Tweed Deluxe Contols/design question...

[screamin eagle]

So I have wondered this for a while and can't really come up with anything.

The 57 tweed deluxe, or I guess the whole tweed deluxe lineage, is a great amp and a lot of its greatness is attributed to the natural overdrive and compression of the amp. No one is going to argue with this. But my question is this: why does it go to 12 when it starts to break up around 4-6? The basis for this question is centered on the assumption that Leo was constantly looking for a clean sound--which history suggests. Now I understand that this wasn't really the go to 'stage' amp in the fifties (though it was used as such in some circumstances) , but when Leo was designing these things he wasn't really looking to design an amp that was geared towards overdrive. So why: nothing til 2, 80% of the volume at 3, and beginning to clip at 4--and the volume knob goes to 12?

I do understand that it is a primitive circuit and a primitive design. But players as a whole weren't really looking for that sound (overdrive) at the time, in fact (with the exception of a few--Junior Barnard and maybe Grady Martin and Paul Burlison and a few others) it really was considered an unattractive sound at the time. So again (insert question.)

Yes I use a 12AY7.
Yes I understand that pickups weren't as hot then (none of my guitars have hot pickups--maybe a little hotter by yester-years standards, but not hot.)
And yes I have thought about the whole voltage at the wall thing--though I have not hooked mine up to a variac to test this--though I am inclined to think that even if it didn't start clipping at 4, it would at 6 or 7.

I can make sense of the popularity of this amp, with the hindsight of rock n roll.

However, does anyone have any theories as to what Leo was doing? He obviously cleaned up his amps in the proceeding years. But in the late 40's and early fifties, there weren't a whole lot of 20+ watt amps, nor the desire for them (a lot of bands were still mostly 'unplugged' at this time.) So why the control design?

[charlie chitlin]

Interesting question.
I've thought of this...but I've got nothing.
I've heard stories of sound engineers back when stopping the tape and yelling, "It's DISTORTING!"
I think maybe more is just better!
Look at the cars of the day.
My '56 Ford with 312, 4-barrel and dual exhaust would go well over 100, but there weren't many places where you could do it. It was just good to look down at the speedo.
Maybe 12 on the dial is reminiscent of all those speedos that went to 120.

[Stuco]

Good questions. It must have been frustrating for Leo (if he was trying to get a clean sound, which it seems he was) although it was/is a pleasant surprise for a lot of guitarists! My Lil dawg 5e3 has a couple of mods to allow for a fuller use of the volume controls and it's a little louder as well. It still gets very nasty though.

[Scott S]

Remember that back in the day, these amps were also used for microphones, crystal pickups, and other low-output sources. The thinking was that you design the amp with enough gain to accomodate all those sources, and adjust the volume as needed. Later on, as PAs evolved, guitar amps could become more specialized for that instrument.

- Scott

[refin]

Aaaaaaaahhhhhhhh...........the primitive design of tweed amps!

[JohnnyCrash]

Originally Posted by Scott S

Remember that back in the day, these amps were also used for microphones, crystal pickups, and other low-output sources. The thinking was that you design the amp with enough gain to accomodate all those sources, and adjust the volume as needed. Later on, as PAs evolved, guitar amps could become more specialized for that instrument.

- Scott

With all varieties of things being plugged into them, as well as Low and High inputs, this makes total sense.

[Ricky D.]

Originally Posted by screamin eagle

... But my question is this: why does it go to 12 when it starts to break up around 4-6? ...

The shaft on that pot only turns but so many degrees, no matter how you number the panel. Number the circle 1 - 10, still the same pot. You could change to a very small font and number the circle 1 - 100. Doesn't change the electronics, doesn't give you more headroom, doesn't change the gain.

Reminds me of the guy that wanted his pizza cut in 6 pieces because he wasn't hungry enough for 8.

I think it's just a graphic design choice. Look at the diameter of the number circle on your 57 tweed, the font size, and the spacing. It looks right to me, and it just had to go to 12 to fill the circle. With smaller knobs, the circle would be smaller and the numbering scale would be different.

