Question:
I visited Musician’s Friend website and looked up the info they had on Soldanos. I was quite surpised to learn that Soldanos used 5881 power tubes. Aren’t those the same tubes that were used in the really awful sounding JCM 900’s. Wouldn’t EL34’s be a better choice? Do Bogners use EL34’s or 5881s? Jarl Sigurd To listen to a JCM 900 that uses EL34’s, visit http://geocities.com/SunsetStrip/Pavilion/4085
Response:
: I visited Musician’s Friend website and looked : up the info they had on Soldanos. I was quite : surpised to learn that Soldanos used 5881 : power tubes. Aren’t those the same tubes : that were used in the really awful sounding : JCM 900’s. Wouldn’t EL34’s be a better choice? : Do Bogners use EL34’s or 5881s? It’s not the tubes that make the difference, it’s the design of the amp. 5881s are similar to 6L6 tubes, which have been used in Fenders and many other amps with great success for many years. Jas. To listen to a guitar player whose amp uses 6L6 tubes, go to… ah, nevermind. James Andrews Philadelphia, PA Remove the XX
Response:
>Aren’t those the same tubes >that were used in the really awful sounding >JCM 900’s. Wouldn’t EL34’s be a better choice?
It’s not the tubes that make the 900’s sound awful, it’s the design and components of the amp.
Response:
> Aren’t those the same tubes >: that were used in the really awful sounding >: JCM 900’s. Wouldn’t EL34’s be a better choice? >: Do Bogners use EL34’s or 5881s?
I heard the original 6L6 Soldanos sounded best. Bogner uses EL-34 or 6L6 Carl
Response:
> I visited Musician’s Friend website and looked > up the info they had on Soldanos. I was quite > surpised to learn that Soldanos used 5881 > power tubes. Aren’t those the same tubes > that were used in the really awful sounding > JCM 900’s. Wouldn’t EL34’s be a better choice? > Do Bogners use EL34’s or 5881s?
Jarl – it’s the output transformers that make the difference in tone. Yes, there are differences between 6l6’s and 34’s but the transformers are really what matters. Mike Soldano designed his transformers for the tone he was after. He probably chose to use 6l6’s because of availability and consistency. Marshall used 6l6’s there for a while because the el34 market was dry. Marshall transformers sound like crap with 6l6’s. —
Response:
>I visited Musician’s Friend website and looked >up the info they had on Soldanos. I was quite >surpised to learn that Soldanos used 5881 >power tubes. Aren’t those the same tubes >that were used in the really awful sounding >JCM 900’s. Wouldn’t EL34’s be a better choice? >Do Bogners use EL34’s or 5881s?
I don’t really disagree with any other posts in this thread so far, but my own opinions: I don’t personally like Sovtek 5881’s. They’re a completely different tube from old American 5881’s (now out of production). To me, they sound flat, without much detail. Of course some like them for just that reason. In many amps they tend not to portray string squeaks and little glitches vividly (like Sylvania or Svetlana tubes do). Give me the Sylvanias or Svets AND the string squeaks AND the deeper image of what the strings are really doing. Speaking of… Svetlana 6L6GC’s may work in that amp. Check with a good tech at the manufacturer. Sovtek 5881’s are a rugged tube, but Svet 6L6GC’s will usually stand up to similar plate voltages. Again, verify. Both 5881’s and 6L6GC’s are ‘beam tubes’. They tend to have a very ‘chunky’ (Fenderish) tone that distorts OK, but usually do not transition into distortion as gracefully as an EL34. EL34’s and ‘true pentodes’ in general, will sound a bit thinner than beam tubes at low vol. Not nec bad! Someone called them ’feathery’, which I like). They will transition into distortion gracefully, and they work well in high-volume amps like Marshalls. Often, BRANDS of tubes make as big a difference as the number or family (beam vs true pentode). Generally, I like Svetlanas. I find many Teslas to be shrill. I find many Sovteks to lack depth (see above). Not true of all tube types, but I don’t feel like typing all night. Joe Bac is correct: ’Iron’ (transformers) are very important. Unfortunately it’s not easy to swap ‘em. It may be possible to swap your output tubes to see if you can get something you like better. That’s all for now. MGarvin
