Can you add separate bass and treble controls to a Marshall-style amp channel with a single tone pot?
Photo 1
Hey Jeff,
I recently purchased a handwired clone of a Marshall 2061 JMP and I love it. But is there any way to add a bass control or maybe a bass-boost switch? I want the bottom end without losing clarity. The amp currently has high and low inputs for both the lead and rhythm channels. The head was a kit designed by Soultone Amps.
Thanks,
Bobby
Okay, Ask Amp Man readers, it turns out Bobby is local to me. Because I thought this might be a cool project, I had him drop off the amp. It has two channels, lead and bass, each with a single volume and tone control. We discussed what Bobby wanted, and it turned out that the single tone control on each channel weren’t cutting it for him—he needed more control over both the treble and bass. He already bridges the channels with a jumper (we used to call this “double jacking”).
I decided the best action would be to retain an individual volume control for each channel, and then install global bass and treble controls for overall tone shaping. Here’s a description of that mod, along with a couple of additional changes to enhance the amp’s performance.
Photo 2
First, I removed the original control set from the amp (Photo 1), leaving it connected as an assembly (Photo 2). This makes it easy for any future owner to return the amp to its stock configuration.
Next, I installed new volume pots in the front panel, placing them between the two sets of input jacks, each next to its respective channel. The other two locations can now become individual treble and bass controls.
Wiring up the volume controls is simple: The CW leg connects to the output capacitor for the individual channel outputs of the first preamp tube. The CCW leg goes to ground, and the wiper connects to the respective 470k mixing resistor.
Photo 3
Now for the tone controls: I didn’t want to add to the existing circuit board, so I simply built the tone stack by attaching the components directly to the controls (Photo 3). This, by the way, is the true definition of “point-to-point” wiring. I chose the tone stack values traditionally found in older Marshall amps: a 470 (or 500) pF treble capacitor, 0.022 ?F midrange and bass capacitors, and a 56k dividing (slope) resistor. The input to the tone stack comes from the junction of the two 470k channel mixing resistors. (The one for the lead channel has a bright cap in parallel). I disconnected the original 220k grounding resistor from this point, since it’s no longer needed, thanks to the new tone stack.
The tone stack’s output (the treble pot’s wiper) is connected to the input (grid) of the phase inverter. Since there’s no midrange control, I chose a value of 10k to approximate a mid-position control setting. This value could be anywhere between zero ohms (jumper) and 25k—or even higher, depending on your personal midrange preference.
Photo 4
That completed the new control set, but I wanted to make a couple of other changes as well. This particular amp design uses only two preamp tubes. One is dedicated to the phase inverter, so there really isn’t much gain in the preamp stage. Most of the amp’s drive characteristics are generated by pushing the output stage into distortion—which is great, since it’s a 20-watt amp with two EL84 output tubes. Since we added a traditional tone stack to the circuit, putting additional load on the signal path, I compensated by increasing the gain in the phase inverter.
Photo 5
I did this by decreasing the value of the cathode resistor of the phase inverter tube. The original value was 8.2k, but I lowered this to a 2.7k (Photo 4), noticeably increasing the gain. The other change I incorporated was to parallel the bass channel’s 220k mixing resistor with another 220k resistor to better match the level of the channels. (Photo 5). (I simply repurposed the disconnected grounding resistor.)
There you have it: a cool Marshall-style 2061 amp with full tone control. Now it’s a more versatile low-power gem. Enjoy!
Warning: All tube amplifiers contain lethal voltages. The most dangerous voltages are stored in electrolytic capacitors, even after the amp has been unplugged from the wall. Before you touch anything inside the amp chassis, it’s imperative that these capacitors are discharged. If you are unsure of this procedure, consult your local amp tech.
This entry-level 12-string is multifaceted and finessed.
Many players consider a 12-string an indulgence. In fact, that notion seems to be the raison d’être for the Taylor 150e, a guitar that the company designed as a guilt-free and affordable means to satisfy the occasional 12-string urge.
But the 150e is much more than just a serviceable 12-string that can serve in a pinch. It sounds rich and robust, it’s very playable and easy to record, and it makes a case that an acoustic 12-string isn’t only justifiable for the serious guitarist, but indispensable—especially at less than 700 bucks.
