
>
> Opamps just do differently-symmetric distortions or act as buffers.

Don't get me wrong, they're not there for distortion. But they are
there for gain. Some in the reverb circuit. I didn't study the circuit
enough to see exactly what's going on with the OpAmps between the preamp
and power stage. But my point was that the difference between THAT tube
rectifier and SS diodes in THAT amp may be difficult to impossible to
hear. Same may be true for the OpAmps, but Vox makes sure that a buyer
knows about the rectifier tube, right? But the OpAmps? Not so much!
If I had a nickel for each time I've seen the Chinese Vox on Craigslist
as "all tube amp," I'd have... Well several nickels.

> I'm not sure I don't prefer reverb spring drivers as SS - why do you
> want "tubeyness" on a spring reverb? I'd prefer a nice crisp amp
> with low noise and lots of headroom for that.

I'd just as soon have tubes EVERYWHERE in the signal path. For one
thing, you can substitute different tubes and different types for
different tones (but it may not be a good idea to change TYPE on the
driver because the reverb transformer has the right load for the
designated tube).

>
> I think the Blues Deluxe does SS reverb, but a Deluxe Reverb Reissue
> does t00b for reverb. I rather like the 'verb better on the Blues
> Deluxe - it's broader-band. Seems like the reverb on a DR is harder
> to master.

SS reverbs are usually a cost cutting measure. No need for a transformer!

[Jim]

On 5/18/2012 1:05 PM, RK wrote:
>
>
>> Might actually be there for operational reasons. You're thinking cost
>> problems? Probably not at scale. They're trying to do a cost
>> reduced AC30, so yeah, to an extent - a t00b recto is more like
>> an AC30 ( one of 'em, anyway ).
>>
>>> How about the
>>> solid state
>
> Why didn't the chinese produce a clone of the vintage AC30 top boost!

I suppose that the Chinese factory only does what Vox UK pays it to do!

There actually are some so-called "hand wired" limited edition type Vox
built in China that are more faithful to original Vox circuits. Note
that their version of hand wired still has traces on the turret boards!
(At least that's what I remember seeing)

But I'm with you, they should've mass produced the early circuit without
the bells and whistles.

> That would have done the trick. The panel layout would have been
> selfexplanatory
> the only thing that should have been altered was the panel text which
> should be reversed
> upside down so it could be read when standing in front of the amp?

As for the channel mixing and other switches... My opinion is that amp
manufacturers sometimes shoot themselves in the foot when they try to
make an exiting design the Swiss Army Knife of amps. Witness the pull
boost on the mid 70's Fender silverface. It was there for gain and
distortion, but I don't know anybody that can stand the tone. The best
hot-rodded Fenders are the early Mesa Boogies.

[Les Cargill]

RK wrote:
>
>
>> Might actually be there for operational reasons. You're thinking cost
>> problems? Probably not at scale. They're trying to do a cost
>> reduced AC30, so yeah, to an extent - a t00b recto is more like
>> an AC30 ( one of 'em, anyway ).
>>
>>> How about the
>>> solid state
>
> Why didn't the chinese produce a clone of the vintage AC30 top boost!

I dunno. I *really* dunno. The schem is like in a thousand places on the
'Net.

> That would have done the trick. The panel layout would have been
> selfexplanatory
> the only thing that should have been altered was the panel text which
> should be reversed
> upside down so it could be read when standing in front of the amp?

I dunno. I have never put enough time in on an AC30 to figure 'em out.

--
Les Cargill

[Les Cargill]

Ah. Okay, then I agree. Seems odd - I thought one of the
big advantages to the AC30 was that it's "spongier" - does
a weird compression thing.

I really can't get a good tone out of one unless I just
dime everything. They're a bit clanky clean.

>
>> I wonder if the post-PI master volume is
>> why ( how does *that* work, BTW - two ganged pot elements? Oy!)
>>
>> Opamps just do differently-symmetric distortions or act as buffers.
>
> Don't get me wrong, they're not there for distortion. But they are there
> for gain. Some in the reverb circuit. I didn't study the circuit enough
> to see exactly what's going on with the OpAmps between the preamp and
> power stage.

Em, buffer? Cat follower? Thinking about it a bit more, that
is pretty weird.

> But my point was that the difference between THAT tube
> rectifier and SS diodes in THAT amp may be difficult to impossible to
> hear.

yeah, I missed that.

> Same may be true for the OpAmps, but Vox makes sure that a buyer
> knows about the rectifier tube, right? But the OpAmps? Not so much! If I
> had a nickel for each time I've seen the Chinese Vox on Craigslist as
> "all tube amp," I'd have... Well several nickels.
>
>

I am no purist, so it doesn't bother me. Gain is gain.

>> I'm not sure I don't prefer reverb spring drivers as SS - why do you
>> want "tubeyness" on a spring reverb? I'd prefer a nice crisp amp
>> with low noise and lots of headroom for that.
>
> I'd just as soon have tubes EVERYWHERE in the signal path. For one
> thing, you can substitute different tubes and different types for
> different tones (but it may not be a good idea to change TYPE on the
> driver because the reverb transformer has the right load for the
> designated tube).
>

But with SS, you have a pretty stable solution. I dunno - I never
quite "got" the objections to SS reverb drivers. YMMV.

FWIW, the three-spring on the Blues Deluxe is about the nicest spring
I've heard.

>>
>> I think the Blues Deluxe does SS reverb, but a Deluxe Reverb Reissue
>> does t00b for reverb. I rather like the 'verb better on the Blues
>> Deluxe - it's broader-band. Seems like the reverb on a DR is harder
>> to master.
>
> SS reverbs are usually a cost cutting measure. No need for a transformer!
>
>

Dunno.

>>
<snip>

--
Les Cargill

[RichL]

"Les Cargill" <lcarg...@comcast.com> wrote in message
news:jp70av$kp$1...@dont-email.me...

Ah, I disagree vehemently! But I recognize it's a matter of taste.

I'm not sure about the CC2 and CC2X -- they're different beasts -- but on
the older Voxes you've got to spend some time fiddling with the tone stack.
The controls are highly interactive, and you're unlikely to find your
personal "sweet spot" by conventional methods. But when you do, you sorta
get this "AHA!" thing going. Then when you discover the trick of running a
jumper between "brilliant" and "normal" channels and tweaking the respective
volumes, you realize that this is just about the most flexible amp around,
tonally.

My AC30 has become my go-to clean amp, despite the fact that I've got the
supposed ultimate clean amp (a Fender Twin) sitting against the same wall.
The Twin sounds good with some guitars, not so much with others. To me,
overall, it's too "airy". The Vox sounds good with every guitar I own.

[Les Cargill]

Nah. It's time over target and cranky old habit :) I hear
Fender amps as a default, and don't actually have a nice
Vox to learn on.

> I'm not sure about the CC2 and CC2X -- they're different beasts -- but
> on the older Voxes you've got to spend some time fiddling with the tone
> stack.

You got that right. Twitchy little things.

> The controls are highly interactive, and you're unlikely to find
> your personal "sweet spot" by conventional methods.

I will testify to that!

> But when you do, you
> sorta get this "AHA!" thing going. Then when you discover the trick of
> running a jumper between "brilliant" and "normal" channels and tweaking
> the respective volumes, you realize that this is just about the most
> flexible amp around, tonally.
>

I have heard that about them.

> My AC30 has become my go-to clean amp, despite the fact that I've got
> the supposed ultimate clean amp (a Fender Twin) sitting against the same
> wall. The Twin sounds good with some guitars, not so much with others.

True! Twins prefer teles.

> To me, overall, it's too "airy". The Vox sounds good with every guitar I
> own.

Well, I like airy. A lot of what we're talking about it that any
random Fender, you can get something reliable out of pretty much in a
half minute.

--
Les Cargill

[RK]

I couldn't get my 60's vintage AC30 (Bass type) to sound good. I had heard
a lot of people talk about a sound I wasn't able to dial in, untill ..... I
finally decided to have the tube top boost circuit added on. I had used it
with diverse stomp boxes to get more treble without much tonal success. This
add on did the trick, now I can hear what people have been talking about all
the time!

Regarding the upside down panel text! Was it meant, back then that the
guitarist was standing behind the amp ??????

[jh]

.. I bet Mr Steve Grindrod, who draw the schematic of the CC2 wouldn't
even need a schem from the web to build one. Perhaps for the vibrato
oscillator, but not for the audio path....
Ok - the trem is 2/3rds of the whole amp... =:o

Marketing & Sales decisions are one of the biggest mysteria on this planet.


