Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 35 of 37
Like Tree25Likes

Thread: SF Twin Reverb (UL).. few Q's

  1. #1
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    1,176

    SF Twin Reverb (UL).. few Q's

    Hi chaps-

    picked up a bargain SF Twin Reverb, ultralinear 135w beast recently.. & while its at my amp man for repair (a dogs dinner "BF mod" done to the poor thing, shorted tubes & screen R's went pop: so its being serviced & put back as stock, new grid & screen R's & new matched quad of JJ 6L6's, doghouse recap).. I've a few Q's.

    My amp man says doghouse caps orig (silver mallory) & read '78.. but chassis tells me '75. What the dickens?

    The spkrs are 50w jensen RI C12N's (BF mod rewired tubes for pentode or s'thing or other, ie 1/2 power 65w anyway, hence these spkrs put in). Any probs having 'only' 100w total? I'll never be diming the thing.

    It has a repro BF faceplate (vg quality, I have a DR one with the same pre cbs spiel on).. so I can't tell whether it ever had an MV, as this obvioulsy isn't poss with no hole on the BF faceplate. So, I really need to ID the age of amp > then determine if it falls in the 'defo had an MV' range of dates.

    Lastly I see this interesting (similar SF twin) YTube clip, saying 'reverb undone/ rca patchcord from in to out.. gives OD boost' here anyway: safe/ general thoughts? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wuoZEPk_f6A

    Thx for any help, Sea Chief

  2. #2
    Old Timer
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Chill-Ville, VA
    Posts
    2,173
    "SF Twin Reverb, ultralinear 135w beast"
    I will take this as a "given" for my answers to the rest of your questions.

    "My amp man says doghouse caps orig (silver mallory) & read '78.. but chassis tells me '75."
    What do the transformers and pot codes say? This will confirm or deny the caps. Also - Fender bought caps by the bazillions. Sure, some could have sat around for 3 years in a bin somewhere before being used. Same for pots and trannies and any other parts.
    WHAT on the chassis dates your amp as a 75? Serial numbers cannot be used this late in the game, and any tube charts in the cab were never to be trusted entirely. And even if there is a stamp inside saying "75" or whatever, that's likely to be totally random. As far as I know, Fender never directly dated a chassis.

    "The spkrs are 50w jensen RI C12N's (BF mod rewired tubes for pentode or s'thing or other, ie 1/2 power 65w anyway, hence these spkrs put in). Any probs having 'only' 100w total? I'll never be diming the thing."
    If you are indeed restoring it to 135W stock, then you may well likely go o w your 100W worth of speakers, domed or not.
    A Fender or Marshall 100W can put out 100W long before you can perceive it. And depending on how efficient those speakers are, you may never even HEAR 50W let alone a full 135.

    Basically, if I take it on faith that you are truly restoring a 135W Twin Reverb to "stock," then, hell no it's not safe to use with 100W of speakers.

    "It has a repro BF faceplate (vg quality, I have a DR one with the same pre cbs spiel on).. so I can't tell whether it ever had an MV, as this obvioulsy isn't poss with no hole on the BF faceplate. So, I really need to ID the age of amp > then determine if it falls in the 'defo had an MV' range of dates."
    Fender Master Volumes were issued in 1974. So EVERY Twin Reverb from 1974 til 1981 came with a Master Volume. Look behind the faceplate, bet you'll see unused hole where the Master Volume used to be.

    "Lastly I see this interesting (similar SF twin) YTube clip, saying 'reverb undone/ rca patchcord from in to out.. gives OD boost' here anyway: safe/ general thoughts?"
    This used to be an "effect" called an "Ice Cube." It was a 470k resistor between two RCA jacks. It's the same thing Fender used to implement their notorious/infamous "Pull Boost," switching the reverb tank out for that resistor. General consensus is that it sounds like butt-ass-crap. I tried it once, good if you're into Ted Nugent and don't mind 10x the noise and hiss.

