Adressing the PT/stock amp threads + clip

[Ralle]

I wrote in the Plexified ( about the PT's importance ) thread a while back... When I read through all these threads about the sound, I keep coming back to the same conclussion; there's no way to come close if the amp isn't right from the start... and how he used it... By having the amp correctly specified is more important than having the "right" iron... exept for the PT... I think it's nessacary to get the voltage down to at least 460v... the stock t2562 from the -68/69 ( 500v ) doesn't do it... unless there's a variac in there ( due to tube/ot brake down ) ... But if you have a pt around 460v it comes closer... I can't speak for lower voltage than that since I don't have a variac...
The rest of the amp HAS to be in the right way to even get in the ballpark werhter or not you have the right iron... Sure, the amp will behave more correct, but you'll come closer with the right speqs and, let's say a drake ot ( wich I don't think he had first ) than with the "right" iron and the wrong speqs... wich I've heard alot around here...
Ed's real characteristics, I belive, actually comes from the preamp... and not from powerstage... Don't get me wrong, the powerstage has alot to do with all of it, but not the good stuff...
The regular superlead speqs; 2.7k/.68u with a regular 47k/16 ohm nfb get you the closest, in my opinion... one other thing; the brightcap in the ts should be 500p... the same goes for the mixer ( 470k/500p )... it makes more difference than you would think...
I'll probably get my ass kicked for bringing down the importance of the irons... but I'm really not... having said that about the sl speqs, I think it's nessacary to keep the voltage down to at most 460v... do these things, and there's probably a greater chance of getting the tone even with a Drake ot ( still talking about the sound from Zero demos and the first album )

Here's a clip with the amp at 450-460v, and the c1998 Metro ot... and ofcours the regular sl speqs... straight in the same amp, with the same speakers.

Sorry If I sturerd up some old shit, but it's all good fun and interest

[JimiJames]

Your tone is fantastic and your findings are testimony in that clip. I think I follow what you are saying with voltage when I see it in reverse; once you get to the preamp.

So, not 330p but 500p.

That's an amazing tone, Ralph.

[awangotango]

sounds great..

[Tone Slinger]

Very nice clip RALLE

I Definately get where your coming from. I think that the actual production (recording mic, interface, etc, etc) lends MORE weight in getting at Ed's (recorded) tone than anything else. Having said that though, in a 'In The Room' live tone scenario we can only guess what Ed's was ,OR, have a great memory (for those who caught them live in that '77-'79 era). Every bootleg's tone has a certain amount of 'processing' due to its actual function (recording).
The very BEST tones I've heard Ed get (imo the Oct. 15th 1977 SANTA MONICA CIVIC CENTER soundcheck) are already being challenged by a few here

[awangotango]

the metro OT sounds great!

[white noise]

Very nice sounding clip.... as always.

Would love to be in the room hearing it live!

[bmf5150]

The even more important part of the equation is have a power transformer that sags like his did..it's as important and maybe more so than the Bplus voltage..when I got my pt with the proper specs it was a big eye opener for me!!!

[Star*Guitar]

Always great to hear from you Ralle and your clips. Good food for thought..

[fhn_lopes]

AWESOME clip Ralph.

Which guitar and pickup??? It has that spongy thing going all over the tone (not only the low end) and that's one of the things that contributes to the whole feeling. I can't get that level of gain out of my 50w wihtout a boost... never tried a variac... I hear the NFB at 47k/16ohm going on there too for that rounded low end... my amp is too tight on that matter, almost a metal amp

good one man, keep them coming

[fhn_lopes]

oh about the mixer, I saw some bogner stuff using 470k/470n, which is very close to 500p.. I hear brown sound over early bogner stuff, so ....

[awangotango]

ralle, what I hear is the 90's greenbacks doing some of the low mid crunch work, for the amp. meaning ed's original g12Ms did not have that extra chewy crunch the 90's greenbacks give. so while I hear both in his tone and yours (meaning that low mid crunch is in fact part of his tone- all throughout but the first demos as well), but he got it from the amp and you from the speakers. This is the main difference I hear with your clips vs ed's. This latest as well. Not saying one is even better than the other, but the way the speakers and amp interacts to give that crunch is the thing. ed must have gotten a higher percetnage of that from the amp since we know what original M's sound like vs 90's.) and you are getting more of that certain crunch from the speakers vs the amp since we know that 90's greenbacks add that quality to the sound. SO, if that's the case, the small factors like plate voltage or feedback settings, become less viable as being likely key requirements. Personally, I think that low mid crunch is primarliry gotten (orinally by ed) because of the sylvania 6ca7's and how they react to the 03/04 cones, and not from 'specs' of the amp or even trannies...yes they do other things however

for example to my point that you don't need some specific spec or plate voltage. here;s an open back '67. I'll bet this does VH to a T even though it's got the 'wrong' specs - shared cathode, no v2a, the 'incorrect sagging' PT etc.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9JNWWlNlTzc

[Ralle]

Well, yes the speakers are important, yes... but they deliver what's in the amp, not the other way around... we can be decieved by the speakers different presentation of the sound. They affect the shape and curve of what's allready in there, but they do not affect the distortion it self... My personal take on the differences between mine and Ed's sound... well, as much as I like my sound, I can never be sure that it's THE sound... unless I get the amp from those days... so what differs? The tubes, speakers, guitar, pu's, echoplex, voltage ( from the variac )... probably more... All I have to go on is the amp it self... it really doesn't matter if I have the correct speaker or not... as long as I allways test on the same gear thrue all my tests for the right references... So, again... it all comes down to the specs of the amp... without that, it does not matter what speakers or iron I have... There has to be the right specs first... That's where the characteristics can be found... The rest is important for more copying the, shall we say, finish production of the sound... I mean let's face it... Ed has played several guitars, pu's and cabs, and it would sound the "same" as long as he had the same amp, right... by "same" I mean the same charcteristics.

[awangotango]

original greens compared to the 90's cones are quite different and I can hear those particular speakers throughout the clips. so all I can agree on, is that for you, with your setup, then yes, you may get to a point where you feel 460B+, x feedback specs, x v2 specs etc is what is needed to make your amp sound like 'the one'. But that does not give any credence to those specs being in his amp. because all the other gear around it is era incorrect.

I think it's a big assumption to make that 'the characteristics' of his no 1 amp will shine through unchanged if played through the 90's greenbacks and a JB. This seems to be the assumption you are making. That 'the specs' shine through whatever other gear being used and to an extent yes, but when you get down to definite details like exact plate voltage, variac settings, feedback levels etc, it's not true imo.. Yes we could hear the basic amp but you'd definitely hear what the 90's greenbacks add even if ed played his number 1 through those speakers. Because of what they add, it makes it hard (impossible imo) to settle conclusively on exact specs because they are significantly different speakers. And the 90's greens definitely had that lower mid chew and because they do, what you are actually doing is fine tuning that amp in a direction towards ed's tone (03 cones) by removing whatever part of the amp that his contributed to that particular low mid crunch because if the 90's GB is doing any more towards that cause than the 03 cone (and it is), then that means to end up at the same final 'ed tone', the amp with 90's GB's MUST be compensated differently to result in the final tone being the same. It's purely logical.

[Ralle]

" for example to my point that you don't need some specific spec or plate voltage. here;s an open back '67. I'll bet this does VH to a T even though it's got the 'wrong' specs - shared cathode, no v2a, the 'incorrect sagging' PT etc. "

That is indeed an excellent sound... no doubt about that... would love to have that, any day... however, those charcteristics from Ed I'm talking about isn't quite there... Maybe this is a good time to mention that we ( or I ) are not discussing werther or not Ed's sound is more or less likeable comparerd to any other sound... that's up to each and every one to feel... If you ask me, that's not really Ed's tone... a hell of a tone, in some ways even better, but not Ed's

[awangotango]

I agree it's not all there. it's a les paul and who knows what the settings are. but most of it is there and arguably the most important parts (the heart)....yes I can hear it needs a bit more low mid crunch but I doubt the guy was cranking the bass and all other knobs and if he did, i'd bet it'd be darn close to ed tones

btw, i have owned both 90's gb's and original 03 and 04 cones. all this is 100% from experience.those 90s gb's have a strong character that is not found and is indeendent from the speakers ed used(03,04, 1777) . none of those 3 have the low mid chew