The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
Is Marshall still the Sound of Rock??
Old 2 weeks ago
  #31
Here for the gear
 
don1960lp's Avatar
 

Marshall - crunch
Fender - clean
Bogner, Boogie, Friedman - liquid metal
Old 2 weeks ago
  #32
Quote:
Originally Posted by enorbet2 View Post
If you don't hear the connection you rerally need to hear, or baster, play a Tweed 4x10 Bassman. Check out these videos of relatively stock Bassmans getting very Hendrix-y.
The sound of Hendrix is easy to comp. Treble, mids, bass, presence are all on "10". I saw him live use those settings. He started with each on "5" for the warm up tune, them "re-adjusted to 10". That was the LA Forum show in Spring, 1969. It's on CD.
Old 2 weeks ago
  #33
Lives for gear
 
lame pseudonym's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by enorbet2 View Post
Here again the RCA Tube Manuals did not have schematics or even a list of connective components even for power tube application.
Every RCA manual I've ever seen has had a chapter of application schematics.
Old 2 weeks ago
  #34
Gear Head
 
Clash's Avatar
 

A more pertinent question might be: is there still enough Rock for Marshall to be the sound of it?
Old 2 weeks ago
  #35
Lives for gear
 
enorbet2's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by lame pseudonym View Post
Every RCA manual I've ever seen has had a chapter of application schematics.
So have you built circuits from those skeletons in the Appendix? More importantly have you compared those with any Fender amp design after 1956? Those are not meant to be "blueprints" just general and simplified examples. Someone, I can't recall if it was you, stated basically that Fender just lifted designs from the Tube Manual and I very much disagree.

There are basics in common. After all Tweeds were simple amps, but their are definite details that are way different both in component value and applied voltages. Maybe I'm jaded from owning the Radiotron Designers Handbook but I have never used the back of a Tube Manual for more than general overview and I don't think Fender guys would've been any more swayed by such general data when back then serious design application manuals were readily available. They didn't become "hen's teeth" until the mid to late 60s.
Old 1 week ago
  #36
Quote:
Originally Posted by RayHeath View Post
I really do appreciate the history – thanks!

However, I never remember Fender and Marshall amps sounding the same. . .which could be failing memories on my part.

Is there the implication that switching cabinets might have yielded one into the other, or something close to that?
Try comparing an original 1958 4x10 Bassman with an original Marshall 45 watt "Bluesbreaker", maybe it will become more clear.

The later Fenders are different because Leo went up the path of more clean power (he was influenced by surf and country players whereas Marshall followed the path of euphonic distortion, since Jim's main customers were hard rock and blues players.
Old 1 week ago
  #37
Quote:
Originally Posted by enorbet2 View Post
So have you built circuits from those skeletons in the Appendix? More importantly have you compared those with any Fender amp design after 1956? Those are not meant to be "blueprints" just general and simplified examples. Someone, I can't recall if it was you, stated basically that Fender just lifted designs from the Tube Manual and I very much disagree.

There are basics in common. After all Tweeds were simple amps, but their are definite details that are way different both in component value and applied voltages. Maybe I'm jaded from owning the Radiotron Designers Handbook but I have never used the back of a Tube Manual for more than general overview and I don't think Fender guys would've been any more swayed by such general data when back then serious design application manuals were readily available. They didn't become "hen's teeth" until the mid to late 60s.
IIRC the earliest Fender amp designs were lifted pretty closely from the RCA tube manual. Of course with that base to build on Fender did a lot of tweaking of the circuit(s) based on feedback from his pro musician customers and friends.

You gotta remember that Leo did not start out as an electrical engineer; he was a radio/TV repairman with a penchant for tinkering and as such was much more likely to be familiar with the RCA manual as a reference as opposed to any formal texts on design.

The guy I apprenticed to back in the early '70s knew some of the original Fender crew quite well and he always said that Leo got his early designs pretty much straight from the RCA manual.

Last edited by John Eppstein; 1 week ago at 05:47 AM..
Old 1 week ago
  #38
Lives for gear
 
enorbet2's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Eppstein View Post
IIRC the earliest Fender amp designs were lifted pretty closely from the RCA tube4 manual. Of course with that base to build on Fender did a lot of tweaking of the circuit(s) based on feedback from his pro musician customers and friends.

You gotta remember that Leo did not start out as an electrical engineer; he was a radio/TV repairman with a penchant for tinkering and as such was much more likely to be familiar with the RCA manual as a reference as opposed to any formal texts on design.

