It is currently Mon Mar 16, 2020 6:21 pm

All times are UTC - 7 hours



Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 83 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
Author Message
Post subject: Re: Super-Sonic 22 : are the noise issues understood yet ?
Posted: Tue Jul 19, 2011 8:24 pm
Offline
Rock Icon
Rock Icon
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2010 12:48 am
Posts: 26417
Location: Tombstone Territory
When's the last time those auxilliary "modules" were calibrated?

:lol:

Arjay

_________________
"Here's why reliability is job one: A great sounding amp that breaks down goes from being a favorite piece of gear to a useless piece of crap in less time than it takes to read this sentence." -- BRUCE ZINKY


Top
Profile
Fender Play Winter Sale 2020
Post subject: Re: Super-Sonic 22 : are the noise issues understood yet ?
Posted: Wed Jul 20, 2011 3:54 am
Offline
Amateur
Amateur

Joined: Sun Jul 13, 2008 5:37 pm
Posts: 171
You know guys, this "ear bias/hiss level method" is what Fender used to tell everyone to do to bias their amps in the good ol' VINTAGE days...


Top
Profile
Post subject: Re: Super-Sonic 22 : are the noise issues understood yet ?
Posted: Wed Jul 20, 2011 6:18 am
Offline
Amateur
Amateur

Joined: Wed Aug 08, 2007 11:02 am
Posts: 123
yeah, the ear bias/hiss level method sounds "super-unsafe-for-tube-life", but the method was described in a very few of the late 70's silverface /early 80's II owner's manuals by Fender. I think it is still safer and worth paying $ for most people to take their amp to a tech to have it bias-ed; however if you know you're stuff, the ear bias/hiss level method works well for some amps like the super-sonic where there is a clear drop in hiss when turning the bias pot up on the hotter side.


Top
Profile
Post subject: Re: Super-Sonic 22 : are the noise issues understood yet ?
Posted: Wed Jul 20, 2011 7:48 am
Offline
Rock Icon
Rock Icon
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 29, 2010 1:20 pm
Posts: 9640
Location: Indiana
Maybe you mean the "balance" pot in the vintage days, as far as adjusting by ear? Totally different adjustments, many vintage amps had a balance pot, not a bias pot. This balance pot could be adjusted by ear to reduce the hum caused by an imbalanced set of output tubes. Don't know that hiss, or bias adjust were much of an issue back then, but hum (60 Hz) certainly was (no real amp ground). :idea:

If Fender ever recommended to adjust the bias simply by ear, I would like to see that. Maybe they did, and if so I would appreciate the enlightenment. Well, unless it was during the CBS era...... :lol:

_________________
---> "The amp should be SWITCHED OFF AND UNPLUGGED before you do this!" <---

Por favor, disculpe mi español, no se llega a la práctica con mucha frecuencia.


Top
Profile
Post subject: Re: Super-Sonic 22 : are the noise issues understood yet ?
Posted: Wed Jul 20, 2011 8:47 am
Offline
Amateur
Amateur

Joined: Wed Aug 08, 2007 11:02 am
Posts: 123
I know the silverface had a hum balance pot. The hum balance pot was used to minimize the amount of hum between the pairs of power tubes. I am confident I read the adjust by ear/reduce the hiss in a fender guide, but it may have been in a Fender Service Manual as opposed to an owner's manual.


Top
Profile
Post subject: Re: Super-Sonic 22 : are the noise issues understood yet ?
Posted: Wed Jul 20, 2011 9:13 am
Offline
Rock Icon
Rock Icon
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2010 12:48 am
Posts: 26417
Location: Tombstone Territory
TweedDogSteve wrote:
I know the silverface had a hum balance pot. The hum balance pot was used to minimize the amount of hum between the pairs of power tubes. I am confident I read the adjust by ear/reduce the hiss in a fender guide, but it may have been in a Fender Service Manual as opposed to an owner's manual.


