67 / 68 / 69 (Super) Lead / Bass for later Jimi, Led Zep,etc

[VintageCharlie]

Dear forum members,

for now i'm still waiting for a couple of parts for my 45/100 build that i should be able to get started in 1 or 2 months from now. As i have many parts left for another build and would only need to buy the chassis and transformers + some small stuff, i've decided to build another Marshall - 100w or 50w, but this time with el34's.

I know this has been discussed over and over again in many iterations, but i'm still having my doubts. Primarily i want the amp to cover the mid and later Hendrix stuff - from 67-69 (especially BOG tone). Also Led Zep, Free, Cream and lots of other classic stuff. I'm not into VH - so i don't need it to have that much gain as a 68 necessarily. I think what i'm most after is the classic el34 tone that is punchy but not too stiff, that sounds organic and not harsh like some of the later Marshalls do. It's probably quite clear that Hendrix used 69 SL's for Bog, but i heard many people say that they actually don't like how their strat sounds through a 69 and that they often have to fight with harshness, especially when it's a strat. I'm sure Hendrix knew how to deal the amps in right to get the tone he was after and i assume he rolled off lots of the treble and presence in these. Hence i'm wondering if the earlier SL's (67, 68) might have a more "useable" range to the controls without getting harsh when these are dimed and still be able to fork out just as convincing BOG tones as the 69 SL?

I'm also considering even a JMP-50, as i've heard very convincing tones coming from these in lots of clips - for later Hendrix and for Led Zep for example. It seems to be a tad less open and a bit more compressed, bnut in the recordings the difference isn't that great - i suppose live they sound much more different. In a recording, i wouldn't even say the 50w sounds "smaller" or thinner - do you agree guys? The JMP-50 has it's own appeal - it's also somewhat more practical.

So i've decided on an el34 amp, but, my first question is about the transformers - Drake vs. Dagnall (PT and OT)? I've read most of 67 is Drake, end of 67 and upwards is usually Dagnall. I'm curious though if also in 68 Drake 2" trannies were used or if these were only a few exceptions (as typical with Marshall who used what they had at hand)? I suppose 69 is clear - it's Dagnall OT + PT, right? - the C1998 and the T something... something... It's just that i'm somewhat "afraid" of the 69 due to the reasons mentioned above and i also have some doubts about the Dagnall transformers - i think they might be a big part of the more high-gain Marshall tones that i'm not into and that the Drakes would give out a much more "organic", natural tone that fits Hendrix and Led Zep tones better than the 69 and metal panels that Zep used, despite not being the "correct" model - it might be easier to get great tones without fighting the brightness ,etc. Also, from the clips on Metro that i have heard, i think i prefer the 67 to the 68 (at least for a Les Paul) and hence i think i wouldn't be a big fan of a 69 (compared to the earlier iterations of a 100w), as in the 68 i already hear more of a "grainyness" and fizz than i would like to.

My 45/100 will be a very authentic build, but i plan to make the el34 amp mostly from modern parts, except some vintage stuff in the signal path, where it really matters for sure - i intend to tweak around with it and i don't want to feel scared to touch it, as it will be with the 45/100
I will probably include also some mods. One of them might be a switchable lead/bass spec.

In essence i'm after an el34 amp that covers most of Hendrix's later year tones, especially BOG, but i'm wondering if the 69 SL is the only way for this or would a 67 or 68 do an equally good job there (also, if a 50w could be thrown in to the equation), while giving out simply more "useable" tones for my needs and preferences that i tried to describe here?

Thanks a lot in advance for any input!

Best regards,

VintageCharlie

[Roe]

...cover the mid and later Hendrix stuff - from 67-69 (especially BOG tone). Also Led Zep, Free, Cream an...the classic el34 tone that is punchy but not too stiff, that sounds organic and not harsh like some of the later Marshalls do. It's probably quite clear that Hendrix used 69 SL's for Bog, but i heard many people say that they actually don't like how their strat sounds through a 69 and that they often have to fight with harshness, especially when it's a strat. I'm sure Hendrix knew how to deal the amps in right to get the tone he was after and i assume he rolled off lots of the treble and presence in these. Hence i'm wondering if the earlier SL's (67, 68) might have a more "useable" range to the controls without getting harsh when these are dimed and still be able to fork out just as convincing BOG tones as the 69 SL?..
So i've decided on an el34 amp, but, my first question is about the transformers - Drake vs. Dagnall (PT and OT)? I've read most of 67 is Drake, end of 67 and upwards is usually Dagnall. I'm curious though if also in 68 Drake 2" trannies were used or if these were only a few exceptions (as typical with Marshall who used what they had at hand)?
I suppose 69 is clear - it's Dagnall OT + PT, right? - the C1998 and the T something... something...

for Electric ladyland I prefer a 67 100w (except the earl king song which sounds like a 12000 series superlead). For Zep its a 1969 superlead, no doubt. For Free a 67 100w is perfect although several other amps work well too. Cream is super 100 amplifier and the 67 100w. However, I'm think BoG is the later superlead circuit. a 67 also sounds great but it has more of the earlier sound. the 67 will be much closer to your 66 so perhaps the later superlead is a better choice anyway?