The guy I apprenticed to back in the early '70s knew some of the original Fender crew quite well and he always said that Leo got his early designs pretty much straight from the RCA manual.
I was aware that Leo was a tweaker but I guess I didn't take that far enough. I'll bow to the personal experience of those around Leo, so trhanks for that tidbit. Odd, however, unless it's just my failing memory of the earlier manuals (I've owned at least half a dozen different printings) I don't seem to recall the Direct-Coupled, Cathode Follower circuit so important to so many Tweeds AND Marshall..
Old 1 week ago
  #39
Quote:
Originally Posted by enorbet2 View Post
Here again the RCA Tube Manuals did not have schematics or even a list of connective components even for power tube application. All the Manuals had was voltage relationship examples including bias values, desirable and conditional load impedance, and a few other important basic values. They were excellent for checking existing designs but only middling help in actual design, especially topology. More importantly to the serious elite were actual curve trace graphs of varying inter-relationships. There was almost nothing for preamp design. The books that actually were most useful to actual designers was the Radiotron Designers Handbook and The Audio Cyclopedia. These two had examples of a huge variety of circuits and applications

Before the internet these last two were fairly uncommon except among serious designers. RCA Tube Manuals were basically in every electronics parts supply house with the exception of most post WWII Radio Shacks. They were already transitioning to SS by then. There were however also Military training manuals that were very helpful to designers well into the 1980s. I still have all these and more including several editions of the RCA Manuals in hard copy.
You are mistaken. I've owned several different editions of the RCA tube manual and all of them had a section of "example" schematics in the back. The exact schematics did evolve somewhat over time and toward the end that section may have been dropped - I don't know for sure because I never owned one of the last editions of the manual.

I'm also not sure if Leo really would have qualified as a "serious designer", at least at first. He was a radio/TV serviceman who just kinda lucked into building amps. I don't believe he had much formal education in electronics. I do know that he did not have military training, unlike several other early amp guys.
Old 1 week ago
  #40
Lives for gear
 
enorbet2's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Eppstein View Post
You are mistaken. I've owned several different editions of the RCA tube manual and all of them had a section of "example" schematics in the back. The exact schematics did evolve somewhat over time and toward the end that section may have been dropped - I don't know for sure because I never owned one of the last editions of the manual.

I'm also not sure if Leo really would have qualified as a "serious designer", at least at first. He was a radio/TV serviceman who just kinda lucked into building amps. I don't believe he had much formal education in electronics. I do know that he did not have military training, unlike several other early amp guys.
John what are you on about here? I already answered this and I know Leo was a radio repairman/tweaker. From what I've read he did not have any formal education, for whatever that's worth. I quite recall example schematics in the back but as I stated they were very basic and I don't recall Direct-Coupled Cathode Follower examples. This is why I assumed the manuals were not where mid era Tweeds came from.

It should be obvious from the evolution of amp designs at Fender they certainly were not stuck in the Tube Manuals even if the origin started there. SOMEBODY at Fender did have decent layout chops. I'm mildly interested in who that was and where they learned them. despite the fact that it always seemed to me the heater lines, though rightly twisted and either center-tapped or quasi center-tapped, were probably "flying" instead of hard against the chassis for production reasons rather than lowest noise interference reasons.
Old 1 week ago
  #41
Quote:
Originally Posted by enorbet2 View Post
I was aware that Leo was a tweaker but I guess I didn't take that far enough. I'll bow to the personal experience of those around Leo, so trhanks for that tidbit. Odd, however, unless it's just my failing memory of the earlier manuals (I've owned at least half a dozen different printings) I don't seem to recall the Direct-Coupled, Cathode Follower circuit so important to so many Tweeds AND Marshall..
AH, but those were somewhat later designs. When did he start that? 56? 57? at the earliest. The famous one is the '58 Bassman. By that time Leo had been in production for well over 10 years as a manufacturing company, and Leo was an inveterate tinkerer.

And Leo only used the famous cathode follower circuit in Bassmans, for the bass channel.
Old 1 week ago
  #42
Quote:
Originally Posted by enorbet2 View Post
John what are you on about here? I already answered this and I know Leo was a radio repairman/tweaker. From what I've read he did not have any formal education, for whatever that's worth. I quite recall example schematics in the back but as I stated they were very basic and I don't recall Direct-Coupled Cathode Follower examples. This is why I assumed the manuals were not where mid era Tweeds came from.
Quote:
Originally Posted by enorbet2
Here again the RCA Tube Manuals did not have schematics or even a list of connective components even for power tube application.
That.


Quote:
It should be obvious from the evolution of amp designs at Fender they certainly were not stuck in the Tube Manuals even if the origin started there. SOMEBODY at Fender did have decent layout chops. I'm mildly interested in who that was and where they learned them. despite the fact that it always seemed to me the heater lines, though rightly twisted and either center-tapped or quasi center-tapped, were probably "flying" instead of hard against the chassis for production reasons rather than lowest noise interference reasons.
Ah, methinks thou thinkest too much.....

Leo started out as a RADIO-TV REPAIRMAN. All that layout stuff that we look at as fine workmanship now was SOP back then; he was just following good practice. (It's amazing and rather disgusting how much of that stuff is being lost!)