You are correct -- I'm staring at that passage printed in my '78 Twin Reverb owner's manual. However, neither the hum-balance nor the output-tubes matching pot is a true bias-level adjustment. If you understand schematics and examine them closely, you'll immediately understand why.

Arjay

_________________
"Here's why reliability is job one: A great sounding amp that breaks down goes from being a favorite piece of gear to a useless piece of crap in less time than it takes to read this sentence." -- BRUCE ZINKY


Top
Profile
Post subject: Re: Super-Sonic 22 : are the noise issues understood yet ?
Posted: Wed Jul 20, 2011 10:37 am
Offline
Professional Musician
Professional Musician
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 11:49 am
Posts: 1153
Location: South Bay, CA
ruger9 wrote:

And again- mediocrity is in the hands of the player. Greg Koch can rock a SS far better than you can rock any of your vintage gear. This isn't personal- my point is the gear is mainly secondary to the player. As they say, "tone is in the hands."


I would be remiss without pointing out that Greg Koch, while a great guitar player, is a "hired gun" for Fender, and as such, will be playing whatever amp they need to move through the channels and extolling such amp's virtues. He's done the same thing for the VM series as well. Not a knock on him - it's just a job that happens to let him play music all day long.

I would also hazard a guess that given his main blonde tele isn't stock, his SS may also have been modified - better tubes, bias work, etc. Most people who have endorsement deals usually still tweak even signature gear.

I haven't tried the SS series so can't comment on how they sound.

Again to each his own, but we've all seen examples of great musicians hawking gear that left others scratching their heads.

_________________
Image
'59? Bogen Challenger CHA-33, '65 Bandmaster, '65 Tremolux, 65 Showman;
'74 SF Princeton; '77 SF Princeton Reverb; Dr. Z Mini Z

Our band: http://www.facebook.com/thetoysband


Top
Profile
Post subject: Re: Super-Sonic 22 : are the noise issues understood yet ?
Posted: Wed Jul 20, 2011 10:50 am
Offline
Rock Icon
Rock Icon
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2010 12:48 am
Posts: 26417
Location: Tombstone Territory
nedorama wrote:
Again to each his own, but we've all seen examples of great musicians hawking gear that left others scratching their heads.


Indeed!

Such as enigmas like this......

Image

:shock:

Arjay

_________________
"Here's why reliability is job one: A great sounding amp that breaks down goes from being a favorite piece of gear to a useless piece of crap in less time than it takes to read this sentence." -- BRUCE ZINKY


Top
Profile
Post subject: Re: Super-Sonic 22 : are the noise issues understood yet ?
Posted: Wed Jul 20, 2011 11:00 am
Offline
Professional Musician
Professional Musician
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 11:49 am
Posts: 1153
Location: South Bay, CA
I actually have that print at at home - that would be one that I actually don't mind, although I'll always think of Pete and Hiwatts, possibly the Vibro Kings.

_________________
Image
'59? Bogen Challenger CHA-33, '65 Bandmaster, '65 Tremolux, 65 Showman;
'74 SF Princeton; '77 SF Princeton Reverb; Dr. Z Mini Z

Our band: http://www.facebook.com/thetoysband


Top
Profile
Post subject: Re: Super-Sonic 22 : are the noise issues understood yet ?
Posted: Wed Jul 20, 2011 11:05 am
Offline
Rock Icon
Rock Icon
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2010 12:48 am
Posts: 26417
Location: Tombstone Territory
Hiwatts and Sunns for me.

Arjay

_________________
"Here's why reliability is job one: A great sounding amp that breaks down goes from being a favorite piece of gear to a useless piece of crap in less time than it takes to read this sentence." -- BRUCE ZINKY


Top
Profile
Post subject: Re: Super-Sonic 22 : are the noise issues understood yet ?
Posted: Wed Jul 20, 2011 12:42 pm
Offline
Rock Icon
Rock Icon
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 29, 2010 1:20 pm
Posts: 9640
Location: Indiana
Retroverbial wrote:
nedorama wrote:
Again to each his own, but we've all seen examples of great musicians hawking gear that left others scratching their heads.


Indeed!

Such as enigmas like this......

Image

:shock:

Arjay



It looks like Pete wasn't very happy in that photo, almost like he was caught doing something wrong. And apparently they couldn't get him to actually pose with the amp, looks like the ad makers "Photoshopped" the amp into the picture. :lol:

_________________
---> "The amp should be SWITCHED OFF AND UNPLUGGED before you do this!" <---

Por favor, disculpe mi español, no se llega a la práctica con mucha frecuencia.


Top
Profile
Post subject: Re: Super-Sonic 22 : are the noise issues understood yet ?
Posted: Wed Jul 20, 2011 12:46 pm
Offline
Rock Star
Rock Star
User avatar

Joined: Tue Aug 07, 2007 2:19 pm
Posts: 8827
Looks way before Photoshop. That's back when you had real photo retouch people. :lol:

_________________
Life...... It's sexually transmitted and always fatal


Top
Profile
Post subject: Re: Super-Sonic 22 : are the noise issues understood yet ?
Posted: Sun Dec 02, 2012 3:24 pm
Offline
Hobbyist
Hobbyist
User avatar

Joined: Sun Dec 02, 2012 2:47 pm
Posts: 32
Hey, All...

Bottom line, I found a quality 5751 in V2 solved all my problems.

I picked up my SS22 right before Thanksgiving. I took home a black one from one of the GC's here in the Dallas area. I really dug - no issues with burdensome HISS and the reverb was off the charts awesome! I had to go back after Thanksgiving because the MIDI footswitch cable was missing and I noticed a rip in the tolex (not a big deal, but since I had to go back anyway...)

I wound up just ordering a Blonde, which is what I really wanted and it was shipped directly to me from guitarcenter.com. Mine shipped with the amp upside down in the box. Not sure if this was for the tubes, I guess? It looked flawless, but was noisey as all get out. I had the channel pop and the reverb was usable, but weak compared to the black model I brought home the week prior.

So, after reading all the reviews, I became a little disappointed. However, I have spent this weekend rolling tubes and I am pretty pleased with the results. I'm an audiophile, so I do have a good stock of tubes at my disposal. I put in some NOS RCA 6V6GTAs for power, US RCA 7025s, and some UK Mullard 12AT7s.

The tubes cleaned up the HISS quite a bit and the reverb was a little more lush, still not as strong as the other amp. I did have terrible channel pop and noise on the VINTAGE/NORMAL channel setting. If I kicked in the VINTAGE/FAT, no noise. The BURN had no noise issues, either.

On the advice here on the forum, I popped a 5751 in V2. It's a GE NOS Military grade tube, not that it matters. Whoa, baby! Everything fell into place. Channel pop - gone (almost.... still can be faint), but the HISS went way down as well.

Anyway, kind of a long story, but thanks for all the input on the forum.


Top
Profile
Post subject: Re: Super-Sonic 22 : are the noise issues understood yet ?
Posted: Sun Dec 02, 2012 6:55 pm
Offline
Amateur
Amateur

Joined: Sun Jul 13, 2008 5:37 pm
Posts: 171
Thanks for the update. I preferred a 5751 in V2 on the ORIGINAL Super-sonic as well, probably would have done the same thing in the new SS22 (which IS still on my list)...


Top
Profile
Post subject: Re: Super-Sonic 22 : are the noise issues understood yet ?
Posted: Sun Dec 02, 2012 7:24 pm
Offline
Hobbyist
Hobbyist
User avatar

Joined: Sun Dec 02, 2012 2:47 pm
Posts: 32
Yeah, V2 seems to be the ticket. I just got done with a solid 3 hours of playing. This amp is everything I ever wanted. Now, my only beef is the VINTAGE/NORMAL is too quiet! When i bump to VINTAGE/FAT, the volume goes way up. Might try a matching 5751 in the V1.

I'm not dogging their Groove Tubes, but with this amp, quality tubes is key.


Top
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 83 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next

All times are UTC - 7 hours

Fender Play Winter Sale 2020

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to: