Temolo-ish Sound in "Wild Thing" Monterey Pop

[Xplorer]

damn, i'm not talking about the 7026, but another one. what is this invention ?
the best is to discuss with the owner of this amp, or with this friend of him, on the other forum. they'll perhaps answer your problems. while you're looking at informations on internet, this guy met the informations at a level that you couldn't believe...

[spaceace76]

...but you ARE! 7026 is the only amp that i've ever heard referenced to as being:
a. a 45/100
b. Jimi's favorite
c. used at Monterey

what other amp could we possibly be talking about? thats the very definition of this amplifier. either way, the malfunctions described by that guy have nothing to do with how Jimi's guitar interacted with his amplifier during Monterey. his amp is just broken. watch the footage and compare it to what he describes, and the inconsistencies are plain to see.

there are these things on the internet, called trolls, they like to lie and use anonymity to say things that can't be proven but are usually false when closely examined. perhaps you've heard of them?

[Xplorer]

But i'm not ! i know i'm not talking about the 7026 , damn ! i'm not 95 years old yet !
by the way, the 7026 was noel redding's amp.
i'm talking about another serial number. if you need more, and if you need to explain your point of view, try to contact these guys. they'll explain you stuffs, you 'll see ......... for now, you're judging something without knowing anything about this amp, and you even think i'm talking about the 7026 when i'm not. i suppose that you didn't even try to hear the clips of this amp.
just contact them , i'm not gonna explain it, cause i don't have the amp in my hands and i didn't tell everything : if you ask them kindly, they'll perhaps answer your questions, tell much more than me, and answer to your arguments, so things will be clear, or at least, you'll can have your opinion , based on the real story, not your invention.

[spaceace76]

since when is 7026 noel redding's amp? where did you hear that? it's not even spec'd for bass use, he would destroy the amp if he did that...

i don't really feel any need to contact these people, i'm trying to convince you that they're bullshitting you and everyone else. i listened to all 3 clips, compared them to wild thing, and they aren't the same. they both sound "glitchy" to a degree but it's easy for a marshall with a fuzz face at full bore to sound glitchy, so that is not empirical proof of anything.

and it doesn't matter if it's 7026 or not. he describes his amp acting a certain way that is clearly refuted by the Monterey footage. you don't have to take my word for it or consider it an "invention" whatever that means. read what he says, and watch wild thing. the stuff he talks about DOESN'T HAPPEN. plain and simple. he's a liar. i'm trying to convince you that it isn't even worth pursuing because its a red herring and isn't worth the time or posts that have already been spent on it. how in the hell would wiggling your tremolo bar fix anything going wrong in your amp? have you ever been able to do that? does that even remotely sound plausible to you? i don't need more info or any proof, their words and the footage speak for themselves. it's fake. there's no opinion involved here, no complex reasoning or logic, he says one thing but the footage says another, what proof do you really need to refute this? are you really willing to take some random forum guy at his word, just because he said so? if that's the case i have some awesome bridges you might be interested in purchasing...

also, Mr Dickinson would be the first to tell you that 7026 was Jimi's favorite, was used at Monterey, and is a 45/100 that marshall used as a reference unit for the JH100
http://www.richdickinsonsdf.co.uk/hendrix_amp.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Xplorer]

ok, fine, i guess we have different opinions then.

to me this amp sounds dead on hendrix, and that's enough for me :


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4dwyrs5pRaI" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[spaceace76]

well it's a 45/100... of course it'll sound like jimi! that's not really proof of anything. plus, you're listening to a youtube clip at the lower resolution youtube offers.

you can live in denial all you like. it makes no difference to me. i observed these people lying to you, but if you want to believe them it's your own prerogative. i saw them stating what should have been fact, contradicted by the evidence. but if you'd like to say the sky is green and you're all about that idea, go for it.

[Xplorer]

in 1966, jimi bought four jtm45/100 to mr Marshall, not only one dickinson ...
with that serial number , 7027 , and that tone, i'd believe it. but if you're not agree, fine, no problem for me, i'm happy with that story and that amp, and if you need to say something about it, go for it, even if you already did.
if it's a fake, no problem for me either, i'm happy with this tone, that's fine for me. if you have a different opinion, no problem for me, you have the right to. peoples can't always be agree ... that's all.

[Roe]

do you care to show pics of the amp?

[Xplorer]

someday perhaps, if i can.

