RN65 metal films are they really that much beter ?

[Chappy]

I just always hated to see people give the CC a bad name,and just passing on what they have read or someone told them on the net.


I was wondering what amps that Jim Marshall built that had the CC resistors?
Probably the first few JTM 45's or the 36 w amps?
I don't know because I haven't learned that much about Marshall amps yet, but I'm learning more everyday from guys like at this forum.

Structo

I just looked at some images of my Marshall 1987 50W head which was made in 1972. It has one carbon comp resistor. A 100k feedback resistor. Odd really I checked a 1969 vintage Super Lead gut shot I retrieved from the web and it doesn't appear to have any carbon comps. I guess I got the odd one that was still kicking around in the parts bin!

Chappy

[Richie]

look on 18 watt at some of the early 18 watters.. some other models had them too. Mostly they wre a mix. I think even the Hendrix amp had a few CC in it,which pics are posted on the metro forum.

Structo
So for me, my philosophy is simply to design or tweak an amp with modern components that are readily available and still make it sound good.

Good idea, we have some really good parts to choose from nowdays.

best has nothing to do with price.

It has to do with purpose and place. Those rn65's while essential for plate, are mediocore (or not needed) for cathode.

BTW, a dumble is not a marshall, and should not be designed like one.

just posting that most people "think best" is or means most expensive.Best does not mean most expensive in guitar amps.

And that was what i was saying, its purpose or place used. Do Dumbles use CC resistors in some sections? do some use disc caps over mica in some places or certain amps? I don't recall anyone saying a dumble was a marshall.

[Chappy]

Ritchie, Structo

I have a bunch of chassis shots saved on my computer of various Marshall amps circa late 60's early 70's. The carbon comps seem to be few and randomly placed. The only possible pattern is that I saw a CC used as the feedback resistor in 4 of the images.

Ritche - I think Briane's comment about Dumble amps was directed at my previous comment. Maybe a small hint that with my previous Marshall example I have started to take this thread off of the original topic of resistor choices in dumble amps.

Chappy

[briane]

Do you actually think them mediocre for cathode use or just unnecessary? I would think the precision and accuracy from a quality metal film would be desirable if cost is not an issue.

I think you lose some of the smoothness with MF in cathode, I like the CF there myself.

Richie, greatest respect, I just did not want to be mistaken as one who equates quality with price.

I am a bit biased towards dumbles and adverse towards marshall's in general (outside the 1974 style). Despite differences in design, components have a lot of crossovers. That said a couple cheap ceramics are almost required in a dumble style, or at least sound better to my ears, when used in the right location.

[Richie]

cool, we are all on the same page.

[Structo]

Ritchie, Structo

I have a bunch of chassis shots saved on my computer of various Marshall amps circa late 60's early 70's. The carbon comps seem to be few and randomly placed. The only possible pattern is that I saw a CC used as the feedback resistor in 4 of the images.

Ritche - I think Briane's comment about Dumble amps was directed at my previous comment. Maybe a small hint that with my previous Marshall example I have started to take this thread off of the original topic of resistor choices in dumble amps.

Chappy

I wonder if it was a conscious choice or one of availability?
Like maybe they had a bunch of 100K CC resistors and decided to put them where they would cause the least amount of effect if they drifted?
Dunno.

All I know is that I love tube amps, all kinds, all shapes and all sizes.

[Dai H.]

the basic problem might be something like trying to reduce a subjective result down to some formula, such as "use X here, use Y there". A lot of people go on forums asking, "What is the best/are the best parts, etc. to use for ABC?" so maybe that is the underlying thinking.

re:CC in Marshalls, from what I've seen studying chassis pics, very early ones seem to have had a predominance of CC, but later it's more sporadic and brands also (the idea of Philips mustards being exclusive being obviously untrue becomes apparent to anyone who bothers to study chassis pics--which are widely avail. on the internet). Partly what makes things confusing I think is people with a financial motive to offer "upgrades" (just think of all those sorry sounding recorded Marshalls played by Jimi, et al. with their non-harmonically tone-enriching carbon films. Man, had they only known how good they could've sounded with a CC upgrade kit... ) or sell CC.

subjectively (to my ear) CC seem to be audible sometimes, results varying between good/bad or nothing. I think with high prices, experimenting becomes unattractive (well, or maybe attractive by promoting the idea of exclusivity) but if they help in some way why not I suppose. Excluding "mojo" CF might be a better all around choice--low price, widely avail., seem to sound all right.

[Structo]

I do know that over at Metro (MetroAmp = Marshall clones) they have a carbon comp resistor kit for their amps.

They are only used in certain locations as mentioned.

Here is the locations that they suggest the CC resistors are used at.
The brown resistors are the CC ones.

[img:623:623]http://metroamp.com/store/images/AB%20Kit%201.jpg[/img]