which of both runn the amp to work less hard? - Page 2

Reginald · 10-30-2009, 06:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wilder Amplification

Yes, the "spongy" sound is a slower response. The bigger value filter caps should have more electrons in reserve to supply when the amp demands them, which makes the amp respond faster.

However, what channel are you plugging into when you play through it? If you're plugging into Channel II, try plugging into Channel I instead and crank Channel 1.

yeah,I play in the I channel.
so,I thought it be bigger filter caps value = slow rise response....
smaller value = fast response
but electronically speaking...
a higher value is able to safeguard,to protect,to keep safe better the OT workings and the whole amp ....or it's the opposite?
a higher value should safeguard from transiet spikes,electrons lack,and other damaging things...
Into an italian Marshall forum people explained me about a too much smaller value is damaging and a too much big value is damaging too,because could interfere with the good workings of the solid-state rectifier ,risking to burn it.
So,on the one hand it not need put a too much smaller value,but in the other hand.....?....which/what/how many uFs may I put in ,as at maximum value?
1000uF? 5000?
I'd like to safeguard the OT and the whole amp as the most as possible,you know.
Are you sure a smaller filter caps value is more spongy,'chewy',slow rise response touch than bigger value?..or is it the opposite?
...but electronically speaking ,bigger value is more sure to safeguard the OT and the whole amp.....or not?

Wilder Amplification · 10-30-2009, 01:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reginald

yeah,I play in the I channel.
so,I thought it be bigger filter caps value = slow rise response....
smaller value = fast response
but electronically speaking...
a higher value is able to safeguard,to protect,to keep safe better the OT workings and the whole amp ....or it's the opposite?
a higher value should safeguard from transiet spikes,electrons lack,and other damaging things...
Into an italian Marshall forum people explained me about a too much smaller value is damaging and a too much big value is damaging too,because could interfere with the good workings of the solid-state rectifier ,risking to burn it.
So,on the one hand it not need put a too much smaller value,but in the other hand.....?....which/what/how many uFs may I put in ,as at maximum value?
1000uF? 5000?
I'd like to safeguard the OT and the whole amp as the most as possible,you know.
Are you sure a smaller filter caps value is more spongy,'chewy',slow rise response touch than bigger value?..or is it the opposite?
...but electronically speaking ,bigger value is more sure to safeguard the OT and the whole amp.....or not?

If you could take pictures of both the top and the bottom of the chassis this would help things. But smaller filter caps = more spongy and bigger filter caps = less spongy. There is in fact a limit to going either way of course, electrically speaking.

Reginald · 10-31-2009, 07:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wilder Amplification

If you could take pictures of both the top and the bottom of the chassis this would help things. But smaller filter caps = more spongy and bigger filter caps = less spongy. There is in fact a limit to going either way of course, electrically speaking.

for 'smaller' and 'bigger' you mean about their value,right?not their dimension...

pictures I've theese...sorry,the gold caps shot is out-of-focus,but I remember stickers was write about a YELLOW 200uF ,RED 150uF for each gold cap....what's that mean? 350uF?
About original blue caps I don't remember....there was a 'scotch',adesive that had covered the stickers label....the repairman told me about this larger value is better for safeguard the transformers and the optimal workings of the whole amp.With smaller value I may obtain more 'sag',but electronically speaking he affirm so is better,for the best workings of the amp.Maybe in '60s and early '70s Marshall don't knew what they were doing. this repairman told me a larger value is better.The 'sag' is a malfunction workings and the drop voltage is better not to have.larger filter caps value assure a less voltages drop between the signal peaks. a 'sag' too much accentuate could damage the valves and the transformers.You are in accord with him?What do you thiunk about?
Moreover reading 'The Tube Amp Book' by Aspen Pittman ,I read(which is the pass te4nse of 'read'?) about a pharagraph 'blackfacing' a silver-face Fender about larger filter caps could increase low ,bass response..maybe it's good also for Marshalls ,not?
...electronically speaking....about these 5 filter caps on the chassis...are they hooked in parallel,or in series?....what's the minimum limited and what's the maximum limited in uFs as possible to mount about this Major? Supposing I don't will get the same original tone ,but what's the best uF value in order to obtain the best transformers,circuit and whole amp workings?
is it true that a 'sag' too much accentuate could damage an amp?

Reginald · 11-03-2009, 09:13 AM

There is in fact a limit to going either way of course, electrically speaking.

Which is the limited range value(the minimum and the maximum) into a Major 200W?
Electronically speaking...What would be happen to mount a value too much low ?
While, what would be happen to mount a value too much large?
For example about a fault/break down from the Transformers?
Could it happen?
Many old Marshall get a fault from the transformers....could the reason be a too much low or too much large filter caps value?

Wilder Amplification · 11-03-2009, 12:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reginald

There is in fact a limit to going either way of course, electrically speaking. Which is the limited range value(the minimum and the maximum) into a Major 200W? Electronically speaking...What would be happen to mount a value too much low ? While, what would be happen to mount a value too much large? For example about a fault/break down from the Transformers? Could it happen? Many old Marshall get a fault from the transformers....could the reason be a too much low or too much large filter caps value?