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> I visited Musician’s Friend website and looked > up the info they had on Soldanos. I was quite > surpised to learn that Soldanos used 5881 > power tubes. Aren’t those the same tubes > that were used in the really awful sounding > JCM 900’s. Wouldn’t EL34’s be a better choice? > Do Bogners use EL34’s or 5881s? >Jarl – it’s the output transformers that make the difference in tone. >Yes, there are differences between 6l6’s and 34’s but the transformers >are really what matters. Mike Soldano designed his transformers for the >tone he was after. He probably chose to use 6l6’s because of >availability and consistency. Marshall used 6l6’s there for a while >because the el34 market was dry. Marshall transformers sound like crap >with 6l6’s. >–
So if I understand what you’re saying correctly, 6L6’s require more expensive transformers to sound good than EL34’s? Jarl Sigurd To listen to guitar playing using Marshalls with EL34’s visit http://geocities.com/SunsetStrip/Pavilion/4085
Response:
>So if I understand what you’re saying correctly, 6L6’s require more >expensive transformers to sound good than EL34’s? >Jarl Sigurd
Expense is not nec. related to the tube type. In fact, some like the more ‘distant’ sound of a good old cheapo transformer as opposed to the more direct, tone of expensive iron (maybe think Matchless tone as an example…very up-front). The required output transformer primary impedance is different for 6L6-series vs EL34. There is no ‘ideal’ primary impedance, but guitar amp mfgs usually pick a spot that maximizes harmonics without going overboard and dissipating too much from tube plates. Having said that, 6L6’s usually have around 4.5k primary imp. EL34’s usually have around 3K primary imp. That primary impedance will change somewhat, depending on speaker impedance, so again, it’s not a hard-line measurement. Just a guideline. What it DOES mean is that if you put a 6L6 into an EL34 amp, you will usually be running the prim. impedance lower than normal which might stress tubes. Conversely, putting EL34’s into a 6L6 amp will tend to diminish the harmonics just a tad or change the harmonic spectrum. Some may even like this, though.
Response:
It isnt the tubes, it’s the transformer that makes most the difference – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – >I visited Musician’s Friend website and looked >up the info they had on Soldanos. I was quite >surpised to learn that Soldanos used 5881 >power tubes. Aren’t those the same tubes >that were used in the really awful sounding >JCM 900’s. Wouldn’t EL34’s be a better choice? >Do Bogners use EL34’s or 5881s? >Jarl Sigurd >To listen to a JCM 900 that uses EL34’s, visit >http://geocities.com/SunsetStrip/Pavilion/4085
Response:
> I visited Musician’s Friend website and looked > up the info they had on Soldanos. I was quite > surpised to learn that Soldanos used 5881 > power tubes. Aren’t those the same tubes > that were used in the really awful sounding > JCM 900’s.
A lot of Soldanos were made when there were few, if any 6L6’s (5881 is a type of 6L6) available in quantity, besides the Russian 5881’s they used. (The Yamaha-Soldanos were worse, being chock full of Chinese tubes) Replacing these with better 6L6’s, AFAIK, is not a problem, and they should sound better with better tubes, too. AFAIK, there’s little in common between Soldanos and JCM900 with 5881’s besides the output tubes. Now stocking reissue Magnequest transformers for Dynaco(TM) and Sunn ™! http://www.triodeel.com/parts.htm#transformer Ned Carlson Triode Electronics "where da tubes are!" 2225 W Roscoe Chicago, IL, 60618 USA http://www.triodeel.com ph 773-871-7459 fax 773-871-7938 12:30 to 8 PM CT, (1830-0200 UTC) 12:30-5 Sat, Closed Wed & Sun
Response:
> It isnt the tubes, it’s the transformer that makes most the difference.
Big 10-4, good buddy. An amp tech verified this in spades by poking a Marshall output xformer at the end of Fender electronics. Voila! Instant Marshal Reverb. With that one change, the Fender tone stack became irrelevant. -drh —
Response:
> So if I understand what you’re saying correctly, 6L6’s require more > expensive transformers to sound good than EL34’s?
