Mercury vs MetroHeyboer in 50 watt Metro Plexi--My Verdict:

[Janglin_Jack]

There is a synergy that = tone. You can make the most accurrate EVH guitar down to the cigarette burns, (been done, I think they charge $25K for them, too) doesn't mean you can recreate Unchained with it. What needs to be done is to review your entire signal chain and decide what works. I think many of the posts make good sense from guys that know about building amps, and I agree with many of the comments. I have used less than stellar components and made a tone machine. I have also used the "best parts" and made something I would consider a turd.

Great guitar and amp with bad cab and speaker can give you a cold sound,too, (no fault to the PT or OT). If you know what you're building, then chose the right OT for your build and move on. Tone is like art, all in the eye, (ear) of the beholder. It is the entire signal chain, player to ear, not any one piece. I played some G12M-80 that sucked ass, vintage yes, and someone told me they were "the shit". They sure were, shit, (with my rig). Anyhow, Jimmy Vaughan can sound awesome with a Mexican Strat, and others need a Dumble Overdrive Special, and can hear the difference with batteries in their Fuzz Face. Just look at the stupid pedal board Eric Johnson uses. To each his own.

Mike

[fillmore nyc]

There is a synergy that = tone. You can make the most accurrate EVH guitar down to the cigarette burns, (been done, I think they charge $25K for them, too) doesn't mean you can recreate Unchained with it. What needs to be done is to review your entire signal chain and decide what works. I think many of the posts make good sense from guys that know about building amps, and I agree with many of the comments. I have used less than stellar components and made a tone machine. I have also used the "best parts" and made something I would consider a turd.

Great guitar and amp with bad cab and speaker can give you a cold sound,too, (no fault to the PT or OT). If you know what you're building, then chose the right OT for your build and move on. Tone is like art, all in the eye, (ear) of the beholder. It is the entire signal chain, player to ear, not any one piece. I played some G12M-80 that sucked ass, vintage yes, and someone told me they were "the shit". They sure were, shit, (with my rig). Anyhow, Jimmy Vaughan can sound awesome with a Mexican Strat, and others need a Dumble Overdrive Special, and can hear the difference with batteries in their Fuzz Face. Just look at the stupid pedal board Eric Johnson uses. To each his own.

Mike

+1
I couldnt agree more with what you've said here.
As you said, guys like Eric Johnson claim to be able to hear the most miniscule changes in their signal chain... I'd LOVE to substitute something stupid like a raw brass 1/4" plug for a plated brass plug into one of his FX without him knowing it just to see if he notices...
"HEY!! Someone screwed around with my rig... I hear some chrome plating"!!


Ill bet half of the shit we knock ourselves out over is psychosomatic anyway.

[JimiJames]

To me, I've heard Merc's in a lot of amps and applications. I like them in Mojaves' but, not for Marshalls.
More true to THE Sound you'll find in the MetroHeyboer.
I find more hair on them .
Merc's are quicker, creamier. Not what I prefer for my wall of sound.

Why is it when a Transformer goes bad on a Plexi you see grown men cry. 2¢

About E.J. I wanna know where he gets those Rayovac 9volts?

[bulatovic]

exactly - each to their own!

I'd just like to add something about the EJ thing. The first time i've seen his pedalboard and his and his obsession with, what in my opinion are stupid stuff, like removing screws from the pedal and using rubber to hold it in place, having pieces of wood beneath the pedal as it would sound more "wood-like", having pedals at a certain angle on the pedalboard, using this or that cable - it really made me a bit sick. I really thought he was an arse. However, after i while, listening to his music, to his playing, you can't not notice the pure "outlandishness" he has. When you reach that stage, when you master the instrument that much, you start discovering some other stuff that just might be in your head, imaginary, or maybe even real, but only to people with ears like bats.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3fdVwxOGAt0" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Another example of this is Tommy Emanuel. In my opinion he's the best guitarist in the world, even though i don't listen to his music, don't even have a cd of his, don't like acoustic that much, but what he does with the guitar and the music he plays and stores in his head is for some other planet and some higher intelligence in my opinion. But you'll rarely see him being all professional and not making jokes at the concert, simply, because he can. Example - this version of Classical Gas, for which song i believe 80% of the audience went to his concert in the first place... They didn't get Classical Gas as they wanted. Would you be mad about it? Hell no! I'd be the happiest man on earth if i were there!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-7wAEMIAhFs" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[OnTheFritz]

