102 with BM tonestack

Overdrive Special, Steel String Singer, Dumbleland, Odyssey, Winterland, etc. -
Members Only

Moderators: pompeiisneaks, Colossal

Ang3lus
Posts: 243
Joined: Sat Oct 29, 2011 8:53 am
Location: Israel

102 with BM tonestack

Post by Ang3lus »

Did some recordings, one witha strat,two with a tele

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.
WhopperPlate
Posts: 1055
Joined: Fri Apr 16, 2010 9:04 am
Location: Santa Cruz, CA

Re: 102 with BM tonestack

Post by WhopperPlate »

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 ?
Charlie
User avatar
bepone
Posts: 1602
Joined: Mon Mar 09, 2009 4:22 pm
Location: Croatia
Contact:

Re: 102 with BM tonestack

Post by bepone »

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
Ang3lus
Posts: 243
Joined: Sat Oct 29, 2011 8:53 am
Location: Israel

Re: 102 with BM tonestack

Post by Ang3lus »

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?
Ang3lus
Posts: 243
Joined: Sat Oct 29, 2011 8:53 am
Location: Israel

Re: 102 with BM tonestack

Post by Ang3lus »

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 ?
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.

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.
Ang3lus
Posts: 243
Joined: Sat Oct 29, 2011 8:53 am
Location: Israel

Re: 102 with BM tonestack

Post by Ang3lus »

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 do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
User avatar
erwin_ve
Posts: 1726
Joined: Fri Jan 25, 2008 8:06 am
Location: Dordrecht, Netherlands
Contact:

Re: 102 with BM tonestack

Post by erwin_ve »

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"?
I must say your last clip is wayyyyy better. BM ts and LNFB doesnt cut it, 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.
Ang3lus
Posts: 243
Joined: Sat Oct 29, 2011 8:53 am
Location: Israel

Re: 102 with BM tonestack

Post by Ang3lus »

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
WhopperPlate
Posts: 1055
Joined: Fri Apr 16, 2010 9:04 am
Location: Santa Cruz, CA

Re: 102 with BM tonestack

Post by WhopperPlate »

:D That last clip is ten times better .

Hand us some pics of the guts and that will help everyone better direct you :!:
Charlie
donvan
Posts: 264
Joined: Tue May 02, 2017 6:36 pm
Location: Dallas

Re: 102 with BM tonestack

Post by donvan »

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?
Last edited by donvan on Sun Sep 17, 2023 5:01 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
bepone
Posts: 1602
Joined: Mon Mar 09, 2009 4:22 pm
Location: Croatia
Contact:

Re: 102 with BM tonestack

Post by bepone »

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
Ang3lus
Posts: 243
Joined: Sat Oct 29, 2011 8:53 am
Location: Israel

Re: 102 with BM tonestack

Post by Ang3lus »

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
WhopperPlate
Posts: 1055
Joined: Fri Apr 16, 2010 9:04 am
Location: Santa Cruz, CA

Re: 102 with BM tonestack

Post by WhopperPlate »

Ang3lus wrote: Sun Sep 17, 2023 1:21 pm 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
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
User avatar
bepone
Posts: 1602
Joined: Mon Mar 09, 2009 4:22 pm
Location: Croatia
Contact:

Re: 102 with BM tonestack

Post by bepone »

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
Ang3lus
Posts: 243
Joined: Sat Oct 29, 2011 8:53 am
Location: Israel

Re: 102 with BM tonestack

Post by Ang3lus »

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
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
Post Reply