Temolo-ish Sound in "Wild Thing" Monterey Pop

[Roe]

If I remember correctly, Chris M e r r e m said that many of the 1202-84s had the 16ohms secondary connected to the 8 ohms setting of the impedance switch by mistake. This will result in more power and punch as well as more 3rds, 5ths, and 7ths. Another way of putting it is that it will sound more like a 1202-119 (introduced by Drake in February 1967). It possible that some OTs were a little out of specs, wired wrong or even that a 119 was used (if it was in 1967). Personally, I'm getting good Hendrix tones both with a 84 and a 119. the 119 is much louder though

[Xplorer]

thanks for the explanation Roe ! cause i heard about this technic and wanted to use it. But what if the speakers are 16 ohms, as used in the clips of this amp sometimes ? that's what Franck said but i didn't understand correctly.
( by the way, i'm looking for two g12h30 75hz pulsonic cones, pre rolas, 112 003 if someone can save them for me ? )
Would the 16 ohms speakers receive 8 ohms then ?
how does it work ? i mean, how dangerous is it for the speakers, the amp ? and is it more critical for these when the amp is on 10 ? is there something to avoid ?
It's something like this that was used on the machine gun clip i heard, which was the absolute closest tone to machine gun. much closer than randy hansen or billy batz tests. even without three full stacks, and even attenuated ! and also, even without trying hard. this is really the amp combination i want to do : i heard it sounding like monterey, fillmore east, and i also heard beautiful hendrix cleans from it, or other hendrix lives. Amazing, this is totaly at 100% the amp i waited for. it does everything !

[Roe]

If the 1202-84 is miswired, and you're running a 16ohms cab from the 8 ohms secondary, it will give giving less power and a thinner tone

[Xplorer]

ok, i have to ask Franck again about that.

[parkhead]

Actually i told only stuff that Frank also has told on the vintagemodern forum - there's no big secrets revealed here. I would feel happy for the owner to share the info, but i also can understand the urge to keep it to himself- who are we to judge.
Adrien, i think we always have to keep one thing in mind - most of this is speculation and 2nd or 3rd hand info - there's no way anyone can know for 100% - what you think is TRUTH might just be just another "myth" and it might contradict other people's "truth" about the same issue - hence such meaningless arguments arise on the Hendrix topic every week on some forum. You have to be as open to the stories from others in the same way as you hope for others to be open to your stories, as there is no way to say 100% who is right - you just can pick up some ideas, experiment, and see (hear) what it does and if it's a step in the right direction. For example, if you want the monterey tone, you will take a fuzz and get close to it as opposed to custom-ordering some sort of overwound OT (as you don't know the "specs") or mix up the OT taps on purpose, etc. (though that might be something to experiment with if you know how to do this safely). So there's at least 2 ways to a similar result here - the truth is probably even somewhere between the two still.

Ich bleibe lieber bei Goethe

Guy's don't underestimate the importance of the power of the scientific method in figuring this out

16 years ago I was de modding a marshall 1986 amp, a friend who was a huge Jimi fan was with me
we spent about an hour trying to decide what volume control bright cap to use to make the amp
sound more like the early Hendrix recordings...

after many tests we tried NO BRIGHT cap at all and were surprised at how well the amp played at all volume levels and nailed
some of the cleaner Hendrix tones

could Hendrix have had an amp with all of the OT transformer taps improperly wired? sure: two years ago I was rebuilding an 18 watt amp with a blown OT I purposely used a 50 watt OT and set it up so I could use any combination of taps...
I get some very cool sounds from that amp, but not crackling

I've always Loved the Clapton Bluesbreaker tone and early on realized that a reissue amp and current LP will not get you there. (I have a good selection of vintage marshalls) one 69 50 watter sounds close & the Udo Pipper 1965 jtm is close.

After a few years of building stuff listening and making notes I have a version of that tone I can use every day.
(I keep the specs to myself, but they well within the realm of what marshall could have made by accident or intentionally using mid 60's jtm 45 bits )

The point is when these discussions degenerate into arguments and flame wars no one is playing guitar or working on their "sound"

Ideally we'd like to see specs & photos on this 2027 jtm100
however, we should be able to figure out whats going on by playing with OT specs or testing failing cables and fuzz faces

I'm pretty satisfied that the Van Halen TONE guys have cracked 99% of the mysteries by following a scientific approach, if we really want tonal answers, that would IMHO be the best approach

I also understand why GUYS do not want to disclose stuff If they have figured it out or have "secrets"
so in the end you are pretty much left with doing the leg work anyway

here's that bluesbreaker clip fast forward to 7:23 also notice the output coupling caps are NOT .1
http://youtu.be/PjYrT9URlgI" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

p

[Xplorer]

it's on amparchives. but no specs and voltages from the owner, he'll never share it.
with a scientific approach it would be interesting, but we don't know much about this amp.
from what i know , it's a lower tonestack cap value that the usual thoughts on jimi hendrix. probably 220 pf, not sure. i don't see the 560 pf cap, and there are 470k mixer resistors. anyway, this amp was restored with most of the parts that were left on it after it was modded to a later spec. it seems quite normal on the filter board. no big change. the owner claims that it's the special freak transformer. that's all i know, have fun now ; )