People will ask what trannies do you have and I won't say cause the decision I made on what to go with is a individual as I am. I will say that my decision was not based on tone or sound or anything audible. Oh ya, the defintion and what influences SAG is lacking as well. I'll stop now before I PO more people. That's just my 2 cents.

Not trying to stir the pot, but this makes absolutely no sense. Like Fill has said, everybody is entitled to his/her opinion, and this particular forum is very open and liberal in that regard.
If your *decision* wasn't based on tone or anything audible, what exactly was it based upon?

[fillmore nyc]

People will ask what trannies do you have and I won't say cause the decision I made on what to go with is a individual as I am. I will say that my decision was not based on tone or sound or anything audible.

If your *decision* wasn't based on tone or anything audible, what exactly was it based upon?

I was wondering that myself...

Suede??

[neikeel]

. I'll stop now before I PO more people. That's just my 2 cents.

I do not think anyone is PO'ed.

Your opinion is as valid as anyone elses, just make your case.

I actually find that in my 50watter line I preferred the Marstran -139 over the Metro, an original 77 Drake and an original 70 drake in identical circuits (if not components) all using Mullard pres and power valves - admittedly different ages. Soon to pitch it against a 68 - with identical circuit so we'll see

I just relate my experience with my amp with the same circuit/NOS glass etc but two different OTs which is what the OP discussed. I think my MM OT is more like an RS OT in being more hi-fi than the Drakes and the Drake repros, that is all.

[Janglin_Jack]

"neikeelI just relate my experience with my amp with the same circuit/NOS glass etc but two different OTs which is what the OP discussed. I think my MM OT is more like an RS OT in being more hi-fi than the Drakes and the Drake repros, that is all.

Neikeel, What Mercury OT are you referring to, the 050JM? I think that is what one of my 50w builds has, I'll have to look again.

Mike

[HTH]

I've only used the Mercury RS Hygrade (JTM45) OT and one of their custom-spec 100w OTs designed for 6550s.

With both transformers, they did take a little while to settle in - the one designed for the 6550s especially (I thought it was worse than the stock Dagnall iron in the ZW2203 it went in at first). After getting 20+ hours on it, that amp really opened up and that beasty (almost literally) blew me away.

However, I will say that the Marstran 100w OT I got is/was great and immediately sounds 'vintage' (2" stack, not sure of the repro part#, think its for a '67 plexi circuit). While it lasted, maybe 10 months, it sounded absolutely amazing. I need to pop another OT in that amp just to make sure its the OT gone, but it looks that way, shame, its in a master volume head that I could only ever crank to around 2-3 on the master, so it shouldn't have shorted really.

[FourT6and2]

Hi, just thought I'd chime in. First, I should say that I've NEVER actually played a real Marshall Super Lead/Bass. Neither vintage nor modern reissue. So, keep that in mind. But, I've heard plenty of them on recordings if that counts for anything.

I opted for Mercury Magnetics transformers with my 1959 100 watt build. I contacted Mercury first to see what they had to say and after telling them the kind of sound I was seeking with my build, I was recommended I go with the Mercury O100JM-S output tranny. This is a 2" fat stack version of the O100JM 1.5". Now, while I like the sound of vintage Marshalls on all the albums throughout the years, the tone I'm after is a recreation of my favorite artist's '76 1959 (Adam Jones of Tool). His sound is very dark, aggressive and ballsy, with a LOT of mids and growl. His amp has the stock transformers, though, for what it's worth.

Anyway, after putting some hours on my build, I can say I'm happy with the Mercury trannies. And after playing it in front of some folks who have lots of experience with these types of amps, they all say it definitely has more aggression and balls than a typical 1959 circuit. While I do have a few small component value differences than normal, most of that ballsy, evil tone (I think) comes from the Mercury transformers. With that, though, comes a caveat: my amp does lack that bit of "sweetness" that I hear in real Marshalls or clips of other people's builds with the Metro Heyboers. The amp is a LITTLE bit cold. Not necessarily sterile, but it's got a hard edge to it. But it fits the music I play.

I do wish, however, that I could try the SAME amp with the Metro Heyboer transformers just to hear the difference.

In any event, it really does come down to what kind of sound you want. The OP wanted a certain sound and I'm happy for him that he found it! Me? I wanted more of a modern, high-gain 90's hard rock sound and I got it.

[fillmore nyc]

Hi, just thought I'd chime in. First, I should say that I've NEVER actually played a real Marshall Super Lead/Bass. Neither vintage nor modern reissue. So, keep that in mind. But, I've heard plenty of them on recordings if that counts for anything.

I opted for Mercury Magnetics transformers with my 1959 100 watt build. I contacted Mercury first to see what they had to say and after telling them the kind of sound I was seeking with my build, I was recommended I go with the Mercury O100JM-S output tranny. This is a 2" fat stack version of the O100JM 1.5". Now, while I like the sound of vintage Marshalls on all the albums throughout the years, the tone I'm after is a recreation of my favorite artist's '76 1959 (Adam Jones of Tool). His sound is very dark, aggressive and ballsy, with a LOT of mids and growl. His amp has the stock transformers, though, for what it's worth.

Anyway, after putting some hours on my build, I can say I'm happy with the Mercury trannies. And after playing it in front of some folks who have lots of experience with these types of amps, they all say it definitely has more aggression and balls than a typical 1959 circuit. While I do have a few small component value differences than normal, most of that ballsy, evil tone (I think) comes from the Mercury transformers. With that, though, comes a caveat: my amp does lack that bit of "sweetness" that I hear in real Marshalls or clips of other people's builds with the Metro Heyboers. The amp is a LITTLE bit cold. Not necessarily sterile, but it's got a hard edge to it. But it fits the music I play.

I do wish, however, that I could try the SAME amp with the Metro Heyboer transformers just to hear the difference.

In any event, it really does come down to what kind of sound you want. The OP wanted a certain sound and I'm happy for him that he found it! Me? I wanted more of a modern, high-gain 90's hard rock sound and I got it.

Hey, T6...
Your observations about your 100 watt pretty much mirror my experience with my 50 watt... the amp was wicked ballsy and "in your face" with the Mercs, but as you've said, lacked a certain sweetness, zing and compression that a (good) vintage amp has. If I was looking for the sound you are talking about (Tool, etc) I think I would have been more than happy with the Mercs. I was looking for a definite vintage, old school Marshall 50 watt tone, and the Metro Heyboers just gave it to me in spades. I will say that the bottom end is noticably looser (in a good way) than it was with the Mercs, and I dont think the amp is quite as loud, but for me, thats a non-issue. The Mercs sounded very modern and tight, also in a good way, but thats not what I wanted in this amp. As I said in a previous post, I have "modern and tight" in other amps. I wanted "old and juicy" for this amp.

With the Metro's, the bottom end looseness sounds very musical, giving the low end a kind of "presence" that it didnt have with the Mercs. It never farts out with the Metro's, it just sounds old school in a really cool way. The mids are beautiful, with a nice complex honk to 'em, and the top end also is sweet and cutting at the same time. It has a beautiful note bloom that the Mercs seemed to lack, and upon initial note attack, it has a real nice vintage sounding "sag". (Sorry, "Suede" / )

Anyway, this is like the zillionth time I've said it, so here is a zillion and one... very simply, for me, the change over to the Metro iron made all the diff in changing the tone from modern to vintage.

