Starting a 2204 build

SpiderWars said:
I do agree with @glpg80 that the 10k has something different/unique about it that it's nice to have the option. That plus an SD1 up front is still tough to beat. Just note that on the JEL there is another resistor to ground that is switched in simultaneously, so you're increasing gain in one spot but reducing it in another. That resistor can be adjusted but I think its 220k in the JEL. It would probably be a fuzzy mess without that resistor.
Click to expand...
I think you're talking about the resistor on the gain pot to ground? The #34 has it too, so maybe I'll also add that to a switch 😃

Are you starting to see that I like switches lol?
 
ledvedder said:
I think you're talking about the resistor on the gain pot to ground? The #34 has it too, so maybe I'll also add that to a switch 😃

Are you starting to see that I like switches lol?
Click to expand...
Yeah, I put both on the same switch like the JEL. It's in that schematic I posted above but I added the 470pF snubber to tame the brightness and my resistor is 330k.
 
SpiderWars said:
I do agree with @glpg80 that the 10k has something different/unique about it that it's nice to have the option. That plus an SD1 up front is still tough to beat. Just note that on the JEL there is another resistor to ground that is switched in simultaneously, so you're increasing gain in one spot but reducing it in another. That resistor can be adjusted but I think its 220k in the JEL. It would probably be a fuzzy mess without that resistor.
Click to expand...

It does get a touch muddy without adding a resistor, but I prefer it with somewhere between 200k-330k to ground.
 
ledvedder said:
Both? It's only 1 resistor right?
Click to expand...
No I mean the resistor to ground plus the addition of the 3k3//0.68uF to the 10k cathode resistor. They are both on the same DPDT switch. I drew the dotted line between the two sides of the DPDT switch in my schematic to signify they are the same switch.
 
glpg80 said:
That doesn’t make a lot of sense to me? A depth circuit is within the negative feedback path. Can’t add back in what isn’t there. The pole for 0.0033 is still very much well within guitar frequency range so there’s no concern for blocking distortion going smaller. I’d argue instead with the stock value 0.02uF will be of concern especially as gain is increased. A depth circuit would be most beneficial to add the punch factor by removing bass with the stock value.
Click to expand...
Well I know how a depth circuit works. My point is that by doing so you'll add the feel and weight of bottom end without the amp getting bloated and flubby with gain.
 
burger said:
Well I know how a depth circuit works. My point is that by doing so you'll add the feel and weight of bottom end without the amp getting bloated and flubby with gain.
Click to expand...

Many others don’t so dont take it personal.

I’ll simply agree to disagree. I just don’t like castrating a preamp and compensating with a depth circuit. There’s other areas that can remove bloat and sag.

Thin and lifeless is a much larger concern which is common for some of these mods. Adding gain without making an amp one dimensional is the real challenge.
 
Depending on what other mods are done, changing V1a coupler to 0.0022uF works fine. Many Jose mod clones mistakenly swap V1b instead. I mean, not really a mistake I guess, but keeping that second coupler 0.022uF sounds better to me. And yes... depth circuit is a must IMO.
 
FourT6and2 said:
Depending on what other mods are done, changing V1a coupler to 0.0022uF works fine. Many Jose mod clones mistakenly swap V1b instead. I mean, not really a mistake I guess, but keeping that second coupler 0.022uF sounds better to me. And yes... depth circuit is a must IMO.
Click to expand...

I've experimented with this at length and it's a good subject to discuss. One of my circuits hands down sounds better with .022 1st and .0022 second stage. The tone becomes richer and more "complex" in that scenario. My other circuit sounds better reversed with .0022 1st and .022 second. I don't only stick to those values and will vary them a bit. Even with the same circuit, but different amp, I adjust the values slightly to get what I want.

The Hellion "Ultra Tight" switch gives 3 coupling cap value options for v1a which is pretty useful. Look at Friedmans. The BE100 is .0022 on both of the first two stages (FAT switches 1st stage to .022). Talk about cutting bass early. But it works because the rest of the circuit is designed around it.

I absolutely subscribe to the theory of removing flubby bass in the preamp and adding it back with a depth circuit. They are different types of low end. Depth circuit being tighter, punchier, more percussive in a good way. But in the end, what works for you is what is right, not what everyone else thinks.
 
RedPlated said:
I've experimented with this at length and it's a good subject to discuss. One of my circuits hands down sounds better with .022 1st and .0022 second stage. The tone becomes richer and more "complex" in that scenario. My other circuit sounds better reversed with .0022 1st and .022 second. I don't only stick to those values and will vary them a bit. Even with the same circuit, but different amp, I adjust the values slightly to get what I want.

The Hellion "Ultra Tight" switch gives 3 coupling cap value options for v1a which is pretty useful. Look at Friedmans. The BE100 is .0022 on both of the first two stages (FAT switches 1st stage to .022). Talk about cutting bass early. But it works because the rest of the circuit is designed around it.

I absolutely subscribe to the theory of removing flubby bass in the preamp and adding it back with a depth circuit. They are different types of low end. Depth circuit being tighter, punchier, more percussive in a good way. But in the end, what works for you is what is right, not what everyone else thinks.
Click to expand...

Agreed. Bolded part is key.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top