SG might have forgotten more about english amps than we'll ever know.
AFAIK he was THE No1 engineer at Marshall during the 70ties. Responible
for a lot of their designs back then.

IMHO one of the best reincarnations of the old TB was the Marshall/Korg
AC30 from the 90ties. AFAIK Steve played a role in the "development" of
these amps too.


regards

Jochen

[jh]

propably - yes, but we'd have to ask one of the old designers....

"Standing behind the amp" is the explanation we always read, but does
anyone know the origin?

I'm too young, so I *know* my knowledge is secondhand there..


regards

Jochen

[It's that Guy again...]

On Fri, 18 May 2012 21:53:08 +0000 (UTC), Jim <ask@first> wrote:

>On 5/18/2012 1:05 PM, RK wrote:

>> Why didn't the chinese produce a clone of the vintage AC30 top boost!

>I suppose that the Chinese factory only does what Vox UK pays it to do!

Of course. And they have little, if any care for vintage MoJo outside
what they are contracted to do. Companies in the USA also worked
that way when contracted to build. Korg is NOT UK Vox of old.

>But I'm with you, they should've mass produced the early circuit without
>the bells and whistles.

Yet they have to try to keep up with what has become the crap
produced today..Line 6, modeling digital, even now class-D.

Which, has been tried before and sucks, btw..

>The best hot-rodded Fenders are the early Mesa Boogies.

Early, yes....today's MBs are nightmares...


JJTj

[jim]

No nightmares with my Mark III and DC-5. Never a worry, always perform
as they should.

[jim]

THOSE, I like.

[jim]

You don't need to be a purist to wonder why many amps get promoted as
"all tube" when they are not. IIRC, the modern Traynor falls into that
category. I'm not sure whether Vox ever specified "ALL tube" or not.

If an amp is marketed as "ALL tube," it should be... ALL TUBE signal
path. FET or optoisolator switching or even diodes in the power supply
don't concern me. But if my guitar signal goes through an OpAmp or
transistor or is clipped by diodes, then the amp is NOT "all tube."

[It's that Guy again...]

On Sat, 19 May 2012 18:16:46 +0000 (UTC), jim <inse@ttle> wrote:

>You don't need to be a purist to wonder why many amps get promoted as
>"all tube" when they are not. IIRC, the modern Traynor falls into that
>category. I'm not sure whether Vox ever specified "ALL tube" or not.

Traynor was such a diff company way back when. 100% tube, even PA,
maybe some small cheap bass or PA SS (alot like Univox early on,
when they were sold thru Laffayette and dealers.) Unlike GBX, that
IMMSMW, was always SS. Anyone remember 'Orbit'.. from up north.?

>If an amp is marketed as "ALL tube," it should be... ALL TUBE signal
>path. FET or optoisolator switching or even diodes in the power supply
>don't concern me.

If the FET (sand) just grounds it, fine, but if the signal goes anyway
thru to the next signal path, um, no. PS diodes is kind of pushing
it, most people have no problem. Sand reverb drivers, etc, no.

I mean, if one MUST have "..all tube.."...

>..But if my guitar signal goes through an OpAmp or

>transistor or is clipped by diodes, then the amp is NOT "all tube."

Some MOSFET ICs were real good, I forget the ##s, they dropped in
most any socket, and made a change. Ger diodes can maybe help.

You can do the same thing with a 12xwhatever, but at XXX the $$.

When companies thought SS would cut cost ultra big time, they went
at it with a knife, corners were cut, and yes, amps were always (!!)
$$ design driven...SS was a blessing till everyone wanted ALL tube..

.Yet there IS a happy medium. Music Man made some great hybrid
amps, PV too. Alot of tube Sunn had tons of sand. Boogie tried the
FETRON input stage, very early, and it didn't sound bad at all. Old
UK Vox had FETs driving tubes 1st stage in da WEIRDEST ways..

Then some one said "..it's not all tube..", and SS at that moment
sucked real (pre-SLM Crate) bad. Crate tried a fix..place neon lites
behind the (few) tubes against a mirror, making it look like MORE
tubes. Presto: The Blue 'Voo Doo (Doo-Doo?) series.

Yet if built right, one CAN make a real good SS amp..