Whatever the reason, it is very cool to have an amp that goes to twelve.

[Joe M]

Originally Posted by Ricky D.

The shaft on that pot only turns but so many degrees, no matter how you number the panel. Number the circle 1 - 10, still the same pot. You could change to a very small font and number the circle 1 - 100. Doesn't change the electronics, doesn't give you more headroom, doesn't change the gain.

Reminds me of the guy that wanted his pizza cut in 6 pieces because he wasn't hungry enough for 8.

I think it's just a graphic design choice. Look at the diameter of the number circle on your 57 tweed, the font size, and the spacing. It looks right to me, and it just had to go to 12 to fill the circle. With smaller knobs, the circle would be smaller and the numbering scale would be different.

Whatever the reason, it is very cool to have an amp that goes to twelve.

Wow, what you said is starting to sound a lot like Nigel Tufnel talking. That being said, I think you're correct....

[screamin eagle]

Originally Posted by Ricky D.

The shaft on that pot only turns but so many degrees, no matter how you number the panel. Number the circle 1 - 10, still the same pot. You could change to a very small font and number the circle 1 - 100. Doesn't change the electronics, doesn't give you more headroom, doesn't change the gain.

Reminds me of the guy that wanted his pizza cut in 6 pieces because he wasn't hungry enough for 8.

I think it's just a graphic design choice. Look at the diameter of the number circle on your 57 tweed, the font size, and the spacing. It looks right to me, and it just had to go to 12 to fill the circle. With smaller knobs, the circle would be smaller and the numbering scale would be different.

Whatever the reason, it is very cool to have an amp that goes to twelve.

I am fully aware of this, but it doesn't change the fact that distorted guitar tones were not well received at the time, and that amp is 80% distortion.

I suppose it could be assumed that it really was designed for two instruments, or one instrument and a mic., both on full volume--then everything would be clean.

Still perplexing.

Anyone else have any input?

[TeleV]

My guess would be that during the 50's Leo was focused on inventing/developing the Telecaster, Stratocaster, and Precision Bass (often under intense pressure from Fender Sales) and thus made it a low priority/delayed fixing the distortion issue on one amp until the early 60's. Especially if he saw this model as not being used often for large stages when other options were available.

Finally, lucky for us, he also used this time to develop a stage amp to go along with his new Bass guitar.

Just my guesses...

[Wally]

I would kindly dispute that all of the so nics that are available with a Tweed Deluxe are distorted past any certain point on that 'dial'...no matter how it is numbered. A hard hitting picker will find it a challenge to get a clean sound at any appreciable volume no matter where the volume is set....I can get that amp distorted at 3 with vintage output pickups if I want. Conversely, I can get cleans that are just as loud as the distorted sonics at any other piont of the volume setting. It is all in the pick attack and/or guitar volume control. The amp's compression keeps a 'lid' on the max volume. You can play clean rhythm and go to a distorted lead with just a change of pick attack or volume control at the instrument.
IF that '12' really bothers someone, take a clue form Rickenbacker. I have a Ric champ-like amp that only goes to '7'. Nigel Tufnel would never deign to play on such a thing, now would he? LOL

[screamin eagle]

Let's not get hung on the 'going to 12' thang. It could be 3, or 4, or 8 or 30. Like was mentioned before, the pot has a predetermined turning range, no matter the number put on the chassis or faceplate. But none of this addresses the issues of the amp circuit itself and what Leo was likely thinking when history suggests that he was constantly looking to 'clean up his act.'

Yeah, there has to be a starting point, be he grew up working on radio's and then TV's. This wasn't just an arbitrary 'first' design.

I can't be convinced that he was shooting blind, and then just tweaking his aim until he hit his target. He was smarter and better than that--so the question remains...ponder some more...pensively.

