Dr.Z For All
in mine the treble pot add highmid/treble (and distortion in these frequencies at the end) .not too dark for me, but you may prefer a smaller treble capfluzo wrote:I have tried the Route 66 BASS + TREBLE eq in my EF86 amp and it doesn't suck tone.
Any ideas on how to make the treble control more "trebley"? The bass pot works fine but the treble pot is a bit dark to my ears...
Thanks for your help.
you may try 470pf instead of 1000pf or use an "edgier" type of cap ( ceramic, polyprop ...) instead of mica.
Thank you klingo I'll try that.
I've experimented with the route 66 bass + treble config in my amp, which mounts an AC15 EF86 preamp in a Marshall 18W power amp, both stock circuits as in the schematics. I sounds good with lots of "balls" but has almost no headroom. The route 66 eq adds a lot of gain, specially the treble pot. Is there a way to reduce the gain of the circuit while keeping its character?
I've also tried the carmen ghia/stang ray tone control on the other channel, works backwards as expected and the range is fine but lacks the character of the route66 config.
In a AC15 power amp it sounds horrible, too fuzzy and not warm at all.
I think it would work better with a KT66 power amp as it has more headroom...
I've experimented with the route 66 bass + treble config in my amp, which mounts an AC15 EF86 preamp in a Marshall 18W power amp, both stock circuits as in the schematics. I sounds good with lots of "balls" but has almost no headroom. The route 66 eq adds a lot of gain, specially the treble pot. Is there a way to reduce the gain of the circuit while keeping its character?
I've also tried the carmen ghia/stang ray tone control on the other channel, works backwards as expected and the range is fine but lacks the character of the route66 config.
In a AC15 power amp it sounds horrible, too fuzzy and not warm at all.
I think it would work better with a KT66 power amp as it has more headroom...
I seem to remember reading that Dr.Z uses this MOJO OT http://www.mojomusicalsupply.com/item.a ... id=MOJO771Barata wrote:Hi,
I'm planning to build a MIni-Z amp what you would suggest for the PT and OT?
Thank you!
As for the PT, try this
http://www.mojomusicalsupply.com/item.a ... id=MOJO771
just suggestions
anyone built their carmen ghia yet? Which replacement transformers do you use?
- KHELSTROM
- Solder Soldier
I built mine a while back by using a Hammond AO-35 amp just like the Dr. used to build originals. I had great results and after playing a real one I must say it's dead on.Cow4prez wrote:anyone built their carmen ghia yet? Which replacement transformers do you use?
- doug deeper
- Breadboard Brother
anyone have any advice an transformers for the stangray?
maybe something in a weber????!?!?!?!
maybe something in a weber????!?!?!?!
- invalidcd
- Breadboard Brother
Information
OT:4K@40Wdoug deeper wrote:anyone have any advice an transformers for the stangray?
maybe something in a weber????!?!?!?!
PT:290-290 @350ma
since the OT was designed by ken fisher your best bet is to use the toneslut transformers , those guys are awesome and they wont charge you an arm and a leg (less than $200 for both)
But i have built this amp, the one thing i did that i should have put in the schematic was add a 6 position rotary for the coupling(freq)cap. this made a world of difference.
Im not that impressed by this amp as much as i am the carman ghia its one of my favorite amps that i've built ,it very clean and compressed its different.
And the Stang Ray is totally Tom Petty , which i love.
- marshmellow
- Cap Cooler
2,1k resistor
- telecaster
- Resistor Ronker
Anyone have a layout for the mazerati?
KindaFuzzy - Looks like a blue nail polish and nutella sandwich.
Freekish - "Our originality is in the basement. Our business is in the toilet"
Guitarlcarl - I did take offence at being called an idiot by a moron.
Freekish - "Our originality is in the basement. Our business is in the toilet"
Guitarlcarl - I did take offence at being called an idiot by a moron.
- DougH
- Transistor Tuner
There is an old ampeg tone stack circuit that is very similar to the Rt66 tone stack. I can't remember the model #. The mullard amp looks interesting. Just shows that all of this stuff comes from somewhere.
edit: re. mullard amp- Wow, ultralinear too. Amazing... I wonder how much personal credit these boutiquers take for coming up with this stuff?...
edit: re. mullard amp- Wow, ultralinear too. Amazing... I wonder how much personal credit these boutiquers take for coming up with this stuff?...
"You have just tubescreamered or fuzzfaced yourself " -polarbearfx
- Ben N
- Cap Cooler
OK, let's be fair: Obviously Mike Z didn't invent EF86 input stages or UL outputs--it's all been around for a while (ever hear of Dynaco?). But using those things in a clean audio amp hardly makes their use in a guitar amp designed to compress and distort obvious. Some of us are old enough to remember Fender's effort at UL guitar amps in the 1970s, which were almost universally panned (except by pedal steelers) as sterile sounding. Dave West's amps (derived from Sunn, which were derived from Dynaco) were UL and were tonally better than the Fenders, but I recall hearing they had noise issues. Vox and Matchless used EF86s, but not with real tone stacks. Dr. Z didn't invent these things, but he applied them in an innovative way to make them into a really good sounding amp. This is not trivial.
Or, to put it another way, if it was all so obvious, how come no one (present company included) ever did it before?
Or, to put it another way, if it was all so obvious, how come no one (present company included) ever did it before?
- DougH
- Transistor Tuner
Is that actually a "clean" hi-fi amp? With an EF86 driving (with no lossy tone stack) a long-tailed-pair and a pair of KT66's??? Yikes...
I don't really care where Dr. Z gets his ideas from or if he lifted it wholesale from that Mullard schem (which it appears he did, to me anyway, the topology is too close to be sheer coincidence). But just don't give me this stuff about how 'he uses a clean sheet of paper and his amps are not modifications of anything else' (paraphrased), which has been said about his stuff (maybe on his website? Don't remember).
Most if not all, guitar amps are based on circuits that are already and have been out there, probably for generations. There are a few new ideas popping up here and there but they are far and few between. Peace. That's the way the guitar amp biz works and I have no issue with that.
But if someone claims he is an innovator, or lets someone else claim for him that he's an innovator- then he better damn well be one. Otherwise, he's just a charlatan AFAIC. In some ways I think the boutique 3-ring circus makes a mockery of the great ideas that feed it.
I don't really care where Dr. Z gets his ideas from or if he lifted it wholesale from that Mullard schem (which it appears he did, to me anyway, the topology is too close to be sheer coincidence). But just don't give me this stuff about how 'he uses a clean sheet of paper and his amps are not modifications of anything else' (paraphrased), which has been said about his stuff (maybe on his website? Don't remember).
Most if not all, guitar amps are based on circuits that are already and have been out there, probably for generations. There are a few new ideas popping up here and there but they are far and few between. Peace. That's the way the guitar amp biz works and I have no issue with that.
But if someone claims he is an innovator, or lets someone else claim for him that he's an innovator- then he better damn well be one. Otherwise, he's just a charlatan AFAIC. In some ways I think the boutique 3-ring circus makes a mockery of the great ideas that feed it.
"You have just tubescreamered or fuzzfaced yourself " -polarbearfx
- SpencerPedals
- Solder Soldier
I'd also be interested in a layout for the Mazerati. The pic is really damn good for it, but I'm a super newbie when it comes to amps.
- Ben N
- Cap Cooler
Well, intended to be, anyway.DougH wrote:Is that actually a "clean" hi-fi amp? With an EF86 driving (with no lossy tone stack) a long-tailed-pair and a pair of KT66's??? Yikes...
I'm not familiar with whatever marketing/fan hocum has been spread about here--I tend to ignore that stuff, so it doesn't really make an impression. My point is that one doesn't have to "uses a clean sheet of paper" or make stuff that is "not a modification of anything else" in order to be an innovator. Otherwise, what was so special about a '59 Bassman, really, that wasn't covered in Western Electric theater amps 30 years earlier? Still, there aren't many of us who would accuse Leo of having been a "charlatan" for using familiar bits to create something undeniably special. Regardless of the puffery, to my mind the Rt.66 is indeed an innovation (if only an incremental one, as you correctly point out), and not less so because the circuitry is familiar from other contexts.DougH wrote: I don't really care where Dr. Z gets his ideas from or if he lifted it wholesale from that Mullard schem (which it appears he did, to me anyway, the topology is too close to be sheer coincidence). But just don't give me this stuff about how 'he uses a clean sheet of paper and his amps are not modifications of anything else' (paraphrased), which has been said about his stuff (maybe on his website? Don't remember).
Most if not all, guitar amps are based on circuits that are already and have been out there, probably for generations. There are a few new ideas popping up here and there but they are far and few between. Peace. That's the way the guitar amp biz works and I have no issue with that.
But if someone claims he is an innovator, or lets someone else claim for him that he's an innovator- then he better damn well be one. Otherwise, he's just a charlatan AFAIC. In some ways I think the boutique 3-ring circus makes a mockery of the great ideas that feed it.
- DougH
- Transistor Tuner
IMO there's a big difference between using "familiar bits" (or even converting a bassman to a jtm45) and taking an existing schematic, re-implementing >95% of it and kinda sorta letting everyone believe it's something you did all by yourself. And that BTW, is reinforced both by web site marketing fluff and the fact that this builder has a well established rep for angrily rebuking anyone who dares to reverse or share what's inside "his" work. What is he trying to protect anyway? The 1-5% of the changes he made?Ben N wrote:
I'm not familiar with whatever marketing/fan hocum has been spread about here--I tend to ignore that stuff, so it doesn't really make an impression. My point is that one doesn't have to "uses a clean sheet of paper" or make stuff that is "not a modification of anything else" in order to be an innovator. Otherwise, what was so special about a '59 Bassman, really, that wasn't covered in Western Electric theater amps 30 years earlier? Still, there aren't many of us who would accuse Leo of having been a "charlatan" for using familiar bits to create something undeniably special. Regardless of the puffery, to my mind the Rt.66 is indeed an innovation (if only an incremental one, as you correctly point out), and not less so because the circuitry is familiar from other contexts.
Again, it has the appearance of yet another boutiquer who doesn't want to be "found out". And this same old scene plays out once more. I apologize if it seems like I've overreacted to this. It's really not a big deal. It's just a disappointment, that's all.
"You have just tubescreamered or fuzzfaced yourself " -polarbearfx
- Ben N
- Cap Cooler
OK, I understand your feeling about the hype and the attitude. Doesn't change the merits of the amp, though. Still, just taking an EF86 input (without a tone stack), an LTPI and a UL push-pull output (different biasing, by the way) does not give you a successful guitar amp. Even recognizing that as a potentially successful formula is pretty creative in my book. It's that last 5%, picking up on the form, tweaking it til the form meets the intended function, that gets you there.
- Ben N
- Cap Cooler
Sorry, too late to edit, I guess. Doug, what happened since your more deferential tone to Mike Z at the time you released, ever so gingerly, the Highway 89? Just curious. Honestly, I have no personal stake in this. But isn't boutiquers' claiming just a bit too much originality for recycled topologies just the mirror image of DIY-wannabe-critics dismissing any dual-opamp-with-clippers as just another TS-clone?