How Does a Master Volume Work?

The first question is there in the title.

Second, I know there's some debate over whether a master volume amp with vol and master vol dimed sounds diifferent than that amp with the master volume removed, but for this thread, assume there's a difference. Couldn't I just put a master vol on a switch? Then I'd be able to get some low vol dirt when needed and not have the effect of the MV when I was able to crank it a bit.

Does anyone have a layout of an amp that does this?

The first question is there in the title.

Second, I know there's some debate over whether a master volume amp with vol and master vol dimed sounds diifferent than that amp with the master volume removed, but for this thread, assume there's a difference. Couldn't I just put a master vol on a switch? Then I'd be able to get some low vol dirt when needed and not have the effect of the MV when I was able to crank it a bit.

Does anyone have a layout of an amp that does this?

+1, I have the same question,.
I am thinking, at some point, of getting a tweed champ clone, and I would love a master volume, cause I am sure that even 5 watt would be too loud for the quality of my playing, and also i was thinking of a switch also ( to bypass the MV when not required)

The first question is there in the title.

Second, I know there's some debate over whether a master volume amp with vol and master vol dimed sounds diifferent than that amp with the master volume removed, but for this thread, assume there's a difference. Couldn't I just put a master vol on a switch? Then I'd be able to get some low vol dirt when needed and not have the effect of the MV when I was able to crank it a bit.

Does anyone have a layout of an amp that does this?
Take a look at this:http://people.cornell.edu/pages/mt24/Amp/mm/mvols.html

Where's Tim Swartz when ya need him?

Tim has his own take on it that many folks seem to like. I know I played a DR that he'd customized that was a little gain monster that you could turn up and down while maintaining a good tone.

There's many different designs. I used to read the Ken Fischer and Gerald Weber articles in the old Vintage Guitar magazines years ago. I remember reading about the merits of the post-phase inverter master volume.

Personally I've been through so many amps, and so many designs that I decided to just go with a non-master amp, outboard boxes, and maybe the occasional attenuator.

Truthfully there is NOTHING you can do to tame an all tube output section and maintain that tone. EVERYTHING that you try is a tonal compromise to some degree. It's just a matter of ones own personal taste. The best advice came from Tim (and others), which is use the right size amp for the job, if you're expecting to crank it. That's an expensive solution.

Where's Tim Swartz when ya need him?

Tim has his own take on it that many folks seem to like. I know I played a DR that he'd customized that was a little gain monster that you could turn up and down while maintaining a good tone.

There's many different designs. I used to read the Ken Fischer and Gerald Weber articles in the old Vintage Guitar magazines years ago. I remember reading about the merits of the post-phase inverter master volume.

Personally I've been through so many amps, and so many designs that I decided to just go with a non-master amp, outboard boxes, and maybe the occasional attenuator.

Truthfully there is NOTHING you can do to tame an all tube output section and maintain that tone. EVERYTHING that you try is a tonal compromise to some degree. It's just a matter of ones own personal taste. The best advice came from Tim (and others), which is use the right size amp for the job, if you're expecting to crank it. That's an expensive solution.

Oh, I don't expect the tone to be as good when using the master. I just want 2 things:

1. to be able to get some dirt a low volumes- (I know this will be a tonal compromise, but I'll mostly be using that for practice at home, so I can live with it)

2. to be able to completely remove the effect of the master volume should I choose to do so.

2. to be able to completely remove the effect of the master volume should I choose to do so.



Usually you can do this by turning the master volume all the way up, and using the pre-amp volume control as your overall volume. I'm not sure if this works for all the different designs.

Truthfully there is NOTHING you can do to tame an all tube output section and maintain that tone. EVERYTHING that you try is a tonal compromise to some degree. It's just a matter of ones own personal taste. The best advice came from Tim (and others), which is use the right size amp for the job, if you're expecting to crank it. That's an expensive solution.

+1 on this.

Master volumes will always be a compromise, because they are an attempt to segregate the preamp and power amp.

A good analogy is a clutch in a car. You could leave the clutch pedal halfway depressed, and floor the gas pedal. The engine will be hanging on for dear life, but the car may be barely moving...

...The same exact thing applies for a COMPLETE tube circuit - using ANY style of MV simply creates a voltage divider between the phase inverter, or power tubes. Depending on where you set the master, part of the signal goes to ground, and the balance goes on to drive the power section.

People have been claiming for the longest time that you can simulate a fully cranked amp at quiet volumes, with either the post-phase inverter design, or one placed somewhere towards the tail end of the preamp, with a series resistor on the pot's wiper...

...All master volume variations that I've seen are basically circuits which simply cut the amount of signal that the power amp ultimately receives...

This is why (typically) most folks will conclude, when provided the opportunity to evaluate the two, that a cranked up amp sounds better - whether it is relatively clean or overdriven.

