Hey just found your video because I was gifted what appears to be an original deluxe reverb. It needs tubes and a fuse. Any advice would be much appreciated
There's some tweeks that can be done to them reissue to improve it. For example the reverb drive circuit is way too hot and hits the tank too hard causing a mushy reverb that loses articulation after about two on the dial. It's an easy fix and there are several others. There's a fellow here on yt who's channel is called psionic, I think 🤔. Anyway he's worked on a bunch of them and is gracious enough to share some of his knowledge about them. He also See's alot of hot rods and blues DeVilles and gives loads of tips and tricks on those. Check him out!
On the intro, the amount of reverb and volume were so different that they were not comparable. In the subsequent section, I'd side with the vintage based on settings, particularly for the driven tones. However, I don't really see the point in setting the two amps to their numerical equivalents for this type of comparison. Even though they are "airquotes" the same, we all know they aren't. Just dial one in to the best sound you can get, and then make adjustments to the other to match as closely as possible. Most people don't care if the two amps are the same if everything is set to 5. They want to know if they can get the vintage sound out of a new amp.
Dartheomus totally agree With you! I realized that the 2017 was lacking highs and had Too much bass in the overdriven sounds compared to the 67’... and thats something you can fix by adjusting the eq a bit... I have a 2012 deluxe... and recorded with it with great oberdriven-not mushy tones...
Would setting the nunbers the same be the perfect comparison? Because that really shows the differences between the amps? It would make a better comparison than getting the exact same tone on both of them, then its the same.
Totally agree. The second amp is louder and that affects the sound greatly. Back of the second amp to the same volume level as the first and then run again.
20% tolerance components, and pot tapers... they could be as different as two amps built on the same day. Also, the speaker is a crucially important element.
Let me tell you something about that 20%. Those old machines were full of trimpots that would be calibrated at the factory. In practice, few resistors were ever over 10%. And even if one was off, they would have found out. Positions where values were critical had beefed-up solderable lugs and putting in different parts would be part of the setup. I remember a service manual calling for accuracy better than 0.1% in a particular thyristor welder and due to vibrations, you had to calibrate it by soldering on several fixed resistors. No trimpot allowed. Did you know that the tolerance of capacitors actually got worse over the years essentially swapping places with the resistors?
@@zwz.zdenek Where are the trimpots located in a vintage Fender BlackFace Deluxe Reverb? Do you mean the bias pot? Yes that compensates the tubes static dissipation. Silverface amps changed the bias pot into a balance pot to balance both sides of the output transformers waveform. I dont believe your statement about trimpots is valid ....
@@Mardello Well, as a matter of course, this is absolutely a nerdy type of tone geek thing. That is what this all about. Do you think that the average Jon Q Public , Lay audience member is going to notice that the performer playing guitar in the band up there on stage in a crowded nightclub is going to perceive enough of a tonal significance to actually say to himself "ah... that vintage Fender tone is superb!" ? No, but it does matter very much to those of us who make up the community of folk that participate in or take stake that make or break current trends that support or favor our best and favorite own agendas. Fortunately their exist a large nerd based community of fan boys that have enough of a esoteric taste for the quality nuances and ability to perceive a definitive of subjectivity for proper tone. The exclusivity of this community supercedes even that of the "Audiophile" people despite many crossover fellows that occupy both, Tone Chasers, Geeks and Nerds are certainly Members Only! Are you in "the know" ? Can you perform the secret handshake? No? Well then piss off!
I really love that you mentioned the speaker being largely responsible for the difference. I want the same exact comparison but use the same speaker and tubes and same biasing then we’ll really know how much can be attributed to other components.
@@9uidin9li9ht2 Man! On a Fender Twin, If you can afford it..... I would score a pair of the 90watt Alnico Celestion Creamback speakers. They sound incredible but whoa, they cost alot. Probably going to spend $600 or more on a pair!
Saw a video where they swapped the speaker from the modern hand wired to this one with the Jensen and probably most of the difference was the speaker. So therefore the higher end ceramic speaker alone was a really nice upgrade to sound better and more like the 67. I wonder what the 67 would sound like with the ceramic speaker
He's comparing combo to combo. Combos include speakers. If things were any different in testing it'd get stupid (play them on a wednesday, wearing denim, facing east.....etc etc etc etc etc).
I think it might have something to do with the old amp not being in a great condition internal electronics wise, lots of gain, reverb and volume difference between the two amps, I preferred the amp B as well.
Nah, aging has exactly zilch to do with it. If that were the case, my vintage amps (I own a studio filled with gear all from the 40s to the 60s) wouldn't sound exactly the way they did 50, 50+ years ago - modern recordings make this abundantly clear.
There's a reason why the AB763 circuit is the one most people want. Its cleans are great yet when you turn it up the breakup is wonderful. The Fender SF amps can be converted easily to the AB763 circuit
Honestly I really like the 2017 for cleans, but definitely preferred the 67’ for edge of breakup/overdriven tones. Of course my opinion is subject to change if I was sitting in the room with both the amps playing them. Great video as always Rhett. 👍
I'd go for the modern because of the better clean. It's more open. Then I'd run pedals on the clean channel. I played a Fender Deluxe at my church for a while. Loved the tone but the distortion was limited. Pedals over the clean is the answer.
As a owner of a '63 delux reverb I knew which one it was as soon as it was played. My uncle gave me his first guitar (a fender music master)and the delux reverb amp when I was 10. I'm so fortunate and blessed he did. It gave me the opportunity to express myself through music. After 30 years of playing that amp, the sound was unmistakable to me.
I think having that vintage amp would be worth double the price of that new one, the vintage one is just sweeeeeet! And not only is it a great commodity and great equipment, it's a valuable collectible and vintage decor piece all in one
I have the ‘65 DRRI. Hands down, one of the best amps I’ve ever played. Several longtime guitar friends agree that it stands toe-to-toe with the ‘65 originals that they had at one point in their careers. Fender did a nice job with these Reissues.
The amp from 1967 was A. I know this because my grandpa has that exact vintage amp, that he has played his 1959 stratocaster on for my whole life. I would know that sound anywhere.
When I was in jr. high a friend had one with four tens ( I think ) and if you turned it up to 10 you could set things on fire with it. Then there was the amp that Wayne Kramer was using back in the late 70s with the bands he had in Detroit. A Fender twin with two tens or two twelves and he was playing it real hard and heavy one night and one of the two went up in flames and burnt the front up on that side. The problem was it was not his, it was borrowed. It still worked and he still used it. It was the most intimidating amp you ever saw
Great video, thanks! A few points to consider before shelling out big bucks: 1. This '67 amp is "museum quality." It's easy to spend a lot of money on a vintage amp and then a lot more on repairs to make it reliable for gigging. 2. An attenuator will let you comfortably crank the reissue to a level that gives comparable break-up. I've had good luck with the small and inexpensive Bugera PS-1 Power Soak. 3. Turning the bass knob down and tweaking an EQ pedal helps with the over-bass issue. 4. Musicianship trumps tone. The extra grand can buy 40 lessons with a master, which may radically improve your sound and approachable repertoire. Happy picking!
@@lobstermendez Did Fender really use foam and rubber surrounds? What was their reason for doing that? I've only seen bare or coated paper surround speakers (Eminence, Celestion, CTS... etc.) in aguitar amps.
@@lobstermendez There's way more to it than just the speaker wearing out. Most of the caps and resistors in there have probably drifted 20% off spec by now
The original speaker in that was an OXFORD speaker which was blamed for oxfart as it breaks so early when crunched! Mine has one rebaffeled. The 1966 age amp also were earlier supplied with Jensen Alnico speaker which had a clear, more singing balanced tone also on higher volymes. I have one speaker rebaffeled of that kind too in a separate box. Pity that you dont get those speakers anymore.
@@davidisenberg125 That is the beauty of a smaller 2x 6v6 based tube amp and a where the Deluxe shines in decent all around size as compared to a 4x EL34 or 6550 based arena styled monster amp. Many opportunities to play in the Deluxe sweet spot without pissing off the FOH
I guessed correctly in the first minute, but my guess was mainly based on the modern amp being noticeably louder...during that part of the video, the modern amp held its own. I don't know if the later section of the video was recorded differently or the amps were mic'd any differently, but man, the 67 just blew the modern amp away. Not even close. The 67 had SO much more clarity and definition. The guy who bought that thing got himself a sweet amp. But to your point, I would never want to gig with that thing for fear of it getting knocked around. It is really pristine.
Agreed. The 2017 would work for me - I like a lot of headroom, use pedals for overdrive, and would just turn the bass down almost completely. But the '67 was leagues better in the latter parts of the video. You get used to your gear if its decent and you spend time with it. You learn how to EQ it, play dynamically with it, it breaks in more, etc., and you and the gear just kind of mold to each other. So I could see getting the 2017 to sound great after some time, closer to the '67. Will it ever quite reach it? Maybe not. Or maybe it will - in 2067.
Having experience with vintage amps, the answer seemed obvious to me. I like the organic sound of vintage. Plus, the vintage amps are so much easier to repair. Great for do-it-yourselfers, i don't hesitate to gig with vintage amps. Life is too short not to sound your best!
My guess here is that a big difference is how broken in the speakers are. Put a couple hundred hours into the reissue and I'd bet that they sound MUCH closer.
Funny the first part of the vid the reissue sounded "better" to me. Then after that with the closeup shots, the 67 sounded way better. I wonder if you could get the sounds more similar by EQing them differently. If the reissue has too much lows, turn them down. I love my DRRI. I payed $650 for it used and it sounds great until you juice it a bit and push the low end. They can't quite keep it together. That's where the boutique amps take it to the next level.
I think the reason the amp sounded better initially was because the reissue was actually coming through louder than the original. Unfortunately, we percieve louder as better... when the volume was better adjusted you could better notice the character in the '67.
