Trainwreck Climax on e-bay Canary Wood 2X10 #49

[Berkley_Music]

Just to let everyone know there is a KEnrick Climax on e-bay right now. Here is the link:
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?Vi ... %3AIT&rd=1

[908ssp]

Did they come with the Trainwreck logo on them? Are they worth as much as he is asking?

[chimeboss]

Did they come with the Trainwreck logo on them? Are they worth as much as he is asking?

Yes unfortunately they came with the logo.
No they are not worth what that asking price is.

Ive played and looked inside a few of these.

Lets just say most of the folks here can and are building way better amps.

These amps are all over the map build and soundwise.
With a few tweaks they can be a decent amp all around. Decent amp is the operative word.

Dont let the logo fool you as most people would drop this amp like a hot rock!

Submitted with my biased opinion, of course.

[Bear]

When you consider there was only supposed to have been a handful made, they show up on ebay a lot. If it truly was the bargain path into authentic TW tone, you would have to wonder.

Bear

[Plexified]

keep in mind these amps are still very sensitive and this just exploits the shortcomings of alot of players . I find that when you take some time to find what works for you . Guitars , cabs , pickups , cables , etc it is a screamer . It responds to all the subtle changes . If you don't know how to tweak you may not get your tone . Changing the bias on a set of tubes or changing from a monster cord to a george l makes a big diff . I think most of these amps are given a bad rap . Its a great amp . When set up right it goes from SRV Through EVH . No shit . Gotta use nice weber p10r in the combo , maybe with a p-10s ,and then go with a marshall basketweave 4x12 . Afterall thats what ken voiced it with . Try a 6v6 a nice el37 and bias it correctly , you will be surprised . The sensitivity of the amp is the downfall to the public . The reverb is sensitive so you need to be mindfull of tthe ac chord and stupid stuff like lighting and all . Ken designs on the EDGE , the amp is on the edge , if you do not know how to tame the beast don't slam it . I really think this amp gets a bad rap . Don't expect a hand built ken creation he voices himself . NO person can replicate Kens choices at the time of a build . David

[Ron]

The clean channel of the Climax has a good Fender sound, like a Deluxe Reverb. The lead channel is very bright, even when you try to tame it with tube selection.

The amp was designed by Gerald Weber and Ken Fischer. The lead channel design is close to an Express, except it has tweaks that make it much brighter. The Komet also has a very bright tone and came along a year or two after the Climax, also with Ken Fischer's input in the design. I'm guessing that his tonal vision changed somewhat from earlier years, although I've heard that TWs tend to brightness.

You can easily (a few bucks for parts and an hour's time), modify the Climax to an Express, except for one blocking cap and a summing resistor needed because it's a two-channel amp. Once the changes are made, it's an entirely different amp that should sound as good as any Express clone, which it would be after the mods.

The iron is not undersized, IMO, and the Climax uses Pacific transformers like Ken Fischer used in some of his TW amps. In addition to the lead channel design, many of the parts for the Climax were specified by him and he worked on the prototype amp, which was built in a Deluxe Reverb (which the Climax resembles), in his shop at home. The New Joy Zee (Ken lives in NJ) schematic shows voltages that are close to those for the Francesca Express, although my Climax has voltages about 7% higher.

During the runup to production, Ken wrote a letter that Kendrick sent to impatient buyers (Kendrick was very late on delivery, after taking large deposits), praising the amp. The TW logos came from Ken.

My Climax (#007) was originally owned by a friend of Ken's and was shipped to the friend at Ken's insistance (recall that Kendrick was late in delivering). The amp was supposed to go to Billy Gibbons; Kendrick has built several amps for Gibbons, many with his lucky number - seven!

Much of the "controversy" surrounding the Climax was a result of the disagreement between Ken and Gerald over payment for Ken's part in the arrangement. As a result, Ken disavowed the Climax and some of his friends have badmouthed the amp ever since. One of them has claimed the rights to the name TW on eBay and has prevented the name TW from appearing in postings for the Climax. The eBay posting identified at the start of this thread was pulled by eBay because this person claims rights to the use of the TW name and logo (I understand it's some lawyer doing this himself, not Ken, but that's just a rumor).