But for some folks, MV tones are preferred, and even a necessity, and I won't argue with that.

I do have one application for MV's that I do prefer - I use it to tweak the amount of overall preamp signal, in an effort to kill some top end. But I usually end up at a setting I like, then I pull the chassis, and replace the MV pot with a series resistor, or voltage divider.

My last project involved the post-phase inverter master volume. I tried to like it, really. Especially for the clean channel. No dice. I ended up bypassing it altogether, and the amp sounded much better.

For amp builders, the best approach to utilizing MV's would probably be to place one at each gain interstage - i.e. a trimpot. With some fiddling, it would be possible to come up with optimal resistor values. Then the trimpots could be pulled, and resistors subbed in their places.

I read a great article on tube amps yesterday. The author basically prefaced the whole article by stating that all of the controls on a tube amp are simply there to feed a certain amount of the signal to ground. By turning any given knob "up," you're simply letting part of the signal through that's already there. It doesn't matter if it's a tone knob, volume knob, presence knob, etc. As an extension to this train of thought, a master volume is simply one more control that is feeding the signal to ground.

Oh, I don't expect the tone to be as good when using the master. I just want 2 things:

1. to be able to get some dirt a low volumes- (I know this will be a tonal compromise, but I'll mostly be using that for practice at home, so I can live with it)

2. to be able to completely remove the effect of the master volume should I choose to do so.

You can certainly achieve #1, but it may sound a bit thin, or at the very least it will sound radically different from a master volume that is turned up quite a ways...

As for number 2, diming the master volume doesn't necessarily remove it from the circuit, especially if the PPIMV is used (this essentially adds a pair of voltage dividers, and coupling caps before AND after the dual pots). With a 1 meg master, the effect may be minimal, when dimed (you may actually prefer it).

I'd say to try a pre-phase inverter MV, 1 meg. To fatten up the sound at low volumes, put a 100K-200K series resistor on the wiper of this pot. To bypass it, either grab a DPDT pull switch pot, or try a Fender no load tone pot IF they offer a 500K or 1 meg audio taper pot.

The best advice came from Tim (and others), which is use the right size amp for the job, if you're expecting to crank it. That's an expensive solution.

Here's my solution (yep, here it comes again!):

http://img3.musiciansfriend.com/dbase/pics/products/regular/3/1/0/244310.jpg

:mrgreen:

Tim

+1 on this.

Master volumes will always be a compromise, because they are an attempt to segregate the preamp and power amp.

A good analogy is a clutch in a car. You could leave the clutch pedal halfway depressed, and floor the gas pedal. The engine will be hanging on for dear life, but the car may be barely moving...

...The same exact thing applies for a COMPLETE tube circuit - using ANY style of MV simply creates a voltage divider between the phase inverter, or power tubes. Depending on where you set the master, part of the signal goes to ground, and the balance goes on to drive the power section.

..../....

I read a great article on tube amps yesterday. The author basically prefaced the whole article by stating that all of the controls on a tube amp are simply there to feed a certain amount of the signal to ground. By turning any given knob "up," you're simply letting part of the signal through that's already there. It doesn't matter if it's a tone knob, volume knob, presence knob, etc. As an extension to this train of thought, a master volume is simply one more control that is feeding the signal to ground.

in my experience, those audiophiles who favor tube amps for home audio/stereo, usually prefer 'em in a "straight wire with gain" configuration....


That's a great analogy there, b.t.w.

Thanx !

Its all academic at this point.

It is not a "compromise" and I disagree with that analogy.

There has been a school of thought for far too long that the only "real, pure, true, not deceitful" type of overdrive is a dimed amp where all tubes involved are doing their part. No MVs, no Attenuators, no nothing (some folks even turn their nose at tone controls for "tone robbing" - as if a Plexi with a tonestack is robbed of anything).

This concept not based on anything other than... opinion/taste - and even then its subjective because in a blind test I'm sure some of these guys will like both MV/TMB amps as well as mid-watt nonMV amps cranked.

Overdrive is crunchy, compressed, sustaining, fat, and full... thats all. Good overdrive has a little bit of "give and take," is dynamic, and supple.

If you're a "real tube purist/snob" it becomes even more out-there. Leo designed amps increasingly better against overdriving. Cleaner at louder volumes was the goal of all amp designers in the golden days... distortion, clipping, and overdrive were absolute enemies to design!

As it is, "distortion" is "wrong" if you really want to look at it.

A MV at low volumes will not be fat and full, but it will crunch at levels your neighbors will not cal lthe police out on. At some point on that MV's wiper will be a resistance that'll resemble a non-MV sound. Crank the Volume and use the Gain as a loudness control.

Or, if you'vealready got an OD pedal, save yourself the trouble and just pull the OD out for late night stuff.

