This guy rocks. I have learned a lot from him: Do not be afraid to start over, never assume the factory made it right, and if an amateur has been in there, all bets are off.
Lyle's headline for this video set him up for either "the thrill of victory" or "the agony of defeat". If I was a betting man I'd put my money on "the thrill of victory"!🙂
Definitely, I have faith he'll crack the Ampeg code. Reverberockets are cool, I have both early versions, but I prefer their simpler circuits without reverb: Rocket, Jet, and Mercury, although the M-15 Mercury with 15" speaker and 6L6 power tubes. The porto flex-fliptop amps and Gemini models are classic too. Oliver was a genius!
This old Reverberocket might not have been built to quite the quality level of the Fenders of the day, but it sure is head and shoulders above current mass-produced tube amps, in terms of parts and construction.
I had an old mid-late 70s B-15N, flip-top that I used with my Strat and another small combo amp for years. Gave it a great, thumpy, "skinny fat" sort of sound. Alas, it was one of several that I let get away. Plus, the flip-top was just plain cool, and quite handy! Cheers.
I've own a very early Portaflex A15 converted to a B12 cabinet at the factory. It is an amazing sounding amp. These amps were very well made if you can get past the "spider web-like" glue all over everything.
I worked on one of those a while back that had already been messed up prior to my seeing it. It was very crowded and difficult to work on. But it was a great sounding amp!
I had the pleasure of restoring one of these a couple years ago and yes the schematic is not necessarily what is in the amp. The Joe Piazza schematic has many errors in it so like you I ended up with my own. The unusual design where the dry signal is taken through cathode of V2 and is coupled through a 22k resistor to the cathode of V3 can cause a hum issue. It took me going through many 7591A's before I found one that did not induce hum from the heater into the circuit. The 140 ohm cathode resistor would be original and correct for the amp.
I had a Saint Bernard and a massive German Shepherd/Dobie/Rottie mix that shared their dog beds with a pair of cats. Much mass-hysterical laughter did indeed occur!
Great amps - I’ve restored 2 of these and in both the 470k/510K resistor pair in the phase inverter drifted, causing a messy fizzy overdrive from unbalanced clipping in the PI.
@@dingalarm , It was the 1960s and virtually all amplifiers were built the same way ---- except for the transformer-less, AC/DC "widowmaker" amps with a hot chassis, which were designed and built even worse, and still allowed under the electrical codes of the day.
@@goodun2974 Yes, I do realise that this is the way amps were built in the 1960s, but I'm still calling it the way I see it. The circuit doesn't match the schematics, and the layout is cluttered, making it difficult to repair, and possibly unsafe. My comment was prompted by the solder blob that Lyle discovered in the chassis, due to excess solder being applied. However, I concede this may have resulted due to multiple repairs over the years. But as Lyle himself mentions ~ 9:30, Fenders were, in contrast, "better designed & built, more consistent in quality, and easier to service"
@@dingalarm , comments noted, and there is validity to what you wrote, except for the part about "killer" amps. I've never seen proof positive of an Ampeg amplifier having been built in a way that made it more dangerous to the player than any other amp of the era. None of the amps had grounded power cords in the 1960's anyway, and they all had "death caps". The potential danger of the solder blob Lyle found would only apply if you knew for an incontrovertible fact that the Ampeg amp came from the factory that way. Fender amps were built with more consistency in general although even they sometimes apparently just used whatever parts they had on hand that were close enough to the values of this circuit as designed, and I've seen Fenders with original parts that didn't quite match the published schematics either. I've also worked on a number of Fenders where you could just tug on a component lead and pull it right up out of the eyelet or out of the tube socket terminal because the solder never really bonded to it. Anyway the warpage-prone fiber eyelet boards that Fender used were never really great, and of course they became particularly problematic once Fender decided to wax them. The eyelet board that Ampeg used, as shown here, had better insulating quality than the Fender boards, but they did get pretty crowded, especially when jammed into a tight chassis in an amp that used octal tubes (most of the Ampegs I've seen were using 9 pin miniature tubes by 1966 or 67, which does make me wonder about the presumed date of manufacture for this amp). PS, Ampeg used to include the schematic with all of their amps, either glued to the wood back panel of the amp or tucked into an envelope that was stapled to the back panel. Whether the schematic actually matched the amp was of course another story....