As a Climax owner who read Ken's letter touting the amp before production ramped up, I'm am a little upset that buyers are caught in the middle of what is now a 5 or 6 year-old spat that we had no part in. Even though Gerald and Ken were great friends at one time, the lack of a clear, written contract over the Climax partnership certainly ended it.

[Allynmey]

Ron, thanks for the clarification. It seems this is the soap opera that never ends! All this crap over an amp company that doesn't make amps anymore. I still don't get the secret society type zeal to cover-up, conceal, and misrepresent a simple tube amp. I think we all can agree that Ken made amazing amps and doesn't need the minions soiling his name with controversy in the name of "protecting" him. Many people here probably don't know Gerald Weber. He is a pretty accessible guy. He answers the phones himself sometimes and when e-mailed, responds personally in a timely manner. I've called there for a question on a part and was surprised when he answered the phone. He an I talked for a half hour about amps. Ken supposedly is the same way. It seems that the principles in this global amp pissing contest are pretty nice guys. It also seems we have a lot of suckups who think by causing trouble in their name they somehow endear themselves to their mentors. Weird!

Allynmey

[908ssp]

Thanks Ron it pretty much repeats what is the common story. What is weird is how some people dismiss the stealing of intellectual property like it wasn't really stealing? I guess if you have not had an original idea you can't imagine what it is like to have yours stolen.

[Ron]

All the amps I own are based on tube circuit applications developed by Western Electric, RCA, Mullard and other tube manufacturers who wanted to sell tubes (duh!). Leo Fender rolled these basic applications into what became the Fender tweed and later amps.

The Marshall JTM45 is a tweed Bassman with a few changes.

Kendrick began with replicas of Fender tweed amps, but all of its amps were based on well-known circuitry in the public domain.

The TW Express and Liverpool are also based on these same circuits and are not protected by intellectual property rights, AFAIK, with the possible exception of the name and logo etc. I presume the $30K that Ken Fischer was supposed to receive from Kendrick was for his design work, help with production preparation, and the use of the TW name and logo.

At the time, I thought it was a good idea because Ken was/is debilitated by chronic fatigue syndrome (I've heard) and needed to use his skills within his physical abilities at the time. My wife had CFS for a few years, but eventually got better. She still has joint problems though, but I think there's been some progress, especially in recognizing what it is. I hope Ken is recovering too.

The "modern" amps that many of us distain do contain novel ideas and technology (for example, DSP modeling) protected by patents and licensing agreements. The situation is different because (1) this stuff is a lot more complicated than connecting dual triodes, (2) takes a PC board to apply it and most of us don't roll our own, and (3) competition among amp makers for sales makes them want to keep this stuff a secret.

[Allynmey]

Thanks Ron it pretty much repeats what is the common story. What is weird is how some people dismiss the stealing of intellectual property like it wasn't really stealing? I guess if you have not had an original idea you can't imagine what it is like to have yours stolen.

Alex, whos intellectual property are you referring to? Western Electric, RCA? Please elaborate what you mean.

Allynmey

[Ron]

From a legal view, I think the intellectual property that Ken provided was the TW name and logo, which would be helpful in selling the 100 amps that Kendrick built. (I don't know whether the TW name and any service marks were actually registered.) In fact, the partnership idea was to physically build TW amps because Ken was unable to, at a time when Gerald and Ken were good friends. Essentially Ken was to design the amp and select the parts, and Kendrick was to physically assemble, sell, and ship them.

The lack of a contract was critical to the resulting mess because there was no understanding about what would happen if the estimated cost of building the amp was wrong. I was told by Kendrick that the amp design grew in complexity (e.g., reverb was added) but the price point was not increased (until much later). Sounds like a typical design and production cost-control problem.

