|
Post by taswegian on Jul 14, 2006 1:04:11 GMT -7
|
|
|
Post by johnnyl on Jul 14, 2006 9:17:11 GMT -7
Nice tunes Tas! Yep, the SRZ will indeed get those tones and you don't have to run it wide open like you have to do on a Marshall. The master volume really does wonders on the SRZ unlike most master volume amps I've heard. That really is a great sounding rhythm tone on your songs. Were you using any pedals?
|
|
|
Post by myles on Jul 14, 2006 10:33:37 GMT -7
I have had a number of folks A/B the SRZ with 800's, non-master Marshalls, and various 2204 incarnations and in each case we could dial in the tone of each of the amps and then go outside of the envelope when we wanted to.
In any case ... my own SRZ-65 is available for folks in my area to try for comparing (I have Marshalls too or bring your own) and you can also borrow it for a show or session or whatever. If you want to try it and do not have a guiitar I also have a few of the typical more common guitars.
|
|
|
Post by dock66 on Jul 14, 2006 19:11:39 GMT -7
Hey tas,let me know when the album is available.Some good stuff you got there my freind.You rock .SRZ would make an awesome A/B rig with RT.66.I A/B SRZ for dirt and Stingray for clean.Sweet tone.
dock66
|
|
|
Post by taswegian on Jul 15, 2006 0:18:52 GMT -7
Ah Johnnyl, I was hoping you might chip in! No pedals on those tracks, it's a great sounding Marshall and a fantastic 4-12 too. On the new album I wanted to try my 66 into that box again but the producer/engineer loved the Z best so I didn't even get a chance to try it out. Tells you how good the Zbest is! dock66, thanks man, the first and third track are from my first CD "Piscean War" which is available at CD Baby. The middle track "The Abyss" is on the cd about to be released but is also on a four track single which is also available at CD Baby. It is the only track on the new cd "Hypothermia" that isn't the Rt 66 as I didn't have it yet when we recorded that track. I just signed a new publishing/liscensing deal on that particular track so maybe if something comes quickly I can beg to get on the list. Your rig must be awesome SRZ/Stingray! Wow.
|
|
|
Post by DaSkip on Jul 15, 2006 18:36:18 GMT -7
Hey Tas,
Those songs sound great. I am looking forward to the SRZ-65 and hopefully running it in stereo with my Route 66. All my other amps are combos so I'm looking at building two 2x12 cabs.
Anyways, nice work on those songs and let us know when your new cd is available
Skip
|
|
|
Post by dock66 on Jul 17, 2006 8:42:34 GMT -7
Tas, congrats.
dock66
|
|
|
Post by guitarman1 on Jul 18, 2006 14:07:23 GMT -7
I think you really have to qualify what JCM800 you compare a SRZ-65 to. There were many different versions & tube configurations that were issued under the "JCM-800" name. Some had 2 EL-34s (50 watts), some had 4 EL-34s (100 watts) & some didn't even have EL-34s , but came stock with 6550s. There were also many different pre-amp configurations & circuit changes through the years. I've heard some that sound like dog sh%$t and some that scream.
I had a rare & mint white 20th Anniversary 2 x 12, 50 watt combo, vertical input chassis that came stock with 2 GE 6550s. I had that at the same time as a 6545 and was able to do some serious side-by-side comparisons. Although the 6545 with EL-34s sounded great and in the Marshall camp, it couldn't get the same sounds as the Marshall. That combo was one bad MF and sounded absolutely huge. It was a one trick pony, but brother what a trick it was. I'm not saying one was better than the other.....just very different.
As many of you know, I live in a high RFI area, and the Marshall picked up radio stations so badly at my house, I sold it and kept the 6545. As much as I liked the 6545, the JCM-800 was a different beast. IMHO, the older JCM-800 was the last great amp Marshall produced.
|
|
maction
Full Member
SRZ for me
Posts: 227
|
Post by maction on Jul 19, 2006 7:59:15 GMT -7
Tas, listened to the tracks. nice stuff!
my SRZ-65 can definitely cop those tones. I completely agree with Myles. the SRZ is a lot like a Marshall with more flexibility in all directions, clean or dirty, high and low end. but, as I said in the first post (ever) in this forum, I feel like there's also some Hiwatt in the tone. when pushed into high gain, here's a clarity and stability in the high and low end that I've not heard from a Marshall in the same range of distortion.
