102 with BM tonestack
Moderators: pompeiisneaks, Colossal
102 with BM tonestack
Did some recordings, one witha strat,two with a tele
Sny thoughts about the tone?
Also replaced 250pf snubbers with 47pf
Sny thoughts about the tone?
Also replaced 250pf snubbers with 47pf
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
-
- Posts: 1055
- Joined: Fri Apr 16, 2010 9:04 am
- Location: Santa Cruz, CA
Re: 102 with BM tonestack
There seems to some buzzy tubby low midrange thing going on with the tone, interacts with the higher midrange in the 1.5-2.5k range and makes things a tad brittle. Overdrive emphasizes it apparently to my ears .
HRM tends to emphasize that more aggressive frequency response imo and from others testimony . Besides that what’s goin on under the hood ?
HRM tends to emphasize that more aggressive frequency response imo and from others testimony . Besides that what’s goin on under the hood ?
Charlie
Re: 102 with BM tonestack
friend, not good from technical point of view.. to much buzz, "choking" fuzz..
sound can pass maybe for some songs , but this doesnt have any connection with Dumble
suspecting: if i need to guess - bad lead dress
sound can pass maybe for some songs , but this doesnt have any connection with Dumble
suspecting: if i need to guess - bad lead dress
Re: 102 with BM tonestack
bepone, your description of the sound is excatly what i think of the sound, i've been trying for a long while to solve it...
when you mean bad lead dress you mean how the wires cross each other inside the chassis?
when you mean bad lead dress you mean how the wires cross each other inside the chassis?
Re: 102 with BM tonestack
its fairly 102 low plates with just a BM tonestack (slope is 47k if i recall off hand and rest of the values are BM TMB also), there's no HRM in the OD section.WhopperPlate wrote: ↑Tue Sep 12, 2023 5:36 pm There seems to some buzzy tubby low midrange thing going on with the tone, interacts with the higher midrange in the 1.5-2.5k range and makes things a tad brittle. Overdrive emphasizes it apparently to my ears .
HRM tends to emphasize that more aggressive frequency response imo and from others testimony . Besides that what’s goin on under the hood ?
other stuff i've inlcuded are a gain trimmer on the outside of the chassis and a LNFB switch, that's about it...
it doesn't sound "right" to me, too much fuzzy bass and harsh highs.
Re: 102 with BM tonestack
did another clip right now with LNFB off, semi hollow 335, gain trimmer set pretty low
clip start as
Master 1.5
then Master at around 4 then at 6
last 2 clips are FET input
any improvement?
I think taking the gain trimmer much lower (half) got rid of the fuzzy bass, i never run it this low usually, might take it back inside the chassis and leave it as is.
whats your take ? does it sound "right"?
clip start as
Master 1.5
then Master at around 4 then at 6
last 2 clips are FET input
any improvement?
I think taking the gain trimmer much lower (half) got rid of the fuzzy bass, i never run it this low usually, might take it back inside the chassis and leave it as is.
whats your take ? does it sound "right"?
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
Re: 102 with BM tonestack
I must say your last clip is wayyyyy better. BM ts and LNFB doesnt cut it, right?Ang3lus wrote: ↑Tue Sep 12, 2023 6:56 pm did another clip right now with LNFB off, semi hollow 335, gain trimmer set pretty low
clip start as
Master 1.5
then Master at around 4 then at 6
last 2 clips are FET input
any improvement?
I think taking the gain trimmer much lower (half) got rid of the fuzzy bass, i never run it this low usually, might take it back inside the chassis and leave it as is.
whats your take ? does it sound "right"?
You can try to make the slope resistor to 68k. This will shift the tonestack to slightly less bass and have more emphasis on the higher mids.
Re: 102 with BM tonestack
i think the LNFB is useless, overpowering low bass, i would add it in the power amp circuit, like depth control in the soldano.
the dumble circuit is really finicky, but i noticed in the last few days low gain is better and then using fet as boost or a boost upfront
now i just have to fix the annoying highs, i might in my quest to tame the annoying frquencies might have changed the treble cap to 470pf rather than 2n2, have to check that out
the dumble circuit is really finicky, but i noticed in the last few days low gain is better and then using fet as boost or a boost upfront
now i just have to fix the annoying highs, i might in my quest to tame the annoying frquencies might have changed the treble cap to 470pf rather than 2n2, have to check that out
-
- Posts: 1055
- Joined: Fri Apr 16, 2010 9:04 am
- Location: Santa Cruz, CA
1 others liked this
Re: 102 with BM tonestack
That last clip is ten times better .
Hand us some pics of the guts and that will help everyone better direct you
Hand us some pics of the guts and that will help everyone better direct you
Charlie
Re: 102 with BM tonestack
Thanks for sharing all of your clips! I also agree that the latest sounds WAY better. But, you switched to humbuckers. So was it the guitar or your amp changes what improved the sound?
Why not go back to one of the guitars you originally used so that an apples to apples comparison can be made?
Why not go back to one of the guitars you originally used so that an apples to apples comparison can be made?
Last edited by donvan on Sun Sep 17, 2023 5:01 am, edited 1 time in total.
Re: 102 with BM tonestack
for the test try 10nF after V1b) should be little bit better.. i'm guessing also too much 715 OD caps inside? or other polypropilenes? also full of metal film?
sound remaind me to modern high gain marshalls like AFD.. i never liked that..
this all can be tamed
sound remaind me to modern high gain marshalls like AFD.. i never liked that..
this all can be tamed
Re: 102 with BM tonestack
actually i have Mustards inside, i have some 715 in there, but much of the preamp side is mustards...
resistors are NOS made in england carbon comps
I'll try changing the 47nf in v1b to 10nf... that seems logical it would help
resistors are NOS made in england carbon comps
I'll try changing the 47nf in v1b to 10nf... that seems logical it would help
-
- Posts: 1055
- Joined: Fri Apr 16, 2010 9:04 am
- Location: Santa Cruz, CA
Re: 102 with BM tonestack
Mustards plus carbon comp can tend toward what we are hearing , they both have a pronounced low midrange response.
715 have never rubbed me right…kinda grainy …716p on the other hand…
Charlie
Re: 102 with BM tonestack
hm.. there is some other "error"...lead dress? bad solder joint?
if 715 are on treble remove it (2nF must be poliester), and put some cheap ceramic to deep switch (390pf)
10nF after v1b should be ok
if 715 are on treble remove it (2nF must be poliester), and put some cheap ceramic to deep switch (390pf)
10nF after v1b should be ok
Re: 102 with BM tonestack
Strat - Money solo
FET input
preamp volume 10
bright off
mid off
jazz mode
Treble 10 middle 4 bass 3
drive 10
volume 10
master 2
presence 7
bright off
Money solo 2
normal input
same settings as above
3rd clip
normal
same settings
mid switch up
4th clip
clean, same settings
mid down rock down bright off
then last seciton i turn the rock switch up
FET input
preamp volume 10
bright off
mid off
jazz mode
Treble 10 middle 4 bass 3
drive 10
volume 10
master 2
presence 7
bright off
Money solo 2
normal input
same settings as above
3rd clip
normal
same settings
mid switch up
4th clip
clean, same settings
mid down rock down bright off
then last seciton i turn the rock switch up
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.