Somewhere between 102 and 183

[talbany]

So here is my (Updated) 102.
After having built and played both amps for several years I decided to mod my 102 more in the direction of a 183. Given that I just built the Music Man low plate Skyliner more than satisfied my RF needs. I wanted to take the other HP Skyliner in a bit of a different direction. I always liked the aggressive break up and snarl of 183 but in some ways thought it was a bit over the top and in some of the clips I heard sounded a bit to fuzzy in OD. So I was shooting for something in between 102 and 183
I wanted the top G B E strings to be clear with some air and the lower registers to have a bit of that 183 growl! without the fuzz if and when I leaned into it. Where I ended up was somewhere( I think) in the middle. Here is where I landed.

1.Changed the OD Master vol from a 100k to a 250K CTS 2-35 Audio taper pot
2. Went back to the 1uF GNFB from the 2uF
3.Changed the Bass pot from Audio to Linear taper
4. Change the mid boost feature over to the 'DEEP' config
5 2X330 uF series plate caps ala 183
6 Changed the Silver mica 330pF treble cap to a 470pF X5F Sprague Ceramic
7. Installed the 1M PI grid resistors(Old style) NTEs MF's from a set of Phiers.
8. Installed new plate resistors and went with NTE 220K and MK'3 150K's on both clean and OD just like 183
9. Kept the 6L's (RCA Blackplates 60's)
10. No NFB on V1B
11. 180K OD Mstr feeder instead of 150K
12. Installed 1 W Iskra resistors in signal path (Like the Music Man)
13 Kept 40uF on V2 OD stage.
14. Went with 150k Mk3 for the slope instead of the CF. (This IMO made a big difference)
15. 715P 800V Mid cap
16. Changed the PI Plates from CF to NTE 120/110 Metal films.
17. Changed the Bias grid feeders from CF to MF again NTE's
18. Left the OD Entrance resistor a CF and used an Iskra there.(183 used MF)
19. Changed the 68pF mstr cap to 47pF Silver mica sounded best.
20. Changed all bypass caps over to Tantalum from alum.
21. V1B 220k bypass cap is a 470Pf Silver mica (not a ceramic)
22. Changed the 3k3 bypass resistors from KOA Speer to MK'3
24. 250Pf Snubbers ala 102.

IMO. This design seems to work well with low output PUP's Strat's and Tele's as it helps to thicken the tone add in some low mids mainly due to the 250K pot swap. I tried 250k values in both Drive and Level's but found it to be over the top fuzzy with to much low end. The rest of the mods were either to add some clarity on the top end and the others to help keep the low end phat and tight.
The combination of the 715P mid cap along with the silver mica I had in there was too bright at times so I solved that issue with the X5F. This is the one treble cap that sounds good to me in both clean and OD. Kudos to Dumble for nailing that one.
All in it's a completely different animal and think I came pretty close. Here is a clip of it with my 52 RI Tele. These are the lowest output PUPS I have and is still all stock electronics.
I've also added another clip of Matt playing 183 with his Tele so you can compare the 2 (although I am not sure how hot his pups are in his)
I'll try and post a clip of the clean side soon with some chord work.

Hope you can hear what I am talking about!

BTW. Dumbleator is running with my usual LXP Lexicon 15 just a little verb.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WxykyP8ze7c

183# https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NmzJD4NhjPI

Which do you prefer?

Tony

[ijedouglas]

Tony, you nailed it. That sounds amazing!

[M Fowler]

Sounds great Tony!

Back on tour with that amp/guitar perhaps?

Mark

[talbany]

Sounds great Tony!

Back on tour with that amp/guitar perhaps?

Mark

Hey Mark.
Back out in early Dec for 2 months. The Tele will go along with a Strat. Amp will probably be the Music Man on this run... Thanks on the amp!

Tony, you nailed it. That sounds amazing!

Thanks Ian!

Tony

[Charlie Wilson]

Tony sounds great. Obviously Matt Rae is a great player but I have always found the real 183 a bit rough sounding. I like the sound of your amp because it has the 183 attitude but is nicer sounding. I can tell what kind of guitar you are playing even saturated in OD mode. Great job and I'm not just saying that out fear of being wacked by the resistor mafia.
CW

[talbany]

Tony sounds great. Obviously Matt Rae is a great player but I have always found the real 183 a bit rough sounding. I like the sound of your amp because it has the 183 attitude but is nicer sounding. I can tell what kind of guitar you are playing even saturated in OD mode. Great job and I'm not just saying that out fear of being wacked by the resistor mafia.
CW

Hey Charlie.
Thanks and that was exactly what I was shooting for. It took a while to finally find the right combo since some of the other parts I tried seemed to want to tip the amp too far in one direction or the other. Initially I thought the platform would need to be a 102 with a few 183 tricks to get it right.However the more I tweaked the more it needed to be a 183 with a few 102 tricks.
Yes Matt is a wonderful player and was hard posting a clip of his playing next to mine but it was the only decent one out there of a tele and 183.

Great jo b and I'm not just saying that out fear of being wacked by the resistor mafia.

I'll take that as a compliment and obviously I expect some if not most out there will prefer 183 over mine.

Tony

[stelligan]

I like. Sounds clear and snappy. I'm happy if you're happy

[norburybrook]

Sounds great Tony. I think your knowledge as a builder and player really shows here as ,like HAD, you know which parts of the circuit and components to change to get the tone you're after, this has obviously taken you a lot of years of building/playing experimenting to gain if you pardon the pun!

I'm still a long way from that, but threads like this are invaluable for everyone to see and hear what your mods can sound like, so thanks



M

p.s. I'm starting a new build and am going to experiment a bit but I tend to just try new stuff and see what happens, perhaps this time I can be a bit more scientific after this thread.

[10thTx]

Tony,

THANKS for sharing this! I printed off a D-102 schematic comparing it to a D-183 schematic and went thru all the changes you mentioned to get a better visual. (marked them on the schematic) VERY interesting approach.

While some component values changed (such as 47p instead of 68p OR 1uf instead of 2uf), the majority of the tone shaping was the type/brand of component instead of a changed value. I think you're sharing this is an important part of understanding the approach Dumble took & also a concrete demonstration that the type/brand of the component plays a large factor in tone shaping.

In fact, you listed 24 areas of focus (23 actually since there is no #23 listed). Sort of depending on your perspective and definition:

A) changes in value or topology : 1,2,4,5,6,10,11 & 19

B) changes in type or manufacturer/brand of component: 3,7,8,12,14,15,16,17,18, 20,21, & 22

C) no change from D-120 to D-183: 10, 13 & 24

(I acknowledge that one could categorize these differently with a different starting viewpoint)

Both amps sound good to me in the videos. I certainly think the 183 changes sounds fantastic!

With respect, 10thtx

[talbany]

Tony,

THANKS for sharing this! I printed off a D-102 schematic comparing it to a D-183 schematic and went thru all the changes you mentioned to get a better visual. (marked them on the schematic) VERY interesting approach.

While some component values changed (such as 47p instead of 68p OR 1uf instead of 2uf), the majority of the tone shaping was the type/brand of component instead of a changed value. I think you're sharing this is an important part of understanding the approach Dumble took & also a concrete demonstration that the type/brand of the component plays a large factor in tone shaping.

In fact, you listed 24 areas of focus (23 actually since there is no #23 listed). Sort of depending on your perspective and definition:

A) changes in value or topology : 1,2,4,5,6,10,11 & 19

B) changes in type or manufacturer/brand of component: 3,7,8,12,14,15,16,17,18, 20,21, & 22

C) no change from D-120 to D-183: 10, 13 & 24

(I acknowledge that one could categorize these differently with a different starting viewpoint)

Both amps sound good to me in the videos. I certainly think the 183 sounds fantastic!

With respect, 10thtx

Hey Jeff
Glad you found this useful!. And just to be clear we are talking fine tuning here..
As you are now just starting to discover how certain parts types and or brands can affect the sound of your amp.You are correct most of the tone shaping was done by using different parts types. The most difficult part of this amp was to have the amp be aggressive yet have the top end stay relatively clear and the mids open and articulate without the harsh overtones was the balance. Given 183 was a bass heavy amp had to also contend with keeping the low end tight (Tant bypass caps). At times a certain part might take me too far in one direction so I would have to compensate that with another part somewhere else play the amp a day or 2. Some of these were subtle and others in your face. It wasn't they were good or bad just took me in a direction I didn't want to go in and being as I was wondering a little off the reservation here I had to play listen swap rinse repeat. I cannot say the amp is completely perfect and for me at times is still a little too aggressive I think it's the best I can do for now. Maybe something will pop up later I can try but for now it's not bad. Most of the parts types changes were done by either Ceramic or silver mica or the use of either CF or MF resistor's in some spots and of course the mid cap type. Of course things like the 250K Level ,1uF GNFB and the 47pf mstr cap are all alterations to the 102 circuit which took me more into 183 territory added more low end and opened up the top end.
BTW. I tried 4 different type ceramic/mica caps before I found the right combo for this amp
Crazy huh!

Tony

[talbany]

Sounds great Tony. I think your knowledge as a builder and player really shows here as ,like HAD, you know which parts of the circuit and components to change to get the tone you're after, this has obviously taken you a lot of years of building/playing experimenting to gain if you pardon the pun!

I'm still a long way from that, but threads like this are invaluable for everyone to see and hear what your mods can sound like, so thanks



M

p.s. I'm starting a new build and am going to experiment a bit but I tend to just try new stuff and see what happens, perhaps this time I can be a bit more scientific after this thread.

Hey Marcus
This is not everyones cup of tea and am sure at some point I will get tired of all this Dumble non sense and go back to just playing guitar. I'll keep doing it as long as its fun and others here keep me tempted in trying new things which I am grateful that they share their knowledge and keep me inspired to build. Hopefully some will get some joy out of it and will help them along in their quest for their perfect amp.Like you say there are more important things in life.
Have fun with the new build!

Tony

[dbharris]

Thanks for sharing your approach Tony. The clip sounds great! I'd be interested to hear more slide playing through the FET input sometime.

Best,

Dan

[talbany]

Thanks for sharing your approach Tony. The clip sounds great! I'd be interested to hear more slide playing through the FET input sometime.

Best,

Dan

Hey Dan.
Jesus you thought that was good!
Sure will do another one on the clean and FET input and throw in some more slide stuff for ya.

Thanks!

Tony

[martin manning]

Sounds great, and nice playing as always, Tony.

I had the same idea as Jeff in looking at the changes as being circuit, component value, or component type, but another way to see it is to identify the things that are likely to have made the most difference in the sound. I would list the following circuit and component value changes as the major contributors. You're probably going to disagree, but for those who don't want to go chasing after old parts, there it is. I think I'm going to stay away from mica caps, as they are getting harder to find and are often unreliable. C0G ceramics will be my choice for a neutral sounding small cap.

[talbany]

Sounds great, and nice playing as always, Tony.

I had the same idea as Jeff in looking at the changes as being circuit, component value, or component type, but another way to see it is to identify the things that are likely to have made the most difference in the sound. I would list the following circuit and component value changes as the major contributors. You're probably going to disagree, but for those who don't want to go chasing after old parts, there it is. I think I'm going to stay away from mica caps, as they are getting harder to find and are often unreliable. C0G ceramics will be my choice for a neutral sounding small cap.

Martin
I would agree with your list here as far as changes having the greatest impact.
The types were more fine tuning (resistor MF/CF types) they did affect things like clarity of sound or slightly brighter and more articulate,tighter bass response,character of breakup and musicality and or overtones/harmonics generated. Different players might put these in a different category and rate of impact on the sound will fluctuate somewhat player to player. Also as you know the sound of the ceramic caps can change when voltage is applied which is one of the reasons why I went to the deep config. Different ceramic types can also alter the aggressive nature of the amp (grit). The challenge for me was to find one sounded best in both clean and OD mode. the XF5's seemed to work best in both modes,however you will more than likely find some COG's that will do the same with some searching I am sure. Please let us know what you find as the old XF5's are impossible to get.

Tony