QUINN TKT183 6L6 ARRIVES

[Mr Dumble]

Tag/Max

With total respect for both you guy's I'll say this..
Previous to my building a 2nd generation ODS the focus on this forum was primarly around the later Skyliner or updated low plate classic amps ala #124.. Thanks to the help of Gil and Billy who got the ball rolling on finally posting a complete sketch of an actual Dumble that led to a complete layout..
The info on the earlier 2nd generations were incomplete not well documented and the general consensus about the tone info was mixed with most opinions being very similar to Tag's..
This kept me away from this build for the longest time until Max started posting his fact sheet as well as some nice clips and the Lindly tone chase for me started.. IMO I am glad I did the build it is one of my favorates..
Is it like the clips of 183 or any of my other later generation amps of coarse not apples and oranges but I love amp just the same as have many others here... You should see my PM box after the 2nd generation layout was published of people who did the build and LOVE the amp..It was at least 1-2 a day for a month wanting advice and thanking me for the layout..

Tag might I suggest in keeping an open mind that there may be some builders out there that greatly respect your opinion that have not played as many Dumble amps you might have and that by using words like bad sounding not as good as, or harsh might steer people or some builders clear of these amps when in fact they could turn out like me and many others here and in the end love them..
Perhaps you could be a bit more creative in your description so not to scare them off the build but still inject your opinion.. Just a suggestion..Of coarse your opinion is always your opinion..

With due respect to all

Tony

Nice post Tony. This makes sense to me. I will keep that in mind. Thanks.

[talbany]

Tag/Max

With total respect for both you guy's I'll say this..
Previous to my building a 2nd generation ODS the focus on this forum was primarly around the later Skyliner or updated low plate classic amps ala #124.. Thanks to the help of Gil and Billy who got the ball rolling on finally posting a complete sketch of an actual Dumble that led to a complete layout..
The info on the earlier 2nd generations were incomplete not well documented and the general consensus about the tone info was mixed with most opinions being very similar to Tag's..
This kept me away from this build for the longest time until Max started posting his fact sheet as well as some nice clips and the Lindly tone chase for me started.. IMO I am glad I did the build it is one of my favorates..
Is it like the clips of 183 or any of my other later generation amps of coarse not apples and oranges but I love amp just the same as have many others here... You should see my PM box after the 2nd generation layout was published of people who did the build and LOVE the amp..It was at least 1-2 a day for a month wanting advice and thanking me for the layout..

Tag might I suggest in keeping an open mind that there may be some builders out there that greatly respect your opinion that have not played as many Dumble amps you might have and that by using words like bad sounding not as good as, or harsh might steer people or some builders clear of these amps when in fact they could turn out like me and many others here and in the end love them..
Perhaps you could be a bit more creative in your description so not to scare them off the build but still inject your opinion.. Just a suggestion..Of coarse your opinion is always your opinion..

With due respect to all

Tony

Nice post Tony. This makes sense to me. I will keep that in mind. Thanks.

Thanks Back!!
T

[talbany]

Sorry Double!!

[makrisp]

Tag & Max,

You two guys sound like that nut NFB on the gear page and Scott Lerner arguing about celestion g1265's, sounding like arse......bright and buzzy and the other loving them to death.

They were historical arguments from what I can remember.....pure classics. Too bad they made up now............and no more classics.

[Max]

Some things just sound better to most human ears

Hi Mr Dumble,

if this is the case, then this should be an easy task:

Could you please name (or link to, or post...) two recorded guitar tracks or songs with guitar tracks that - as far as you know - both have been recorded with Dumble amps or Dumble clones - and one of these tracks/songs with a guitar tone that in your opinion will "just sound better to most human ears" than the guitar tone of the other track?

Then IMO all here could easily check your theory I've quoted above: If all humans here without a serious hearing disease should indeed prefer the same guitar tone of the track that in your opinion will "just sound better to most human ears" IMO your theory will have been proved as being valid - at least in regard to how Dumble style amps turn out to sound on recorded guitar tracks.

Cheers,

Max

[Mr Dumble]

Some things just sound better to most human ears

Hi Mr Dumble,

if this is the case, then this should be an easy task:

Yes, it really is!

Could you please name (or link to, or post...) two guitar tracks or songs with guitar tracks that - as far as you know - both have been recorded with a Dumble amp or a Dumble clone - and one of these tracks/songs with a guitar tone that in your opinion will "just sound better to most human ears" than the guitar tone of the other track? Then IMO everyone here could easily check all by himself if your theory I've quoted above is valid or not.

Cheers,

Max

Most human ears will clearly hear the first Dumble in this clip as sounding far superior to the second. (If they are being honest!) How do I know? Because these highly trained, extremely accurate, virgin ears are almost always correct!! (EDIT: VIBRO,THAT WAS A JOKE!) Lets listen, shall we?

http://www.soundclick.com/player/single ... 30891&q=hi

VERY GOOD VERY GOOD!!!

