September 11th, 2008, 08:32 AM
I'm considering having a master volume installed on the back of an old non-MV Marshall to make it usable at reasonable volumes. The first Marshall MVs were non-PPIMV, correct? What are the thoughts here on a traditional MV vs. PPIMV?
I'm thinking in terms of tone and volume. I've read positives and negatives about both, but have never played through a PPIMV amp.
September 11th, 2008, 11:02 AM
Having owned a Marshall 1987 for a long time and experimented with some options to tame the volume, I preferred the PPIMV by far.
It sounded pretty natural to me, better than a pre-pi-mv, although I have never ever found the opportunity to run the 1987 full blast without any attentuation. It is less buzzy and fuller than a pre/mv and less muffled than a loadbox. I installed mine in one of the two outputs to cab, as I only used one cab, so the amp was easily reverted to stock.
Of course it sounds better when you push the amp a little, but thatīs due to human hearing characteristics and speakers moving some air IMO.
September 11th, 2008, 11:28 AM
I agree - I like the PPIMV with the dual 250K pot and 2.2M resistors that replaces the 2 220K just in front of the grid resistors.
September 12th, 2008, 09:13 AM
i recently purchased a Ceriatone TrainWreck clone with the ppimv, an' though i'm not very technically knowledgeable/proficient amp wise, i like what i'm hearing very much....
September 12th, 2008, 09:19 AM
PPIMV works *very* well. You can have both types of MVs (pre and post PI) for a better control of the gain and volume.