so with my collection of preamp tubes...

rockstah · Post by **rockstah** » Fri Nov 10, 2006 2:40 pm

i hear ya man - i purchased a pretty big collection of preamp tubes and some power tubes. i will try them for sure.

5150loveeddie · Post by **5150loveeddie** » Fri Nov 10, 2006 2:54 pm

rockstah wrote:i hear ya man - i purchased a pretty big collection of preamp tubes and some power tubes. i will try them for sure.

I see you work like an animal on your amps, BUT you play them with JJs, WTF!!! It's like driving a Ferrari with $25 bucks cheap used winter (the one with nails for the ice traction...) tires on it....

rockstah · Post by **rockstah** » Fri Nov 10, 2006 3:00 pm

5150loveeddie wrote:
rockstah wrote:i hear ya man - i purchased a pretty big collection of preamp tubes and some power tubes. i will try them for sure.
I see you work like an animal on your amps, BUT you play them with JJs, WTF!!! It's like driving a Ferrari with $25 bucks cheap used winter (the one with nails for the ice traction...) tires on it....

ya know anyone that wants to buy some JJ's?

awangotango · Post by **awangotango** » Fri Nov 10, 2006 7:19 pm

that youtube clip is about the fattest i've ever heard his tone. It is not the sylvania preamp tone heard on alot of the Lp's though. If i was choosing pre tubes to replicate that particular VH tone on the clip, I'd say tungsram and mullard. The tungsram are super fat and don't get real distorted (at least the two i have).

rockstah · Post by **rockstah** » Fri Nov 10, 2006 7:24 pm

awangotango wrote:that youtube clip is about the fattest i've ever heard his tone. It is not the sylvania preamp tone heard on alot of the Lp's though. If i was choosing pre tubes to replicate that particular VH tone on the clip, I'd say tungsram and mullard. The tungsram are super fat and don't get real distorted (at least the two i have).

it sure is a fast tone - good wording there.

awangotango · Post by **awangotango** » Fri Nov 10, 2006 7:26 pm

almost 6550's ish . The fat quality is not just from the preamp section doesn't sound like. Maybe even the speakers contributing, reminds me of the kind of fat compressed high end i get with the 65W celestions. I do prefer his less fat, more cutting tone on the albums though. Less fat, more 'airy'

rockstah · Post by **rockstah** » Fri Nov 10, 2006 7:41 pm

awangotango wrote:almost 6550's ish . The fat quality is not just from the preamp section doesn't sound like. Maybe even the speakers contributing, reminds me of the kind of fat compressed high end i get with the 65W celestions. I do prefer his less fat, more cutting tone on the albums though. Less fat, more 'airy'

i was thining earlier today the greenbacks have more paper sound than any speaker it seems - this had the same sound - greenbacks

5150loveeddie · Post by **5150loveeddie** » Fri Nov 10, 2006 7:46 pm

awangotango wrote:that youtube clip is about the fattest i've ever heard his tone. It is not the sylvania preamp tone heard on alot of the Lp's though. If i was choosing pre tubes to replicate that particular VH tone on the clip, I'd say tungsram and mullard. The tungsram are super fat and don't get real distorted (at least the two i have).

Tungsram hey? Didn't try those yet........Many says good things about them hey??

Can you elaborate awangotango??

awangotango · Post by **awangotango** » Fri Nov 10, 2006 8:00 pm

I haven't had one in V1 in awhile. But from memory, they sound like a fat mullard with less breakup. Not for fast lead playing i don't think, since it might smear the notes a bit, but for stuff like early billy gibbons or kossoff or maybe even some page, it would be a cool tube to have handy. Not a huge difference, but the fattest pre tube i've had or played. Not fat in overall tone, but a certain kind of fat compression.

rockstah · Post by **rockstah** » Fri Nov 10, 2006 8:05 pm

awangotango wrote:I haven't had one in V1 in awhile. But from memory, they sound like a fat mullard with less breakup. Not for fast lead playing i don't think, since it might smear the notes a bit, but for stuff like early billy gibbons or kossoff or maybe even some page, it would be a cool tube to have handy. Not a huge difference, but the fattest pre tube i've had or played. Not fat in overall tone, but a certain kind of fat compression.

for some reason i equate less break up/fatter tone - slower tone -

more breakup with faster tone/focused/tight - enlighten me.

awangotango · Post by **awangotango** » Fri Nov 10, 2006 8:10 pm

a agree with that ..... a similar analogy might be between a set neck les paul and a bolt on neck strat. The set neck is slower and fatter, and 'smoother' (less distortion of the note) and the bolt on neck is faster more crunch, but less fat.

rockstah · Post by **rockstah** » Fri Nov 10, 2006 8:12 pm

ok so when i look for the tone for evh i think faster with break up and not so fat but open sounding.

awangotango · Post by **awangotango** » Fri Nov 10, 2006 8:15 pm

exactly, which is why he plays a strat with sylvanias. A paul and tunsgram sustituted in Ed's no. 1 amp might sound a bit like that you tube clip. It's a cool tone he's getting there, but it does not sound like the quintessential Vh tone heard on most of the albums. For all we know, he could be playing throug 6550's 65 celestions and a les paul in that show ?

rockstah · Post by **rockstah** » Fri Nov 10, 2006 8:17 pm

awangotango wrote:exactly, which is why he plays a strat with sylvanias. A paul and tunsgram sustituted in Ed's no. 1 amp might sound a bit like that you tube clip. It's a cool tone he's getting there, but it does not sound like the quintessential Vh tone heard on most of the albums.

hmm so which tube for that video and which tube for the early tone? using a strat with a humbucker!

awangotango · Post by **awangotango** » Fri Nov 10, 2006 8:20 pm

that video i quite distorted and sounds like alot of high end got chopped off maybe. So it's hard to say, but it sounds like juiced up KISS tone to me. Which is 6550 les paul. I still say sylvania/mullard for the VH albums.