Princeton Reverb - Deluxe Reverb + OD

[McFly]

I'm looking for some information from you guys who have played or owned these amps.

I have a tuned up 78 PR and while I love the clean tone, it's not working for me with od pedals really well. Doesn't seem very smooth or warm.

I plugged into my neighboors 66 DR (it was in serious need of servicing) and the tone difference what very noticeable. It sounded a big bigger due to the 12" speaker which I expected. What I wasn't expecting was the difference with an OD pedal. The DR sounded much more like I hoped my PR would have. Smooth warmer sustaining OD

What are your experiences with PR and warm overdrive vs. DR? (using OD pedals)

[skeksis]

I've got a '66 PR, which replaced a well tuned DRRI... no vintage DR, though.

my experience is similar to yours, in that that I got better results w/ an OD pedal and the DRRI. The PR isn't warm (we've been discussing it in a parallel thread)... it's unbeatable at what it does, but it's terrifically picky about which guitars, pedals, and settings it chooses to cooperate w/. Why it would be different from DR to PR is hard to say... no good reason I can think of.

[poirier]

The difference could come down to the power tubes. Princeton Reverbs have 2 6V6 tubes, while Deluxe Reverbs have 2 6L6. The 6V6s break up at lower volume, so they have more organic OD and compression; the 6L6s are designed for higher volumes and so have more headroom. In the case of the DR, the OD pedal isn't competing with the PR's natural OD.

Could be?

[McFly]

Thanks for the great posts. I have heard a PR is like a small version of a twin whereas a DR is a different animal. Not sure how that translates but I'd be interested to hear about more experiences.

[trag-o-caster]

Originally Posted by poirier

The difference could come down to the power tubes. Princeton Reverbs have 2 6V6 tubes, while Deluxe Reverbs have 2 6L6. The 6V6s break up at lower volume, so they have more organic OD and compression; the 6L6s are designed for higher volumes and so have more headroom. In the case of the DR, the OD pedal isn't competing with the PR's natural OD.

Could be?

Actually Deluxe Reverbs also have 2 6V6 output tubes.

I find that my Pro Reverb (2 6L6) likes overdrives boxes, distortion pedals, etc. better than my DR. I've never tried a Princeton with ANY kind of pedal, so I can't comment.

[poirier]

Originally Posted by trag-o-caster

Actually Deluxe Reverbs also have 2 6V6 output tubes.

You are correct. My mistake. Been reading Soul of Tone, and suddenly I think I'm an expert.

I don't use pedals with my Princeton. A little reverb, a little volume, and I'm happy.

[bradpdx]

Originally Posted by McFly

Thanks for the great posts. I have heard a PR is like a small version of a twin whereas a DR is a different animal. Not sure how that translates but I'd be interested to hear about more experiences.

I don't know how myths like that get started. All the BF Fenders share a common preamp structure and tone stack (with minor variations); all the reverb circuits are identical and the power amps just vary according to wattage as one would expect. Fender was very much creating a "family" of similar sounding amps.

It is also cheaper to produce a lot of identical circuits, and Fender certainly had that in mind. Most of the variations between the amps concern cost saving measures, not decisions based upon sound.

The PR and the DR have identical tone stacks, with the minor exception of a small treble bleed cap on the DR which provides a minor bright boost at low volumes only. This cap is frequently removed, which makes the tone stacks 100% identical.

(I have always removed this cap from DRs because I play Fender guitars and use JBL speakers. No need.)

The significant differences between the PR and DR are really power amps and speakers. The PR uses a paraphase splitter to drive the 6V6s and the DR uses a long tail splitter. This is a logical choice, as the paraphase is cheaper to produce (it only requires 1/2 tube instead of 1 tube) and is adequate for lower power amps.

Many of the small tweed Fenders with push-pull outputs (such as the 5E3) use the paraphase splitter. It is cheap and effective, but lacks the headroom of the long tail splitter in the larger amps.

Almost all of the bigger Fenders (20 watts and up) use long tail splitters, really out of necessity. That includes the Twin for certain.

So really a DR is closer to a Twin than a PR - both DRs and Twins use long tail splitters and 12" speakers. The PR will of course break up sooner with its smaller power amp. The breakup characteristics are only slightly different.

