My #102 Review

[boldaslove6789]

I'll post some before and after clips of my Quinn 183 after I change out to the Q-lines (& other NOS goodies too). I should be replacing just about every part that coincides with whatever NOS was in 183.

[Max]

BTW do you know if he uses all current parts in his Landeau Build?

Tony, I don't "know" this. But AFAIR he always used current parts in all his amps I've ever seen in real live or on pictures. So I think, that it isn't very likely, that he changed this kind of approach when building Michael Landau's ODS. But of course this is only speculating.

My personal opinion concerning "Dumble parts": There's only one essential part needed for building Dumble amps: Alexander Dumble.

Without this "part" it will always be a Glaswerks, a Bludotone, a Quinn, a Red Plate, a Welagen, a VVT, a Fuchs etc. etc.. And IMO this is great, as proven by the fact, that all these different amps are used by different players with a different personal taste, and all these players seem to be happy with their amps.

Coming in contact with Alexander Dumble:

As you'll know, some members here posted, that Alexander built amps for them in the last few years, so perhaps you could just send a PM to one of these members and ask them to introduce you to Alexander. Or perhaps you could just ask guys like Daved Kohls or Rick Wheeler next time you're in the audience of a Robben Ford or Larry Carlton etc. concert.

Have a nice sunday!

All the best,

Max

[talbany]

Max
This is a very interesting topic indeed and glad you brought this up..I have no doubts of Alexanders ability to build a wonderful sounding amplifier with current production parts..Most of the builders you mention have done this..But will a version of a 102 built with current production parts sound the same (to me) as one built with basically the same parts he used from that era..This is the basis for my 102 NOS build..
So far my conclusions tell me they will be different..But that is me.. I do not have the ability to make say an Alpha pot sound like a 30% taper CTS or say a CF Xicon sound like a Q-line and I doubt Alexander has the same ability and since we are going for a specific sound here we must entertain the idea that these certain parts play a key role in obtaining that specific sound..
As you know there are many myths surrounding the construction of a Stradivarius (ice age woods finishing compounds etc..) however all scientists agree, it is known for certain that the wood used included spruce for the top, willow for the internal blocks and linings, and maple for the back, ribs, and neck...Alexander does too utilize his own chemistry of componets to obtain a certain sound he is hearing I definitely see this pattern in the pictures I have seen (from his grail era amps) and I have seen many so there maybe something to the whole components thing...
I know Ken Fisher (Trainwreck) had a similar problem with transformers and one of the reasons why he discontinued his line early on along with his failing health..

Here is something else to think about.. VVT and most other amp builders utalize there own recipe of parts for there production models.. My 102 build does not use current production parts sounds very different from a stock VVT..Although it might wear the same name it differs greatly in sound..So the whole sounds like a VVT thing really makes no sense to me!!...Perhaps one day we can play some of these amps together have a beer and dissect this topic further

Isn't this FUN!!..Once again!!

All The Best

Tony

[martin manning]

Yes, interesting topic. Maybe this has been done before, but how about coming up with a list of the most influential components with respect to achieving or matching the signature tone? It might be a bit hard to divorce this from tweaking component values or the speaker used, which are not completely separate issues, but for the purpose at hand they could be ignored. I think it would be an interesting and useful discussion.

In alphabetical order here are some candidates:

Cabinet
Caps
Choke
Lead Dress
Output Transformer
Pots
Power Transformer
Power Tubes
Preamp Tubes
Resistors
Wire

[talbany]

M..yes I agree..The challenges I see inherent here might be what constitutes a signature tone.. 102 has a specific signature tone...124 has a signature tone..So this maybe more amp specific..I am certain HAD wrestled with this to some extent..I would think in terms of more of guide lines than an actual signature..Perhaps this is splitting hairs here but no doubt from a builders point of view a concept worth taking a closer look at..I hope this makes sense!!..
Funny I remember a thread way back when people here were so concerned about the value of the snubbers were used (I believe in 183) yet no discussion had ever been brought up about why HAD used seasoned Fender Twin iron on some of his early 80's amps..

Don't forget resistors!!

Tony

[martin manning]

I edited in a list of candidates above. Can you think of any major ones I missed? Some could probably be broken down into sub-categories, but it's a start. Next would be to put them in order, and maybe assign some kind of weighting?

[Reeltarded]

As you know there are many myths surrounding the construction of a Stradivarius (ice age woods finishing compounds etc..) however all scientists agree, it is known for certain that the wood used included spruce for the top, willow for the internal blocks and linings, and maple for the back, ribs, and neck...Alexander does too utilize his own chemistry of componets to obtain a certain sound he is hearing I definitely see this pattern in the pictures I have seen (from his grail era amps) and I have seen many so there maybe something to the whole components thing...
Tony

Just a stir at the pot.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/podca ... u-12-01-04

[martin manning]

Okay, without a whole lot of thought, here's a whack at it:

9 Output Transformer
8 Preamp Tubes
7 Signal Caps
5 Power Tubes
4 Lead Dress
3 Resistors
2 Filter Caps
2 Pots
2 Power Transformer
1 Wire
1 Cabinet
1 Choke

Vehement disagreement and ridicule welcome.

[talbany]

Okay, without a whole lot of thought, here's a whack at it:

9 Output Transformer
8 Preamp Tubes
7 Signal Caps
5 Power Tubes
4 Lead Dress
3 Resistors
2 Filter Caps
2 Pots
2 Power Transformer
1 Wire
1 Cabinet
1 Choke

Vehement disagreement and ridicule welcome.

M
Good start ..I would proceed by breaking this down to the various generations and start with the parts listed on the Layouts I did.. 6ps caps CTS pots remained somewhat of a constant..Resistor types seemed to change with the generation along with coax etc etc.. That's how I would start.. Transformers are more amp dependent so I am not so sure how you could categorize them..Perhaps by the output section type used..Good Luck

[martin manning]

Tony, I was going more for a given circuit what is the ranking of the effect of component choices- brand, new vs. old, etc., assuming that the value has been chosen appropriately for the target amp. For example, one needs 110uF of capacitance for the reservoir, now what is the influence of the capacitors used to get it, or in the case of coupling caps, the value is 0.1, now how important is it to use 6PS vs. 715P, or for a 100k plate load, how important is it to use Dale RN65's vs. other MF.

Revised ranking splitting wire into hookup and shielded:

9 Output Transformer
8 Preamp Tubes
7 Signal Caps
5 Power Tubes
4 Lead Dress
3 Resistors
3 Shielded Wire
2 Filter Caps
2 Pots
2 Power Transformer
1 Cabinet
1 Choke
1 Hookup Wire

[Max]

But will a version of a 102 built with current production parts sound the same (to me) as one built with basically the same parts he used from that era..

Tony, two answers:

"the same":

AFAIK two different guitar amplifiers, even two built with exactly the same kind of circuit and exactly the same kind of parts, will always process the same signal present at their inputs in a different way: Even if you measure two parts in order to find out if all their specs are identical, the tolerances of your measuring instruments will lead to the result, that the technical specs of the parts in these two amps will still be different to a certain degree. So it would IMO be a very unlikely "statistical accident", if the measurable physical signals present at their outputs would be "the same" in a scientific technical sense.

"(to me)":

As explained above, it’s IMO very likely, that two different guitar amps will always process the same signal in a different way. So they will always transform an identical electrical signal present at their inputs into two different electrical signals present at their outputs. If you now connect the same speaker with the same speaker cable with their outputs, these two different electrical signals will be transformed into two different air pressure stimuli that then are perceived as "the sound" of these amps by your personal sound perception system: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i_0DXxNe ... ure=relmfu.

So your question now is IMO more precisely this:

Will my personal and individual psychophysical sound evaluation system evaluate my personal perceptions of the different air pressure stimuli produced by the original #102 and it’s clone built with current production parts as being "the same"?

But as you’ll now see, this now is no longer a question that can be answered by the science called physics, but has to be answered by the science called psychophysics, that deals with human perception in general. And the part of psychophysics that deals with the human perception of sound, is called psychoacoustics.

Questions like yours ("does this sound the same to me?") are a most interesting topic in psychoacoustic resarch: How do we identify sounds? A designer of an acoustic alarm system e.g. has of course to know what are the essential air pressure stimuli to trigger our "alarm, danger, run" perception pattern as fast and unfailing as possible.

Questions like these are today often researched by the automotive industry e.g.:

Which parameters of an exhaust pipe are needed to make sure, that the sound pressure stimuli emitted by a car triggers the "Ferrari" perception pattern in our brains? How exactly have we to design the locks of the doors of a certain car, that the sound of its closing doors will trigger the "Mercedes door" perception pattern in our brains.

And such questions of course can’t be answered without knowing which of all the different air pressure stimuli emitted by an engine or the lock of a vehicle door are the most essential ones to trigger these perception patterns in our brains.

In our context here at Amp Garage the similar question is: What precisely are the most important parts of all the air pressure stimuli emitted by an amp in order to trigger the "Dumble" or even the "#102" perception pattern in our brains.

