Fender Princeton Reverb II

[sliberty]

But Paul's a Fenders were not better than the Fenders that he " improved". I totally don't get how he has had a career in amps.

[xtian]

This says the amp was designed by Ed Jahns, under supervision by Paul:

http://www.stratopastor.org.uk/strato/a ... azine.html

[jaysg]

This says the amp was designed by Ed Jahns, under supervision by Paul:

http://www.stratopastor.org.uk/strato/a ... azine.html

This is correct. Kind of a pissing match between Ed, who was old enough to have retired, and Paul, who was kind of established for a young guy...at the time. Ed was the guy behind...or following...the major escalation in power output that took 80W amps to 135W.


Steve -- I met Paul when I was 16...he was 19, Cella was pregnant and I thought he was a world away from my high school life. He had an understanding of how mids worked that the big manufacturers didn't. He had a VT-40 he kept modding and it was phenomenal for 1974.

I think one can buy some of his amps at the big web stores, but he's still never broken the GC blockade. I think the Rake I have is pretty darn good and you know Colin has an R55 as his goto.

[Firestorm]

Rivera era Fenders are full of switching. The blackface circuits have a few places where you can mod them for gain or frequency boost. Paul just switched all of those. It was the time of too many features. Look at Marshalls of the same period.

Paul had a career because the tweaks were subtle and you could switch them in and out. Not my cup of tea, but he didn't do crazy things.

On the other hand, Ken took a dead simple amp and pushed it to the edge and we revere him. Alex took a Fender power amp, did an ingenious thing with the PI, built a slightly different tone stack, and added an overdrive circuit (like Marshall modders have been doing forever) and we revere him too.

I think Rivera did pretty good with what he chose to work with. You can disagree if you like.

[sliberty]

It's all in he results. I've never heard anyone say "man, those Rivera era Fenders sound so much better than (insert whatever here)". Generally speaking, the older stuff (pick your favorite) is still thought to be superior to ally to his amps. Would you rather play through a 65 PR, or a PRII? Would you pick a Tweed Twin, or an "Evil Twin"? I can't think of one of Paul's amps that sounds better than the models he derived from.

It's true about the times...everyone was over engineering back then. Some still are (Mesa). There are companies that build for tone though. Lie them or hate them, 65 Amps, Divided by 13, and others are keeping the circuits simple and the tone is paramount. Like Fischer and Dumble. Like Matchless and Dr. Z.

If adding a feature doesn't make the amp sound better, it better offer incredible functionality with a reasonable level of simplicity, otherwise why bother?

[xtian]

Alex took a Fender power amp, did an ingenious thing with the PI, built a slightly different tone stack, and added an overdrive circuit (like Marshall modders have been doing forever) and we revere him

Oops...I failed the quiz. Who is Alex?

[sliberty]

Alex took a Fender power amp, did an ingenious thing with the PI, built a slightly different tone stack, and added an overdrive circuit (like Marshall modders have been doing forever) and we revere him

Oops...I failed the quiz. Who is Alex?

I am guessing Alexander Dumble.

[jaysg]

I will say that Paul was old school. All about "secrets" much like HAD. When I got my EE, they had just dropped tubes from the curriculum a year or two prior. It was all buried in existing schematics, and RDH...how to create good distortion...not so much.

It's quite possible that the best amps he is associated with, might be his late 70's modded Fenders and Marshalls. The solo on Peg is a SF Deluxe Reverb with lots of stuff done to it. The playing isn't bad either. In that regards, I've read interviews with Fagan where he talks about that solo and having to go through all the hip LA cats until Graydon pulled it off. Anyone know if it was a scored solo, or improvised?

[JazzGuitarGimp]

If I had to guess, I'd say ut was an improv solo. I've seen footage of Fagen and Becker doing an in-studio interview. They had the multitrack master on line, and Donald, to illustrate how fitting Jays solo was, was bringing up snippets of other takes from various guitarists. None of those snippets were the same solo as Graydon's.

[jaysg]

If I had to guess, I'd say ut was an improv solo. I've seen footage of Fagen and Becker doing an in-studio interview. They had the multitrack master on line, and Donald, to illustrate how fitting Jays solo was, was bringing up snippets of other takes from various guitarists. None of those snippets were the same solo as Graydon's.

Thank you! I'd always wondered, because they were so overproduced. I like Rick Derringer's work on Show Biz Kids because it seems on the fly. A lot of Carlton's work sounds like someone wrote it out.

fwiw, I went to college with a bunch of guys from Beverley Hills. All true. They knew guys who went up to Sunset, found some loaded young woman, give her a Quaalude and did diy porn with their Bolex 16mm's.

[Firestorm]

It's all in he results. I've never heard anyone say "man, those Rivera era Fenders sound so much better than (insert whatever here)". Generally speaking, the older stuff (pick your favorite) is still thought to be superior to ally to his amps. Would you rather play through a 65 PR, or a PRII? Would you pick a Tweed Twin, or an "Evil Twin"? I can't think of one of Paul's amps that sounds better than the models he derived from.