I've had a lot of experience between the reissues and original Deluxe Reverbs, as well as hand-wired recreations. The differences really come into play when you turn up past 5 on volume and the amps start to drive. That's where the original compresses and blooms more, and the reissue is a bit harder and 'splattier', if you will. Stiffer. I think you can hear it here as well. But the speakers also make a big difference. If the reissue has that newer Jensen C12K with the huge magnet, it's a very woofy speaker. Nice bottom end and rolled-off highs for cleans, but doesn't really come alive when driven like the older/original Jensen C12's or even the Oxfords. Best way to really compare would be to play both amp sections through the same speaker.
Yes, let's get him to play both amps through the same speaker(at different times) so we van see if a simple treble adjust or vol adjust makez em sound similar.
That's called nit picking. Total nonsense. If you can hear these things on actual records, I will congratulate you. Most of the time this sound is manipulated by various pedals, compressors, EQs and what have you, so this miniscule difference between the two is actually not difference. Even the two same vintage amps will sound different from each other. Videos like these and subsequent wanna be expert comments are totally ridiculous. Instead of being happy there actually is a reissue of a great piece of equipment that we get a chance to own because the original is financially out of reach and so rare, we are looking for defects on the honest piece of work. What a bunch of bullshit.
All fenders I've used are the same... when you aren't playing there's just that bzzzzz to remind you to play a riff or two to get it to screw off hahaha
That's not unique to fender amps nor guitar amps in general. High end studio monitors do the same thing. You *can* get rid of it, but it also effects the high frequency response of the system, so it's generally not an issue since you only hear it when you're.. not playing anything. So, who cares.
Amp b had a lot of resonance in the high mid/Treble area which I wasn’t a fan of. Amp A seemed to have a nice kind of “piezo” clean that I’ve always loved.
no matter how they sound relatively, if the 2017 sounds different than the 1967, people will explain it away as not being good. If it's tighter and more focused, people will say "oh, it sounds boxy, not open - new amps aren't made with the open sound that they used to have". if it's more open, people will say "it sounds artificially open compared to vintage - they overdid it". As long as the vintage is more expensive and exclusive, people adjust their opinion to match what it does.
3rd knob from the right is the reverb knob. It can be turned up or down. It was turned up on Amp B to sweeten the sound and trick casual listeners. Doing so also discerns the real players from gear snobs.
If you don't volume match then it is not a proper test. Psychology has proven most ppl will prefer loudness over softness. Even if softer is higher quality.
Most people are not very experienced listeners. Listening actually requires you to turn the volume down to a comfortable level and then really relax your mind to the point of stillness... maybe even turn the mind off completely? I haven't got there yet...
Im a sound engineer long time and I was about writing same comment, but I spotted Batchiano's. people don't see the sound so we can talk to them like to the wall. there is no possible comparison of two sounds if volume is not matched. louder always sounds better and because of it we have shitty compressed and limited to the bone pseudo music this days without any dynamics left. so called war on loudness.
@@jimbo4311 computers took over most of recording studios (except most expensive ones). When digital audio processing max loudness level is measured with binary code, so whatever precision on measurement is (number of bits - 16bits for CD, 24 to 32 todays home studios) the result of this measurement can not cross number 1(16 ones or 24 ones, doesn't matter) in other words there is a limit of 1 for loudness of a digital music file. It was discovered as well, that humans tend to change a song they listen to on radio rather than raise up volume level of the song. It correlates with concept of loudness matching for comparison of two audio files (pieces). Therefore since 90's producers want sound engineers to make a song as loud as possible (whole dynamic range of the song has to be compressed and limited to fit 6dB range down from max level which is a fixed one - all ones in binary code - it is called war on loudness). Result of this process is an audio file with flat dynamics and high loudness - quiet bits volume is raised, loud bits volume is lowered. In addition - today's music is based on samples and computer plugins like melodyne, pitch correctors, all of this eliminates those human mistakes so called 'air' in music. digital processing is slicing a waveform and measuring that slice with bits, it reduces odd harmonics (which are part of the sound responsible for warmth, color and travel of sound wave) in noticeable way. So prepared wave file is compressed further for less weight (trade) to mp3 format. we use bad quality audio equipment today - in ear headphones, cheap Audio/Digital converters, preamplifiers, (all built into our toys) so people are not able to hear difference because it is not possible without comparison - for that you need proper acoustically treated room and analog audio equipment, or at least good cans, converters, preamps and proper wave file before compression to mp3.
Another part of this is why don’t they or can’t they make the modern reissue that matches the tone of the older amps they made. Sometimes they make something that is great or even perfect and perhaps it should never have been changed at all.
@@shawnglass108 I really do think they copied the ingredients but you just can't get that sugar anymore. What Rhett is calling cheaper parts are not so much to cut costs so much as it's what's easily available. Making it cheaper for the customer isn't the end goal considering you can follow the schematics and build one yourself cheaper without having the buying power for parts they have at fender. Anyways sorry for this long book that I'm writing but my main point is that difference in materials that were accessible today compared to the ones accessible in the 60s. The copper wiring the tubes the power plug etc.
Now an 5:07 into the video, was surprised to see that I initially preferred amp B which turned out to be the RI. But once the demo continued and the tones got dirtier after volume turned up amp A, the 67, was my preference. It will be interesting to see how this ends up.
What? Who are you to tell someone what they think sounds better? Maybe they like how the 67 sounds. The sound is the sound. You can’t make it sound a certain way. Your fingers don’t create tone. They shape tone
I will throw my 2 cents in because i'm old as dirt and remember the old stuff.....you can get a used deluxe for 500 to 700 bucks which makes the old one 4 times more …. but here's the kicker with all old stuff, could you take it to a gig and not worry about it ????? I've had friends lose valuable gear thru the years to the point where they take cheap stuff to gigs so they need not worry about losing valuable equipment....that's a big deal
Thissss is tru. Some guys rock the "dad rig" and bring out the vintage stuff or overkill expensive gear. Like you don't need a 4x12, in ear monitors and a wireless system if you're playing a small bar with an even smaller stage. If anything It might even make the gig more difficult. I feel like an amp like this is special and needs to be for the studio, a special gig or a really good gig with good sound. If you're trying to do it for a career at least. If you're just having fun on the weekends with the boys/not playing often then completely ignore my crusty musician nonsense.
@@R3TR0R4V3 Definately a plus on a decent set of RCA Blackplates if ya can find 'em. The whole caveat here being in finding "decent" blackplates, I dont beleive it when a vendor says the RCA's are actually really "NOS" ! Many hundreds of RCA vintage used tubes but a greater and greater majority of those tubes are coming up pretty much hammered and well used up. But ahhhhh yeah, a vintage blackplate in a vintage Blackface is a beautiful thing. For total tonal perfection try vintage Telefunkens for the preamp tubes, a vintage Mullard for the rectifier and a vintage Amperex Bugle Boy on the Reverb, a modern TungSol reissue in the P.I. and some early 50's vintage RCA Blackplates or late 50's TungSol 6V6's! I have rolled many many tubes thru many Deluxe Reverbs, also including modified reissue amps too. Overall for production tubes, I am liking the Reissue Tung Sol. I dont know what Reflektor is doing different in the production, but they are very consistient. I use them exclusively in the P.I. of most all amps, where they are very robustful!
Of course you have to be very selective in what you buy.. I won't just blindly buy any old "NOS" tubes without data & proof. I gotta see some numbers to back it up. On the reissues though, I absolutely agree on the new Tung Sols.. They sound great and the price is certainly right! 😎 Cheers
Well, I'm SO glad that I bought my '67 Blackface - back in the mid-80s and when I didn't really know much about them, except that it was sought after and was a really warm and clean amp. I ALMOST traded it in the early 90s for some other vintage gear, but thankfully, I realized what a dumb move that would have been. It's a bit of beast for playing at home, but you can work around that - and I'm thinking about getting an attenuator. Every year, the amp's value makes it tempting to sell - as one considers all they gear they could get for it. But I KNOW I would immediately have seller's remorse!
Yeah, I wish I had a pocket full of cash back in say 79-80 or so, and could have bought up all those old Fender BF combos that the progressive new age guitarists were passing down the backline.
my dad bought my first truly functional amp new in +/- 1966. Taking The owner's advise, we walked out of the store with a Black Face Deluxe Reverb. Fortunately, at 71 years old I am still the proud owner. As soon as you started playing I knew the 60's amp. Much more "reserved". lately I've noticed Fender is packing too much volume and bottom into their CB amps. by no means is that bad... just different. If you're playing a 60's Deluxe with a "hard Hitter" you might do better w/a re issue. Again , I'm a big Fender advocate. My Opinion is that Fender Offers the most bang for your buck at any range. I know, I own 5 substantial Fenders ( four with black faces ). very nice video. Straight and to the point.
They both sounded good, but the new one definitely sounded brighter and louder. Despite what others have said in the comments, I think you did the right thing by setting the two amps identically. The goal of this video was to see how they differ in sound, not to see how you can tweak one amp to sound like the other. This video has me wondering, though. How much can we attribute the difference to age? How much do inconsistencies in things like resistors, capacitors, tubes, cabinet wood, and the manufacturing processes factor in? For example, if you line up 10 amps built in the same model year, or even the same production batch, how different will they sound from each other? I'm sure things were a lot less consistent in 1967, but these being tube amps, I'm sure there's a fair bit of variation in the 2017 models as well.
I've owned a Deluxe Reissue for several years now, with the Fender Special speaker, and it has great projection on stage. Front end it with a Boss ME-80 to get whatever crunch I may need. It sounds awesome with my Rickenbacker 360/12 on "Byrds" compressor settings, and I can get a decent Edge tone with my FrankenCaster thru the ME-80. Coupled with a decent effects setup, you can't beat it for overall quality in my book, and it doesn't weigh a ton!
As bad as I hate to admit it, the 2017 sounds better in every way. I closed my eyes and opened them when something peaked my interest and every time it was the 2017 version.
Not sure if anyone else mentioned this but a better comparison would be to use the same speaker. Just run the 67 into the speaker of the new one via cables to compare. Bet they would sound nearly identical. Speakers make all the difference. And you could run the new one thru the 67 speaker. And the bias setting makes a big difference in volume and tone. I've compared many DRs side to side this way. Let me know if you try this. Thanks, Jim
I have tried 1958 vintage alnico's in my 2 DRRI'S and it helped but it still was not the same rich tone of the old. Remember about all the components today Fender is using are of lower quality, much of this adds to the tone and some to the robustness. They do not even use a silver mica cap, for the highs, a $1 cap you can get from radio shack to replace the one they use.
