Members tech21man Posted June 25, 2012 Members Share Posted June 25, 2012 With tube amps, unless you get 100% of your tone from your preamp (like your mako) you're always gonna be dependent on volume. Part of why the Marshall 2203 was such a rocking sounding amp when cranked was because it was essentially identical to a Plexi but the two "channels" (hi and normal) are running in series rather than parallel. That's most of it anyway. The MV is really primitive but that's not the reason they need to be loud. They need to be loud because they're sill basically a Plexi, but they've got a little bit more gain coming from the preamp vs. a plexi where it's a clean preamp and the PI and power section are crunching.If you add just one more gain stage you can get quite a bit more saturation at low levels, but you lose the magic touch and tactile feedback you get from the Plexi lineage. Does that make sense?FWIW I add a PPIMV plus the regular MV when I build one and it makes them much better. A depth mod is another worth while mod. I remember a friend of mine stating that the bogner fish sounded more marshall in the preamp alone than any other marshall he played and he did have a lot of marshalls. I think he discussed it with alex flouros or something and he thought the same? I always wondered why exactly Van halen chased so much preamp distortion in the 5150 series. And if all of the package can be moved to the preamp a bit? Taking the power amp by a percentage out of the equation. Personally I wouldn't have any trouble accepting the power amp as a dynamic filter, a compressor of sorts combined with another gain stage. This of course IS by definition touch sensitive at full tilt, as the signal varies by your pick attack.Why not adding that to the preamp topology and feed it to a more controlled power amp... I'd want dynamics ideally to translate the playing as an acoustic guitar does (a good one at least), letting the attack and the way you play do the shaping instead of choosing a "marshall" high mid or a "mesa" strong low mid voice to boot but perhaps that is just me. I am really tired of hearing the marshall thing going on or the boogie thing going either as a player or as a listener, all the time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members madryan Posted June 25, 2012 Members Share Posted June 25, 2012 I remember a friend of mine stating that the bogner fish sounded more marshall in the preamp alone than any other marshall he played and he did have a lot of marshalls. I think he discussed it with alex flouros or something and he thought the same? I always wondered why exactly Van halen chased so much preamp distortion in the 5150 series. And if all of the package can be moved to the preamp a bit? Taking the power amp by a percentage out of the equation. Personally I wouldn't have any trouble accepting the power amp as a dynamic filter, a compressor of sorts combined with another gain stage. This of course IS by definition touch sensitive at full tilt, as the signal varies by your pick attack.Why not adding that to the preamp topology and feed it to a more controlled power amp... I'd want dynamics ideally to translate the playing as an acoustic guitar does (a good one at least), letting the attack and the way you play do the shaping instead of choosing a "marshall" high mid or a "mesa" strong low mid voice to boot but perhaps that is just me. I am really tired of hearing the marshall thing going on or the boogie thing going either as a player or as a listener, all the time. Bogner is sort of the idealized "Marshall" sound in some ways. Super congested mids and lots of bark. I like them quite a bit. The problem with doing an extensive preamp then feeding it to the power amp and maintaining your dynamics and touch sensitivity is every gain stage acts like a limiter. In the way that an OD pedal adds compression to your signal so does any gain stage in an amp. The more you tailor the tone and the more gain you add in the preamp section the more dynamic response you sacrifice. That's more or less the way it works. People have been working to find ways around that for decades now and some have done better than others. Some high gain amps are much more dynamic and touch sensitive than others. So amps like your typical classic Marshall tend to be really primitive by todays standards but they deliver the goods when they're cranked up on stage. Toss an OD in front of them if you want modern. Something like a 5150 that's more or less a rip-off of the SLO is a whole different ball of wax. Stellar design. One of the most amazing amp designs ever. I'm a total noob when it comes to that circuit though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members tech21man Posted June 25, 2012 Members Share Posted June 25, 2012 Is it a rip off though? Some differences make people think otherwise, I'd like to know your oppinion. I googled the same thing recently and got on a thread about the dual rec/SLO possible modification, somebody mentioned this about the 5150: "The 5150 isn't even close, circuit-wise (or tone-wise IMO). It also only has one cathode-follower - non-DC-coupled, after the tone stack and driving the FX loop - which is surprising considering that the DC-coupled cathode-follower tone stack is a major part of the 'Marshall-type' tone, where you would think the amp evolved from... but no, it's totally different, it's like the engineers never even looked at a Marshall/Soldano/Mesa schematic and started again from scratch." As far as the ironheart, does anybody have a