[FourT6and2]

Yeah, I hear ya. I wish there were a way to get the best of both worlds, though. It'd be sweet to be able to run two transformers and have them switchable. That would be so weird, though! It'd be nice to build another kit and use Metro's iron. But I guess that won't happen any time soon now that kits are no longer for sale.

The thing is, Tool's guitarist's Marshall is stock (for the most part). So he's getting that ballsy, aggressive tone with the stock Drake iron. So, there shouldn't really be a need to run Mercury transformers over the Metro ones to get that sound.

[cyprusx]

Hi Fill... Sorry for digging up an old thread. I have been tweaking my 50 watt lead circuit and decided to take it more to the bass side of the house and I like it a lot... The only thing left is to change the PI coupling caps to .1's and it will be fully there. I am kind of fearful for leaving the lead circuit behind but I was growing tired of the brightness of the lead circuit. (Probably end up with switches for cathode setup on v1 and v2 along with the tone stack.

Now my question...

I reviewed the pictures of your circuit and I am puzzled by different tone stack setup you have, if I can see correctly. It appears you have a 56/500 setup vs. 56/250 or 33/500. Is this by design? If so, how did you end up with this? Outside of me whipping out my iron, what is your opinion on the tonal differences this provides? Everyone else please feel free to offer your thoughts on the subject also.

I rather like the change from 33/500 to 56/250 but this setup has made me curious and I haven't seen it before.

[fillmore nyc]

Hi Fill... Sorry for digging up an old thread. I have been tweaking my 50 watt lead circuit and decided to take it more to the bass side of the house and I like it a lot... The only thing left is to change the PI coupling caps to .1's and it will be fully there. I am kind of fearful for leaving the lead circuit behind but I was growing tired of the brightness of the lead circuit. (Probably end up with switches for cathode setup on v1 and v2 along with the tone stack.

Now my question...

I reviewed the pictures of your circuit and I am puzzled by different tone stack setup you have, if I can see correctly. It appears you have a 56/500 setup vs. 56/250 or 33/500. Is this by design? If so, how did you end up with this? Outside of me whipping out my iron, what is your opinion on the tonal differences this provides? Everyone else please feel free to offer your thoughts on the subject also.

I rather like the change from 33/500 to 56/250 but this setup has made me curious and I haven't seen it before.

Hey Cyprusx. (Welcome to the forum, BTW!!)


Im REALLY sorry to say that as I stated in the start of this post, I am most definitely NOT an amp builder or expert on anything that goes on inside amps, other than being able to bias a set of tubes on my own!! If you need a closer gut shot, let me know what you'd like to see, and Ill do my best to accommodate that.
All of the mods over the stock Metro set up were done by my bud Richie Johnson in Medford, NY, but I know that he's not gonna remember them unless the amp is in front of him.
If something differs from the original Metro schematic, for sure Richie did that per my request for a specific tone.
The one thing I can tell you (and this may not be related to your question at all) is that there is a HUGE difference between the "Normal" and "Bright" channels. The Normal channel is very "Bass-spec", in that there is not as much gain initially (there IS a lot of gain available, once turned past half way), but its VERY fat and warm sounding right off the bat... playing jazz in the Normal channel would be a breeze.
On the other hand, the Bright channel is VERY aggressive and has a ton of zing to it, like a great metal front lead Marshall would have. Breakup starts around "2" on the volume control.
Jumpering the channels yields an awesome variety of tones, from warm tones with just a hint of overdrive, to fat, crunchy rhythm and leads, to a ballsy vintage scream that howls with harmonic feedback.
Again, this probably has nothing to do with your tone stack question, but I thought it might be worth mentioning.
Sorry I cant be of more help, but I would say most any of the guys that commented on this thread will probably know the answer to your question!!
Fill