JJTj



*> SENT FROM CELL PHONE DECK# X27492243981HS <*
*> NO REPLY MODE GIGANEWS JKDVNEJWS-OfK9 <*

[Jim]

On 5/19/2012 3:11 PM, It's that Guy again... wrote:
> On Sat, 19 May 2012 18:16:46 +0000 (UTC), jim<inse@ttle> wrote:
>
>> You don't need to be a purist to wonder why many amps get promoted as
>> "all tube" when they are not. IIRC, the modern Traynor falls into that
>> category. I'm not sure whether Vox ever specified "ALL tube" or not.
>
> Traynor was such a diff company way back when. 100% tube, even PA,

The first amp that I bought with money out of my pocket was a YVM-1.
Four channel tube PA, that I used with guitar with preamps in front of
it. It was QUALITY.

I currently own a YSR-1. Nice amp with good build and quality components.

I haven't owned a "modern" Traynor, but they don't impress me.

> maybe some small cheap bass or PA SS

I also owned a cheap Traynor PA smaller powered board that functioned
well, but was nothing that outclassed other options.

> (alot like Univox early on,
> when they were sold thru Laffayette and dealers.) Unlike GBX, that
> IMMSMW, was always SS. Anyone remember 'Orbit'.. from up north.?
>
>> If an amp is marketed as "ALL tube," it should be... ALL TUBE signal
>> path. FET or optoisolator switching or even diodes in the power supply
>> don't concern me.
>
> If the FET (sand) just grounds it, fine, but if the signal goes anyway
> thru to the next signal path, um, no. PS diodes is kind of pushing
> it, most people have no problem. Sand reverb drivers, etc, no.
>
> I mean, if one MUST have "..all tube.."...

I'm not saying that SS in the signal path renders an amp useless. I am
saying that if there is SS in the signal path, the amp should not be
marketed as "all tube." And I'm inferring that it borders on deception
to play up the presence of a tube rectifier and never mention SS in the
signal path, when you're marketing a "all tube amp."

SO HERE IT IS, Vox DOES call it "all tube":
http://www.voxshowroom.com/uk/amp/ac30cc2.html

Yet, check the schematic:
http://www.bymcomunicacion.com/pvecino/Esquema_Vox_AC30CC2_CC2X.pdf

Am I wrong? I mean, even if you conveniently disregard the effects
loop, reverb and trem... Last I checked, an NJM2417D ain't a tube! The
schematic is very hard for me to follow, but in block form it looks to
be a mixer, combining both sides before the power stage. I don't
consider that to be "all tube." Do you? And if I'm correct, how do
they get away with this crap???

Am I being picky? Maybe. But they're the one calling it "all tube." And

>
>> ..But if my guitar signal goes through an OpAmp or
>> transistor or is clipped by diodes, then the amp is NOT "all tube."
>
> Some MOSFET ICs were real good, I forget the ##s, they dropped in
> most any socket, and made a change. Ger diodes can maybe help.
>
> You can do the same thing with a 12xwhatever, but at XXX the $$.
>
> When companies thought SS would cut cost ultra big time, they went
> at it with a knife, corners were cut, and yes, amps were always (!!)
> $$ design driven...SS was a blessing till everyone wanted ALL tube..
>
> .Yet there IS a happy medium. Music Man made some great hybrid
> amps, PV too.

I owned an early Mace for years. It had to go, because it wasn't the
right tool for a mostly home-bound player. I still have my LabSeries L5.

> Alot of tube Sunn had tons of sand.

I seem to remember a Concert series??? I have a 2000S collecting dust,
waiting to be brought back. I'm thinking it may be a monster for use
with pedals.

> Boogie tried the
> FETRON input stage, very early, and it didn'tsound bad at all.

Dumble...

> Old
> UK Vox had FETs driving tubes 1st stage in da WEIRDEST ways..

Didn't know that.

>
> Then some one said "..it's not all tube..", and SS at that moment
> sucked real (pre-SLM Crate) bad. Crate tried a fix..place neon lites
> behind the (few) tubes against a mirror, making it look like MORE
> tubes. Presto: The Blue 'Voo Doo (Doo-Doo?) series.
>
> Yet if built right, one CAN make a real good SS amp..

I like my L5, but I can't think of SS amps that I prefer for distortion
over my tube amps.

And, just to reaffirm...

