The New Tone Thread

Armistice said:
Bit easier with a real video program ain't it Miner! :thumbs up:
Click to expand...

Most definitely dude, Reaper's video would work in a pinch, but it just doesn't compare to a true video program. The one I used was their lowest-featured one too, I can only imagine what the top-notch version would be capable of....
 
minerman said:
Most definitely dude, Reaper's video would work in a pinch, but it just doesn't compare to a true video program. The one I used was their lowest-featured one too, I can only imagine what the top-notch version would be capable of....
Click to expand...

I've got Sony Vegas 10 Platinum, I think, which sounds like a really huge program but isn't the top of the line, so it's still crippled in various ways. Used to knock together little videos of instrumentals using old cartoon footage and other bits and pieces... :)
 
I don't have time to do videos, I'm in surf-punk Ennio Morricone choir mode. Besides, I look like I'm permanently in widescreen at the moment. :D
 
minerman said:
Ok, I think I've got this video shit figured out. I downloaded the trial version of Sony Movie Studio & was able to get my head around it. I think this one turned out way better than the others I've posted....I've figured out that Reaper, while it does have video capability, basically sucks at it. Anyway, here's the new vid lemme know what you guys think....



This will probably be my last video for a while though, it's kinda like learning a new daw in a way, plus the ugliest guy on the planet shouldn't be showing his mug this much either....:laughings:.
Click to expand...


That is a better vid. Fancy graphics! :D

The difference in tone between 50 and 100 watt mode is pretty standard and predictable, that's a good thing. If you get a chance, check the differences with it cranked up more. I think that's where the tone differences will really shine through, but the volume should be pretty similar for the most part.
 
Greg_L said:
That is a better vid. Fancy graphics! :D

The difference in tone between 50 and 100 watt mode is pretty standard and predictable, that's a good thing. If you get a chance, check the differences with it cranked up more. I think that's where the tone differences will really shine through, but the volume should be pretty similar for the most part.
Click to expand...

Yeah dude, I like that video program, it's basically a daw that can handle about any format of video/pic/audio you throw at it. I'll most likely drop the $40 for that, and of course, I'll probably make another video....:D.

On the volume thing, it really isn't all that much difference, to me it's like it neuters the amp, basically cuts it's balls off. I could tweak the tonestack but that would defeat the purpose of this video....This amp is so much more articulate in 100w mode, that I rarely ever use the 50w anymore. I've pretty much figured it out, back when I was trying the 50w mode a lot is when my recordings were all over the place because I was twisting the tonestack knobs trying to make up for what it'd lost. This DSL is really a good amp, the only thing that really sucks is the shared eq, but for recording it doesn't matter...



Believe it or not, I've almost got my nerve up enough to make a vid of me bangin' on my e-drums too, I'm still pretty fuckin' sloppy on 'em though...:laughings:


Just guessing, you're gonna have another cab pretty soon, right??? That's a good deal, the speakers alone are worth that price, & you could always re-tolex the cab...
 
minerman said:
Yeah dude, I like that video program, it's basically a daw that can handle about any format of video/pic/audio you throw at it. I'll most likely drop the $40 for that, and of course, I'll probably make another video....:D.

On the volume thing, it really isn't all that much difference, to me it's like it neuters the amp, basically cuts it's balls off. I could tweak the tonestack but that would defeat the purpose of this video....This amp is so much more articulate in 100w mode, that I rarely ever use the 50w anymore. I've pretty much figured it out, back when I was trying the 50w mode a lot is when my recordings were all over the place because I was twisting the tonestack knobs trying to make up for what it'd lost. This DSL is really a good amp, the only thing that really sucks is the shared eq, but for recording it doesn't matter...
Click to expand...
I think, in my non-scientific opinion, it's how these switchable amps go from 100 to 50 that makes them sound weird. I think it's the whole pentode/triode thing. An actual 50w amp generally sounds clearer to me than a 100w amp that can switch down to 50 watts. A true 50w amp uses all of the power tube's functionality (pentode), it just has two fewer tubes. A 100w amp switched down to 50 disables two of the tubes' five components (triode), which makes the amp less efficient.

Just guessing, you're gonna have another cab pretty soon, right??? That's a good deal, the speakers alone are worth that price, & you could always re-tolex the cab...
Click to expand...
Right. I'm interested just for the speakers, but I do need another A cab to complete another stack. I wouldn't re-tolex it though. Not if it has some collectible or unique value to it. A battered original is cooler to me than a refinished one. If it were just a plain 1960 cab, then maybe.
 
Greg_L said:
I think, in my non-scientific opinion, it's how these switchable amps go from 100 to 50 that makes them sound weird. I think it's the whole pentode/triode thing. An actual 50w amp generally sounds clearer to me than a 100w amp that can switch down to 50 watts. A true 50w amp uses all of the power tube's functionality (pentode), it just has two fewer tubes. A 100w amp switched down to 50 disables two of the tubes' five components (triode), which makes the amp less efficient.
Click to expand...

It's taken me a while, but I "get it" now about these big amps, & that's why I want a 50w JCM 800. Plus an attenuator...:).

Greg_L said:
I'm interested just for the speakers, but I do need another A cab to complete another stack. I wouldn't re-tolex it though. Not if it has some collectible or unique value to it. A battered original is cooler to me than a refinished one. If it were just a plain 1960 cab, then maybe.
Click to expand...

