CCV progress

[metalmaniac93]

I'm looking forward to the reviews of the new CCV. The first run builder did not do a good job at all. There were several issues with the build that had to do with grounding and design. I would much rather have one redesigned and built by George with Dave being involved than Barrang. That is a no contest for me. Also changing a transformer from Mercury to what one of the most accurate and knowledgeable reproducers of Marshall circuits recommends would be fine by me. There are better choices than Mercury in many applications. The CCV lacked mojo imo. It was stiff and somewhat lifeless. Cool amp but it got old quick for me. I want more feel in my amps. I have a feeling the new one is going to kick ass with soul and attitude. I'm waiting. I would blindly take a 2nd run over a first any day.

I agree about the build 100%, but the transformer for this amp is a key component in the Cameron sound. I know there are better choices as far as Marshall circuits, but the CCV is not a Marshall circuit. Just do not know why it would be changed expect may maybe to save money? I don't know?

 

[rlord1974]

 

[LP Freak]

I'm looking forward to the reviews of the new CCV. The first run builder did not do a good job at all. There were several issues with the build that had to do with grounding and design. I would much rather have one redesigned and built by George with Dave being involved than Barrang. That is a no contest for me. Also changing a transformer from Mercury to what one of the most accurate and knowledgeable reproducers of Marshall circuits recommends would be fine by me. There are better choices than Mercury in many applications. The CCV lacked mojo imo. It was stiff and somewhat lifeless. Cool amp but it got old quick for me. I want more feel in my amps. I have a feeling the new one is going to kick ass with soul and attitude. I'm waiting. I would blindly take a 2nd run over a first any day.

I agree about the build 100%, but the transformer for this amp is a key component in the Cameron sound. I know there are better choices as far as Marshall circuits, but the CCV is not a Marshall circuit. Just do not know why it would be changed expect may maybe to save money? I don't know?

You're wrong. It's very close to a SL circuit.

And all George said was there is a tech decision to be made on the PT. He said nothing about not using a Mercury. Besides most of the tone comes from the OT, not the PT.

 

[rlord1974]

Besides most of the tone comes from the OT, not the PT.

 

[VC4Ever]

This is an unfair situation for all the people who put down deposits or paid in full. I don't know of any business that takes peoples money and turns around and says we need to do more R&D on the product so sorry.

It sounds like no one is taking responsibility for this and someone needs to step up and get things done. The amps aren't even being built yet and that takes a lot of time to do in the first place.

I didn't order this amp but I know the feeling when you pay for something and have to wait indefinitely.

 

[peterc52]

I'm glad I didn't order one!

 

[Ampaddict]

I'm looking forward to the reviews of the new CCV. The first run builder did not do a good job at all. There were several issues with the build that had to do with grounding and design. I would much rather have one redesigned and built by George with Dave being involved than Barrang. That is a no contest for me. Also changing a transformer from Mercury to what one of the most accurate and knowledgeable reproducers of Marshall circuits recommends would be fine by me. There are better choices than Mercury in many applications. The CCV lacked mojo imo. It was stiff and somewhat lifeless. Cool amp but it got old quick for me. I want more feel in my amps. I have a feeling the new one is going to kick ass with soul and attitude. I'm waiting. I would blindly take a 2nd run over a first any day.

I would live to try a CCV with Marshall Tannys!

 

[LP Freak]

I'm looking forward to the reviews of the new CCV. The first run builder did not do a good job at all. There were several issues with the build that had to do with grounding and design. I would much rather have one redesigned and built by George with Dave being involved than Barrang. That is a no contest for me. Also changing a transformer from Mercury to what one of the most accurate and knowledgeable reproducers of Marshall circuits recommends would be fine by me. There are better choices than Mercury in many applications. The CCV lacked mojo imo. It was stiff and somewhat lifeless. Cool amp but it got old quick for me. I want more feel in my amps. I have a feeling the new one is going to kick ass with soul and attitude. I'm waiting. I would blindly take a 2nd run over a first any day.

I would live to try a CCV with Marshall Tannys!

You might not.

 

[metalmaniac93]

I'm looking forward to the reviews of the new CCV. The first run builder did not do a good job at all. There were several issues with the build that had to do with grounding and design. I would much rather have one redesigned and built by George with Dave being involved than Barrang. That is a no contest for me. Also changing a transformer from Mercury to what one of the most accurate and knowledgeable reproducers of Marshall circuits recommends would be fine by me. There are better choices than Mercury in many applications. The CCV lacked mojo imo. It was stiff and somewhat lifeless. Cool amp but it got old quick for me. I want more feel in my amps. I have a feeling the new one is going to kick ass with soul and attitude. I'm waiting. I would blindly take a 2nd run over a first any day.

I agree about the build 100%, but the transformer for this amp is a key component in the Cameron sound. I know there are better choices as far as Marshall circuits, but the CCV is not a Marshall circuit. Just do not know why it would be changed expect may maybe to save money? I don't know?

You're wrong. It's very close to a SL circuit.