It's a bit similar as with the MP3 codec e.g.: Concerning MP3 pschoacoustic research did find out what part of the air pressure stimuli presented to our hearing system is needed to enable us to have fun when listening to music and what can be left off to reduce the amout of data in a music file without spoiling too much of the fun. Or in our context: Which of all the air pressure stimuli are more essential for triggering the "Dumble" perception pattern and which less?

If you know this, then you can reenter the realm of physics and start to find out what circuit details and parts etc. are needed to produce these most essential sound pressure stimuli that are needed to trigger the Dumble or #102 perception pattern in our brains.

So IMO a meaningful answer to your question on a scientific level can only be found, if you take both amps to one of the most renowned and experienced psychoacoustic laboratories, like perhaps Bose or Harvard in the USA or Fraunhofer in Europe.

But of course I don't deny that discussions about such a kind of topic, that aren't based on the results of psychoacoustic research, may perhaps have at least some entertaining value. AFAIK many high fidelity fans at least seem to have lots of fun when discussing the influence of e.g. different "high-end" coax cables on the fun they have when listening to one of their most beloved test records.

BTW: From a practical point of view it would IMO be more interesting, to find out in a psychoacoustic laboratory:

Is the "psychoacoustic distance" between the perception of both amps that large, that the one built with current parts isn't perceived any longer by a statistically valid majority of players as a member of the "#102 sound family" - and by this a suitable tool for the presentation of music in the "RF-style", but e.g. more as a member of the #124, #183, #075, #040 or even the Kustom etc. "sound family"?

IMO another possibilty would perhaps be to just ask Robben Ford, if he thinks, that, in case #102 should perhaps be stolen e.g., Alexander Dumble would be able to build a new amp with current parts that would turn out to be a tool as well suited for the presentation of his music as #102 has been.

Isn't in the end perhaps this the only question with some practical importance in regard to this "old vs. current parts" topic?

All the best and have a nice week,

Max

[erwin_ve]

@Max; you often reffer to the psychoacoustics thing.
I would love to take a peek in HAD's kitchen.
Fact is that some parts end up to not sound close to what HAD used, some even sound shitty.

When building a real life amp these things matter. Experienced builders can pinpoint where it might go wrong with modern parts in a particular built. (Qfactor of caps fe.)
For me as a hobbybuilder that's more interesting than to put my stakes on psychoacoustic research. Either way both methods are time consuming. Pschychoacoustics: I leave that to the modelling guys@AxeFX/Line6...

[CHIP]

It's really not that ingenius knowing what components sound good and what don't. I met people during my life time, long before I ever built my own amp, that had a keener sense of hearing, and were able to hear details that some others couldn't, some others couldn't and didn't care to.
My brother in law knew certain electronic components sounded better that others 40 years ago.
HAD most likely knew this at an early stage and used it to his advantage.
The thing is go out now and find these parts! Have fun doing that.

[talbany]

It's really not that ingenius knowing what components sound good and what don't. I met people during my life time, long before I ever built my own amp, that had a keener sense of hearing, and were able to hear details that some others couldn't, some others couldn't and didn't care to.
My brother in law knew certain electronic components sounded better that others 40 years ago.
HAD most likely knew this at an early stage and used it to his advantage.
The thing is go out now and find these parts! Have fun doing that.

Chip
Although I agree with most of what you are posting . Here is something to think about!!...There are many parts being used in current production Mesa Boogies and Marshall's I wouldn't even consider using in my amps due to my interpratation of the type of sound they generate..For me some of these parts might sound quite bad when used in a Dumble type topology in my opinion. Apparently these parts sound good to them and their many customers..So what do you do!!

Tony

[martin manning]

Not to continue to 'jack the thread, but it seems like this is closely related to the discussion going on. Is there any more comment on this idea? I'm interested in opinions that say for example "no way is it more important to get the 'right' signal caps than the 'right' power tubes." This is the "paired comparison" method, and I don't think there is any way everyone has the same opinion on this. Seems like I kind of put things into categories with several items listed at 1, 2, etc. Maybe that's another possibly easier way to think about it.

Tony, I was going more for a given circuit what is the ranking of the effect of component choices- brand, new vs. old, etc., assuming that the value has been chosen appropriately for the target amp. For example, one needs 110uF of capacitance for the reservoir, now what is the influence of the capacitors used to get it, or in the case of coupling caps, the value is 0.1, now how important is it to use 6PS vs. 715P, or for a 100k plate load, how important is it to use Dale RN65's vs. other MF.

Revised ranking splitting wire into hookup and shielded:

9 Output Transformer
8 Preamp Tubes
7 Signal Caps
5 Power Tubes
4 Lead Dress
3 Resistors
3 Shielded Wire
2 Filter Caps
2 Pots
2 Power Transformer
1 Cabinet
1 Choke
1 Hookup Wire