Rare Ibanez Starfire VT-50

[nickb]

This has come to me for some work. As I understand it only 100 of these were made for Ibanez by Laney. I thought some might be interested or just to document for posterity, here are some pics and a schematic that I drew up. The preamp is rather unusual in that the tone stack is last in chain. This means that even the clean channel has rather a lot of gain. The final clean stage V2A is heavily loaded by the gain pot and the tone stack and can only manage about 70Vpp out. I tried a 12AT7 and was able to get that to 90Vpp. Also, the use of highish voltage transistors to do the reverb and final mix / buffer is not something you see every day.

There is heavy negative feedback around the power amp which means the clean channel cannot provide sufficient drive to get clean to full power out.







Starfire VT50.pdf

[nickb]

Hmm,, the pdf schematic attachment does not seem to have worked. Let me try that again
Starfire VT50.pdf

[J M Fahey]

Cool.
I repaired one long ago (WTF was it doing in Argentina )
No mention of Ibanez anywhere, described as "Starfield, a Boutique British amp"
Killer sound, but weird amp.
ZERO data on it, of course, had to work blind ... as usual
I find Polytone clumsy and poorly laid out, imagine exact same but made with Tubes: crazy!!!
Oh, it had EL34, not 5881.
You show a rebadged HH (Laney) speaker, the one I repaired had a Celestion.
Oh well.

[nickb]

The guys who owns it was the one who seems confident about the Ibanez connection, but like you, I see no mention of it. He also said they were made on the Laney line which seems to make sense.

I suspect EL34's that yoy saw are the right tube. With 500V+ on the plates and 50W out it's would be a hard life for 5881's. Plus the bias pot was almost at one end.

[DrGonz78]

The guys who owns it was the one who seems confident about the Ibanez connection, but like you, I see no mention of it. He also said they were made on the Laney line which seems to make sense.

We just had a request for a starfield vt100 schematic. It seems this thread got the name of the amp wrong > Starfire. Sure enough it is in the picture. Starfield.

[Chuck H]

Another correction too. The speaker is misidentified as a rebranded Laney. It's not. It's a Celestion G12M70. All the Starfield amps I've seen on line have this speaker with different markings than I'm use to. The g12M70 was popular for a very short time (I think Angus used them on a one album and it's tour) but now most players hate them. A small few love them. Not enough to make them "sought after" though so they usually go for less than a used V30 would. I use to have a quad but now I'm down to a pair as I gifted two. Don't even know what to do with them. I thought they were alright. Not the familiar Celestion sound but not at all bad.

[Helmholtz]

..-than I'm use to. ... I use to have...

Sorry, but shouldn't it read "used to"?
Always trying to improve my English.

[DrGonz78]

Well if you are saying I’m getting use to it…? But you might then have to get use to something you once used. I use less but it feels useless. They belong to them, they’re the ones that used to be their own but are now they and it.

[Helmholtz]

Well if you are saying I’m getting use to it…? But you might then have to get use to something you once used. I use less but it feels useless. They belong to them, they’re the ones that used to be their own but are now they and it.

Sorry, that's confusing and doesn't seem to answer my question in the context above.
Is it actually correct to say "I'm use to it"?

[Jazz P Bass]

"Used to" is correct.

[Helmholtz]

Thanks!

[Chuck H]

Sorry, but shouldn't it read "used to"?
Always trying to improve my English.

This is funny. Because my brain asked the question as I was writting it but I didn't check and edit before posting. It turns out that in either case it's questionable if I should have written "use to" or "used to". Merriam Webster closes their confusing explanation with this:

We're used to seeing this phrase in the past tense, even though it did use to be otherwise.

They also acknowledge the term is most often "use to" in modern vernacular regardless of intent due to the sound of the D at the end of 'used' blending with the T beginning 'to' in most speech. Whether proper or not this is how languages evolve. So 'use to' does have application and is commonly used instead of 'used to' in speech. There are still particulars about when each is used in writing.

I tend to think you're right and I probably should have used "used to" for which markings I'm familiar with on speakers. And I skipped prefacing with "did" for the speakers I owned. Proper English or American English dictates it should read "I did use to have a quad..."

It's not usuaual for someone learning a language to find inconsistencies. Especially with slang or dialect.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/gram...%20past%20that

[DrGonz78]

Well we never really say it as it is spelled. Like when you sell used gear. The D seems emphasized. Use-Da But when I say I have to get used to something. I never emphasize or even think of a D being there. So that is probably why it is misused so often in spelling.

[nosaj]

I have to get used to something . Sounds like you are mixing tenses. Present an past. I have to get use to something . The tenses are same.

But hey what can we say English is one F-ed up language.
nosaj

[Helmholtz]

Present an past.

Guess "an" means and .