(Max, seriously, time to give it a rest dude. No hard feelings on my side. I think everyone knows you do not think any amp sounds better than any other. I say they do. Lets just agree to disagree! ) My phone is still open by the way! Call is still on me.

[Max]

Most human ears will clearly hear the first Dumble in this clip as sounding far superior to the second.

Hi Mr Dumble,

thank you for posting the two clips. Now let's wait and see if indeed all humans here without a serious hearing disease agree with you in regard to the superiority of the guitar tone of the first clip.

I personally can indeed imagine musical contextes and mix structures in which I would prefer to try to dial in a tone that is more similar to the second one.

In a very dense mix as an example, in wich a lot of the mids are already occupied by other instruments (brass, keybords etc.) I think the more cutting, "thinner" and piercing edge character of the tone in the second clip could and may come out as an advantage in the mix of the recorded overall result.

Or an other example for musical contextes for which the second kind of tone IMO would perhaps be better suited, would perhaps be music and songs with a rather agressive an wild and intentionally "uncivilized" charcter.

So for my ears these are indeed just different sounding musical instruments with different timbres - two different tools with different characters and advantages and disadvantages that IMO both can be used to do different jobs and in the end both with a pleasing overall result in the overall mix of different songs and in different musical contextes.

So as you see: At least one of my parents will most probably have been an alien!

Thanks again and have a nice weekend,

Max

[Mr Dumble]

Most human ears will clearly hear the first Dumble in this clip as sounding far superior to the second.

Hi Mr Dumble,

thank you for posting the two clips. Now let's wait and see if indeed all humans here without a serious hearing disease agree with you in regard to the superiority of the guitar tone of the first clip.

I personally can indeed imagine musical contextes and mix structures in which I would prefer to try to dial in a tone that is more similar to the second one.

In a very dense mix as an example, in wich a lot of the mids are already occupied by other instruments (brass, keybords etc.) I think the more cutting, "thinner" and piercing edge character of the tone in the second clip could and may come out as an advantage in the mix of the recorded overall result.

Or an other example for musical contextes in which the second kind of tone IMO perhaps would be better suited, would perhaps be music and songs with a rather agressive an wild and intentionally "uncivilized" charcter.

So for my ears these are indeed just two indeed rather different sounding musical instruments, two different tools with different characters and advantages and disadvantages that IMO both can be used to do different jobs and in the end both with a pleasing overall result in the overall mix of different songs.

So as you see: At least one of my parents will most probably have been an alien!

Thanks again and have a nice weekend,

Max

Thats some dense mix!
Max, you continually say things I never said, and when I point that fact out to you, you pretend that I said them anyway! LOL!! I am going to ignore your posts on this topic from here on out, as you seriously are clueless as to what I am saying! YES you can find places that even what is normally a real shitty sound will work. However, thats not the amp you are going to want to be using as your go to amp! And going back to what I originally was saying, is that you can easily get a much better sounding amp (Like 183) to get the rawer, nastier sounds of the earlier Dumbles, and still have GREAT tones at your finger tips any time you want! Thats VERY GOOD VERY GOOD! Over and out on this topic!

[Max]

you seriously are clueless as to what I am saying!

Hi Mr Dumble,

yes this may perhaps be the case of course. My impression is that we probably think in a completely different way about the tone of a musical instrument.

My impression - that may be wrong of course - is

that

- for you the tone of a musical instrument seems to be an end in itself and the more pleasing or beautiful its sound rings in your ears when you play it, the "better" you deem it to be.

and

- for me the tone of a musical instrument is only a special kind of tool – just like all the other tools mankind uses – special in the way that tone can be used by composers, arrangers, producers, and musicians to create music - just as colours can be used by a painter to create paintings.

And in my view it makes no more sense to discuss if as an example a thin and harsh guitar tone is generally better or worse than a fat and warm tone than it would make sense to discuss if blue is generally a better or worse color than red.

IMO the question if a tool is bad or good can't be answered in such a general way and out of the special context in which it shall be used to do a special job.

Only if the special context of the intended use of whatever tool (car, camera, camera lens, musical instrument, clothing, computer, airplane etc.) is precisely known, it makes IMO sense to discuss which kind of tool and which individual version (sportscar or truck and which brand and model etc.) is the tool best suited to do a special kind of job.

Just one example:

Most modern lenses for cameras that have been calculated and produced in the last ten years are far "better" (more "hi-fi") in a technical sense - at least at large apertures - than lenses from the sixties. But for certain jobs (portraits as one example) some photographers nevertheless still prefer to use these older lenses because of - as an example - their different representation of the unsharp parts in the background of the picture ("bokeh" they call this). So the question what lens produces the "better" picture and is better suited as a tool for photography IMO can't be answered in a general way and without knowing precisely what kind of pictures shall be taken with this lens and with precisely what purpose in mind - documentary style and impressionistic often ask for a differnt kind of lens. Sometimes a modern lens that draws the picture with a fine pencil will be "better", sometimes an older lens that paints with a broader brush.

And in the same way I look upon the topic "which guitar tone is better". My answer would always be: It depends.

But however:

You've posted your theory and you've posted the clip to prove it.

Most human ears will clearly hear the first Dumble in this clip as sounding far superior to the second.

http://www.soundclick.com/player/single ... 30891&q=hi

So every member here can now check if he thinks that your theory is proven by this clip or not.

Have a nice Sunday and have much fun with your newest Quinn,

Max

[CHIP]

the first part of the clip sounds better to me, even though the volumes should have been matched closer.
but... If that second clip is TKT #183 with EL34's, that doesn't sound like the same amp I heard back in Nov. I think you should ask Shad to take a look at it, something ain't right.

[Structo]

The second part of that clip is thin and buzzy. TKT

[Mr Dumble]

you seriously are clueless as to what I am saying!

Hi Mr Dumble,

yes this may perhaps be the case of course. My impression is that we probably think in a completely different way about the tone of a musical instrument.

My impression - that may be wrong of course - is

that

- for you the tone of a musical instrument seems to be an end in itself and the more pleasing or beautiful its sound rings in your ears when you play it, the "better" you deem it to be.

and

- for me the tone of a musical instrument is only a special kind of tool – just like all the other tools mankind uses – special in the way that tone can be used by composers, arrangers, producers, and musicians to create music - just as colours can be used by a painter to create paintings.

And in my view it makes no more sense to discuss if as an example a thin and harsh guitar tone is generally better or worse than a fat and warm tone than it would make sense to discuss if blue is generally a better or worse color than red.

IMO the question if a tool is bad or good can't be answered in such a general way and out of the special context in which it shall be used to do a special job.

Only if the special context of the intended use of whatever tool (car, camera, camera lens, musical instrument, clothing, computer, airplane etc.) is precisely known, it makes IMO sense to discuss which kind of tool and which individual version (sportscar or truck and which brand and model etc.) is the tool best suited to do a special kind of job.

Just one example:

Most modern lenses for cameras that have been calculated and produced in the last ten years are far "better" (more "hi-fi") in a technical sense - at least at large apertures - than lenses from the sixties. But for certain jobs (portraits as one example) some photographers nevertheless still prefer to use these older lenses because of - as an example - their different representation of the unsharp parts in the background of the picture ("bokeh" they call this). So the question what lens produces the "better" picture and is better suited as a tool for photography IMO can't be answered in a general way and without knowing precisely what kind of pictures shall be taken with this lens and with precisely what purpose in mind - documentary style and impressionistic often ask for a differnt kind of lens. Sometimes a modern lens that draws the picture with a fine pencil will be "better", sometimes an older lens that paints with a broader brush.

And in the same way I look upon the topic "which guitar tone is better". My answer would always be: It depends.

But however:

You've posted your theory and you've posted the clip to prove it.

Most human ears will clearly hear the first Dumble in this clip as sounding far superior to the second.

http://www.soundclick.com/player/single ... 30891&q=hi

So every member here can now check if he thinks that your theory is proven by this clip or not.

Have a nice Sunday and have much fun with your newest Quinn,

Max

You sucked me right back in.

Max, I STILL have 5 very different guitars for exactly the reasons you mention above. I had close to 20 different amps at one point for the reasons you mention above. However, even if someone could afford every amp in the world, they would see that there are amps that sound similar, and in those groups of amps, some sound MUCH better than others, and they would thin the heard down to the best sounding amp in each group. Either that, or have a LOT of amps laying around that never get played. Exactly why I am down to three amps myself.

[Mr Dumble]

The second part of that clip is thin and buzzy. TKT

Tom and Chip, first amp was the Quinn 6L6. Second was 183 dialed in very oddly. It was meant to be a joke on HC a while back, but I did not post it. It just hit me to put it up when Max asked that question.

[CHIP]

This thread is turning into a JOKE, dude!

[greiswig]

The second part of that clip is thin and buzzy. TKT

At the risk of feeding trolls, I preferred the first clip as well. However, it sounds to me like unless #2 was a really badly-designed amp, nobody had taken the time to set it up properly. Or the mic was placed differently. Or...

Point is, without actually being there, it is hard to say what was actually better or why.

I have respect for Max's opinion which is well-established here, I have respect for Shad's ability to build a good amp, and although I don't know Mr. D, I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and give him my respect as well. This conversation has degenerated into a bandwidth-wasting pissing contest that would be better taken offline unless we can get a more controlled environment and a blind test done to settle an argument which is, at best, academic. JMHO.