[VintageCharlie]

Wow, had missed this thread! Guys, cool down!
It's very simple. There is a guy on vintagemodern forum, his name is Frank. He's a big Hendrix fan and knows some collectors and other Hendrix-nuts. One of them has supposedly gotten his grabs on the 7027, that, as Xplorer said, supposedly was purchased together with 7026 among others - the first big deal between jimi and jim. That owner has some interesting stories and Frank has told some of them on the forum and in pm's. To some extent, many of them do make sense, but there's (afaik) no way to prove any of it.
His stories often are quite a bit different than some "common knowledge" on some jimi-topics, but they are VERY detailed and when you check the info (as far that is possible at all), it adds up. As an example: as for the 7026 actually being Reddings amp - Frank said that Marshall silk-screened LEAD on the 7000 series amp rear panels, and in case of bass amps they put a sticker with "bass" on it (it seems like this is a rather rare thing as not many 45/100's have any of this). So, and if you check out amparchives and pics of the 7026 dickinson amp, then you see this pic: http://www.amparchives.com/album/Marsha ... _6181.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
What a surprise! Well, seems like there was a sticker on it that might have been the bass sticker and which MIGHT point out to the "fact"that it was reddings amp. It's by no means any proof, BUT it's such a nuance that hardly anyone would make this up.
Gives no credit or proof to this story - just very "detailed". So i wouldn't diss completely what Xplorer was trying to tell here (though this thread is terribly off topic by now), as that unnamed guy who Frank knows has really some interesting stories that make more sense than most of the "common-sense" pseudo-knowledge on hendrix floating on the net - like the bass cab story and other stuff, just because there are some pictures with him playing through some that were taken as a back-up when something wasn't delivered on time to the concert or broke, etc. There is no way to know if these are facts, but that guy delivers some interesting and different perspectives on some intriguing topics.
So, on the 7027 he said that that amp had a "freak-transformer"- - the owner thinks it's overwound at Drake or something - would be possible as Drake had a bad QC back then afaik. Another possibility would be that somebody had mixed up the OT taps. Roe explained this to me once, but i've forgotten the explanation - any way, this would give the same effect - a VERY fuzzy tone when dimed. And this is what Frank told - that the amp sounded like with a fuzz face even when it was just amp alone and dimed. IIRC that yotube link that Xplorer gave here is from that amp and there is no fuzz before it. Anyway, it is Frank who said that there was no fuzz face at Monterey at all. I always felt that there is too much fuzz involved in this tone and i haven't seen any Hendrix-recording that has as much fuzz going on ever again - maybe it was the damn amp, cooking and going over the top for what ever technical reason - otherwise it'd be easy to back the fuzz off a bit.
As i said, no way to prove this - so take it for what it is - 3rd hand info. BUT, to me some of his points sound quite convincing. The owner doesn't want to go public, show pics, etc. Supposedly Marshall tried to talk him into letting them take a look at it when the JH100 was planned, but he didn't agree ,so they went to dickinson and made everyone believe that THAT is the amp. Sounds like a conspiracy theory, but on the other hand, it also sounds EXACTLY what they teach in marketing - creating myths=selling more products. The owner is also secretive about the exact cap values of the 7027, which supposedly are not with the 500pF, 33k Dickinson tone stack. In all honesty, i suspect it is a damn stock 45/100 - 250pF or maybe no bright cap at all, which also can be seen sometimes and according to owners is a thing of beauty tonally - giving fat, smooth, full wooly tone. And if there is some sort of screw-up with the OT's taps, then you'd have a very simple explanation for the "magic" - it wouldn't even have to be necessarily any "special" freak OT.
Where the 7027 story gets very complex and fishy is that it was falling apart, trannys sold separately and chasassis again separately. That current owner followed the leads and got the trannies and then the chassis. The chassis and it's resto can be seen on marstran site - it's the 45/100 restoration for the previous owner.

Sorry for the off-topic - just wanted to explain where all this comes from and that there is no reason to be so touchy - from neither of the sides here - to be honest, most of what we read on the net on hendrix might be utter bogus, as not much is documented and A LOT is very contradicted info that just doesn't add up any way you want to pull it. So let's be open-minded about this - sure thing that this has been Jimi's own approach anyway Lately i've decided to trust my ear and not the "info" on all this. When i see that Hendrix tone can be nailed perfectly with an early 70's 100w sb, a fuzz and a stadnard strat (no funny reverse headstoks, etc.), then i don't get all that fuss about 6550 vs el34, reversed vs non reversed, nitro vs poly, short vs long hair, one half stack vs 3 full stacks (seriously guys, how many of you play n places where you could honestly pull off more than a half stack?!), etc. etc. - good skills, a good strat, a good 100w marshall of plexi, early metal panel era and a decent fuzz and you're there. Oh, here's his gear list (only thing missing is the speaker type, but i suppose pre Rola 75hz M's or more probably H's):

"My guitar is an original Strat from around 1977. The amp is a 100W Marshall Super Bass from 1971. The cabinet is Marshall from around 1968.