This is the first thing I thought. It was too obvious that amp A was the vintage one. The worn in sound of an old speaker would play a huge part in the sound.
Interesting vid! Without headphones on, B sounded louder, a bit more full, but also a bit more brash. A sounded a bit thinner but had a softer quality. Could be the difference in speakers more than anything.
i have those exact speakers with my twin, i took out those original fender speakers because there was zero bass, whereas the jensens have a tonn. so that's gonna account for a large portion of the differences
@@caiusmadison2996 a agree. Those old Jensens are warm. I own a 1951 Valco National 12 watts with a 12 “ field coil Jensen in it. You should hear that baby purr!
Different speakers make a huge difference. Just about everyone can hear the difference between different model speakers (although determining which is "better" is harder). But I'd also be curious about the tubes. I'd imagine the '67 had older tubes that were not as "hot" as they used to be, while the '17 had different tubes that were fresh from the factory. That may account for the difference in volume. Someone else pointed out about the caps - older cap that are starting to fail are likely to have less crispness.
It is for this exact reason that I believe that the older one is not worth DOUBLE the price for people who are not collectors. If you are a player, I would elect the reissue and buy new speakers.
Same thing I thought... “talk to me about the tubes in both amps...those alone will make a significant difference.” I hand built a ‘65 BF clone and the difference between NOS GE Reverb Driver and modern tube was HUGE on the amount and lushness of the Reverb.
My older brother found a 1967 Fender Deluxe reverb in an old house he bought to fix up. two years ago. Sold it to me cheap. All I had to do is re-tube it and replace the Pilot light a red jewel cover. I put a Celestion G12H 30 in it. That increased the volume a bit. It is still not quite as Loud as Re-issue, but the 67 is just a more pleasing sound. I prefer the 67 all the way. Price ?? If you can afford it, yes ! it is worth the price ! I got mine for $187.00 A Harley payment for my Brother !!
My wife was helping a relative at their storage unit a few years ago and someone had left a guitar and amp outside with a "free" sign on it. She called me and asked if I wanted it. "Sure, why not!" I said. The guitar was a Strat copy that wasn't worth jack so, I gave it to my neighbor but, the amp was a TubeWorks RT2100 Mosvalve! Free is a very good price!
I have a 67, bought it when I was in high school (that tells you how old I am). Never has been out gigging has been in my house the whole time. I loved your comparison, and just said yes, yes, yes. I had it gone through a few years ago. The guys in the shop wanted o buy it. I told them I had told my daughter she could have it ( and my 1969 ES175) upon my death. I took their card and said I would give it to my daughter and she would stop down after my funeral and sell it ( she doesn't play).
Do instruments get better with age? I mean electric guitars not acoustic. I have a 2003 Fender AV 62 Jazzmaster. After 15 years it feels well broken in and looks vintage but not messed up. My point is why would an authentic 1962 Jazzmaster be better? The Ventures recorded “Walk, Don’t Run” in 1960. Bob Boggle used a 1958 Jazzmaster, so it was essentially new. He didn’t use a 58 year old vintage guitar on it. Point is that our fave musicians from the 50s and 60s were using new guitars now that are considered vintage now. So why is vintage better?
James Gretsch often times, the materials used were much better back then. For example, the glue used in a 59 les Paul is no longer used because it’s not very ethical to use it, but it gave them better sustain. As time wears on, the lore of the instruments do as well. In many cases a custom shop guitar from any brand does the trick. Just maybe not as much mojo in the repro
If it was/is unethical to use the glue they used on a vintage 59 LP, then that makes them similar to blood-diamonds. Why isn't there the same backlash against owning a 59 LP as there is about owning blood-diamonds or wearing fur? - Not questioning your information or making some kind of statement / rhetorical question of my own. Actually just wondering why.
Start The Rebellion that’s a good question, however the glue is simply glue that we don’t use anymore, at least to my knowledge. It’s not really of the same magnitude. In addition to the glue, the wood was also much older and thus, more resonant. Glue was just an example, but it’s definitely a good question.
True, and there's political implications and human lives currently being lost over blood-diamonds in particular... as where the glue thing might have just been something like we realized the production of it was harming some species or the environment rather than an ongoing source of funding for brutal dictators, lol.
The fact that the 1967 is still around to compare it to the 2017 is what makes it so great. In another 50 years it can be compared to a 2067 while the 2017 will be long dead and in a landfill. Leo designed and built those old amps to be serviceable.
I disagree. The 2017 will still be around. I mean the early 90s when the reissues just came out are still around with all original parts. Which one would I bet would last longer. The 67 yes but I doubt the reissue is going to die in another 50 years. The only thing that makes the original more serviceable is the lack of circuit board but even if a couple traces lift in 50 years that's still easily repairable with a jumper wire. I work on amps is where I'm coming from with this info.
@@richiesguitarshanktuary6923 Good points. So maybe the 2017 will still be around, but, replace some traces, replace some PCB mounted jacks and pots, replace a PCB, etc. -- the 1967 will still be more original in 50 more years than a 2017. To quote Doctor Who (12th Doctor): “Question: you take a broom, you replace the handle, and then later you replace the brush. And you do that, over and over again. Is it still the same broom? Answer: no, of course it isn’t, but you can still sweep the floor."
@@richiesguitarshanktuary6923 Good points. So maybe the 2017 will still be around, but, replace some traces, replace some PCB mounted jacks and pots, replace a PCB, etc. -- the 1967 will still be more original in 50 more years than a 2017. To quote Doctor Who (12th Doctor): “Question: you take a broom, you replace the handle, and then later you replace the brush. And you do that, over and over again. Is it still the same broom? Answer: no, of course it isn’t, but you can still sweep the floor." I mainly hope people that care about either will still be around!
Both sound great clean, but I've found the vintage "tone" is warmer and thicker. I also noticed the gain/distortion on the older is far far better sounding. The 2017 is a great newer amp for the money though, really good reissue.
It's not even right for Fender to call these reissues when "Inspired by vintage amps" would be more fair. To me, a true reissue is as close to the original design and construction as is humanly, technically, and legally possible. That means that they should have used the fiber boards and point to point hand wired construction and the original circuits and not a circuit board to be seen. A reissue should be so exact that its existence also means that now replacement parts are available to restore old original amps, FINALLY, after so long. There's a pretty decent market for those restoration parts alone.
If that were the case they would have to sell them for nearly the same price, if not more, and most player couldn't afford it and would rather have the vintage option anyways. The main difference is the speakers and you can get a pair of vintage Oxfords, which aren't made anymore, for less than $200 on Reverb. People seem to forget that Fender is the original budget brand, making affordable amps and guitars that fit almost any income bracket. I scoff at vintage purists and for those prices, I'll take a handwired modern amp from nearly any boutique builder (Swart, Magnatone) rather than a 67 which likely needs new caps, per my ears.
Been to a lot of concerts where the guitarist was playing the reissue Deluxe Reverb so Fender did some things right. I do like the 1967 more in this comparison.
@JM Coulon The speaker is perhaps half the tone. Hand wiring can also means better caps, higher rated resistors, (1/2 watt vintage carbon comp verse 1/4 watt silicon ) better pots, switches, tube sockets, plugs, jacks, quality transformers....I have worked on both and owned a few DRRI's. So you can end up with a more robust amp that sounds better being hand wired,,, but not necessarily as quiet when turned down, the one possible drawback.
I happened to own a 94" DRRI and it cranks. I did put new caps in it & added a Weber Signature Speaker. RE: Your Comparisons, I prefer the '67 for overdrives and the '17 for clean sounds
I've had a '65 Deluxe Reverb reissue since they first released them, I think '93 or '94, played it for years with an old JBL D120 in it. I've recently retired the JBL and gone to a Celestion "V"...great speaker. I don't use pedals. I've also owned a couple of "real" '60's Deluxe's (I'm 72) and no two...original or reissue, are the same and all sounded pretty good as these two did. If your Deluxe Reverb sounds too "bassy" turn down the Bass knob. That's very likely to be why they have those knob "thingies"on the front panel. I'm not certain what this comparison is supposed to prove. The only real "test" is how the amp works on a real gig and I doubt that many could hear the difference in an on stage situation and after you hook up your 20 or so effects pedals, it won't matter much anyhow.
They are both implementations of the same circuit, they are going to sound ABOUT the same. However, the cheap PCB reissue amp will be trash for sure in 20 years if not sooner, when the original is still as serviceable as the day it was made. (Assuming vacuum tube and parts availability).
Yes & No and maybe,,,,, there's a few variables that come into play. General principle I would greatly agree! However, the electronic components that populate the recent PC board amp have a much greater potential survivability and better overall ability in their consistiency than the vintage produced component. Parts such as old carbon comp resistors that are touted as being so magic vs the superior and ultra stable and bulletproof metal oxide and film resistors of today. The limited shelf life of bulky, temp sensitive electrolytics compared to the advances of exotic diaelectrics found in todays super-capacitors. Or for in fact all capacitors in general, especially when compared to that of basic foil paper and wax construction?! (despite a belief in some sort of voodoo magic that invokes special mojo tone, the favor for longevity, durability and tonal hair splitting precision can be argued as going to modern tech) Also, you have to take a consideration of the serviceability of modern design vs vintage designs? What is the likelyhood of servicing period.... On another slight tangient,,,, Who remains that is going to perform future servicing? Music instrument electronics is probably the last remaining "consumer electronic" device that is still being repaired and maintained by a fewer and smaller infrastructure of specialized electronic repair technicians! Ever notice how rare it is to find even a television repair shop? Greater and greater of all forms of electronics are essentially designed as disposable or with a certain engineered target lifespan. Seemingly the consideration of technical obsolescence being the dominate criteria.... I am sure we are likely to see a similar existence of 1967 era vintage amps as seen today, as in say 2037 than the likelyhood of 2017 era amplifiers existing in 2037. This is regardless of yet another consideration that comes to my mind. This is despite the actual number of units produced (surely 2017 production units exceed 1967). Much of the 2017 production units produced will likely be deemed obsolete and have already been returned to the form of scrap metal or discarded as consumer waste. While the remainder of those real vintage 1967 still standing today are already revered and collectible. They have been already maintained and will continue to be maintained with a growing number of modern component replacement parts... On another all together different but similar point I wish to make or have others please ponder... Do you ever wonder just how many Blackface amps were actually produced at the factory containing Spraque or other Poly "Orange Drop" capacitors????? NONE! Yet 7 out of 10 vintage amps must contain Orange Drops.... so go figure?
