SoZo NexGen Mustards

[rgorke]

Cool, got any before and after clips?

[Krinkle]

No NexGen 0.68uF/160V's ?!?!?

Whats the word on this?

Still wondering about the 0.68's.

Do we have to start a vicious rumor that the 0.68's can't be built to sound like the original mustards!

Seriously, does anybody know if these are coming? I want to order a full set for my Metroamp and my buddy's. With my luck I'll order without them and then find out that they are available and have to place another order and pay shipping twice.

Also, are these stock, or is anybody waiting, like before?

[EddyInChicago]

I emailed Sozo about 2 weeks ago regarding the 0.68uF value cap. I haven't heard from them as of yet.

[Krinkle]

I emailed Sozo about 2 weeks ago regarding the 0.68uF value cap. I haven't heard from them as of yet.

I get worried when I hear no response after 2 weeks, even if it is just a question about a missing value from a product line. Way back when, a lot of people had trouble getting Sozo's. I don't want to place my order and have it go into the void. I guess I'll be waiting this one out until I hear something.

[EddyInChicago]

In all fairness, I want to clarify something. I have purchased from Sozo in the past with no problems. Also, with regard to the 0.68uF (NextGen) value, I had emailed them a couple months ago asking them about the cap value in question. They responded quickly, basically suggesting that I should go ahead and order the regular 0.68uF and use that instead. I notified them that I prefer to wait for the 0.68uF NextGen cap to keep things consistent. So, as I stated before, approximately 2 weeks ago I emailed them again about that cap value and haven't heard from them as of yet.

I, personally, would vouch for Sozo and would not be worried about receiving my order whenever I place one. I'm just disappointed that the NextGen 0.68uF cap is still not available and the fact that I haven't gotten a response to my email.

[Roe]

the .68 is just a cathode bypass cap, its not a signal cap. the std .68 has a very nice, warm sound that works well on superleads

[Krinkle]

To the top!

I still think that it's silly/strange that there is no Nexgen 0.68uF. If these new caps are the dead nuts replacements for Mustards, then we need it!

What gives?!?

[Krinkle]

Just getting ready to order 2 sets, all excited as these caps are the cat's meow as per Dave, and the 0.68's are out of stock! Is this a sign that the nexgen versions are coming? We can only hope!

[BillYoung]

listen to this amp


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AnGsMAnmoi4

its not easy to get that tone.
is
think you need to do complete spectral and network analysis.

even tube are not linear and only matched at like one frequency, so to be honest they may match at frequency

of tester but do they match over entire frequency range they get used at. 6000 hz is a big component of most guitar

signals......personally I dont like 1 khz rather see it scooped.

I havent seen proper analysis of the real plexi, spectrum analysis over the range being used.

public broadcasting tested multi million dollar violins versus $30 k violins vintage last tuesday.

using blind folded virtusos's and the results were embarassing to the top violinists.

They felt and played them. Most guessed wrong on which was the multi-million dollar violins,

only one guy was in good humor about it. Just shows to go you how bad ears are.

Ears have to go from pin drop to full jet engine afterburner sound pressure levels and survive,

miraculous sound instruments, however any half decent audio analyzer is way way way better

at measuring and characterizing sound. Ears are logametric detector ie the decibel, and dont

detect sound levels in a linear way , have to increase sound levels by logametric jumps before even

the most discerning ear can distinguish differences, where as a good distortion analyzer can resolve

like .05 % distortion products, so even crude instruments can beat the ear hands down. This tells us

if we can discern difference in types of signal caps it will stick out like a sore thumb to audio analyzers.

This is not like putting man on moon engineering wise. A proper *(even crude analysis of say the black flag

marshall jtm50 with mustard caps and nos mullard tubes or like amperex bugle boys is easily doable,

but the tester needs to know which parameters are important to the subjective listener, which again

can only resolve logametric jumps. You need like bruel and kjar calibrated mikes (like owsley used for

grateful dead in the legendary wall of sound) and some recording analyzers which now a days are alot easier

to do with the computerization of test equipment. basically if we hear differences its going to show up by a ton in data.