11 Guage - I like your post. It matches exactly my experiences with these things.

Also, not to take the discussion too far afield, I think the same holds true with the passive circuits in guitars. There's some expectation about how a guitar is going to sound or react with the Volume and Tone pots engaged. You get used to that tone or "feel." When those elements are removed from the signal path and everything is going straight to the jack, that extra signal (which was always there) takes a little getting used to....Esquires come to mind.

It is not a "compromise" and I disagree with that analogy.

There has been a school of thought for far too long that the only "real, pure, true, not deceitful" type of overdrive is a dimed amp where all tubes involved are doing their part. No MVs, no Attenuators, no nothing (some folks even turn their nose at tone controls for "tone robbing" - as if a Plexi with a tonestack is robbed of anything).

If it isn't a compromise, how would you define it? Not trying to be confrontational - I'd just like to hear some other definitions.

I don't claim to be part of the old school movement regarding "real, pure tone." I just claim that it takes synergy to make it work well - not just an overdriven amp, but a clean one, as well. My SF Vibrolux sounds fantastic if I turn it all the way up, but "natural tube overdrive" is not a phrase that I'd use to describe how it sounds. And I doubt that a MV would replicate that sound, at all. If a MV does that, fine. IMO, it doesn't - it's a compromise.

I've owned more MV amps than non-MV, so I've spent countless hours with them. I wish they did the fat, overdriven tone thing at bedroom levels. Yeah, it'll distort, and yeah - you can optimize it to sound fair at low volume levels, but practical restraints aside (they are always used as heavy leverage regarding MV's), when you use a master volume, you overload a fairly isolated part of the amp, and run the rest at typically not much above idle, in many cases.

I wouldn't consider a tone stack to be tone robbing, but it is clearly a huge gain sucker. Insertion loss is a very real phenomena.

Most people get thrown by the real reason that non-MV Marshalls and tweed Bassmans distort:

-The B+ is dropped so much by the time it hits the first few preamp stages that it's almost impossible for it not to distort.

-There is very little interstage attenuation.

-The tone stack on these early amps comes after a cathode follower. It's a gain stage that isn't, but rather has a high impedance on it's input, and a low impedance on the output. This is perfect for driving a T/M/B tone stack.

I don't hear too many folks putting down the tweed Bassman or the JTM45, although I'm sure that for some it would be completely unusable without a MV. Luckily, if they want that, there are kits or mods for it.

Stompboxes, attenuators - they're all good, if you like them, and they work for you. I have a love affair with fuzz pedals. Some people can't stand them, and consider their usage with any guitar amp to be "heresy," or just plain noise...

At the end of the day, IMO they are ALL compromises. Any machine is a compromise. If they weren't, guys like Aiken, Weber, THD, etc. wouldn't be working so hard on the "next best thing." Even power scaling is a compromise. Clearly, hauling 10 amps to a gig is a compromise, of one's own health.

Perhaps I should have elaborated on why I feel it's a compromise, and how it compares to other compromises.

I really think that this doesn't have to boil down to merely academia - it is possible to analyze the utility aspects of a MV circuit, and I tried to do that. There are clearly limitations, just as there are with diming a non-MV amp.

I think the term itself is misleading. I think Peavey got it right when they called it Pre and Post.

JMO - YMMV. Enjoy your overdrive however you achieve it...

I think the term itself is misleading. I think Peavey got it right when they called it Pre and Post.

JMO - YMMV. Enjoy your overdrive however you achieve it...


I agree. An overdriven power tube or an overdriven preamp tube - at the end of the day we just want some hair on that guitar :)

Didn't mean to sound confrontational.

Here's my solution (yep, here it comes again!):

http://img3.musiciansfriend.com/dbase/pics/products/regular/3/1/0/244310.jpg

:mrgreen:

Tim

That is usually the best solution, unless you're backing a singer who INSISTS that there be NO guitar in the monitor. Then what?

I agree. An overdriven power tube or an overdriven preamp tube - at the end of the day we just want some hair on that guitar :)

Didn't mean to sound confrontational.
Maybe even a overdrive pedal or two :mrgreen:

That is usually the best solution, unless you're backing a singer who INSISTS that there be NO guitar in the monitor. Then what?


I usually have a retort for singers like that:

I aim my 100 watt Marshall at their face, hit a fat E chord on my Les Paul, and hope he can read my lips through the sonic onslaught... is it easy to lip read "I quit @$$h0le"??

Guitar (single pup) with no volume or tone controls straight into an amp with only an on-off switch. No compromises (and no fun). Of course, JMHO and YMMV. You could get pretty close with an Esquire and an old Champ.

That is usually the best solution, unless you're backing a singer who INSISTS that there be NO guitar in the monitor. Then what?

place it(your small amp) on a stand close to you.....you'll be able to hear it well, the mic enables a good FoH mix without excessive spl from the stage, and your vocalist is happy....