Too low filtering will make for a noisy amp as you won't have enough to get the "ripple" from the pulsed DC output of the rectifier out and you'll end up with a 120Hz hum.

Too much can cause low end oscillation, known as "motorboating" (where the amp makes a "putt putt" type sound when you're not playing through it).

As to what the limits are I have no idea as I've never experimented to find out.

Your filter caps actually appear to be the correct value. I've never had the pleasure of working on a Marshall Major so I wasn't aware of this until I checked the schematic for one. The Majors used lots more filtering than the Lead/Super Leads.

Reginald · 11-04-2009, 09:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wilder Amplification

Too low filtering will make for a noisy amp as you won't have enough to get the "ripple" from the pulsed DC output of the rectifier out and you'll end up with a 120Hz hum.

Too much can cause low end oscillation, known as "motorboating" (where the amp makes a "putt putt" type sound when you're not playing through it).

As to what the limits are I have no idea as I've never experimented to find out.

Your filter caps actually appear to be the correct value. I've never had the pleasure of working on a Marshall Major so I wasn't aware of this until I checked the schematic for one. The Majors used lots more filtering than the Lead/Super Leads.

Well,so,I can stay it for itself so without the need to downgrading nothing,right?
Electronically speaking don't I fry nothing to let theese two 470uF,right?(rectifier or diodes bridge stage or transformers are will sure so,right?)
why theese other old original gold filter caps had stickers up 'RED 150uF YELLOW 200uF'.....why two different uF values on each cap?
I don't think them are 350.....but 150 & 200 each cap....what does it mean that?

Wilder Amplification · 11-04-2009, 12:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reginald

Well,so,I can stay it for itself so without the need to downgrading nothing,right?
Electronically speaking don't I fry nothing to let theese two 470uF,right?(rectifier or diodes bridge stage or transformers are will sure so,right?)
why theese other old original gold filter caps had stickers up 'RED 150uF YELLOW 200uF'.....why two different uF values on each cap?
I don't think them are 350.....but 150 & 200 each cap....what does it mean that?

That filter cap is what they call a "multisection can", meaning there are two filter caps in the one can that share a common negative. The red positive terminal on the cap is 150uF while the yellow positive terminal is 200uF. If the red and yellow terminals were hooked together you would get 350uF.

Don't worry about your amp blowing up. Just enjoy the thing.

Reginald · 11-04-2009, 12:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wilder Amplification

That filter cap is what they call a "multisection can", meaning there are two filter caps in the one can that share a common negative. The red positive terminal on the cap is 150uF while the yellow positive terminal is 200uF. If the red and yellow terminals were hooked together you would get 350uF.

Don't worry about your amp blowing up. Just enjoy the thing.

but theese red and yellow terminals in Majors were usually hooked together or not?
if they weren't it means them are hooked in Series,right?
While if terninals were share it mean they are in Parallel,right?
So,the repairman of mine has made a bad work to put two filter caps in parallel hooked....when maybe the originals ones were hooked in Series
look...the first shot is after the replacement
the second is before.....can you tell me if about how the terminal are hooked?sorry but trouble with Internet..I don't able to put the second photo.I try tomorrow with another computer.this don't want charge the imagine!

Wilder Amplification · 11-04-2009, 12:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reginald

but theese red and yellow terminals in Majors were usually hooked together or not?
if they weren't it means them are hooked in Series,right?
While if terninals were share it mean they are in Parallel,right?
So,the repairman of mine has made a bad work to put two filter caps in parallel hooked....when maybe the originals ones were hooked in Series

No that's not how they work. You either parallel them or you split them. Give me some time to look at the schematic and figure out how they're supposed to be hooked up.

Reginald · 11-04-2009, 01:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wilder Amplification

No that's not how they work. You either parallel them or you split them. Give me some time to look at the schematic and figure out how they're supposed to be hooked up.

OK

Reginald · 11-05-2009, 09:06 AM

Hi,Jon
Now I've been able to put the photos in.
look...
the first,second and third photos are before the filter caps replacement
the fourth is after.

so,the yellow and red terminals in origin .....how were they hooked ?(150uF+200uF in parallel= 350uF total....or 150uF and 200uF shared by resistor?)
now,the repairman has hooked only two 470 uf single caps...while in origin theese Majors had fitted with those two gold caps which had another cap inside(so,you had 4 caps instead two).
What difference can that do,electronically speaking?
Maybe the best repairman choice solution may had been if he had mounted two 200+200uF instead two 400,not is it?
I think by if in origin Marshall had mounted two 150+200 (as like those original gold cans)instead of two 350uF.....is why exist a close,exact reason,isn't it?

MartyStrat54 · 11-06-2009, 09:33 PM

Jon, I'm going to give you a Gold Star under "E" for Effort. You have a lot of patience. Not that you can't pop a cork now and then, but with this, I have to say you've hung in there like a trooper.

