Marshall - Overrated?
Who Knows?
After casually amp shopping around my local guitar dealerships, I have
realized one interesting thing: Marshalls aren't all they're cracked up to
be!
Im sure that back in 'the day' when marshall amps made their debut, They
were great! I mean, an amp that distorted and sounded good while doing it!
It was great!
Unfortunately, now marshall cant seem to keep up with amps like
Mesa/Boogie's (The best amps ever - They make an amp for everybody!) I
guess other people have different thoughts, but the distortion on a
marshall stack isn't all its cracked up to be.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------
~ Ktulu ~
Web: www.execulink.com/~scat (Fonts Page)
E-Mail: kt...@somethingorother.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------
SEFSTRAT
<<Marshalls aren't all they're cracked up to
be! >>
The JCM900 dual reverb sure isn't. I really don';t like the
'boost'channel.......it does sound good on the clean channel when I use a
Fulldrive2 for overdrive, though.
Steve
SEFSTRAT
Alex Tobias
"Who Knows?" <kt...@somethingorother.com> wrote:
>After casually amp shopping around my local guitar dealerships, I have
>realized one interesting thing: Marshalls aren't all they're cracked up to
>be!
>Im sure that back in 'the day' when marshall amps made their debut, They
>were great! I mean, an amp that distorted and sounded good while doing it!
> It was great!
>Unfortunately, now marshall cant seem to keep up with amps like
>Mesa/Boogie's (The best amps ever - They make an amp for everybody!) I
>guess other people have different thoughts, but the distortion on a
>marshall stack isn't all its cracked up to be.
Your entitled to your $00.02 and sound happens to be a subjective
thing. IMO I think Mesa's have marginal tone but I can't say I have
heard every Mesa model so I would make a blanket statement about all
of them.
Marshall's sound best cranked to the max, this is when they come
alive so to speak. This is hard to do this in a store or even in a
house without the cops showing up. You mentioned you checked them out
in local dealerships so I'm guessing you did not have them up very
loud.
Going into a music shop and having a 50w Marshall combo on a volume
of 2 or worse yet a stack on 2 doesn't make the Marshall sound.
This is part of the reason people use Powerbrakes and such, to get
better tone at low volumes. I don't have much doubt that if you dimed
those Marshalls you were playing you would have thought the tone
kicked ass.
Tone King
You have made assumptions based upon opinion.
One mans's ideal is anothers scourge.
I have owned boogies, marshalls, fenders and about 6 other brands and
like them all. Marshall is ran to be a profitable company and is doing well
according to my best information.
All the amp manufacturers are facing the reality of shrinking disposable
income and really fierce competition.
Marshall amps , in my opinion are not designed for low volume practice
but rather for on stage or in the studio with the power tubes getting some
big-time voltage.
Since I have been attending concerts and such, I have seen more Marshall amps
on stage than any other. Imagine AC DC playing other than Marshalls!
About the only thing I respect besides a beautiful guitar tone is
an open mind.
regards
Tone_King
In article <01bd46eb$ccc28180$061259d1@www>, kt...@somethingorother.com
says...
>
>After casually amp shopping around my local guitar dealerships, I have
>realized one interesting thing: Marshalls aren't all they're cracked up to
>be!
>
>Im sure that back in 'the day' when marshall amps made their debut, They
>were great! I mean, an amp that distorted and sounded good while doing it!
> It was great!
>
>Unfortunately, now marshall cant seem to keep up with amps like
>Mesa/Boogie's (The best amps ever - They make an amp for everybody!) I
>guess other people have different thoughts, but the distortion on a
>marshall stack isn't all its cracked up to be.
Brian Rost
Well, what do you consider "overrated"?
You could call almost any piece of gear overrated, but the fact is I know
plenty of players who have tried this brand and that brand to get the
"Fender" sound or the "Marshall" sound, come away disappointed and then
buy the "real thing".
Picking gear is incredibly simple: find what does what you want and then buy it.
--
Brian
br...@synnet.com
jve...@us.ibm.com
In article <6djrrg$o...@surf.beaches.net>,
at7...@aol.com (Alex Tobias) wrote:
>
> "Who Knows?" <kt...@somethingorother.com> wrote:
>
> >After casually amp shopping around my local guitar dealerships, I have
> >realized one interesting thing: Marshalls aren't all they're cracked up to
> >be!
Discussing classic (i.e. Fender and Marshall) amps as "over/underrated" is
very much like those same threads on "over/underrated" guitar players.
For example, you might say that Matchless is a hyper-charged "next level up"
version of an AC30 or Marshall combo, just like, say, Danny Gatton was a
hyper-charged, "next level up" version of Roy Buchanan.
Marshalls, Fenders, Roy Buchanans, and SRV's, set the baseline that others
work against.
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
FAMILYPROB
How could you judge either when they are full of crappy tubes?
I personally dont much like Mesa from the point of view that when someone comes
in the shop to get one fixed it sits around awhile because they are so
overbuilt, fixing them is a pain in the ass. Just to replace a broken knob
shaft ya gotta cut the buss bar or unsolder every potentiometer on the front
panel (big job for a little repair). Most older amps (except Gibsons) on the
other hand will be on the bench and off the same day because they were built to
be fixed. Leo Fender unlike many new amp manufactures realized if you are a
real player who actually gigs your amp will oneday need servicing. So from a
service point of view dont like too many new amps, from a tone point of view
you cant judge a new amp with the shit tubes manufactures put in them. That
marshall was probably full o the crappy tubes that pinch yer tone into thin
white noise. Get some Real Tubes then decide. Jim
Learn more about the wonderful world of tubes at
http://www.triodeel.com and yes a marshall sounds best when the output tubes
are breakin up at high volume as opposed to breaking up the preamp tubes with a
master volume.
Aaron Turner
FAMILYPROB (famil...@aol.com) wrote:
: marshall was probably full o the crappy tubes that pinch yer tone into thin
: white noise. Get some Real Tubes then decide.
In a UK guitar magazine Marshall were saying that they have just changed
tube types to/from EL34s - can't remember which, as only very recently has
tube quality gone up again for their preferred type. SO maybe the DSL2000s
will sound better. Actually I don't care for the JCM900 marshall-on-11
sound. The more crunchy but less metal JTM60 series combos (now renamed
to JCM something) that they brough out recently sounded nicer. But it is a
matter of taste. I think too many players use too much distortion. At
volume in a gig you need less distortion than you'd think.