So in order to duplicate the sounds, start with measuring the sounds in question , rather than the paper and winding pattern

of a RS deluxe transformer. To properly reverse engineer this type of equipment you first need to scientifically

determine the behavior and data of the electronic devices in question. Its kinda like audiophiles claiming the can hear the

capacitance of wiring a tube amp with teflon wire. Prove it scientfically. I dont buy it !! A virtuoso cant tell a 5 million

dollar violin versus a 30 k violin, even when touching and feeling it while its being played. And they probably have a much

more educated ear than a drunken eric clapton on heroin, or keith richards (worth 300 million $ ). It should be real easy to

measure the difference, I am sure nasa could collect the data in less tha a days time. This isnt close to rocket science.

Given enough paper and typewriter ribbon a monkey can type the king james bible (given an infinite lifespan)

and we can calculate how long it should take, but is it worth doing ? Alot of audio mythology is the same kinda deal.

If we can not hear it (discern the differences) then chasing it, is not worth the effort involved. So much of audio is pure

crap. The best studio tape machines in the world were really not workable above 15 khz, yet audiophiles claim to hear

the high end (over 15khz) in the recordings. Due to the limitations of tape head construction in sa a 2 inch 24 track Studer

tape machine those frequencies were not there in the master, so millions of hours arguing over the high end sounds in

audiophile equipment was all pure FU*CKING fantasy. I think the same applies to vintage electronics. If it aint in the

master it sure isnt there in the millionth duplicate of the master. I have an audio engineer friend who knows his shit

and we used to laugh. I had a big collection of mc Intosh tube amps and we tested an mc75 75 watt amp at 225 watts,

but the distortion was like 5%, however you can get 225 watts out of two measly 6550/kt88 s, which is asounding. You need

frank's special bifilar wound transformers to get it tho, so dont think a 50 watt jmp can crank 225 watts but i bet you can

load it down to a 100 watts. Mc Intosh made fine amps and there were many in the wall of sound system. Guitar amps

are very crude in comparison to say a mc intosh mc75 or mc275, but we want the cool distortion sounds. (cool being even

order harmonic distortion.) We dont look for signal to noise specs of say minus 92 db from a guitar amp, but its sure is nice

in a live PA System for a rock concert.



If I record brahms with a recording oscillograph and look at the paper print out would it be the same as going to a going

to a great performance ?

I believe we can hear the differences in changing a compliment of signal caps in a classic guitar amp circuit, therefore the

measurements should be glaringly obvious, Even a cheap pc based spectral display with a powered condensor mike,(has

three terminals on thge 1/8 male jack and cost like 5 bucks) is much much better than a human ear. So for christs sake

someone measure the spectrum of these guitar amps like the jtm50 tube rectifier, so progress can really be made. Its not

the signal cap per se we listen to, Its the electronic network of the capacitors in a circuit including the loudspeakers and

cabinet design. Ken bran said the speakers make the biggest difference between the 5f6a bassman and the jtm45 s, which

he determined to interchanging the components one by one. He was surprised by the contribution of the radio spares

deluxe versus the fender ( maybe a schumaker ??). This stuff scientifically is not quantuum physics, mathematically.

Probably people enjoy amps like they enjoy antiques, but the tone and sound are not the "patina " of an antique paul revere

silver set. If you want a louis the 14th china cabinet, then you may not care how a plexi really sounds, Heck I bet you

could isolate alot of the guitar from the original blues breaker album and characterize the "data" sound of the original amp

that put marshall on the map. the english couldnt get 100 watt fender amps or Les Paul guitar accross the pond, which made

marshall flourish, If leo could have suppled england efficiently maybe the plexi would not have even existed, and jim would

have just run a music store/drum shop. bill

[BillYoung]

listen to this amp


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AnGsMAnmoi4

its not easy to get that tone.
is
think you need to do complete spectral and network analysis.

even tube are not linear and only matched at like one frequency, so to be honest they may match at frequency

of tester but do they match over entire frequency range they get used at. 6000 hz is a big component of most guitar

signals......personally I dont like 1 khz rather see it scooped.

I havent seen proper analysis of the real plexi, spectrum analysis over the range being used.

public broadcasting tested multi million dollar violins versus $30 k violins vintage last tuesday.

using blind folded virtusos's and the results were embarassing to the top violinists.

They felt and played them. Most guessed wrong on which was the multi-million dollar violins,

only one guy was in good humor about it. Just shows to go you how bad ears are.

Ears have to go from pin drop to full jet engine afterburner sound pressure levels and survive,

miraculous sound instruments, however any half decent audio analyzer is way way way better

at measuring and characterizing sound. Ears are logametric detector ie the decibel, and dont

detect sound levels in a linear way , have to increase sound levels by logametric jumps before even

the most discerning ear can distinguish differences, where as a good distortion analyzer can resolve

like .05 % distortion products, so even crude instruments can beat the ear hands down. This tells us

if we can discern difference in types of signal caps it will stick out like a sore thumb to audio analyzers.

This is not like putting man on moon engineering wise. A proper *(even crude analysis of say the black flag

marshall jtm50 with mustard caps and nos mullard tubes or like amperex bugle boys is easily doable,

but the tester needs to know which parameters are important to the subjective listener, which again

can only resolve logametric jumps. You need like bruel and kjar calibrated mikes (like owsley used for

grateful dead in the legendary wall of sound) and some recording analyzers which now a days are alot easier

to do with the computerization of test equipment. basically if we hear differences its going to show up by a ton in data.

So in order to duplicate the sounds, start with measuring the sounds in question , rather than the paper and winding pattern

of a RS deluxe transformer. To properly reverse engineer this type of equipment you first need to scientifically

determine the behavior and data of the electronic devices in question. Its kinda like audiophiles claiming the can hear the

capacitance of wiring a tube amp with teflon wire. Prove it scientfically. I dont buy it !! A virtuoso cant tell a 5 million

dollar violin versus a 30 k violin, even when touching and feeling it while its being played. And they probably have a much

more educated ear than a drunken eric clapton on heroin, or keith richards (worth 300 million $ ). It should be real easy to

measure the difference, I am sure nasa could collect the data in less tha a days time. This isnt close to rocket science.

Given enough paper and typewriter ribbon a monkey can type the king james bible (given an infinite lifespan)

and we can calculate how long it should take, but is it worth doing ? Alot of audio mythology is the same kinda deal.

If we can not hear it (discern the differences) then chasing it, is not worth the effort involved. So much of audio is pure

crap. The best studio tape machines in the world were really not workable above 15 khz, yet audiophiles claim to hear

the high end (over 15khz) in the recordings. Due to the limitations of tape head construction in sa a 2 inch 24 track Studer

tape machine those frequencies were not there in the master, so millions of hours arguing over the high end sounds in

audiophile equipment was all pure FU*CKING fantasy. I think the same applies to vintage electronics. If it aint in the

master it sure isnt there in the millionth duplicate of the master. I have an audio engineer friend who knows his shit

and we used to laugh. I had a big collection of mc Intosh tube amps and we tested an mc75 75 watt amp at 225 watts,

but the distortion was like 5%, however you can get 225 watts out of two measly 6550/kt88 s, which is asounding. You need

frank's special bifilar wound transformers to get it tho, so dont think a 50 watt jmp can crank 225 watts but i bet you can

load it down to a 100 watts. Mc Intosh made fine amps and there were many in the wall of sound system. Guitar amps

are very crude in comparison to say a mc intosh mc75 or mc275, but we want the cool distortion sounds. (cool being even

order harmonic distortion.) We dont look for signal to noise specs of say minus 92 db from a guitar amp, but its sure is nice

in a live PA System for a rock concert.



If I record brahms with a recording oscillograph and look at the paper print out would it be the same as going to a going

to a great performance ?