[Cleeve]

I think when the amps were designed, each stage was considered separately, from input to output. Looking at the signal going coming out of the preamp, before the phase splitter, it's still pretty clean even at 12 with a normal enough electric guitar plugged in and strumming.
It's the power tubes that limit things, as the signal of the phase splitter gets clipped when the grids on the power tubes try to get driven positive, causing current to flow into the control grids.
I'm thinking the power tube output section of the early amp designs was more or less lifted straight from the RCA tube manual, while the preamp stages with the tone controls were designed in house, and the huge voltage swing coming from the preamp with it's less-lossy tone controls is to blame.
Tone control circuits in the tube manuals of the day were not as boosty as the fender ones, so if they were playing around with adapting the typical Bandaxall tone circuits and wound up with the Fender tone stack, they would find a surplus of gain on their hands.

Also I think some designs were adapted to use miniature 12ax7-sized tubes from older designs which used octal preamp tubes, like the 6SL7 for the preamp and 6SN7 for the phase splitter/driver. Both of those octal preamp types had less gain than the later miniature 9 pin types, so circuits designed to break up at say 10 would now break up way sooner.

Just a theory..
Or maybe the guys in Fullerton just loved distortion!

Oh I just read your original post again-
you're talking about the Deluxe-
It was more of a student amp or something, so they probably just did a great example of what i stated above, they just more or less slapped a preamp circuit from another amp designed to run the big tubes (like the 5c4 Super)onto the output using 6v6 tubes, which have less bias voltage so will clip way sooner..
they were selling fine so they left it alone.

[spankdplank]

Well, 12 is one more than 11, isn't it? What if your amp only went to 11, and you needed a little more to push you over the top? You have no where to go, but with an amp that goes to 12, you do.

[screamin eagle]

Originally Posted by Wally

I would kindly dispute that all of the so nics that are available with a Tweed Deluxe are distorted past any certain point on that 'dial'...no matter how it is numbered. A hard hitting picker will find it a challenge to get a clean sound at any appreciable volume no matter where the volume is set....I can get that amp distorted at 3 with vintage output pickups if I want. Conversely, I can get cleans that are just as loud as the distorted sonics at any other piont of the volume setting. It is all in the pick attack and/or guitar volume control. The amp's compression keeps a 'lid' on the max volume. You can play clean rhythm and go to a distorted lead with just a change of pick attack or volume control at the instrument.
IF that '12' really bothers someone, take a clue form Rickenbacker. I have a Ric champ-like amp that only goes to '7'. Nigel Tufnel would never deign to play on such a thing, now would he? LOL

Wally, I didn't really take into account the point about a players touch. And while it is a valid one, I not sold on it. Up til this point the guitar in a band setting was an acoustic, and mainly rhythm instrument. Through my listening experience, I am inclined to think that guitar players played hard so that they could be heard, otherwise a horn section, which is already overpowering it, would completely make the instrument non existent. Maybe some of this has to do with the archaic recording practices and this is just what I am hearing, but I am inclined to think otherwise--I would think that the folks in the back of the room would be hearing something similar to the live recordings that I am listening to.

Also, Leo did heed the opinions and thoughts of players, since he himself wasn't one. So again, insert question.

Maybe it is as simple as this: it's a primitive circuit, although pot's were manufactured with predetermined ranges and this was outside of Leo's control. And maybe he just like the number 12, better than ten. And the amp was never meant to be turned past 3--especially if your comping.

However, I'd like to think there is something else out there than that.

[Sterling Indigo]

Great insights Wally, per usual. Pete Townshend windmill strumming wouldn't come into play for another 10 years.

[screamin eagle]

Is it possible that it just wasn't possible at this time to make a 10-20 watt all clean amp? Maybe they just weren't there yet?

[Sterling Indigo]

Here's a youtube video where Shane demonstrates in what today's terms would be described as the "versatility" of the 57 Deluxe reissue. Shane warms up with a little cowboy blues riff that is probably more reminiscent of the type of guitar playing that was going on back then. He also spends some time really digging in to demonstrate the modern joys of the 57 Deluxe. But watch it all the way through to where he lightens up the pick attack when it's cranked. It's both loud and clean. Enjoy!

Fender® Frontline Live from Winter NAMM 2007:Shane Nicholas1

[Scott S]

Originally Posted by screamin eagle

Is it possible that it just wasn't possible at this time to make a 10-20 watt all clean amp? Maybe they just weren't there yet?

Sure it was. The Deluxe is just making its 10 watts or so at 3 on the dial. It would have been trivially easy to design the gain stages so that a guitar signal made its clean, undistorted 10 watts at 12 on the dial, but then you could never reach that same volume with quieter instruments. Gibson and other companies solved the problem by having a separate higher-gain microphone channel -- as dangelico can attest, the normal channel can be pretty wimpy by comparison!

- Scott

P.S. I do like Cleeve's theory that the amps automatically picked up some gain when they went to the miniature preamp tubes. That's why most of the tweed amps went to 12AY7's in the first slot. I could see how someone playing a Deluxe with all 12AX7's in the front end could think that there is a very narrow window of clean headroom in the amp.

[JohnnyCrash]

Maybe its an old fashioned American thing, like the imperial measurement system (pints, inches, yards, etc).

Maybe its one of those strange things like why do we get things by the dozen instead of by 10's?

Maybe it was a leftover from Radio repair tech manuals, or training.

Maybe it was marketing... like Nigel would do :)

I'll profer one possible guess - maybe it was easier for the silkscreen process (centering the numbers, etc) to use an even number (12) instead of the usual old number 10 that all humanity seems obsessed about.

I'd suggest maybe the Ric amp used 7 for spiritual, superstitious, or symbolic reasons. I don't know.

In any case, the overdrive factor is easy to understand, considering the original 5E3 had an "Instrument" and a "Mic" channel AND High and Low inputs for each - perhaps some mics (or accordians, or whatever, for that matter) would NOT overdrive at 3, whereas a "new fangled" 1957 humbucker guitar would overdrive at 3. The gain variety of four inputs could cover a variety of stuff, other than guitars.

[strat a various]

Scott S. answered the question. Guitar amps were used as P.A. systems with every conceivable impedance microphone; they were used with accordions, and the pickups on those were wildly variable; they were used with primitive pick-ups for electric and acoustic guitar, some of which were like De Armond pick-ups, others like a contact mic, Some were high impedance, some were very low level.
I had an old Gibson tube amp that wasn't that loud with a guitar, but with a high Z microphone, it was surprising. I've also heard wimpy pick-ups from the 40s get a clear full tone when cranked through a 12 watt amp.
Since mic and pick-up technology was so primitive and non-standard, and folks were using 10, 20, and 30 year old gear back then, too, amps had to have a big range of input gain.

[Natstrat79]

Originally Posted by Scott S

Sure it was. The Deluxe is just making its 10 watts or so at 3 on the dial. It would have been trivially easy to design the gain stages so that a guitar signal made its clean, undistorted 10 watts at 12 on the dial, but then you could never reach that same volume with quieter instruments. Gibson and other companies solved the problem by having a separate higher-gain microphone channel -- as dangelico can attest, the normal channel can be pretty wimpy by comparison!

- Scott

This is the answer right here. The amp had to be versatile. They weren't just guitar amps at the time they were, guitar amps, bassamps, and sometimes even the PA.

