You Vote: BOG EL34 vs. 6550

Tone-Freak · Post by **Tone-Freak** » Sat Nov 29, 2008 9:29 am

I did not see any where in that article where he used a micrometer to measure the strings so I deffently believe it was 10-38 and the thinner 38 string folled him into thinking it was a .009 on the high E. Again I have personaly seen the inside of the woodstock amp and it has EL 34's this would most likely be the same amp for BOG since it was 4 mounths latter and in the same part of the country

carlygtr56 · Post by **carlygtr56** » Sat Nov 29, 2008 9:37 am

basile865 wrote:
And as far as the GP article, you've probably never read it, if you have you'd know its 2 pages of quotes from interviews with hendrix. No Im not saying he said he used 6550's, that was in a separate box of the article, but as far as being informative the rest of the whole article is straight from hendrix's mouth.

I'd love to respond to the "net twit" comment carly, but I wont because I like speaking with the down to earth, knowledgable people on this forum, unlike yourself. I really don't care that you've owned 5 of every boutique pedal ever made to sound like hendrix, you probably use an attenuator or dont go past 5 on the volume knob in your studio when youre doing hendrix covers.

EL34's most definately are less controlled in the lower frequencies than 6550's are, and if you play loud like he did, chances are you'd probably want a tube that can stay tighter louder as well. I guess the interview with the guitar tech who said he installed 6550's, and then the GP article which said the same, just made it up because they have a secret alliance with 6550 tube producers and they get a cut of all sales to the 5 people on metro amp who would give a damn about that.

yet the Woodstock head showed EL-34's

I indeed read the GP article when it came out, including the inane comment about how the guy noticed a filed groove in the fret to facilitate the sustained opening note in Foxy Lady LOL
...and NONE of the article's info came straight from Jimi's mouth. LOL

You have no idea how loud I play. Spare me your personal digs
Im around long enough to know it isnt a certain tube or box or a high E string gauge thats gonna magically make you sound like Jimi or anybody else.

basile865 · Post by **basile865** » Sat Nov 29, 2008 10:31 am

whatever GP article you're referring to is definitely not the one I have and am referring to, there is no bullshit talk about some filed down nut. What I have is an opening paragraph about who jimi was, in relation to all the classic greats, then its all quotes from him. Theres a small box on the top right that says his gear.

As far as the woodstock head having EL34s, I dont care. I'm not talking about woodstock.

And for how loud you play, that comment meant that chances are, you do not play up on 8 or 10 with EL34s because they dont sound nearly as focused, Atleast if trying to achieve a BOG sound.

carlygtr56 · Post by **carlygtr56** » Sat Nov 29, 2008 10:53 am

basile865 wrote:whatever GP article you're referring to is definitely not the one I have and am referring to, there is no bullshit talk about some filed down nut. What I have is an opening paragraph about who jimi was, in relation to all the classic greats, then its all quotes from him. Theres a small box on the top right that says his gear.

And for how loud you play, that comment meant that chances are, you do not play up on 8 or 10 with EL34s because they dont sound nearly as focused, Atleast if trying to achieve a BOG sound.

I read the original article when it came out. I didnt say a "filed down nut", did I?

"Chances are"? Chances are you dont have a clue as to what I do, so stop guessing.

Tone-Freak · Post by **Tone-Freak** » Sat Nov 29, 2008 1:59 pm

basile865 wrote: As far as the woodstock head having EL34s, I dont care. I'm not talking about woodstock.

And for how loud you play, that comment meant that chances are, you do not play up on 8 or 10 with EL34s because they dont sound nearly as focused, Atleast if trying to achieve a BOG sound.

Well the woodstock head is probably the same head as BOG since it was only 4 mounths earlier and also in NEW YORK so It does have some relevence. Also I play with my 68 super trem/lead with EL34's on 8 and it sounds great. Very close to BOG

basile865 · Post by **basile865** » Sat Nov 29, 2008 2:15 pm

woops carl, sorry there brother, I meant filed FRET. That wasn't in the article either though there chet. Post what you will, but my communication with you is severed from now on and I'm rising above this garbage.

I will post only on fruitful discussions and those who are chasing tone and working on their own to achieve this like a professional.

I am not saying EL34s are DEFINITELY not the tube, they very well could have been. Its just that based off my experience with them at loud volumes they're out of control. Whether or not the claims of hendrix using 6550's are true or false, they only add to my feeling that it was something other than an el34 on that night.

I think it could be el34's if perhaps he was not cranked that night, but if you have to play above 5-6, my choice would be a seperate tube whether or not he used them.

The woodstock sound was quite different, I know it was really the absence of a room that was the biggest influence, but really it could be a gig 12 hours after woodstock and he could be running different tubes ya know? So lets just leave it at that, its not worth arguing about output tubes. I'm just speaking my experience. Billy Batz on here gets a pretty legit who knows tone with the 6550. Give it a listen

carlygtr56 · Post by **carlygtr56** » Sat Nov 29, 2008 3:14 pm

Yup, The Woodstock sound was quite different. It was OUTSIDE . That might account for the difference when compared to the acoustics of the Fillmore East.

The filed 17th fret was in the ORIGINAL GP article and is not on the net.
You cant make it up as its so ridiculous.

Billy Batz · Post by **Billy Batz** » Sun Nov 30, 2008 10:41 am

Im just curious. Of all the guys whove posted on this thread from day one, how many have actually compared tubes?

There's no way to know for sure. I got to where I was regarding what I think of Hendrix BoG tone completely by force. In other words I wanted to think it was a JTM45/100 or a Super Bass which where the 2 rumors I read online that I really wanted to believe. I had to come to accept is was a super lead because I owned both an actual 69/70 Super Bass and my 1959 clone and, though you can get Jimi fine with both, clearly the Lead did better and clearly it does moreso than my 45/100 as well. Clearly to me anyway.