Old Hands and the original wiring that is sheath coated the new Deluxe Reverb don't have the 110 plug in adapter on the back of the amp the new one does. The electronic in the new amps are cheapened by usinf foreign electronics back in the 12960s and 50s everything was made and produced by Fender
The 67 sounds like you literally took a blanket off the amp when you play it. The note clarity and definition are light years ahead of the reissue. Handwired is always better. I don't think age necessarily have anything to do with the sound as much as the construction of the circuit does (ie: handwired vs. Printed Circuit Board).
disagree, most of the difference you hear will be 50 + years of speaker wear and different components. There are many boutique builders who dont make their amps all handwired, from an electronics POV it's hard to argue a handwired amp sounds any better than a well built PCB amp. Toneking, Bogner, both amps well regarded in the amp world who's products arent handwired.
Amp B sounded way more 'modern' from the get go. Amp A was sparkly and resembled the original times but Amp B was just way more rounded, bottom heavy (flabby sometimes), and had that modern fender touch.
There are ways to get the reissue pretty close for the old ones - a few value changes and snipping of resistors and tweaking the tone path to get a little close to ab763
@@grosebud4554 ...... can you elaborate? Sounds like you have that down to a science. Isn't there a difference in cabinet wood as well? It seems like if Rhett had played the 2017 circuit through the vintage amp speaker in it's cabinet, that would have made a difference ...
I'm with x Freeworld. I didn't feel capable of making a sound judgement on these two. I'm not a musician, though like most I've listened to music my whole life. Sounded similar. Then he began playing power chords. At that point the new amp sounded muddy.
i used a 66 vibrolux for concert venues....4 years on the road, it never failed me.three boss pedals and a volume pedal only.I also own a 62 brown vibrolux that sounds awesome.Totally different than the 66.
The original probably has better tubes - old original RCAs etc. the new ones come withChinese crap or the like. That alone makes a huge differeence. Ive had both. Old ones need maintenance- new caps etc. A new deluxe is 90% there and 1/2 the price. Get good tubes and dial in your sound- Bingo. Winner.
His complaint about the 67 seems to suggest old dead filter caps. And because of the idiotic prioritis of the collector market, people leave that old shit in a lot of old amps. But whatever the state of the parts inside, the comparison loses any meaning when it's overlooked. This video is sadly useless.
300 Rivers ...agreed. The ‘67 has a sweeter tone, as if the vintage tubes and the speaker have been broken in, the frequency is right on. No wonder you’ll pay twice (or more) the price for one, if you can even find one in that nice a condition. It’s also way more valuable as a collectible.
As of Sept. 2022, the going price on the reissue is $1600 USD. Less budget minded than it was a couple of years ago. Used, you can find them starting around $900 for one in good condition.
Hey Rhett... Thanks for the shoot-out, but maybe the sweet-spot for the 2017 was not all controls set @ noon as where the 57's maybe was. Do you think the 2017 could have fared better in this contest against the 57' if both amps were dialed-in to their sweet-spots? -- Also, with a few mods... speaker change, circuit component upgrades by a pro, etc... do you think the 2017 could be sweetened up enough to be closer to the vintage 57'? I know that on many cheaper mics modding can go a long way toward sweetening them and increasing dynamic range.
In this case I did tweak the 17 to try and match the 67, and I couldn’t really get it close. The 67 has a sweetness and balance to it that the 17 couldn’t keep up with, I think a major part of that is the original speaker from 67. I think modding a DRRI can go a long ways but in this case the 67 won hands down.
Budget minded but still $1100 plus tax - ugh. No thanks. You can find these around $1000-$2000 used. There are some from early 70's that are just as good as the '67 IMO, and better sound and investment. Saw a '72 for $1000 recently. And a '68 for $1,650 which is not a bad deal. I also found a '68 Custom Vibrolux for $850. There are deals out there and better investment.
My first video course, The Tone Course, is available now. Check it out below!
flatfiv.co/collections/rhett-shull/products/the-tone-course
Hey just found your video because I was gifted what appears to be an original deluxe reverb. It needs tubes and a fuse. Any advice would be much appreciated
this is why I love my 65 pre cbs twin reverb.. What's crazy though is. I have 2 greenbacks in it🙃🙃
There's some tweeks that can be done to them reissue to improve it. For example the reverb drive circuit is way too hot and hits the tank too hard causing a mushy reverb that loses articulation after about two on the dial. It's an easy fix and there are several others. There's a fellow here on yt who's channel is called psionic, I think 🤔. Anyway he's worked on a bunch of them and is gracious enough to share some of his knowledge about them. He also See's alot of hot rods and blues DeVilles and gives loads of tips and tricks on those. Check him out!
Will you come back in 50 years and compare the 2017 with the 2067 Re-Issue?
😂
😂
Or in 2069 and compare the 1969 👽
We’re all dead in 10... at least that’s what I heard.
the 2017 will be toast by then... the 1967 will still be going...
On the intro, the amount of reverb and volume were so different that they were not comparable. In the subsequent section, I'd side with the vintage based on settings, particularly for the driven tones. However, I don't really see the point in setting the two amps to their numerical equivalents for this type of comparison. Even though they are "airquotes" the same, we all know they aren't. Just dial one in to the best sound you can get, and then make adjustments to the other to match as closely as possible. Most people don't care if the two amps are the same if everything is set to 5. They want to know if they can get the vintage sound out of a new amp.
Dartheomus totally agree With you! I realized that the 2017 was lacking highs and had Too much bass in the overdriven sounds compared to the 67’... and thats something you can fix by adjusting the eq a bit... I have a 2012 deluxe... and recorded with it with great oberdriven-not mushy tones...
You said exactly what I was thinking. Comparisons are totally pointless unless you set the knobs by ear, and not by a number.
Would setting the nunbers the same be the perfect comparison? Because that really shows the differences between the amps? It would make a better comparison than getting the exact same tone on both of them, then its the same.
Totally agree. The second amp is louder and that affects the sound greatly. Back of the second amp to the same volume level as the first and then run again.
Certainly no comparison with overdrive, the '67 wins hands down.
I prefer the '67 for overdrives and the '17 for clean sounds
I was completely the opposite. To me the vintage 67 sounds better for cleans.
I agree. But the 2017 was louder and not as chimey. I suspect the pots have aged? and scooping mids from the 2017 would reveal the true difference.
I agree. The 2017 has a great warm clean tone. But the ‘67 has a great overdriven tone.
Same
I was gonna say the same thing!
20% tolerance components, and pot tapers... they could be as different as two amps built on the same day. Also, the speaker is a crucially important element.
See I think a lot of the perceived roundness of the vintage amp is because of a well worn in speaker
Let me tell you something about that 20%. Those old machines were full of trimpots that would be calibrated at the factory. In practice, few resistors were ever over 10%. And even if one was off, they would have found out. Positions where values were critical had beefed-up solderable lugs and putting in different parts would be part of the setup. I remember a service manual calling for accuracy better than 0.1% in a particular thyristor welder and due to vibrations, you had to calibrate it by soldering on several fixed resistors. No trimpot allowed.
Did you know that the tolerance of capacitors actually got worse over the years essentially swapping places with the resistors?
@@zwz.zdenek
Where are the trimpots located in a vintage Fender BlackFace Deluxe Reverb? Do you mean the bias pot? Yes that compensates the tubes static dissipation. Silverface amps changed the bias pot into a balance pot to balance both sides of the output transformers waveform.
I dont believe your statement about trimpots is valid ....
Nerd
@@Mardello Well, as a matter of course, this is absolutely a nerdy type of tone geek thing. That is what this all about. Do you think that the average Jon Q Public , Lay audience member is going to notice that the performer playing guitar in the band up there on stage in a crowded nightclub is going to perceive enough of a tonal significance to actually say to himself "ah... that vintage Fender tone is superb!" ?
No, but it does matter very much to those of us who make up the community of folk that participate in or take stake that make or break current trends that support or favor our best and favorite own agendas. Fortunately their exist a large nerd based community of fan boys that have enough of a esoteric taste for the quality nuances and ability to perceive a definitive of subjectivity for proper tone.
The exclusivity of this community supercedes even that of the "Audiophile" people despite many crossover fellows that occupy both, Tone Chasers, Geeks and Nerds are certainly Members Only!
Are you in "the know" ? Can you perform the secret handshake? No? Well then piss off!
1:24
It is tricky because one is louder and louder usually sounds "better" to the ears
yes, yes, YES!!! (thank-you)
No
Yeah other than the volume they sound the same
Other then the volume they sound the same
Yeah, I thought the same thing... I preferred "amp B" (the reissue), but was thinking, do I only like it because it's louder??
I really love that you mentioned the speaker being largely responsible for the difference. I want the same exact comparison but use the same speaker and tubes and same biasing then we’ll really know how much can be attributed to other components.
I believe the bigger difference is in the speakers. I have a reissue twin and when I replaced the speakers, it was a huge difference.
Is changing a speaker easy to do on your own? Or is paying someone necessary?
What speakers come in the twin and what did you put in that sounded better?
Which speakers do you recommend?
@@9uidin9li9ht2
Man! On a Fender Twin, If you can afford it..... I would score a pair of the 90watt Alnico Celestion Creamback speakers.
They sound incredible but whoa, they cost alot. Probably going to spend $600 or more on a pair!
@@southboundsuarez9832 Thanks for that tip! What do you think is making the overdriven sound better on the '67?
I would have tried both amps with the 67' speaker, then you would know if the amps are really different or not.
Correct
Yep
Saw a video where they swapped the speaker from the modern hand wired to this one with the Jensen and probably most of the difference was the speaker. So therefore the higher end ceramic speaker alone was a really nice upgrade to sound better and more like the 67. I wonder what the 67 would sound like with the ceramic speaker
He's comparing combo to combo. Combos include speakers. If things were any different in testing it'd get stupid (play them on a wednesday, wearing denim, facing east.....etc etc etc etc etc).
@@ProcalHarem sure bro lol
30 seconds in. I want to say amp A is the '67
Same.
Nicholas Pro same here
Same. As soon as Amp B came in I felt it sounded brighter and more modern.
I choose amp B as being the superior sounding tube amp, it sounded like it was cleaner with more headroom compared to amp A.
I agree. Amp B sounded brighter and more lively
@@justsumguy2u Lol I also like B better but I think that the amp A was more twangy and with less depth also less reverb.
@@davidarana791 thats why country guys used to love fender amps ;) sooooo much twang for days lol
I think it might have something to do with the old amp not being in a great condition internal electronics wise, lots of gain, reverb and volume difference between the two amps, I preferred the amp B as well.
Yeh B ate it for breakfast.
Wow, that overdriven sound is so bad on the 2017, compared to the vintage one
Tim Perry but the clean sound sounds better one 2017 right?
@@poiiiiiiiiiii3049 Honestly, my ears are telling me, even the cleans sound better on the 1967
Theres a huge difference in sound quality, the vintage sounds so much better.
I beg to differ. The 2017 sounded much much cleaner.
@@poiiiiiiiiiii3049 Yes
I think a real test would have used an external speaker so that aging of the speaker didn't come into the mix.
BTW the 1967 is definitely worth it.
Nah, aging has exactly zilch to do with it. If that were the case, my vintage amps (I own a studio filled with gear all from the 40s to the 60s) wouldn't sound exactly the way they did 50, 50+ years ago - modern recordings make this abundantly clear.
@@allrequiredfields hahaha, . ok . i'm not putting the farm on that opinion .
There's a reason why the AB763 circuit is the one most people want. Its cleans are great yet when you turn it up the breakup is wonderful. The Fender SF amps can be converted easily to the AB763 circuit
good video. the real difference shows when you turn it up. the distortion on the 67’ is a lot better than on the modern
Since the reverb on amp B is so much stronger it is very difficult to hear the actual sonic differences.
Really annoyed me
Honestly I really like the 2017 for cleans, but definitely preferred the 67’ for edge of breakup/overdriven tones. Of course my opinion is subject to change if I was sitting in the room with both the amps playing them. Great video as always Rhett. 👍
Canaan Lawrence This exactly!
I am no expert but if u turned the vintage amp up, its a diiferent story, great vid but u gotta crank that shit to see the real difference,
Dont be shy.... the distortion on the RI is a freaking train wreck. Unlistenable. Fire the designer
I'd go for the modern because of the better clean. It's more open. Then I'd run pedals on the clean channel. I played a Fender Deluxe at my church for a while. Loved the tone but the distortion was limited. Pedals over the clean is the answer.
Exactly, same reflection
As a owner of a '63 delux reverb I knew which one it was as soon as it was played. My uncle gave me his first guitar (a fender music master)and the delux reverb amp when I was 10. I'm so fortunate and blessed he did. It gave me the opportunity to express myself through music. After 30 years of playing that amp, the sound was unmistakable to me.
I prefer A but I think you could get B very close by turning the reverb, treble, and volume down.
Regardless of which one is vintage, I prefer Amp B
Gabe Elias, me, too.
Me too, seems fatter and clearer, though my ears may be fooled as it has a bit more reverb and gain in the clip
Likewise
Me too.
I thought reverb on the reissue was much thicker. On the 67, you could barely notice it.
It’s such a pleasure to hear you play Rhett. You make those guitars and amps sound killer.
I think having that vintage amp would be worth double the price of that new one, the vintage one is just sweeeeeet! And not only is it a great commodity and great equipment, it's a valuable collectible and vintage decor piece all in one
I have the ‘65 DRRI. Hands down, one of the best amps I’ve ever played. Several longtime guitar friends agree that it stands toe-to-toe with the ‘65 originals that they had at one point in their careers. Fender did a nice job with these Reissues.
The amp from 1967 was A. I know this because my grandpa has that exact vintage amp, that he has played his 1959 stratocaster on for my whole life. I would know that sound anywhere.
When I was in jr. high a friend had one with four tens ( I think ) and if you turned it up to 10 you could set things on fire with it.
Then there was the amp that Wayne Kramer was using back in the late 70s with the bands he had in Detroit. A Fender twin with two tens or two twelves and he was playing it real hard and heavy one night and one of the two went up in flames and burnt the front up on that side. The problem was it was not his, it was borrowed.
It still worked and he still used it. It was the most intimidating amp you ever saw
Wow, in the beginning I thought Amp B was the vintage amp. Quite impressed with the new one. The distortion does sound nicer in the vintage though.
B was louder.
The ‘67 has such a beautiful warm tone.
Great video, thanks!
A few points to consider before shelling out big bucks:
1. This '67 amp is "museum quality." It's easy to spend a lot of money on a vintage amp and then a lot more on repairs to make it reliable for gigging.
2. An attenuator will let you comfortably crank the reissue to a level that gives comparable break-up. I've had good luck with the small and inexpensive Bugera PS-1 Power Soak.
3. Turning the bass knob down and tweaking an EQ pedal helps with the over-bass issue.
4. Musicianship trumps tone. The extra grand can buy 40 lessons with a master, which may radically improve your sound and approachable repertoire.
Happy picking!
2017 SEEMS brighter in tone. The 67 seems warmer/fatter. I am sure they could sound exactly the same with some mild knob turning.
@@lobstermendez "Foam" surround??
@@lobstermendez
Did Fender really use foam and rubber surrounds? What was their reason for doing that? I've only seen bare or coated paper surround speakers (Eminence, Celestion, CTS... etc.) in aguitar amps.
Kearney Dillon it’s the speaker. I’m guessing they’d sound exactly the same with the same one.
67 much brighter and clearer
@@lobstermendez There's way more to it than just the speaker wearing out. Most of the caps and resistors in there have probably drifted 20% off spec by now
The original speaker in that was an OXFORD speaker which was blamed for oxfart as it breaks so early when crunched! Mine has one rebaffeled. The 1966 age amp also were earlier supplied with Jensen Alnico speaker which had a clear, more singing balanced tone also on higher volymes. I have one speaker rebaffeled of that kind too in a separate box. Pity that you dont get those speakers anymore.
At low volumes I really digged the modern one. When you cranked it to 7 the vintage one was far superior though
I thought the same thing..
when was the last time or last gig you got to crank one like that ??? I got an 87 silver jubilee that has never seen 3 at a gig ...
david isenberg Did it as my main rig for a few years with an attenuator 🍻
@@davidisenberg125 That is the beauty of a smaller 2x 6v6 based tube amp and a where the Deluxe shines in decent all around size as compared to a 4x EL34 or 6550 based arena styled monster amp.
Many opportunities to play in the Deluxe sweet spot without pissing off the FOH
I wonder if the 67 is handwired and changes the compression and break up
I guessed correctly in the first minute, but my guess was mainly based on the modern amp being noticeably louder...during that part of the video, the modern amp held its own. I don't know if the later section of the video was recorded differently or the amps were mic'd any differently, but man, the 67 just blew the modern amp away. Not even close. The 67 had SO much more clarity and definition. The guy who bought that thing got himself a sweet amp. But to your point, I would never want to gig with that thing for fear of it getting knocked around. It is really pristine.
Yup, that was the tell for sure.
Agreed. The 2017 would work for me - I like a lot of headroom, use pedals for overdrive, and would just turn the bass down almost completely. But the '67 was leagues better in the latter parts of the video.
You get used to your gear if its decent and you spend time with it. You learn how to EQ it, play dynamically with it, it breaks in more, etc., and you and the gear just kind of mold to each other. So I could see getting the 2017 to sound great after some time, closer to the '67. Will it ever quite reach it? Maybe not. Or maybe it will - in 2067.
Having experience with vintage amps, the answer seemed obvious to me. I like the organic sound of vintage. Plus, the vintage amps are so much easier to repair. Great for do-it-yourselfers, i don't hesitate to gig with vintage amps. Life is too short not to sound your best!
My guess here is that a big difference is how broken in the speakers are. Put a couple hundred hours into the reissue and I'd bet that they sound MUCH closer.
Funny the first part of the vid the reissue sounded "better" to me. Then after that with the closeup shots, the 67 sounded way better. I wonder if you could get the sounds more similar by EQing them differently. If the reissue has too much lows, turn them down. I love my DRRI. I payed $650 for it used and it sounds great until you juice it a bit and push the low end. They can't quite keep it together. That's where the boutique amps take it to the next level.
You’re so right about the boutique amps.
I think the same
I think the reason the amp sounded better initially was because the reissue was actually coming through louder than the original. Unfortunately, we percieve louder as better... when the volume was better adjusted you could better notice the character in the '67.
New transformers would help tame the low-end flub that plague the smaller fenders. Worked well on my 70’s Princeton reverb
I like B
I've had a lot of experience between the reissues and original Deluxe Reverbs, as well as hand-wired recreations. The differences really come into play when you turn up past 5 on volume and the amps start to drive. That's where the original compresses and blooms more, and the reissue is a bit harder and 'splattier', if you will. Stiffer. I think you can hear it here as well. But the speakers also make a big difference. If the reissue has that newer Jensen C12K with the huge magnet, it's a very woofy speaker. Nice bottom end and rolled-off highs for cleans, but doesn't really come alive when driven like the older/original Jensen C12's or even the Oxfords. Best way to really compare would be to play both amp sections through the same speaker.
Yes, let's get him to play both amps through the same speaker(at different times) so we van see if a simple treble adjust or vol adjust makez em sound similar.
That's called nit picking. Total nonsense. If you can hear these things on actual records, I will congratulate you. Most of the time this sound is manipulated by various pedals, compressors, EQs and what have you, so this miniscule difference between the two is actually not difference. Even the two same vintage amps will sound different from each other.
Videos like these and subsequent wanna be expert comments are totally ridiculous. Instead of being happy there actually is a reissue of a great piece of equipment that we get a chance to own because the original is financially out of reach and so rare, we are looking for defects on the honest piece of work.
What a bunch of bullshit.
Nobody:
Guitar:
Rhett: (talking or vlogging)
Fender amp: eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee....
All fenders I've used are the same... when you aren't playing there's just that bzzzzz to remind you to play a riff or two to get it to screw off hahaha
@@evmanbutts hahahahahahaha!
If he had the tremolo on, it would have been the beginning of Talk Talk's Laughingstock to perfection... except for his talking.
That's not unique to fender amps nor guitar amps in general. High end studio monitors do the same thing. You *can* get rid of it, but it also effects the high frequency response of the system, so it's generally not an issue since you only hear it when you're.. not playing anything. So, who cares.
i'm gonna get flammed for this, but the reissue sound so much better to my ears! i miss this amp everyday i should have never sold it haha
Amp b had a lot of resonance in the high mid/Treble area which I wasn’t a fan of. Amp A seemed to have a nice kind of “piezo” clean that I’ve always loved.
no matter how they sound relatively, if the 2017 sounds different than the 1967, people will explain it away as not being good.
If it's tighter and more focused, people will say "oh, it sounds boxy, not open - new amps aren't made with the open sound that they used to have". if it's more open, people will say "it sounds artificially open compared to vintage - they overdid it".
As long as the vintage is more expensive and exclusive, people adjust their opinion to match what it does.
In the intro, it sounds like the reverb was turned up significantly more on B.
Brighter tone so the decay on a reverb would be perceived as longer.
DONT USE ANY REVERB WHEN YOU TEST AN AMP!!!
The reverb is a part of the amp...
3rd knob from the right is the reverb knob. It can be turned up or down. It was turned up on Amp B to sweeten the sound and trick casual listeners. Doing so also discerns the real players from gear snobs.
Yes
If you don't volume match then it is not a proper test. Psychology has proven most ppl will prefer loudness over softness. Even if softer is higher quality.
Most people are not very experienced listeners. Listening actually requires you to turn the volume down to a comfortable level and then really relax your mind to the point of stillness... maybe even turn the mind off completely? I haven't got there yet...
The question wasn't which one sounds better.
Im a sound engineer long time and I was about writing same comment, but I spotted Batchiano's. people don't see the sound so we can talk to them like to the wall. there is no possible comparison of two sounds if volume is not matched. louder always sounds better and because of it we have shitty compressed and limited to the bone pseudo music this days without any dynamics left. so called war on loudness.
@@Radical_Middle Please go on about the today's psuedo music. Your writing intrigued me. War on loudness, dynamics, etc.
@@jimbo4311 computers took over most of recording studios (except most expensive ones). When digital audio processing max loudness level is measured with binary code, so whatever precision on measurement is (number of bits - 16bits for CD, 24 to 32 todays home studios) the result of this measurement can not cross number 1(16 ones or 24 ones, doesn't matter) in other words there is a limit of 1 for loudness of a digital music file. It was discovered as well, that humans tend to change a song they listen to on radio rather than raise up volume level of the song. It correlates with concept of loudness matching for comparison of two audio files (pieces). Therefore since 90's producers want sound engineers to make a song as loud as possible (whole dynamic range of the song has to be compressed and limited to fit 6dB range down from max level which is a fixed one - all ones in binary code - it is called war on loudness). Result of this process is an audio file with flat dynamics and high loudness - quiet bits volume is raised, loud bits volume is lowered. In addition - today's music is based on samples and computer plugins like melodyne, pitch correctors, all of this eliminates those human mistakes so called 'air' in music. digital processing is slicing a waveform and measuring that slice with bits, it reduces odd harmonics (which are part of the sound responsible for warmth, color and travel of sound wave) in noticeable way. So prepared wave file is compressed further for less weight (trade) to mp3 format. we use bad quality audio equipment today - in ear headphones, cheap Audio/Digital converters, preamplifiers, (all built into our toys) so people are not able to hear difference because it is not possible without comparison - for that you need proper acoustically treated room and analog audio equipment, or at least good cans, converters, preamps and proper wave file before compression to mp3.
A large part of this argument is:
Chasing tones that are vintage or belong to another player.
Or.
Having the strength to develop your own sounds.
Another part of this is why don’t they or can’t they make the modern reissue that matches the tone of the older amps they made. Sometimes they make something that is great or even perfect and perhaps it should never have been changed at all.
@@shawnglass108 I really do think they copied the ingredients but you just can't get that sugar anymore. What Rhett is calling cheaper parts are not so much to cut costs so much as it's what's easily available. Making it cheaper for the customer isn't the end goal considering you can follow the schematics and build one yourself cheaper without having the buying power for parts they have at fender. Anyways sorry for this long book that I'm writing but my main point is that difference in materials that were accessible today compared to the ones accessible in the 60s. The copper wiring the tubes the power plug etc.
I am 1:25 into the video. So far I like B, so expect it to be the Vintage issue
Now an 5:07 into the video, was surprised to see that I initially preferred amp B which turned out to be the RI. But once the demo continued and the tones got dirtier after volume turned up amp A, the 67, was my preference. It will be interesting to see how this ends up.
What? Who are you to tell someone what they think sounds better? Maybe they like how the 67 sounds. The sound is the sound. You can’t make it sound a certain way. Your fingers don’t create tone. They shape tone
I will throw my 2 cents in because i'm old as dirt and remember the old stuff.....you can get a used deluxe for 500 to 700 bucks which makes the old one 4 times more …. but here's the kicker with all old stuff, could you take it to a gig and not worry about it ????? I've had friends lose valuable gear thru the years to the point where they take cheap stuff to gigs so they need not worry about losing valuable equipment....that's a big deal
By lose you mean people just steal your stuff?
@@Daz912 had a great player and dear friend lose a ES 335 at a gig... guy grabbed it and took off running and he never saw it again
Thissss is tru. Some guys rock the "dad rig" and bring out the vintage stuff or overkill expensive gear. Like you don't need a 4x12, in ear monitors and a wireless system if you're playing a small bar with an even smaller stage. If anything It might even make the gig more difficult.
I feel like an amp like this is special and needs to be for the studio, a special gig or a really good gig with good sound. If you're trying to do it for a career at least. If you're just having fun on the weekends with the boys/not playing often then completely ignore my crusty musician nonsense.
The cleans make them sound much more comparable. But the vintage breaks up WAY nicer than the 2017.
Wire the 17 into the 67's speaker. Is it just the old speaker? I'd love to know.
DO THIS!
Tubes too.. If that old deluxe has RCA tubes, that makes a difference too. New tubes don't sound quite as good.
Yes is it, I tried it. Tone is in the speaker.
@@R3TR0R4V3
Definately a plus on a decent set of RCA Blackplates if ya can find 'em. The whole caveat here being in finding "decent" blackplates, I dont beleive it when a vendor says the RCA's are actually really "NOS" ! Many hundreds of RCA vintage used tubes but a greater and greater majority of those tubes are coming up pretty much hammered and well used up. But ahhhhh yeah, a vintage blackplate in a vintage Blackface is a beautiful thing.
For total tonal perfection try vintage Telefunkens for the preamp tubes, a vintage Mullard for the rectifier and a vintage Amperex Bugle Boy on the Reverb, a modern TungSol reissue in the P.I. and some early 50's vintage RCA Blackplates or late 50's TungSol 6V6's!
I have rolled many many tubes thru many Deluxe Reverbs, also including modified reissue amps too.
Overall for production tubes, I am liking the Reissue Tung Sol. I dont know what Reflektor is doing different in the production, but they are very consistient.
I use them exclusively in the P.I. of most all amps, where they are very robustful!
Of course you have to be very selective in what you buy.. I won't just blindly buy any old "NOS" tubes without data & proof. I gotta see some numbers to back it up. On the reissues though, I absolutely agree on the new Tung Sols.. They sound great and the price is certainly right! 😎 Cheers
Well, I'm SO glad that I bought my '67 Blackface - back in the mid-80s and when I didn't really know much about them, except that it was sought after and was a really warm and clean amp. I ALMOST traded it in the early 90s for some other vintage gear, but thankfully, I realized what a dumb move that would have been. It's a bit of beast for playing at home, but you can work around that - and I'm thinking about getting an attenuator. Every year, the amp's value makes it tempting to sell - as one considers all they gear they could get for it. But I KNOW I would immediately have seller's remorse!
Yeah, I wish I had a pocket full of cash back in say 79-80 or so, and could have bought up all those old Fender BF combos that the progressive new age guitarists were passing down the backline.
my dad bought my first truly functional amp new in +/- 1966. Taking The owner's advise, we walked out of the store with a Black Face Deluxe Reverb. Fortunately, at 71 years old I am still the proud owner. As soon as you started playing I knew the 60's amp. Much more "reserved". lately I've noticed Fender is packing too much volume and bottom into their CB amps. by no means is that bad... just different. If you're playing a 60's Deluxe with a "hard Hitter" you might do better w/a re issue. Again , I'm a big Fender advocate. My Opinion is that Fender Offers the most bang for your buck at any range. I know, I own 5 substantial Fenders ( four with black faces ). very nice video. Straight and to the point.
They both sounded good, but the new one definitely sounded brighter and louder. Despite what others have said in the comments, I think you did the right thing by setting the two amps identically. The goal of this video was to see how they differ in sound, not to see how you can tweak one amp to sound like the other.
This video has me wondering, though. How much can we attribute the difference to age? How much do inconsistencies in things like resistors, capacitors, tubes, cabinet wood, and the manufacturing processes factor in? For example, if you line up 10 amps built in the same model year, or even the same production batch, how different will they sound from each other? I'm sure things were a lot less consistent in 1967, but these being tube amps, I'm sure there's a fair bit of variation in the 2017 models as well.
I think some of the tone difference can be contributed to the speaker ages. The '67 speakers are probably more broken in. Both sound great.
The musician matters more than the equipment IMHO. I enjoyed' Rhett's playing on both.
I've owned a Deluxe Reissue for several years now, with the Fender Special speaker, and it has great projection on stage. Front end it with a Boss ME-80 to get whatever crunch I may need. It sounds awesome with my Rickenbacker 360/12 on "Byrds" compressor settings, and I can get a decent Edge tone with my FrankenCaster thru the ME-80. Coupled with a decent effects setup, you can't beat it for overall quality in my book, and it doesn't weigh a ton!
Your channel is gonna BLOW up, exponentially. Keep it up bro. Best regards from southern California
As bad as I hate to admit it, the 2017 sounds better in every way. I closed my eyes and opened them when something peaked my interest and every time it was the 2017 version.
I liked the 2017 better as well. however I feel like the 1967 would sit in a mix a lot better
See, I did virtually the same thing but with the opposite result. Every time I looked up to see, it was the vintage box. Go figure.
I agree
You really have to hear them live to appreciate the old.
Cory Waters yup same here, every single time!
Not sure if anyone else mentioned this but a better comparison would be to use the same speaker. Just run the 67 into the speaker of the new one via cables to compare. Bet they would sound nearly identical. Speakers make all the difference. And you could run the new one thru the 67 speaker. And the bias setting makes a big difference in volume and tone. I've compared many DRs side to side this way. Let me know if you try this. Thanks, Jim
I have tried 1958 vintage alnico's in my 2 DRRI'S and it helped but it still was not the same rich tone of the old. Remember about all the components today Fender is using are of lower quality, much of this adds to the tone and some to the robustness. They do not even use a silver mica cap, for the highs, a $1 cap you can get from radio shack to replace the one they use.
This is the first thing I thought. It was too obvious that amp A was the vintage one. The worn in sound of an old speaker would play a huge part in the sound.
What ever sounds even better,,lll. Pretty tone is was vintage ❤😂❤❤❤❤❤
There’s much more reverb on Amp B. How can you compare?
The vintage one sounds muuuuuuuuch better.
Interesting vid! Without headphones on, B sounded louder, a bit more full, but also a bit more brash. A sounded a bit thinner but had a softer quality. Could be the difference in speakers more than anything.
i have those exact speakers with my twin, i took out those original fender speakers because there was zero bass, whereas the jensens have a tonn. so that's gonna account for a large portion of the differences
Sounds like the speaker is the biggest difference. Changing the speaker in the new one might be the best thing.
What speaker would you recommend?
Throw a Jensen in it. Thatd chill it out, like the older one.
Caius Madison didnt the old ones come with jensens?
@@thefail1999 yes, for a while and then Eminence. Jensen is the magical key to the old Fender sound, in large part.
@@caiusmadison2996 a agree. Those old Jensens are warm.
I own a 1951 Valco National 12 watts with a 12 “ field coil Jensen in it.
You should hear that baby purr!
Different speakers make a huge difference. Just about everyone can hear the difference between different model speakers (although determining which is "better" is harder). But I'd also be curious about the tubes. I'd imagine the '67 had older tubes that were not as "hot" as they used to be, while the '17 had different tubes that were fresh from the factory. That may account for the difference in volume. Someone else pointed out about the caps - older cap that are starting to fail are likely to have less crispness.
It is for this exact reason that I believe that the older one is not worth DOUBLE the price for people who are not collectors. If you are a player, I would elect the reissue and buy new speakers.
Same thing I thought... “talk to me about the tubes in both amps...those alone will make a significant difference.” I hand built a ‘65 BF clone and the difference between NOS GE Reverb Driver and modern tube was HUGE on the amount and lushness of the Reverb.
My older brother found a 1967 Fender Deluxe reverb in an old house he bought to fix up. two years ago. Sold it to me cheap. All I had to do is re-tube it and replace the Pilot light a red jewel cover. I put a Celestion G12H 30 in it. That increased the volume a bit. It is still not quite as Loud as Re-issue, but the 67 is just a more pleasing sound. I prefer the 67 all the way. Price ?? If you can afford it, yes ! it is worth the price ! I got mine for $187.00 A Harley payment for my Brother !!
Well , he found out how much it was worth way later ! I got even with him for stuff he did to me growing up ! LOL
LOL!
My wife was helping a relative at their storage unit a few years ago and someone had left a guitar and amp outside with a "free" sign on it. She called me and asked if I wanted it. "Sure, why not!" I said. The guitar was a Strat copy that wasn't worth jack so, I gave it to my neighbor but, the amp was a TubeWorks RT2100 Mosvalve!
Free is a very good price!
I have a 67, bought it when I was in high school (that tells you how old I am). Never has been out gigging has been in my house the whole time. I loved your comparison, and just said yes, yes, yes. I had it gone through a few years ago. The guys in the shop wanted o buy it. I told them I had told my daughter she could have it ( and my 1969 ES175) upon my death. I took their card and said I would give it to my daughter and she would stop down after my funeral and sell it ( she doesn't play).
The vintage is definitely worth twice the price. Also I would have liked to hear with the speakers swapped to hear the difference.
3:35 this is gonna haunt me forever, that sounds really really bad in comparison
Lol, I knew exactly the section before I listened, it was the moment I regretted having the Reissue.
@@etoirelav i feel you, bro
Do instruments get better with age? I mean electric guitars not acoustic.
I have a 2003 Fender AV 62 Jazzmaster. After 15 years it feels well broken in and looks vintage but not messed up. My point is why would an authentic 1962 Jazzmaster be better? The Ventures recorded “Walk, Don’t Run” in 1960. Bob Boggle used a 1958 Jazzmaster, so it was essentially new. He didn’t use a 58 year old vintage guitar on it. Point is that our fave musicians from the 50s and 60s were using new guitars now that are considered vintage now. So why is vintage better?
James Gretsch often times, the materials used were much better back then. For example, the glue used in a 59 les Paul is no longer used because it’s not very ethical to use it, but it gave them better sustain. As time wears on, the lore of the instruments do as well. In many cases a custom shop guitar from any brand does the trick. Just maybe not as much mojo in the repro
If it was/is unethical to use the glue they used on a vintage 59 LP, then that makes them similar to blood-diamonds. Why isn't there the same backlash against owning a 59 LP as there is about owning blood-diamonds or wearing fur? - Not questioning your information or making some kind of statement / rhetorical question of my own. Actually just wondering why.
Start The Rebellion that’s a good question, however the glue is simply glue that we don’t use anymore, at least to my knowledge. It’s not really of the same magnitude. In addition to the glue, the wood was also much older and thus, more resonant. Glue was just an example, but it’s definitely a good question.
True, and there's political implications and human lives currently being lost over blood-diamonds in particular... as where the glue thing might have just been something like we realized the production of it was harming some species or the environment rather than an ongoing source of funding for brutal dictators, lol.
Ben Ewer they use hide glue in the custom shop still. Tite bond wood glue is what the regular teams use I believe
Guessed right I assume, cause i have one 1966 at home. BUT WHAT SPEAKER IS IN THE OLD ONE THERE??? that maked a HUGE difference....
the 67 came alive when you turned the volume up. Before that I was leaning towards the new amp
The fact that the 1967 is still around to compare it to the 2017 is what makes it so great. In another 50 years it can be compared to a 2067 while the 2017 will be long dead and in a landfill. Leo designed and built those old amps to be serviceable.
I disagree. The 2017 will still be around. I mean the early 90s when the reissues just came out are still around with all original parts. Which one would I bet would last longer. The 67 yes but I doubt the reissue is going to die in another 50 years. The only thing that makes the original more serviceable is the lack of circuit board but even if a couple traces lift in 50 years that's still easily repairable with a jumper wire. I work on amps is where I'm coming from with this info.
@@richiesguitarshanktuary6923 Good points.
So maybe the 2017 will still be around, but, replace some traces, replace some PCB mounted jacks and pots, replace a PCB, etc. -- the 1967 will still be more original in 50 more years than a 2017.
To quote Doctor Who (12th Doctor): “Question: you take a broom, you replace the handle, and then later you replace the brush. And you do that, over and over again. Is it still the same broom? Answer: no, of course it isn’t, but you can still sweep the floor."
@@richiesguitarshanktuary6923 Good points.
So maybe the 2017 will still be around, but, replace some traces, replace some PCB mounted jacks and pots, replace a PCB, etc. -- the 1967 will still be more original in 50 more years than a 2017.
To quote Doctor Who (12th Doctor): “Question: you take a broom, you replace the handle, and then later you replace the brush. And you do that, over and over again. Is it still the same broom? Answer: no, of course it isn’t, but you can still sweep the floor."
I mainly hope people that care about either will still be around!
The 67 kills the re-issue, not even close.
Yeah I guessed after the first riff Hand wired no comp
i agree. I have a new one my other guitarist has an old 1 and his sounds way better when its driven.
also he's way better lol
Both sound great clean, but I've found the vintage "tone" is warmer and thicker. I also noticed the gain/distortion on the older is far far better sounding. The 2017 is a great newer amp for the money though, really good reissue.
It's not even right for Fender to call these reissues when "Inspired by vintage amps" would be more fair. To me, a true reissue is as close to the original design and construction as is humanly, technically, and legally possible. That means that they should have used the fiber boards and point to point hand wired construction and the original circuits and not a circuit board to be seen.
A reissue should be so exact that its existence also means that now replacement parts are available to restore old original amps, FINALLY, after so long. There's a pretty decent market for those restoration parts alone.
If that were the case they would have to sell them for nearly the same price, if not more, and most player couldn't afford it and would rather have the vintage option anyways. The main difference is the speakers and you can get a pair of vintage Oxfords, which aren't made anymore, for less than $200 on Reverb.
People seem to forget that Fender is the original budget brand, making affordable amps and guitars that fit almost any income bracket. I scoff at vintage purists and for those prices, I'll take a handwired modern amp from nearly any boutique builder (Swart, Magnatone) rather than a 67 which likely needs new caps, per my ears.
Been to a lot of concerts where the guitarist was playing the reissue Deluxe Reverb so Fender did some things right. I do like the 1967 more in this comparison.
@JM Coulon The speaker is perhaps half the tone. Hand wiring can also means better caps, higher rated resistors, (1/2 watt vintage carbon comp verse 1/4 watt silicon ) better pots, switches, tube sockets, plugs, jacks, quality transformers....I have worked on both and owned a few DRRI's. So you can end up with a more robust amp that sounds better being hand wired,,, but not necessarily as quiet when turned down, the one possible drawback.
@@jacobl6572
Hand wired is definately more reliable.
Reissue sounds “fuller” but the breakup on the 67 sounds much sweeter
Easy choice. It's so easy to hear, even through a laptop set of speakers.. vintage please.
I happened to own a 94" DRRI and it cranks. I did put new caps in it & added a Weber Signature Speaker. RE: Your Comparisons, I prefer the '67 for overdrives and the '17 for clean sounds
I've had a '65 Deluxe Reverb reissue since they first released them, I think '93 or '94, played it for years with an old JBL D120 in it. I've recently retired the JBL and gone to a Celestion "V"...great speaker. I don't use pedals. I've also owned a couple of "real" '60's Deluxe's (I'm 72) and no two...original or reissue, are the same and all sounded pretty good as these two did. If your Deluxe Reverb sounds too "bassy" turn down the Bass knob. That's very likely to be why they have those knob "thingies"on the front panel. I'm not certain what this comparison is supposed to prove. The only real "test" is how the amp works on a real gig and I doubt that many could hear the difference in an on stage situation and after you hook up your 20 or so effects pedals, it won't matter much anyhow.
Good point. I couldn't tell a lot of difference between the two. I liked the 17's clean tone better, as it sounded brighter to me.
Both sound nice ,but I think I like the 67 sound better. The 67 has a more fuller mellower sound where the 2017 has a brighter sound.
They are both implementations of the same circuit, they are going to sound ABOUT the same. However, the cheap PCB reissue amp will be trash for sure in 20 years if not sooner, when the original is still as serviceable as the day it was made. (Assuming vacuum tube and parts availability).
Yes & No and maybe,,,,, there's a few variables that come into play.
General principle I would greatly agree!
However, the electronic components that populate the recent PC board amp have a much greater potential survivability and better overall ability in their consistiency than the vintage produced component. Parts such as old carbon comp resistors that are touted as being so magic vs the superior and ultra stable and bulletproof metal oxide and film resistors of today. The limited shelf life of bulky, temp sensitive electrolytics compared to the advances of exotic diaelectrics found in todays super-capacitors. Or for in fact all capacitors in general, especially when compared to that of basic foil paper and wax construction?! (despite a belief in some sort of voodoo magic that invokes special mojo tone, the favor for longevity, durability and tonal hair splitting precision can be argued as going to modern tech)
Also, you have to take a consideration of the serviceability of modern design vs vintage designs?
What is the likelyhood of servicing period.... On another slight tangient,,,, Who remains that is going to perform future servicing?
Music instrument electronics is probably the last remaining "consumer electronic" device that is still being repaired and maintained by a fewer and smaller infrastructure of specialized electronic repair technicians!
Ever notice how rare it is to find even a television repair shop?
Greater and greater of all forms of electronics are essentially designed as disposable or with a certain engineered target lifespan. Seemingly the consideration of technical obsolescence being the dominate criteria....
I am sure we are likely to see a similar existence of 1967 era vintage amps as seen today, as in say 2037 than the likelyhood of 2017 era amplifiers existing in 2037.
This is regardless of yet another consideration that comes to my mind. This is despite the actual number of units produced (surely 2017 production units exceed 1967).
Much of the 2017 production units produced will likely be deemed obsolete and have already been returned to the form of scrap metal or discarded as consumer waste.
While the remainder of those real vintage 1967 still standing today are already revered and collectible. They have been already maintained and will continue to be maintained with a growing number of modern component replacement parts...
On another all together different but similar point I wish to make or have others please ponder...
Do you ever wonder just how many Blackface amps were actually produced at the factory containing Spraque or other Poly "Orange Drop" capacitors?????
NONE!
Yet 7 out of 10 vintage amps must contain Orange Drops.... so go figure?
I’m pretty sure the differences are down to the speakers
I bet if you ran them both through an identical cab, they’d sound exactly the same
I think amp A is the 67. It sounds creamy and worn in.
Bad Hombre like a good pair of shoes 😂🤣
You can hear it. The tone is that great blues tone from back in the day.
@@TheMad0ne that got eleven thumbs up lo
BRG 👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻💦💦
You mean it sounds worn out - tired and out of energy. Lol
Question, how recently were the power tubes replaced on the vintage and when was the last time it was re-biased?
Nothing Fender can make today is comparable to the original Leo Fender amps,
Why is that
Old Hands and the original wiring that is sheath coated the new Deluxe Reverb don't have the 110 plug in adapter on the back of the amp the new one does. The electronic in the new amps are cheapened by usinf foreign electronics back in the 12960s and 50s everything was made and produced by Fender
As soon as I heard the hair on the amp A compared to the glassy sound of B. “A” was definitely my choice for the vintage.
The 67 sounds like you literally took a blanket off the amp when you play it. The note clarity and definition are light years ahead of the reissue. Handwired is always better. I don't think age necessarily have anything to do with the sound as much as the construction of the circuit does (ie: handwired vs. Printed Circuit Board).
Eric Kay just try to Move a wire in the wrong pace - causes harmonics It's a lot different
disagree, most of the difference you hear will be 50 + years of speaker wear and different components. There are many boutique builders who dont make their amps all handwired, from an electronics POV it's hard to argue a handwired amp sounds any better than a well built PCB amp. Toneking, Bogner, both amps well regarded in the amp world who's products arent handwired.
Amp B sounded way more 'modern' from the get go. Amp A was sparkly and resembled the original times but Amp B was just way more rounded, bottom heavy (flabby sometimes), and had that modern fender touch.
There are ways to get the reissue pretty close for the old ones - a few value changes and snipping of resistors and tweaking the tone path to get a little close to ab763
@@grosebud4554 ...... can you elaborate? Sounds like you have that down to a science. Isn't there a difference in cabinet wood as well? It seems like if Rhett had played the 2017 circuit through the vintage amp speaker in it's cabinet, that would have made a difference ...
It's like this there is nothing like a real vintage tube amp I'll take one any day you can keep your solid state amps
George Smith : WTF are you talking about? Both these Deluxe Reverbs are tube amps.
For the test, I would suggest either having them both consistently with reverb either switched on or off, but not mixed up for the comparison.
I really thought the difference would be smaller
3:24 The truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
Meenzer Gunsenum I was totally with the reissue and thought it sounded comparable... then that happened....
you nailed it. The reissue sounds like someone put a towel over the vintage amp
I'm with x Freeworld. I didn't feel capable of making a sound judgement on these two. I'm not a musician, though like most I've listened to music my whole life. Sounded similar. Then he began playing power chords. At that point the new amp sounded muddy.
Claiming the vintage amp to be double or even more than double the price is a bit misleading. It's more than 2-1/2 times the price!
i used a 66 vibrolux for concert venues....4 years on the road, it never failed me.three boss pedals and a volume pedal only.I also own a 62 brown vibrolux that sounds awesome.Totally different than the 66.
Wow, huge difference. 67 is ready - no processing needed.
The original probably has better tubes - old original RCAs etc. the new ones come withChinese crap or the like. That alone makes a huge differeence.
Ive had both. Old ones need maintenance- new caps etc. A new deluxe is 90% there and 1/2 the price. Get good tubes and dial in your sound- Bingo. Winner.
well tubes burn out ...
Do you really think it has its original tubes? Ahahahhahhahahhahahhah
How much has the old amp been served? Less bass could be due to aged capacitors.
It is the speaker, the c12k is a better speaker
His complaint about the 67 seems to suggest old dead filter caps. And because of the idiotic prioritis of the collector market, people leave that old shit in a lot of old amps. But whatever the state of the parts inside, the comparison loses any meaning when it's overlooked. This video is sadly useless.
I like what folks are suggesting about plugging these into the same speaker cab. But that was some lovely playing. You really made that Tele sing.
Late to the party, but I think the 67 just sounds warmer in every way imaginable.
300 Rivers ...agreed. The ‘67 has a sweeter tone, as if the vintage tubes and the speaker have been broken in, the frequency is right on. No wonder you’ll pay twice (or more) the price for one, if you can even find one in that nice a condition. It’s also way more valuable as a collectible.
I had a feeling that A was the 67. To my ears, this amp has lost something in time.
JACMUSTANGCAT the speaker has
Wow, I was convinced the vintage one would be Amp B. The newer one sounded way better in this vid!
As of Sept. 2022, the going price on the reissue is $1600 USD. Less budget minded than it was a couple of years ago. Used, you can find them starting around $900 for one in good condition.
Hey Rhett... Thanks for the shoot-out, but maybe the sweet-spot for the 2017 was not all controls set @ noon as where the 57's maybe was. Do you think the 2017 could have fared better in this contest against the 57' if both amps were dialed-in to their sweet-spots? -- Also, with a few mods... speaker change, circuit component upgrades by a pro, etc... do you think the 2017 could be sweetened up enough to be closer to the vintage 57'? I know that on many cheaper mics modding can go a long way toward sweetening them and increasing dynamic range.
In this case I did tweak the 17 to try and match the 67, and I couldn’t really get it close. The 67 has a sweetness and balance to it that the 17 couldn’t keep up with, I think a major part of that is the original speaker from 67. I think modding a DRRI can go a long ways but in this case the 67 won hands down.
Yeah, it definitely did.
No clue which was the older..but B was better.. pushing play
Budget minded but still $1100 plus tax - ugh. No thanks.
You can find these around $1000-$2000 used. There are some from early 70's that are just as good as the '67 IMO, and better sound and investment. Saw a '72 for $1000 recently. And a '68 for $1,650 which is not a bad deal.
I also found a '68 Custom Vibrolux for $850. There are deals out there and better investment.