It's true about the times...everyone was over engineering back then. Some still are (Mesa). There are companies that build for tone though. Lie them or hate them, 65 Amps, Divided by 13, and others are keeping the circuits simple and the tone is paramount. Like Fischer and Dumble. Like Matchless and Dr. Z.

If adding a feature doesn't make the amp sound better, it better offer incredible functionality with a reasonable level of simplicity, otherwise why bother?

I agree. Princeton Reverb is probably my favorite amp ever. Just not enough power. And I don't think Rivera necessarily improved on the circuits he screwed with, but he had to do something to have a job, right? When I design amps, it's about versatility and simplicity. Probably most folks here feel the same.But you can't fault Rivera or even Randall for trying to push the envelope. Whether it worked or not is matter of taste.

[bluesfendermanblues]

It's all in he results. I've never heard anyone say "man, those Rivera era Fenders sound so much better than (insert whatever here)". Generally speaking, the older stuff (pick your favorite) is still thought to be superior to ally to his amps. Would you rather play through a 65 PR, or a PRII? Would you pick a Tweed Twin, or an "Evil Twin"? I can't think of one of Paul's amps that sounds better than the models he derived from.

It's true about the times...everyone was over engineering back then. Some still are (Mesa). There are companies that build for tone though. Lie them or hate them, 65 Amps, Divided by 13, and others are keeping the circuits simple and the tone is paramount. Like Fischer and Dumble. Like Matchless and Dr. Z.

If adding a feature doesn't make the amp sound better, it better offer incredible functionality with a reasonable level of simplicity, otherwise why bother?

I agree. Princeton Reverb is probably my favorite amp ever. Just not enough power. And I don't think Rivera necessarily improved on the circuits he screwed with, but he had to do something to have a job, right? When I design amps, it's about versatility and simplicity. Probably most folks here feel the same.But you can't fault Rivera or even Randall for trying to push the envelope. Whether it worked or not is matter of taste.

In all fairness, I think we have to remember, that Rivera only had a job to do at Fender and was not the main shareholder, who could call the shots.
So he probably did what the Fender company asked him to do in order to sell more amps and compete with Marshall and Mesa.

Fender has a long history of changing designs that are considered great amps. The tweeds =>Brown=>Blonde=>Black=>Silver. Each of those designs can hold their own, but at the time Fender did the changes in order to 'improve'. IMO the Rivera era amps were just another generation of amps.

[Firestorm]

It's all in he results. I've never heard anyone say "man, those Rivera era Fenders sound so much better than (insert whatever here)". Generally speaking, the older stuff (pick your favorite) is still thought to be superior to ally to his amps. Would you rather play through a 65 PR, or a PRII? Would you pick a Tweed Twin, or an "Evil Twin"? I can't think of one of Paul's amps that sounds better than the models he derived from.

It's true about the times...everyone was over engineering back then. Some still are (Mesa). There are companies that build for tone though. Lie them or hate them, 65 Amps, Divided by 13, and others are keeping the circuits simple and the tone is paramount. Like Fischer and Dumble. Like Matchless and Dr. Z.

If adding a feature doesn't make the amp sound better, it better offer incredible functionality with a reasonable level of simplicity, otherwise why bother?

I agree. Princeton Reverb is probably my favorite amp ever. Just not enough power. And I don't think Rivera necessarily improved on the circuits he screwed with, but he had to do something to have a job, right? When I design amps, it's about versatility and simplicity. Probably most folks here feel the same.But you can't fault Rivera or even Randall for trying to push the envelope. Whether it worked or not is matter of taste.

In all fairness, I think we have to remember, that Rivera only had a job to do at Fender and was not the main shareholder, who could call the shots.
So he probably did what the Fender company asked him to do in order to sell more amps and compete with Marshall and Mesa.

Fender has a long history of changing designs that are considered great amps. The tweeds =>Brown=>Blonde=>Black=>Silver. Each of those designs can hold their own, but at the time Fender did the changes in order to 'improve'. IMO the Rivera era amps were just another generation of amps.

You're right. And you're smart.

[bluesfendermanblues]

I agree. Princeton Reverb is probably my favorite amp ever. Just not enough power. And I don't think Rivera necessarily improved on the circuits he screwed with, but he had to do something to have a job, right? When I design amps, it's about versatility and simplicity. Probably most folks here feel the same.But you can't fault Rivera or even Randall for trying to push the envelope. Whether it worked or not is matter of taste.

In all fairness, I think we have to remember, that Rivera only had a job to do at Fender and was not the main shareholder, who could call the shots.
So he probably did what the Fender company asked him to do in order to sell more amps and compete with Marshall and Mesa.

Fender has a long history of changing designs that are considered great amps. The tweeds =>Brown=>Blonde=>Black=>Silver. Each of those designs can hold their own, but at the time Fender did the changes in order to 'improve'. IMO the Rivera era amps were just another generation of amps.

You're right. And you're smart.

Touché