This is my own assessment: In the end, Kendrick was not making enough profit from the Climax to pay Ken Fischer the full $30k he was owed (at least part of the money was paid, but I dunno how much), and he eventually backed out of the partnership. (I know lawyers were involved on Ken's behalf, but I don't know whether there was any settlement agreement.) However, Kendrick had already invested in making the Climax and had taken orders and deposits based on building a TW amp in Texas. Some amps had been produced and shipped - with the TW badge. The up-front investment included acquisition of the specialized chassis, transformers and other components required for production, as well as advertising costs and personal time. I would estimate the cost of parts for 100 chassis was at least $20K up front, not including any Kendrick payroll expenses to manage and store the parts. This was a lose-lose situation financially. A written contract could have specified how the profits or losses would have been shared by the partners in the event that the Climax was not as successful financially as hoped.

About the "original" design aspect, various stages of the Express can be found in a number of commercial amps. In my mind the design is somewhat distinctive by the selection of a few parts, such as the large slope resistor in the tone circuit, the large coupling cap to the phase inverter, and the smallish coupling caps to the output tubes - all in the same amp together. All of this is in the area of technical art, but not an original idea.

[Allynmey]

Ron, That was a great explanation and the clearest I've seen. I've made the point before, much to the chagrin of some of the members here, that Ken was a master at taking an existing design and either rearranging the layout or changing a few parts and making a beautiful sounding amp. He truly has ears of gold. The Rocket is based on an AC-30. There is no question. Ken himself said so. My point is...He didn't invent any of the circuits we see as TW circuits. Some guy in a white labcoat working for a tube company 70+ years ago did! They were given away for free by the companies in hope you would build them and buy thier tubes. How can someone 50 years later claim rights to something they copied? It's ridiculous! Maybe some people should spend more time building and playing amps!

Allynmey

[JoeCOOl]

Ron,

I read some of your comments and looked at the Climax clean chanel schem and was a little confused.

You said the power tube coupling caps were small, but they show 0.1 uF?

Also the large value slop resistor shows 100K (I dont think its 18K on clean ch), which is standard blackface, albeit with tweed style .022 caps. So it would be large relative to Marshall/bassman but no relative to blackface Fender.

For everyone else, I have a Sf bandmaster reverb that I would like to convert (It looks like it would be very straight forward). Is the NJ/Climax schematic correct or are ther any known errors.

Thanks,
Joe

[Ron]

Ron,

I read some of your comments and looked at the Climax clean chanel schem and was a little confused.

You said the power tube coupling caps were small, but they show 0.1 uF?

Also the large value slop resistor shows 100K (I dont think its 18K on clean ch), which is standard blackface, albeit with tweed style .022 caps. So it would be large relative to Marshall/bassman but no relative to blackface Fender.

For everyone else, I have a Sf bandmaster reverb that I would like to convert (It looks like it would be very straight forward). Is the NJ/Climax schematic correct or are ther any known errors.

Thanks,
Joe

I was referring to the Express (Francesca), not the Climax, sorry for the lack of clarity.

As far as converting a Fender amp to the Express (or Climax lead), I would use a AB165 Bassman (bass amp) 50-watt head.

The Express (as a lead channel in a modified Fender) needs three triodes (1.5 12AX7s) in addition to the phase inverter. The AB165 Bassman has everything you need, except reverb of course. You can use the left side input for a Fender sound and the right side input for an Express. I used to build or mod the AB165 for people and I called it the "Expression".

The NewJoyZee schematic is correct except for the lead channel bright cap, which is marked as 5,000pf instead of 500pf (still too much, IMO).

I hope this is clear, if not, ask me again.

[908ssp]

Actually you guys don't understand intellectual property rights. You're confusing it with patents and inventions. Nothing fundamentally new has to be invented or designed for their to be intellectual property rights any thing that Ken showed Gerald under a stipulation of renumeration belongs to Ken. If Kens say put this wire there and that wire there and Gerald agrees to pay him for that and doesn't it means he broke his promise and should refrain from using that information. A contract doesn't have to be on paper, if there is a clear understanding that one party is to pay another party for work performed and then doesn't do that he has breached the contract. It doesn't mater if he makes any money or not unless that too was clearly understood before hand. If the project was not going as Gerald expected he should have shut it down or renegotiated the contract. It seems clear that they never came to terms and the only reason Gerald wasn't held to task was it is too expensive to sue.