Pedals: first to last in the signal chain. Vox wah from around 1969-70, Fulltone 69` which is a Fuzz Faze clone, European contemporary Univibe model called (Vibra Chorus) with speed control pedal, Homemade Octavia pedal, T-Rex Replica Echo, T-Rex Room mate Reverb.

The pedals is powered by Voodoo Lab Pedal Power. Stefan."

To my ear he gets the woodstock tone nailed - if you need the last 1%, then feel free to chain up 3 full stacks, put on a reverse headstock or learn to fret with your right hand. The only finnicky part to me seems to be the vibe - don't know if any of the modern clones can really nal the old ones. And then again every of these differs from each other greatly - that's a hard one, i think.

Peace and love to everyone, but especially Xplorer and swankmotee! - guys, you love the same thing, as many others over here - everyone is on their journey to the promissed tone-land... so give each-other a hand and walk into a beautiful sunset... there's absolutely no reason for a fuss. And, as for french, every person that can speak and pronounce proper french has to be highly gifted , as that is a language i gave up on trying to learn after i listened to recordings of my own attempts to do so (and i speak 5 languages fluently).

[Xplorer]

that's very sweet , thanks Karlis
keep learning french my friend, indeed it's a beautiful and extremely rich old language. La langue de Molière !

What i wanted to say here wasn't welcome very well, but i don't mind, everybody can think the way he wants. and i still think that it's the most interesting amp i ever heard.
yes, the actual owner hunt this amp for 10 years, knowing the previous owner, who modded it. But he purshased a part of the amp in the beggining, trying to get the rest during ten years against the other owner , who didn't want to sell it. it came from a box with jh exp on it, and it had a lot of interesting stuffs in it ...
the previous owner died, his house burned, he used to receive a lot of vintage amps from his brother whgo was in the air army, and he imported a lot of amps from england, to portland.
finaly, he could buy this amp, before the shop even knew it would come to them. it was restored, and i suppose that the owner used to know how the amp was, before being monkeyed at some point, and then restored.
of course this is third hand infos but as Karlis said, trusting the ears is the best, and to me it's very good enough for me. Now , about the hendrix link, there's no way to proove it, but from what i heard, that i won't reveal here, this guy knows a lot.
i'd say that it's only a 220 pf in the tonestack, ( not sure about the resistor value ) and no 560 pf cap. 470k for the mixer resistors instead of 270k.

[swankmotee]

Hey Vintage Charlie ,
No worries man since I do love JH just as passionately as you do and thanx for all that great info and explanation! I've been around old Marshall's for so long I think I've just about heard every imaginable great Hendrix tone from some of the most odd set ups! It is very interesting all the conjecture surrounding Jimi's rigs that just can never be proven since none of us were around then and there was literally no documentation but I still get a kick out of seeing and hearing these old Hendrix owned pieces. I've been very blessed and downright lucky to have gotten to know some of the guys with the best ears and technical talents in getting Jimi tones and now have finally come to the end of a VERY long quest. There really is nothing like hearing those elusive sounds blazing through a dimed 100wt plexi stack and I am one of the lucky ones who gets away with it from time to time. I'll be firing up those very beasts again Aug 20 at the Nashville Amp Expo if any of you find yourself in the Nashville area then and I'll definitely be doing some Hendrix.

[Xplorer]

Why does it work nicely when it's Vintage Charlie who explains my story ? lol
Well done Karlis ! i tried ... without revealing too much ( my intention to preserve a bit some private conversations ) over several pages ! but still :

[VintageCharlie]

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

[Xplorer]

Yes that's true. And i also said that it's a third hand information, didn't i ? and i told the story of what this guy claimed, no reason to be angry at me i think, non sense.

if it's a fake or not, i don't mind too much, personaly i like to believe that it's a hendrix amp but this is me, and first of all, it sounds the way i like. it's not about who's right or wrong, it's just about a story i told here, rather than keep it secret : then, judgments are open, but if it's judged false, fake, then fine, no problem : but at least THAT'S what have been told to me.

No more than this. and it was interesting cause this amp sounded like monterey's amp, with an interesting serial number and a story behind.
After all, if peoples disagree with the story, they disagree with what the owner claims, you see ? and when i see that they didn't understand the story or miss parts, i tried to repeat it , so there's a better base to discuss on it, the purpose being to know what we're talking about exactly.

i don't have the intentions that peoples seem to think i have, if they read a bit closer, this is a misunderstanding, and i prefer to be clear and say this. their mistake, in the limits of my ability to write a proper english.

Same story for the blackflag amp i posted here, no difference : we can't know if it's a real jimi hendrix amp, but anyway, i brought it here. and at least, it was welcome much better !

This said, this is the amp i'm building, and i'll see where it leads me. My pleasure, and i'll post it here when the time will come. I also believe that swankmotee and many others surely have a very big experience in the amps and hendrix amps, that i don't have. My ears are open !