FWIW, I once ran my SRZ through a Z-Best and my Route 66 through my z 2x10 in stereo. I was using a friends Rickenbacker and Ric-o-sound stereo box, so I could pan between the two with the blend knob on the guitar. amazing, balanced, huge tones. I didn't have a lot of time to play with it, I could've gotten addicted pretty quickly.
|
|
|
Post by myles on Jul 19, 2006 8:25:07 GMT -7
I think you really have to qualify what JCM800 you compare a SRZ-65 to. There were many different versions & tube configurations that were issued under the "JCM-800" name. Some had 2 EL-34s (50 watts), some had 4 EL-34s (100 watts) & some didn't even have EL-34s , but came stock with 6550s. There were also many different pre-amp configurations & circuit changes through the years. I've heard some that sound like dog sh%$t and some that scream. I had a rare & mint white 20th Anniversary 2 x 12, 50 watt combo, vertical input chassis that came stock with 2 GE 6550s. I had that at the same time as a 6545 and was able to do some serious side-by-side comparisons. Although the 6545 with EL-34s sounded great and in the Marshall camp, it couldn't get the same sounds as the Marshall. That combo was one bad MF and sounded absolutely huge. It was a one trick pony, but brother what a trick it was. I'm not saying one was better than the other.....just very different. As many of you know, I live in a high RFI area, and the Marshall picked up radio stations so badly at my house, I sold it and kept the 6545. As much as I liked the 6545, the JCM-800 was a different beast. IMHO, the older JCM-800 was the last great amp Marshall produced. Marshall 2204 .... 50 watter.
|
|
|
Post by taswegian on Jul 19, 2006 18:08:12 GMT -7
Tas, listened to the tracks. nice stuff! my SRZ-65 can definitely cop those tones. I completely agree with Myles. the SRZ is a lot like a Marshall with more flexibility in all directions, clean or dirty, high and low end. but, as I said in the first post (ever) in this forum, I feel like there's also some Hiwatt in the tone. when pushed into high gain, here's a clarity and stability in the high and low end that I've not heard from a Marshall in the same range of distortion. FWIW, I once ran my SRZ through a Z-Best and my Route 66 through my z 2x10 in stereo. I was using a friends Rickenbacker and Ric-o-sound stereo box, so I could pan between the two with the blend knob on the guitar. amazing, balanced, huge tones. I didn't have a lot of time to play with it, I could've gotten addicted pretty quickly. Now that's a scary set up! My sound man and bass player started giving me dirty looks when I set the 66/Z28 up in stereo. I'd love to see their faces with the SRZ/66 set up.
|
|
|
Post by guitarman1 on Jul 20, 2006 6:10:07 GMT -7
I think you really have to qualify what JCM800 you compare a SRZ-65 to. There were many different versions & tube configurations that were issued under the "JCM-800" name. Some had 2 EL-34s (50 watts), some had 4 EL-34s (100 watts) & some didn't even have EL-34s , but came stock with 6550s. There were also many different pre-amp configurations & circuit changes through the years. I've heard some that sound like dog sh%$t and some that scream. I had a rare & mint white 20th Anniversary 2 x 12, 50 watt combo, vertical input chassis that came stock with 2 GE 6550s. I had that at the same time as a 6545 and was able to do some serious side-by-side comparisons. Although the 6545 with EL-34s sounded great and in the Marshall camp, it couldn't get the same sounds as the Marshall. That combo was one bad MF and sounded absolutely huge. It was a one trick pony, but brother what a trick it was. I'm not saying one was better than the other.....just very different. As many of you know, I live in a high RFI area, and the Marshall picked up radio stations so badly at my house, I sold it and kept the 6545. As much as I liked the 6545, the JCM-800 was a different beast. IMHO, the older JCM-800 was the last great amp Marshall produced. Marshall 2204 .... 50 watter. EL-34s or 6550s Myles?
|
|
|
Post by myles on Jul 20, 2006 9:19:27 GMT -7
Marshall 2204 .... 50 watter. EL-34s or 6550s Myles? I always refer to the Marshalls as 50 watters and 100 watters regardless of EL34 or 6550. In either case their actual output is higher. I do not like 6550s in Marshalls at all. 6550s stay clean right to the end and then when they do distort it is raspy and one of the worst output distortion tones of any tube if not the absolute worst by a huge margin. Marshall went to 6550s back then as the lighter construction EL34's were not making it in shipping to the states. It was that simple. The 6550 is a good tube for folks that get all their tone from pedals and want the amp to stay as clean for as long as possible (like Zakk Wylde as an example). If you want to hear a big improvement in any 6550 equipped Marshall and do not want to go the EL34 route, then use a KT88S which is biased the same (about 48-50mA per tube). The KT88 is more powerful (some "50 watt" Marshalls with KT88s will exceed 90 watts) but they have a much nicer distortion character also. When I compare the Marshall to the SRZ-65 it was with an EL34 based Marshall.