@@goodun2974 Similar, but different, therefore easier to work on, but once they are working well they shouldn't need servicing for a long time afterwards, and they can sound awesome with the right speaker. The stock Jensen C12R is weak, and flubs-out at volume, something with more "balls" sounds better to me, like the Weber 12A150 (P12N clone) in mine, and many other great options. Supposedly Vintage 30 speakers sound perfect in Ampeg amps, and the G12H30 Anniversary too, etc.......
HA HAH! I have one that just arrived too, so now we can compare notes on how far off they are from the schematic. Close enough was good enough for Ampeg or so it seems.
Oh yeah, you have won the special bastardized vintage Ampeg turd prize for this week. I concede and agree that mine is in a better state of Ampeg terrible.
In order to say an amp is original with footnotes that worn parts have been replaced with original value components, what parts would need to remain as vintage correct?
Lyle can I ask if you've ever had a Tone King Imperial MkII apart and if so what your opinion is on the construction? I'd love a 65 Twin Reverb but live in a small house with joined on neighbours and I don't gig, basically I'm a 3 chord strummer. The great clean sound on the Imperial plus the attenuation, as you can imagine, seemed to fit my circumstances. Hope you are doing OK as there hasn't been a video in a few weeks that I've seen. Sorry to go a bit off the Ampeg thread but thought it wouldn't do any harm to ask, hope you don't mind.
Hi Lyle, I just found a set of 4 Jensen C 10/40FA used for sale. Seller says lightly used. I have a Peavey 410E 410 ex cab. Would these be an upgrade in your opinion? I like vintage everything. I love 410 cabs and 115 cabs. The peavey has been in storage for a couple years so I have not really ran a hot amp thru it. I am longing to bring it in the house and use it, would the jensens be an improvement? If you think they are an improvement, I'll buy them cause I love the 410 sound.
Ive got a reverbojet j12-r that im kookin to have work done on. Sounded good when jt was working, still does,but it needs work so i dont use it. I think its from 67/68.
I’ve been looking at the Benson Monarch circuit which does something interesting with the filters that I think was ripped from some of the old Ampegs - the screen filter node has about 3x the capacitance of the plate node. Chris Benson reckons this gives I particular feel to the output section in terms of sag etc.
I must be old because I saw Benson and "filters" in the same sentence and I thought of Benson and Hedges cigarettes! Anyway, if you're using a rectifier tube, the 1st filter stage, which is usually feeding the plate of the output tubes, is limited to a maximum of about 40 microfarads, if you use a 5AR4 or GZ34, and even less than that for a 5Y3 or 5U4 rectifier, oherwise you risk arcing the rectifier tube. Output tube reliability and performance will benefit from increased stability of the screen power supply, and you can use a much higher capacitance there (to provide a voltage reservoir) because the screen mode is separated from the plate node by a choke or a resistor, and therefore the rectifier tube doesn't really see the load of the additional capacitance.
thank you...i have that amp in my back room.... still sounds great never 1 single problem ... pretty heavy and my piss ant gigs never allowed me to put it past 1 (around 7 o'clock) .... thats the one thing they never told us about tube amps, if you can't turn them up to a certain level they never get to show their stuff.....
@@pharmerdavid1432 that kills all the highs on humbuckers .... and the flip side is you never get to turn anything up after dragging a 70 to 100 pound combo amp into a piss ant wine bar....
@Psionic Audio Brilliant stuff. Same tiny channel chassis for this amp as for the Les Paul GA40 - IE a challenge - and likewise only now in 2023 do we have a proper schematic! Likely you have seen this - unless it's you who did it? Works for mine which has chokes etc labeled as early 1953. I notice it drives just a 2 amp rectifier tube draw, not a 3, so no 5u4 works. Then seven pre and power(& inverter & tremolo) tubes call for only 2.4 amp - so says the PT badging and this does seem to be the original CTC (made in Canada?) PT. Does that seem right, to you? This PT does have a winding that splits into two 315V halves; the HT and hetaer windings are center The Ht tap goes to chassis ground but the 6.3V tap goes to V6 pin 8 cathode Cloth braiding of the leads also seems to be ancient. PT part number is P-603 - could it be my GA $) power problems relate to an improper (but old) replaced PT? Example: this PT blows a 5 A (non slo blo) fuse, pronto, when plugged in & with NO out put or taps connected? Fatal flaw? What would be PERFECT replacement in your opinion?