Aaron Turner
Strat1995
>Marshalls aren't all they're cracked up to
>be!
>
Your right, although I am a huge Marshall fan, I think the amps they make now
suck. Go play through an old JMP or JCM 800 if you want to hear what a
Marshall is really supposed to sound like.
Ted Breaux
In all honesty, Marshall's 'voltages' are not any higher than any other
comparable amp (in fact, 450V B+ is rather modest for EL34s), and this is
not really significant anyway. Being that I own several old Marshalls
(i.e. plexi 100W, JTM45, later ones, etc.), what I can say is that as time
has passed, Marshalls in general also sound much, much less musical to me.
They have lost the sheer spine tingling purity of the sound of quality
tubes being heavily driven. This is what made Marshall famous in the first
place. The models made today, with all their solid state preamp gadgets
and such does not deliver the sound which made Marshall famous. I'm not
knocking Marshall, as they have to cater to the crowd that wants all the
channel switching, fake distortion sounds, etc. Neither can I as well
stand the harsh, brittle, headache creating screech made by the
contemporary models and loud volumes. Apples and oranges. This is why the
old ones are priced so highly. The truth is, without any bias and wishful
thinking, there are other brands of amps which deliver superior 'Marshall
type sounds' than Marshalls. If you had to pick one amp out of ten
different ones blindfolded, I think you'd be quite surprised at what you'd
pick.
Ted B.
Cumbo65
I agree that some models of Marshall amps are a little dissapointing. I think
this is due to them designing models to to cater for a too wider market instead
of sticking to their roots - can't blame them though due to pressures of
business.
On a lot of the Marshall dual channel models with reverb the distortion
obtained on the boost channel is derived from a crude diode clipping circuit.
On the single channel master volume models the distortion is obtained by
overdriving valves after the initial pre amp stage, the volume being
controlled by limiting the input to the power stage via the master volume
potentiometer. It is obvious that the diode clipping circuit is going to give
adissappoining results. I tested many of these amps when I was a test engineer
at Marshall back in the 80s. My advice is always to stick with a simple master
volume valve amplifier and derive any reverb or second channel distortion/level
cut by other means. In the end the best way to get a great sound out of a
Marshall is to drive them to the limit when the output stage gives the best
distortion and the output transformer becomes saturated. You would'nt buy a
Ferrari and expect it to be a dream to drive if you did'nt ever take it past
30 mph - would you ?
Cheers
Cumbo
SEFSTRAT
<<In a UK guitar magazine Marshall were saying that they have just changed
tube types to/from EL34s ->>
Marshall succumbed to the "no more EL34s soon" scare, and designed their amps
with 5881s. Killed the tone, IMHO.
SEFSTRAT
Danny Russell
SEFSTRAT wrote:
>
> Marshall succumbed to the "no more EL34s soon" scare, and designed their amps
> with 5881s. Killed the tone, IMHO.
> SEFSTRAT
...and came up with the brilliant ad hype: "Remember the good 'ol days
when Marshalls...blah, blah, blah... 5881's!". Funny stuff. -Danny
Strat1995
>Marshall succumbed to the "no more EL34s soon" scare, and designed their amps
>with 5881s. Killed the tone, IMHO.
>SEFSTRAT
Even if you replace the 5881's in the later model Marshalls with EL 34's , they
still don't sound good. It's in the pre-amp design.
Jonathan Krogh
Danny Russell <*NOSPAM*bl...@flash.net> wrote in message
<34FDE9...@flash.net>...
>SEFSTRAT wrote:
>>
>> Marshall succumbed to the "no more EL34s soon" scare, and designed their
amps
>> with 5881s. Killed the tone, IMHO.
>> SEFSTRAT
>
>
>...and came up with the brilliant ad hype: "Remember the good 'ol days
>when Marshalls...blah, blah, blah... 5881's!". Funny stuff. -Danny
i never played any with 5881's , but i sure do like 6550's in them.
Scott Pritchard
I think the solid state front end with the clipping diodes is good
for heavy stuff, but not real soulful. But the JTM45 reissue is just
so sweet. I think the plexi head would sound ok too. Haven't tried
one though. Has anyone else.
John Huff
In <01bd46eb$ccc28180$061259d1@www> "Who Knows?"
<kt...@somethingorother.com> writes:
>
You can't make such a broad, generalized statement about
Marshalls-there are several different models that sound quite
different. Besides, we all know Marshalls sound their best when cranked
up loud-your local friendly guitar dealership probably wouldn't like
you playing at the *right* volume level.
Daniel
>After casually amp shopping around my local guitar dealerships, I have
>realized one interesting thing: Marshalls aren't all they're cracked
up to
>be!
>
>Im sure that back in 'the day' when marshall amps made their debut,
They
>were great! I mean, an amp that distorted and sounded good while
doing it!
> It was great!
>
>Unfortunately, now marshall cant seem to keep up with amps like
>Mesa/Boogie's (The best amps ever - They make an amp for everybody!)
I
>guess other people have different thoughts, but the distortion on a
>marshall stack isn't all its cracked up to be.
>--
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
Vic Dyer
Alex,
I whole heartedly agree. In fact, I would add that Marshall's even sound
better after they heat up a little. You are right. The more you crank a
Marshall the better it sounds. Fender on the other hand has a sweet spot
in volume, and unless you turn it up to that point...and also don't
exceed that point...it won't sound good. That's especially true for the
Super Reverbs...and yes I owned one so I know from experience what I am
referring to. My Mesa MkIII sounds better as I turn it up. But it also
sounds good at lower volumes. Mesa's require more tweaking than
Marshalls do to get good sounds. Mesa's are also more dependent on what
speaker cab you pair them with because of their extended frequency range
as compared to a Marshall. My Marshall 4x12 (G12T75s) are okay with the
Mesa, but the Mesa does better with V30s or Rivera's Celestion G12T85s.
Vic Dyer
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Vic Dyer
Brian,
The hunt is the fun part, not always simple, but sometimes well worth
the effort. That is why musicians succumb to the dreaded Gear
Acquisition Syndrome.
Vic Dyer
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Vic Dyer
Tone,
The 45 Reissues they play are heavily modded and not to hot. Listen to
the last ACDC live CDs. Way harsh. They sounded better on Back in Black.
Now if they played with the old 800s or a new Hoffman...they would sound
like themselves again. Sometimes progress is not progress.
Vic Dyer
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Ted Breaux
> How could you judge either when they are full of crappy tubes?
