Page 3 of 5

Posted: Mon Aug 27, 2007 6:10 pm
by Bluesgeetar
carlygtr56 wrote:Nobody has a pic of ANY Jimi amp with 6550's.
Curious? Does anyone have any pics of a Jimi amp with EL34's? Proof goes both ways. Just curious. Not trying to pick a fight. :D

Posted: Mon Aug 27, 2007 6:12 pm
by Bluesgeetar
MacGaden wrote:
Tone Slinger wrote:I do know that hendrix played through some 6550 loaded Marshalls in '69, as well as '70. ...
Just curious: How do you know this ?

Just curious: How do you know they were EL34's or wasn't 6550?

Posted: Mon Aug 27, 2007 6:16 pm
by MajorWatt
Bluesgeetar wrote:
MacGaden wrote:
Tone Slinger wrote:I do know that hendrix played through some 6550 loaded Marshalls in '69, as well as '70. ...
Just curious: How do you know this ?

Just curious: How do you know they were EL34's or wasn't 6550?
Since 99% of Marshalls came with EL-34's, the chances are much better that's what was in them.

If big bottle tubes were spotted in them, they were probably KT-66's.

Posted: Mon Aug 27, 2007 7:06 pm
by yngwie308
Everything that I have ever read, basically said Jimi used English specification Marshalls configured for EL-34's.
6550's have a much more percussive tone when used in a Marshall and are more suited to later ages '80's metal, with their scooped mids.
No way are any of Jimi's power tube tones that hard sounding, instead portraying the characteristic breakup of EL-34's.
yngwie308

Posted: Tue Aug 28, 2007 12:58 am
by MacGaden
carlygtr56 wrote:Also, if you hear the raw BOG recording....ones made from the audience and different soundboards of the different nights, they don't sound like the original BOG album we all know and love.

I agree on the curly cheap cords, the effects loading down, etc.
Do you have something you might like to share ? I

Posted: Tue Aug 28, 2007 4:46 am
by GUITARmole
OK...I'm a noob to this forum so don't flame me too bad but I've got to stir the pot up a little on this post.

My questions is does it really make any difference (other than for historical documentation) which amp he used? To my ears the BOG sound has the least to do with what Marshall head(s) he used.

The guitar, effects (octavia, f-face, univibe, wah), possibly even the coily cord, seem to play a greater role in the overall tone.

Given the right combo of guitar and effects and any semi-overdriven 100W Marshall I think you could come very close to the same sound.

Posted: Tue Aug 28, 2007 6:25 am
by carlygtr56
MacGaden wrote:
carlygtr56 wrote:Also, if you hear the raw BOG recording....ones made from the audience and different soundboards of the different nights, they don't sound like the original BOG album we all know and love.

I agree on the curly cheap cords, the effects loading down, etc.
Do you have something you might like to share ? I

Posted: Tue Aug 28, 2007 8:38 am
by carlygtr56

Posted: Tue Aug 28, 2007 10:08 am
by MajorWatt
Could we be hearing the D-120's it is said he used? Any confirmation to that rumour?

Posted: Tue Aug 28, 2007 11:10 am
by Tone Slinger
Hey, I'm not meaning to anger with my speculations here. I agree with Carl about the 'feeling and playing' part, as compared to just the equipment. I said that BOG's was probably Superbass and el-34's. I am confident of my abilities on a 'pignose', but I'm trying to be more specific. I start hearing a difference in his tone in '69. I think many, but not all of his amps had 6550's in them from this point on. His live clean sound improved greatly, but his distortion suffered a bit, this is what I have experienced with simple tube changes (el-34 to 6550). Most all I've heard in '70 had that 6550 sound, like the forum, Norman Okahoma, Rainbow bridge, etc. Maybe some guy's here havent stepped on a fuzz face with the power tubes saturating in thier Marshall. If you dont have some out put tube break up, the fuzz face will not blend well to the tone, and sound constipated and nasilly. This is how I hear much of Hendrix's '70 type sound. The extra coloring of the uni-vibe helped him here, cause the fuzz face alone wasnt happening too much (not just because of the transistors). I hear real early breakup in the BOG's stuff (el-34) though through a 'lower, darker' circuit. Different tone stack PI caps, as well as shared cathode (all Super Bass specs) all contribute to what I hear. Again, not trying to anger anybody in anyway. I like mysteries and this is what I think the answer is.

Posted: Wed Sep 05, 2007 5:34 pm
by wide slide
Of course I'm a big fan of JH's sound

I think JH used various amps and gear. Note the Gibson SG Custom and the Ampeg B15 in the Sept.70 Dick Cavett show. The Gibson V at Isle of White show in 70, but mostly a SLA 100W and what I hear the most on the BOG is a Super Bass and a Bassman in some other gigs at that time.
Also always a vox wah and a fuzz face at a minimum starting with a clean colorful sound with a powerful foundation to start with playing off the dynamics of these amps. I didn't see alot of reference ( I saw Buddy Miles and Mike Bloomfield with Elec. Flag in June 1970 with the Allmon Bros. but no Jimi) of him using smaller amps. One of his signature sound colorings was to go from complete silence to a sustaining piched feedback at will playing off the rich dynamics which the 100W Marshalls are noted for spec. the Super Bass IMO.

Posted: Thu Sep 06, 2007 2:39 pm
by Tone Slinger
I second that. Jimi had his equipment 'maintained' by a company in Hollywood. This started before that spring '69 tour, and lasted till the end. The Sept. '95 Guitar Player has this info. Various things did and could have happened repair or 'mod' wise. A Super Lead or S. Bass are only a few component tolerances away. Maybe, if it wasnt a 'stock' S. Bass, then it could have been an attempt by this amp/sound company to give Jimi a bit more of the stock 'Bassman" type sound, which he did use (Bassman) on the long "Voodoo Child" on E.LadyLand. A Super Lead with say a shared, as opposed to split cathode, would have been an obvious mod, or maybe changing the tone stack values. This company said they "Tried to give Jimi what he wanted" in reference to them changing things for him, like, upon his request ,putting 6550's in place of the stock el-34's, and putting in 75 watt speakers in place of the stock 25's. Whatever amp he used on 'BOG's", it didnt have 6550's, which was odd at that time, since most all of his '69 - '70 stuff , sounded like 6550's. The BOG stuff had to warm a tone, with a much earlier break up than any 6550 I've ever heard.

Posted: Thu Sep 06, 2007 2:46 pm
by MajorWatt
Since to the best of my knowledge Celestion didn't have a 75 at that time, maybe the speakers were JBL's. Therefor the stiffer tone.

Posted: Fri Sep 07, 2007 3:56 pm
by Tone Slinger
The guy in that '95 interview (David Weyer) who worked for 'West Coast Organ & Amp Repair' back then said the speakers were 75 watt Rola's, that they bought from a Vox distributer 'Thomas Organ'. He said they were the stock speaker in the solid state 'Super Beatles' that were being made here back then. I too, didnt think Rola/celestion made a 75 watt model.

Posted: Sat Sep 15, 2007 6:22 pm
by McGoogle McDougal
Anybody considered that since he was recording the show for an album, he might have brought out his original JTM100 KT66 "Super 100" amp (the one they just did the limited edition reissue of)? Isn't it believed that he still had this amp at this point? He could very well have used that as the amp that was miked up, and used other (possibly new) heads for the rest of the stacks. The amp would natually sound a little different than when he first was using it, since he probably had a newer fuzzface, had an octavio, the UniVibe was in line, and he had a wah. Probably different speakers than his original cabs too.

Eamon