    Justin
    Chuck H and eschertron like this.
    "Are you practicing in the lobby of the municipal library? It's still a guitar amp and it SHOULD make some noise (!!!)" - Chuck H. -
    "When receiving a shock I emit a strange loud high pitched girlish squeak." - Alex R -
    "All I ever managed to do with that amp was... kill small rodents within a 50 yard radius of my practice building." - Tone Meister -

  3. #3
    Supporting Member Randall's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Cape Coral, FL
    Posts
    1,265
    "As far as I know, Fender never directly dated a chassis."

    Not so. Fender absolutely stamped chassis date codes. A 75 Twin Reverb would range from A81000 to A99999, or B01000 to B15000 for example.
    Justin Thomas likes this.
    It's weird, because it WAS working fine.....

  4. #4
    Better Tone thru Mathematics bob p's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Chicago, USA
    Posts
    3,732

    There are no "ultralinear" Fender Twins.

    I'm going to chime in with a comment that may not be all that helpful, but I think it's important to say because there's so much misinformation being propagated on the Internet:

    There are no "ultralinear" Fender Twins.

    Fender actually designed those amps to run in distributed-load mode. Distributed-load mode is used to increase the power output of the tubes, while ultralinear mode is intended to provide optimal power coincident with decreased distortion. These two totally different objectives are achieved by using different turns ratios/tapping points in the transformers.

    It's unfortunate, but someone who didn't know what he was talking about gave the 70s Fender amps an "ultralinear" branding out of ignorance; because most people look at the wiring topology while ignoring the transformer specs that incorrect labeling has since become internet-sticky.

    What's most sad about this is that the misinformation has become so pervasive that even the transformer companies are now selling UL replacement OTs for Fenders, which were never UL in the first place.
    "Stand back, I'm holding a calculator." - chinrest

  5. #5
    Better Tone thru Mathematics bob p's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Chicago, USA
    Posts
    3,732


    I found this image in the 1951 patent application for Ultralinear operation by Halfler & Keroes. The image represents the difference in operating conditions as a function of the impedance of the screen tap on the transformer primary winding. The dashed bar indicates the operating point chosen by H&K for their UL patent. I added the green bar to represent the lower impedance corresponding to the 12.5% turns ratio that was used by Fender in their distributed load amps.

    The diagram illustrates that H&K chose optimal points for low-distortion operation. Their choice of 20% impedance (~43% turns ratio) corresponds to the nadir for IM distortion (C) and (D) while trading off a bit of power (B). In contrast, Fender chose a much lower percentage of primary turns to achieve maximum power (B) and they accepted greater distortion to get it (C)(D).

    UL is about minimizing distortion.
    DL is about maximizing power.
    Last edited by bob p; 09-20-2017 at 11:14 PM.
    potatofarmer likes this.
    "Stand back, I'm holding a calculator." - chinrest

  6. #6
    Old Timer
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Chill-Ville, VA
    Posts
    2,173
    UL, Ultra-Linear, Underwriters' Labaratories, Uber-Load... :O
    "Are you practicing in the lobby of the municipal library? It's still a guitar amp and it SHOULD make some noise (!!!)" - Chuck H. -
    "When receiving a shock I emit a strange loud high pitched girlish squeak." - Alex R -
    "All I ever managed to do with that amp was... kill small rodents within a 50 yard radius of my practice building." - Tone Meister -

  7. #7
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    1,176
    Thx for help chaps- so I'm still not sure whether I can date the amp by the chassis (75) or caps, or xfmrs.. I guess there's a difference of opinion here on this. I dont have amp to hand, its at prob one of if not the very best amp-builder in UK.. so its in good hands/ will be well serviced. He didn't make any major concern re. the spkrs 'if you don't whack it up' (which I won't by a very long chalk) that is, so again a difference of opinion to Justin.