Reginald · 11-07-2009, 04:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MartyStrat54

Jon, I'm going to give you a Gold Star under "E" for Effort. You have a lot of patience. Not that you can't pop a cork now and them, but with this, I have to say you've hung in there like a trooper.

but don't you are the guy that don't has recognized a Major by a Major?
Jon has just help me.

thrawn86 · 11-08-2009, 12:13 AM

Hey, Adwex, could you rename this thread the "Jon and Reggie" thread?

tubes · 11-11-2009, 10:23 AM

I'm pretty sure it should be the 'Magic Chewy Rub' thread.

It's not often that you see output transformers, filter caps and Magic Chewy Rub all explained in the same thread.

I had a first impression about what Chewy Rub might refer to: that sound you get when you hit low notes on low strings with the amp overdriven - but it doesn't mess up the chord or harmony at all, just makes it more rich.
You can get it on a good tube amp with a good LP (I wish I had a good LP). Also possible with other gear - but kinda unpredictable.

Jon, don't worry about how Person A might not appreciate your effort.
This is the webs - Persons D thru Z, and more, are roaming around here too. Like me.

I certainly do appreciate what has been explained on this thread.

Reginald · 11-12-2009, 10:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tubes

I'm pretty sure it should be the 'Magic Chewy Rub' thread.

It's not often that you see output transformers, filter caps and Magic Chewy Rub all explained in the same thread.

I had a first impression about what Chewy Rub might refer to: that sound you get when you hit low notes on low strings with the amp overdriven - but it doesn't mess up the chord or harmony at all, just makes it more rich.
You can get it on a good tube amp with a good LP (I wish I had a good LP). Also possible with other gear - but kinda unpredictable.

Jon, don't worry about how Person A might not appreciate your effort.
This is the webs - Persons D thru Z, and more, are roaming around here too. Like me.

I certainly do appreciate what has been explained on this thread.

hi,I'm sorry,maybe I explain very bad my sentence...
I nicknamed it with 'gummy','chewy' attack,chewy touch,'rubber',gummy touch.....I mean it for slow time rise response for the 'touch',or 'attack' of the chord,...when you hit a note you feel a slow rise respoonse ,never 'metallic' from the chord but you feel a 'gummy' attack before the sound explode out.

11-03-2009, 09:13 AM	#34 (permalink)
Reginald Member Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 82	Re: which of both runn the amp to work less hard? There is in fact a limit to going either way of course, electrically speaking. Which is the limited range value(the minimum and the maximum) into a Major 200W? Electronically speaking...What would be happen to mount a value too much low ? While, what would be happen to mount a value too much large? For example about a fault/break down from the Transformers? Could it happen? Many old Marshall get a fault from the transformers....could the reason be a too much low or too much large filter caps value?

11-06-2009, 09:33 PM	#42 (permalink)
MartyStrat54 Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Formerly Phoenix, now north of KC Posts: 2,583	Re: which of both runn the amp to work less hard? Jon, I'm going to give you a Gold Star under "E" for Effort. You have a lot of patience. Not that you can't pop a cork now and then, but with this, I have to say you've hung in there like a trooper. __________________ MARTY 2009 Gibson Explorer-Hell Raising Machine 1989 Fender Strat Plus USA 2008 Fender Tele USA 2004 Schecter Elite w/DiMarzio's TSL100 with custom 4x12 cab. TSL122 with Man 'O War Speakers. TSL602 #1 with JBL D123 Speakers and 602 #2 with Altec 417 Speakers. "Oh so sweet my friends." DSL401 #1 with Red Fang Speaker and 401 #2 with JBL D123 Speaker. Tubes: Let's just say they are NOS that kick ass. Last edited by MartyStrat54; 11-08-2009 at 11:32 PM. Reason: Being a sneak and I'm not going to tell.

11-08-2009, 12:13 AM	#44 (permalink)
thrawn86 Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2009 Location: Far Nor Cal USA Posts: 426	Re: which of both runn the amp to work less hard? Hey, Adwex, could you rename this thread the "Jon and Reggie" thread? __________________ Drivin' faster in my car... 02 DSL 401-Ei's 02 1960b 02 Gibson LP Studio Silver 03 PRS Santana SE Holy Grail reverb Originally Posted by J. Robert Oppenheimer "We knew the world would not be the same."

11-11-2009, 10:23 AM	#45 (permalink)
tubes Junior Member Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: New Zealand Posts: 13	Re: which of both runn the amp to work less hard? I'm pretty sure it should be the 'Magic Chewy Rub' thread. It's not often that you see output transformers, filter caps and Magic Chewy Rub all explained in the same thread. I had a first impression about what Chewy Rub might refer to: that sound you get when you hit low notes on low strings with the amp overdriven - but it doesn't mess up the chord or harmony at all, just makes it more rich. You can get it on a good tube amp with a good LP (I wish I had a good LP). Also possible with other gear - but kinda unpredictable. Jon, don't worry about how Person A might not appreciate your effort. This is the webs - Persons D thru Z, and more, are roaming around here too. Like me. I certainly do appreciate what has been explained on this thread.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode