Structo wrote:If you look at the layout Tony was so gracious to make, the layout and values on the main board are probably what everyone refers to as a "70's" amp. Look in the files section for the #40 layout.
Tom,
what Tony posted is AFAIK no "layout of #040". And this is perhaps the misunderstanding from which all this confusion now arises. #040 is a real 50W 2nd generation Dumble Overdrive Special. Gut pics of #040 you find on Rob Livesey's site.
Tony now used the term "layout of #040" only in a metaphoric sense AFAIK to express: "Here you find my personal cocktail mixture of different circuit specs from different 70ies amps, #40 being one example". But AFAIK there is no single real Dumble amp in existence with this kind of schematic and layout that Tony has posted using the term "layout of #040". But Tony can perhaps tell you himself how he came up with this layout.
BTW:
If some or even most here think that it is a most boring topic to discuss the technical specs of some real Dumble amps that have been built in the seventies, this is absolutely fine with me of course. But I nevertheless think that there is no special "flag" needed for my posts, as Bob Simpson suggested. On the left side of my posts there is already a "flag" that says: "Max" or "Beware, this is one more of these boring nitpicking Max posts!" So where’s the problem? Why don’t you just ignore my posts?
And if some or even most here think that it is a good idea and a promising approach to build replicas of Dumble amps by mixing a cocktail of the pot values of amp A with the tone caps of amp B, the OD entrance of amp C, the power supply of amp D, the PI of amp E, the EQ switches of amp F, the ratio circuit of amp G, the presence circuit of amp H, the coax cables of amp I, the power amp of amp J, the V1/V2 plate resistors of amp K, the slope resistor of amp L etc, this is completely fine with me, too, of course.
But on the other hand I will for sure continue to post here what is my opinion about this kind of "cocktail" approach. And IMO this is complete nonsense.
Why? Because every single Dumble amp has been built by Alexander Dumble as a kind of individual "tone generator
system":
"So each amplifier or speaker enclosure can very much be considered a prototype device suitable as a model for mass manufacturing, copying procedures." (A. Dumble)
And because of this, if you want a tone close to #183, I would recommend using the complete #183
system. And if you want a tone close to the amp of Lowell George I would recommend using the complete #13
system. And if you want a tone close to #075, I would recommend using the complete #075
system. And if you want a tone like the 3rd generation ODS of Karl Ratzer (
http://ampgarage.com/forum/viewtopic.ph ... 121#135121 ) I would recommend using the complete 3rd generation
system. And if you want a tone like the 2nd generation ODS on the clips I have posted here
http://ampgarage.com/forum/viewtopic.ph ... 368#129368 , I would recommend using the complete 2nd generation
system. And IMO this would only be possible if you know all these systems. But as some or even most here seem to prefer this "cocktail" approach, I understand of course that you perceive my posts here as boring and nitpicking.
But, Tom, on the other hand you should perhaps understand that as long as I am not completely convinced that all 8000+ members here are not interested in my posts, you will have just to live with them further on. So the best way to avoid that your first cup of coffee is sometimes disturbed by one of my posts will perhaps be to just ignore them in the future.
One more nitpicking remark in regard to the "The power supply does not matter that much" topic:
I do not know much about the details of tube amp technology. But as far as I know this is an AC based technology. And because of this the power supply is of course a part of the "signal path" (a weird metaphor anyway IMO for an AC circuit).
And the different versions of power supplies have a large influence upon the dynamics. And the dynamics have a large influence on how the human hearing system perceives the "timbre" or "tone" of an instrument. The human hearing system perceives a different kind of transient response as an example as a different tonal colour or "timbre" and not only as different velocities of changes in volume.
If this topic should perhaps seem to be interesting for some here, than I can recommend reading one of these books:
http://books.google.com/books?id=qgsst2 ... &q&f=false
http://books.google.com/books?id=eGcfn9 ... &q&f=false
Cheers and happy mixing. Have fun!
Max