Update: our schematic says, the work to heat seven pre- and power tubes will draw 3 amps - not surprising - the PT therefor should rate at 3.25A! Definitely mine has never done so since I've owned the amp - this PT badging indicates 2.4A IE not enough! Wow. Other than pulling the trem tube V7, here's my excuse to order a new PT. I will start with Antique Audio in AZ via the web. Cheers to you, Psionic.
By the time this amplifier was built, Ampeg president and jazz snob Everett Hull had already been or was about to be forced out of the company, and Ampeg was already making inroads into the rock and roll amplifier business. Anyway, I don't think they were selling too many "amplified pegs" for acoustic bass that point, and their foam filled baby bass was never a huge seller for them. The real problem with amps like this is that working inside of that small tight chassis is difficult ( You could say the same thing about some of the small tweed Fender amps) and made even more so if somebody with less than stellar tech skills had messed with it in the past. Regardless, many of the small Ampeg amplifiers sound really good after they're gone through, and the reverb is particularly lush. No, they don't sound like a Fender, they kind of have their own thing going on instead. It would be a very boring world if we only had one amplifier design to play through or listen to!
I really enjoy your videos. I'm not particularly smart and I don't really know anything about electronics but I'd like to know more. Is there a book, or project, or kit or something of that nature that you would feel comfortable recommending which would allow me to dip my toe in the water here and begin to learn about electronics as they pertain to guitars and related guitar-twangery? Cheers.
FWIW I took an amp building class recently, most cities have them now, or if you're smarter than me (probably are) you can buy a kit and do it yourself, there are many helpful videos. In retrospect I might have been able to do it myself, but wouldn't have - so I took a class. My new tech was the teacher, and he sourced the best components possible for everything, so this is a tweed Deluxe better than Victoria sells, which is worth the price of the class. Believe me - if I can do it taking class, ANYBODY can!
@@pharmerdavid1432 That sounds fantastic. The satisfaction you have from having made your own amp must be immense. I realize it's probably not the cheapest way to get an amp but the whole process seems pretty interesting. The tools are all very familiar to me but knowledge of electricity and reading schematics isn't exactly something I have a ton of experience with. I think I'll take your suggestion and try to track down a class or a kit with very detailed instructions. I appreciate your reply friend. Cheers.
So I know you prolly get this alot but I have no amp techs where I live worth a damn, So would you work on my amp if I sent it to you? I's pay all the shipping of corse. It is a Jet city 22H head and is factory except for the tubes swapped. It just does not sound good anymore? Needs your touch and knowledge to make it better than ever!
Even though they don’t match Fender’s quality, I generally prefer a properly functioning Ampeg, better mids, great cabinet design (Gemini anyway) and I often prefer how they beak up over black panel Fenders of the same time period. That said I own and love a ‘66 Super Reverb, so I am by no means a Fender hater
Uncle Doug just posted a video of a blackface Super Reverb that was badly botched by another tech. It doesn't matter all that much that Fender amps are generally considered to be easier to work on than Ampegs or other brands, and that service documentation for Fenders is easily available, because when it comes right down to it, a bad tech can make a mess out of anything.
@@goodun2974 Ain't that the truth, I've had more than one amp "fixed" by a REAL tech, and it isn't inexpensive, but I'm glad to pay for a knowledgable tech to service my amps. The more I learn about electronics, the more complicated it gets!
So what I am hearing you say is that there is no such thing as a "vintage correct" ampeg amp because any circuit made with old parts could, in theory, be from the factory.
Especially Ampeg. They would by huge lots of close out tubes and modify their amps around them. I’ve got am R-12-R from 1968 and it uses 7868 power tubes and all kinds of weird tubes.
