T-BOY...........Chiefton Reverb schematic.

 :

8/5/1998 5:02 PM
Benjamin Fargen	T-BOY...........Chiefton Reverb schematic. T-boy, Thanks to Ed Kozek, I have a factory copy of the schematic for a Matchless Chiefton reverb amp. I am going to scan it and clean it up tonight. It seem's like a hot topic and everyone wants a copy.......would you like me to send it to you so it can be added to the Matchless section of your page? Let me know.   Benjamin

 

8/9/1998 7:16 PM
Michael	If you have it available, I'd love a copy!     Thanks in advance,   Michael

 

8/10/1998 8:00 PM
Pat F	I'd also be interested in a copy if you can make it available. Thnx.   Pat

 

8/11/1998 4:33 AM
anonymous	ftp.firebottle.com/pub/schems" target="_blank">ftp://ftp.firebottle.com/pub/schems">ftp.firebottle.com/pub/schems

 

8/13/1998 12:49 AM

Steve A.

tboy:         That schematic is radically different from practically every design in the Pittman book! No "tone stack" per se, but it instead has the Bass and Mid pots after V1 and the Treble and Volume pots after V2... seems to make a lot of sense once you see it on paper!         What really throws me for a loop is the way they mix in the reverb at the driver/PI. I guess that would be using the common cathode as a mixer circuit... the reverb signal would be added out-of-phase with the dry signal, but maybe that accounts for the great sounds Ed mentioned when he added the circuit to his Spitfire. (Or have I figured that out all wrong?)     Steve Ahola

 

8/13/1998 9:06 AM

John Greene

What really throws me for a loop is the way they mix in the reverb at the driver/PI. I guess that would be using the common cathode as a mixer circuit...     Actually this method is used quite often. The AC30 mixes in the tremolo this way.     the reverb signal would be added out-of-phase with the dry signal, but maybe that accounts for the great sounds Ed mentioned when he added the circuit to his Spitfire. (Or have I figured that out all wrong?)     This would be true only if the phase wasn't already inverted. If the phase is not inverted by the transformer.....then it goes through 3 inversions before connecting to the input of the phase inverter. (is that enough inverters in one sentence?). So that would make it in-phase with the dry signal after mixing.     --johng

 

8/14/1998 3:12 AM

Steve A.

John:         I think that once the signal goes into the reverb tank, all conceptions of in-phase and out-of-phase are thrown out the window. I guess what I meant to say was that it looks like the driver would amplify the DIFFERENCE between the two signals rather than the SUM of them. Is that correct or do I have ic's on the brain?         I didn't see that circuit used on the AC30 power amp schematic here at AMPAGE, but did see it used on the AC50 schematic from Joe Piazza's site for mixing the Brilliant and Normal channels. If you jumper the channels of an AC50 together does it add or subtract the signals?         Your point about the extra stage would eliminate the "phasing" (of "non-phaseables") as a difference between the Fender and Matchless designs (assuming that the driver/PI subtracts rather than adds the two signals together).         Thanks for helping explain this Voxy-Matchless stuff to me!     Steve Ahola

 

Page 1 of 3

Next>

Last Page>>