As to which one sounds better with some pedal - that probably has a lot more to do with speaker and volume differences than "PR vs DR" per se. It probably has a lot to do with whatever pedal you use. Needless to say, many people find the PR to be a very effective little amp, pedals or no.

[BrianF]

Great post Brad... to add to your post ...the differences between a PR and the rest of the larger Fenders (starting with the DR)...is the phase-inverter (as you mentioned), but also the size of the output transformer (smaller for the PR) and speaker and cabinet size all contribute to the difference in tone.

[Billm]

Adding to Brad's excellent post, the DR runs all the tubes at somewhat higher voltages than the PR, which provides more clean headroom and moves the tubes' response curves, which also creates a different tone. The higher voltage and current supplied to the output tubes accounts for the higher output wattage and makes the larger output transformer necessary.

[BrianF]

So basically the DR solves all of the shortcomings / design limitations of the PR.

[jhundt]

So basically the DR solves all of the shortcomings / design limitations of the PR....

... which was originally designed and marketed as a lower-end product - a beginner's amp. What is remarkable is that these days so many people love and crave the Princeton sound. So after all these years, it's hard to really say that these were shortcomings/design limitations. Maybe "differences in design" would be more politically correct....

[BrianF]

I'm an engineer so I look at these things equally from a technical standpoint and as a player. That said there is no denying that some folks like the older amp designs... Fender's amp evolution from Tweed to Brown to Black / Silver followed an electronics design improvment evolution..which changed the sound along the way. The PR as orginally designed is fine for around the house, for practice, or for small gigs...but unless you mic it eventually you'll start digging into details of how to mod it or just get a bigger amp. IMHO

[Del Pickup]

So, would a Princeton Reverb (one of the new ones that are apparently just about to be released) be any good for small pub/club gigs (typically a room holding up to 150 people)?

I have a DRRI which I do like a lot but never get the chance to really crank up and I was wondering about whether one of these new Princetons might be better for me.

I really like the idea of smaller. lighter amps and lowering power ratings allowing you to turn up and hit the amp's sweet spot.

I do use pedals a fair bit so the comments above have me a bit concerned.

The sad fact is that I'm unlikely to be able to play a DRRI and Princeton side by side here in NZ cos the shops are so wary about importing new models into the country unless someone orders it so any comments would be welcomed.

[chabby]

And to take this conversation one step further, would the Princeton Recording amp fit in as an option to the upcoming RI?

For another 50-100 bucks the Recording amp with it's attenuator and on-board stuff is pretty cool too. My question is other than the on-board gizmos, is it the same amp as the RI?

[chabby]

Any answers to the above - bump

[Scott S]

Originally Posted by bradpdx

The significant differences between the PR and DR are really power amps and speakers. The PR uses a paraphase splitter to drive the 6V6s and the DR uses a long tail splitter. This is a logical choice, as the paraphase is cheaper to produce (it only requires 1/2 tube instead of 1 tube) and is adequate for lower power amps.

Many of the small tweed Fenders with push-pull outputs (such as the 5E3) use the paraphase splitter. It is cheap and effective, but lacks the headroom of the long tail splitter in the larger amps.

The PR and 5E3 use a cathodyne phase inverter, not a paraphase. I'm guessing that was just absentmindedness on your part, as the rest of the post was excellent.

- Scott

[BrianF]

Originally Posted by chabby

And to take this conversation one step further, would the Princeton Recording amp fit in as an option to the upcoming RI?

For another 50-100 bucks the Recording amp with it's attenuator and on-board stuff is pretty cool too. My question is other than the on-board gizmos, is it the same amp as the RI?

The basic circuit of the Princeton Recording amp is probably similar....but the addition of that transimpedance attenuator forced Fender to create significant differences in the output stage....one of whch is the addition of a solid state driver section that is used to drive the speakers when using that attenuator. Not sure if this is completely bypassable when not using the attenuator. They are much more expensive though...over $1000 I believe...and they do not have the original (or any) tremolo circuit...seemingly another marketing oversight. The amp was real heavy due to the power attenuator. It will be interesting to see if it's discontinued...and fall into the category of strange products that Fender once made


The amp being discussed is the new Princeton Reverb re-isssue...which will be a modern day production of the old vintage amp..

[bradpdx]

Originally Posted by Scott S

The PR and 5E3 use a cathodyne phase inverter, not a paraphase. I'm guessing that was just absentmindedness on your part, as the rest of the post was excellent.

- Scott

Oops, my bad. You are correct, sir!

In a Fender-style design, the paraphase wouldn't present any cost savings over a long-tail, whereas the cathodyne certainly does.

I can't think of any Fenders that ever used anything other than cathodyne or long-tailed splitters.

[chabby]

Not over 1000 at my local store....$849.00
So, some folks are selling it for less. Maybe they no something I don't?

I am not hearing alot of love for the amp. Also, I am aware that the new one is intended to be a n RI of the Blackface PR. Just wanted to clarify that BrianF as it sounded by your post that you didn't think I understood that.

My question is how did they change the PR Recording model from the blackface PR? And you mentioned the solid state situation, but you didnt know if it was bypassable, anyone else?

[Scott S]

Originally Posted by bradpdx

Oops, my bad. You are correct, sir!

In a Fender-style design, the paraphase wouldn't present any cost savings over a long-tail, whereas the cathodyne certainly does.

I can't think of any Fenders that ever used anything other than cathodyne or long-tailed splitters.

A lot of the bigger (18W+) Wide Panel amps used paraphase PIs, whether fixed or self-balancing. Despite all the inherent defects (or maybe because of them), these amps are said to sound very good!

- Scott

[bradpdx]

Originally Posted by BrianF

I'm an engineer so I look at these things equally from a technical standpoint and as a player. That said there is no denying that some folks like the older amp designs... Fender's amp evolution from Tweed to Brown to Black / Silver followed an electronics design improvment evolution..which changed the sound along the way. The PR as orginally designed is fine for around the house, for practice, or for small gigs...but unless you mic it eventually you'll start digging into details of how to mod it or just get a bigger amp. IMHO

I think that what has happened over time is that the customers (musicians) have redefined what "good" is. For Fender in the 50s and 60s, "good" meant louder and cleaner (in the most general terms) and so the amp lineup followed suit - more money, more loudness and cleanness. Champ at one end, Twin at the other. From a standpoint of engineering, the changes from tweed to BF were all positive and informed by this definition.

What they did not anticipate was that players wanted the push the amps into territory for which they were not really designed - hence the criteria change. Suddenly the cheaper, dirtier amps are on par or better than the big ones because they fulfill the customer's needs in a better way - by doing something that wasn't in the design spec.

So the PR is just great for our modern definition of a small amp, indeed loud enough for many small gigs. Ditto for the Deluxe, etc.

If Leo stopped in at your gig with a PR wailing away, he might think that you should get a bigger amp - that Princeton is distorting

[bradpdx]

Originally Posted by Scott S

A lot of the bigger (18W+) Wide Panel amps used paraphase PIs, whether fixed or self-balancing. Despite all the inherent defects (or maybe because of them), these amps are said to sound very good!

- Scott

You got me again, Scott! I hadn't thought much about wide panels in a long time, and indeed many (Deluxe, Bassman, Pro) use paraphase splitters. By the time you get into the narrow panel tweeds and forward, it is all cathodyne and long-tail.

I personally much prefer the sound of the later tweeds - the early ones are kinda mushy for my taste.

[BrianF]

Originally Posted by chabby

Not over 1000 at my local store....$849.00
So, some folks are selling it for less. Maybe they no something I don't?

It's probably a market driven natural reduction in price..or maybe they just want to move that amp?

My question is how did they change the PR Recording model from the blackface PR? And you mentioned the solid state situation, but you didnt know if it was bypassable, anyone else?

As for it being bypassable or not..without seeing the actual schematics it would be just a guess...but after having seen Fender's patent on this Transimpadence Attenuator, it seems unlikely that it would ever be completely out of the circuit. On the other hand these are just technical details. If you like the amp.. that is all that matters.

http://www.google.com/patents?id=FGYRAAAAEBAJ&printsec=abstract&zoom=4&d q=6,816,009