Hoot Owl

Eureka, I've found it.

None of you peeps had a clue and I'm back to give you a heads up. This thing can combine two cabinets in either series or parallel. Problem solved.

Palmer CAB M | Signal Splitter & Switcher | Palmer (palmer-germany.com)

$50

This pertains to a 'boutique' company out of New Hampshire which operated in the mid-80's through late 90's. I have a 1200 head, but it's the second generation - which means it's wired on PCB. The first generation was hand wired. So, I'm looking to convert mine to hand wired. I have a schematic for my head (2nd gen) but I don't have one for the hand wired version. Anyone who can help would be appreciated.

A question:

Since I have a schematic for the PCB type what would be the possibility of interpreting that into a hand wired schematic? My neighbor is an electrical engineer, though he knows nothing about amplifiers. He does owe me for work I've done for him, however, so...

Does that plan of action seem plausible? Doesn't seem like rocket science, to me.

3 hours ago, daddymack said:

To me, the real question is, in an a/b blind test, are they really 'correct'?

Yeah but, what does "correct" mean? 100% correct may not be possible, since it would be running through a different power section. But the modules are adjusted for that in their design process, so I don't know. All I know is that the comparisons I've seen are pretty darned close. I doubt anyone would tell the difference unless you're sitting there A-B them. Consider too that all amps coming out of a company can vary in consistency. Marshalls are notorious for that - at least the older ones were.

The main point is, you get very nearly the same tone for a lot less money - as compared to buying several very expensive amps. There's the space issue too. They definitely have significant use for some people.

Here's what I have: One 2x12 with two 16-ohm speakers, wired parallel for 8 ohms. Two 1x12's, each with 16 ohm speakers.

How do I hook these up for 16 ohms out at the amp? 8 ohms total out would be a second choice.

The two 1x12's I'd like to link together via plug-in cable, so there is just one cable coming to them from the amp. This would require one cab to have an In-Out jack plate that I'm not familiar with. Do they exist?

Amp has two speaker outs and 4-8-16 ohm selector. To get to 16 ohms out at the amp (since the 2x12 is 8 ohms), the total of the 1x12's would also have to be 8 (so, wired parallel), then the 2x12 and 1x12 combination would have to be series. Is that possible? How do you cable in series? Can you? Or, any better ideas?

I want the whole setup to be like a 16 ohm 4x12. The reason is, recently I heard a amp company rep (I want to say Dr. Z himself, but don't quote me on that) say it was best to use the highest ohm tap of your transformer, so you're using the whole transformer - not sure what that means exactly, but I figured, hey, if I'm doing this I might as well do it per that. I think it's because transformers using all the windings at full ohms while progressively less for less ohms.

I got this off the Celestion site, not that it answers my question:

There are two ways you can wire a 4×12 (or 4×10 for that matter), the main one is Series/Parallel: 4 X 8 Ohm Speaker = 8 Ohm Load; 4 X 16 Ohm Speaker = 16 Ohm Load

Let me simplify: One 8 ohm 2x12 AND two 16 ohm 1x12's, all coming out of two jacks on the amp - one to the 2x12, one to the 1x12's - with amp set for 16 ohms.

On 4/25/2021 at 5:40 PM, Mikeo said:

Sounds good.

I haven't been play a lot of electric guitar in the past year, mostly acoustic guitar.

I don't really ho out much, but I did some 10 years ago. I got am older Maz 18  1-12 combo with reverb and  the eq bypass mod, that came with the amp.

The new Maz I guess has a smoother master volume and more reverb. I wouldn't bother sending my in or doing the mods.

 

 

The new ones are the tits. They use mil-spec tubes, too. I think they're supposed to last something like three times longer.

Sell yours and get a new one. They aren't cheap, though. That kind of put me off, but hey, they are hand wired and from a good company.

On 4/27/2021 at 7:36 AM, daddymack said:

The idea has [as noted] been done before. The Synergy 'pre-amp' modules are $400 each...which ain't bad to get an Engl, Friedman, Plexi or an Uberschall...sort of...

"Sort of" is the key. The ones I've heard, however, have been very close to the real thing. Simulation pedals never did it for me. These modules are in between pedals and the true amp, but I think closer to the amp itself, maybe very close to.

Those four modules, for $400 each, plus two rack-mounts for $800 each, a rack mounting box for $200, that's $3,400.

Those four amps, I don't know, $13,000? Is it really worth spending all that money and taking up all that space?

Everyone has to move some day too.

