Thinking ahead. Reverb question.

Fender Amp Discussion

Moderators: pompeiisneaks, Colossal

Post Reply
pinkphiloyd
Posts: 136
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2011 1:01 pm

Thinking ahead. Reverb question.

Post by pinkphiloyd »

I'm about to do a JM build. I'm finalizing all the details now, getting everything ordered. But I'm such an obsessive asshole I can't help thinking ahead.

Most of the demos of Two Rocks I've seen, I really love the reverb. But I prefer the voicing of a classic blackface Fender. I don't really understand much about reverb. I get the big picture, so to speak, (amplify the signal enough to drive it though the springs, "recover" it on the other side, mix with dry signal) but I'm sketchy on the details.

What, if any, would the issues be if I wanted to build, say, a Princeton reverb, only utilizing the JM reverb circuit as opposed to the classic Fender reverb circuit? I thought something relatively simple like this might be a good hands on way to learn.
Stevem
Posts: 4576
Joined: Fri Jan 24, 2014 3:01 pm
Location: 1/3rd the way out one of the arms of the Milkyway.

Re: Thinking ahead. Reverb question.

Post by Stevem »

Can you post a schematic of the JM reverb circuit?
When I die, I want to go like my Grandfather did, peacefully in his sleep.
Not screaming like the passengers in his car!😊

Cutting out a man's tongue does not mean he’s a liar, but it does show that you fear the truth he might speak about you!
pinkphiloyd
Posts: 136
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2011 1:01 pm

Re: Thinking ahead. Reverb question.

Post by pinkphiloyd »

Stevem wrote:Can you post a schematic of the JM reverb circuit?
Sure. Borrowed from this board, for the record. I just want to be clear that I'm not trying to steal anyone's work, or anything.

I'm thinking...I might just try replacing the tone stack half of V1 with a classic blackface tone stack and see if that gets me there. I mean, there are other differences in the circuits, obviously, but I would think that would be the big one.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
robrob
Posts: 77
Joined: Tue Mar 24, 2015 6:26 pm
Contact:

Re: Thinking ahead. Reverb question.

Post by robrob »

The JM is getting a lower level signal after only one preamp stage and after the tone stack. It makes up for that by adding two more gain stages to the reverb circuit--it's a meaty reverb.

The Princeton Reverb gets a higher level signal after: preamp - tone stack - preamp.

Mixing and matching will probably require some post build tweaking.

I've never heard anyone complain about the PR's reverb though. Are you sure you want to mess with it?
Stevem
Posts: 4576
Joined: Fri Jan 24, 2014 3:01 pm
Location: 1/3rd the way out one of the arms of the Milkyway.

Re: Thinking ahead. Reverb question.

Post by Stevem »

It's a tad different than the standard Fender reverb circiut with having that send control, but in the end it will sound like the Fender reverb due to being transformer driven with its low end and high end roll off taking place!
When I die, I want to go like my Grandfather did, peacefully in his sleep.
Not screaming like the passengers in his car!😊

Cutting out a man's tongue does not mean he’s a liar, but it does show that you fear the truth he might speak about you!
pinkphiloyd
Posts: 136
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2011 1:01 pm

Re: Thinking ahead. Reverb question.

Post by pinkphiloyd »

robrob wrote:The JM is getting a lower level signal after only one preamp stage and after the tone stack. It makes up for that by adding two more gain stages to the reverb circuit--it's a meaty reverb.

The Princeton Reverb gets a higher level signal after: preamp - tone stack - preamp.

Mixing and matching will probably require some post build tweaking.

I've never heard anyone complain about the PR's reverb though. Are you sure you want to mess with it?
I had wondered about that, the way the gain stages were set up and how that would affect the outcome. I wouldn't necessarily say I'm complaining about the reverb of the PR, more that I'm intrigued by the versatility(?) of the Two-Rock circuit. But when it comes down to it, the main reason I really want to try it is my incessant desire to tinker. And hopefully learn something along the way...
But mostly the never ending desire to tinker.
pinkphiloyd
Posts: 136
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2011 1:01 pm

Re: Thinking ahead. Reverb question.

Post by pinkphiloyd »

So...

The "dwell mod" that I've read about in the past. The one that involves replacing the 1M resistor on the first reverb tube with a pot, that's essentially implementing a send control, then?

I apologize if I'm incoherent. I'm sitting here having to interact with my coworkers, try and think, and type at the same time.
robrob
Posts: 77
Joined: Tue Mar 24, 2015 6:26 pm
Contact:

Re: Thinking ahead. Reverb question.

Post by robrob »

pinkphiloyd wrote:The "dwell mod" that I've read about in the past. The one that involves replacing the 1M resistor on the first reverb tube with a pot, that's essentially implementing a send control, then?
If you mean replacing the PR's reverb driver tube's 1m gridleak with a 1m pot then yes, that would be equivalent to a 'Send' control.

The JM is a pretty cool looking design. I'm saving that schematic.
rfgordon
Posts: 679
Joined: Tue May 02, 2006 12:59 am
Location: Virginia
Contact:

Re: Thinking ahead. Reverb question.

Post by rfgordon »

In a typical Fender reverb circuit, because the signal goes to the reverb driver after two gain stages (and the Vol and tone stack), the amount of signal sent increases as the volume/gain is increased. In practical terms, this means that as the amp is turned up, you have no way of controlling the splash as the signal hits the reverb tank.

In the standalone reverb, the Dwell control works on that problem. What I do to be able to tweak the splash is put a 100 Ohm pot on the output of the reverb transformer.
Rich Gordon
www.myspace.com/bigboyamplifiers

"The takers get the honey, the givers get the blues." --Robin Trower
Post Reply