schematic? I'd be plate driven tonestack after distortion and cold biased as hell. Is this the tone the OP struggles with? [video=youtube;2pvgwzNqOmA]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2pvgwzNqOmA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members '63-Strat Posted June 25, 2012 Members Share Posted June 25, 2012 Yeah I know a lot of amps that are like that. Peavey's are definitely like that, you can use same settings for bedroom and live and they will work. British amps like Marshalls, Laneys etc, are normally not like that and need a good dose of volume to sound their best. I used to hate my 800 2210 at home volume, well... not hate, but it was far from ideal. It was a great live amp though. I definitely agree with you on british style amps but I'd even say the same for american types like peavey and mesa too, honestly. A perfectly ballsy and cutting 800 tone in a band mix can sound boxy and lame on it's own if you're used to expecting a wall of sound in your bedroom type scneario. I'd still dial in the 5150 with the band and record a rehearsal etc. and make changes if necessary. A lot of things are with amps at gig volumes are perceived way differently in or out of a band mix. Levels of gain, bass, cut, mids etc. all depend on how those frequencies and dynamics interact with the other instruments IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Likes Loomis Posted June 25, 2012 Author Members Share Posted June 25, 2012 Well, you certainly have all given me good input and ALOT to think about in my quest for good tone with this amp. Perhaps a lot of my problem is that I have been so used to "easy EQ" amps, and with all of the tweaking and {censored} with this amp, I just get overwhelmed. I have tried a bunch of drive pedals and stuff with it and I'm thinking maybe I need to go back to ground zero with the amp and start again with no pedals, all EQ set to nominal, and start all over again.I had such good experience with the old school 5150 and the VH that I expected an easy ride with this thing. As you have all stated, there are SOOO many variables in getting "you're tone", that it could be just 1 of 200 things that is holding back the tone I seek. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members guitarbilly74 Posted June 25, 2012 Members Share Posted June 25, 2012 Well, you certainly have all given me good input and ALOT to think about in my quest for good tone with this amp.Perhaps a lot of my problem is that I have been so used to "easy EQ" amps, and with all of the tweaking and {censored} with this amp, I just get overwhelmed. I have tried a bunch of drive pedals and stuff with it and I'm thinking maybe I need to go back to ground zero with the amp and start again with no pedals, all EQ set to nominal, and start all over again.I had such good experience with the old school 5150 and the VH that I expected an easy ride with this thing.As you have all stated, there are SOOO many variables in getting "you're tone", that it could be just 1 of 200 things that is holding back the tone I seek. If by "nominal" you mean 12 o'clock, that won't work with the Laney. Start with mid and treble at ZERO and bass at 12 o'clock. That's muddy as hell, so gradually work your way up from there, until you have just the right amount of treble and mids. Then adjust the bass. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members peavey_impact Posted June 25, 2012 Members Share Posted June 25, 2012 The less knobs, the better, for me lol. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members madryan Posted June 25, 2012 Members Share Posted June 25, 2012 I need to dig up a schematic then. I suck at reading schematics. I don't remember who it was who told me they were roughly equivalent circuit layout wise but the Dual Rec is also allegedly similar. Again, before I shove both feet further into my mouth I'd really need to look into it more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Mike LX-R Posted June 25, 2012 Members Share Posted June 25, 2012 If by "nominal" you mean 12 o'clock, that won't work with the Laney. Start with mid and treble at ZERO and bass at 12 o'clock. That's muddy as hell, so gradually work your way up from there, until you have just the right amount of treble and mids. Then adjust the bass. This is exactly how I was able to dial in the GH. I took the treble and mid completely out and worked it in slowly. With both of my Laneys I found I had to clear my mind and what I thought I knew about dialing in an amp, and let the amp "tell me" where to start from. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members bass_n_drums Posted June 25, 2012 Members Share Posted June 25, 2012 This! Laneys are different when it comes to tweaking. They also need to be loud to open up, that could be a big part of your issue. 5150's aren't a bedroom amp either though they need some volume also. I agree! this is the only way to find out just how good the amp sounds is with a live band! They are designed that way. When I got my Mark V after trading my Bogner Shiva I wasn't so sure if the Mark was for me...but i knew from experienced that there is no way to really judge an amp unless you take it out with a band or at least a loud drummer. Anyway, when i test drove with with my drummer. That amp just woke up! It sounded amazing as advertised! After that jam session, I knew it was a keeper! If you've already taken it out with a band and feel the same way? Then the decision is easy.....time to let it go and get something else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Likes Loomis Posted June 25, 2012 Author Members Share Posted June 25, 2012 It's funny, because most all of I've heard of the Peavey XXX sounds completely awesome to me.Wish I could have gotten one back in the day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members FrostByte Posted June 26, 2012 Members Share Posted June 26, 2012 I'll trade you straight up for a mint 6505+, no {censored}. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Likes Loomis Posted June 26, 2012 Author Members Share Posted June 26, 2012 I would trade my Laney, a couple decent pedals and some cash for a new Peavey Triple XXX II.That thing is killer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Norton666 Posted June 26, 2012 Members Share Posted June 26, 2012 I personally didn't like that amp at all Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Toshiro Posted June 26, 2012 Members Share Posted June 26, 2012 I would trade my Laney, a couple decent pedals and some cash for a new Peavey Triple XXX II.That thing is killer. 1. Sell Laney.2. Buy JSX(which is what the XXX-II is)3. ????????4. Profit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members tech21man Posted June 26, 2012 Members Share Posted June 26, 2012 I need to dig up a schematic then. I suck at reading schematics. I don't remember who it was who told me they were roughly equivalent circuit layout wise but the Dual Rec is also allegedly similar. Again, before I shove both feet further into my mouth I'd really need to look into it more. I just happen to start now trying to get more into the technical side of things in my free time. What intrigued me is that the avenger is supposed to be the SLO lead channel, no crunch or clean modes. It doesn't have a loop so the famous resistor that holds the level steady there can be replaced with other values since...no effects are going to be placed. I think some did the mod and stumbled on a far ballsier sound even vs the SLO! But I can't remember what sort of transformers did the avenger employ. The dual rec I think has a lot of differences but shares some of the preamp topology up to the third gain stage. Anyway my question always was, why not just add a serial xtra loop to the SLO and derivatives and retain the normal sucky loop and whatever it does to the sound? Ampbooks.com has an SLO lead drive analysis which pretty much explains why the loop on them more or less sucks...(!) but it is characteristic. And that the SLO and soldano did manage (he did place the master volume before the PI) to keep the PI relatively clean and strike a dynamic balance between preamp overdrive and power amp all the time, no matter how the master volume is set. Interesting is the fact that he filters a lot of the treble part of the guitar going in (I'd say semi eliminating some of its character) but regenerates treble all across to get to a bright but not dirty or harsh result. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members tech21man Posted June 26, 2012 Members Share Posted June 26, 2012 I would trade my Laney, a couple decent pedals and some cash for a new Peavey Triple XXX II.That thing is killer. Toshiro more or less pointed you towards the XXX II=JSX, profit from there!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members tech21man Posted June 26, 2012 Members Share Posted June 26, 2012 I personally didn't like that amp at all The ironheart or the XXX II? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members timmyfirst Posted June 26, 2012 Members Share Posted June 26, 2012 If by "nominal" you mean 12 o'clock, that won't work with the Laney. Start with mid and treble at ZERO and bass at 12 o'clock. That's muddy as hell, so gradually work your way up from there, until you have just the right amount of treble and mids. Then adjust the bass. On the ironheart you have to start at 12 o'clock, thats the zero point. Anticlockwise cuts, clockwise boosts, pulling the control shifts the frequency. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members tech21man Posted June 26, 2012 Members Share Posted June 26, 2012 So the ironheart has an active eq then? If it boosts and cuts with 12 o'clock being the zero point, then it must be active? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Mike LX-R Posted June 26, 2012 Members Share Posted June 26, 2012 On the ironheart you have to start at 12 o'clock, thats the zero point. Anticlockwise cuts, clockwise boosts, pulling the control shifts the frequency. "Anticlockwise" that's funny talk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Toshiro Posted June 26, 2012 Members Share Posted June 26, 2012 So the ironheart has an active eq then? If it boosts and cuts with 12 o'clock being the zero point, then it must be active? That's what the dials say, but it's more subtle than a 3120/etc's active EQ. Not as touchy, IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members chromatica17 Posted June 26, 2012 Members Share Posted June 26, 2012 There must be some way to eq it well.[YOUTUBE]Z459T6C7rxw[/YOUTUBE] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Mike LX-R Posted June 26, 2012 Members Share Posted June 26, 2012 My name is Mike and I approve this post. Good tone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members guitarbilly74 Posted June 26, 2012 Members Share Posted June 26, 2012 looking at his EQ... mids on 2, treble on 4, bass on 7... typical Laney settings. I've been saying these amps eq work differently than most amps. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.