ampage Tube Amps / Music Electronics	For current discussions, please visit Music Electronics Forum.

ampage archive

Vintage threads from the first ten years

previous: LFOscalator The 32's will give more sag -- mean... -- 5/3/2003 7:32 PM

Re: Plexi Marshall 50's: 50uf vs. 32uf

5/7/2003 8:28 PM
Mike Conner	Re: Plexi Marshall 50's: 50uf vs. 32uf I totally disagree tonewise in the non-MV Marshalls. I also didn't notice any difference in B+ based on 32ufs, 50 ufs, or 100ufs in my amp. The higher uF filters don't necessarily "tighten" bass. They give more bass, true, but this to my ears doesn't necessarily mean "tighter". The 32ufs yeilded the "tightest" bass in my 50 watt marshall clone. They also yielded a much more complex and open midrange. The 50ufs and especially 100uf (only on the plates, screens and PI, didn't try it in the preamp) sounded bassier but boomy. Tightness in the bass, in this case, meant less boominess and more midrange relative to bass, which sounded tighter. Kind of like the difference between a 6L6 and a EL34, or a Marshall 412 vs. a Marshall 410 - in both cases the former has more bass but the latter, to my ears, sounds "tighter" in the bass because it is more controlled. Now, with a high gain preamp, the bigger filters really paid off for tight thumping bass. But not with a Marshall SL preamp in my amp. I am totally sold on the 32 ufs for non-MV Marshalls. I think the 50 ufs LCRs were probably used for years in Marshalls due to availability, not for any tonal reason.

5/7/2003 8:28 PM

Mike Conner

Re: Plexi Marshall 50's: 50uf vs. 32uf

I totally disagree tonewise in the non-MV Marshalls. I also didn't notice any difference in B+ based on 32ufs, 50 ufs, or 100ufs in my amp.

The higher uF filters don't necessarily "tighten" bass. They give more bass, true, but this to my ears doesn't necessarily mean "tighter". The 32ufs yeilded the "tightest" bass in my 50 watt marshall clone. They also yielded a much more complex and open midrange.

The 50ufs and especially 100uf (only on the plates, screens and PI, didn't try it in the preamp) sounded bassier but boomy. Tightness in the bass, in this case, meant less boominess and more midrange relative to bass, which sounded tighter. Kind of like the difference between a 6L6 and a EL34, or a Marshall 412 vs. a Marshall 410 - in both cases the former has more bass but the latter, to my ears, sounds "tighter" in the bass because it is more controlled.

Now, with a high gain preamp, the bigger filters really paid off for tight thumping bass. But not with a Marshall SL preamp in my amp. I am totally sold on the 32 ufs for non-MV Marshalls. I think the 50 ufs LCRs were probably used for years in Marshalls due to availability, not for any tonal reason.