That one is like a tweed Deluxe circuit with EL-84 power tubes, according to the "Third Rail" amp tech (Brian Iforgethislastname), nice guy and VERY knowledgable about Vox circuits. He built the JMI AC-10 clone head (totally different circuit than SRT) for me, which was the first amplifier designed specifically for guitar by Dick Denny, the AC-15 came next, the EF-86 preamp tube was his favorite, said it was the most "musical" sounding to his ear, used it in the original AC-30 too, but the vibrations make it impracticable to use the supposedly microphonic tube (Brian said he has good luck with them not being microphonic), the next iteration was the AC-30 with "top boost" circuit, supposedly borrowed from Gibson's GA-70/77 amplifiers, some of their biggest golden era amps, with 6L6 power tubes and 15" speaker. Supposedly Ampeg got the SVT design from Pete Traynor? If anybody knows more, please tell us.
@@pharmerdavid1432 yeah I stand corrected. The circuit Vox ripped off for the SRT was the Reverb Rocket 12RT. The Ampeg version uses 6BK11 and 6U10 compactrons in the preamp while the SRT uses 12ax7 and 12au7 tubes. But the circuits are nearly identical.
Hi, I was wondering what do you think about Magnatone or if you have done already video, there so many, maybe I missed the topic 😅 Thanks for great job
Have you watched the video that Uncle Doug just put up of his repair on a badly botched and messed up blackface Super Reverb? The only advantage to working on that Fender compared to working on this Ampeg is that documentation and schematics for Fender are generally more accurate and there's more space to work with inside the chassis. Otherwise, a bad tech can make a mess out of just about anything no matter how theoretically easy it might be to work on.
Many guitar players think the Reverberocket sounds better than anything Fender makes. Ken Fischer of Trainwreck amps said the Reverberocket is a better amp than $5,000 Marshall 18 waters. Grant Green is pictures with a Ampeg Mercury, and many famous jazz players used Ampeg Gemini I amps. The Reverberocket has a crowded architecture making it difficult to work on, but the other older non-reverb 6V6 circuits in the Mercury, Jet, and Rocket amps are as easy to work on as Fender, at least I've read techs saying they are basically the same, use similar components mounted in a similar way - that's how it looks to me. Gibson amps also sound better than Fender to many guitar players, so while they may be more difficult to work on with the two-sided boards they used, their great tone is worth it. When I have them serviced, I have the tech mount all the components on one side to avoid having to take-off the board for servicing in the future - if needed (probably won't for a long time). I would rather have an amplifier difficult to work on but sounding great, than easy to work on and not sounding as good.......
This guy rocks. I have learned a lot from him: Do not be afraid to start over, never assume the factory made it right, and if an amateur has been in there, all bets are off.
Lyle's headline for this video set him up for either "the thrill of victory" or "the agony of defeat". If I was a betting man I'd put my money on "the thrill of victory"!🙂
Definitely, I have faith he'll crack the Ampeg code. Reverberockets are cool, I have both early versions, but I prefer their simpler circuits without reverb: Rocket, Jet, and Mercury, although the M-15 Mercury with 15" speaker and 6L6 power tubes. The porto flex-fliptop amps and Gemini models are classic too. Oliver was a genius!
This old Reverberocket might not have been built to quite the quality level of the Fenders of the day, but it sure is head and shoulders above current mass-produced tube amps, in terms of parts and construction.
I had an old mid-late 70s B-15N, flip-top that I used with my Strat and another small combo amp for years. Gave it a great, thumpy, "skinny fat" sort of sound. Alas, it was one of several that I let get away. Plus, the flip-top was just plain cool, and quite handy! Cheers.
Thank you for sharing your knowledge. Science plus art equals you sir.
4:51 classic ghostbusters reference. Nice!
What a great Slim Pickens reference in the title, Lyle! Lmao
Hope you have a blast in Europe! Many thanks for everything!
Now this is a project worthy of your talents.
I've own a very early Portaflex A15 converted to a B12 cabinet at the factory. It is an amazing sounding amp. These amps were very well made if you can get past the "spider web-like" glue all over everything.
Looks like you are going to have to build it from the ground up, like "the six million dollar man". Look forward to the rest of this series.
I had an Ampeg Reverborocket way back when. One of my first amps. The reverb was thrilling.
I worked on one of those a while back that had already been messed up prior to my seeing it. It was very crowded and difficult to work on. But it was a great sounding amp!