Flawless Economy
Though the 150e’s satin finish and the light hue of the layered sapele back and sides hint at a down-market instrument from 10' away, it is, somewhat paradoxically, close inspection that leaves you guessing about the price tag. The guitar is flawless—at every seam, at every joint and fret end, and in every last little nook and cranny where a less careful builder might stash an un-sanded bit of bracing or kerfing.
The layered sapele actually has a very handsome grain with a vaguely tiger-stripe pattern that almost shimmers in the light. The solid Sitka spruce top is comparatively plain. And the stark contrast between the pale spruce top, dark ebony bridge and fretboard, and the 1-ply black pickguard give the guitar a kind of two-dimensional look that you’ll either love or find lifeless, depending on your alignment with minimalist design.
Rigged to Ring Like a Mother
Some guitarists reflexively balk at acquiring an affordable 12-string, citing concerns about high action and poor intonation. There are no such issues in play with the 150e. In standard tuning, the guitar feels slinky and even just a bit rubbery and flexible under the fretting fingers. The 1 7/8" nut width gives the fretboard a spacious feel. Fretting a barre chord at the 9th fret doesn’t take much more effort than it does on a good 6-string. And overall, there’s a relaxed sensation to playing chords on the 150e that, depending on your experience with entry-level acoustic 12s, can be delightfully disorienting and counterintuitive.
Flatpicking and fingerstyle techniques both benefit from the spacious feel of the fretboard. Picking fast, articulate blues leads (or Roger McGuinn-styled lead abstractions, for that matter) feels unexpectedly natural and effortless. Fingerstyle picking-hand techniques also benefit from the string spacing and slinky feel—making everything from Elizabeth Cotton to Fahey and English folk feel smoother and a lot less clumsy.
Well-Mannered and Articulate
In standard tuning, the Taylor is a first-class strumming machine. As with any decent 12-string, 1st-position chords sound fat, alive, and absolutely twitching with overtones. The big dreadnought body is surprisingly responsive to a very light picking touch too. That said, you’re likely to be struck right away by a notable lack of oomph and boom in the low end.
Ratings
Pros:
Flawlessly built. Easy to play. Excellent harmonic balance. Rock-bottom price.
Cons:
Not a lot of low end for a dread.
Tones:
Playability:
Build/Design:
Value:
Street:
$749
Taylor 150e
taylorguitars.com
And this is not all bad. The mid to high-mid focus of the 150e makes it a breeze to record—especially if you use an acoustic 12-string to support a song rhythmically, à la Tom Petty or Jeff Lynne. And all things considered, sacrificing booming bass for balance and midrange emphasis is a trade-off most stage performers and sound engineers will happily make. It may, however, compel fingerstylists who rely on bass-heavy alternate tunings to look to a different guitar.
Despite the relatively quiet low-end output, the 150e excels in C and D-based alternate tunings. High-midrange tones drone and ring with crystalline presence and the warmth of autumnal afternoon sunshine. Overtones and harmonic details are abundant and clear. And even with a light fingerstyle touch, the Taylor feels animated across a wide harmonic spectrum, making it a superb partner for droning Celtic and Hindustani excursions and languid chordal harmonies.
Taylor’s Expression System electronics are a fine match for the 150e’s midrange-heavy voice. There isn’t a whole lot of dimension to the low-end response, but the system emphasizes mids without sounding brash (no mean feat) and the volume and tone controls are effective at taming more strident high-mids and softening undesirable string attack artifacts. Perhaps the only knock on the system is the odd-looking control set on the upper bout, though you can’t argue the effectiveness of the placement or the tactile response of the controls, which are both excellent.
The Verdict
Taylor’s 150e is a very thoughtfully executed instrument. Taylor’s designers rightly focused on the essentials—relatively easy playability, harmonic balance, forgiving, effective electronics, and positively seamless construction that would impress an obsessive aerospace engineer. The few concessions Taylor makes to keep the price low—the no-frills finish and layered back and sides—never crossed my mind while I played the guitar. The exception: the notion that a layered sapele back is a pretty good call if you want a recording guitar that zings in the midrange.
Sonically, the only thing that’s missing on the 150e is some of the low-end push and overall projection you’d expect from a dreadnought body. But for its hard-to-resist street price, the 150e’s balance, sonic warmth, and smooth, inviting playability are nothing short of remarkable.
Watch the Review Demo:
Before you can achieve your ideal amplified-acoustic sound, you need to have a very clear definition of what that ideal really is.
Almost all acoustic musicians have been confronted with the need to have an acoustic instrument perform in an environment that requires it to produce much higher sound-pressure levels (SPL) than it was originally designed to produce. In my last column [“You Can't Always Get What You Want," June 2014], I took the position that there's no way—using electronics—to raise the volume of an acoustic instrument so that it can be louder onstage and project better into a room, yet stillproduce a sound “just like my guitar only louder." Judging from the reader feedback I received, many agree, but some readers really pushed back on the notion. Let's continue the dialogue.
Any attempt to achieve your ideal amplified sound must first start with a very clear definition of what your ideal sound really is, and an understanding of how that ideal will hold up in a real-world performance situation.
Although this first step may seem obvious, it's often the very thing that's overlooked by players when first getting started on amplifying their acoustic instruments. I've worked with seasoned musicians who continue to struggle with this, and I've traced years of frustration and thousands of dollars wasted on gear to the simple fact that this fundamental question was never asked and that their all-important ideal was never clearly defined.
The ideal amplified sound is never an absolute and is a very personal thing. We each have a sonic image in our head of what that sound is, so the first thing we need to do is learn to understand where it comes from. Was it a sound you heard on a recording, at a performance, or simply something you just made up based on what you imagine your instrument actually sounds like? Once you've identified the source and context of this sonic image, you need to be able to carefully describe the particular attributes that are pleasing to you.
And therein lies the problem. Many players have trouble describing these desirable attributes in terms that will be useful for choosing the techniques and gear they will need to recreate this sonic image in a live setting. I confront this all the time during our team's design sessions at my company.
When we design a new piece of gear, we invariably reach a point where we have a critical-listening session to evaluate the performance of a new prototype. And these sessions always include a good mix of engineers and musicians. The engineers like to describe things they hear in terms of numbers, while the musicians tend toward emotional descriptors. This is all well and good, but the lack of a common language is a real detriment to actually identifying what is good or bad about a prototype. I'm constantly working with the engineers to think and express themselves more artistically, and the musicians to express themselves more technically.
I'm not suggesting that you need to go out and get an engineering degree or become a circuit designer. What I am suggesting is that you should get very comfortable with the operation of the most fundamental sound-shaping tools available today. Additionally, you should gain a greater understanding of how our ears and brain work together to sense and interpret sound, so you'll need to do some serious work on strengthening your critical-listening chops. All the years you've spent practicing your instrument or learning musical theory or writing music will be greatly devalued if you have to struggle to get a great sound while performing.
One of my fondest memories—and a compelling example of the power of mastering all these skills—occurred back in 1989. The great John McLaughlin asked me if I would build him a set of custom transducers for a new nylon-string guitar Abe Wechter had built for him. I jumped at the chance to work with John, but the catch was that he needed it designed, built, and installed in three days for him to use at a Boston performance with his trio.
When John arrived at my shop, we tried several designs before he settled on a pair of very sensitive soundboard transducers, because he preferred their attack response over the undersaddle design I thought would work better in a very loud band setting. I expressed concern to John about the top of the instrument being really lively and that the transducers were very prone to feedback on this type of instrument when things get loud. John simply told me to relax and that he could deal with it.
I went to soundcheck the next day in the large hall in Boston where they were performing, and when I heard just how loud they were going to be, I started to get really nervous. But as I watched John get to work, it was inspiring to me when I realized I was watching a master. The monitor-mix guy had a 10-band dynamic EQ in his gear rack. It's essentially a multi-band parametric EQ with dynamic suppression on each band, so the louder the particular frequency got in its own band, the deeper the suppression. And John was starting and stopping the trio and yelling out frequencies—not notes—to the monitor guy! When he was finished with all 10 bands, all the “hot notes" and body and top resonances were perfectly in control at ear-blasting levels.
In future columns, I will introduce you to some of the methods and materials that will help you beef up your own skills. Until then, I'll leave you with a quote from Leonardo da Vinci: “He who loves practice without theory is like the sailor who boards ship without a rudder and compass and never knows where he may cast."