    Yes I saw the MV hole, but chassis likely made on mass with all holes/ then this one covered by faceplate -if- different versions with/ w'out the MV.. was what I was thinking. Ok so it had an MV. The one thing I can't redo as it'll totally ruin the BF faceplate.. shame.

    So didn't the clip sound any good? odd I thought it sounded pretty interesting & very far from 'butt-ass-crap' so I'm not sure why you say this. Is this safe to do if I want tho? I couldn't care much about added hum or noise unless totally ott.. clip doesn't point to anything nasty added afaict.

    UL.. I'll leave this for debate, way over my head apart from its a bigger cleaner TR beastie.. hence being affordable s/h.

    Thanks alot- SC

  8. #8
    Supporting Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Staffordshire UK
    Posts
    3,165
    Quote Originally Posted by bob p View Post
    ...UL is about minimizing distortion.
    DL is about maximizing power.
    Not disagreeing with how you've characterised the implementations, but my understanding was that UL was a specific case of DL, eg any OT with a primary tap for g2 was DL, with tap at a specific point for that tube being UL; the UL tap point being different for different tube types, I think the 6V6 is only 20%.

    The overdrive in the clip sounded ok, though I'd be surprised if some of the plethora of pedals wouldn't serve better.
    However, I suspect that the degree overdrive in the clip relies on there being a master volume available, and its tone requires the pull boost circuit (which includes some treble reduction before the master volume, in boost mode).

  9. #9
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    1,176
    Well, I recently bought a costly 160 'OKKO diablo' as distortion was an itch I do fee the need to scratch.. & altho I have to use an attenuator to get ~fairly good results with my DR alone, I was told a good OD pedal would be much better, this was meant to cover all manner of tones. Not even remotely close: no touch sensitivity, the bass seemed to evaporate once on compared to off: it was chalk & cheese to my DR. One 'organic', the pedal just 'fake distortion', just about unuseable/ very uninspiring. The reason I dont just use the attenuator is A) its a quickly made diy attenuator which does sap the treble, & B) the wear on the tubes. Sold pedal for 90 a few weeks ater.. but I could do w'out pouring 70 down the drain on awful pedals.

  10. #10
    Supporting Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Staffordshire UK
    Posts
    3,165
    Be warned that the taper on the original pots of these was quite steep; so without the MV, setting a reasonable (eg domestic/small venue) volume level may be something of a hair trigger.

  11. #11
    Old Timer
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Chill-Ville, VA
    Posts
    2,173
    Seachief,

    I tried the reverb bypass in a Dual Showman Reverb, a pretty different amp. The sound in the clip was passable, but I can chalk my impressions up to a YouTube video. If I ever get a 135W TR to try myself, I will be happy to.

    I guess my question is, is it truly being restored to stock, or only partially? The MV may be necessary to get the sound in the video - in the video, he set the Master low AND had to use the Pull Boost. That said, FWIW, in 1980, most Fender amps were available in a choice of BF or SF cosmetics. The logos on the BF were horizontal instead of slanted. Also, it's not a crime to put a hole in a repro faceplate. And if your amp guy is as good as you say, it should be no problem at all.

    Justin
    "Are you practicing in the lobby of the municipal library? It's still a guitar amp and it SHOULD make some noise (!!!)" - Chuck H. -
    "When receiving a shock I emit a strange loud high pitched girlish squeak." - Alex R -
    "All I ever managed to do with that amp was... kill small rodents within a 50 yard radius of my practice building." - Tone Meister -

  12. #12
    Old Timer
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Chill-Ville, VA
    Posts
    2,173
    Quote Originally Posted by pdf64 View Post
    Be warned that the taper on the original pots of these was quite steep; so without the MV, setting a reasonable (eg domestic/small venue) volume level may be something of a hair trigger.
    Not to mention, the definition of "bedroom volume" varies by individual. I consider a Bassman head on 7 through a 2x15" to be acceptable bedroom volume.

    I seem to remember you having a pesky neighbor, chief...