Lets try and sum up this thread.

The arguments as I see it are total conjecture:
for EL/34's
- The woodstock amp was tubed with EL34s.
- Marshalls come with EL34s so why think its 6550s based on superficial evidence. Very true.
for 6550s
- 6550s are in the Hendrix amp at the RR hall of Fame.
- The infamous article. He's either lying or he's not. He very specifically mentioned what it was he did than mentioned changing speakers. Thats a big lie to tell but certainly possible to drum up work.
Am I missing anything?

My argument to myself having come to the 6550 conclusion is is it really that crazy to think that in america a touring band would retube a marshall head with 6550s! That would be the tube. Back then they threw in any tube in amps and didnt even bother biasing half the time and forget matching sets.

And as for Tone-Freaks thesis. There were 3 heads just at the filmore shows. So what does "woodstock amp" mean? It could be any one of the 3. The one that was mic'd at the filmore couldve been anything and the others couldve wound up being the woodstock amp or any number of possibilities. Also was that amp in anyone elses hands between then and now? Are they the same tubes as BoG and Woodstock? Same for the Hall of Fame amp. At the end of the day you cant hang your hat on any of this stuff. How can anyone act like they know so much about total conjecture.

Much more important to me was actually trying both. But in the end the difference is not a night and day thing. If you cant get Jimi with a stock 1959 good luck putting in 6550s. Basile. Yeah I get a convincing BoG tone with 6550s but if you listen to the comparison clips youll hear the EL34s arent that different. But do I think they make the difference? To me they make that last few %.

We need to hire a private investigator. Lets start a fund raising thread for the purpose.

Tone Slinger · Post by **Tone Slinger** » Sun Nov 30, 2008 10:57 am

Great post Dan ! I think you mediated the topic perfectly.

Tone Slinger · Post by **Tone Slinger** » Sun Nov 30, 2008 11:04 am

According to the guy who did the work on Hendrix's amps, it was before the spring '69 tour (Starting in April I presume) . He said Hendrix told him that he liked the 6550 tubes better. This means Hendrix had them in some of his amps prior to that. This would explain the OBVIOUS 6550 tone he got at the Royal Albert Hall in January '69.

Tone-Freak · Post by **Tone-Freak** » Sun Nov 30, 2008 1:37 pm

Just curious where did you hear the Hendrix amp at the rock and roll hall of fame has 6550's in it I have never heard that before.

Is a 6550 the same as a 6L6 and can you just put them in and rebias or will there not be enough room on the bias pot

carlygtr56 · Post by **carlygtr56** » Sun Nov 30, 2008 2:58 pm

Tone Slinger wrote:According to the guy who did the work on Hendrix's amps, it was before the spring '69 tour (Starting in April I presume) . He said Hendrix told him that he liked the 6550 tubes better. This means Hendrix had them in some of his amps prior to that. This would explain the OBVIOUS 6550 tone he got at the Royal Albert Hall in January '69.

obvious to you maybe

Those amps were pretty dirty at the RAH, even with the fuzz off. Not a trait of a high headroom tube Im afraid.

basile865 · Post by **basile865** » Sun Nov 30, 2008 3:08 pm

heyyyyyyyyy, GREAT post dan.

There is nothing left to be said of it until someone else says hey I just ran some 6550's and i love/hate it.

I've been personally considering KT88's because a lot of people say theyre warmer than a 6550. Im not suggesting jimi used it, I'm just considering it personally.

Honestly, I love EL34 tone, just at lower volume levels. Once it gets up there in volume I dont like it so much. If a KT88 or some other tube would emulate the EL34 clean, slightly compressed thump, but just have the ability to do it at a higher volume, THATS my tube.

Tone-Freak · Post by **Tone-Freak** » Sun Nov 30, 2008 4:26 pm

Hendrix also had one head he favored which he nicknamed the Govenor. It is amp serial #12361 he modded it to where it was not a split cathode amp but a shared (which would have cleaned it up even with EL34's) but left it bright here are some pictures of it.
Hendrix's favorite the Govenor

notice the yellow wire making it shared from split and bright cap still intact

And here is a gut shot of a 10xxx series Hendrix amp still split and bright cap intact

basile865 · Post by **basile865** » Sun Nov 30, 2008 4:39 pm

Hey, cool man.

Interesting combination, shared cathode and a bright cap. Never heard about him having a favorite amp nick- named guvenor. That is essentially a super bass with a bright cap correct? Maybe that old super bass speculation has some truth to it dan.

On a side note, I wonder if marshall's pedal named the guv'nor has anything to do with that amp. Maybe an inside story to that.

Where did you learn about these two and get the gut shots, at the museum?

Metropoulos Forum

You Vote: BOG EL34 vs. 6550

Do you feel the Band of Gypsies tone is El34s or 6550s?

Re: You Vote: BOG EL34 vs. 6550

Re: You Vote: BOG EL34 vs. 6550

Re: You Vote: BOG EL34 vs. 6550

Re: You Vote: BOG EL34 vs. 6550

Re: You Vote: BOG EL34 vs. 6550

Re: You Vote: BOG EL34 vs. 6550

Re: You Vote: BOG EL34 vs. 6550

Re: You Vote: BOG EL34 vs. 6550

Re: You Vote: BOG EL34 vs. 6550

Re: You Vote: BOG EL34 vs. 6550

Re: You Vote: BOG EL34 vs. 6550

Re: You Vote: BOG EL34 vs. 6550

Re: You Vote: BOG EL34 vs. 6550

Re: You Vote: BOG EL34 vs. 6550

Re: You Vote: BOG EL34 vs. 6550