And all George said was there is a tech decision to be made on the PT. He said nothing about not using a Mercury. Besides most of the tone comes from the OT, not the PT.

I agree with that but why not make the PT the same as what was used for the first run. Making a tech decision means they might be going a different route than the MM. I do not think the CCV is entirely the same as a SL circuit though. The Atomica yes, but not the CCV.

 

[metalmaniac93]

This is an unfair situation for all the people who put down deposits or paid in full. I don't know of any business that takes peoples money and turns around and says we need to do more R&D on the product so sorry.

It sounds like no one is taking responsibility for this and someone needs to step up and get things done. The amps aren't even being built yet and that takes a lot of time to do in the first place.

I didn't order this amp but I know the feeling when you pay for something and have to wait indefinitely.

Thank You!!! I do not think it will be a bad amp by any measures, just wanted to be almost the same as the 1st run. Am I really overreacting? Some think so, but I ordered the amp in Aug 2011 and paid in full in Nov 2011. So I should be expecting something the same as the first run as best as possible.

 

[metalmaniac93]

I'm glad I didn't order one!

 

[LP Freak]

I'm looking forward to the reviews of the new CCV. The first run builder did not do a good job at all. There were several issues with the build that had to do with grounding and design. I would much rather have one redesigned and built by George with Dave being involved than Barrang. That is a no contest for me. Also changing a transformer from Mercury to what one of the most accurate and knowledgeable reproducers of Marshall circuits recommends would be fine by me. There are better choices than Mercury in many applications. The CCV lacked mojo imo. It was stiff and somewhat lifeless. Cool amp but it got old quick for me. I want more feel in my amps. I have a feeling the new one is going to kick ass with soul and attitude. I'm waiting. I would blindly take a 2nd run over a first any day.

I agree about the build 100%, but the transformer for this amp is a key component in the Cameron sound. I know there are better choices as far as Marshall circuits, but the CCV is not a Marshall circuit. Just do not know why it would be changed expect may maybe to save money? I don't know?

You're wrong. It's very close to a SL circuit.

And all George said was there is a tech decision to be made on the PT. He said nothing about not using a Mercury. Besides most of the tone comes from the OT, not the PT.

I agree with that but why not make the PT the same as what was used for the first run. I do not think the CCV is entirely the same as a SL circuit though. The Atomica yes, but not the CCV.

I didn't say entirely...I said close and I'm quoting Mark Cameron if that helps. You'll see when you get yours that with the clipping off it sounds very Plexi-ish which is a good thing in my book.

 

[dawnofdreamx97]

I like turtles...

 

[metalmaniac93]

I'm looking forward to the reviews of the new CCV. The first run builder did not do a good job at all. There were several issues with the build that had to do with grounding and design. I would much rather have one redesigned and built by George with Dave being involved than Barrang. That is a no contest for me. Also changing a transformer from Mercury to what one of the most accurate and knowledgeable reproducers of Marshall circuits recommends would be fine by me. There are better choices than Mercury in many applications. The CCV lacked mojo imo. It was stiff and somewhat lifeless. Cool amp but it got old quick for me. I want more feel in my amps. I have a feeling the new one is going to kick ass with soul and attitude. I'm waiting. I would blindly take a 2nd run over a first any day.

I agree about the build 100%, but the transformer for this amp is a key component in the Cameron sound. I know there are better choices as far as Marshall circuits, but the CCV is not a Marshall circuit. Just do not know why it would be changed expect may maybe to save money? I don't know?

You're wrong. It's very close to a SL circuit.

And all George said was there is a tech decision to be made on the PT. He said nothing about not using a Mercury. Besides most of the tone comes from the OT, not the PT.

I agree with that but why not make the PT the same as what was used for the first run. I do not think the CCV is entirely the same as a SL circuit though. The Atomica yes, but not the CCV.

I didn't say entirely...I said close and I'm quoting Mark Cameron if that helps. You'll see when you get yours that with the clipping off it sounds very Plexi-ish which is a good thing in my book.

Yes, I am sure it is since it is based off the Jose circuit. Yes, but what about with the clipping on which is where the main Cameron tone comes from. I do love the Atomica and I probably could not tell the difference if there were different transformers in the CCV. Oh well, it is what it is, but I thought the new design was going to be exactly the same except the board flipped, but i guess not.

 

[LP Freak]

I'm looking forward to the reviews of the new CCV. The first run builder did not do a good job at all. There were several issues with the build that had to do with grounding and design. I would much rather have one redesigned and built by George with Dave being involved than Barrang. That is a no contest for me. Also changing a transformer from Mercury to what one of the most accurate and knowledgeable reproducers of Marshall circuits recommends would be fine by me. There are better choices than Mercury in many applications. The CCV lacked mojo imo. It was stiff and somewhat lifeless. Cool amp but it got old quick for me. I want more feel in my amps. I have a feeling the new one is going to kick ass with soul and attitude. I'm waiting. I would blindly take a 2nd run over a first any day.

