|
Post by jimfog on Dec 11, 2007 14:12:04 GMT -7
Hey,
This is always an interesting subject on an appreciation forum like this.
The Route 66 is rightfully well-loved and respected............just an awesome, awesome amp.
But nothing's perfect, right?
So, what DON'T you love on your 66?
What could be better?
What wasn't what you expected?
Why do you sometimes choose another amp?
----------------------------
For me, it's just silly stuff..........lack of reverb, and the inability to get it in combo form is a bit of a drag.
Also, it's a LOT better loud than quiet........can tend to be flat-ish, clean at low volumes.
Whaddya think?
- Jim
PS.....obviously, we're all fans, so this isn't a bashfest!
|
|
|
Post by dixiechicken on Dec 11, 2007 14:55:45 GMT -7
DC here! There's not a single thing that I dislike about it: I would like an effects-loop - BUT - one of the most compelling reasons for me - to buy the Route was it's basic simplicity. ( yes I know I'm a tech geek ) But once you start adding options - it get's more complicated - more fragile and most likely too - it will loose/destroy some of it's sonic character I'd wager. The most compelling reason for buying it. Cheers: Dixiechicken!
|
|
|
Post by zdogma on Dec 11, 2007 15:01:00 GMT -7
Its a bit too loud.
I think its a bit too "thick" sounding for certain styles. It would be nice to have some sort of presence control.
That's about it, honestly.
|
|
|
Post by iggs on Dec 11, 2007 17:41:02 GMT -7
The only thing I don't like about it is how accurately it amplifies all my mistakes ... there's no getting away with anything!!! LOL!
|
|
|
Post by Joey Beverages on Dec 11, 2007 19:25:23 GMT -7
What do I not like about the '66 ? Probably how it teases and taunts me to buy it and get rid of my '28 and Ghia ;D cheers always, eh Joel
|
|
|
Post by James on Dec 11, 2007 19:56:37 GMT -7
I miss mine but, it was the first Z I ever heard and played and I bought it 3 days later. After about a year of fighting with it volume wise and wanting a more "sparkly" clean, I sold it. So, for what it does, nothing does it better........not really a"knock", just not as versatile as I wanted................... Did I say I miss mine
|
|
|
Post by Curt on Dec 11, 2007 21:04:56 GMT -7
I can't answer this, I've had 4 of the dern things.........................
|
|
|
Post by LeftyLang on Dec 11, 2007 21:50:17 GMT -7
I can't answer this, I've had 4 of the dern things......................... Time to buy a 5th & keep it this time ;D
|
|
bamabluesboy
Junior Member
Somewhere between the Magic City & the Rocket City.
Posts: 80
|
Post by bamabluesboy on Dec 11, 2007 22:22:39 GMT -7
You guys are starting to sound like the members over at the Fender Forum.
Jimfog, here is a brutally honest opinion:
I really liked the overall tone of my Route 66, but…………….
I always thought it could have had just a little bit more overdrive saturation (even with humbuckers). I just found myself keeping a boost pedal in front of it at all times & I would rather use the boost just for some solos (honestly I'd rather not use one at all & let the amp do all the work). It seemed to break up a little too soon just enough to fool you, but then would not really get nasty when dimed (nasty in a dirty / good kind of way). I also felt that the clean tone (from rolling back my guitars volume knob) was a little too flat & dull sounding. In the end I was looking for and other amp for lead, another amp for clean & use the Route 66 for my rhythm. It was getting far too complicated when there were plenty of amps on the market today that could do all three very well. If I were man enough to be an old school blues player like most my heroes, (I’m talking Muddy Waters kind if gigs) the Route 66 would be my dream amp. But unfortunately I’m a new school blues player & I needed a little more versatility.
Sad to say my opinion on the KT45 is similar to the Route 66. The KT45 was Harsh, loud & bright when totally cranked. It sounded great at medium volumes & I thought the clean sounds were too stiff.