I had the pleasure of restoring one of these a couple years ago and yes the schematic is not necessarily what is in the amp. The Joe Piazza schematic has many errors in it so like you I ended up with my own. The unusual design where the dry signal is taken through cathode of V2 and is coupled through a 22k resistor to the cathode of V3 can cause a hum issue. It took me going through many 7591A's before I found one that did not induce hum from the heater into the circuit. The 140 ohm cathode resistor would be original and correct for the amp.
I had a Saint Bernard and a massive German Shepherd/Dobie/Rottie mix that shared their dog beds with a pair of cats. Much mass-hysterical laughter did indeed occur!
Great amps - I’ve restored 2 of these and in both the 470k/510K resistor pair in the phase inverter drifted, causing a messy fizzy overdrive from unbalanced clipping in the PI.
This is going to be good 😉👍
That third tune in has The Who/Pete Townshend thing…cool stuff 👍
Man these can be killer sounding amps. I’m excited about this series
...but judging by the way these things are built, they are also potentially *killer* amps! 🤔😲😱
@@dingalarm , It was the 1960s and virtually all amplifiers were built the same way ---- except for the transformer-less, AC/DC "widowmaker" amps with a hot chassis, which were designed and built even worse, and still allowed under the electrical codes of the day.
@@goodun2974 Yes, I do realise that this is the way amps were built in the 1960s, but I'm still calling it the way I see it.
The circuit doesn't match the schematics, and the layout is cluttered, making it difficult to repair, and possibly unsafe. My comment was prompted by the solder blob that Lyle discovered in the chassis, due to excess solder being applied. However, I concede this may have resulted due to multiple repairs over the years.
But as Lyle himself mentions ~ 9:30, Fenders were, in contrast, "better designed & built, more consistent in quality, and easier to service"
@@dingalarm , comments noted, and there is validity to what you wrote, except for the part about "killer" amps. I've never seen proof positive of an Ampeg amplifier having been built in a way that made it more dangerous to the player than any other amp of the era. None of the amps had grounded power cords in the 1960's anyway, and they all had "death caps". The potential danger of the solder blob Lyle found would only apply if you knew for an incontrovertible fact that the Ampeg amp came from the factory that way.
Fender amps were built with more consistency in general although even they sometimes apparently just used whatever parts they had on hand that were close enough to the values of this circuit as designed, and I've seen Fenders with original parts that didn't quite match the published schematics either. I've also worked on a number of Fenders where you could just tug on a component lead and pull it right up out of the eyelet or out of the tube socket terminal because the solder never really bonded to it. Anyway the warpage-prone fiber eyelet boards that Fender used were never really great, and of course they became particularly problematic once Fender decided to wax them. The eyelet board that Ampeg used, as shown here, had better insulating quality than the Fender boards, but they did get pretty crowded, especially when jammed into a tight chassis in an amp that used octal tubes (most of the Ampegs I've seen were using 9 pin miniature tubes by 1966 or 67, which does make me wonder about the presumed date of manufacture for this amp).
PS, Ampeg used to include the schematic with all of their amps, either glued to the wood back panel of the amp or tucked into an envelope that was stapled to the back panel. Whether the schematic actually matched the amp was of course another story....
@@goodun2974 Similar, but different, therefore easier to work on, but once they are working well they shouldn't need servicing for a long time afterwards, and they can sound awesome with the right speaker. The stock Jensen C12R is weak, and flubs-out at volume, something with more "balls" sounds better to me, like the Weber 12A150 (P12N clone) in mine, and many other great options. Supposedly Vintage 30 speakers sound perfect in Ampeg amps, and the G12H30 Anniversary too, etc.......
I heard that the Ampeg Reverborocket had a great sounding reverb !
HA HAH! I have one that just arrived too, so now we can compare notes on how far off they are from the schematic. Close enough was good enough for Ampeg or so it seems.
Oh yeah, you have won the special bastardized vintage Ampeg turd prize for this week. I concede and agree that mine is in a better state of Ampeg terrible.
Big fan of your videos! What is your opinion on the build quality of Two-Rock amps?
CHALLENGE, THE ICEBURG CHALLENGE, MORE inside the water than is observable
Thinking of getting a hand wired kit and my biggest concern is the transformers ~ any suggestions for best kits and/or transformers?
When something like this rolls in, complete with scrambled spaghetti,
rest assured Master Lyle will come to the rescue...