I don't think that it's a "travesty" to mix SS with tubes. What about
the Blackstar HT series? They don't sound "bad." They have tubes.
They sell them as "tube amps." But how many owners know that it has
diode clipping, not unlike a cheap pedal, right in the middle of the
circuit? I don't see Blackstar promoting that. They promote a TUBE
amp. So I don't dislike the amp for the SS, I dislike my perception
that players don't know what they are buying.

[It's that Guy again...]

On Sun, 20 May 2012 18:39:27 +0000 (UTC), Jim <ask@first> wrote:

>Dumble...

Look at that guy...

He built a few amps.. Covered the circuits in goop, so
(he thought) no one would copy it. Fuchs tore them apart,
saw they were no big deal, copied some/alot of it, yet Dumble
today (used) sell for OBSCENE prices. Yet Dumble was all in
name, they were no big deal..he just copied folks like..

Burman.. Who at least had a few interesting fresh ideas.

Funny, it was the UK folks who had fresh ideas. Sure,
alot copied Marshall (who copied Fender..who copied..)
but Hiwatt/Sound City/Burman/Wem/Orange all made
their own choices, I'm sure driven from their own UK
knowledge, their own (sort of) 'RCA' codebook...

But Dumble? I'll give the guy credit for creating a
mystery that generated big $$$, but the 3 I've worked
on were NOTHING to write home about. Cabs were solid,
chassis good...wiring piss poor. Goop everywhere...

Big gun collector. I'm not in any way knocking the guy,
he saw a market, and captured it. Designer? well...

[Jim]

I just dropped the name because of the FET front end.

But I have read at least one person who benched the amp (ODS?) found
exceptional S/N ratio. I've read that he used 1% resistors and builds
for results, not off of a stock schematic. All true? Dunno.

I'm also aware that most people think that there's an abundance of hype
surrounding his amps.

I've heard them sound great on recordings, but never had the chance to
play one.

There are circuits posted on the net, I'm sure you know. There's a
Ceriatone that is supposedly faithful to his design. I've thought about
experimenting with his circuits, but there are many priorities before I
get to that.

What do you think about the rest of my post, the Chinese Vox issue?

[It's that Guy again...]

On Sun, 20 May 2012 22:41:14 +0000 (UTC), Jim <ask@first> wrote:

>I just dropped the name because of the FET front end.

I know..

>But I have read at least one person who benched the amp (ODS?) found
>exceptional S/N ratio. I've read that he used 1% resistors and builds
>for results, not off of a stock schematic. All true? Dunno.

He was one of the 1st to use good parts. Remember, amps were
always 'designed' with $$ & profit in mind. 1% resistors?, not
in the cards. I hit into that the hard way, as I was (lucky?) in
a area that had (still has) a local part store or 2 within 20
miles of me that bought up old stock. ECG FP 1% WW resistors,
TONS of very good caps, all selling for less then chump change.

One store was right across from where I worked at EAW...

..all within driving distance.. Yet I still got idiots wanting carbon
screen resistors for their Twins, some even asking WHY there were
no burn marks on the new ones. Yet throw 5wt 1% WWs in, and
all of a sudden, tubes were lasting longer. They LIKED that..

>I'm also aware that most people think that there's an abundance of hype
>surrounding his amps.

Oh, he created his own history, was real good at it, and the amps he
built lived up to the MoJo. Quite a gun collector too. Lots of
people later wished they had the brains to do what he did. HP
called him a genius. He made enough $$ to live forever.

>There are circuits posted on the net, I'm sure you know. There's a
>Ceriatone that is supposedly faithful to his design. I've thought about
>experimenting with his circuits, but there are many priorities before I
>get to that.

There are a whole lot of other designs I'd flock around with before I
got to his. He also named simple switch functions weird MoJo names
before anyone else did. Yet alot of it was simple stuff, thus why he
goop'ed everything. There was nothing to hide but the MoJo...

>What do you think about the rest of my post, the Chinese Vox issue?

The C/Vox are no more real old UK AC30s then my cat's litter box.

The second you throw a IC into the mess, it's over..

When I worked for Vox, it was the tail end before Korg, when
RM owned the rights, they had lost Marshall (a big blow) and
the amps were being built by 'Custom Sound' (or what was left
of them). The start of the Venue line, etc. The SS stuff was
pure crap. Chassis nightmares before ya even hit the PCBs.

But they built a good AC30. Wooden shims on the sides, sucky
tubes, but even the weak PCBS were true to form. And the
circuit was true to MoJo, all tube. Remember all those AC30s
with silver 'ANIV' square badges on them..everyone passed
thru my hands..got good tubes..and benched..still got a few
badges left somewhere. Pr1mo was the US company..in
in Central Mass. Long gone, they also at the time imported
Washburn, Track, and Riverhead. Then RM was bought by Korg.

Music Ground today, under the JMI name, builds a great AC30,
like they build a find Hiwatt. Yet that's another story...

At one time, 'Custom Sound' not only built their own amps, but
farmed out to anyone who wanted amps built. They were REAL
good at it. Nice folks, who kept sending me warranty checks
for years afterwards as I fixed their amps. Where are they now..?

Got a shitload of paper catalogs and unused CS stickers somewhere..

If this (aga) group was worth squat anymore, I'd do more amp porn.

JJTj



BTW..Burman was a great UK company. They had a HARDBOUND
thick catalog that like a fool I sold years ago. I doubt if there are
5 copies in the US..yet each one is had signed to the person, as in
to people like me..still got pix..who bought it..where is it now..?


..It's been called 'kayfabe'...

....U know or U know not...

[boardjunkie1]

On May 20, 2:39 pm, Jim <ask@first> wrote:

> I don't think that it's a "travesty" to mix SS with tubes.  What about
> the Blackstar HT series?  They don't sound "bad."  They have tubes.
> They sell them as "tube amps."  But how many owners know that it has
> diode clipping, not unlike a cheap pedal, right in the middle of the
> circuit?  I don't see Blackstar promoting that.  They promote a TUBE
> amp.  So I don't dislike the amp for the SS, I dislike my perception
> that players don't know what they are buying.
>
>

I *looove* sand in my amps. An active bandpass mid control is the only
way to fly. Dean Markley got it right in the Signature rack amps.

[jim]

But did they market as "all tube?"

Both of my Mesa Boogies have SS graphic EQ sections. It's the cleanest
way to do the tone shaping (best S/N ratio, lowest distortion). The
signal doesn't clip the OpAmps, and the SS section is neutral sounding
(you can click the EQ in and out set to flat to check for yourself), so
it works for me. They aren't using OpAmps for gain, or with clipping
diodes.

Contrast that to the Blackstar HT, marketed as a tube amp, with OpAmp in
the circuit for gain, and with diodes for clipping.

I own a few pieces of gear with tubes and SS in them. Again, I'm not
saying "tubes good, SS bad." I'm saying that sometimes manufacturers
want to ride on the "tube amp" when their amps are really a mix of tubes
and SS.

[boardjunkie1]

I'm not concerned with marketing. It either sounds good or it don't.
Anyone paranoid about SS in any tube amp can obtain the schematic and
check for themselves. There's *waaayy* too many ppl obsessing over
gear that can't play for shit.

[jim]

I wouldn't know about "ppl obsessing over gear that can't play for shit."

As a consumer, I like to know what I'm buying. That goes for amps,
cars, food... And, as a consumer, I will avoid brands that I think are
not forthcoming to their consumers.

[Les Cargill]

jim wrote:
<snip>

>
> But did they market as "all tube?"
>

Who really cares? I don't, anyway.

<snip>

--
Les Cargill

[jim]

On 5/22/2012 10:56 AM, Les Cargill wrote:
> jim wrote:
> <snip>
>>
>> But did they market as "all tube?"
>>
>
> Who really cares? I don't, anyway.

I'd be surprised if many people would actually say "I don't care if I
was mislead by advertising." I'd expect most people to feel "taken
advantage of."

[boardjunkie1]

99.9999999% of guitar players could give a shit less what the makeup
of the amp is. If they like the sound of it...they buy it and use it.
I don't bother to look at a schematic unless there's something I
*don't* like about the sound. Then I change it until I like it.

[Les Cargill]

Understood. It's just the MI business, where honesty isn't
all that common...

--
Les Cargill

[Jim]

An awful lot of players will pay more attention to an amp that is
marketed as "all tube," compared to one that they know contains sand in
the signal path.

But that aside, I suspect that a number of players that don't care and
wouldn't know and OpAmp if they choked on one, would still feel taken
advantage of if they purchases an "all tube" amp, only to find out later
that it was most certainly NOT "all tube." You might expect that sort
of thing from a used car dealer... But amp companies???

[It's that Guy again...]