Not really. I don’t think expense has anything to do with it. If we go back a ways in time, the original holy grail guitar amp was/is the fender tweed bassman. This is a 6l6 based amp. Marshall based his design off this amp. In fact, I believe his original design used KT-66 which is similiar to 6l6 – electronically speaking. Eventually, he went to el34’s. All the reason for this is he was based in England and those tubes were for the most part the European version of the 6l6 or 5881. Given what Jim Marshall had access to based on his geography, that’s how his transformers were originally chosen. Which is why a marshall sounds different then a fender even though the design principles are similiar. Many modern day amp design/mfg’rs start with a bassman, or a marshall, or a vox in mind. Many make swiss army knives – Boogie for example. By having transformers that can deal with the different biasing, they allow you to change tubes to whatever you like. Soldano began his career modifying marshalls but he favored 6l6/5881 tubes for whatever reason. Mike chose to pick the most expensive parts and built his product like a tank because of all the repair experience he had fixing broken marshalls. That’s why a SLO costs what it does for the most part. I’ve had my SLO since 93 and have gigged it religiously. It has been the most reliable amp I have ever owned and lord knows I’ve been thru lots of amps. My SLO blew a fuse once and it was from the fact that the fuse just gave out not because there’s a problem with the amp. Anyway – maybe that clears some of this up for you. —
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> It isnt the tubes, it’s the transformer that makes most the difference. > Big 10-4, good buddy. > An amp tech verified this in spades by > poking a Marshall output xformer > at the end of Fender electronics. > Voila! Instant Marshal Reverb. > With that one change, the > Fender tone stack became irrelevant.
I really wish I didn’t know about this. *Sigh*. > -drh > —
– X-No-Archive: yes
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> > It isnt the tubes, it’s the transformer that makes most the difference. > Big 10-4, good buddy. > An amp tech verified this in spades by > poking a Marshall output xformer > at the end of Fender electronics. > Voila! Instant Marshal Reverb. > With that one change, the > Fender tone stack became irrelevant. >I really wish I didn’t know about this. *Sigh*.
Even better: Swap in real high quality precision-wound ‘old iron’ like a UTC transformer. Even their lower-end transformers have much heavier cores than equiv-rated guitar transformers. Like going from a Princeton to a Bassman, but moreso. As I mentioned, some don’t like the tone, possibly cause it’s too detailed and in-your-face. Makes it apparent how ‘bad’ (or good?) some guitar amp transformers are. I do respectfully disagree to some extent about xfmrs vs output tubes vs tone controls: Everyone’s ears are sensitive to different things, but I find a huge difference between 6L6 family vs EL34. Also tone controls: Fender has been using one basic design for ages. The value of the RC net formed by the treble cap and treble pot (250p/250k) are an integral part of the Fender sound (IMO). (Change that cap and see if you agree). Marshall has a LOT of tone stack designs. Often very strange (Check the bottom schematic of Doyle’s Marshall Book, p234. Who designed that thing?) Even when Marshall copies the Fender circuit, they usually do something different. Sometimes they use the same 33k ’slope resistor’ in both the plate-loaded and the cathode follower versions of their circuits. Big differences in loading on the plate circuit. Other times, they change the notch frequencies so that there is more midrange overall, but also change the mid resistor/pot so very sharp, steep midrange notches can result due to phase shift at the center frequency (kinda like a T-filter). The result of those circuits is very non-Fenderish to my ears. Re xfmrs vs tubes vs tone controls (may as well mention speakers, too, since they contribute a lot to signature tone): It’s sometimes tough to eval transformers since the pure efficiency of a heavy transformer can lead to different impressions re tone. I hesitate to say which makes the most difference. They all do different things to sound…sometimes xfmr and output tubes will interact directly with speakers with odd impedance curves, throwing another monkey wrench into the equation. Component-wise, I’d have a tough time defining what I think of as defining Marshall’s sound, though Fender’s approach is more clearly defined. You could put old Jensens on a Marshall and get one aspect of Fender-like tone. Or swap tone-stacks, etc. It keeps things interesting. Or…how about KT66’s in a Fender amp? (make sure you have enough extra filament current). Or EL37’s? (not that you’ll find those) MGarvin (Now back to your regularly scheduled flame-war. <g>)
Response:
Mark, I don’t like you. :P You always have some great stuff to share with the group! Thanks, Gil – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – >Even better: Swap in real high quality precision-wound ‘old iron’ like >a UTC transformer. Even their lower-end transformers have much >heavier cores than equiv-rated guitar transformers. Like going from a >Princeton to a Bassman, but moreso. As I mentioned, some don’t like >the tone, possibly cause it’s too detailed and in-your-face. Makes it >apparent how ‘bad’ (or good?) some guitar amp transformers are. >I do respectfully disagree to some extent about xfmrs vs output tubes >vs tone controls: >Everyone’s ears are sensitive to different things, but I find a huge >difference between 6L6 family vs EL34. >Also tone controls: Fender has been using one basic design for ages. >The value of the RC net formed by the treble cap and treble pot >(250p/250k) are an integral part of the Fender sound (IMO). (Change >that cap and see if you agree). >Marshall has a LOT of tone stack designs. Often very strange (Check >the bottom schematic of Doyle’s Marshall Book, p234. Who designed >that thing?) >Even when Marshall copies the Fender circuit, they usually do >something different. Sometimes they use the same 33k ’slope resistor’ >in both the plate-loaded and the cathode follower versions of their >circuits. Big differences in loading on the plate circuit. >Other times, they change the notch frequencies so that there is more >midrange overall, but also change the mid resistor/pot so very sharp, >steep midrange notches can result due to phase shift at the center >frequency (kinda like a T-filter). The result of those circuits is >very non-Fenderish to my ears. >Re xfmrs vs tubes vs tone controls (may as well mention speakers, >too, since they contribute a lot to signature tone): >It’s sometimes tough to eval transformers since the pure efficiency >of a heavy transformer can lead to different impressions re tone. >I hesitate to say which makes the most difference. They all do >different things to sound…sometimes xfmr and output tubes will >interact directly with speakers with odd impedance curves, throwing >another monkey wrench into the equation. >Component-wise, I’d have a tough time defining what I think of as >defining Marshall’s sound, though Fender’s approach is more clearly >defined. You could put old Jensens on a Marshall and get one aspect >of Fender-like tone. Or swap tone-stacks, etc. It keeps things >interesting. >Or…how about KT66’s in a Fender amp? (make sure you have enough >extra filament current). Or EL37’s? (not that you’ll find those) >MGarvin >(Now back to your regularly scheduled flame-war. <g>)
Response:
> > So if I understand what you’re saying correctly, 6L6’s require more > expensive transformers to sound good than EL34’s? > Not really. I don’t think expense has anything to do with it. If we go > back a ways in time, the original holy grail guitar amp was/is the > fender tweed bassman. This is a 6l6 based amp. Marshall based his > design off this amp. In fact, I believe his original design used KT-66 > which is similiar to 6l6 – electronically speaking.
According to the Doyle book, 5881’s. Eventually, he went > to el34’s. All the reason for this is he was based in England and those > tubes were for the most part the European version of the 6l6 or 5881.
EL34’s really aren’t much like 6L6’s…but I don’t think that geography had much to do with this change. 6L6’s really were made in Britain at the time (Brimar made them), KT66’s were plenty available as well. If they’d wanted to just save some money, they could’ve imported Japanese 6L6’s (NEC made a near dead-on knockoff of the black plate 6L6-GC’s RCA made). > Given what Jim Marshall had access to based on his geography, that’s how > his transformers were originally chosen.
According to Doyle, they were buying them right out of the Radiospares catalog, of all things. — Ned Carlson Triode Electronics "where da tubes are!" 2225 W Roscoe Chicago, IL, 60618 USA ph 773-871-7459 fax 773-871-7938 12:30 to 8 PM CT, (1830-0200 UTC) 12:30-5 Sat, Closed Wed & Sun <A HREF="http://www.triodeel.com">http://www.triodeel.com</A>
Response:
. They tend to get pretty thirsty sitting in a retailer’s warehouse! And I’m convinced you can tell the difference once they’re nicely waxed up. I usually make a point of waxing my basses when I change strings, which depending on gig schedule can be about every 4 weeks. It takes about 45 minutes to do the whole bass, but I can do mine in parallel. I use the Warwick wax on the bodies and headstocks, but not on the neck or fretboard. I’ve found it to be a little too sticky for those areas, so instead I use Formby’s Lemon Oil to clean the gunk on the fretboards, and then apply a coat of Butcher’s Wax to the front and back of the neck. I like the feel of the Butcher’s much better; it’s slicker and it seems to provide more protection to the neck, but it takes a little longer to dry (say 20 minutes as opposed to about 5 for the Warwick wax). Once the wax has dried, I take a clean rag and wipe all the areas down to remove the residue. A cotton T-shirt works great for this. One advantage of the oil finished basses is that small nicks, scratches, and wear can be repaired very easily. You just sand it down (with the grain) using 400 grit sandpaper or finer, then wax up the sanded region, and it’s as good as new. Be careful not to get the wax on your strings; it’ll definitely crud them up. And have a small jeweler’s screwdriver handy for digging wax turds out from the nooks and crannies (like the space between your pickups and the body of the bass). One other little care note. Some very carefully applied brass cleaner makes the brass nut shine nicely. -Barry 