|
|
|
Post by guitarman1 on Jul 20, 2006 10:40:52 GMT -7
I always refer to the Marshalls as 50 watters and 100 watters regardless of EL34 or 6550. In either case their actual output is higher. I do not like 6550s in Marshalls at all. 6550s stay clean right to the end and then when they do distort it is raspy and one of the worst output distortion tones of any tube if not the absolute worst by a huge margin. Marshall went to 6550s back then as the lighter construction EL34's were not making it in shipping to the states. It was that simple. The 6550 is a good tube for folks that get all their tone from pedals and want the amp to stay as clean for as long as possible (like Zakk Wylde as an example). If you want to hear a big improvement in any 6550 equipped Marshall and do not want to go the EL34 route, then use a KT88S which is biased the same (about 48-50mA per tube). The KT88 is more powerful (some "50 watt" Marshalls with KT88s will exceed 90 watts) but they have a much nicer distortion character also. When I compare the Marshall to the SRZ-65 it was with an EL34 based Marshall. My Anniversary model had a master volume, so I got my distortion, (what this amp did exceedingly well), from the pre-amp section. I never really pushed it hard enough to get power tube distortion 'cause it was way LOUD. To me, the 6550s in this particular amp sounded very deep, chesty and thick, and that is what I loved about it combined with the pre-amp distortion. I've heard other's 2204s with EL-34s that didn't have that big bottom end sound. I agree with you though that for power tube distortion, EL-34s do much bettter than the 6550. You are correct about Marshall switching to 6550s for US bound models because of poor EL-34 quality at that time. I know there was a trend years back that guys were converting the 6550 models exported to the states, to EL-34 spec, as many preferred the EL-34 sound. Personnaly, I like the 6550 versions and feel they sound very different than the EL-34 versions and the 6545. I never had the opportunity to compare an EL-34 version with the 6545 though, but I'm sure your findings about the EL-34 2204/SRZ-65 are correct.
|
|
|
Post by myles on Jul 20, 2006 11:31:27 GMT -7
I always refer to the Marshalls as 50 watters and 100 watters regardless of EL34 or 6550. In either case their actual output is higher. I do not like 6550s in Marshalls at all. 6550s stay clean right to the end and then when they do distort it is raspy and one of the worst output distortion tones of any tube if not the absolute worst by a huge margin. Marshall went to 6550s back then as the lighter construction EL34's were not making it in shipping to the states. It was that simple. The 6550 is a good tube for folks that get all their tone from pedals and want the amp to stay as clean for as long as possible (like Zakk Wylde as an example). If you want to hear a big improvement in any 6550 equipped Marshall and do not want to go the EL34 route, then use a KT88S which is biased the same (about 48-50mA per tube). The KT88 is more powerful (some "50 watt" Marshalls with KT88s will exceed 90 watts) but they have a much nicer distortion character also. When I compare the Marshall to the SRZ-65 it was with an EL34 based Marshall. My Anniversary model had a master volume, so I got my distortion, (what this amp did exceedingly well), from the pre-amp section. I never really pushed it hard enough to get power tube distortion 'cause it was way LOUD. To me, the 6550s in this particular amp sounded very deep, chesty and thick, and that is what I loved about it combined with the pre-amp distortion. I've heard other's 2204s with EL-34s that didn't have that big bottom end sound. I agree with you though that for power tube distortion, EL-34s do much bettter than the 6550. You are correct about Marshall switching to 6550s for US bound models because of poor EL-34 quality at that time. I know there was a trend years back that guys were converting the 6550 models exported to the states, to EL-34 spec, as many preferred the EL-34 sound. Personnaly, I like the 6550 versions and feel they sound very different than the EL-34 versions and the 6545. I never had the opportunity to compare an EL-34 version with the 6545 though, but I'm sure your findings about the EL-34 2204/SRZ-65 are correct. Remember this ....
preamp tube distortion is NOT touch sensitive and output tube distortion IS touch sensitive ... so if you want a lot of cool dynamics in your playing then keep this in mind.Some of the best recorded rock solos of all time and tone in general were done with amps of less than 15 watts .... Led Zep with 10 watt Supros .... Layla with a tweed champ and tweed deluxe. Jeff Beck ... 50 watters only live ... rarely a 100 watter.