ALRIGHT! We got us a real donny-brooke going! I guess I'll jump into the foray and just say I'm real glad we don't all go for the same tone, It'd be real boring if we did.

There's no right and wrong, just personal taste (and there's no accounting for taste or lack there of.) Some guys like big amps, some guys like little amps, some guys like attenuators, some like OD pedals, some guys like pre PI masters, some like post PI masters... some like a combination of this stuff.

Then there is a handful of guys like Trag that can plug into anything and it really doesn't matter... Jimmy Bryant to Barney Kessel to Joe Satriani to Jimi Hendrix and all points in between.

I personally can go with a fat, clean sounding amp and a couple OD pedals.... Or I can go with a small tweed or 20w Marshall amp dimed and control the grind with the guitar volume control. I personally don't care for a BF/SF amp dimed, to me they sound best on about 7 /w regular output single coils and 5 or 6 with regular output humbuckers. Marshalls and Tweeds are more forgiving as they sound great at a wider volume range...low pushed with a pedal or dimed and contol the OD with the guitar volume control. I do find it impossible to get a good sound out of an amp that is too large for the job. I just can't make a Twin Reverb or 100w Marshall (or I guess any amp for that matter) to sound fat in a typical room where they can't be turned above 3 (master or non-master) regardless of pedals.

That is usually the best solution, unless you're backing a singer who INSISTS that there be NO guitar in the monitor. Then what?

Tell him there isn't... when he insists there is, question his sanity.

One observation about MV's and overdrive at low volumes. Ime, Mesa boogie had a great idea by installing a graphic EQ after the phase inverter. This allows the preamp to be driven hard....if that is what you want to do....without driving certain frequencies into chaos. Ex: the Bass freqs will turn the signal into mush if you drive the preamp hard and have the Bass control above 3 on say a MKIIC+. Without the graphic, the result is a rather anemic tone especially at low volumes. With the graphic post-PI, those freqs can be emphasized to one's liking, resulting in a fuller, richer tone without preamp mush.....at any volume. I have witnessed the results of different players' understanding of this on one stage in one night with the same amp. Every guitarist except one had thin, harsh sonics. The lone guitarist who had a full, rich tone was theone who understood how the amp worked. He was not the owner of theamp, either. The owner of the amp had owned the amp for over 20 years and could play the guitar with facility. He just didn't understand his amp's topography....or his ears were shot on the high end???
Imho, whether or not one finds a use for a MV amp is dependent upon the player's desire...does the player want agressive pre-amp gain or is the player looking for power tube distortion?
another observation....anyone who finds a Champ too loud for their skill level needs to re-evaluate or unplug. (;^) I enjoy pushing an acoustic into that raw overdrive zone with pick attack....and no I don't beat on a guitar. I just push them into that zone with a pick.
Also, learning how to establish sustain with just one's fingers is a valuable lesson that sometimes can be made 'unlearnable' with the use of gain/fuzz/and any other effects.
Ultimately, I am in the camp with Tim Swartz. IT is, however, a luxury to be able to have an amp for every size of venue and every application. That knowledge then puts me in Tim Armstrong's camp with a mic in front of a small amp. I do however find a use for MV amps. In fact,if I had to have just one amp, it would probably be my Super Champs. (Okay, I am going to keep two of them, right?) I can replicate very closely the sonics of a clean Fender Reverb amp, a tweed Deluxe, or a modern hi-gain tube amp. I might need a mic in some situations, though.

another observation....anyone who finds a Champ too loud for their skill level needs to re-evaluate or unplug. (;^)


IDK man, it aint got nothin to do with skills - a Champ is crazy loud for living close to other neighbors in most neighborhoods. Apartments especially.

There are times when the neighborhood still requires an OD pedal, even with a Champ HAHA


Ultimately, I am in the camp with Tim Swartz. IT is, however, a luxury to be able to have an amp for every size of venue and every application.


It is nice to have amps ranging from 1.5 watts to 100 watts, as well as high gain, low gain, MV, non-MV, and many points between - not to mention interesting solid state amps. A luxury not common to most guitarplayers due to financial reasons.

Its a luxury that has its costs as well:
I've had extreme trouble deciding on which amp to bring to any given project. From my 10 watt "mini-JCM800" to my 6L6 modded Princeton Reverb head, to my recently modded 5D8 (I just gutted the bright channel and now have a virgin tweed input and a JCM800 input).

So many sound so good it gets hard to choose.


That knowledge then puts me in Tim Armstrong's camp with a mic in front of a small amp. I do however find a use for MV amps. In fact,if I had to have just one amp, it would probably be my Super Champs. (Okay, I am going to keep two of them, right?) I can replicate very closely the sonics of a clean Fender Reverb amp, a tweed Deluxe, or a modern hi-gain tube amp. I might need a mic in some situations, though.


A 5 watter and a Shure SM-57 can be carried in one hand and a guitar in the other... it does make for easy gigging!