Will you add a search bar so I/we can find certain videos?
Have you ever gotten a Sovtek, or the Electro Harmonix reissue on the bench??
In order to say an amp is original with footnotes that worn parts have been replaced with original value components, what parts would need to remain as vintage correct?
Hi, I'm new here. Where do you look first for schematics?BTW I love your knowledge about amps and tubes.
I'd think it's probably quicker to pull everything out and start over than try to figure out what's going on and fix what's wrong.
Man I hope one day we see you come across a Dumble and see a "Lyle breakdown" of it. I'd love to see what you have to say about his stuff
Lyle can I ask if you've ever had a Tone King Imperial MkII apart and if so what your opinion is on the construction? I'd love a 65 Twin Reverb but live in a small house with joined on neighbours and I don't gig, basically I'm a 3 chord strummer. The great clean sound on the Imperial plus the attenuation, as you can imagine, seemed to fit my circumstances. Hope you are doing OK as there hasn't been a video in a few weeks that I've seen. Sorry to go a bit off the Ampeg thread but thought it wouldn't do any harm to ask, hope you don't mind.
Hi Lyle, I just found a set of 4 Jensen C 10/40FA used for sale. Seller says lightly used. I have a Peavey 410E 410 ex cab. Would these be an upgrade in your opinion? I like vintage everything. I love 410 cabs and 115 cabs. The peavey has been in storage for a couple years so I have not really ran a hot amp thru it. I am longing to bring it in the house and use it, would the jensens be an improvement? If you think they are an improvement, I'll buy them cause I love the 410 sound.
Are you ok? Haven't seen anything for a while.
It’s an Octopus’s Garden!
Oh Brad says you´re on hollidays so enjoy! see you soon.
Sounds like you have your work cut out for the next week or so. Good luck restoring this amp.
Is everything alright? We miss your reviews
Hi Lyle, are you ok ? It´s odd it´s been 2 week since your last video, hope everything is fine.
Ive got a reverbojet j12-r that im kookin to have work done on. Sounded good when jt was working, still does,but it needs work so i dont use it. I think its from 67/68.
Is his website down for anyone else?
I’ve been looking at the Benson Monarch circuit which does something interesting with the filters that I think was ripped from some of the old Ampegs - the screen filter node has about 3x the capacitance of the plate node. Chris Benson reckons this gives I particular feel to the output section in terms of sag etc.
I must be old because I saw Benson and "filters" in the same sentence and I thought of Benson and Hedges cigarettes! Anyway, if you're using a rectifier tube, the 1st filter stage, which is usually feeding the plate of the output tubes, is limited to a maximum of about 40 microfarads, if you use a 5AR4 or GZ34, and even less than that for a 5Y3 or 5U4 rectifier, oherwise you risk arcing the rectifier tube. Output tube reliability and performance will benefit from increased stability of the screen power supply, and you can use a much higher capacitance there (to provide a voltage reservoir) because the screen mode is separated from the plate node by a choke or a resistor, and therefore the rectifier tube doesn't really see the load of the additional capacitance.
Would you do a Bartel?
Whenwill you release part two ; The Ampeg Challenge | Part 1 : What in the Wide Wide World of Sports Is a Goin' On?
thank you...i have that amp in my back room.... still sounds great never 1 single problem ... pretty heavy and my piss ant gigs never allowed me to put it past 1 (around 7 o'clock) .... thats the one thing they never told us about tube amps, if you can't turn them up to a certain level they never get to show their stuff.....
Turn-up the amp, turn down the guitar? I play all my amps at 3-4 usually, keep my guitars turned way down, acoustic guitar level.
@@pharmerdavid1432 that kills all the highs on humbuckers .... and the flip side is you never get to turn anything up after dragging a 70 to 100 pound combo amp into a piss ant wine bar....
You have been MIA for a worrisome long time. hope you are okay!
I think he may be waiting for parts...? I better stop posting comments, my quota is far exceeded by now!
He's just on holiday, mate.
Nothing to worry about.
Good morning Lyle, that poor Amp looks like he was hit with an ugly stick
@Psionic Audio
Brilliant stuff. Same tiny channel chassis for this amp as for the Les Paul GA40 - IE a challenge - and likewise only now in 2023 do we have a proper schematic!