That
thin
> white noise. Get some Real Tubes then decide.
I know your point first-hand, and I buy from > http://www.triodeel.com ,
but even the best sounding tube set does not overcome lacking electronic
architecture. I've tested just about every available tube out there in
Marshalls and many other amps, and regardless of what kind of tubes you put
in it, a modern Marshall doesn't have the sound or soul of the very old
ones which are still earning the company its (former) reputation. The
right set of tubes will make a great amp sound really great, but won't make
a lacking amp sound great, and them's just da facts!
Ted B.
Jonathan Krogh
actually just the other day i realized that the tone that i liked best of
theirs was on 'for those about to rock', which sounds like hot JCM800's
second to highway to hell, which is probably late 70's JMP mkII's,less gain,
but more crunch.
Vic Dyer wrote in message <34FDFC...@mailhost.cyberramp.net>...
Damien Harrison
Who Knows? wrote in message <01bd46eb$ccc28180$061259d1@www>...
>After casually amp shopping around my local guitar dealerships, I have
>realized one interesting thing: Marshalls aren't all they're cracked up to
>be!
>
>Im sure that back in 'the day' when marshall amps made their debut, They
>were great! I mean, an amp that distorted and sounded good while doing it!
> It was great!
>
>Unfortunately, now marshall cant seem to keep up with amps like
>Mesa/Boogie's (The best amps ever - They make an amp for everybody!) I
>guess other people have different thoughts, but the distortion on a
>marshall stack isn't all its cracked up to be.
>--
>
I just like the sound of a Marshall better than a Mesa/Boogie. Yes I've
tried them all. This is just the same as saying that Gibson is better than
Fender or vice versa. They're different amps, catering for different
tastes.
Harro.
TimTube
In article <19980304211...@ladder03.news.aol.com>, stra...@aol.com
(Strat1995) writes:
>
>Marshall succumbed to the "no more EL34s soon" scare, and designed their
>amps
>with 5881s. Killed the tone, IMHO.
>SEFSTRAT
Even if you replace the
>5881's in the later model Marshalls with EL 34's , they
still don't sound
>good. It's in the pre-amp design.
Right. The 900s and 2000s are built for mass market appeal, they basically have
built in solid state fuzz. They do grunge, thrash and metal... this is the
market for these amps, if this is not your style, then yes, you stand to be
disappointed. I own a dozen or so various older Marshalls including a 20w head,
various 50w heads and combos, and 3 '60s 100w heads (SL, ST, SB). I am real
familiar with the tone of the older amps. I've not seen the reissues addressed
on this thread, I think these are excellent. They just need to have the bias
cranked up to where it should be and they sound fine. I've been inside numerous
reissues, and they are wired like the PCB amps of the '70s and early '80s.
Tim
A great amp can make a lousy guitar sound great.
A lousy amp will make a great guitar sound lousy.
Redtenor
In article <19980305034...@ladder02.news.aol.com>, tim...@aol.com
(TimTube) writes:
>I've not seen the reissues addressed on this thread, I think these are
>excellent. They just need to have the bias cranked up to where it should be
>and they sound fine. I've been inside numerous reissues, and they are wired
>like the PCB amps of the '70s and early '80s.
Oboy, okay. First Timtube, I respect your opinion. Now, I've been looking for
a genuine original 50watt Plexi. Haven't found a good one yet. Are you saying I
might be as well off with a reissue Plexi? Same with the JTM45, just as well
off with the reissue? How about the transformer? I've never given the reissues
a play because I thought Marshall lost it long ago - maybe the reissues really
are authentic.
Thank you,
Redtenor
Tone King
Good point Tim,
I have been wondering this myself. "How good are the reissues?"
Your comments are noted. The bias comment is also interesting.
I also wonder how they are selling to the general public.
I know that some guitarists like the new Marshalls.
I was in a store that has the Marshall contract in town.
One lad bought a JCM900 after testing it for 10 minutes.
He played Celtic Frost on steroids type chords and some diddley
finger tapping stuff.
Another young guy was trying to finance a 5150. In the corner was a
old bassman 50 head on sale for $300 bucks. It was in pristine shape.
It had been sitting there for months I was told and was dust-laden.
I almost bought it, but my wife thought otherwise!
I was also blown away at the number of "vintage looking" new amps
that are being sold by companies like Peavey and Fender.
This tells me that the 3-5 stage preamp gain monsters are still desired
but maybe pure tube tone is in too!
I am going to build a model 1987 knock-off this summer. What
are the final plate and bias voltages on your genuine 50 watt amps Tim?
regards
Tone_King
In article <19980305034...@ladder02.news.aol.com>, tim...@aol.com
says...
>
>In article <19980304211...@ladder03.news.aol.com>, stra...@aol.com
>(Strat1995) writes:
>
>>
>>Marshall succumbed to the "no more EL34s soon" scare, and designed their
>>amps
>>with 5881s. Killed the tone, IMHO.
>>SEFSTRAT
>
>Even if you replace the
>>5881's in the later model Marshalls with EL 34's , they
>still don't sound
>>good. It's in the pre-amp design.
>
>Right. The 900s and 2000s are built for mass market appeal, they basically
have
>built in solid state fuzz. They do grunge, thrash and metal... this is the
>market for these amps, if this is not your style, then yes, you stand to be
>disappointed. I own a dozen or so various older Marshalls including a 20w
head,
>various 50w heads and combos, and 3 '60s 100w heads (SL, ST, SB). I am real
>familiar with the tone of the older amps. I've not seen the reissues
addressed
>on this thread, I think these are excellent. They just need to have the bias
>cranked up to where it should be and they sound fine. I've been inside
numerous
>reissues, and they are wired like the PCB amps of the '70s and early '80s.
>
TimTube
In article <19980305041...@ladder02.news.aol.com>, redt...@aol.com
(Redtenor) writes:
>In article <19980305034...@ladder02.news.aol.com>,
>tim...@aol.com
(TimTube) writes:
>I've not seen the reissues addressed on
>this thread, I think these are
>excellent. They just need to have the bias
>cranked up to where it should be
>and they sound fine. I've been inside
>numerous reissues, and they are wired
>like the PCB amps of the '70s and
>early '80s.
Oboy, okay. First Timtube, I respect your opinion. Now, I've
>been looking for
a genuine original 50watt Plexi. Haven't found a good one
>yet. Are you saying I
might be as well off with a reissue Plexi? Same with
>the JTM45, just as well
off with the reissue? How about the transformer? I've
>never given the reissues
a play because I thought Marshall lost it long ago -
>maybe the reissues really
are authentic.