I have 3 100watters, the 66, 67 and 69. if I were to get rid of one it would have to be the 67.

[VintageCharlie]

Hi Roe, thanks for chiming in! I didn't know you also have the 67 and 69 - i thought you had the 66's both - KT66 and el34 versions.
Does your 69 have the Dagnall? Is Dagnall the only "correct" - as in era correct - choice? Would a 69 with Drake transformers be a bad idea - does it (as with most Marshall models) sound best with the originally planned Dagnall trannies?
I also thought about the 66 and 67 maybe being very close and hence, if i build another amp (which then will be definitely the last one for a very long time - how ever bad my GAS might become - i won't have the $ for a 3rd build), it would be wise to build one that is further away from the 45/100. But still, a 69 somehow scares me - it's just that the 68 already seems much less organic to me than the 67 (at least when both are dimed). Though, lowering volume on a 68 or a 69 it's probably possible to make them sound pretty similar to the 67 - or doesn't it work as simple as that?

VintageCharlie

[Roe]

Hi Roe, thanks for chiming in! I didn't know you also have the 67 and 69 - i thought you had the 66's both - KT66 and el34 versions.
Does your 69 have the Dagnall? Is Dagnall the only "correct" - as in era correct - choice? Would a 69 with Drake transformers be a bad idea - does it (as with most Marshall models) sound best with the originally planned Dagnall trannies?
I also thought about the 66 and 67 maybe being very close and hence, if i build another amp (which then will be definitely the last one for a very long time - how ever bad my GAS might become - i won't have the $ for a 3rd build), it would be wise to build one that is further away from the 45/100. But still, a 69 somehow scares me - it's just that the 68 already seems much less organic to me than the 67 (at least when both are dimed). Though, lowering volume on a 68 or a 69 it's probably possible to make them sound pretty similar to the 67 - or doesn't it work as simple as that?

VintageCharlie

the super 100 el34 amp is a 67 amp, el34s were introduced in february 67. the 69 uses a dagnall (georges clone). a few of the later superleads actually used drakes with its a different drake with different numbers. the 67 is quite different from the later superleads.

[VintageCharlie]

What about the 68, Roe - it's the same as 67 circuit-wise, except that it has higher filtering? Also the 68 lead spec amps had the extra .68 caps and the split cathode, or did that happen in 67 already? Also the standard Trannies for a 68 super (Lead and Bass) are the Dagnalls or still Drake 80 and 132?
I believe you when you say that the 66 and 67 are very close tone-wise, but in clips from the net and especially what has been posted on metro, i hear a far bigger difference between a 45/100 and a 67 than between a 50w plexi era bass and a 73 metal panel super lead (that were probably dialed in to sound similar), but still. To my ear all the el34 amps have something that the KT66 amps don't have and vice versa of course, but the el34 amps sound very similar to me actually - they just gradually get brighter and grainier, fizzy at times - which is something that i really dislike - fizz...

I think the first question to sort out would be the transformers (it's also the most expensive part(s), hence i wouldn't want to make a bad choice there) - Dagnall vs Drake. Is there anything about Dagnalls that is not satisfactory. Afaik they have less bass (which shouldn't be a problem in a JTM/JMP style circuit ) - what other differences could be attributed specifically to the transformers besides the evolution of the lead circuit?

VintageCharlie

[Kevin]

Hey Karlis,

I think Dagnalls have a little more bass. The Drake is a little more musical. I have an original Dagnall C1998 in my current 100-watter, and I might say that I prefer the Marstran -119 I was using before... I'd have to swap them around again and see.

In any case, there's a great description here: http://www.vintageamps.com/plexiboard/v ... ke+ot+bass" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Scroll down until you see the Ampeg stack avatar.

Turning down the volume on a '69 won't make it sound like an earlier amp; it will make it sound harsh, brittle, and unusable, IMO.

I would suggest that you basically build a '69, aluminum chassis amp (provided George offers the chassis again) and use dual 32 filter caps on the screens and preamp. I like to use volume pots with push-pull switches: one which allows you to piggy back a large bright cap, e.g.4700pf, over a smaller one, e.g. 220pf., so that you have an appropriate cap for cleaner volumes and one for higher volumes; the other push pull pot could engage a V2a bypass cap - .68 for high mids or 100uf for a fat boost, or whatever you like.

You won't end up with a clone of a particular Marshall, but a nice, versatile amp, which should cover the mentioned tones.

And get a good attenuator, like Alex's.

[Roe]

What about the 68, Roe - it's the same as 67 circuit-wise, except that it has higher filtering? Also the 68 lead spec amps had the extra .68 caps and the split cathode, or did that happen in 67 already? Also the standard Trannies for a 68 super (Lead and Bass) are the Dagnalls or still Drake 80 and 132?
I believe you when you say that the 66 and 67 are very close tone-wise, but in clips from the net and especially what has been posted on metro, i hear a far bigger difference between a 45/100 and a 67 than between a 50w plexi era bass and a 73 metal panel super lead (that were probably dialed in to sound similar), but still. To my ear all the el34 amps have something that the KT66 amps don't have and vice versa of course, but the el34 amps sound very similar to me actually - they just gradually get brighter and grainier, fizzy at times - which is something that i really dislike - fizz...

I think the first question to sort out would be the transformers (it's also the most expensive part(s), hence i wouldn't want to make a bad choice there) - Dagnall vs Drake. Is there anything about Dagnalls that is not satisfactory. Afaik they have less bass (which shouldn't be a problem in a JTM/JMP style circuit ) - what other differences could be attributed specifically to the transformers besides the evolution of the lead circuit?

VintageCharlie

a 68 superbass is close to a 67 but a 68 superlead is very different. 68 were dagnalls. the dagnall sounds different from the drake. I like the drake for bluesier stuff and the dagnall for heavier stuff, the drake for the jtm/bass circuit and the dagnall for the later lead circuit. The filtering varied quite a lot in 67 and 68 but generally all these early amps have low filtering. however, the 69 and later amps are tighter and stiffer. I think the bass/jtm circuits are more closely related than a 50w bass and a 73 superlead. the 66 and 67 share the preamp. the power amp is different, resulting in more power and dirt in the 67 amp. however, the post 68 lead circuit has a quite different preamp, resulting in more bite and aggression

[VintageCharlie]

Thanks for the replies! Kevin, thanks for the link to the post from the unnamable ampeg stack-guy From his description it seems to me like my initial thoughts might be right - i think transformer saturation is a big part of great tone and dagnalls seem to be a big part of a much edgier, harsher tone (that many like and that is good for lots of things, but just nut my cup of tea, i think). In fact i have a spare 45/100 alu chassis that i intend either to sell or use for this build (though i won't be able to put a JMP or black flag front panel on it as the spacing won't match the chassis drills, which are meant for a jtm plate). As i already said - the biggest problem is to choose a set of transformers as the "platform" for an amp that might end up as a 67, 68 or 69 (i'd like to tewak and see what i like best in real life). But then, a 67 might be too close to my 45/100 and the 68 and 69 spec with a Dagnall might be to edgy and bright for my taste, while on the other hand it would be a more logical choice if the amp might end up being a 68 or 69 as with this i mainly want to get BOG Hendrix tones and Led Zep. I wrote Brian a mail about this - maybe, if he has the time for it, he could give me some directions too.

For now i'm playing with the idea of an amp with alu chassis, Drake trannies and either 67, 68 or 69 specs. My ear likes 67 the most i think (jusging from clips), but not sure if it will do BOG and Led Zep. Would be great if any 67 owners could chime in and tell me if they can get into BOG and Led Zep land with their 67's

Thanks!

Best regards,

VintageCharlie

[neikeel]

Hi Karlis

I would agree with both of the above.

As you know I too have a KT66 45/100 Metro, a MArshall EL34 45/100, an EL34 Black Flag build and a Marshall 68 SL100.

For a strat and the tones you descibe a 67 with shared cathode (even a lead tone stack a la Dickinson) but 32/32/16/32/50 filtering would be best. The bright cap suggestion is a very good one, although I would not bother with the 0.68uF on V2a on shared cathode amp - just crank it to 8 and use the guitar dynamics. Marstran -119 or -132 OT would be my choice with -114 choke and 1203-80 PT.

[VintageCharlie]

Hi Neil,

thanks for joining in!

Have you tried to approach some BOG and Led Zep stuff on your 68 SL and the Black Flag? (I know, not the same as 67 specs, but the Black Flag shouldn´t be far away). Do they do the job equally well or do you have a preference for either? I´ve heard Dansch´s (legendary discussion evoking ) who knows clips on his 68 - sounds like it should - the concert hall accoustics Would a 67 with a Drake handle this equally well or is the Dagnall an important part for this (though i´m not sure if Dansch has a Dagnall or Drake in there)?

Sorry guys for pestering you with this topic that has been beaten to death, but each time there are a few specific personal requirements that somehow change the usefulness of previous discussions´- thanks for being understanding and patient .

Make it a great day!

VintageCharlie

[VintageCharlie]

p.s. i understand Roe´s approach - which is of course is correct - to get the same amp someone used for a specific tone, but from what can be read, even Hendrix had troubles getting the tones he wanted from the 69´s. And if a 68/69 gets EVHalenish when dimed - it´s just not something i´m after. I´d like the amp to be Led Zeppelinish when dimed or at sweet spot at most. Also, Roe, as i said, my experience is very limited - just to clips, but from the ones i´ve heard the 66 and 67 - el34 vs KT66 sound quite different to me - i´d say the 67 sounds like a "typical" Marshall - what one would expect from these beasts and the 45/100 seems to be an AC/DC crunchbox which sounds great but somehow doesn´t deliver some of the qualities i hear already in the 67. Then again - that might be different in real life - where theey maybe are much more similar

[bulatovic]

Charlie,

I was in exactly the same situation - so i thought to share my thoughts about that issue. The only thing is that i was using AC/DC tones for comparison...
I also liked the sound of '67 clips on youtube, sounds the most organic, musical... The '66 can get a bit too mushy for my taste, but i still think it's a great amp, but wouldn't choose that one to cover all tones i want to achieve.
I have a '79 Superbass which i modded to '67 spec, but of course with different transformers... what i found is that the original bass spec make the amp a bit too bass heavy even on bright channel, and that the bass knob is useful from 0-3 or 4, anything above is just way too bassy. On the other hand i tried the '69 SuperLead spec, and i didn't like that to be perfectly honest. Too thin, especially the bright channel. So i decided to go in-between. I use now 0.47uf PI coupling caps, and it makes a difference - you still get the superbass organic sound, but without the overwhelming bass... Sometimes though i do miss a bit of "bark" so i am going to add what i call a "mid" boost switch which will change the tonestack from bass to lead on a flick of a switch, as well as adding a 0.68uf V2a bypass cap for some more upper mid boost.

So, the bottom line is that you can tweak the amp to your liking just by altering a few values - especially as it seems to me that you're looking for the amp that can cover a variety of sounds rather than building one that would be historically correct and cover just Led Zep for instance... - in that case you shouldn't worry about the historical correctnes, but about getting THE TONE - after all, you're not doing it on an original '67 amp, but on a brand new clone

hope i helped a bit!

Luka

[VintageCharlie]

Thanks for sharing your experience Luka! Brian just replied to my mail and he said that the circuit ha more effect on the tone than the OT - for example the bright cap and the later lead circuit. To me this is good news actually. He also said (what Roe mentioned here earlier) that it's not easy with a 67 as it's a period where 3 transformers were introduced - the 119, 132 and in August also the Dagnall
Would be great if some other guys who have some experience with a 67 (Drake) and a 68/69 (Dagnall (or Drake)) and BOG, Led Zep tones could share some insights. I've listened to my early Led Zep records (Live) over again and honestly i have to say i don't think a 67 would sound the same no matter how high i would set treble, presence, mids. Sounds to me like the 68/69 might be a great Les Paul amp, but a strat might feel better at home with the 67. Is this true more or less? I also suppose a 67 might get BOG, but not Led Zep (at least not spot on)... Hard choice.
In any case - i want this other amp (after the 45/100) to be one that can sing without pedals, with a LP and a Strat (the 45/100 might fall short there), that has enough gain for ac/dc like leads (i know Angus used JTM-45 and JMP/JTM-50 for that), but i suppose a 100w 67 or 68/69 has the same amount of gain and dirt on tap. Damn! I won't build 3 amps - that's over the top for my playing (dis)abilities

Regards,

VintageCharlie

[Roe]

personally I prefer a 68 or 69 superlead for BoG and a 69 superlead for led zep. I believe these to be the amps originally used as well. nevertheless a 67 can get a pretty good approximation. the later superlead is brighter and perhaps more unforgiving. I can see why many people dont like them and the loudness of these amps. but with a loud band these amps have more cut than the earlier amps and they sound closer to BoG and Zep. however, these superleads can sound very bright on their own and at lower volumes

[VintageCharlie]

Thanks for this reply Roe, it was very helpful. Btw. the 67 can sing easily without pedals, right? - it has quite some more dirt and gain on tap than the 45/100? - like a dimed 45/100 would have the same dirt as a 67 on 7-8 or something like that?

I will do some more critical listening on my own and i hope some other guys can jump in here and share their experiences - 67 100w lead/bass vs 68/69 100w lead/bass Marshalls for Bog and Led Zep.

Best regards,

VintageCharlie