[parkhead]

amp 7027 on the amp archives is a complete mess

am I looking at the right amp ?

p

[Xplorer]

Yes, but this time, take a look at the restored 7027, after the mess

[parkhead]

Yes, but this time, take a look at the restored 7027, after the mess

right but if its been stripped right down to the transformers, and rebuilt it pretty much like trying to find clues at a crime scene
in a public square 30 years after the crime lol

#1 it was rebuilt to the specs the builder thought were right IMHO its a replica

#2 if the OT were incorrectly wired the builder would build it "right" and wire it correctly

#3 if the OT were internally wired wrong the builder might A: reject the part as failed and defective B: take notes and offer his version of the FREAK off spec Hendrix OT

The next step in the scientific approach would be to find 2025, 2028 and 2029 ect and see if there were any others with a special output transformer or errors in the build

FWIW I have mint 73 super bass with a .002 200volt mullard mustard for the phase invereter input cap, a "factory error"
it works fine but should not... most likely the error was never duplicated

so Yes strange things happen

p

[Xplorer]

what you're saying is true, but with some limits. he could have restore it to the original specs he saw before or he maybe had some info that we don't know about at some point. i just heard a story like this : he first got the transformer and some parts left, from a jimi hendrix stenciled case. the chassis and boards were already sold, but he hunt it for ten years, buying it to the guy who bought it to the guy who first bought it !
anyway, he claim to have restored it to the original conditions. he won't reveal the tonestack values but they're lower than what is usualy supposed. not a 560pf, lower, or even no cap here ( that's what i see ) , and i think lower than 250 pf , so i might say 200 or 220 pf. i don't see the tonetack resistor value. he really insist on this special transformer that sounds like no others.

but in any case, fake or not fake, for my own taste, this amp sounds the way i like. So if it was modded, restored, not original or anything, in the end , i'm really interested anyway.

the scientific approach can say the fact that it was modded, but not much more : if you 're lucky to find the 7025 , 7028 etc ( or some others , cause we don't know which serial numbers jimi had ) , that won't proove anything either.

there's no much conclusions to take out of this, except, imho , that the actual result isn't bad for a hendrix like amp.

[spaceace76]

its really silly that people will keep these things so secret. it's a marshall, it's not even an original circuit, and you couldn't even copyright the circuit if you wanted to. keeping it secret just draws unnecessary attention and hype to what you have, nothing more. if there were a magic hendrix spec (there are several i'd imagine), there wouldn't be much reason for keeping it secret. besides, anyone who is familiar with the marshall circuit probably already has the knowledge to make changes that will get you closer to the jimi sound, or better yet, whatever you think jimi sounds like, or your favorite show, etc.

[Xplorer]

yes i totaly agree. he just doesn't wanna share it, and doesn't wanna have problems with the hendrix legacy too by staying anonymous. but why not sharing the clues of this amp, the values ... that's too bad. he wants it to stay special. i saw this kind of behavior with some other hendrix stuffs owners.
Also, he's got a fuzz from larry lee, who got it from jimi. He said that on these roger mayer modded fuzz, there's a little mod that exists only on the hendrix fuzz. But that we couldn't imagine what it is in a million years. RM didn't reveal it , same attitude. some musicians want to keep some stuffs secret. after all , why not. if you are someone who want to sound like no others, you don't necessarly ant the others to know your secrets.
But as you say, we still can try with our amps some scientific approachs, and test a lot of variations, with our ears, and sometime go out of the common hendrix hype, about his supposed modifications, that we can see on the forums.

would someone wish to try ( or already tried ) a jtm45/100 with some 470k , no 560pf , a 220pf, a freak 560 volts transformer, overwound or something, and with some good mullards, some gec kt66, some pre rolas g12h30 75hz ??

[parkhead]

well the tone stack is EASY

its not 560p & 33k

that leaves

200pf + 56k
220pf + 56k

as well as 250pf, and 270pf

but given the hints my bet is on 220pf or 200pf
which would give the amp a super bass type tone but with more bass and mids because the top would be smaller

anyone with a jtm45 or 100 can test this out by trying these values

my money is on 200pf or 220pf since I've tried these values before and know they sound a little darker than the 250k

I don't think we need to speculate beyond 56k for the slope resistor
p

[Xplorer]

thanks for the help, i'll try it.

[parkhead]

would someone wish to try ( or already tried ) a jtm45/100 with some 470k , no 560pf , a 220pf, a freak 560 volts transformer, overwound or something, and with some good mullards, some gec kt66, some pre rolas g12h30 75hz ??

people who have this stuff do not advertize or talk about it much

there is a guy here in Toronto who has one of the HENDRIX amps from this purchase, I have not seen it a friend who has said 45/100 kt66's earliest version ...

as far as what the 56k 250pf tone stack sounds like in a 45 100
try this

http://youtu.be/Mr9IksFJutk" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

p