|
Post by squeallydan on Aug 1, 2006 14:24:48 GMT -7
I love my Maz Sr, but sometimes it seems like it still doesn't stay quite as clean as my old Fender Twin. I love the clean sound of the Z's. I even love the clean sound of my Ghia, but I want to be able to crank it up and it still stay clean. I could turn the twin up and it would stay crystal clean. What can I do to give more headroom to my Maz. It seems like some nights it gets a little dirtier than normal. I have been using 1x12 cabinet. Should I try a 2x12 cab? Wouldn't that be closer to a Twin-type configuration? Thanks!
|
|
|
Post by billyguitar on Aug 1, 2006 14:40:17 GMT -7
Big power difference between a Twin and a Maz 38. I do know what you mean though. To me a Maz 38 has barely enough clean power. Turn the tone pot off on your guitar, stab a chord and see how low it starts to break up compared to a Twin. A 2 x 12 like a Z best would no doubt add to your clean headroom. Tried the low input? It does help. Myles can probably recommend some lower gain preamp tubes that'll help but they will also compromise your drive capability also.
|
|
|
Post by fishman on Aug 1, 2006 17:17:45 GMT -7
I am using the Tonker in my MAZ38 1-12...plenty of headroom, actually have to grit it up some as the Tonker compared the the G12H is quite a difference...I also just installed a Weber Beam Blocker and what a GIANT difference that made!...really smoothed out the sound and gave it even more of a 3-D feel....and eliminated the icepick highs that sometimes can sneak their way thru....as we all know, different guitars give different results as do tubes, playing style etc....I am sure with a little tweaking you will be able to get the sounds that you are looking for...the MAZ is one hell of an amp....
|
|
|
Post by guitarboy02451 on Aug 1, 2006 22:04:46 GMT -7
How bout a comp pedal?
|
|
|
Post by squeallydan on Aug 2, 2006 6:11:17 GMT -7
You think a compressor would help? I ave an old Boss but I'm not using it right now.
|
|
|
Post by Telemanic on Aug 2, 2006 10:56:57 GMT -7
Ya know what Squeally, i think after all the tube swaps, speaker changes etc., ........... your still comparing el84's to 6l6's. there is to my ears and fingers, an inherent compression ( clipping ) to the little bottles. Especially when you consider 38 watss vs. 100! There is just nothing quite like an old fender with 6l6's for clean headroom. But if you must try to squeeze it out, i'd try a quad of RCA or GE 84's. I found them to be sweeter and have better headroom than the gt's or the JJ's. Less aggression in the upper mids, which to my ear, made them sound, .... well, ...... more fender like. Subtle, but noticable. Also, I dont know if theres any science behind it, but i find some rectifiers seem to be stiffer than others, ......... that would certainly help, if only fractionaly.
|
|
|
Post by squeallydan on Aug 2, 2006 11:40:21 GMT -7
Thanks! I think maybe I need a fender to go alon with my Z's. THe best of both worlds!
|
|
|
Post by Curt on Aug 2, 2006 12:58:45 GMT -7
Are you running your master wide open?
|
|
|
Post by paulgiz2 on Aug 2, 2006 14:09:52 GMT -7
A Maz has a different kind of clean, gritty clean. There isn't really that big a power difference between the MAZ and a Twin. At best a Twin puts out 67W, the MAZ is underrated at 38. There are some things you can do of course.
1. More speakers/More efficient speakers--2x12 will move more air at a given power setting, with more authorative bass. This lets you turn the bass control down on the amp and cleans things up plenty. Cut up/Treble down seems cleaner to me as well.
2. Use the lo-gain input (#2). Much more clean.
P.
|
|
|
Post by squeallydan on Aug 2, 2006 14:23:29 GMT -7
I run the master wide open. I have been using a Legend 121 in 1 1x12 cab. I have a 2x12 mesa cab. Its closed-back, and I would like to try an open back.
I haven't been using the low input so I should try that.
I agree with what one of you said. It may not be a power thing, but the Maz clean just seems different and not quite as crystal clean as the Twin.
|
|
|
Post by billyguitar on Aug 2, 2006 14:47:49 GMT -7
according to the Dave Funk book the brown and white Twins were 65 watts and the normal blackface Twin Reverbs were 81 watts. They also have solid state recification and are fixed bias. The 38 watt Maz is cathode biased, a much springier feel. The fixed bias Twin Reverb not only has twice the power but fixed bias has a lot more punch than cathode bias. They really can't be compared even if the Maz is underated in watts. I use to use a Twin Reverb and a Dual Showman, still have a head that I use for bass at rehearsal. It's a whole nuther thang. I remember one gig I took my old Twin Reverb and a 50 watt 1987x Marshall half stack both to the gig. I a/b'd during some solos and the Twin was MUCH louder than the half stack and all the Twin had was a couple of lame Celestion lead 70 twelves. The Twin was punishing loud, really hurt.
|
|
|
Post by paulgiz2 on Aug 3, 2006 3:12:57 GMT -7
Not saying Twin Reverbs aren't incredibly loud. Once upon a time my rig consisted of 2 JBL equipped Twin Reverbs--cranked. Coincidentally, I only have about 40% hearing on one side.
I used to work with an amp tech who would the measure power at onset of clipping for every amp. It was his way of establishing a baseline for amp performance. The highest we saw out of a Twin Reverb was 67W.
It is a SS rectified, tight, punchy, clear, big cabinet, 2x12 67W, but it is 67W nonetheless.
Remember back in the day (well my day) when the best hi-fi amps (Marantz, McIntosh) made 35 W? With an efficient cab (Klipsch, JBL) you could make Mahler shake the walls. Its all about presence and moving air.
P.
P.S.--50W Marshalls all made about 32W, closed back cabs don't help either unless you're standing 30 feet or more from the amp.
|
|
|
Post by billyguitar on Aug 3, 2006 5:42:24 GMT -7
You got it! I know about the hearing thing too, sadly. I think the power rating at onset of clipping is the question. I think in guitar amps they often push it to 10%. That would explain the different stats. When Marshalls first came to Kansas City a guy took a 100watt head to a stereo place. They said that amp did 135 watts! My brother just sold his old K-horns for $2,275. They ebayed them for local pickup only. He worked at the factory in the early 70s with Paul K. and picked his own veneer. They were pretty but people don't listen to stereos the same way any more.
|
|
mikek
Full Member
Posts: 144
|
Post by mikek on Aug 3, 2006 6:43:23 GMT -7
There are a couple of things that I might recommend.... 1) Try a NOS 5751 tube in V1 and/or in the PI slot. This will give you more headroom and a slightly sweeter response 2) Try more efficient speakers. Something like an Eminence Tonker or Swamp Thang, or a Weber California.... If you haven't tried this before, youlll be surprised at how much louder and cleaner your rig gets. I know I was . 3) Try a 2x12. I hope I don't come off smug or bitter, but this is something I think is worth addressing RE: the "sound" of 6L6 tubes. The sound of a power stage is the result of so much more than the output tubes used. The transformer, idle current, bias method, driver stage, rectification...all of these have an equal part in the sound of an amplifier's power stage. Changing output tubes does have a clear and noticable effect on tone, but its in the same league as swapping pickups on a guitar. The tonality has changed, but the fundamental characteristics are the same. As far as headroom and compression, EL84s have less clean output than a 6L6, but in a single-ended, cathode-biased amp like the THD Univalve, we're talking a simple difference of a hair less/more (depending on each tube) than 5w...about 3.5w vs. 8w. At that power level, we're talking maybe 3 or 4db difference? Like I said, I REALLY hope this doesn't come off arrogant, but you'll commonly see or hear that 6L6s (and don't forget, are we talking GC?, WGC?, G?) make the Fender sound, and if you're after that then an amp with 6L6s will get you closer. Its only part of it, and I hate to see people make purchases based on info that's only part of the story. Sorry again .
|
|
|
Post by squeallydan on Aug 3, 2006 6:59:56 GMT -7
I have a 2x12 closed back I can try. I'll also try the low input.
My 1x12 ab has a Legend 121. Isn't that a fairly efficient speaker?
|
|
mikek
Full Member
Posts: 144
|
Post by mikek on Aug 3, 2006 7:06:39 GMT -7
Even though the Legend 121 is a 150w speaker, it's sensitivity is 98.8db. With something like the Tonker or Swamp Thang, their sensitivities both rate at 102db.
As an example, that'd be something similar to going from a 50w to a 100w amp. All things consistent, a double in power will give you about a 3db increase in volume. BUT, it can give you significantly more headroom and a higher headroom threshold.
|
|
|
Post by squeallydan on Aug 3, 2006 8:11:46 GMT -7
Wow. I didn't realize that.
|
|
|
Post by mikep47 on Aug 3, 2006 9:06:42 GMT -7
Sqeaullydan You could always consider the alternative option.Get a Stingray or a ES.And keep it in the family lol Mike
|
|
|
Post by billyguitar on Aug 3, 2006 10:21:18 GMT -7
I have a Stang Ray and a Maz 38 senior and have seriously played a RXES. The RXES and the Stang Ray both have more clean headroom than the Maz 38, especially the RXES. My Maz 38 is a 1x12 combo with an alnico Tone Tubby. I can pretty confidently say that given the proper 2 x 12 cab the Maz should have enough clean head room unless the band is too loud.
|
|
|
Post by squeallydan on Aug 3, 2006 10:43:37 GMT -7
I thought the Maz Sr. would have more headroom than the RXES or Ray. Am I wrong? Whats up with that?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 3, 2006 14:30:46 GMT -7
I think both the Maz38 and the RXES are pretty close in terms of headroom and when they breakup. The RXES does not have the added versatility of a Master volume though. Having owned the RXES and a/bing it against the Maz38, the RXES sounds a bit more open which can translate it to seeming louder, but when you crank the amps up I find the RXES compresses a bit more than my Maz38 does. The Maz feels more aggressive at those levels. I still feel from playing both amps that the RXES breaks up a little sooner especially with humbuckers but its so close that its hard to tell for me. Mind you this comparison was done with both amps going through Alnico 50watt Weber Bluedog/Silverbell speakers. I don't quite remember what the Maz sounds like with the stock speakers anymore and how they might affect headroom. The ray definitely has more clean headroom than either amps, though the Ray does get thicker and more complex as you crank the volume.
|
|
|
Post by squeallydan on Aug 3, 2006 14:39:40 GMT -7
I'm wondering if I should quit trying to make a Z sound like a Twin and get a Twin. I just hated lugging that big Fender around. It weighed a ton. Maybe a Dual Showman head would be more compact.
I think I'll try a 2x12 cab. at my gig tonight as well as the low input.
|
|
|
Post by Telemanic on Aug 3, 2006 16:47:06 GMT -7
Well, .... i love all things Z, ... but variety IS the spice of life! Lottsa good amps out there. I look at it as different tools for different jobs. Power, texture, flexability, features, etc. I do think that you could find a Z tho to cover just about any base, and the tone,..... well, what can we say! ........ Mikek, i definately wasnt trying to imply that the difference bettween a 38 and a twin lied in the tubes alone, ..... certainly as has been stated, there are a great many factors that contribute to an amps tonal qualities or lack there of. I was merely making the observation that in 30 some years of playin a great many amps that were based on el84's, ( boutiques included),in my humble opinion, none of them have or could be made to sound exactly like an amp based on 6l6's. To be certain the amps design contributes greatly to the outcome, but there is a certain roundness and girth to the 6l6 that cannot IMHO be duplicated by an 84. How many guys back in the day converted their marshalls from 34's for this very reason. Couple that with the design differences of a twin, which is made to have a great deal of pretty clean headroom, and to my ears you have a " different" amp for sure. The Docs are among if not the best el84 designs ive played, and are damn big and bold sounding, ... but there is always present that quality that prevents ANY 84 based amp ive ever tried, from becoming my # 1. It's of course highly personal and subjective, and doesnt imply i dont think they sound great and couldnt record an entire album with one. In regard to the fundemental characteristics of a el84 and a 6l6 being the same, i guess i'll have to agree to disagree with due respect. I feel that while yes they are both valves, they are quite different in their character, tonality aside.As for 100 watts, i wasnt trying to split hairs, just speaking generaly that typicaly, later designs with 4- 6l6's, are usually thought of as 100 watts and 2-6l6's as 50 etc., but certainly you are right that design, tube variables types etc., could render a lower "actual" bench measurement. I had a silverface with sylvania STR's that benched in the 90's. I dont discount that certain eras + tubes could very well bench at 67. I guess the point being that irrespective of watts, My 38, does NOT have the clean, window breaking girth, that my twin has. But then again, to me there is a difference kind of, in clean volume and volume with some distortion, .....they hit you differently. Just wanted to clarify my comments
|
|
mikek
Full Member
Posts: 144
|
Post by mikek on Aug 3, 2006 17:23:01 GMT -7
Telemaniac, well put. Don't worry about it, if anything I feel like a jackass for my tirade on output sections.
I understand totally what you were saying now. I guess I thought you first meant that the use of 6L6s in an amp makes "the" sound, i.e. the Fender sound. Now I know that's not what you were saying.
I agree with you, though. 6L6s DO have a different sound than EL84s. The small bottles have a certain chime in the high end that the 6L6s don't, whereas the 6L6s have a girth that is more characteristic of them.
My comment about the fundamental characteristics was in regard to changing tubes within the same amplifier. Case in point - THD Univalve. It certainly sounds different with an EL84 than a 6L6, however there is no mistaking that it is still a UniValve. It won't sound like a Fender simply by putting a 6L6 in it, no Vox with EL84, no Marshall with EL34. It just sounds like a Univalve, just different.
I guess what I was trying to say was that you won't simply get the sound of a certain amp by using the same output tube type...which unfortunately seems to be a pretty common misconception.
Karma to you for being so cogent and levelheaded in response to my bitter babblings.
|
|
|
Post by Telemanic on Aug 4, 2006 14:54:35 GMT -7
Mike please, not at all! Your comments and technical knowledge are spot on. So many times, a slight disagreement lies in semantics or in my case, not properly defining what i'm thinking. Or as i think in this case, we're all sayin about the same thing, .... just a little differently! I in no way felt any "challenge" whatsoever to your sharpening the point of the discussion, I welcomed it, as after reading your post i realized i had in fact not been very concise in my ramblings! I appreciate the opportunity to clarify my thoughts. I am always humbled by the level of maturity, knowledge, and experience thats on this site! Karma back at ya for callin attention to important details!!
|
|
|
Post by billyguitar on Aug 4, 2006 15:27:41 GMT -7
In Z land most feel that the KT45 is the most spankin' clean amp he makes. Myles say it does about 60 watts, but it's more of a Hiwatt kind of thing. BW commented in another about using the KT45 and a 335 to try get a Freddie King sound on a recording. He said it did pretty good! Freddie's amp in the later days was a Dual Showman. That's what he had when I saw him but I think he was better known for using the Quad Reverb like Albert Collins.
|
|