quote:

Originally posted by Abn556:
... For many years I played on a 70s Marshall Super Lead. They amps had no master volume and to get into the tone that you associate with these amps, they had to be really loud - like in loud enough to play in an outdoor stadium. Everyone did PPIV MV mods - that’s a post phase inverter master volume mod. It was a relatively simple mod to do if you had a little electronics skill. When I finally sold the amp, because it was still just too damned loud, no one cared about the mod. YMMV on that Bassman.

Yeah, I had a 1972 Marshall Super Bass with an added master volume. Excellent amp but alas stolen. Everything on 10 with the master pulled back really sounded beefy.

quote:

Originally posted by selogic:
I know that I'm oversimplifying this but wouldn't it be easier to do what YOU want without posting about it ? No matter what position you take on anything , somebody is going to take exception to it and inject their opinion into your business . Now , if you actually ask for advice then you deserve what you get .

Ah, you missed the question posted after the OP:

quote:

quote:

Originally posted by calugo:
Why bother asking anyone's opinion on whether or not to modify something you own? …

Well, the original question was “I have this amp, I’m not using the bass channel, I can make the preamp section like a JCM800 but that leaves a whole 12AX7 unused. What can I make it into that will use the extra two gain stages?” Then the insults started.

The Man in Black was said to have used a knife to cut the cones in his studio amps to get more distortion from them.

To the musician - I'm not, but my son is - the sound is all that matters. Not the brand, not the perception of legacy, not the value.

To the musician, the only value is in the sound.

Mark knows this.

quote:

Originally posted by Abn556:
On another note, have you tried use a good pedal in front of it to push the amp over the top? I have a couple of amps that have a lot of clean head room like your amp - one is a Fender Princeton Reverb Reissue - the one with the 12” Jensen in it. I use a couple of different pedals to drive the Princeton. My first pass is on an Analog Man King of Tone pedal which has two sides that you can stack. I also use a Jetter GS-124 Dumble style pedal on this rig as well.

Also - I don’t know if you’re into NOS tubes, but there are still some good old RCA tubes from the 50s and 60s around. I’ve found that the NOS tubes have way more character than the modern Russia and Chinese built tubes.

+

The amp is in good shape looks-wise but the circuit is pretty rough. All the carbon comp resistors have dwelled up and out of spec (at least all of them that I tested so far before giving up), all the electrolytics are shot, a few of the film caps are out of spec and the disc caps are microphonic. I'm pretty sure the guy that had it before me tried to run it with the power tube bias circuit burned out.

I've fixed the rectifier and filter section but then it's been sitting after discovering the scope of the repair. That's why I figured if I have to replace 80% of the components anyway, why not make it something interesting?

quote:

Originally posted by bionic218:
The Man in Black was said to have used a knife to cut the cones in his studio amps to get more distortion from them.

To the musician - I'm not, but my son is - the sound is all that matters. Not the brand, not the perception of legacy, not the value.

To the musician, the only value is in the sound.

Mark knows this.

Yes. Add to that the fact that I'm dubious to the idea that something vintage is something better. Besides, monetary value of an item is inconsequential for something that isn't up for sale.

quote:

Originally posted by mark123:

quote:

Originally posted by HRK:
Funny how a thread on why people insist on telling people what they should do with their stuff has morphed into a thread of people telling him what to do...... with his stuff..

Yeah, I should have mentioned the item was something else like an OJ Simpson jersey. Then everyone would demand that i do modify it … with fire.

Well, if it's a signed Jersey I wouldn't do that, I'd frame it and sell it through an auction house after he dies, it might be worth a lot of money.....

quote:

Originally posted by bionic218:
The Man in Black was said to have used a knife to cut the cones in his studio amps to get more distortion from them.

Billy Gibbons was said to soak his guitar strings in BBQ sauce and Robert Johnson was said to have sold his soul to the devil so he could play guitar. Many such guitar lore tidbits. I don't think any of them are true, but they sound good.

quote:

Originally posted by mark123:
Yes. Add to that the fact that I'm dubious to the idea that something vintage is something better. Besides, monetary value of an item is inconsequential for something that isn't up for sale.

The dichotomy arises from the fact you value things differently than some others. You appreciate only the immediate value to you. Some others appreciate the intrinsic value of the thing purely for its own sake--as a rarity or collectible.

But that latter seems to be a moot point. You claim, and others in this thread agree, it hasn't much intrinsic value as a rarity or collectible. That being the case: There isn't much intrinsic value to preserve.

Not that it makes any difference in your right to do with your own property what you will, but, it might've aided discussion if you'd noted this in your OP

My favorite place in the world is my grandfather's hunting cabin. I've had relative's say to me "You act like you own it." I say no, I act like my grandfather still owns it (45+ years deceased), so hopefully your grandchildren will still be able to enjoy it like we do.


I have a rifle. It's much much older than I. When I'm dead and gone, the rifle will still be here. So did I ever really own the rifle, or did it own me? Contemplate grasshopper.

Para, ensigmatic and others have touched on the main point, I think.

It’s somewhat irrelevant if an item will ever be sold, or is up for sale. At a certain point, when we die, it will remain on this earth. That is the reference to “curators” that Para mentioned.

You have every right to make any modification to anything you own, but thinking of future versions of yourself is perhaps a good thing before deciding what to do.

quote:

Originally posted by ensigmatic:
The dichotomy arises from the fact you value things differently than some others. You appreciate only the immediate value to you. Some others appreciate the intrinsic value of the thing purely for its own sake--as a rarity or collectible.

Vintage amps (mostly Fender and Marshall, but some others, too) have value/appeal as rarities, but not separately from their value as musical instruments. I don't really think many, if any, people collect them just to have them. They have to be playable. The more original and the cleaner, the better for value, but they have to work or be close to working. People buy these amps to use them, not just look at them. It is kind of a mixture of factors - they are rarities, but they are also used.

The have a lot of their value as vintage because some people assign almost mystical properties to them. They are good and sometimes great amps, but some think any Fender of a certain vintage is a magic tone machine. But they still want them because they want to play them.

Almost all amps over 20 or 30 years will be modded, at least in that the electrolytic filter capacitors (and maybe other caps, too) will have had to be replaced. They simply wear out, and they are often replaced with more modern caps because the old kinds aren't available any more, and modern caps are often better. You could say this is like changing the oil in a car, but it is a little more than that.

I have no problems with modding these amps, even the most sought after vintage ones. They should do what the owner wants them to do. They can be put back to the original design pretty easily.

I have a Fender Princeton from the early '70s. It is not the reverb model, which means it has one less gain stage than the Princeton Reverb. I have considered having it converted to eliminate the tremolo feature, because you can then use the tremolo tube to add some gain to the amp. It would bother me not in the slightest to do this. But I do like the clean tones from this amp, and adding gain would make the amp louder - the gain wouldn't add distortion until you turn up the volume - and it is already really too loud to play at home. I'd be better off with a crunchy, but lower powered amp for my uses. If I played small gigs, more gain would be perfect in the Princeton.

Changing the tires from the originals to modern ones with different tread pattern and materials, and while you're at it, putting in new shocks and brake pads may be a fairly apt comparison. Rubber dries out and crumbles over time, and so do capacitors, as the ones in this amp have. Having to replace all the capacitors because they're toast, and adding a few extra solder connections between them really is no big deal.

As I said before, when Mark is playing a new amp in the great gig in the sky, the next owner can take this amp to any one of a plethora of amp techs and say "go through this thing and make sure everything is working right, and revert any mods back to stock configuration" and it would be a simple task. This is a bread 'n butter job amp techs do all the time. He's not drilling any holes, he's not removing anything, he's not demeling anything. It can all be undone with a soldering iron, guys.

Do what you like with your things, just don't be shocked when or if you ever decide to sell it people are less inclined to buy.

quote:

Originally posted by jhe888:
Vintage amps (mostly Fender and Marshall, but some others, too) have value/appeal as rarities, but not separately from their value as musical instruments.

I wasn't commenting on the instant case, but, on what appears to be his philosophy regarding the value of vintage, rare, or collectable items.

It would seem that, to Mark, the vintageness, rarity, or collectability of things imparts to them little or no value. For others, those may be the value.

That was my only point.

quote:

Originally posted by P220 Smudge:

quote:

Originally posted by bionic218:
The Man in Black was said to have used a knife to cut the cones in his studio amps to get more distortion from them.

Billy Gibbons was said to soak his guitar strings in BBQ sauce and Robert Johnson was said to have sold his soul to the devil so he could play guitar. Many such guitar lore tidbits. I don't think any of them are true, but they sound good.

No idea about specific musicians doing it on purpose, but a cut or torn speaker cone absolutely adds some weird distortion to the sound.

Full disclosure - I didn't read the thread. But I'll say this, if it isn't an artisan built thing, I think there's zero reason to even debate. And if it is, you STILL have every right to do what you want, even if you possibly shouldn't.

So, new caps or speaker in an Amp of any era, or whatever, sure. Why even debate it? Convert a 1923 Lloyd Loar F-5 Gibson mandolin to an A model with a hacksaw and rasp? You shouldn't, but I'm not driving over to stop yinz.

Within metes and bounds, the OP is right.

Now, if you buy Waterlillies to use as a dartboard…. Eh, not too sure about that.

And, I agree with the laws preventing movie studios from destroying antique cars.

For the most part, I’m a fan of restomods, if done well, as it keeps the cars functioning as cars - my ‘49 isn’t really that much of a car.

quote:

Originally posted by maladat:
No idea about specific musicians doing it on purpose, but a cut or torn speaker cone absolutely adds some weird distortion to the sound.

Oh, it does, and I'm sure there's been some instances of experimenting with this back in the murky past of "just turn it up really loud and it sounds great." In the guitar world, there's a lot of apocryphal voodoo nonsense that gets tossed around like it's gospel. The nonsense you hear at gunshops when you're browsing is the same kind of nonsense people talk with guys who sell guitars, and I've heard all kinds.

quote:

Originally posted by r0gue:
Convert a 1923 Lloyd Loar F-5 Gibson mandolin to an A model with a hacksaw and rasp? You shouldn't, but I'm not driving over to stop yinz.

Just reading that made me shudder.