Likely you have seen this - unless it's you who did it?
Works for mine which has chokes etc labeled as early 1953. I notice it drives just a 2 amp rectifier tube draw, not a 3, so no 5u4 works. Then seven pre and power(& inverter & tremolo) tubes call for only 2.4 amp - so says the PT badging and this does seem to be the original CTC (made in Canada?) PT.
Does that seem right, to you? This PT does have a winding that splits into two 315V halves; the HT and hetaer windings are center
The Ht tap goes to chassis ground but the 6.3V tap goes to V6 pin 8 cathode
Cloth braiding of the leads also seems to be ancient.
PT part number is P-603 - could it be my GA $) power problems relate to an improper (but old) replaced PT?
Example: this PT blows a 5 A (non slo blo) fuse, pronto, when plugged in & with NO out put or taps connected?
Fatal flaw? What would be PERFECT replacement in your opinion?
Update: our schematic says, the work to heat seven pre- and power tubes will draw 3 amps - not surprising - the PT therefor should rate at 3.25A!
Definitely mine has never done so since I've owned the amp - this PT badging indicates 2.4A IE not enough!
Wow. Other than pulling the trem tube V7, here's my excuse to order a new PT. I will start with Antique Audio in AZ via the web. Cheers to you, Psionic.
I have a pot of nice marinara sauce for that spaghetti. Could they stuff anything else into that area?
One might ask what do you expect from a company that was all about upright basses (the peg in Ampeg) and refused to do guitar amps for years.
By the time this amplifier was built, Ampeg president and jazz snob Everett Hull had already been or was about to be forced out of the company, and Ampeg was already making inroads into the rock and roll amplifier business. Anyway, I don't think they were selling too many "amplified pegs" for acoustic bass that point, and their foam filled baby bass was never a huge seller for them. The real problem with amps like this is that working inside of that small tight chassis is difficult ( You could say the same thing about some of the small tweed Fender amps) and made even more so if somebody with less than stellar tech skills had messed with it in the past. Regardless, many of the small Ampeg amplifiers sound really good after they're gone through, and the reverb is particularly lush. No, they don't sound like a Fender, they kind of have their own thing going on instead. It would be a very boring world if we only had one amplifier design to play through or listen to!
I really enjoy your videos. I'm not particularly smart and I don't really know anything about electronics but I'd like to know more. Is there a book, or project, or kit or something of that nature that you would feel comfortable recommending which would allow me to dip my toe in the water here and begin to learn about electronics as they pertain to guitars and related guitar-twangery? Cheers.
FWIW I took an amp building class recently, most cities have them now, or if you're smarter than me (probably are) you can buy a kit and do it yourself, there are many helpful videos. In retrospect I might have been able to do it myself, but wouldn't have - so I took a class. My new tech was the teacher, and he sourced the best components possible for everything, so this is a tweed Deluxe better than Victoria sells, which is worth the price of the class. Believe me - if I can do it taking class, ANYBODY can!
@@pharmerdavid1432 That sounds fantastic. The satisfaction you have from having made your own amp must be immense. I realize it's probably not the cheapest way to get an amp but the whole process seems pretty interesting. The tools are all very familiar to me but knowledge of electricity and reading schematics isn't exactly something I have a ton of experience with. I think I'll take your suggestion and try to track down a class or a kit with very detailed instructions. I appreciate your reply friend. Cheers.
“I’ve got some sucking to do.” The exact same pep talk I give myself before I go on stage 🤣
What are the odds? I was just talking to Roy yesterday about his “friend in Memphis” and working on Ampegs…
So I know you prolly get this alot but I have no amp techs where I live worth a damn, So would you work on my amp if I sent it to you? I's pay all the shipping of corse. It is a Jet city 22H head and is factory except for the tubes swapped. It just does not sound good anymore? Needs your touch and knowledge to make it better than ever!
Even though they don’t match Fender’s quality, I generally prefer a properly functioning Ampeg, better mids, great cabinet design (Gemini anyway) and I often prefer how they beak up over black panel Fenders of the same time period. That said I own and love a ‘66 Super Reverb, so I am by no means a Fender hater
Uncle Doug just posted a video of a blackface Super Reverb that was badly botched by another tech. It doesn't matter all that much that Fender amps are generally considered to be easier to work on than Ampegs or other brands, and that service documentation for Fenders is easily available, because when it comes right down to it, a bad tech can make a mess out of anything.