[Wally]

SCreamin' eagle, I wasn't accounting for whatever other instruments someone is trying to 'blend' in with. There are some situations that a Tweed deluxe is just not going to be able to deal with...clean or distorted....EX: loud drummers, loud bass players, loud horn sections, another guitarist with a 100 watt amp turned up. Micing or line outs are the
only options that could render a TWeed Deluxe usable in those situations.
Screamin' Eagle wrote: "Is it possible that it just wasn't possible at this time to make a 10-20 watt all clean amp? Maybe they just weren't there yet?"
See Cleve's post above. Good insight there, imo. Fender definitely was not concerned with 'high fidelity'. And, yes, technology advances. Better rectifiers, different tubes....
That said, contemporaneously with the TWeed Deluxes, there were tube amplifiers that could produce 'clean' sonics for that time. Expense, necessity, and more importantly suitability for the purpose probably prevented Leo from designing guitar amps that went in that direction. IN retrospect, I have to make the observation that he did things very well, indeed. IN this day and age of almost unlimited wattage potential, we may have a hard time ;understanding how they made music back in those days. I have a sneaking suspicion that people might have listened better back then when there was absolutely no possiblity of the band abusing the audience with wattage.
As to c'clean' guitar amps, Leo kept moving toward the cleanest sonics he could achieve. What did it get him? Marshall came to virtualy dominate the rock guitar with amps that were designed after the 5F6A BAssman....which was 'dirty' compared to what Fender was building in the '60's. Then, in the late '70's, Fender went to the ultra-liinear output in the larger amps. Some people like that very clean tonality for guitar, some hate it. I think it is ideal for steel players.

[Sterling Indigo]

So maybe by 1957 Leo was thinking it would also be good for harp, microphones and or PA alternatives? How much different is the 57 from the first incarnation of the Fender Deluxe?

[dangelico603]

Originally Posted by Scott S

Sure it was. The Deluxe is just making its 10 watts or so at 3 on the dial. It would have been trivially easy to design the gain stages so that a guitar signal made its clean, undistorted 10 watts at 12 on the dial, but then you could never reach that same volume with quieter instruments. Gibson and other companies solved the problem by having a separate higher-gain microphone channel -- as dangelico can attest, the normal channel can be pretty wimpy by comparison!

- Scott

P.S. I do like Cleeve's theory that the amps automatically picked up some gain when they went to the miniature preamp tubes. That's why most of the tweed amps went to 12AY7's in the first slot. I could see how someone playing a Deluxe with all 12AX7's in the front end could think that there is a very narrow window of clean headroom in the amp.

And attest I shall. I've built two really old circuits that you can not distort. The first was a late forties Epiphone Electar and the second was a late thirties Gibson EH-185. The EH-185 will only break up on the mic channel which has a second gain stage. The instrument channel will not even break up when dimed. Both very cool for what I do but not my first choice for dirtier tones.
Jason

[Wally]

Originally Posted by dangelico603

And attest I shall. I've built two really old circuits that you can not distort. The first was a late forties Epiphone Electar and the second was a late thirties Gibson EH-185. The EH-185 will only break up on the mic channel which has a second gain stage. The instrument channel will not even break up when dimed. Both very cool for what I do but not my first choice for dirtier tones.
Jason

dangelico, that is interesting. Looking at that schematic for the EH-185, I see big resistance in the cathode bypass caps on the preamps and no bypass cap at all on the cathode biasing circuit for the power tubes. Those two aspects would keep things clean, wouldn't they? That approach seems quite different form LEo's approach. Just curious.... Gibson was probably looking for that cleaner approach because the pickups that Gibson built have a bit more oomph than the Fender single coils from the '50's.

[Ricky D.]

Hey Screaming Eagle- I think I misinterpreted your original question, and my response was a little off-target. My mistake.

I guess I've seen too many threads where people think that they can get more clean headroom by putting a lower gain tube in V1. Of course, since the headroom is limited by power tube clipping, they just get the same volume at the point of clipping at a higher volume control setting.

I've wondered too about why that 5E3 front end is so sensitive. My Mission 5E3 is at max volume around 3 1/2 on the volume control, and the onset is pretty abrupt. I usually use the #2 input (which is 6dB down) just to get a more useable range on the control.

I like the versatility theory the best. Input sensitivity is such a basic design parameter, I'm sure it wasn't ignored. But even with the BF amps I had in the 70's, you were into OD around 6 - 7 out of 10. So whatever the rationale was, Leo didn't stray too far as the designs evolved: you could always turn it up and drive the power stage into clipping.

[Wally]

5E3....you could change the bias on that first tube by changing the resistance on the cathode bypass. You could also affect the gain there by changing the value of the bypass cap. You could change the output to a fixed bias. You could change the bias on the power tubes by increasing the resistance of the bias resistor...this will 'clean' the signal up.
FWIW, I know of a 5E3 that is too clean for my tastes. The fellow who owns it likes it that way. He doesn't push the amp into distortion at all. When pushed to distortion, his amp doesn't break up smoothly....it has a jagged edge to the distortion that is non-musical to me. HE never encounters this because he plays at such a volume that nature of the distortion is of no concern to him. IT is the only 5E3 that I have ever heard that acts this way.

[varakeef]

I've wondered the same with basically any amp, home stereo, PA amp. They all start to distort, some with very unpleasant and even destroying results. (Have you ever blown a diskant horn of a lil' PA system?)

So why the engineers even allow us to turn the volume knob over half way? Just place a block to that point. I wanna be controlled...

And to take it a bit further. What if amp makers in the fifties would have given a thought to this and such a hardware limiter would have been a norm in guitar amps as well? Grady Martin wouldn't have got the sound like in Train Kept a rollin', Link Wray wouldn't pierce his speakers to emulate that and no one wouldn't have given a though to make a fuzz box.

But the question of why it goes to twelve. That doesn't surprise me. But how anyone dared to make an amp that only goes to ten after that?

[petebradt]

Originally Posted by Wally

Conversely, I can get cleans that are just as loud as the distorted sonics at any other piont of the volume setting. It is all in the pick attack and/or guitar volume control.

FINALLY! Someone gets it.

[JohnnyCrash]

Originally Posted by petebradt

FINALLY! Someone gets it.

Most everyone who has the pleasure of playing 5E3's "gets it." The touch dynamics of the amp is part of its appeal (and why its had such a huge resurgence and even been reissued).

Getting cleans is as easy as using Low inputs and/or in your picking hand... as well as the interactive Volumes and how the Tone control even affects gain.

THIS question was technical and concerning why the dials go to 12 when it breaks up so early.

Leo designed the amp to be used with NOT just guitars, but everything you could plug into it (ergo the Mic channel). The headroom was not "designed" for overdrive or pick hand dynamics (they wanted high fidelity and clean signal) but was due to Leo's limited design understanding at the time - the dials going to 12 is a different story. A Mic or Accordian in the 5E3 might not break up the same way a guitar would in the amp.

[Wally]

"THIS question was technical and concerning why the dials go to 12 when it breaks up so early."

Technically, it doesn't matter what divisions in the range that LEo made. The amp would break up at the same point in the movement of the potentiometer. . IMHO and as noted way earlier, this is truly a Nigel Tufnel question, and only he can adequately respond to it. LOL turn the knob to what pleases you and play on, twang on, whatever.
ACtually, LEo Fender had a decided distaste for the decimal system and preferred the far more esoteric duodecimal system which allows for more precision. ????? IF he had gone all the way to say 24 divisions, the precision increases. There would be less guess work in finding your way back to that sound that was so perfect the gig before. (8^)
What would be somewhere between 4 and 5 on a 12 number range would now be exactly 9 on a 24 number range.....right there it is,....right where I had it last time.....just perfect.....why doesn't it sound the same????? Oh, I am in a different room! Now what number do I set it on???? HElp me..... And Nigel says, just put it all the way up. 24 is way louder than 12 or 10 or 7 like that wimpy little Rickenbacker that doesn't even get close to 10.
Technical? I would think that LEo would laugh his a$$ off knowing that someone was wondering about this particular 'technical' aspect of his amp. The '12' isn't technical. IT is cosmetic more than anything else. AS I noted, the technical aspect of a 5E3 vis-a-vis distortion doesn't have as much to do with the number at which the volume pot is sett as much as it does have to do with CONTROL.

[JohnnyCrash]

Originally Posted by Wally

Technical? I would think that LEo would laugh his a$$ off knowing that someone was wondering about this particular 'technical' aspect of his amp. The '12' isn't technical. IT is cosmetic more than anything else. AS I noted, the technical aspect of a 5E3 vis-a-vis distortion doesn't have as much to do with the number at which the volume pot is sett as much as it does have to do with CONTROL.

1. I didn't ask the question. Instead of laughing at it or smuggly remarking how nobody "gets" how this amp works, many people here tried to answer the OP's question. I was trying to clarify as well.

2. The question was fair - not laugh worthy. If some wants to laugh, perhaps they shouldn't post.

Why would someone designing an amp in an era of attempts at no distortion put a control that is only "useable" 1/4th of the way up? Fair question, no?

The answer is that it was used for a variety of instruments/mics/etc and not everything distorted 1/4th the way up. Nothing tech-nerd about question or answer.

Why the hostility?

[screamin eagle]

Originally Posted by JohnnyCrash

1. I didn't ask the question. Instead of laughing at it or smuggly remarking how nobody "gets" how this amp works, many people here tried to answer the OP's question. I was trying to clarify as well.

2. The question was fair - not laugh worthy. If some wants to laugh, perhaps they shouldn't post.

Why would someone designing an amp in an era of attempts at no distortion put a control that is only "useable" 1/4th of the way up? Fair question, no?

The answer is that it was used for a variety of instruments/mics/etc and not everything distorted 1/4th the way up. Nothing tech-nerd about question or answer.

Why the hostility?

Wally...I don't know why you are getting all huffy about this. Don't get stuck on the 'going to 12 part.' That aspect of the question was used to describe what Johnny Crash said--obviously now, much more eloquently than I put it.


"Why would someone designing an amp in an era of attempts at no distortion put a control that is only "useable" 1/4th of the way up?[/i] Fair question, no?" JC.

[screamin eagle]

And yes I get the whole 'playing with dynamics thing.' I have a clone of the amp. I have figured that part out.

But I am of the impression that a lot of guitar players in the late 40's and early 50's weren't accustomed to played with such dynamics. Thus, why the amp design and popularity at the time--if in fact is was such a popular amp at the time.

But I think the 'multiple instruments and/or mic' plugging into it seems to be the best answer, or at least so far.

[Wally]

My apologies if that seemed hostile. I intended no such thing. I may have been somewhat flippant, and that can be misconstrued. I'll watch that. Person to person, I feel that you would have been laughing with me. That would be my intention.
You have to admit that when one reads the following quote, that one could be moved to do the Nigel reply. I am sorry to have upset ya'll. .

From the OP: "But my question is this: why does it go to 12 when it starts to break up around 4-6?"
To the effect as noted by another poster and to paraphrase NIgel...Now 12's louder 'n 6
idn't it?

Please have a chuckle. IT makes the day go mo' better,imho. In an earlier post in this thread, I noted how the amp is not necessarily distorted at any setting on the amp's volume control. Johnny, you might reread the thread and surmise that I truly did address the OP's question directly and accurately ime and imho. I'll take your suggestion not to post under advisement

Ya'll have a good one.
Wally

[mbratch]

Originally Posted by screamin eagle

But my question is this: why does it go to 12 when it starts to break up around 4-6?

I think the answer's pretty easy.

You're playing your amp and you got the volume set on, say, 4 or 5 and the sound guy says to you, "Dood! You have to turn it down 'cuz you're distorting too much". And you can say back, "Dood! It's already pretty low: I only have it set on 4 out of 12!"

[refin]

My old 5E3 breaks up fairly easily,but that's because I use a 12AX7 in the first slot.The only 12AY7 I have is super microphonic.
I will say that the BEST sounding guitar through this amp is a tele.I played on a small stage with a controlled drummer,and didn't even mic the amp.It was clean and loud up to 3 or 4.