|
|
|
Post by taswegian on Dec 11, 2007 23:34:51 GMT -7
For me, there is nothing I really don't like about the 66. Although, playing it through an inefficient speaker like I do probably isn't playing it at it's best. The lack of top end and midrange that makes a speaker loud kinda "dulls" the Route 66 up a bit. Not bad but just not at it's best. But I can work it a little and not be too loud. And it's really easy to carry in on cover gigs! I'm just gettin' lazy. Now four greenbacks might be a different kettle of fish! I really think a C-Gold would be a great speaker with this amp. I'd love to try one. Headroom, with a little more sparkle on the top end plus that alnico break up. But the Z-best sounds great and the amp sounds so good with my pedals, I don't have any problems playing at lower volumes with the Z-best either. My favourite way to play this amp is at 2-3 oclock all knobs thru the Z best. I've found the best cleans in this amp are with it set like this and the guitar volume rolled back. They tend to be more sparkley and alive, whereas set clean the amp sounds more smokey and warm. Then roll up the volume for a superb crunch. Through the 1-12 it doesn't work as well. It crunches up strong around 12 oclock and is a little mushy around 3, and doesn't clean up as well, but that's the trade off. I'm not really an airbrake fan either so that isn't my solution. Not that I don't think it works well. I think it's very true to tone, but I lose the dynamic response I so love with the 66 if I attenuate too much. I think my boosted crunch tone sounds better than my dirty attenuated tone and for covers I need a clean so... It's all such a juggling act! What I don't like about the 66 is the lack of venues and gigs around to play it properly! ;D Guess I somehow need to be more popular!
|
|
|
Post by iggs on Dec 12, 2007 8:15:14 GMT -7
You guys are starting to sound like the members over at the Fender Forum. LOL! ;D ;D ;D Yeah well ... if there was anything I did not like about it, I wouldn't keep it ... One issue is definitely tubes ... I went through a lot of them, mostly NOS that cost an arm and a leg, to get the amp to sound the way I want it to sound. That's definitely one thing I don't like about it. It's a great thing that it's so straightforward and responds to tube changes but it sucks because it takes a toll on my pocket and can be frustrating constantly changing tubes. Plus, there's no decent new production EF86, so NOS is pretty much the only option ... where for a 12AX7 based amp, there are plenty of pretty good new production options. Same for KT66 ... the Chinese ones are nice but not great ... there are so many EL34, 6L6, EL84 ... etc. new production options to choose from. Not nearly as many KT66 options. One thing I would LOVE to see on the Route 66 and it SUCKS that it does not have and is my only BIG gripe with it ... NO EXTERNAL BIAS MEASUREMENT POINTS AND ADJUSTMENT!
|
|
|
Post by zdogma on Dec 12, 2007 8:19:50 GMT -7
One thing I would LOVE to see on the Route 66 and it SUCKS that it does not have and is my only BIG gripe with it ... NO EXTERNAL BIAS MEASUREMENT POINTS AND ADJUSTMENT! Yes, this would be a nice feature.
|
|
|
Post by John on Dec 12, 2007 8:42:30 GMT -7
It's loud, but with an airbrake, I can deal with it.
|
|
|
Post by martyib on Dec 12, 2007 9:21:50 GMT -7
Brutally honest? Hmmm. Lack of reverb doesn't bother me a bit. The lack of an effects loop sort of took me by surprise but the amp doesn't seem to care at all. I suppose a mid pot and/or maybe a master might have been interesting. But to tell you the truth, I don't miss these things either. Then again, I'm still in the honeymoon phase of my 66 relationship. I'll revisit this in a year.
|
|
|
Post by John on Dec 12, 2007 10:52:24 GMT -7
I forgot to add: It's a great amp.
Asking what you don't like about the 66 is like asking Hugh Hefner: Which one of these playmates do you think is the ugliest?"
|
|
|
Post by billyguitar on Dec 12, 2007 12:02:22 GMT -7
Want it brighter? Try a Jensen Neo or a JBL. Too loud? Air Brake or turn down the power with a variable transformer thing (what's it called!! damn senior moments!!). Want it cleaner? Try a 12AY7 in the PI position.
My only real complaint are the ghost notes.
|
|
|
Post by LeftyLang on Dec 12, 2007 21:43:30 GMT -7
I don't like the 66 as it has way too much clarity,the harmonics and touch dynamics are over the top and the bottom end is way too tight. oh & also the thick tone makes all other amps seem anemic & thin
|
|
bamabluesboy
Junior Member
Somewhere between the Magic City & the Rocket City.
Posts: 80
|
Post by bamabluesboy on Dec 12, 2007 22:14:50 GMT -7
I find it hard to believe that some of you are being honest. Let’s face it. One of the greatest tones in history by many professional guitarist standards is Clapton’s tone on the Mayhall Beano album. But guess what? Since that time Clapton has went through Gibson Les Paul’s, Firebirds, 335, Fender Strats & Teles. He has played fuzz faces, Marshalls, Tweeds, Blondes, Music Man, Soldano's & Cornell’s. So, even the great Clapton did no like certain things about all those great pieces of equipment that we all base the tone in our heads on.
Stevie Ray Vaughan went through several vintage Marshall’s & Fenders. According to Mike Soldano, SRV was working with Soldano on a custom SLO-100 to replace his precious Dumble.
