TR Traditional Clean Circuit

[rootz]

Interesting! The amps are very alike. But there are some obvious differences in mixing, contour vs. presence and amount of feedback. I think the latter mostly accounts for the perceived boomy sound of the Wonderland. It seems quite contrary that the Wonderland nonetheless seems brighter in comparison. I experienced the same with SSS005: big mid dip and big low and, but (I suppose) due to 'lacking' mids rather bright sounding than say my #94, even when the latter has the bright switch on.

Ryan, I am not familiar with your load. My simulated load may account for the lower mid dips. Or maybe yours does? Who knows.

I had all switches and reverb off in the simulation. All knobs on noon.

[rccolgan]

Awesome replies here!! I feel much better about my build being accurate now So cool Rootz! I knew you'd chime in with some simulations. My reactive load has various settings so it's possible our graphs will differ slightly. These settings represent what my cab feels like in the room with and without the Boss TAE.

Attaching some interesting graphs trying to get the TC adjusted to match the JM sig (all at noon positions). I'm not sure how practical this is but I figured it was worth the 3 hour rabbit hole.

[rccolgan]

Interesting! The amps are very alike. But there are some obvious differences in mixing, contour vs. presence and amount of feedback. I think the latter mostly accounts for the perceived boomy sound of the Wonderland. It seems quite contrary that the Wonderland nonetheless seems brighter in comparison. I experienced the same with SSS005: big mid dip and big low and, but (I suppose) due to 'lacking' mids rather bright sounding than say my #94, even when the latter has the bright switch on.

Ryan, I am not familiar with your load. My simulated load may account for the lower mid dips. Or maybe yours does? Who knows.

I had all switches and reverb off in the simulation. All knobs on noon.

On thing I'll have to double check after reviewing your plot is the JM mid dip doesn't sink below the TC plot. I don't think I put a 100KA pot in for my mid but I need to double check to make sure it's a 100KL.

[Guy77]

I did rewire my JM style amp to a TR clean to test that circuit and wire it back to JM specs a few days later to have a back and forth point of view (quite easy to do btw).

I noticed the JM got more volume and gain available, The TR is almost only clean even when maxed and overall volume felt lower.

I did notice less boomy bass content on the TR, less mid scoop and the JM felt brighter than the TR even with a Cut control on the JM.
So exactly on par with your Bode plotting Ryan. It was funny to read your post vs what I felt when I tested it.

It's also smoother on the attack/onset of the note when digging in compare to the JM (the JM felt faster).
I like the TR so far because I feel the JM was a bit too scooped, got a bit too much bass and brightness to my liking, besides its really beautiful reverb.
Maybe the TR feels a bit sterile being more flat sounding but I like the overall balance of that amp.
Might rewire it to a TR again this weekend.

I think I still prefer the JM reverb over the TR though.

If you take another look inside I would be interested in bias setting in mA and like I asked you in a pm I'd like to know what diodes they used on that amp.

This is great work guys! Thanks Ryan and Rootz.
Regarding your questions Tom. Yes I would be curious too as to the diodes being used. Regarding Bias settings . I noticed in the couple of Two Rocks I have been inside they biased the tubes very cool. For a 430v plate voltage a Two Rock Bloomfield amp was only biased at 30mA.

Here is a pic of the diodes in Bloomfield I had on the bench a while ago. I can make out the IN on one of them and the numbers 00 on another and I think I faintly see a 7 on another so I am guessing IN4007.

I also noticed they are going with 18AWG wire in the power supply section and 20 AWG everywhere else these days and everything solid core.

Cheers
Guy

[mojotom]

I guess I shouldn’t have use the term "brighter" comparing the JM and the TR.
When I build that JM amp as a test mule I tried a lot of tonestacks, various preamp voltages, etc. I did settled with a classic tonestack with 250k bass pot and 1k8 tail and wired a presence control.
I like the amp, the reverb is great but there is some extension on the highs that sounds a bit hifi that I can’t seemed to get rid of, even with the Cut control and this is even more obvious when I dig in, something I don’t feel playing an old Silverface Vibrolux for exemple.
I didn’t feel that issue (quite personal one btw) as much playing the TR so I felt better playing the amp. The TR seems less punchy somehow (less dynamic) so that could be a part of that balance I like about the TR.

I did wire a presence control, a switch to bypass the Contour and a variable feedback R and I came to the conclusion that I may not like the sound of that V4 mixer tube.

Thanks Guy for the infos. That Bloomfield is tempting for sure, considering it shares a lot of similarity with this one.