I just found out about these, though I believe they've been around for about three years (and they are an improved version of the older Randall and Egnater module idea - the are all compatible). They produce two amp heads and a stereo rack power amp. Both forms are intended to be used with their main deal - removable preamp modules designed and authorized by several high-end amp companies, like Bogner, Friedman, etc. Every YouTube I've watched about them spews rave reviews. In a limited amount of space you can have the equivalent of several-to-numerous high end preamp sounds running through one power amp. You can also run them into your own amp's loop return, using your amps power section. But I did read somewhere that the Synergy amps are designed to automatically adjust biasing depending on which module is being run. I don't think that's critical, though, since good results seem to come from running through any amp's power section. They currently have ten preamp modules available, each with two channels, so theoretically you could have one amp and a rack of nine or ten modules with up to twenty channels, ranging from Fender to Diezel, with many steps in between. Just think about how much space you'd save, not to mention the fun you'd have. It can add up to a lot of money, though - this is quality gear assembled in SoCal. Still, it would be a lot cheaper than buying ten individual amps. A single Kemper could do similar but then you have menus - junk that I don't like. These things have simple in-your-face knobs, the way I like it, with real tubes.

I'm planning on changes to my stable and this is one of the things I've been looking into - along with the fairly new Marshall SV20H Plexi and Dr. Z Maz 18 Mark II. Currently I have a Fender Princeton 12" combo, Bedrock 50-watt head, Benson Monarch, Mesa Lonestar, Yamaha THR10, Vox AC10. All but the Yamaha and Bedrock are on the way out. They all rock in their own way but it's just time for changes. Pretty sure I'll be adding a Fryette Power Station too for playing at any volume.

Home - synergyamps.com

Check out this guys rack scenario at 29:00.

On 3/21/2021 at 10:58 PM, daddymack said:

Hoot...are all the harmonics in their usual places [4, 5, 7, etc?] over the frets?

Where on the bridge are you measuring from? Because the bridge has at least 3 separate points to measure from [I'm assuming this is a Tele bridge]

 

I haven't tried all the harmonics. I know seven and twelve work, though.

The bridge I'm measuring as an average of the string fulcrum points (each being slightly different). None of them are close to making 12 to bridge the same as nut to 12.

I'm satisfied with the intel I've received. As long as it works, I'm good, and it works. I've learned some things, however, from you learned souls.

59 minutes ago, isaac42 said:

Yes, the string's thickness is the same over its entore length. So, if you change the length, as by fretting, you change the thickness to length ratio. That also changes the stiffness. As in pretty much everything, if you change any one thing, it affects everything.

As for the Big Question, it's actually the other way around. The frets are placed where they are in order to get the correct note, properly intonated, when you fret it. Early instruments didn't have adjustable bridges, so they had adjustable frets. The frets were pieces of string or gut wrapped around the neck, and the player adjusted the position of the fret to get the proper intonation. As it happens, the octave fret needed to be pretty close to exactly halfway between the nut and the bridge, which is right where you'd expect it to be.

Thanks. That makes sense.

On 3/19/2021 at 10:33 AM, isaac42 said:

Ideally, they'd be the same. But in the real world, when you press down on a string, a few things happen. One is that you increase the tension on the string slightly, which would cause it to go sharp. Another is that the string's proportions effectively change, becoming thicker relative to length. Both of those things require that there be some compensation at the bridge. Probably, there are other effects I'm not thinking of. But the important thing is that, if it works, it works.

It works, so I guess I shouldn't worry about it, but I still don't understand why guitars are designed so the two measurements are the same if intonation works when they aren't the same. I would guess that it's best if they are equal. And at some point of different lengths intonation would become impossible. I must be within a reasonable difference that still allows intonation. But still, they aren't the same and it does intonate. WTF?

And I don't understand what you mean about string thickness relative to length. Strings are the same thickness over their entire length.

The BIG QUESTION I had, which nether of you answered, is: Is intonation the reason guitars are designed with the two measurements equal (nut to 12th fret and 12th fret to bridge)? That's what I always thought. Yet mine intonates even thought there is a 3/8-inch difference.

Bridge compensation doesn't make up the difference. There isn't enough adjustment for that.

I put a Warmoth neck on a Telecaster. The neck is a Gibson scale length conversion neck - so it measures 12 1/4 inches from nut to 12th fret. The measurement from 12th fret to bridge is 12 5/8 inches. Normally, guitars are made so that both measurements are equal. Why? This guitar intonates perfectly with this neck. I always thought intonation was the reason for the two measurements to be the same. Am I missing something here?

I quit because my girlfriend moved in. Then we got married. Then we had kids.

Big mistake (not the kids).