That being said, until he got the basic topography down I bet he spent a fair bit of time tinkering layouts. There's some evidence of that in the schematics, where you get 2 or even 3 almost identical revisions within a year*.

You are, of course, right about the heaters. In addition to being a tinkerer he was a pragmatist.



* - No, not every year, or even many years. I can think of one or two off the top of my head. But that's evidence.
Old 1 week ago
  #43
Quote:
Originally Posted by enorbet2 View Post
and I don't think Fender guys would've been any more swayed by such general data when back then serious design application manuals were readily available. They didn't become "hen's teeth" until the mid to late 60s.
I think we're talking about different phases of Leo's career.When Leo started there were no "guys at Fender".
Old 1 week ago
  #44
Lives for gear
 
PdotDdot's Avatar
Watched a youtube rig interview with Tom Bukovac who is currently the number 1 Nashville session guitarist and he put it succinctly and I paraphrase:

"There are three sounds: Fender, Marshall and Vox - everything else copies these three in one way or another".

I would tend to agree with this and they all have their place.
Old 1 week ago
  #45
Lives for gear
 
enorbet2's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by PdotDdot View Post
Watched a youtube rig interview with Tom Bukovac who is currently the number 1 Nashville session guitarist and he put it succinctly and I paraphrase:

"There are three sounds: Fender, Marshall and Vox - everything else copies these three in one way or another".

I would tend to agree with this and they all have their place.
...and if you fly those around the Large Hadron Collider, what comes out the other end is just Fender. You have to have played a number of Tweed and Brown Fenders to realize it but it's true. I suppose Gibson and Magnetone has a few chromosomes in that DNA. Actually, now that I think of it, though it has boiled down to mostly Bass sounds since the mid 70s, but Ampeg made some truly distinctive and great sounding guitar amps at one time. I've owned and loved a GV212, a Gemini, and a long time favorite ReverbeRocket that sounded nothing like Fender, Vox or Marshall.

In the early 70s the Rolling Stones played through SVTs and V4s and nothing sounds like a full bore runaway freight train as they did on "Get Yer Ya Yas Out" Live LP.... well... maybe "Cheap Thrills" but then we're back to Fender.
Old 1 week ago
  #46
Gear Head
 

yeah
Old 1 week ago
  #47
Here for the gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by PdotDdot View Post
Watched a youtube rig interview with Tom Bukovac who is currently the number 1 Nashville session guitarist and he put it succinctly and I paraphrase:

"There are three sounds: Fender, Marshall and Vox - everything else copies these three in one way or another".

I would tend to agree with this and they all have their place.
I agree; however just Fender and Marshall really. To me VOX is really a combination of the two.
Old 1 week ago
  #48
Lives for gear
 
PdotDdot's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by enorbet2 View Post
...and if you fly those around the Large Hadron Collider, what comes out the other end is just Fender. You have to have played a number of Tweed and Brown Fenders to realize it but it's true. I suppose Gibson and Magnetone has a few chromosomes in that DNA. Actually, now that I think of it, though it has boiled down to mostly Bass sounds since the mid 70s, but Ampeg made some truly distinctive and great sounding guitar amps at one time. I've owned and loved a GV212, a Gemini, and a long time favorite ReverbeRocket that sounded nothing like Fender, Vox or Marshall.

In the early 70s the Rolling Stones played through SVTs and V4s and nothing sounds like a full bore runaway freight train as they did on "Get Yer Ya Yas Out" Live LP.... well... maybe "Cheap Thrills" but then we're back to Fender.
Yeah, the Stones "Ya Ya's" was what got me into electric guitar. They really were the greatest rock & roll band when Taylor was in the band - at least for my money. There are three live albums that for me are untouchable: Ya Yas, Band Of Gypsies and the Allman Brothers at the Fillmore East. And yes, the Stones sound at those shows and that tour was for me, the cheese! Sadly I missed that tour but I got to see them twice on the Exile tour.
Old 1 week ago
  #49
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Eppstein View Post
Erm, didn't the very first Marshall amps - like the original Bluesbreaker - use KT66 tubes, which are essentially a Brit version of a 6L6? The EL34 versions came a bit later.
Rather I think the 6L6 is a US version of the KT66!
Topic:
Post Reply

Welcome to the Gearslutz Pro Audio Community!

Registration benefits include:
  • The ability to reply to and create new discussions
  • Access to members-only giveaways & competitions
  • Interact with VIP industry experts in our guest Q&As
  • Access to members-only sub forum discussions
  • Access to members-only Chat Room
  • Get INSTANT ACCESS to the world's best private pro audio Classifieds for only USD $20/year
  • Promote your eBay auctions and Reverb.com listings for free
  • Remove this message!
You need an account to post a reply. Create a username and password below and an account will be created and your post entered.


 
 
Slide to join now Processing…
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Forum Jump
Forum Jump