The JTM45 is my fave, it sounds more like a '59 Bassman than the Fender
reissue. The 100w does a pretty good rendition of early metal panels as does
the 50w. Both of these do the big rock sounds of the '70s very well, but both
amps are very loud,. hard and in your face compared to the JTM45 which has a
soft sponginess very similar to the late '50s Bassmans I've played. The
transformers are large, styled like the JMPs and JCM800s, at least on the 50
and 100, I forget what the JTM45 had, but it sounds very nice. The JCM2000
appears to have the same smallish trannys as the JCM900s.
John Huff
In <19980305045...@ladder02.news.aol.com> tim...@aol.com
(TimTube) writes:
>
Judging by this thread, it looks like alot of people have been
overlooking the JTM 60 head. Plug one of these into a good 4X12 (not
the dinky 4X10's that they are matched with) and you have on hell of an
amp. No buzzy, crappy, high-gain, super cheese metal distortion, but
all tube (El34) TONE. My 60w JTM is a damned fine amplifier, completely
different from the 900 series. I have played through an old JMP and and
a couple of JCM 800s, and the JTM 60, while it is an amp all its own,
can definately hang and put out a good classic Marshall sound.Everyone
thats played through and/or heard my amp has commented on how good it
sounds, even my old guitar teacher who has played through/owned it all.
Daniel
TimTube
In article <dZpL.124$ln1.3...@newsgate.direct.ca>, mars...@on.ten (Tone
King) writes:
>
I am going to build a model 1987 knock-off this summer. What
are the final
>plate and bias voltages on your genuine 50 watt amps Tim?
My favorite 50 is a '71 Canadian head with a laydown mains. It has about 380
volts. I do not concern myself too much with bias votage, just with the proper
current draw for the tube dejour. This amp has seen everything, 6V6s, Tungsol
5881s, KT66s, KT88s, Tungsol 6550s, and I think every EL34 known to man. I bias
the EL34s around 40, the KT88s and 6550s around 50, the 5881s and KT66s around
35, and the 6V6s in the low 20s.
zorro...@hotmail.com
In article <19980304201...@ladder02.news.aol.com>,
sefs...@aol.com (SEFSTRAT) wrote:
> Marshall succumbed to the "no more EL34s soon" scare, and designed their
amps
> with 5881s. Killed the tone, IMHO.
> SEFSTRAT
>
I've got a '90 JCM900 (4501) with EL34's and it sounds pretty good, but
better on the A channel run hot than the B channel for the kind of music I
play.
zorro...@hotmail.com
In article <01bd46eb$ccc28180$061259d1@www>,
"Who Knows?" <kt...@somethingorother.com> wrote:
> Mesa/Boogie's (The best amps ever - They make an amp for everybody!)
Now THAT is debateable, although Mesa would like to think so.
zorro...@hotmail.com
In article <01bd479b$98a82020$1dbdb5cc@default>,
"Ted Breaux" <tabr...@neworleans.com> wrote:
The models made today, with all their solid state preamp gadgets
> and such does not deliver the sound which made Marshall famous
Page, Beck, Hendrix, Clapton...they all used solid state foot pedals, often
several in series, to generate much of their sound before going into their
amps. And they still do...
Aaron Turner
TimTube (tim...@aol.com) wrote:
: Right. The 900s and 2000s are built for mass market appeal, they basically have
: built in solid state fuzz. They do grunge, thrash and metal... this is the
: market for these amps, if this is not your style, then yes, you stand to be
: disappointed.
The guitarist I am working with wants to get an all valve Marshall, and
I've been trying to tell him to get something else as a Marshall,except
the JTMs, sounds too harsh and compressed on overdrive, and overdrive can
be overused. And if you really want Marshall overdrive you can buy an
approximation of the more modern sound in a pedal...
Aaron Turner
Aaron Turner
John Huff (joh...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: Judging by this thread, it looks like alot of people have been
: overlooking the JTM 60 head. Plug one of these into a good 4X12 (not
: the dinky 4X10's that they are matched with) and you have on hell of an
: amp.
I've heard one of these and liked it because...
: No buzzy, crappy, high-gain, super cheese metal distortion,
Exactly this.
Aaron TUrner
Aaron Turner
zorro...@hotmail.com wrote:
: Page, Beck, Hendrix, Clapton...they all used solid state foot pedals,
Absolutely, and something people forget. I have a 1969 Traynor which I
picked up for nothing. No overdrive unless you crank it. But if Page etc
got overdrive via solid state pedals, I see no reason why I can't. I used
to play through and old White 100W head (before it caught fire on stage)
with pedals, and it sounded pretty reasonable.
Aaron Turner
goldtop®
On 3 Mar 1998 21:27:38 GMT, "Who Knows?" <kt...@somethingorother.com>
wrote:
>Marshalls aren't all they're cracked up to be!
Awful popular amps to be not what they're cracked up to be.
email: gol...@mindspring.com
http://www.mindspring.com/~goldtop/goldtop.html
Rick Nelson
"Who Knows?" <kt...@somethingorother.com> wrote:
>After casually amp shopping around my local guitar dealerships, I have
>realized one interesting thing: Marshalls aren't all they're cracked up to
>be!
>
>Im sure that back in 'the day' when marshall amps made their debut, They
>were great! I mean, an amp that distorted and sounded good while doing it!
> It was great!
>
I think a lot of the Marshall appeal comes from their image and
peoples perception of what constitutes a good rig.
I used GHS Boomers on my guitar for god knows how long (too long!)
when I was first starting out because I didn't know any better. The
first time I bought strings, the guy at the shop handed me the
boomers. From then on, I just assumed that that's what was supposed
to go on a guitar and that's what I bought. Since being enilghtened,
I use Dean Markley F150s religously on my electrics, but that's
another thread for another NG :)
The same is probably true for a lot (not all - don't everybody freak
out) of people who but Marshall amps. Some guy that plays a Harmony
guitar through a car speaker wants to look like he knows what he's
talking about to his friends, so he rants on about how great a Strat
or a Les Paul sounds through a 100W Marshall stack (even though he's
never actually heard one). He is wise about such things because
that's what he heard from his buddy who plays a Westone plugged into a
1982 Soundesign boom box with ripped speakers for distortion.
So the story is passed and the legend lives on and people buy Gibsons
and Fenders and Marshalls and they brag to their friends because
everybody knows that you're just not any good if you use anything
else.
I'm not saying a Les Paul or a Strat *doesn't* sound good through a
Marshall. It's just that there's a lot of people who don't realize
that there are other quality guitar and amp manufacturers out there.
--Rick
Photoshop FAQ, tutorials, cereal weevils, and other debris at
http://www.geocities.com/CollegePark/Quad/2237/
Strat1995
>I am going to build a model 1987 knock-off this summer. What
>are the final plate and bias voltages on your genuine 50 watt amps Tim?
>
>
The plate voltages on my 71 1987 are 398 volts.
Strat1995
>I'm not saying a Les Paul or a Strat *doesn't* sound good through a
>Marshall. It's just that there's a lot of people who don't realize
>that there are other quality guitar and amp manufacturers out there.
>
>
But none with the Marshall tone. Most people who use Marshalls, including
myself, like them for their unique tone which no other amp has.
Danny Russell
TimTube wrote:
>
> The JTM45 is my fave, it sounds more like a '59 Bassman than the Fender
> reissue. The 100w does a pretty good rendition of early metal panels as does
> the 50w. Both of these do the big rock sounds of the '70s very well, but both
> amps are very loud,. hard and in your face compared to the JTM45 which has a
> soft sponginess very similar to the late '50s Bassmans I've played. The
> transformers are large, styled like the JMPs and JCM800s, at least on the 50
> and 100, I forget what the JTM45 had, but it sounds very nice. The JCM2000
> appears to have the same smallish trannys as the JCM900s.
The power x-former in the re-45 is a lay-down style and delivers
substantially less B+ than does the re-50, then the tube rectifier
knocks it down even more. The output x-formers are different as well.
The 50 is wound to a correct match whereas the 45 is apparently
deliberately upwardly mismatched. When you set it to drive 16 ohms, it
wants to drive 8 ohms. Measure the output power some time. The last
few I measured produced in the neighborhood of 25 watts with fat
roundish-looking waveform tops at clipping. Moving the impedance
selector up one notch "normalizes" the shape of the waveform and
increases the power to about 35-40 watts. The sound also gets more
Marshall-esque. (harder and bolder.) The upwards mismatch is a large
part of how the soft sponginess is induced in that model. -Danny
al...@intrlink.com
On 5 Mar 1998 10:48:54 GMT, ag...@york.ac.uk (Aaron Turner) wrote:
>zorro...@hotmail.com wrote:
>: Page, Beck, Hendrix, Clapton...they all used solid state foot pedals,
>
>Absolutely, and something people forget. I have a 1969 Traynor which I
>picked up for nothing. No overdrive unless you crank it. But if Page etc
>got overdrive via solid state pedals, I see no reason why I can't. I used
>to play through and old White 100W head (before it caught fire on stage)
This must have been a pretty cool stage effect!
===================================================
alann(removethis)@intrlink.com
spam sucks.
===================================================
al...@intrlink.com
>Tone,
>
>The 45 Reissues they play are heavily modded and not to hot. Listen to
>the last ACDC live CDs. Way harsh. They sounded better on Back in Black.
>Now if they played with the old 800s or a new Hoffman...they would sound
>like themselves again. Sometimes progress is not progress.
>
>Vic Dyer
One thing has not come up in discussions here that I have seen.
Everyone tries to get that Hendrix tone of the 60's. The AC/DC sound
of Back in Black ( 1979 if I remember ). Etc. etc. The thing a lot
of us ( if not ALL of us ) judge this by are the recordings.
The consoles are better, the mics are better, the processing is
better. The tape machines are better ( depending on what spec you
look at or the viewpoint you have with analog vs. digital.
Recording in the late '90s is just about ALL digital. Not all but most
due to the digital equipment being cheaper to make and maintain than
its 70's or 80's counterpart. A sixteen track digital machine (
Adat's stacked, DA-88's whatever ) is MUCH cheaper than a 2" analog 16
track machine.
Was Back in Black recorded digital? I bet not in '79. Were the Live
CD's?
I dunno but I bet they were. It's a hell of a lot easier to cart a
rack of DA-88's around than some big old bulky 2" machine.
My point being here, todays amps MIGHT not ( and probably aren't as
good as the older ones ). But I think a LOT of this is all generated
in people's heads since the "reference" point for "that TONE" is
drilled into all of our heads from the recordings we have heard time
and time again and judged what the tone is supposed to BE..
Just my 2 cents and I think a valid observation..
Alan
Infinite
Damien Harrison wrote in message <6djuo1$j1i$1...@otis.netspace.net.au>...
>
>
>I just like the sound of a Marshall better than a Mesa/Boogie. Yes I've
>tried them all. This is just the same as saying that Gibson is better than
>Fender or vice versa. They're different amps, catering for different
>tastes.
>
>Harro.
>
Hmmm... Tried them all? Even the TriAxis? I find that with a TriAxis I can
match a Marshall for sound, if I want, or go in the other directions. The
Tri is a very customisable <real word?> amp, capable of just about any
sound.
Ryan
Jonathan Krogh
al...@intrlink.com wrote in message <34ff28b3...@cnews.newsguy.com>...
>On 5 Mar 1998 10:48:54 GMT, ag...@york.ac.uk (Aaron Turner) wrote:
>
>>zorro...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>: Page, Beck, Hendrix, Clapton...they all used solid state foot pedals,
>>
>>Absolutely, and something people forget. I have a 1969 Traynor which I
>>picked up for nothing. No overdrive unless you crank it. But if Page etc
>>got overdrive via solid state pedals, I see no reason why I can't. I used
>>to play through and old White 100W head (before it caught fire on stage)
>
>This must have been a pretty cool stage effect!
>
how can i get mine to do that???
Jonathan Krogh
>One thing has not come up in discussions here that I have seen.
>Everyone tries to get that Hendrix tone of the 60's. The AC/DC sound
>of Back in Black ( 1979 if I remember ). Etc. etc. The thing a lot
>of us ( if not ALL of us ) judge this by are the recordings.
>
>The consoles are better, the mics are better, the processing is
>better. The tape machines are better ( depending on what spec you
>look at or the viewpoint you have with analog vs. digital.
>
>Recording in the late '90s is just about ALL digital. Not all but most
>due to the digital equipment being cheaper to make and maintain than
>its 70's or 80's counterpart. A sixteen track digital machine (
>Adat's stacked, DA-88's whatever ) is MUCH cheaper than a 2" analog 16
>track machine.
>
>Was Back in Black recorded digital? I bet not in '79. Were the Live
>CD's?
>I dunno but I bet they were. It's a hell of a lot easier to cart a
>rack of DA-88's around than some big old bulky 2" machine.
hey i read that nirvana used the same analog console used to record 'back in
black' to do their last studio album 'in utero'. that album rocks tone
wise,very warm,
if you disagree, get your ass over to your ENT .
and i
Ned Carlson
On Fri, 6 Mar 1998 01:59:42 -0500, "Jonathan Krogh" <jo...@ican.net>
wrote:
>hey i read that nirvana used the same analog console used to record 'back in
>black' to do their last studio album 'in utero'.
Now how does someone do an album in utero?
Must get kinda crowded in there.
Was there, like, a surge suppressor umbilical cord?
Ned Carlson Triode Electronics,2225 W Roscoe Chicago, IL, 60618 USA
ph 773-871-7459 fax 773-871-7938
12:30 to 8 PM CT, (1830-0200 UTC) 12:30-5 Sat, Closed Wed & Sun
http://www.triodeel.com
Text file catalogs:Catalog 'Bot at cat...@triodeel.com
Aaron Turner
Rick Nelson (cha...@erols.n0spaam.com) wrote:
: I think a lot of the Marshall appeal comes from their image and
: peoples perception of what constitutes a good rig.
And maybe the solidity of their speaker cabs. I have a Marshall 2x10 bass
cab, and it is solidly made and sounds really good. Although I may have
to take the 'Marshall' logo off the speaker grille as it will get mangled
sooner or later.
Aaron Turner
Aaron Turner
Strat1995 (stra...@aol.com) wrote:
: But none with the Marshall tone. Most people who use Marshalls, including
: myself, like them for their unique tone which no other amp has.
And allegedly that tone was born because of the change of value of one of
a pair of capacitors (or resistors) compared to a bassman. Marshall chose
to use the same value for each of the pair, to save having to order an
extra set of components.
Aaron Turner
Aaron Turner
al...@intrlink.com wrote:
: The consoles are better, the mics are better, the processing is
: better.
Actually there are some very good, crystal clear 1970s recordings too.
Try listening to Songs From the Wood by Jethro Tull (1977). You can really
hear the zing of the acoustic guitars, bass, etc. So it was possible to
record well back then. Even in 1970 it was possible to record well (just
don't listen to a Led Zep record with distorting drums for an example of
it).
But I think you have a point - the reference is the recorded sound of the
amps on classic albums. But even stuff recorded NOW won't sound like the
amp does in your music room as all that digital processing power, eq,
etc., will be used to fit the sound into the frequency slot in the record.
In fact that probably happened less in,say, 1970, due to limitations on
desks.
Aaron Turner
Aaron Turner
al...@intrlink.com wrote:
: >got overdrive via solid state pedals, I see no reason why I can't. I used
: >to play through and old White 100W head (before it caught fire on stage)
: This must have been a pretty cool stage effect!
Had it been the last song rather than the first, it might have been.
Then there were the two amps I blew up in one studio recording session
(one a Marshall, one the backup PV which caught fire).
Aaron Turner
Aaron Turner
Jonathan Krogh (jo...@ican.net) wrote:
: >>to play through and old White 100W head (before it caught fire on stage)
: >
: >This must have been a pretty cool stage effect!
: how can i get mine to do that???
Get your housemate to spill coffee in the amp when it is in the music room
and not tell you about it, and wait for the coffee to soak into the
transformer.
Aaron Turner
Peter James Gordon
>
>
> email: gol...@mindspring.com
> http://www.mindspring.com/~goldtop/goldtop.html
company trying to emulate their sound :-) Think about it you guys....
EVERY company who builds "virtual" amps copies the Marshalls... Blues
breakers, JCM800, Aniversaries.... Why, because they have THE guitar
sound that serious rock guitar players want. Only a second hand
Marshall is a shit load cheaper than and trany box that pretends to be
the real thing.... it just doesn't exist. I have tried. I have owned 5
Marshalls in my life (38 now) and I have come back every time after
wasting more money on Fenders, Mesa's, Seymour's, Peaveys, Crate (YUK),
etc, etc. An then the big processing companies say... don't lug a half
stack... you can have the best guitar amps in our "box".... hee hee
hee... slap my knee! Pay one third of the price, and the ultimate Kick
Arse sound in the world.... why does the best musicians use the damn
things.... think about it.... I THINK YOU ARE CATCHING ON :-)
Keep Live music happening!!!!!
Cheers, Peter.
Strat1995
>EVERY company who builds "virtual" amps copies the Marshalls... Blues
>breakers, JCM800, Aniversaries...
That would be the perfect amp. An amp that sounded like a JTM 45 on one
channel, a 1987 Plexi on one channel, a JCM 800 2204 on one channel and a
Silver Anniversary 2550 on the other channel. Too bad it can't be done.
Aaron Turner
Peter James Gordon (vk8...@ozemail.com.au) wrote:
: Well said there Goldtop! If they are so over rated... why is EVERY
: company trying to emulate their sound :-)
Because that what is sells and they are in the business to make money?
Marshall started building amps to make money too.
: Marshalls in my life (38 now) and I have come back every time after
: wasting more money on Fenders, Mesa's, Seymour's, Peaveys, Crate (YUK),
Try a Dean Markely. I tried one of those once. Nice bluesy transistor amp.
Aaron TUrner
Jonathan Krogh
Strat1995 wrote in message
<19980306173...@ladder03.news.aol.com>...
didnt they try that kinda thing with the 30th anniversary?
hjhelms
Who Knows? wrote:
>
> After casually amp shopping around my local guitar dealerships, I have
> be!
>
> were great! I mean, an amp that distorted and sounded good while doing it!
> It was great!
>
> Mesa/Boogie's (The best amps ever - They make an amp for everybody!) I
> guess other people have different thoughts, but the distortion on a
> marshall stack isn't all its cracked up to be.
> --
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> --------
> ~ Ktulu ~
> Web: www.execulink.com/~scat (Fonts Page)
> E-Mail: kt...@somethingorother.com
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> --------
Remember the commercial a few years back where a bunch of yuppies are
agonizing over what new-age food to order before a big game? The guy
with the tickets comes into the restaurant and tells the waitress to
bring a steak and a Heineken (or was it Lowenbrau?).
Same thing. "I'll have a Paul and a Marshall". You know what you're
getting and all you have to worry about is your chops.
That isn't to say there aren't lots of other good amps out there
anymore. This is the golden age of amps right now. Guitars too. If
you are playing live rock and roll for American money, one of your amps
should be a Marshall.
Skip
Strat1995
>>That would be the perfect amp. An amp that sounded like a JTM 45 on one
>>channel, a 1987 Plexi on one channel, a JCM 800 2204 on one channel and a
>>Silver Anniversary 2550 on the other channel. Too bad it can't be done.
>
>didnt they try that kinda thing with the 30th anniversary?
>
>
Yeah, that's why I said "too bad it can't be done".
al...@intrlink.com
>hey i read that nirvana used the same analog console used to record 'back in
>black' to do their last studio album 'in utero'. that album rocks tone
>wise,very warm,
>
Most consoles still ARE analog. I was refering to tape machines as
the big analog/digital argument. A lot of people swear they hear the
difference. I agree. Digital is not prone to analog compression at
any point. There really isn't such a thing in digital, you just run
out of bits.
As for consoles, an audio console made in 1967 is not going to be as
clean as one made in 1997. Analog. Op-Amps, VCA's, etc. The things
we take for granted now did not exist. They were attenuators and
crude discrete component amplifiers vs. amps on IC's and such.
S/N is far better. Headroom is better. Slew rate is better.
I just truly believe all this kind of stuff is a big contributer to
the "tone" some people try to get..
Jonathan Krogh
al...@intrlink.com wrote in message <350079a3...@cnews.newsguy.com>...
>On Fri, 6 Mar 1998 01:59:42 -0500, "Jonathan Krogh" <jo...@ican.net>
>wrote:
>
>
>>hey i read that nirvana used the same analog console used to record 'back
in
>>black' to do their last studio album 'in utero'. that album rocks tone
>>wise,very warm,
>>
>Most consoles still ARE analog. I was refering to tape machines as
>the big analog/digital argument. A lot of people swear they hear the
>difference. I agree. Digital is not prone to analog compression at
>any point. There really isn't such a thing in digital, you just run
>out of bits.
oh goddamn, sorry bout that,
i know theyre still analog
what i meant to say was,
the record was done using all analog recording/mixing, and the console was
also the one used for 'BACK IN BLACK'
FAMILYPROB
You can make those reissue amps sound a lot better by replacing the cheesy
tubes they sell new amps with. Jim Learn more about tubes at
http://www.triodeel.com
TimTube
In article <19980308022...@ladder03.news.aol.com>, famil...@aol.com
(FAMILYPROB) writes:
I believe the reissues are shipped with Svetlana EL34s which are pretty darn
good sounding IMO. I'm curious as to what tube you would recommend replacing
these with?
Tim
A great amp can make a lousy guitar sound great.
A lousy amp will make a great guitar sound lousy.
Jon Emery
You know, the only problem I have with Marshall amps is that WAY too many
guitarists use them. It seems to me that everyone is eventually going to
sound VERY similar... Of course every tube amp has a personality of it's
own, but a Marshall is, well, a Marshall. I think that Marshalls are very
good all around amplifiers, a measuring stick if you will... Anything
less, and you're hopeless. Anything more and you've got a Hiwatt... Or an
Orange... Hmmm...
--
JON.
jone...@softhouse.com
hjhelms <hjh...@ibm.net> wrote in article <350054...@ibm.net>...
FAMILYPROB
I might try the Eis, cheap and good sounding with nice high end, but its good
to hear someone who works at Marshall pointed out to the accountants it would
be in everyones best interest to spend a few bucks more and put some decient
tubes in the amps. Now if they would use Teslas or Eis as preamp tubes they
might have more of a "mo-chine" as my old car mechanic used to say.
Tubes=Tone Jim
Ned Carlson
>In article <19980308022...@ladder03.news.aol.com>, famil...@aol.com
>(FAMILYPROB) writes:
>
>>You can make those reissue amps sound a lot better by replacing the cheesy
>>tubes they sell new amps with. Jim Learn more about tubes at
>>http://www.triodeel.com
On 8 Mar 1998 05:04:16 GMT, tim...@aol.com (TimTube) wrote:
>I believe the reissues are shipped with Svetlana EL34s which are pretty darn
>good sounding IMO. I'm curious as to what tube you would recommend replacing
>these with?
Tim:
He didn't specify Marshalls, I think he was referring to reissue amps
in general. I've read on this NG that some folks like Fender were
going to start (or already have started) shipping amps with
better tubes, like Tesla (which is what I think the new Groove Tubes
are, at least I've seen GT 6L6-GC that were definitely Teslas),
but overall IMHO it's an accurate comment.
If the reissue Marshalls are shipping with Svetlana, then those should
be plenty fine,tho some folks might like other ones better.
I had heard that some new Marshalls were being Sovtek EL34-G,
at least that what I pulled out of a combo a few weeks ago,
in that case the tube pins weren't big enough and there wasn't
any sound because the plate pins weren't making contact.
NOS is wunnerful, but the asking prices are insane
for NOS EL34's, Angela wants like $300 a pair!
I think Jim's referring to the 12AX7's.
If those Marshalls have Sovteks or Chinese, then, either Tesla
or Ei, or NOS 12AX7's might be an improvement,
while my hands-on experience with reissue
Marshalls is rather limited, most of the *customers*
report that that's the case.IMA that if one is
a mega-gain aficionado, the Sovtek 12AX7WXT
have about 10% more gain than typical 12AX7's.
WA's and WB's, OTOH, have about 20% less
gain than typical, more like a 5751.
Some folks *do* like Chinese & Russian 12AX7's,
if that's the tone they like, we're happy to accomodate.
I will say that Jim's got a stack of vintage Fenders & Ampegs
(not to mention a pile of other off brand critters like a
cardboard Electrolab..remember those?), and yeah,
he gets to compare those to reissues with and without
good tubes quite often, so as a general statement I'd
say you're hearing a very well qualified opinion.
Let's put it this way, when I fix an amp here, it's
a bit like Lord Valve's Home School: If it passes
the Jim Test, it's OK, if not I get to get it back &
do it over til it sounds right.
And the customers think he's got
about the best Tone Ear on Roscoe St. As a mere
listener I'm inclined to agree.
TimTube
In article <19980308085...@ladder02.news.aol.com>, famil...@aol.com
(FAMILYPROB) writes:
IMO, the EI (Yugoslavian) EL34 is the worst (next to Chinese). I made the
mistake of buying some in quantity because they were cheap. They do have a
twangy top, but the bottom is horrible, almost absent. These tubes have output
about equal to the Chinese, and way less than Svetlana, or the Sovtec EL34WXT.
They are especially bad in a bright '70s Marshall. I did put some in a Hiwatt
DR103, and they were acceptable because of the relative darkness of that amp.
The Sovtec EL34WXT is a real smoker, big bottom like the Svetlana, but with a
chimier top. I am real impressed with these tubes. They are a huge improvement
over the Sovtec EL34G.
So FWIW, my top 3 would be Sovtec EL34WXT, Svetlana, Tesla (one the varieties).
The EI preamp tubes are very nice, I bought a quantity of these, and have no
complaints. In fact I have a client who brought his modified reissue SLP (great
hotrod platforms) over, with his bottom (this guy is real picky, he wouldn't
test w/ one of my 4 4x12s). We put in NOS including Mullards, Brimar, RCA, GE,
etc....He thought the EIs were the best sounding.
"patgtrfr...@hotmail.com
TimTube wrote:
>
> In article <19980308022...@ladder03.news.aol.com>, famil...@aol.com
> (FAMILYPROB) writes:
>
> >You can make those reissue amps sound a lot better by replacing the cheesy
> >tubes they sell new amps with. Jim Learn more about tubes at
> >http://www.triodeel.com
don't forget that when fender and marshall reissued their famous old
amps they didn't reissue the powersupply
they basically dropped the old circuit onto a more modern powersupply
and hoped we wouldn't notice
imo the reissue amps can be made to sound very very close to original
amps if ... one rebuilds the powersupply to the exact tweed or plexi
power supply schematic and retubes with correct vintage type tubes ie
kt66's 5881's mullard gz34's ect
but the key here is that both fender and marshall used modern
powerfiltering techniques with way way way way to much capacitance in
the powersupply
once you have the correct squashy powersupply the amp will breathe sing
and distort when pushed instead of thumping clunking
and not quite squeezing the note out properly ...
now you are asking yourself can the damn powersupply make that much
difference..
is this guy just some crackpot canuk
well yes but ... i obsess and play with amps instead of guns
so be thankful ...
the answer from one who has spent hours building both hi capacitance and
low capacitance powersupplies into the same amp to test this out is ...
this is THE SECRET of tone... heres a test
grab a garden variety silver face amp
flip it over and recap the powerfilter board with 16mfd and 8 mfd caps
and 2 10k resisistors as if it were an early tweed amp
ie 16mfd choke 16mfd 10k 16mfd 10k 8 mfd
this is just a parts swap you dont need to rewire anything
the whole pre amp is now filtered with 8mfd of capactiance
and the first pre amp tube will be running at about 150 -190 volts
(now this is purposely really poor explanation so don't do this if you
arn't sure what i mean, or how to do a cap job .. you will die.. when a
cap descharges thru your heart )
play your amp ... sounds tweedy to me real raw compressed and with real
wild touch sensative distortion
now imagine a marshall filtered this way i think the word is creamy
someone try this and post back the results
pat
Jonathan Krogh
aaaaaahhhh....
hmmmmmm....
okay i guess i did shit when recently i recapped my 68 DR with 40mfd and 20
mfd caps, instead of 16 and 8,(i didnt get it with the stock caps)
i thought the larger values would kill hum a little more, am i at all right?
ok my '76 1987JMP has the 3 50/50mf cans,
whats in the plexis?
and whats in the reissue?
if theyre all the same, what would make identical caps filter differently,
and what things are different about the general power supply?
feel free to elaborate in the most perverted technical manner.
James Doherty
Jonathan Krogh wrote:
> ok my '76 1987JMP has the 3 50/50mf cans,
> whats in the plexis?
32uf
> and whats in the reissue?
50uf
JD
Ned Carlson
On 8 Mar 1998 14:15:07 GMT, tim...@aol.com (TimTube) wrote:
>IMO, the EI (Yugoslavian) EL34 is the worst (next to Chinese). I made the
>mistake of buying some in quantity because they were cheap. They do have a
>twangy top, but the bottom is horrible, almost absent.
I think that's really dependent on what kind of tone
& breakup one is looking for, since I've certainly
had Marshall players specifically ask for Ei's.
"patgtrfr...@hotmail.com
> whats in the plexis?
> and what things are different about the general power supply?
> feel free to elaborate in the most perverted technical manner.
my 66 plexi park ( currently the oldest plexi i own ) is filtered with
2 32 caps right after the rectifier another 32 after the choke (maybee
its a 16 ) and 2 16 mfd caps for the pre amp the power supply circuit is
almost identical to a tweed bassman only using 32 and 16 caps ... this
is the forgotten key to the plexi sound ...
when you crank this amp ghost harmonics run thru the powersupply and
give you that authentic cream tone almost fuzz as the amp colapses its
powersupply
my home made reissue plexi (a rebuilt marshall wreck) is filtered with a
50-50 cap then all 32-32 cans and its way closer than the factory
reissue stuff .. if i could find a double 16 can it would be exact ..
my rebuilt re issue bassman is filtered slightly less than the original
purposely to bring the voltages down and give the amp that normally
would run 60 volts too hot the correct bassman breakup
it has taken me years to figure all this out ... years of trial and
error ... noise is beautiful ..
there are ways to reduce noise without overfiltering ...
but i just gave away the farm, you get your own chickens
pat
the author does not gaurantee spilling accooracy
::
"patgtrfr...@hotmail.com
patgtrfrk(remove)@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> my 66 plexi park ( currently the oldest plexi i own ) is filtered with
> 2 32 caps right after the rectifier another 32 after the choke (maybee
> its a 16 ) and 2 16 mfd caps for the pre amp the power supply circuit is
> almost identical to a tweed bassman only using 32 and 16 caps ... this
> is the forgotten key to the plexi sound ...
> when you crank this amp ghost harmonics run thru the powersupply and
> give you that authentic cream tone almost fuzz as the amp colapses its
> powersupply
just imagine what one of these would sound like if you ran it on a
variac at 90 volts
into a load box then to a poweramp ....
oh wait thats already been done .....
check your marshall book all plexi amps with filters inside tha chassis
are filtered the fender way .. that would make the hendrix and van halen
amps the fender powersupply style plexi
hmmmmmmm
i wonder
pat