|
|
|
Post by guitarman1 on Jul 20, 2006 13:50:34 GMT -7
My Anniversary model had a master volume, so I got my distortion, (what this amp did exceedingly well), from the pre-amp section. I never really pushed it hard enough to get power tube distortion 'cause it was way LOUD. To me, the 6550s in this particular amp sounded very deep, chesty and thick, and that is what I loved about it combined with the pre-amp distortion. I've heard other's 2204s with EL-34s that didn't have that big bottom end sound. I agree with you though that for power tube distortion, EL-34s do much bettter than the 6550. You are correct about Marshall switching to 6550s for US bound models because of poor EL-34 quality at that time. I know there was a trend years back that guys were converting the 6550 models exported to the states, to EL-34 spec, as many preferred the EL-34 sound. Personnaly, I like the 6550 versions and feel they sound very different than the EL-34 versions and the 6545. I never had the opportunity to compare an EL-34 version with the 6545 though, but I'm sure your findings about the EL-34 2204/SRZ-65 are correct. Remember this ....
preamp tube distortion is NOT touch sensitive and output tube distortion IS touch sensitive ... so if you want a lot of cool dynamics in your playing then keep this in mind.Some of the best recorded rock solos of all time and tone in general were done with amps of less than 15 watts .... Led Zep with 10 watt Supros .... Layla with a tweed champ and tweed deluxe. Jeff Beck ... 50 watters only live ... rarely a 100 watter. Thank you for the lesson on pre-amp versus power tube distortion and the merits of low wattage amps Myles. May I ask why are you shouting with big, bold print?
|
|
|
Post by johnnyl on Jul 20, 2006 15:30:15 GMT -7
If you want to hear a big improvement in any 6550 equipped Marshall and do not want to go the EL34 route, then use a KT88S which is biased the same (about 48-50mA per tube). The KT88 is more powerful (some "50 watt" Marshalls with KT88s will exceed 90 watts) but they have a much nicer distortion character also. When I compare the Marshall to the SRZ-65 it was with an EL34 based Marshall. Interesting that you mention that Myles. The SRZ that I had that hipfan now has originally had KT-88's in it according to the doc. I bet it was a BEAST w/ those 88's!
|
|
|
Post by dock66 on Jul 21, 2006 8:46:41 GMT -7
Interesting that you guys mentioned KT 88. I am thinking along the line of Z Delta 88 loudness in SRZ .That would be a beast.
dock66
|
|
|
Post by myles on Jul 22, 2006 16:36:56 GMT -7
Remember this ....
preamp tube distortion is NOT touch sensitive and output tube distortion IS touch sensitive ... so if you want a lot of cool dynamics in your playing then keep this in mind.Some of the best recorded rock solos of all time and tone in general were done with amps of less than 15 watts .... Led Zep with 10 watt Supros .... Layla with a tweed champ and tweed deluxe. Jeff Beck ... 50 watters only live ... rarely a 100 watter. Thank you for the lesson on pre-amp versus power tube distortion and the merits of low wattage amps Myles. May I ask why are you shouting with big, bold print? On the big bold print .... no reason .... just playing with some of the options here as I get tired of things always looking the same
|
|
|
Post by myles on Jul 22, 2006 16:38:28 GMT -7
If you want to hear a big improvement in any 6550 equipped Marshall and do not want to go the EL34 route, then use a KT88S which is biased the same (about 48-50mA per tube). The KT88 is more powerful (some "50 watt" Marshalls with KT88s will exceed 90 watts) but they have a much nicer distortion character also. When I compare the Marshall to the SRZ-65 it was with an EL34 based Marshall. Interesting that you mention that Myles. The SRZ that I had that hipfan now has originally had KT-88's in it according to the doc. I bet it was a BEAST w/ those 88's! The power supplies on the Doc's amps are all very hefty .... KT88's in an SRZ could be an interesting experiment in "excessive" ... sort of akin to the Park 75's that had KT88's and put out 100 watts pretty easily.
|
|
|
Post by taswegian on Jul 22, 2006 21:45:59 GMT -7
Ha! Happened to play a gig last night on a two bill original night, and the other bands' guitarist just happened to be playing a JCM 800 into a 4-12 cab with a Epiphone 335 copy. Sounded fantastic and I just couldn't help but wonder how that SRZ 65 would be sounding in comparison. Haven't seen anyone using an 800 for ages. It's an OMEN!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 22, 2006 23:08:40 GMT -7
Tas, it is an omen. All I have been able to think about is the SRZ-65. I can't wait for Jan 2007. ;D
|
|
|
Post by Curt on Jul 23, 2006 8:05:47 GMT -7
Arun, You on the list too?
My $$'s down and I'm losin' sleep already !!!!
|
|