Even though I've been playing for about 20 years and have owned many Fender and Marshall amps, my expertise is more in psychology than in electronics. It always turns out that people are more certain of their opinions than their perceptions are accurate. For instance, people will swear they are beer experts, but when faced with a blind taste test they cannot tell a $3 sixpack from a $12 sixpack (even the "real" experts). You will probably say you can, but try it and you'll be surprised at your inaccuracy (at the very least you'll have some fun with friends). A person's certainty in the correctness of their opinion has a very low correlation with the actual result.

What I'm saying is that I doubt that very many people could tell the difference between a MV and non-MV if Keith Richards played each one in the next room. I'd go as far as saying that almost no one would identify the difference consistently enough to be statistically significant (beyond chance). For that matter, I doubt many could tell the difference between a solid state amp and a tube amp with a pedal in front of it if the playing was exactly the same. Taste is just too subjective and there are far too many variables (possible tonal variations due to amp type, amp features, amp settings, guitar types and settings, player's attack, etc.).

Even though I've been playing for about 20 years and have owned many Fender and Marshall amps, my expertise is more in psychology than in electronics. It always turns out that people are more certain of their opinions than their perceptions are accurate. For instance, people will swear they are beer experts, but when faced with a blind taste test they cannot tell a $3 sixpack from a $12 sixpack (even the "real" experts). You will probably say you can, but try it and you'll be surprised at your inaccuracy (at the very least you'll have some fun with friends). A person's certainty in the correctness of their opinion has a very low correlation with the actual result.

What I'm saying is that I doubt that very many people could tell the difference between a MV and non-MV if Keith Richards played each one in the next room. I'd go as far as saying that almost no one would identify the difference consistently enough to be statistically significant (beyond chance). For that matter, I doubt many could tell the difference between a solid state amp and a tube amp with a pedal in front of it if the playing was exactly the same. Taste is just too subjective and there are far too many variables (possible tonal variations due to amp type, amp features, amp settings, guitar types and settings, player's attack, etc.).

I'd love to agree with you on both of your points, but I beg to differ. Your analogies can basically come down to blind taste tests that are apples vs. oranges.

Take your beer test. For your $3 six pack, go with Milwaukee's Best. For the $12 six pack, go with Dogfish Head IPA. They're both MIA, brewed only a thousand miles apart, if that...

...I'd be willing to wager that every taster, both beer drinker and non, would be able to immediately tell a difference. And not that one would be better than the other, or even that both would be considered good or bad.

I wish your beer analogy was true - I really do. I've fallen in love with the Dogfish Head beers, but refuse to buy them because of the $12 price tag (I suffer along with my Red Hook ESB, @ $13 for a 12 pack - which I guess is a psychological compromise, based on your taste test).

...No offense intended, but when was the last time you sampled beers at different price points? The differences in taste even among similarly priced beers can be so different that only a person who destroyed their taste buds with a 300 degree cup of joe couldn't tell the difference.:roll:

As for amps, you didn't specify which, and this is important. If Keith Richards were playing in the next room with a tweed Bassman and a Bogner Uberschall, I think that most, if not all listeners would be able to accurately differentiate the two. Swap out the Bassman for a Twin Reverb or Roland JC120, and most folks would still be able to discern the difference.

When it comes to pedals, all blind tests go out the window. The circuitry of your average overdrive will have 100 different affects on 100 different amps.

This thread was an attempt to isolate out a single component; the Master Volume. It really has nothing to do with power scaling, attenuators, pedals, or anything else.

Objectivity can be applied to MV vs non-MV amps, if you go by simply how they affect the circuit. Either style amp can be tweaked by certain players to make them happy, and either one can be modified to become the opposite.

While taste, psychology, and a million other intangibles and subjective impressions may lead to a colorful debate, none of them really answer the original questions posed in this thread:

1. How does a MV work?

2. Is a MV circuit rendered inactive when turned full up, or is there a difference between a dimed MV amp and a dimed non-MV amp, that would necessitate a bypass switch?

In the first few replies, I clearly answered 1 and 2, and how Telzilla may even apply it in his project, so he can decide for himself which one works better for him, and the flexibility to switch it out altogether.

Sorry to de-hijack this thread...

anyone who finds a Champ too loud for their skill level needs to re-evaluate or unplug. (;^)
really!

http://skugg.files.wordpress.com/2007/06/can-of-worms.jpg
Here we go Again! :lol:

OK, so to address the subject, "How Does a Master Volume Work?"

A master volume is an attenuation control placed somewhere between the first preamp gain/volume control and the output section.

99% of stock master volumes are simply another volume control placed at the input of the phase inverter (typically referred to as a pre-phase inverter master volume). Usually a 1 meg pot functioning as a voltage divider.

A few amps have what is commonly referred to as a post-phase inverter master volume. This is a control that attenuates the signal beteen the phase inverter and output tubes. The benefit here is that the PI tube can be overdriven, thus providing more distortion at low volume than the pre-phase inverter type. There are several varieties. The first one I'm aware of was developed by a tech friend of mine in the mid '70s who produced a brand of amps in mid Michigan called "ROCK" amps. This is the version that uses a dual ganged 1m pot and splits the 2 coupling caps into 4. This version is also used in some late '70s early '80s Marshalls. There is also a version that uses a dual gang pot to replace the bias splitter resistors often referred to as the Ken Fischer master. The simplest post phase inverter master is a single pot that sits in line and simply uses phase cancellation to attenuate the signal. This is used on some Matchless and Bogner amps. In my Swarty mods I've found it very useful to have both a pre and post phase inverter master as this really allows you to fine tune the distortion characteristics... you can read some reviews here:

http://reviews.harmony-central.com/reviews/Guitar+Amp/product/Tim+Swartz/Fender+Head+Mod/10/1

99% of stock master volumes are simply another volume control placed at the input of the phase inverter (typically referred to as a pre-phase inverter master volume). Usually a 1 meg pot functioning as a voltage divider.

In my Swarty mods I've found it very useful to have both a pre and post phase inverter master as this really allows you to fine tune the distortion characteristics.

Here's what I said yesterday - only the 5th response after Tel started the thread, and before all the broohaha started:

"For amp builders, the best approach to utilizing MV's would probably be to place one at each gain interstage - i.e. a trimpot. With some fiddling, it would be possible to come up with optimal resistor values. Then the trimpots could be pulled, and resistors subbed in their places."

If a master amp tech is using "simply another volume control" at other multiple points in the amp, then what I said is right on the money, IMO. If you switch the verbage to "additional volume controls," it seems to make more sense to amp fiends.

My example was an extreme end of the spectrum - a volume control at each gain interstage. I then suggested pulling the pots and replacing them with fixed resistors. But it's equally valid to leave the pots in. You just don't want to give the user too much control, or you risk frustrating them.

If you look at any schematic that is heavy on preamp gain stages, you will see a whole range of methods and component values to "flavor" each stage. While some amp builders may still use the age old method of component swapping, there are a few who sub trimpots at every conceivable location, set them to "standard" values, and start tweaking from there.

There's another nice side effect with trimpots - you can compensate for drift, or custom tweak a "standard" circuit for a customer (or yourself).

Did you ever wonder how they came up with resistor values like 910 ohms, or 39K?

Master volume = another volume control. Very aptly put. Thank you, Mr. Swartz.

Well 11 gauge, I guess I beg to differ as well. You asked when was the last time I sampled beers at different price points. I did this last year with about 20 people from the neighborhood and the results were as I said, which actually supported the research on the subject. It's ironic that you mentioned Milwaukee's Best, because that beer has won many many blind taste tests. But the beer has to have the same character- both light or both dark. You can't compare a light beer to a dark beer. That obviously would ruin the experiment. When I did it we used 6 dark beers and 6 light beers. No one could identify any of them.

And I wasn't implying that someone couldn't tell a difference between beers, but that they would not be able to identify them. But since you posed the question to me, I'll do the same: When was the last time you blindly sampled beers at different price points? I'm guessing I was the only one speaking from experience.

The same goes for the amp. If you compare two different amps you will get two different sounds. I'd say that most players could tell a straight tube amp from a solid state amp or a Fender from a Marshall. But hypothetically, if you had two Twins with similar circuitry, my theory is that very very few people would be able to tell if one had a master volume and one did not based on sound alone. So I would argue for the master volume because it serves a useful purpose and the difference in sound is nearly imaginary.

The same goes for the amp. If you compare two different amps you will get two different sounds. I'd say that most players could tell a straight tube amp from a solid state amp or a Fender from a Marshall. But hypothetically, if you had two Twins with similar circuitry, my theory is that very very few people would be able to tell if one had a master volume and one did not based on sound alone. So I would argue for the master volume because it serves a useful purpose and the difference in sound is nearly imaginary.

I'd think most would have a tough time telling a Twin Reverb on 2 from say a Kustom SS 2x12 combo as the differences are not nearly as apparent as when thing start clipping... Same for Marshall vs Fender, with both amps on 2 it would be tough. As for the 2 Twins one master and one none master; if you had the non master on 2 and the master volume Twin at 2 on the master and had the preamp dimed the difference would be very apparent. If you have the master dimed and the preamp at the same level as the volume control as the non-master it would be impossible to pick.

I have to agree with Rumble, most of it this guitar "tone quest" is in psychological self-delusion.

Some of it is not. But Rumble was not speaking of the obvious aspects, but those of the more subjective nature (especially when applying rules of personal taste to two similar things).

For instance truning a MV 100 watt Marshall to 1 or less while cranking the Gain, you will NOT hear the same nice overdrive of a 5 watt non-MV dimed... this is not self-delusion.

Some of the technical reasons will be obvious, but hearing the difference on a recording of a well tweaked MV Marshall and a cranked 5 watt will not be as easy to differenciate.

Regardless, at this point the conversation is losing its objectivity and will degenerate into an argument soon... the main question has been answered thoroughyl afterall.

Agree to disagree and move on.

Well 11 gauge, I guess I beg to differ as well. You asked when was the last time I sampled beers at different price points. I did this last year with about 20 people from the neighborhood and the results were as I said, which actually supported the research on the subject. It's ironic that you mentioned Milwaukee's Best, because that beer has won many many blind taste tests. But the beer has to have the same character- both light or both dark. You can't compare a light beer to a dark beer. That obviously would ruin the experiment. When I did it we used 6 dark beers and 6 light beers. No one could identify any of them.

And I wasn't implying that someone couldn't tell a difference between beers, but that they would not be able to identify them. But since you posed the question to me, I'll do the same: When was the last time you blindly sampled beers at different price points? I'm guessing I was the only one speaking from experience.

Both Milwaukee's Best and Dogfish Head are neither dark nor light, they are "regular," unless you are referring to their visual color, in which case both are "light." Either way, I would wager that a person who has tasted both of these beers, even once, would be able to identify them.

I last blindly sampled beers that ranged from $3 a 6 pack to $18 about 2 years ago. The beers sampled were domestic only, mass produced, semi-mass produced, and microbrews. None were light or dark, but I divided them into pilsners, ales, lagers, and stouts. I tasted roughly 200 individual beers, on multiple occaisions, just to see if there were any trends. I placed roughly 1 ounce of beer in a 12 ounce drinking glass. The beer was chilled to approximately 50 degrees farenheit - any colder and you can't really taste any differences. Another way to say this is that nasty beer and great beer are totally indestinguishable from one another at the temperature that any bar or pub serves them at, which will always be significantly colder than 50 degrees. If you want even more overt differences, keep going warmer.

In my non-scientific findings, it is oftentimes hard to differentiate between pilsners and lagers, particularly if they haven't been kept at optimal temperature.

Pilsners, in particular, are hardest to differentiate because they tend to go flat quickly after being dispensed into a glass.

Lagers are second hardest, because there is one time honored method of producing a lager that goes back to Germany, centuries ago. Most brewers adhere to this method, because it produces consistent results. So differences in lagers will typically come down to the little "extra" that brewers add to them.

Ales and stouts are almost unique from brewer to brewer, due to the vastly different methods for brewing. No one will ever confuse a Newcastle Brown for a Sierra Nevada IPA, or a Boddington's, even though they are all definitively ales.

For someone who doesn't drink stout beers regularly, it can be a little tricky to pick out some of them. But I can think of two that anyone with average taste buds could differentiate every time - Sam Adams and Guinness. If you drink it for a while (semi-occaisionally), it becomes fairly easy to differentiate between even the similar ones, such as Murphy's and Guiness, especially if served at different temperatures (true stouts are very temperature sensitive, and when they get "warm" tend to taste significantly different.

To summarize, if you just want to do a test with a dozen beers and divide them by their "weight," you'll probably get data to conclude what you have found. Garbage in = garbage out. It's also something you can't do at a pub or restaurant, because you have no control over how the beer is stored, chilled, or 'introduced' into a glass. Also, in these conditions, folks tend to drink more than the necessary ounce or two needed for 'taste' purposes - the more intoxicated they become, the more dull their sensory responses become. Beer recognition is a large part olifactory-based as well. Drunk people in a smoky environment probably couldn't tell the difference between grape juice and sangria...

Not at all relevant to this thread, (or maybe indirectly so?), so I apologize. I'm a beer freak, big time (beer and amps go hand in hand, IMO:razz:).

Okay, last one on the beer. When I said light and dark I was talking about color and density. You, 11 gauge, may be able to tell a difference, but the vast majority of people cannot even differentiate between a pilsner and lager, or between an ale and stout (as long as it's not a super thick stout like Guinness), much less pick out the actual brands. Even if you are very familair with many types of beers, if you didn't know what was in the pool of beers you were sampling I doubt if you could name them out of the blue. It's almost like having perfect pitch.

If you take a few relatively cheap dark beers like Michelob Amber Bock, Killians, etc. and put them up next to somewhat better dark beers like Bass and Newcastle, 99% of people wouldn't be able to pick out the difference in brand or price. The same goes for if you put up Mil Best, Rolling Rock, and Bud against Heineken, Grolsch, etc. Mix in a few microbrews and the guesses get farther off. Amp sound is even more subjective because at least beers are tangible. Jimmy Page could smoke on a cheap guitar and a solid state amp and I bet very few people could identify what he was playing. But if you're ever in Georgia you can stop by, we'll sample some beers, and play some Teles and Les Pauls through a couple MV amps.

Okay, last one on the beer. When I said light and dark I was talking about color and density. You, 11 gauge, may be able to tell a difference, but the vast majority of people cannot even differentiate between a pilsner and lager, or between an ale and stout (as long as it's not a super thick stout like Guinness), much less pick out the actual brands. Even if you are very familair with many types of beers, if you didn't know what was in the pool of beers you were sampling I doubt if you could name them out of the blue. It's almost like having perfect pitch.

If you take a few relatively cheap dark beers like Michelob Amber Bock, Killians, etc. and put them up next to somewhat better dark beers like Bass and Newcastle, 99% of people wouldn't be able to pick out the difference in brand or price. The same goes for if you put up Mil Best, Rolling Rock, and Bud against Heineken, Grolsch, etc. Mix in a few microbrews and the guesses get farther off. Amp sound is even more subjective because at least beers are tangible. Jimmy Page could smoke on a cheap guitar and a solid state amp and I bet very few people could identify what he was playing. But if you're ever in Georgia you can stop by, we'll sample some beers, and play some Teles and Les Pauls through a couple MV amps.


Your taste test is still fundamentally flawed, because too many assumptions are being made. First, you are pitting cheap vs. expensive, typically lumping all expensive beers into the imported or microbrew category, when that isn't always the case. It sounds like you are trying to conclude that there is no correlation between price and quality. While it's not absolute, I can tell you that it makes a difference, that anyone can taste, time after time.

Basically, it comes down to this - you can't conclude anything taste-wise, in a public setting, because there are no controls, and the beer will be served too cold. It has been scientifically proven that our ability to taste is diminished to near zero when beverages are chilled to 40 degrees farenheit or less. So, in your tests, not only can no one pick out the uniquely flavored beers that cost more, but they can't discern them from the crappy generic tasting beers that cost almost nothing.

The main reason that beer is served chilled (sometimes in a frosted glass, even) is because it masks the taste. It's cheaper for a company to brew a crappy product and have it served cold, than it is for a company to brew a fantastic product, and have it served at a temperature where it becomes aromatic (50 degrees farenheit, or warmer).

So, by your test, any beer will work. You've taken the taste variable out of the equation. Actually, you didn't the brewers and bar owners did - they stand to profit by it.

Out of the names you mentioned, I'll tell you this - price doesn't always matter. Bring em up to the right temperature, and it becomes immediately relevant that Bass, Corona, and Heineken (at least what they export to us) are a horrible waste of money. But Guiness, Tetley, Sam Adams, Red Hook, New Castle, and many others just taste so much better...

...Consequently, most Michelob products (except for the Ultra stuff) also taste uniquely better when you up them temperature, as does the original Miller (not light), Killian's, and Dundee Honey Lager. Unfortunately, I can't say the same of most mainstream stuff, especially the light beers. Stuff that tastes nasty when you warm it up are Bud, Busch, Rolling Rock, Yuengling, Coors, Milwaukee's Best, etc. (IMO). And most of these even have a unique nastiness all their own...

I don't know if they even make it any more, but Coors did have a truly great beer once upon a time - Extra Gold.

Most people don't even stop to realize that most of the beer, soda, etc. that they drink would make them puke if it was served at 50 degrees or warmer. Only then does one realize that even $3 for a six pack of Straub beer is a waste of money.

If you want to experience very overt differences in beers, go to Europe. Better yet, go to Octoberfest.

Beer is kinda like tea or coffee. It's a fussy recipe that doesn't reveal what it's all about if you only drink it at 40 degrees or less.

Here's to beer and amps, whatever your preference. I'm glad it's Friday afternoon. I'm getting thirsty, and I wanna crank up my Marshall and let 'er rip!

Holy hijack.

Now we're taste testing the Beast against some fancy pants IPA?

Apologies -

It's clear that me likes my amps and me likes my beer...

...And neither should be biased cold, unless you enjoy ingesting garbage...

Yeah - the Beast versus Sierra Nevada (or any other decent IPA).

Kinda like a Fender J.A.M. versus an Allen Hot Fudge with Nuts.

Can you taste a difference?

Can the average guitarist taste a difference?

Apologies -

It's clear that me likes my amps and me likes my beer...

...And neither should be biased cold, unless you enjoy ingesting garbage...

Yeah - the Beast versus Sierra Nevada (or any other decent IPA).

Kinda like a Fender J.A.M. versus an Allen Hot Fudge with Nuts.

Can you taste a difference?

Can the average guitarist taste a difference?

No Problem. I was just kidding.

It's always interesting to see where a thread goes.


MMMM, Nukie Brown..... Is it the weekend yet?

Or, if you'vealready got an OD pedal, save yourself the trouble and just pull the OD out for late night stuff.

+1