I believe we can hear the differences in changing a compliment of signal caps in a classic guitar amp circuit, therefore the

measurements should be glaringly obvious, Even a cheap pc based spectral display with a powered condensor mike,(has

three terminals on thge 1/8 male jack and cost like 5 bucks) is much much better than a human ear. So for christs sake

someone measure the spectrum of these guitar amps like the jtm50 tube rectifier, so progress can really be made. Its not

the signal cap per se we listen to, Its the electronic network of the capacitors in a circuit including the loudspeakers and

cabinet design. Ken bran said the speakers make the biggest difference between the 5f6a bassman and the jtm45 s, which

he determined to interchanging the components one by one. He was surprised by the contribution of the radio spares

deluxe versus the fender ( maybe a schumaker ??). This stuff scientifically is not quantuum physics, mathematically.

Probably people enjoy amps like they enjoy antiques, but the tone and sound are not the "patina " of an antique paul revere

silver set. If you want a louis the 14th china cabinet, then you may not care how a plexi really sounds, Heck I bet you

could isolate alot of the guitar from the original blues breaker album and characterize the "data" sound of the original amp

that put marshall on the map. the english couldnt get 100 watt fender amps or Les Paul guitar accross the pond, which made

marshall flourish, If leo could have suppled england efficiently maybe the plexi would not have even existed, and jim would

have just run a music store/drum shop. bill

[BillYoung]

listen to this amp


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AnGsMAnmoi4

its not easy to get that tone.
is
think you need to do complete spectral and network analysis.

even tube are not linear and only matched at like one frequency, so to be honest they may match at frequency

of tester but do they match over entire frequency range they get used at. 6000 hz is a big component of most guitar

signals......personally I dont like 1 khz rather see it scooped.

I havent seen proper analysis of the real plexi, spectrum analysis over the range being used.

public broadcasting tested multi million dollar violins versus $30 k violins vintage last tuesday.

using blind folded virtusos's and the results were embarassing to the top violinists.

They felt and played them. Most guessed wrong on which was the multi-million dollar violins,

only one guy was in good humor about it. Just shows to go you how bad ears are.

Ears have to go from pin drop to full jet engine afterburner sound pressure levels and survive,

miraculous sound instruments, however any half decent audio analyzer is way way way better

at measuring and characterizing sound. Ears are logametric detector ie the decibel, and dont

detect sound levels in a linear way , have to increase sound levels by logametric jumps before even

the most discerning ear can distinguish differences, where as a good distortion analyzer can resolve

like .05 % distortion products, so even crude instruments can beat the ear hands down. This tells us

if we can discern difference in types of signal caps it will stick out like a sore thumb to audio analyzers.

This is not like putting man on moon engineering wise. A proper *(even crude analysis of say the black flag

marshall jtm50 with mustard caps and nos mullard tubes or like amperex bugle boys is easily doable,

but the tester needs to know which parameters are important to the subjective listener, which again

can only resolve logametric jumps. You need like bruel and kjar calibrated mikes (like owsley used for

grateful dead in the legendary wall of sound) and some recording analyzers which now a days are alot easier

to do with the computerization of test equipment. basically if we hear differences its going to show up by a ton in data.

So in order to duplicate the sounds, start with measuring the sounds in question , rather than the paper and winding pattern

of a RS deluxe transformer. To properly reverse engineer this type of equipment you first need to scientifically

determine the behavior and data of the electronic devices in question. Its kinda like audiophiles claiming the can hear the

capacitance of wiring a tube amp with teflon wire. Prove it scientfically. I dont buy it !! A virtuoso cant tell a 5 million

dollar violin versus a 30 k violin, even when touching and feeling it while its being played. And they probably have a much

more educated ear than a drunken eric clapton on heroin, or keith richards (worth 300 million $ ). It should be real easy to

measure the difference, I am sure nasa could collect the data in less tha a days time. This isnt close to rocket science.

Given enough paper and typewriter ribbon a monkey can type the king james bible (given an infinite lifespan)

and we can calculate how long it should take, but is it worth doing ? Alot of audio mythology is the same kinda deal.

If we can not hear it (discern the differences) then chasing it, is not worth the effort involved. So much of audio is pure

crap. The best studio tape machines in the world were really not workable above 15 khz, yet audiophiles claim to hear

the high end (over 15khz) in the recordings. Due to the limitations of tape head construction in sa a 2 inch 24 track Studer

tape machine those frequencies were not there in the master, so millions of hours arguing over the high end sounds in

audiophile equipment was all pure FU*CKING fantasy. I think the same applies to vintage electronics. If it aint in the

master it sure isnt there in the millionth duplicate of the master. I have an audio engineer friend who knows his shit

and we used to laugh. I had a big collection of mc Intosh tube amps and we tested an mc75 75 watt amp at 225 watts,

but the distortion was like 5%, however you can get 225 watts out of two measly 6550/kt88 s, which is asounding. You need

frank's special bifilar wound transformers to get it tho, so dont think a 50 watt jmp can crank 225 watts but i bet you can

load it down to a 100 watts. Mc Intosh made fine amps and there were many in the wall of sound system. Guitar amps

are very crude in comparison to say a mc intosh mc75 or mc275, but we want the cool distortion sounds. (cool being even

order harmonic distortion.) We dont look for signal to noise specs of say minus 92 db from a guitar amp, but its sure is nice

in a live PA System for a rock concert.



If I record brahms with a recording oscillograph and look at the paper print out would it be the same as going to a going

to a great performance ?

I believe we can hear the differences in changing a compliment of signal caps in a classic guitar amp circuit, therefore the

measurements should be glaringly obvious, Even a cheap pc based spectral display with a powered condensor mike,(has

three terminals on thge 1/8 male jack and cost like 5 bucks) is much much better than a human ear. So for christs sake

someone measure the spectrum of these guitar amps like the jtm50 tube rectifier, so progress can really be made. Its not

the signal cap per se we listen to, Its the electronic network of the capacitors in a circuit including the loudspeakers and

cabinet design. Ken bran said the speakers make the biggest difference between the 5f6a bassman and the jtm45 s, which

he determined to interchanging the components one by one. He was surprised by the contribution of the radio spares

deluxe versus the fender ( maybe a schumaker ??). This stuff scientifically is not quantuum physics, mathematically.

Probably people enjoy amps like they enjoy antiques, but the tone and sound are not the "patina " of an antique paul revere

silver set. If you want a louis the 14th china cabinet, then you may not care how a plexi really sounds, Heck I bet you

could isolate alot of the guitar from the original blues breaker album and characterize the "data" sound of the original amp

that put marshall on the map. the english couldnt get 100 watt fender amps or Les Paul guitar accross the pond, which made

marshall flourish, If leo could have suppled england efficiently maybe the plexi would not have even existed, and jim would

have just run a music store/drum shop. bill

[BillYoung]

listen to this amp


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AnGsMAnmoi4

its not easy to get that tone.
is
think you need to do complete spectral and network analysis.

even tube are not linear and only matched at like one frequency, so to be honest they may match at frequency

of tester but do they match over entire frequency range they get used at. 6000 hz is a big component of most guitar

signals......personally I dont like 1 khz rather see it scooped.

I havent seen proper analysis of the real plexi, spectrum analysis over the range being used.

public broadcasting tested multi million dollar violins versus $30 k violins vintage last tuesday.

using blind folded virtusos's and the results were embarassing to the top violinists.

They felt and played them. Most guessed wrong on which was the multi-million dollar violins,

only one guy was in good humor about it. Just shows to go you how bad ears are.

Ears have to go from pin drop to full jet engine afterburner sound pressure levels and survive,

miraculous sound instruments, however any half decent audio analyzer is way way way better

at measuring and characterizing sound. Ears are logametric detector ie the decibel, and dont

detect sound levels in a linear way , have to increase sound levels by logametric jumps before even

the most discerning ear can distinguish differences, where as a good distortion analyzer can resolve

like .05 % distortion products, so even crude instruments can beat the ear hands down. This tells us

if we can discern difference in types of signal caps it will stick out like a sore thumb to audio analyzers.

This is not like putting man on moon engineering wise. A proper *(even crude analysis of say the black flag

marshall jtm50 with mustard caps and nos mullard tubes or like amperex bugle boys is easily doable,

but the tester needs to know which parameters are important to the subjective listener, which again

can only resolve logametric jumps. You need like bruel and kjar calibrated mikes (like owsley used for

grateful dead in the legendary wall of sound) and some recording analyzers which now a days are alot easier

to do with the computerization of test equipment. basically if we hear differences its going to show up by a ton in data.

So in order to duplicate the sounds, start with measuring the sounds in question , rather than the paper and winding pattern

of a RS deluxe transformer. To properly reverse engineer this type of equipment you first need to scientifically

determine the behavior and data of the electronic devices in question. Its kinda like audiophiles claiming the can hear the

capacitance of wiring a tube amp with teflon wire. Prove it scientfically. I dont buy it !! A virtuoso cant tell a 5 million

dollar violin versus a 30 k violin, even when touching and feeling it while its being played. And they probably have a much

more educated ear than a drunken eric clapton on heroin, or keith richards (worth 300 million $ ). It should be real easy to

measure the difference, I am sure nasa could collect the data in less tha a days time. This isnt close to rocket science.

Given enough paper and typewriter ribbon a monkey can type the king james bible (given an infinite lifespan)

and we can calculate how long it should take, but is it worth doing ? Alot of audio mythology is the same kinda deal.

If we can not hear it (discern the differences) then chasing it, is not worth the effort involved. So much of audio is pure

crap. The best studio tape machines in the world were really not workable above 15 khz, yet audiophiles claim to hear

the high end (over 15khz) in the recordings. Due to the limitations of tape head construction in sa a 2 inch 24 track Studer

tape machine those frequencies were not there in the master, so millions of hours arguing over the high end sounds in

audiophile equipment was all pure FU*CKING fantasy. I think the same applies to vintage electronics. If it aint in the

master it sure isnt there in the millionth duplicate of the master. I have an audio engineer friend who knows his shit

and we used to laugh. I had a big collection of mc Intosh tube amps and we tested an mc75 75 watt amp at 225 watts,

but the distortion was like 5%, however you can get 225 watts out of two measly 6550/kt88 s, which is asounding. You need

frank's special bifilar wound transformers to get it tho, so dont think a 50 watt jmp can crank 225 watts but i bet you can

load it down to a 100 watts. Mc Intosh made fine amps and there were many in the wall of sound system. Guitar amps

are very crude in comparison to say a mc intosh mc75 or mc275, but we want the cool distortion sounds. (cool being even

order harmonic distortion.) We dont look for signal to noise specs of say minus 92 db from a guitar amp, but its sure is nice

in a live PA System for a rock concert.



If I record brahms with a recording oscillograph and look at the paper print out would it be the same as going to a going

to a great performance ?

I believe we can hear the differences in changing a compliment of signal caps in a classic guitar amp circuit, therefore the

measurements should be glaringly obvious, Even a cheap pc based spectral display with a powered condensor mike,(has

three terminals on thge 1/8 male jack and cost like 5 bucks) is much much better than a human ear. So for christs sake

someone measure the spectrum of these guitar amps like the jtm50 tube rectifier, so progress can really be made. Its not

the signal cap per se we listen to, Its the electronic network of the capacitors in a circuit including the loudspeakers and

cabinet design. Ken bran said the speakers make the biggest difference between the 5f6a bassman and the jtm45 s, which

he determined to interchanging the components one by one. He was surprised by the contribution of the radio spares

deluxe versus the fender ( maybe a schumaker ??). This stuff scientifically is not quantuum physics, mathematically.

Probably people enjoy amps like they enjoy antiques, but the tone and sound are not the "patina " of an antique paul revere

silver set. If you want a louis the 14th china cabinet, then you may not care how a plexi really sounds, Heck I bet you

could isolate alot of the guitar from the original blues breaker album and characterize the "data" sound of the original amp

that put marshall on the map. the english couldnt get 100 watt fender amps or Les Paul guitar accross the pond, which made

marshall flourish, If leo could have suppled england efficiently maybe the plexi would not have even existed, and jim would

have just run a music store/drum shop. bill

[JimiJames]

[BillYoung]

huhhh???????????????:)

[BillYoung]

I wrote george for copies of his capacitor recordings.

I found out that sound forge has advanced audio tool via Izotope, thus making it possble

to do analysis on pc, its not bruel and kjjar but it should reveal tonal character/plot data.

This would be orders of magnitude better than the best human ear and a good start to answer

how are phillips and bianchi different for say mallory 150 s and maybe Sozo's.

I was also given a link to
15 Marshall Plexi Amps Comparison - Shootout
Johan Segeborn

All amps played through the same '70 Marshall 4x12 model 1960 with T1221 Pulsonic Pre Rola Celestion Greenbacks. Guitar: '08 Gibson 1959 Reissue, R9. Hot Plate Power attenuator: -12 dB (100 watters)
-8 dB (50 watters and JTM45). The amps are: (Top to bottom, then left to right)
Amp nr: 1, year: 1966, 100 watt Super P.A. model 1968 (remark; bridged channels, KT66)
Amp nr: 2, year: 1967, 100 watt Super Bass, model 1992 (remark; Black Flag logo, EL34)
Amp nr: 3, (remark; not used)
Amp nr: 4, year: 2005, 100 watt Super Lead reissue, model 1959HW (remark; EL34)
Amp nr. 5, year: 1967, 100 watt Super Bass, model 1992 (remark; ex Free, EL 34)
Amp nr. 6, year 1977, 100 watt Super Bass, model 1992 (remark; metal panel EL34)
Amp nr 7, year 1967, 50 watt Lead, model 1987 (remark; EL34 and tube rectifier)
Amp nr 8, year 1967, 50 Tremolo, model 1987T (remark; EL34 solid state rectifier)
Amp nr 9, (remark; not used)
Amp nr 10, year 1971, 100 watt Super Lead, model 1959 (remark; metal panel, EL34)
Amp nr 11, year 1968, 100 watt Super P.A, model 1968 (remark; bridged channels, EL34)
Amp nr 12, year 1969, 100 watt Super Lead, model 1959 (remark; EL34)
Amp nr 13, year 1965, 30 watt JTM45 MKII, model 1987 (remark; block end alu chassis,tube rectifier KT66)
Amp nr 14, year 1968, 50 watt Lead, model 1987 (remark; EL34 solid state rectifier)
Amp nr 15, year 1969, 100 watt Super Lead, model 1959 (remark; EL34)
Amp nr 16, year 1968, 100 watt Super Lead, model 1959 (remark; EL34 12000 series)
Amp nr 17, year 1969, 100 watt Super Lead Tremolo, model 1959T (remark 5881)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dSqGwEgEUgg

which i hope may show the plots of the amp/speaker cab actual tonal character/ data

iZotope makes innovative products that inspire and enable people to be creative. Based in Cambridge, Massachusetts, iZotope has spent over a decade developing award-winning products and audio technologies for professionals and hobbyists alike. Used by millions of people in over 50 countries, iZotope products are a core component of GRAMMY-winning music studios, Oscar and Emmy-winning film and TV post production studios, and prominent radio studios, as well as basement and bedroom studios across the globe. Through a robust licensing program, iZotope also powers products made by industry partners such as Adobe, Avid, Microsoft, and Sony. iZotope was recently honored with an Emmy® Award for Outstanding Achievement in Engineering Development for its flagship audio repair suite, RX®.

For more information on iZotope products, visit www.izotope.com.

https://www.izotope.com/en/company/pres ... e-pro-mac/



izotope insight tutorial groove3
Insight Partner Tutorial
"Insight Explained" by Groove 3
Pro-Tools-Expert.com contributor Mike Thornton reveals all of Insight's secrets in this in-depth collection of video tutorials and get you using the metering plug-in like a pro. Mike begins with a thorough introduction of the plug-in followed by a full look at the Level Meter sections. Next up is the Loudness History Graph and then both Stereo and Surround Vectorscope tutorials. The Spectrogram and Spectrum Analyzer are explained and then Mike wraps up the series with a helpful Preset Manager tutorial designed to turbo boost your workflow.

If cant do it well or properly maybe some with real world experience might help out


bill billyoung606060 at gmail dot c o m