Neil Young's "Magic" 5E3

[Mike K]

Apparently he owns a very special '59 5E3 and has bought a number of others, but none have been as good as this one. Anyone know anymore lore about this? What recordings he used it on?


I did happen to stumble upon some info regarding another amp from that time which was a beefed up clone of the late Tweed Deluxe, the DeArmond 1x12. I did some research on this and it looks to be a 5e3 circuit with bigger power and output transformers. That seems to make sense.

That brought up the question of what the heck is on Neil's "special" 5E3... does it have a different OT? The DeArmond looks very much bigger than a 5e3 OT so I'd think that would be easy to notice, but perhaps Fender hit on a secret recipe for their own OTs in '59?

I haven't thought much about building any Volume-Tone late tweeds anymore, but this has kind of given me the bug again. Perhaps I just go all out and just put a real high quality 25-30W core on there and see how it goes. Or try it with a RS clone? As far as the PT maybe try a underwound BF Deluxe and see if that helps. The PSU and PT are so undersized for that amp it's hard to say anything wouldn't be an improvement.

Thoughts?

[Chuck H]

Since this is a subject of only vague interest (to me I mean) I'm not going to dig real deep looking for any realities on the matter, BUT... Neil Youngs gear tech was (is?) Larry Cragg. He's done A LOT of interviews regarding Neil's guitar and amp. Like so many strings of interviews and reports there seems to be some things inferred and/or forgotten so much of what's said about Neil's Deluxe seems to be speculation. Let's just say the amp is not stock. And yes, there are some inferences to a special output transformer. I think I read something about that on the Mercury Magnetics site once. That should interest you.?. Anyway... Look up Larry Cragg and read the interviews. Since this is the guy who actually kept the amp working this would be the ONLY trustworthy source of information. Everything else is just something someone said or said Larry said or tried that worked for them, etc. And none of that is reliable or based in fact.

And... I would not arbitrarily change to a BF Deluxe PT. The voltage will be to high for the hotter bias of the 5E3 and either spoil the tone or even damage the tubes or OT. The whole circuit would require modification to operate at higher voltages. I think I once read that Larry changed the famous Deluxe (Neil has many) to 6L6 tubes. Whether this had anything to do with different transformers or higher voltages I can't say.

[Mike K]

You are correct about that, and I've read a lot of his interviews, but there's nothing really definitive about what's so great about it. It is currently using 6L6s, which I have no interest in. Apparently it has the stock PT running with those, again, there I have no interest in creating a grenade. Lots of speculation about the OT, but no one knows. Apparently Fender did make a lot of different versions in the later years. My mention of a BF PT I did not mean I would use it stock, but have it underwound to provide lower voltage and a higher current spec. Perhaps not a bad idea if one were to swap in the 6L6s.

So really what had piqued me is the mention of this DeArmond 112 I found in one article. I read about, found the schematic, and looked into the transformer specs. The DeArmond is a modified 5E3 with a lower voltage PT that uses the same mounting footprint as 5E3 PT (it may be a larger stack, I don't know this). The OT is larger as well and is also lower load (6.7K vs 8-8.5K). There's some other tweaks in the amp that would surely change the tone and gain and I looked at sims for both. The DeArmond barely has the gain wide open that a 5E3 has at half volume on the Bright channel. Tonally the DeArmond cuts a lot of low bass but add in some low mids and highs.

The DeArmond seems like an interesting platform to tweak a bit. Perhaps if I continue with this, I'll start with the 5E3 circuit with DeArmond xfrmers and move to the DeArmond, and see if there is something I like or don't. I don't really love a stock 5E3, but perhaps with a bit of bass cut and a more stout OT, I'd like it better. At this point, it's curious but not something I'm sure I want to invest in.

[g1]

This might be a red-herring but 'THE Deluxe' also happens to be the one with the motorized whizzer set-up. You're not just going to throw that on to a sub.
Nor could you properly A/B it with the other four hundred or whatever 5E3's in his stable. It's in his best interest to think that way about it. Like he thinks about 'old black'.
I trust Neil's ears probably more than anyone else's, but maybe he's just hearing that extra 0.5% that us mere mortals would miss anyway.
I guess I'll have to go back and listen to the 'Dead Man' soundtrack or 'Arc' again to make sure.

[Mike K]

I’m not one to try to nail anyone’s tone, just more of a curiosity. I tend to sound like myself as much as anything no matter what I play.

But my kids recently were exposed to CSN(Y) and they love it. Then we started listening to NY as well. They are split on him. Anyway I had listened to all these tunes most my life but something struck me with Neil’s tone. I then looked up that his main amp was a 5E3. That blew me away. No way would I have guessed. I actually thought he had a pedal of some kind in most of what I believe was just his Deluxe.

in fairness I think a good deal of it may be his speaker. I’ve never played a 5e3 with a c12n or Weber equivalent. I’ve played around with a Weber 12a125a but it was too “quacky” for my taste.

[Chuck H]

This might be a red-herring but 'THE Deluxe' also happens to be the one with the motorized whizzer set-up.

Yep. The Whizzer... I haven't looked into it but someone probably makes one? The mystique certainly makes the effort marketable. FWIW, and this is just something I read in a Gerald Weber book, Neil uses the Whizzer to adjust the value of the normal channel as well as the other controls. He plugs into the bright channel. So he's remotely adjusting the tone of the amp via the interactive nature of the controls.

[Mike K]

The whizzer is relatively inconsequential for me. I'm not doing live renditions.

His #1 must be really special, because if I had over 100 5E3s, I'd probably just have 4 set up on the stage each with a different setting.

[Helmholtz]

Not really familiar with Neil Young's electric sound.
Can someone point me to a "representative" YT vid?

[Mike K]

Apparently a Falcon + Deluxe. Pretty much the most iconic of NYs dirt tones.

I have no idea what he uses on this CSNY tune, but NY plays the lead - this is what I thought must be a pedal due to it's sharp, raunchy tone. This might be his Deluxe though...

That Woodstock recording really stands out to me as iconic.


Who knows wtf these guys were using. The only thing I can be sure of it is was a lot of cocaine...

[Mike K]

I don't know if anyone looked into that DeArmond but I drew up a schematic of how I might build it. The original schematic shows 0.35M A volume pots and 0.65M A tone pots. I think using 500k A for the volume would be equivalent because of the way they are wired, you'd just hit full tilt a little less than wide open and have a small amount of grid resistance. As for the 0.65M, there isn't a good way to modify an audio taper IMO, so I'd say tack a 150k on the bottom end of a 500k seen as how on tweed controls I don't use the lower part of the tone sweep (that cuts treble and doesn't sound good IMO). I think in reality I'd probably just leave a 1M A like Fender and test the other to see if there is a notable difference.

The most practical mods are reducing the coupling cap values - which I've done on my own 5E3s, and I like that. I never went to 10n on the bright channel, only 22n and that into the 1M volume controls, so this would surely be much tighter. The 47n at the power amp is not a bad idea. I tend to never like 100n there - always seems too mushy to me pushed, no matter the tube. Other than that they snip the 25u bypass cap on the second gain stage and switch the first preamp tube to a 12AX7 vs 12AY7. Perhaps put the 25u on a switch - the DeArmond, even with the 12AX7 up front is light on gain.

The thing I can't readily predict in my head is how a 6.6k might sound vs the 8-8.5k of a stock tweed. A larger core would likely give the illusion of a fuller sound despite the added presence in the preamp. Lower load should in theory have less distortion, but also tends to work the PSU harder. Of which the DeArmond is a little more robust (I wouldn't run a 40u reservoir cap with a 5Y3 - 30u max there for me). They run the plates a bit lower on the 6V6 - perhaps underwound to lower the secondary DCR and lower the sag? Not sure. Perhaps for a little less headroom?

I added grid stoppers and screen resistors on the 6V6s - same as I use for these type of amps. I don't hear any tonal difference but perhaps saves the tubes a bit.

I don't have any 5E3s around right now but I have a sweet poplar cab that will fit a deluxe chassis, and a 5E3 chassis as well a set of NOS 6V6s that I used to use in my old Deluxe before I sold it (those tubes make a difference - they're Svetlanas, so not super high grade NOS, but still a lot better than any current production 6V6s).

[Helmholtz]

Not bypassing the second stage will lower gain by 6dB. Also less grid current distortion.
Of course you can always add a bypass cap later.

Lower Zaa tends to increase power output as long as the new loadline doesn't hit the Vgk= 0 plate curve above the knee.
Also increases plate dissipation.

[Mike K]

Not bypassing the second stage will lower gain by 6dB. Also less grid current distortion.
Of course you can always add a bypass cap later.

Lower Zaa tends to increase power output as long as the new loadline doesn't hit the Vgk= 0 plate curve above the knee.
Also increases plate dissipation.

I didn't draw a loadline, but I think it will hit above the knee - at least as I recall for that low of a load with 6V6s at those voltages. I've been wanting to work it out again but haven't got there yet.

Yeah - the bypass cap is questionable. In theory, that amp should have plenty of drive unbypassed (for instance a tweed Princeton with the NFB off and the second stage unbypassed has plenty of gain, this power amp doesn't have any more headroom).

I have a space on my 5E3 chassis where the "ground" switch goes. I was going to put a switch to bypass that second stage there but I'm thinking it might be better served if I put VVR on the amp and used that hole for the voltage control pot.

[Helmholtz]

I didn't draw a loadline, but I think it will hit above the knee - at least as I recall for that low of a load with 6V6s at those voltages. I've been wanting to work it out again but haven't got there yet.

Using this online calculator: https://www.vtadiy.com/loadline-calc...ge-calculator/ , shows that both loadlines hit above the knee.
As things reverse above the knee, 6.6k gives about 1.5W less than 8k.
Expect around 10W before clipping with 6.6k

[g1]

Not really familiar with Neil Young's electric sound.
Can someone point me to a "representative" YT vid?

His typical live electric sound stars about 1m30s in. There is quite a bit more to it than the Deluxe. Of course the other guitar gives him lots of leeway to go off on tangents.

[Mike K]

Using this online calculator: https://www.vtadiy.com/loadline-calc...ge-calculator/ , shows that both loadlines hit above the knee.
As things reverse above the knee, 6.6k gives about 1.5W less than 8k.
Expect around 10W before clipping with 6.6k

I get both below the knee, actually. It seems like you put in the full Ra-a for PP calculations, not half.

Also they both run a slightly different Va-k and Vg2-k: Typically 5E3 is 350/300+, the DeArmond I estimate would be about 320/290.

I'll do the calcs with LTspice. Both these are in AB and that sheet doesn't appear to calculate that, or at least not in any way that is making sense to me.