If I had the $$$, I'd buy that cab just for the speakers dude, that's only $100 more than I paid for my cab, with the T-75's....Good deal...
 
minerman said:
You know, I was gonna ask you about the 100w version. Just guessing, a 100w with an attenuator would probably be about as loud as I'm using my DSL is right now, correct???
Click to expand...

It depends. An 800 has a master volume, and an attenuator is adjustable. It can be as loud as you want it to be.
 
Bubba po said:
Is there something different about the 50w version, other than the obvious 50 watts greater output?
Click to expand...

There are different models of JCM 800. We're talking about the classic single channel versions. 2203 (100w) and 2204 (50w)

Anyway, up until 1985, no. They were essentially the same. The 50 watters generally sound thicker and more compressed, the 100 watters sound more open, punchy, and have more headroom. Both versions kick the shit out of 99% of the rest of the amp world IMO.

But in 1985 Marshall made some radical changes to the 800. The most obvious is the inputs went from vertical to horizontal. Doesn't seem like much, but behind those inputs was huge changes. The PCBs now had those jacks and pots mounted directly to them, and the board, jacks, and pots all mounted to the chassis like a shelf. Even this isn't that big a deal, but they're not super sturdy. The boards can sag over time and the pots can pull away since they're mounted to the chassis.

The biggest changes came with the filtering. A 100w has 6 filter caps. The 50w has 3. When Marshall made those other changes, they reduced the 100 watter's caps down to 3. This really kind of thinned out the amp and made them sound more brittle. So late 80s 100w JCM 800s aren't exactly the most desirable models. They're still better than a JCM 900, but they're not the "classic" punch-you-in-the-dick sound. The 50w model's filtering stayed the same as always (3 caps), so a late 80s 50w JCM 800 is still good. It just has the wonky pots and jacks on board mounting.
 
Pre-85
marshall800d.jpg



Post-85
2203guts01.jpg
 
Bubba po said:
Hmm, quite a big difference.
Click to expand...

Yeah. What's most amazing to me is there is nothing to those amps. I look at the inside of an 800 or a Plexi, and there's just nothing in there. It's so basic. No fluff, no tricks, just the bare essentials to amplify guitar signal. And they fucking kill at it. I love it.

I look at the inside of my JVM and I quickly just put it back together because it's like NASA in there.
 
Greg_L said:
The PCBs now had those jacks and pots mounted directly to them, and the board, jacks, and pots all mounted to the chassis like a shelf. Even this isn't that big a deal, but they're not super sturdy. The boards can sag over time and the pots can pull away since they're mounted to the chassis.
Click to expand...

It makes 'em unreliable on the road.

I gig a lot so I'm kinda like a worst-case scenario for an amp.
I don't bang them around ... but they vibrate down the road a lotta miles in my truck and then get rolled along on rough pavement or even cobblestones on my dolly ..... shoved up and off stages.
Carried up and down stairs.
All with the inevitable bumps and bangs into doors and such.

Surface mount components are a PIA.

They're why my Marshall 6101 won't work for more than a few weeks ....
They're why my Hot Rod deVille (which I like a lot) sits on the floor .... I'm tired of having to drop all the knobs so I can pull the pre-amp board to get at the solder joints that fracture on those surface-mount pots.
They're why I don't use my Ampeg ReverbRocket re-issue anymore ....


That's why something like a Mesa (or presumably the better Marshalls) have chassis mounted pots with flying leads.
When you have a circuit board with pots or jacks on it .... the weight of that pot or circuit board vibrates and has enough leverage to fracture the solder joints and you start getting intermittent outages or staticky sounds or whatever. Then it'll work again ..... then go out again. PIA! :mad:
Then eventually the solder joint fails completely.

And jacks are really bad about it because you constantly plug and unplug the cord which flexes the jack every time.

I HATE surface mount jacks and pots
 
Lt. Bob said:
It makes 'em unreliable on the road.

I gig a lot so I'm kinda like a worst-case scenario for an amp.
I don't bang them around ... but they vibrate down the road a lotta miles in my truck and then get rolled along on rough pavement or even cobblestones on my dolly ..... shoved up and off stages.
Carried up and down stairs.
All with the inevitable bumps and bangs into doors and such.

Surface mount components are a PIA.

They're why my Marshall 6101 won't work for more than a few weeks ....
They're why my Hot Rod deVille (which I like a lot) sits on the floor .... I'm tired of having to drop all the knobs so I can pull the pre-amp board to get at the solder joints that fracture on those surface-mount pots.
They're why I don't use my Ampeg ReverbRocket re-issue anymore ....


That's why something like a Mesa (or presumably the better Marshalls) have chassis mounted pots with flying leads.
When you have a circuit board with pots or jacks on it .... the weight of that pot or circuit board vibrates and has enough leverage to fracture the solder joints and you start getting intermittent outages or staticky sounds or whatever. Then it'll work again ..... then go out again. PIA! :mad:
Then eventually the solder joint fails completely.

And jacks are really bad about it because you constantly plug and unplug the cord which flexes the jack every time.

I HATE surface mount jacks and pots
Click to expand...

Yup, exactly!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top