@@goodun2974 Ain't that the truth, I've had more than one amp "fixed" by a REAL tech, and it isn't inexpensive, but I'm glad to pay for a knowledgable tech to service my amps. The more I learn about electronics, the more complicated it gets!
So what I am hearing you say is that there is no such thing as a "vintage correct" ampeg amp because any circuit made with old parts could, in theory, be from the factory.
Especially Ampeg. They would by huge lots of close out tubes and modify their amps around them.
I’ve got am R-12-R from 1968 and it uses 7868 power tubes and all kinds of weird tubes.
Hey Lyle! Hope your doing okay. We all haven't seen vids come out lately and we all hope your doing alright. Cheers.
He's on holidays, mate.
Nothing to worry about.
@@BradsGuitarGarage Thanks Brad.
Glad it's not the Wired World of Sports... 'cause that would give Brad too many reasons to do a comedy video in response.
Lyle... Are in interested in working on my 1966 Fender Tremolux??? It's working but it is just not right. If so, let me know how to contact you.
Pretty sure that’s the Ampeg circuit Vox “borrowed” for the AC10 SRT
That one is like a tweed Deluxe circuit with EL-84 power tubes, according to the "Third Rail" amp tech (Brian Iforgethislastname), nice guy and VERY knowledgable about Vox circuits. He built the JMI AC-10 clone head (totally different circuit than SRT) for me, which was the first amplifier designed specifically for guitar by Dick Denny, the AC-15 came next, the EF-86 preamp tube was his favorite, said it was the most "musical" sounding to his ear, used it in the original AC-30 too, but the vibrations make it impracticable to use the supposedly microphonic tube (Brian said he has good luck with them not being microphonic), the next iteration was the AC-30 with "top boost" circuit, supposedly borrowed from Gibson's GA-70/77 amplifiers, some of their biggest golden era amps, with 6L6 power tubes and 15" speaker. Supposedly Ampeg got the SVT design from Pete Traynor? If anybody knows more, please tell us.
@@pharmerdavid1432 yeah I stand corrected. The circuit Vox ripped off for the SRT was the Reverb Rocket 12RT. The Ampeg version uses 6BK11 and 6U10 compactrons in the preamp while the SRT uses 12ax7 and 12au7 tubes. But the circuits are nearly identical.
Hi, I was wondering what do you think about Magnatone or if you have done already video, there so many, maybe I missed the topic 😅
Thanks for great job
I play bass and I think that all Ampegs are bad. Old and New. There's always something weird going on.
James Jamerson probably wouldn't agree, nor would dozens of other famous bass players who used Ampeg.
Annnnnnd this is why I don’t buy Ampeg’s. They can be great little amps though. The work required is far more in depth than a 70’s Fender.
Have you watched the video that Uncle Doug just put up of his repair on a badly botched and messed up blackface Super Reverb? The only advantage to working on that Fender compared to working on this Ampeg is that documentation and schematics for Fender are generally more accurate and there's more space to work with inside the chassis. Otherwise, a bad tech can make a mess out of just about anything no matter how theoretically easy it might be to work on.
This looks like junk not worth bothering with. As Anthony Keidis would say "give it away now"
Many guitar players think the Reverberocket sounds better than anything Fender makes. Ken Fischer of Trainwreck amps said the Reverberocket is a better amp than $5,000 Marshall 18 waters. Grant Green is pictures with a Ampeg Mercury, and many famous jazz players used Ampeg Gemini I amps. The Reverberocket has a crowded architecture making it difficult to work on, but the other older non-reverb 6V6 circuits in the Mercury, Jet, and Rocket amps are as easy to work on as Fender, at least I've read techs saying they are basically the same, use similar components mounted in a similar way - that's how it looks to me. Gibson amps also sound better than Fender to many guitar players, so while they may be more difficult to work on with the two-sided boards they used, their great tone is worth it. When I have them serviced, I have the tech mount all the components on one side to avoid having to take-off the board for servicing in the future - if needed (probably won't for a long time). I would rather have an amplifier difficult to work on but sounding great, than easy to work on and not sounding as good.......