    Justin
    Last edited by Justin Thomas; 09-21-2017 at 02:50 PM.
    "Are you practicing in the lobby of the municipal library? It's still a guitar amp and it SHOULD make some noise (!!!)" - Chuck H. -
    "When receiving a shock I emit a strange loud high pitched girlish squeak." - Alex R -
    "All I ever managed to do with that amp was... kill small rodents within a 50 yard radius of my practice building." - Tone Meister -

  13. #13
    Better Tone thru Mathematics bob p's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Chicago, USA
    Posts
    3,732
    Quote Originally Posted by Sea Chief View Post
    Yes I saw the MV hole, but chassis likely made on mass with all holes/ then this one covered by faceplate -if- different versions with/ w'out the MV.. was what I was thinking.
    Fender did that in the 70s -- they'd manufacture one chassis and use it on several amp models. Those models that didn't use all of the holes simply covered them by the face plate. This tells us two things:

    1. You can't necessarily ID the original amp model by it's chassis, because one chassis was used for several models. For example, my Bassman 10 was built into a Bandmaster chassis. All of the holes for the bandmaster are there: pots, transformer mounts, etc.

    2. You can date the amp by the appearance of the MV hole on the far right by the pilot lamp. That MV hole didn't exist on any model prior to the introduction of the MV amps. (Yeah, I know that was obvious...)
    Last edited by bob p; 09-21-2017 at 07:30 PM.
    J M Fahey likes this.
    "Stand back, I'm holding a calculator." - chinrest

  14. #14
    Better Tone thru Mathematics bob p's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Chicago, USA
    Posts
    3,732
    Quote Originally Posted by pdf64 View Post
    Not disagreeing with how you've characterised the implementations, but my understanding was that UL was a specific case of DL, eg any OT with a primary tap for g2 was DL, with tap at a specific point for that tube being UL; the UL tap point being different for different tube types, I think the 6V6 is only 20%.
    Agreed! Thanks for clarifying that -- I could have worded it better and I appreciate you doing that for everyone.

    Technically the Fender implementation would be a specific subset of DL, and UL would also be a specific subset of DL (without overlap in the Venn diagram). Because the two implementations were designed for different objectives, IMO it's wrong to say that Fender ever made any UL amps. According to the H&K definition of UL in their patent and their HiFi embodiment, UL is a specific case where that tap location is chosen such that distortion is minimized. My point was to say that Fender never built UL guitar amps. Fender wasn't after lowest distortion, they were after highest power output.
    Last edited by bob p; 09-21-2017 at 08:20 PM. Reason: Venn diagram
    pdf64 likes this.
    "Stand back, I'm holding a calculator." - chinrest

  15. #15
    Old Timer Leo_Gnardo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Dogpatch-on-Hudson
    Posts
    4,351
    Quote Originally Posted by bob p View Post
    My point was to say that Fender never built UL guitar amps. Fender wasn't after lowest distortion, they were after highest power output.
    But ... if you DID want a low distortion amp you could swap in say a Dynaco Mk III output transformer, yes? I've seen it done. Also consider the Sunn amps that did use Dyna OT iron.

    Good discussion & clarification thanks to bob p & others.

    And chief, I remember that sensitive-eared neighbor of yours too. How's he getting along with your 135W Twin? Has he gone completely deef, or moved on to West Undershirt?
    bob p likes this.

  16. #16
    Better Tone thru Mathematics bob p's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Chicago, USA
    Posts
    3,732
    It's funny that you mention using HiFi iron, Leo. YES, you could definitely swap-in Dyna Mk III iron. It would produce good results.

    What's funny is that I've seen a lot of people swapping in Hammond UL HiFi iron over the years in Twins, effectively performing the same DL to UL conversion ... The problem is that these people are doing the DL -> UL conversion and changing the operating point of the amp without even knowing it because they think the amps are already operating in UL mode!

    I have to wonder if these people mistakenly converting the amps to operate in UL mode might be responsible for some of the talk about why BF amps are superior to UL Fenders. That kind of talk was never accurate in the era of unmodded SF amps, though it's probably becoming true as more people mistakenly swap UL iron into SF amps needing service. Then they end up comparing the tone of their favorite BF amps to SF amps that never were.
    "Stand back, I'm holding a calculator." - chinrest

  17. #17
    Old Timer Leo_Gnardo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Dogpatch-on-Hudson
    Posts
    4,351
    Quote Originally Posted by bob p View Post
    I have to wonder if these people mistakenly converting the amps to operate in UL mode might be responsible for some of the talk about why BF amps are superior to UL Fenders. That kind of talk was never accurate in the era of unmodded SF amps, though it's probably becoming true as more people mistakenly swap UL iron into SF amps needing service. Then they end up comparing the tone of their favorite BF amps to SF amps that never were.
    Some, maybe. But I remember as soon as the silver-face amps appeared, we didn't like 'em as much. Could be the look as much, or even more than the sound. I was only in my mid teens . . . 50 years ago . . . seems like yesterday. But I've revised my view over the years, if it sounds good it is good. Plus a good player can sound good thru any competent amp. I still prefer the look of Fender's "blackface" amps but advise my customers to not overlook a bargain price on the silvers which by and large still sell at sleeper prices.

    I wonder if those who convert to actual UL mode really notice any difference, or is it a matter of "emperor's new clothes" iow "I spent a couple hundred $$$ making the change, obviously it sounds better! You do agree, don't you?" Without being able to do a quick A/B comparison how can one really know? The ear has a short memory. And the degree of difference in distortion between UL and Fender's DL transformers is likely swamped by the distortion created by any speaker pushed to the 100W mark and beyond.
    bob p likes this.

  18. #18
    Senior Member potatofarmer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    341
    Quote Originally Posted by bob p View Post
    The diagram illustrates that H&K chose optimal points for low-distortion operation. Their choice of 20% impedance (~43% turns ratio) corresponds to the nadir for IM distortion (C) and (D) while trading off a bit of power (B). In contrast, Fender chose a much lower percentage of primary turns to achieve maximum power (B) and they accepted greater distortion to get it (C)(D).

    UL is about minimizing distortion.
    DL is about maximizing power.
    Well... Neither UL or DL will make as much power as "regular" pentode-mode operation. With the possible exception of the KT88 that ostensibly gets an insignificant boost in output. My guess is that they went with the odd choice of DL tap that they did in order to protect the screens while they pushed the plate voltage over the 500V mark. It also keeps the tone pretty close to pentode-mode, though it does increase headroom and improve damping factor.

    The Mullard EL34 datasheet does list characteristics at 20% and 43% of the turns if you want to maximize power or minimize distortion. The target plate-to-plate impedance also changes - roughly double what is typically used in guitar amps. I will say that a quad of EL34 through a 3k3 Harman-Kardon Citation 2 output transformer is a wonderful thing.

    Quote Originally Posted by bob p View Post
    I have to wonder if these people mistakenly converting the amps to operate in UL mode might be responsible for some of the talk about why BF amps are superior to UL Fenders. That kind of talk was never accurate in the era of unmodded SF amps, though it's probably becoming true as more people mistakenly swap UL iron into SF amps needing service. Then they end up comparing the tone of their favorite BF amps to SF amps that never were.
    It's possible. The DL connection does introduce some additional NFB though. CBS also started paying attention to grid leak specs so that meant different plate loads on the LTP to drive the lowered input impedance. On top of that the wiring is just awful, so a greater amount of noise or parasitics might play into it. Also those terrible J-taper 30% audio pots really do make it difficult to dial in. And the Utah speakers aren't very good. But other than that...

    A UL output transformer would be fine; not sure if the Dynaco Mk 3 would be the best choice as it's 4.3k. There are some simulated plate characteristics graphs out there: The 6L6 / 5881 Tube

    (oh and thanks for posting on my blog; I really should link the articles better and hopefully I gave everyone credit that I should've)

    As for the OP's questions:

    If it's a 135W Twin, those were only made from the late 70s through early 80s. The Ampwares page says '77-'82 - Fender Silverface Twin Reverb | Ampwares

    All the 135W Twins had a master volume with the not-well-liked pull boost.

    A good safe rule of thumb is have your speaker wattage at least double what the amp is rated at. My 135W Twin had the original Utah speakers which were Jensen-type 50W. The cones had gotten moldy and torn so I wound up reconing the baskets, and sure enough there were burn marks on the voice coils. On the other hand, they lasted 30+ years.
    bob p likes this.

  19. #19
    Better Tone thru Mathematics bob p's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Chicago, USA
    Posts
    3,732
    Quote Originally Posted by potatofarmer View Post
    The Mullard EL34 datasheet does list...
    Have you got a nice, clean copy of the Mullard EL34 data sheet? I must have a half-dozen Mullard EL34 data sheets which are all crappy scans of xeroxes.

    (oh and thanks for posting on my blog; I really should link the articles better and hopefully I gave everyone credit that I should've)
    Maybe I just didn't read enough, but I never realized that that was your blog. I didn't see anything that connected your name on the blog and your screen name here.

    I always get a kick out of it when I find a blog post that mentions me. That is, when the blog mentions me in a favorable way...
    "Stand back, I'm holding a calculator." - chinrest

  20. #20
    Supporting Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Staffordshire UK
    Posts
    3,165
    This seems reasonable quality to me http://www.mif.pg.gda.pl/homepages/f...129/e/EL34.pdf

  21. #21
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    1,176
    Quote Originally Posted by Justin Thomas View Post
    Not to mention, the definition of "bedroom volume" varies by individual. I consider a Bassman head on 7 through a 2x15" to be acceptable bedroom volume.

    I seem to remember you having a pesky neighbor, chief...

    Justin
    Ah no.. Ive moved! Im in relative luxury now, detatched house with 2ft thick stone walls.. I can ramp the vol up a fair bit/ but its not pleasant, not for me as a rule.. Im solidly middleaged now (on occasion its fun say with a borrowed 6g3, which alas even as a lovely built Marsh kit with brown cab etc, & offered to me to buy off a mate, was twice what this TR cost me).

    My intention isn't neccessarily to put back 100% stock.. just redo the dogs dinner BF mods back to SF stock that's all
    (so there's no undue strain on xfmrs or tubes where there shouldn't be). An added MV would be slap bang in the 'twin- reverb, amp' logo bit.. so would ruin the look totally/ no way even if it woud be useful to me. I might well add it in the back s'where tho.

    Ive read the UL 135w type isn't a correct platform to revert to BF anyway, whereby the 80w version colud be.. is that correct?

  22. #22
    Supporting Member Chuck H's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    pacific north west
    Posts
    11,898
    Quote Originally Posted by bob p View Post
    I'm going to chime in with a comment that may not be all that helpful, but I think it's important to say because there's so much misinformation being propagated on the Internet:

    There are no "ultralinear" Fender Twins.

    Fender actually designed those amps to run in distributed-load mode. Distributed-load mode is used to increase the power output of the tubes, while ultralinear mode is intended to provide optimal power coincident with decreased distortion. These two totally different objectives are achieved by using different turns ratios/tapping points in the transformers.

    It's unfortunate, but someone who didn't know what he was talking about gave the 70s Fender amps an "ultralinear" branding out of ignorance; because most people look at the wiring topology while ignoring the transformer specs that incorrect labeling has since become internet-sticky.

    What's most sad about this is that the misinformation has become so pervasive that even the transformer companies are now selling UL replacement OTs for Fenders, which were never UL in the first place.
    I am impressed and in agreement, BUT...

    For the purposes of this post and recognizing common nomenclature, screens fed from taps on the OT has, with this amp model anyway, typically been called "the UL Twin". Maybe we don't need to get into a semantic or pedantic debate. And I appreciate you calling attention to the actuality because "I" had never respected the difference before.
    "The man is an incompetent waste of human flesh. He should donate his organs now to someone who might actually make good use of them." The Dude re: maybe I shouldn't say, but his name rhymes with Trump

    "...less ear-friendly but handy for jazz." Leo_Gnardo

  23. #23
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    1,176
    Im not really understanding the ul/ dl debate, so I'll not comment..

    Whilst waiting for my amp to come back from repair, I tried my DR head into -one- of the (jensen RI C12N) spkrs: sounded good but then after a while some loud odd 'interference' started, strange snowstorm + weird swishing sounds.. so prominent I had to turn off. No silimar noise switching back into my DR cab (2-10 jensen RI's).

    Any idea what this could be? Ive never come across this before.

  24. #24
    Old Timer J M Fahey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Buenos Aires, Argentina
    Posts
    9,325
    I guess you killed your speaker.
    Head was not damaged, since you tested with the 210, but ... did you retest the single 12" after that?
    You do not say so.
    Chuck H likes this.
    Juan Manuel Fahey

  25. #25
    Supporting Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Staffordshire UK
    Posts
    3,165
    In itself, snow tends to fall rather quietly - maybe thinking of accompanying high winds?

    Are you certain that the load impedances are the same (usually 8 ohms for a DR) in both cases?
    It's always good to verify what any labelling says with a meter.

  26. #26
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    1,176
    I was accompanying my snowstorm with additional moderate/ severe winds.. you'd expect to find in a snowstorm. pdf64. yes.

    No this is like a swoooishh!!SHHHHHH!!whirrrrrrrrrrywhizzzzssswooooshh.. (you get the idea) sound.

    Defo one of the twin's 8ohm spkrs > DR, measures 6.5 etc.

  27. #27
    Supporting Member Chuck H's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    pacific north west
    Posts
    11,898
    And now that you've found the amp still sounds fine with the 2x10 cab, did you ever revisit that single C12n as Juan suggested? It may be damaged.
    "The man is an incompetent waste of human flesh. He should donate his organs now to someone who might actually make good use of them." The Dude re: maybe I shouldn't say, but his name rhymes with Trump

    "...less ear-friendly but handy for jazz." Leo_Gnardo

  28. #28
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    1,176
    Yes put it back via one of the c12n's.. & get these weird noises: only after a while tho. Ive never heard anything like it, & I can't match it to any usual dmgd spkr symptoms. Reads 6.5 ohms both do.

  29. #29
    Supporting Member Chuck H's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    pacific north west
    Posts
    11,898
    Well the speaker is the common denominator in problem occurrence right now. Can you test the speaker with another amp at similar output for the same time?
    "The man is an incompetent waste of human flesh. He should donate his organs now to someone who might actually make good use of them." The Dude re: maybe I shouldn't say, but his name rhymes with Trump

    "...less ear-friendly but handy for jazz." Leo_Gnardo

  30. #30
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    1,176
    Hi there Chuck- tried again.. no noises. Very strange. It sounded like severe 'interference', pointing twds the amp. But Ive never had any noise at all similar with my 2-10 cabinet (my usual DR cab). I don't have another amp to try alas. Odd.

  31. #31
    Supporting Member Chuck H's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    pacific north west
    Posts
    11,898
    There's always the possibility it was a coincidence. Something else was happening, not as a result of the speaker being used but simultaneously. Like that scene in All of Me where the guru thinks flushing the toilet makes the phone ring.
    bob p likes this.
    "The man is an incompetent waste of human flesh. He should donate his organs now to someone who might actually make good use of them." The Dude re: maybe I shouldn't say, but his name rhymes with Trump

    "...less ear-friendly but handy for jazz." Leo_Gnardo

  32. #32
    Better Tone thru Mathematics bob p's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Chicago, USA
    Posts
    3,732
    For me it's not flushing the toilet that makes the phone ring ... it's sitting on the toilet that makes the phone ring. Or getting into the shower ... or starting to solder something in a tight space ...

