silverface , blackface sound differance ?

[cbnutt]

what are the general differances in sound, tone, thats usaly found between say a silverface deluxe and a blackface ? thanks........

[TelZilla]

Generally I think BF is more compressed and verdriven at lower vol. I think SFs have really high clean headroom.

But if you search the forum, you'll find far better answers than that...

[marshman]

I've never had the opportunity to compare, but it was explained to me that the SF was a result of CBS shooting for max headroom from a given platform, and these changes to the circuits 'sterilized' the tone considerably, though many claim 90% of the BF tone can be recovered through parts upgrades.

Bear in mind that "BF" and "SF" are not razor lines in Fenders evolution, that there were quite a few SF amps that left the factory with the BF parts inside,as Fender would have used up all the old parts before switching up and starting to use the new stuff. Also, I recall reading somewhere that the DRs went a few years before changing up internall and, I think the Princetons or Champs were never 'changed' at all internally. I'm sure someone will correct that statement if it's wrong.

At least I hope so, as I'd love to know if I"m right or wrong.

[maestrovert]

someone (i forget who) once posted some smiley faces representing the general tonal differences between the Tweed, Black Face & Silver Face eras....
iirc the Tweed's smiley face used a slight frown to represent the eq curve, the Bf's smiley face used a straight line and the Sf used an upward curving smile ....
but then, i could have 'em mixed up.....

[Tim Swartz]

I'd put the same EQ line on both SF and BF amps. The difference is that the BF is warmer and goes into soft clipping a bit sooner due to a bit more gain in the phase inverter. The preamps on SF and BF amps are identical (even into the later UL varieties).

[Bluesbob]

I don't think that the difference in price is due to anything other than market forces which have nothing to do with the qualities of the amps themselves. I've said it before and I'll say it again: the similarities far outweigh the differences. I'll go further and say that earlier SF amps are virtually indistinguishable from their BF counterparts. The differences between 2 BF amps (of the same model and vintage) can be more noticable than differences between some of the early SF amps and BF amps (again, of the same model). There are real differences between pre-CBS and later model BF amps, mostly due to QC. So if you ask if there is a difference between a '64 Super Reverb and an ultralinear 70-watt '79 SR, the answer is "yes, of course". If you ask if there is a difference between a '66 BFSR and a '69 SFSR the answer is: "nothing audible". And there are always exceptions to any rule, such as the SFTR amps of the late sixties, some of which had (experimental?) bias schemes and were roundly criticized by musicians of the day. This is not "JMHO", but absolutely incontrovertible.

[Tim Swartz]

All of the big (6L6) SF amps got the "experimental" bias scheme, not just TRs.

[Bluesbob]

You're right Tim (as usual). And I should have also mentioned the later Blackface Bassman (AB165), which had a hum balance pot instead of the bias adjust, although this is easily corrected and didn't affect the sound of the amp for the worse if the power tubes were biased correctly.