Anyone ever remove the fixed depth mod on BE-100?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Jayy
  • Start date Start date
Jayy

Jayy

New member
I'm just curious on this. The fixed depth/resonance on the BE-100 is just a resistor and cap combo in the NFB circuit. It would be easy to remove and easy to reverse. Has anyone ever tried the BE-100 without it? I'm expecting it would reduce low end of course, but would it also make the amp more open or brighter sounding as well? Would it change the voicing beyond just the low end?
 
I ordered a 2016 BE-100 from Dave and he will mod the amp to lower the depth/resonance using a switch or a knob.
 
ReloadZZ":r43z9soe said:
I ordered a 2016 BE-100 from Dave and he will mod the amp to lower the depth/resonance using a switch or a knob.
Click to expand...

Cool! Be sure to follow up with what you think of the depth switch/knob arrangement and what you think of the 2016 BE-100 in general. Has anyone else ever had any experience with removing it on the BE-100? I'm just curious what affect it has on the voicing in general, if it makes it sound more open or brash, etc?
 
Yes. I had it.

I had Dave install a 3 way resonance switch on my 2015. More open and raw? Maybe a little but not a lot. Just takes away some of the low end.

I had my 2015 updated to 2016 specs. The 2016 version does not need the resonance switch. I had it deleted and a high/ low voltage (like the Phil X) switch put in its place. The 2016 sounds way more open and less compressed already IMO.

Just do the 2016 update with the TAD el34bstr's if you want brighter and less compressed.
 
Thanks for the info RedPlated.

In my case I play a lot of trashy stuff (doing a lot of triplets and palm mute), I want the possibility to remove
a little bit of that depth...

Here's a clip of the 2016 BE 100.

I really like the sound of the amp more open/punchy/clear.

Starting at 2min45 you can hear the depth(Whomp) in the background.

 
Removing that fixed resonance cap and resistor will only affect the low end; the 2016 versions I think Dave is using all the new Synergy caps throughout the signal path which would make the amp a little more open sounding. I changed from Mallory's to the NextGen Sozo's (same as Synergy) and noticed a pretty big difference.
 
Thanks for the input guys. I'm debating on whether I will try removing it or not.
 
I wouldn't remove it. You could lower the value
 
RACKSYSTEMS":13rsdvzl said:
I wouldn't remove it. You could lower the value
Click to expand...

Thanks for your input! Would you suggest change to maybe .0033uF or .0022uF with the same resistor value in place?
 
No lower the value of the 220k resistor. Say 150k or 100k. If you change the cap to a bigger cap it shifts the low bump to a lower frequency, the other way puts it more in the midrange
 
RACKSYSTEMS":3tyjipju said:
No lower the value of the 220k resistor. Say 150k or 100k. If you change the cap to a bigger cap it shifts the low bump to a lower frequency, the other way puts it more in the midrange
Click to expand...

Awesome. Thanks Dave! :thumbsup: I see what you're saying now. I think I may give that a try.
 
How about wiring in a temporary pot and finding the setting you like the most... then measure the pots resistance and replace with a fixed resistor? Like Dave said, changing the cap will change the frequency. More bottom you would use a .0047 cap. Less bottom end, you could use a .001 cap ( I tend to really like .003 on Jose type mods). When experimenting with a pot, try a few different value caps and let your ears tell you what you like. The depth circuit is very simple to mess with and can have some dramatic tonal options.
 
Make both the cap and resistor values variable. Instead of a resistor, put in a pot, say 1M, then route the cap still in parallel to the pot, but add a 3-way switch. Have say a .0022uF in the middle position and add either a .0022uF or .0047uf in parallel to the .0022.

In this case, you can select either .0022, .0044, or .0069uF and have the resistor variable....BOOM! Set it to where you want it.

In regard to changes for 2016 BE-100...I don't think Dave should have done it and kept the name BE-100. Every other BE-100 2015 and before is more compressive. The 2016 version sounds completely different than the prior, therefore not the same amp. Likewise, I forget the year, but a couple years ago, Dave stated the BE-100 at that time was and would be the "final" version.

Personally, I feel Dave should go back to the original design and tone and rename the 2016 model in 2017 to something else, like the "Clean Tight Shitter" (CTS-100) or Butthole Cleansing (BC-100) something!!! lol
 
Equ1nox":3i34fkpc said:
In regard to changes for 2016 BE-100...I don't think Dave should have done it and kept the name BE-100. Every other BE-100 2015 and before is more compressive. The 2016 version sounds completely different than the prior, therefore not the same amp. Likewise, I forget the year, but a couple years ago, Dave stated the BE-100 at that time was and would be the "final" version.
Click to expand...

What ended up changing? Is not as compressed; etc? I still have my BE mod (3-4 years ago) and I love it.
 
Thanks for all the input everyone. Just to follow up on this I never made the change. I have a Weller soldering station with variable power and plenty of wattage and heat for everything I have encountered up until now, but I couldn't get the solder joint on the depth mod to heat up enough to release the cap and resistor. That solder joint is freaking STOUT! So anyway, I just left it alone. I don't have a gun or tip that is going to remove it.
 
Equ1nox":384si25o said:
Make both the cap and resistor values variable. Instead of a resistor, put in a pot, say 1M, then route the cap still in parallel to the pot, but add a 3-way switch. Have say a .0022uF in the middle position and add either a .0022uF or .0047uf in parallel to the .0022.

In this case, you can select either .0022, .0044, or .0069uF and have the resistor variable....BOOM! Set it to where you want it.
Click to expand...

I personally don't care for anything lower than .0047. Anything more adds in too much bottom end and, from reading between the lines, the OP is looking to tighten up the bottom end? I like the suggestion of a 3 way switch though. I'd suggest a 500pf across the pot then possibly another 500pf on one side of the switch to get .001. then maybe a .001 or .002 on the other side of the switch. Lots of stuff to do here. Keeps it more in the Marshall realm. Just my .02. :)
 
Sure, why not (add switches to tweak to your liking).

.0022uF can good also. It all depends what your after and frequency and of course adding the amount with the pot or fixed resistors. The lower frequencies and values are versatible when using an open-back or tuned-port enclosure as opposed to closed-back as a lot of bottom goes out the door with open back and not focused. If you use a closed-back all the time, sure, probably absolutely no need.

Tweak to taste...and don't get electrocuted...that sux!!! lol
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top