    It's annoying but I try not to worry about it -- most of the time my phone ringing is caused by a telemarketer who I'd rather not talk to. If it's anyone who is important they will call back.
    "Stand back, I'm holding a calculator." - chinrest

  33. #33
    Old Timer Leo_Gnardo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Dogpatch-on-Hudson
    Posts
    4,351
    Quote Originally Posted by bob p View Post
    For me it's not flushing the toilet that makes the phone ring ... it's sitting on the toilet that makes the phone ring. Or getting into the shower ... or starting to solder something in a tight space ...

    It's annoying but I try not to worry about it -- most of the time my phone ringing is caused by a telemarketer who I'd rather not talk to. If it's anyone who is important they will call back.
    Stepping outdoors makes my phone ring. Soon as I'm out of earshot of the bell, someone calls, guaranteed. Often a customer who won't leave a message because they're worried it will bother me...

    Like you bob when I'm otherwise occupied inside the house, the caller is inevitably that nitwit who claims he's "with the police" begging for a cash donation, or dingaling claiming he's Microsoft and my computer is infected and "needs fix," or the subcontinental scammer who says he's IRS and wants me to buy I-tunes cards to settle my tax debt or I'll be arrested. People in need of summary execution in other words.

  34. #34
    Supporting Member Chuck H's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    pacific north west
    Posts
    11,898
    I always mess with the guys that call to tell me my poot is infected. Usually it's someone with a thick Indian accent. I say things like "Oh no! Really? Ok, what should I do?" I fuss around like I'm looking for my password and start a conversation about some weirdness. "You know, I think it's in the other room, but my dog scares me. He doesn't see very well and sometimes he'll try to bite me if I go in there!" Insert more obtuse answers to whatever transpires next. Sometimes getting back around to the dog and maybe how bad he smells. Then I'll start calling them "lentil man" eventually they'll ask why and I explain that it's "Because you remind me of a small bean". I'm usually speaking in my best faux Indian accent by this time. Having morphed into it slowly. Then I'll ask them "Why are you like a small bean?" (Full goof ball Indian accent now)... etc. They often figure out I'm dicking with them early on, but not always.
    "The man is an incompetent waste of human flesh. He should donate his organs now to someone who might actually make good use of them." The Dude re: maybe I shouldn't say, but his name rhymes with Trump

    "...less ear-friendly but handy for jazz." Leo_Gnardo

  35. #35
    Old Timer
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Chill-Ville, VA
    Posts
    2,173
    If your poot is infected, I don't know, I might think I'd go see a doctor about that...

    Okay, maybe we should at least try to aim in the general direction of the target now...

    Justin
    Chuck H likes this.
    "Are you practicing in the lobby of the municipal library? It's still a guitar amp and it SHOULD make some noise (!!!)" - Chuck H. -
    "When receiving a shock I emit a strange loud high pitched girlish squeak." - Alex R -
    "All I ever managed to do with that amp was... kill small rodents within a 50 yard radius of my practice building." - Tone Meister -

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. UL Vibrosonic (Twin Reverb) Phase Inverter question
    By cejay825 in forum Maintenance, Troubleshooting & Repair
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 09-24-2014, 04:38 PM
  2. 1979 Silverface Twin Reverb UL 135w mystery pot inside amp
    By sleepingAwake in forum Maintenance, Troubleshooting & Repair
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 06-09-2012, 08:23 AM
  3. Replies: 6
    Last Post: 10-31-2010, 10:28 PM
  4. Replies: 22
    Last Post: 09-24-2010, 03:33 AM
  5. SF MV Twin Reverb 120 HZ hum in reverb circuit
    By booj in forum Maintenance, Troubleshooting & Repair
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 06-28-2010, 03:55 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •