Fender Clean & Marshall Crunch in one amp?

[telemnemonics]

It seems very doable to make the rectifier switchable. Solid State on the M channel and Tube on the F channel. I'm thinking relays so it auto switches with the channel switching. I'd use a multi tap output transformer as well.

Well you can certainly keep adding costly features to a two sound amp, but my point was more that if you choose a clean Fender sound that not at the cleanest most Fendery end of clean Fender, you spend more money for less distinctly different sounds.
Did the customer specifically ask for a BFSR and an 800 in one amp?
Or is the BFSR target your idea because you like them?

My other point was that many have built amps with your goal but they are viewed as Mr Smith amp or Mr Jones amp.

I used to run a BFSR in stereo with a Plexi 100.
It was the '67 Plexi circuit which is a more squishy Plexi, but distinctly Marshall (same Marshall as the first few EVH albums).
Notably many players hear Eddie tone from an 800, FWIW.

I'd bet that a studio player could A/B between a cranked BFSR and a dialed in JCM800 so that you could not tell which was which by the sound. Depending partlyon the SR speakers, harder if it has old worn out CTS alnico as opposed to fresh ceramic tens.
Most amp sound demo's are guys playing tunes we associate with that amp, resulting in 99 out of 100 listeners saying yup that's a JCM800 when it's actually a DRRI with a Joyo MIAB in front of it.

And in the KISS process for big results without excess baggage, a stiffer Twin Reverb will sound way more Fendery than a BFSR on 3 or 4, while also having a power section that's more compatible with getting a decent 800 sound with second channel.

I get the idea that the ideas are fun and creative, but how do you know the customer will like sorta dirty Fender cleans next to sorta JCM800 dirt running through a power section that's bogged down in complex compromise to make it both squishy AND tight?

Harry Kolbe was one of the top amp modders in NYC during the '80s & '90s and was responsible for cutting up piles of old Plexi Marshalls.
He was competing with Mesa and Dumble for new designs in Fender clean & Marshally dirty.
I had one of his modded Twin Reverb amps complete with epoxy gooped circuitry.
Did Twin cleans and Marshally dirt with the Fender tune spring reverb in place.
I also had a MKIV Boogie and a Dumble clone plus early JCM800.
While none of those amps tried to nail any of the exact 800 sounds, they all sold well and on stages they covered required Marshally functions as well as clean Fender cleans. The BFSR's dirty almost clean Fender reverb sounds would probably not even be noticed as "Fender clean" on a stage. Except at low volume.

Any amp builder would rightfully need $3000 to design and build an amp that has all your proposed features!
Just my thoughts!

 

[Cyberi4n]

I bought an Egnater Tweaker 15w Head, running through a Marshall 2x12 cab. I even got a free Vox AC style amp thrown in too! Three amps in one!!!

 

[Mike_LA]

The big feature of classic BF amps is not the amp, it's the reverb.

Exactly, that's why the only FX that I use with the Marshall is the 6G15 reverb that I built . . .

 

[ruger9]

I have played and enjoyed the Supersonic amps. But they kind of do their own thing to my ear.

Looking at the schematic it looks like the Vibrolux mode is classic BF fender, but the Bassman and Burn modes are not really what I'm looking for.

https://www.thetubestore.com/lib/thetubestore/schematics/Fender/Fender-Super-Sonic-Schematic.pdf

If you are look at SCHEMATICS and ACTUAL CIRCUITS, no- there is no amp that does what you want. Everything/anything will be a compromise. Good luck.

 

[Sparky2]

 

[kplamann]

This is the best amp I have ever played. Perfect Fender cleans and Marshall crunch and very dynamic concerning the latter.

 

[jvin248]

.

It's called a Peavey Bandit ... Fender cleans for days used by Texas Country bands back in the days and then a 'Mississippi Marshall' when the T-dynamics knob is set and used appropriately.




Or Joyo pedals into a 'whatever' clean amp





Sure none of that is a tube amp ... and you're trying to build an amp from scratch. But perhaps there are pieces of the puzzle you seek in those devices.

I did a repair for a guy once on his 'tube amp' ... cracked it open and it was all solid state except for one little tube. Got it fixed and back to him but had a laugh that someone sold 'tube amp tones' when the player got by just fine with solid state.

.

 

[Gris]

Yeah, it would be cool to switch to the “fender” preamp and only get the “fender” speaker and vice versa for the Marshall. I wonder if anyone has tried it before…

[QUOTE="PoorNoodle, post: 10876568, member: 14

yeah, my old 2x12 Gretsch piggyback was wired that way, one OT (and it’s associated channel) to each speaker. Clean to an old Jensen C12N & the Marshally side to a Celestion 65…

 

[stantheman]

If (BWITD)... the preservation of testicular fortitude AND AMAZING
POWER & TONE is what Ye seek...
The Roland Blues Cube 30 HOT or
The Peavey Bandit 65 are a pair that
come highly recommended by amateurs
and professionals alike "in the know."

The Bandit 65 can be had for $50-$175.
The Cube HOT for $350-$500.

All that aside if I desired an Uber Rig
it would be a Roland JC40 and a Tech 21
RK5 Fly Rig...Sonic Nirvana.

All of the above are battle tested and
worthy.

 

[mountainhick]

I'm seeking to design and build a custom tube amp.

It's like a screw in the lightbulb joke:

How many posters does it take for one to read the first post?

 

[Jsnwhite619]

I'd bet that a studio player could A/B between a cranked BFSR and a dialed in JCM800 so that you could not tell which was which by the sound. Depending partlyon the SR speakers, harder if it has old worn out CTS alnico as opposed to fresh ceramic tens.
Most amp sound demo's are guys playing tunes we associate with that amp, resulting in 99 out of 100 listeners saying yup that's a JCM800 when it's actually a DRRI with a Joyo MIAB in front of it.

I know a builder who told me once that one of the best clean, Tele twang tones he ever heard was at a bar one night and a guy playing a 100W Marshall. I was just touching on this subject on one of my recent threads. Think about Duane using a Fuzz & Twin in the studio, but a 50W Marshall on stage. Definitely not saying "you can make every amp sound the same", but I think some amps are just easier to dial in to particular sounds, not necessarily exclusive to the sound they make.

 

[chris m.]

I know nothing about the inner workings of an amp. That being said, here's my idea.

Build the best Fendery clean amp you can. For Channel 2, build in the best Marshally amp-in-a-box pedal circuit you can find. Ibanez did something similar a while back with their Tube Screamer amp; basically a clean amp with a TS built in as a 2nd channel.

In my experience it's much easier to color and dirty-up a good clean sound than to clean up a good dirty sound. There are lots of fantastic Marshall-sounding gain pedals out there.

I agree. Put an MI Audio Crunch Box pedal inside, call it Channel 2, and have the rest of the amp be a SR or Twin.

 

[mabley123]

Marshall JTM45/100. Its grandfather was a 59 Bassman

 

[telemnemonics]

I know a builder who told me once that one of the best clean, Tele twang tones he ever heard was at a bar one night and a guy playing a 100W Marshall. I was just touching on this subject on one of my recent threads. Think about Duane using a Fuzz & Twin in the studio, but a 50W Marshall on stage. Definitely not saying "you can make every amp sound the same", but I think some amps are just easier to dial in to particular sounds, not necessarily exclusive to the sound they make.

Of a dozen each BF Fender reverb amps and old Marshall 50's & 100's I've owned, I'd say it's easier to make a Marshall sound like a
BF Fender than to make a BF sound like a Marshall, if using just the amp with no pedals.
Of course the Marshall is missing the verb so it's a pointless claim but I agree a lot more can be done with an amp than what we might associate brands with. Hendrix used a Twin in studio often too.
I just found that it's so much easier and goes further in my preferred tonal direction to use a Marshall than a Fender, because I have to push the tone at the strings to make the mid scooped Fender sound more middy.
Twang is more hands than amps anyhow, but who's counting???

 

[wangdaning]

I want to see this 18 tube build with both a Marshall and Fender switchable preamp and a switchable power section as well. It must be done as it can be done.

 

[chris m.]

Tubes are not the issue. It’s the design that matters. I had a THD and it sounded like itself no matter what tubes I put in it.

JCM800s also came in 1 and 2x12 combos. I owned a combo and can assure you that it sounded amazing. Its clean channel sounded great, too. I bet a GE-7 in the effects loop set to a smile would yield a nice Fender scooped clean tone.

 

[gkterry]

Easy. Suhr PT15. Ch Fendery clean. Ch 2 & 3 Marshall

 

[separateness]

Having built some amps and things I do not think this would be easy or practical but my design philosophy is usually to have purpose built items which do their intended task very, very well. The solution I arrived at was building a Twin and then building an offboard preamp based on the SLO100's preamp section (pictured in my profile pic). This gives me beautiful, crystal cleans and a suite of high gain tones that go from mild, ratty dirt to that sort of clear, glassy 80s laser beam sound.
This is not to pooh-pooh your idea but I have a feeling that to do this well would entail an extremely convoluted circuit that was no fun to work with.

 

[twr102]

I also like to think about this question, so I'll give my two cents:

Your "moderately practical" approach has been done a number of times by many different makers. I think the consensus is that you can make a great sounding amp but not one that will truly nail both originals. You end up having to make compromises because you can only have one power section, one output transformer, one speaker type, one speaker cabinet, and so on. As it turns out, those components each inform the tone of the amplifier to a significant degree, so the end result is either 1) you hedge a lot towards one of the two designs and end up with good copy of one and a pale imitation of the other or 2) you split the difference as much as possible all the way down and end up with something that might be "good enough" (depending on how picky you are) but doesn't really nail either model you've based the thing on. That doesn't mean you can't get a great sounding amp this way--you can, and many makers have done so--but it wouldn't nail both vintage models. There are just too many compromises.

The "least practical" option could work so long as the amps use the same speaker/cabinet arrangement, or at least be close enough so long as you aren't obsessive about the speaker/cabinet part of the chain. But at that point you might as well just say forget it and bring two heads, right? And you still haven't dealt with the speaker/cabinet differences (speaker cabinet makes a big contribution to a given amp's tone). You haven't gained anything so there's not much point in making it.

I love the idea but it turns out every piece of the puzzle matters, and the more compromises you make the less the satisfying the thing becomes. If it is ever done really well I think it will be done via digital/modeling. Some of the modern ones are pretty amazing. If that ever gets paired with speaker/cabinet emulation of high quality it might be possible--as it stands, getting that amp-in-the-room tone is still a problem that the modeling amp makers have failed to solve. But maybe one day it will happen.

I heartily agree with your assessment. The closer you get to one design, the more you compromise the other. I play relatively low volume gigs and the Vox Adio Air GT delivers great amp profiles. I've never been happier. I've owned plenty of world class amps.

 

[Badside]

Have any of you gone down this road?

Thanks in advance.

I have:


Straight 2204 build, then a "daughterboard" added with a simple 2 stage AB763 clean channel. Plus the NFB in the power changes in clean mode (that makes a big difference).

More than that, the clean channel can have a dedicated input. So I can leave my OD on in the crunch channel then switch to the clean and have only my comp on for example.

Most of the amp is a stock 2204 build using a Headfirst PCB (stock values everywhere, no mod, I like the stock circuit). Then I did this to add the clean:
https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-XWurNXxK...Q/s2048/2204+Rebuild+2021+v2+Pseudo+Schem.png

In practice... it is very useful. BUT, it still has limitations because I'm still playing through a pair of Creamback speakers which are more mid focused. I do regret making the mid control fixed, I have since changed the 6.8k mid resistor to a 1.5k to counteract the middiness of the speakers. Helps a lot with humbuckers, but I may have to go back and put in an actual mid control. I also increased the treble cap to a 220p to get some "sparkliness" back in.

In the demo I'm playing it real loud through a load, but when I'm not using the load I typically can't run it loud enough to start compressing a little so it's just pure clean tone, almost too clean.

Still, sometimes pure clean is what I need, and the comp pedal in the clean input only is very useful for that. If I want dirty clean, I switch to the 2204 side and lower my guitar's volume.

But the thing is I also built an amp for a friend earlier this year where the "Clean" mode is simply bypassing the 2nd stage of the 2204 circuit, giving more of a Plexi clean, and I think that just works better in context. We all want a Fender clean and Marshall drive, but in practice I find that my life as a gigging guitarist is much simpler when my tone is more consistent with simply different levels of gain. If the soundman gets my Marshall side just right in the mix, then switching to the Fender side throws everything off balance.