Edward Van Halen’s tone on his first few albums has been one of the most coveted modern day tones. Eddie went from Marshalls, to Soldano’s, to Peavey & now to Fenders. He went from Charvels, to Music Man to Peavey to Fenders guitars.
My point is this, no matter how much you adore your Route 66 there has to be some little something that occasionally gets on your nerves and is something that you would like to change.
It’s the constant quest for tone. You all should understand that.
I hate to point this out on the Z forum, but did you notice there were no Dr Z amps amongst all three players I mentioned, what’s up with that? They all had three things in common: Marshall, Fender, & Soldano.
|
|
|
Post by Dr.T on Dec 13, 2007 1:32:54 GMT -7
In theese days I'm appreciating my amp, playing quite often with my new blues band in rehearsals or live gigs. I think the only problem is that it is too loud and I don't use much Airbrake because, as Jaye said, it takes away some dynamics, and my settings even in small clubs are Bass & Trebs at noon Vol 9:00-9:30!!
|
|
|
Post by taswegian on Dec 13, 2007 1:57:51 GMT -7
I find it hard to believe that some of you are being honest. For me it does exactly what I want it and bought it to do. It is a very fat warm amp with great response and an almost perfect rating for most clubs. I always was looking for a BIG tone and this delivers. But it isn't the only tone I'm after, I also want a "sweet" clean, and a gnarlier crunch as well. Maybe an RXES or Stang for clean, the Route 66 and the Mazerati GT would cover all the tones I ever need. Having just played a different line of Australian made amps I can say that one amp basically did it all for me but unfortunately it is rated at 120 watts! But they all sound fabulous as well. The 30 watter was glorious. Theyalso have all the tones I want as well, so I'm not just being biased to Dr Z. He just happens to make really great amps and I like the way he voices things. I don't think anyone makes an el84 amp better than the Doc. By the way Dr T, that's a great setting. I tend to play at 10 oclock everything for coverband stuff with my 1-12 but with the Z best that setting is a great base. I have to send you a photo of my PHD friend, you guys are dead ringers right down to the black frame glasses! And you're both doctors, even if he is a doc of marine science.
|
|
|
Post by dixiechicken on Dec 13, 2007 3:44:29 GMT -7
Well now - I'm sure that the "NOT so great EC" went through a lot of amps and guitars through his career. BUT at the "Beano" album they were very young when recording - and I'm certain they were totally clueless on tone and quality of tone. EC has himself stated several times that he was an arrogant SOB at that age. In my first real band "Feelbruters" my friend "Dan" the leadguitarist - bought a 50W Marshal head around 1970 - WHY -- because it LOOKED COOL and it was LOUD - and HEAVY. ( the first Marshall in Umeå ) If memory servers me it sounded like sh@t. ;D So I think they used the Marshall combo for a lot of reasons BUT NOT because thought it sounded good. Mainly becaouse it was loud and drove the ol' folks crazy. (IMHO) Cheers: Dixiechicken!
|
|
|
Post by iggs on Dec 13, 2007 7:59:55 GMT -7
I find it hard to believe that some of you are being honest. Let’s face it. One of the greatest tones in history by many professional guitarist standards is Clapton’s tone on the Mayhall Beano album. But guess what? Since that time Clapton has went through Gibson Les Paul’s, Firebirds, 335, Fender Strats & Teles. He has played fuzz faces, Marshalls, Tweeds, Blondes, Music Man, Soldano's & Cornell’s. So, even the great Clapton did no like certain things about all those great pieces of equipment that we all base the tone in our heads on. Stevie Ray Vaughan went through several vintage Marshall’s & Fenders. According to Mike Soldano, SRV was working with Soldano on a custom SLO-100 to replace his precious Dumble. Edward Van Halen’s tone on his first few albums has been one of the most coveted modern day tones. Eddie went from Marshalls, to Soldano’s, to Peavey & now to Fenders. He went from Charvels, to Music Man to Peavey to Fenders guitars. My point is this, no matter how much you adore your Route 66 there has to be some little something that occasionally gets on your nerves and is something that you would like to change. It’s the constant quest for tone. You all should understand that. I hate to point this out on the Z forum, but did you notice there were no Dr Z amps amongst all three players I mentioned, what’s up with that? They all had three things in common: Marshall, Fender, & Soldano. Yeah, but ... they all didn't necessarily change their setup because they did not like the previous one. If I had that kind of budget, I'd have many more amps .... again, not because there are things that I don't like about Route 66, but because there are other amps that are just as great. I'd love to have a Bogner XTC, Bruno CT, Komet ... etc. Not because the '66 is not delivering but because those amps (alongside different guitars, speakers, effects) provide different sounds. I really don't think it's a black & white issue of like and dislike but all the shades in between that give us the tonal palette to pick from.
