A cute trick for youse guys..

[glasman]

Here is a little trick from my bag that I will share. If you are using a bluemaster style front end, you can easy shift this very close to a Fender stack response by parallelling a .05uf on the bass and mid caps. Before someone asks, yes one cap per section .

The plus side, it really sounds nice and gives the BM a second voice.

This is something I have evolved over the past couple of years, never seen .07ufs in a Dumbe .

And no, this is not the same as my BlueSky switching system.

Gary

[glasman]

And before you start sticking these values in Duncan TSC, remember that program is no where near reality when it goes to real measured response. It is WAY off..

Gary

[dr. who]

Cool thanks. I probably won't implement this soon as I have no BM build planned, but I'm glad this info's out there if I do.

[brewdude]

And before you start sticking these values in Duncan TSC, remember that program is no where near reality when it goes to real measured response. It is WAY off..

Gary

Do you think that the Fender model on Duncan's TSG measure any closer to reality in an actual Fender application?

What do you think is the tonal difference between a Dumble style parallel mid and bass, and a Fender style series mid and bass? Is that the only difference which would render the TSG inaccurate? Or, is the rest of the circuit effecting the actual observed response curves beyond the interactions of the tone stack?

Sorry if these questions are off topic.

[jaysg]

Do you think that the Fender model on Duncan's TSG measure any closer to reality in an actual Fender application?

I had the same argument with Paul Rivera once, after I'd run a bunch of Spice analyses on various tone stacks. What Paul didn't clearly explain to me, was that the interactions with the tubes change the results a bit. You can't do this sort of analysis on just the tone stack without defining the drive stage and the following stage....hopefully Gary will correct me if there's more to it.

I think the tool is still useful in getting the general notions of what tweaking the various parts does.

[glasman]

And before you start sticking these values in Duncan TSC, remember that program is no where near reality when it goes to real measured response. It is WAY off..

Gary

Do you think that the Fender model on Duncan's TSG measure any closer to reality in an actual Fender application?

What do you think is the tonal difference between a Dumble style parallel mid and bass, and a Fender style series mid and bass? Is that the only difference which would render the TSG inaccurate? Or, is the rest of the circuit effecting the actual observed response curves beyond the interactions of the tone stack?

Sorry if these questions are off topic.

No, if you use the Fender Stack in TSC to model bluesmaster type values the Bass shelf and mid notch are quite a ways off from what is measured realtime. For example, TSC will give a bass shelf for a BM stack at about 80 to 85Hz, in real measurements, it is about 125 to 130Hz, that is the difference between low E on the guitar and low C+ on the guitar.

I don't think TSC takes into consideration enough of the tube and loading parameters to be totally accurate.

As far as the difference between the Fender Stack and the Dumble skyliner style stack they are very different in response and feel. The Dumble skyliner has a stiff bass response than what a Fender style stack has. When you use the BM stack values in the Fender circuit you get the wonderful mega strong but spongier touch bass response.

Hope this answers your questions.

Gary

[glasman]

Do you think that the Fender model on Duncan's TSG measure any closer to reality in an actual Fender application?

I had the same argument with Paul Rivera once, after I'd run a bunch of Spice analyses on various tone stacks. What Paul didn't clearly explain to me, was that the interactions with the tubes change the results a bit. You can't do this sort of analysis on just the tone stack without defining the drive stage and the following stage....hopefully Gary will correct me if there's more to it.

I think the tool is still useful in getting the general notions of what tweaking the various parts does.

You are correct, if you model only the stack you will get one response, if you model the complete circuit you will get a better representation.

I have generic spice files for LT Spice that I use when I am spinning up a custom tuning for a customer. With the complete circuit modelled (driver and recovery included) my "spiced" results are almost identical to my measured results.

TSC is ok to get a generic feel for tone stacks and how they react, but get LT Spice (its free) and download the tube models from Duncans site. His tube models are pretty accurate. Then you can do a very good simulation on the front end.