clean volume problem.

[Structo]

Check the FET jack, if you used the funky one like HAD did, then it can get complex to wire it right.

Also, if I recall, you should be getting a lot higher resistance on the OD trimmer at 11 o'clock.
Mine was around 25K @ 10 o'clock.

Try disconnecting the FET jack from the equation, then try clean and OD.

[Frankie]

Check the FET jack, if you used the funky one like HAD did, then it can get complex to wire it right.

Also, if I recall, you should be getting a lot higher resistance on the OD trimmer at 11 o'clock.
Mine was around 25K @ 10 o'clock.

Try disconnecting the FET jack from the equation, then try clean and OD.

Will do that!

[Frankie]

Check the FET jack, if you used the funky one like HAD did, then it can get complex to wire it right.

Also, if I recall, you should be getting a lot higher resistance on the OD trimmer at 11 o'clock.
Mine was around 25K @ 10 o'clock.

Try disconnecting the FET jack from the equation, then try clean and OD.

I`m talking fet trim here.
What value is the trim pot in your fet?
Mine is 10 K, maybe I should go for a higher one.
The OD trim on mine is set to 22 K.

FRH

[jaysg]

hmm...after all he's done, I'd look good and hard at the 22K input resistor and thereabouts. It's easy to stuff a 1K or 1M where you want a 100K. If you have a scope and a generator, that's really the ticket.

[Frankie]

Solved the clean volume problem yesterday.
After almost replacing everything in the preamp, the difference between OD and clean became right when I changed the presence cap. ( same value 0.1). Odd!
Must have been a bad cap.
The amp now sounds sweet.

Frank.

[Structo]

That is odd.

Why would it care what channel you were on?

[Frankie]

That is odd.

Why would it care what channel you were on?

Very strange! Cause the presence is part of the Power section.
How could that affect the cleans, and not the OD.
One thing then, the OD sounds much different after the issue fixed.
Less fizz, less drive, and tighter. Hm!
Tube amps seems to be some strange items.

F.

[Structo]

Yes they can be finicky.
What works for one doesn't always work for another.

I will say I experimented with different presence caps and FB resistors I agree that it can really make or break that part of the circuit.
The tolerances on small value caps like that are all over the place.
I tried one that was a higher value that somebody said was part of the secret sauce and I didn't care for it at all.
There again, not for my amp or my ears.
I may have to revisit the presence cap again.

[Frankie]

Yes they can be finicky.
What works for one doesn't always work for another.

I will say I experimented with different presence caps and FB resistors I agree that it can really make or break that part of the circuit.
The tolerances on small value caps like that are all over the place.
I tried one that was a higher value that somebody said was part of the secret sauce and I didn't care for it at all.
There again, not for my amp or my ears.
I may have to revisit the presence cap again.

Another thing I experienced was if I bend the snubber caps to the center of the tube socket, so they are touching each other, the OD got a tighter bottom. I see Bruno also does it that way in the super 100. He also glue them together. I keep the lead dress pretty much like HAD did it.

Frank.

[LPSGME]

Solved the clean volume problem yesterday.
After almost replacing everything in the preamp, the difference between OD and clean became right when I changed the presence cap. ( same value 0.1). Odd!
Must have been a bad cap.
The amp now sounds sweet.

Frank.

You said the cap was .1
Is it the .1 cap that you changed, or do you perhaps mean the 1uf?

And does anyone know if the 1uf cap is supposed to be a Tantalum and, if so, to what effect?

[Frankie]

Solved the clean volume problem yesterday.
After almost replacing everything in the preamp, the difference between OD and clean became right when I changed the presence cap. ( same value 0.1). Odd!
Must have been a bad cap.
The amp now sounds sweet.

Frank.

You said the cap was .1
Is it the .1 cap that you changed, or do you perhaps mean the 1uf?

And does anyone know if the 1uf cap is supposed to be a Tantalum and, if so, to what effect?

Of course it`s 1 uf. Sorry my mistake. Mine is not tantalum.

[Structo]

I had a tant cap on my D'lite as it came with the kit but I have since replaced it with an electrolytic.

Can't remember what the tant sounded like.
I believe the tolerances may be tighter on the tants.

I think #124 has a tant cap.

[Teleguy61]

[quote="Structo"]Yes they can be finicky.
What works for one doesn't always work for another.

That's why we love em!

[LPSGME]

I had a tant cap on my D'lite as it came with the kit but I have since replaced it with an electrolytic.

Can't remember what the tant sounded like.
I believe the tolerances may be tighter on the tants.

I think #124 has a tant cap.

Re; 124: The schematic I have does show a Tantalum, which is why I asked.

My amp had an electrolytic.

I tried a tantalum after posting the question and, to me, the electrolytic has more buzz and a bit more grit/edge much like the difference between a carbon composition and metal film resistor in the signal path - but a bit less.

After a few swaps, also changing other available variables, I opted for the Tantalum.

[brewdude]

Have any of you tried a 1uF film cap in the presence?

I tried a Panasonic 1uF/100V film there and I like it, so far.