|
|
|
Post by iggs on Dec 13, 2007 9:33:35 GMT -7
I hate to point this out on the Z forum, but did you notice there were no Dr Z amps amongst all three players I mentioned, what’s up with that? They all had three things in common: Marshall, Fender, & Soldano. I think that has more to do with the fact that Marshall, Fender, Vox ... etc. were the amps available at the time period ... Soldano is a hot rodded Marshall, like many other amps today which are just reworked old designs, in contrast, most of Doc's amps are original designs. There was a shot of Clapton's pedals on TGP and he uses a Boss Tremolo and a Vox wah-wah ... probably all stock! All of us internet forumites and self-proclaimed gear addicts spend countless hours on the net debating the minutia of tone, signal path and true-bypass vs. buffered, this amp and that amp ... and Mr. Clapton, the guitar god in some people's eyes, millionaire rock star, uses a stock, mass-produced Boss and Vox pedals ... it's not that he doesn't care ... it's not that he can't hear the difference, it's that what matters is his music and not the 2% difference in sound of Boss Tremolo vs. "your favorite booteek pedal". Hey ... I don't have any Boss pedals and I love getting new gear and pedals, and get giddy as a schoolgirl when I get the shipment notification of a new piece of gear on it's way, so who am I to say anything. Back on topic ... if there was anything I did not like about my amp and was bugging me so much, I would not keep it and would get something else, like I did many times before. It's not that I'm not being objective, I just like the damn thing as is ... other then things I did mention in my previous post. disclamer: I am not a Dr. Z apologist or a fanatic or defender or whatever ... I like his amps and that's why I play them, I think they are a fantastic value for the money and when compared to many other much more expensive booteek offerings, they really blow many of them out of the water sound and quality wise.
|
|
|
Post by dixiechicken on Dec 13, 2007 10:36:27 GMT -7
Well said Iggs! I owned in the late 80:ies early 90:ies an Ampeg 100W 2x12" combo VT-22 or some such. I used it 8 years or so - not because it sounded great - but I bought for less than 200 us$ from my bassplayer. I sounded like crap when everybody else tried it- it sounded decent when I played it - but the price was certainly right. There's almost always mixed reasons why you end up buying & using certain gear - for longer/shorter periods of time. Cheers: Dixiechicken!
|
|
|
Post by billyguitar on Dec 13, 2007 11:46:13 GMT -7
I saw a show on PBS recently about SRV. It showed him playing from the early days 'til the end. At the first Montreaux festival he used one Music Man combo with a 15. That sounded better than all of his later setups to me. Sounded just like his first album.
|
|
mudder
Junior Member
Posts: 53
|
Post by mudder on Dec 13, 2007 12:49:24 GMT -7
I think what you're finding is that people who have bought and kept the 66 really are happy with what it does. To me it does everything I want an amp to do, and if it doesn't do it naturally it takes pedals so well that I can cover everything else.
No amp is ideal to all. Just because I have a 66 hasn't made me sell my Engl, totally different amp for totally different music.
|
|
|
Post by iggs on Dec 13, 2007 13:41:16 GMT -7
I think what you're finding is that people who have bought and kept the 66 really are happy with what it does. That's exactly it ... it's a very specific amp, with a sound of it's own and by design it's not of the typical Marshall/Fender/Vox camp. People usually like it or they don't ... if you posted the same question on TGP, I'm pretty sure you'd get a lot more mixed bag of answers ... not because the folks over there are more honest, but those who didn't like the '66 don't really hang around here ... why would they?
|
|
|
Post by (8^D) on Dec 13, 2007 19:47:10 GMT -7
I wish it had more headroom with a 3-way power selector: - Full: 60 watts
- 1/2: 30 watts
- 1/4: 15 watts
Currently: It isn't loud enough on some outdoor stages. It is too loud for some indoor stages. Ideally: Double the current power rating for large environments but be able to have the same power as now with 1/2 power of present for those smaller stages/studio recording. Ahhhh, that would be perfect.
|
|
|
Post by iggs on Dec 13, 2007 20:24:13 GMT -7
Oooooohhhh ... 4 x KT66, dual GZ34 version with half power and triode/pentode switch ... nice!
|
|
|
Post by dixiechicken on Dec 14, 2007 3:37:44 GMT -7
Yes but then you'd loose some of the simplicity again - almost the double amount of VERY VERY expensive tubes (G.E.C. KT66) - don't know if I could afford a good tube swap then. ;D
IF at ALL POSSIBLE - follow the KISS principle.
Cheers: Dixiechicken!
|
|