I agree about the build 100%, but the transformer for this amp is a key component in the Cameron sound. I know there are better choices as far as Marshall circuits, but the CCV is not a Marshall circuit. Just do not know why it would be changed expect may maybe to save money? I don't know?

You're wrong. It's very close to a SL circuit.

And all George said was there is a tech decision to be made on the PT. He said nothing about not using a Mercury. Besides most of the tone comes from the OT, not the PT.

I agree with that but why not make the PT the same as what was used for the first run. I do not think the CCV is entirely the same as a SL circuit though. The Atomica yes, but not the CCV.

I didn't say entirely...I said close and I'm quoting Mark Cameron if that helps. You'll see when you get yours that with the clipping off it sounds very Plexi-ish which is a good thing in my book.

Yes, I am sure it is since it is based off the Jose circuit. Yes, but what about with the clipping on which is where the main Cameron tone comes from. I do love the Atomica and I probably could not tell the difference if there were different transformers in the CCV. Oh well, it is what it is, but I thought the new design was going to be exactly the same except the board flipped, but i guess not.

Well this is where team Cameron needs to spill the beans.

 

[metalmaniac93]

I'm looking forward to the reviews of the new CCV. The first run builder did not do a good job at all. There were several issues with the build that had to do with grounding and design. I would much rather have one redesigned and built by George with Dave being involved than Barrang. That is a no contest for me. Also changing a transformer from Mercury to what one of the most accurate and knowledgeable reproducers of Marshall circuits recommends would be fine by me. There are better choices than Mercury in many applications. The CCV lacked mojo imo. It was stiff and somewhat lifeless. Cool amp but it got old quick for me. I want more feel in my amps. I have a feeling the new one is going to kick ass with soul and attitude. I'm waiting. I would blindly take a 2nd run over a first any day.

I agree about the build 100%, but the transformer for this amp is a key component in the Cameron sound. I know there are better choices as far as Marshall circuits, but the CCV is not a Marshall circuit. Just do not know why it would be changed expect may maybe to save money? I don't know?

You're wrong. It's very close to a SL circuit.

And all George said was there is a tech decision to be made on the PT. He said nothing about not using a Mercury. Besides most of the tone comes from the OT, not the PT.

I agree with that but why not make the PT the same as what was used for the first run. I do not think the CCV is entirely the same as a SL circuit though. The Atomica yes, but not the CCV.

I didn't say entirely...I said close and I'm quoting Mark Cameron if that helps. You'll see when you get yours that with the clipping off it sounds very Plexi-ish which is a good thing in my book.

Yes, I am sure it is since it is based off the Jose circuit. Yes, but what about with the clipping on which is where the main Cameron tone comes from. I do love the Atomica and I probably could not tell the difference if there were different transformers in the CCV. Oh well, it is what it is, but I thought the new design was going to be exactly the same except the board flipped, but i guess not.

Well this is where team Cameron needs to spill the beans.

Yes, I agree!!! If it sounds great or as close as possible to the overall vibe of the CCV I am in, but we will see?

 

[Velvetgeorge]

I didn't mean to cause a uproar, just tyring to give an honest update.

Sorry if the "tech decision about the power transformer" comment ruffled some feathers. The fact is, every part of this amp has been scrutinized and considered over the course of the redesign. I won't give further details, I'll leave that to Dave's discretion.
Suffice to say that myself, and my impression of everyone else working on this, is that we know it's taking a VERY long time to deliver and it better be spot on when it is released. Correct tonally and to the original vision for the amp.

George

 

[steve_k]

Mark used the Mercury PT for the 560V B+ voltage. Patrick at MM has the facilities to make these custom winds to order for builders. I am sure some others can build them. The OT is probably a 100 watt Dagnal clone.

Todd mentioned a CCV with Marshall transformers - that would be one of Mark's two channel (dual gain/clipping/solo master) Jose designs (not all were set up this way) that was the precursor to the CCV. I've got one of them.

Steve

 

[Ampaddict]

Mark used the Mercury PT for the 560V B+ voltage. Patrick at MM has the facilities to make these custom winds to order for builders. I am sure some others can build them. The OT is probably a 100 watt Dagnal clone.

Todd mentioned a CCV with Marshall transformers - that would be one of Mark's two channel (dual gain/clipping/solo master) Jose designs (not all were set up this way) that was the precursor to the CCV. I've got one of them.

Steve

I have a HG Jose too and it kills. Would love to hear the CCV with those Trannys. Wasn't Suhr doing Plexi tranny mods for a while?

 

[steve_k]

Mark used the Mercury PT for the 560V B+ voltage. Patrick at MM has the facilities to make these custom winds to order for builders. I am sure some others can build them. The OT is probably a 100 watt Dagnal clone.

Todd mentioned a CCV with Marshall transformers - that would be one of Mark's two channel (dual gain/clipping/solo master) Jose designs (not all were set up this way) that was the precursor to the CCV. I've got one of them.

Steve

I have a HG Jose too and it kills. Would love to hear the CCV with those Trannys. Wasn't Suhr doing Plexi tranny mods for a while?

Check your email, Todd....