On Wed, 23 May 2012 17:18:17 +0000 (UTC), Jim <ask@first> wrote:

>But that aside, I suspect that a number of players that don't care and
>wouldn't know and OpAmp if they choked on one, would still feel taken
>advantage of if they purchases an "all tube" amp, only to find out later
>that it was most certainly NOT "all tube." You might expect that sort
>of thing from a used car dealer... But amp companies???

Sell a amp as a amp. Pimp it as "..all tube.." then it better
be ALL tube or it's a lie. The current CC AC30 is a hybrid clone
of what Korg thinks they can sell as a AC30..I know..it's NOT a
ALL TUBE AC30. Said type of amp is marketed at a price point
higher then norm, because of the name/history/MoJo. If it
is NOT said item, it is a lie, no matter how it sounds, or how the
public is marketed. Sell it as something else, it isn't a 'bad' amp,
can mimic a few AC30 tricks, but it's not a clone, nor all tube.

I also have not checked to see if Korg sells it that way, or maybe
they are just letting the MoJo just fall as the chips may today lay.

Today's CC AC30 is just another amp..not a old time UK AC30...

..and Korg knows it...


JJTj



I said..Hey Hey baby
let me ride in yer car machine..
I said..Hey Hey baby
let me ride in yer car machine..
I said you got a good carburetor..
But hey, you running bad gasoline..

I said look it baby
you can't drive no more at night
you got a crack in ya cylinder head
..and a short is in ya lights

I said..Hey Hey baby
let me ride in yer car machine..
I said you got a good carburetor..
Hey, you running bad gasoline..

I said..face it baby..
you know it's time to go.
I won't write you no letter gal..
IF you drive real slow.

I said..Hey Hey baby
let me ride in yer car machine..
I said you got a good carburetor..
Hey, you running bad gasoline..

You know, I hate to see it, baby..
..that evening sun go down.
Ain't it awesome lonesome..
..yeah, you going around..

I said..Hey Hey baby
let me ride in yer car machine..
I said you got a good carburetor..
Hey, you running bad gasoline..







*> SENT FROM CELL PHONE DECK# X27492758981HS <*
*> NO REPLY MODE GIGANEWS XKSHBEJWS-OfK9 <*

[Jim]

On 5/23/2012 12:21 PM, It's that Guy again... wrote:
> On Wed, 23 May 2012 17:18:17 +0000 (UTC), Jim<ask@first> wrote:
>
>> But that aside, I suspect that a number of players that don't care and
>> wouldn't know and OpAmp if they choked on one, would still feel taken
>> advantage of if they purchases an "all tube" amp, only to find out later
>> that it was most certainly NOT "all tube." You might expect that sort
>> of thing from a used car dealer... But amp companies???
>
> Sell a amp as a amp. Pimp it as "..all tube.." then it better
> be ALL tube or it's a lie. The current CC AC30 is a hybrid clone
> of what Korg thinks they can sell as a AC30..I know..it's NOT a
> ALL TUBE AC30. Said type of amp is marketed at a price point
> higher then norm, because of the name/history/MoJo. If it
> is NOT said item, it is a lie, no matter how it sounds, or how the
> public is marketed. Sell it as something else, it isn't a 'bad' amp,
> can mimic a few AC30 tricks, but it's not a clone, nor all tube.
>
> I also have not checked to see if Korg sells it that way, or maybe
> they are just letting the MoJo just fall as the chips may today lay.

Well, here's the quote: "...AC-30CC2 was the most popular amplifier
model in the Custom Classic Series. The all tube, 30 watt amp also
featured..." from this link: http://www.voxshowroom.com/uk/amp/ac30cc2.html

Kinda looks like Vox markets it as all tube, despite this schematic:
http://www.bymcomunicacion.com/pvecino/Esquema_Vox_AC30CC2_CC2X.pdf

[Jim]

I'm glad I said "kinda looks like," because I just noticed that the URL
isn't voxamps.com If you go to the voxshowroom.com home page, you do
find a DISCLAIMER stating that it is NOT an official Vox site!

I'll bet I'm not the first to think that it was an official Vox site.

A quick search limited to the official Vox site shows that they claim
"all tube" for the "hand-wired" version. I also find claims for "all
tube" in the Classic Plus series, and I haven't looked at schematics for
them.

But when I force both "all tube" and "ac30cc2" I don't see Vox calling
it "all tube." I do find owners calling it "all tube" in their forums,
without corrections. And, also a copy of a Soundcheck article in
"Guitarworld" at the official Vox site, calling the CC series "all
tube." But I don't see it in their own words.

Sorry for the confusion. It looks like it was an independent site
making the false claim!

[It's that Guy again...]

On Wed, 23 May 2012 20:03:09 +0000 (UTC), Jim <ask@first> wrote:

>I'm glad I said "kinda looks like," because I just noticed that the URL
>isn't voxamps.com If you go to the voxshowroom.com home page, you do
>find a DISCLAIMER stating that it is NOT an official Vox site!

Good point, yet anyone should know they are not Korg.

voxshowroom people are just great, and have done more to keep the
real Vox MoJo going then Korg has. I wonder what NC Music has
going that they can build such *GREAT* Vox items, WITH Korg's
OK..maybe they build cabs for them? Who knows. All I know is
that all my past dealings with NCM has been without any issues,
and any time I had to mention them to UK/JP Korg, they are treated
with complete respect. I own and have sold a few S/Beatle NCM items,
and they kick ass over the old T/Organ build...stands and all..

I trust them completely, be it Vox, Rix, Hofner, U name it.

>But when I force both "all tube" and "ac30cc2" I don't see Vox calling
>it "all tube." I do find owners calling it "all tube" in their forums,
>without corrections. And, also a copy of a Soundcheck article in
>"Guitarworld" at the official Vox site, calling the CC series "all
>tube." But I don't see it in their own words.

It's become a point of just hiding it behind the Mojo..once it was
all tube, now the name is the same..'must' be all tube..and the
no one says otherwise. Smoke and mirrors, and the public cares less.

>Sorry for the confusion. It looks like it was an independent site
>making the false claim!

Those who know knew you ment no harm..


JJTj

..It's been called 'kayfabe'...

....U know or U know not...

[Jim]

On 5/23/2012 1:22 PM, It's that Guy again... wrote:
>
> On Wed, 23 May 2012 20:03:09 +0000 (UTC), Jim<ask@first> wrote:
>
>> I'm glad I said "kinda looks like," because I just noticed that the URL
>> isn't voxamps.com If you go to the voxshowroom.com home page, you do
>> find a DISCLAIMER stating that it is NOT an official Vox site!
>
> Good point, yet anyone should know they are not Korg.

Yeah, and I do know the whole North Coast connection, from searching for
good quality licensed combo cabs. I just didn't notice that I landed on
that site!

[Claude V. Lucas]

North Coast has been carrying the Vox flag for decades while
Korg figures out how to continue to milk the brand name.

They were, and probably still are the best source for
original and repro parts for the originals...

They've always been clear that there is no connection to Korg...

[Claude V. Lucas]

In article <tlhqr7hiemaog1hla...@4ax.com>,

It's that Guy again... <Anybody but me> wrote:
>
>On Wed, 23 May 2012 20:03:09 +0000 (UTC), Jim <ask@first> wrote:
>
>>I'm glad I said "kinda looks like," because I just noticed that the URL
>>isn't voxamps.com If you go to the voxshowroom.com home page, you do
>>find a DISCLAIMER stating that it is NOT an official Vox site!
>
>Good point, yet anyone should know they are not Korg.
>
>voxshowroom people are just great, and have done more to keep the
>real Vox MoJo going then Korg has. I wonder what NC Music has
>going that they can build such *GREAT* Vox items, WITH Korg's
>OK..maybe they build cabs for them? Who knows. All I know is
>that all my past dealings with NCM has been without any issues,
>and any time I had to mention them to UK/JP Korg, they are treated
>with complete respect. I own and have sold a few S/Beatle NCM items,
>and they kick ass over the old T/Organ build...stands and all..
>
>I trust them completely, be it Vox, Rix, Hofner, U name it.
>

Dedicated hobbiest turns hobby into successful business...

They were selling repro/original Vox parts in the 90s
before Korg reissued the AC30.

I bought a nice set of brass vents for *my* '64 red panel
integral top boost AC30 from them back in the loud amp days.

[Jim]

In all fairness to Vox, Korg and their fans... I need to point out that
I later discovered that the above link was NOT the official vox site!

So it wasn't VOX making the claim.

[Tomato...@bailey.com]

All of those corporations are lying in advertising now days! You
really think that pump on tv will make Obunny's little slong bigger?
lol