It's safe. I do it with every amp I have ever owned. 8 ohm at the head, 16 ohm cab, or 4 ohm head, 8 ohm cab.Is this safe to do? I’ve done it a few times briefly by accident and remember it sounding a bit tighter/more focused, less thick
I actually like these in V2. Not sure why because I typ dont like them. But in a plexi V2 I think they sound good.JJs also but I’m with you; not a fan.
My favorites in most EL34 type amps including my ‘67 tremolo 50 and ‘79 JMP2203, but I don’t find they darken amps at all really, but would add thickness to single notes like the OP is askingMullards will work too.
Are you referring to vintage or modern for the Mullard and Tung-Sols? Because both are very different. The vintage US made Tung-Sol 12AX7’s sound to me very fat, warm, growly, but a little tubby, not at all like the current Russian ones. The vintage UK Mullards never came off tubby to me, but rather clear, open and punchy. Haven’t tried the current made ones actuallyCP Svetlana is like a Tung Sol with less top-end harshness. I actually prefer them to Mullards since Mullards can get a little tubby on the low mids.
Honestly, those Svetlanas are sleeper tubes. As clear as Tung Sols without the sometimes harsh high-end.
Thats exactly right and why ive been using them the last couple years.CP Svetlana is like a Tung Sol with less top-end harshness. I actually prefer them to Mullards since Mullards can get a little tubby on the low mids.
Honestly, those Svetlanas are sleeper tubes. As clear as Tung Sols without the sometimes harsh high-end.
No, I meant CP.Are you referring to vintage or modern for the Mullard and Tung-Sols? Because both are very different. The vintage US made Tung-Sol 12AX7’s sound to me very fat, warm, growly, but a little tubby, not at all like the current Russian ones. The vintage UK Mullards never came off tubby to me, but rather clear, open and punchy. Haven’t tried the current made ones actually
I have one Svetlana pre that can be good in some amps, but seems like it’s less gainy and thinner sounding than other pre-tubes I’ve got. I don’t think it’ll do what the OP wants in thickening single notes, but I can see maybe it’s characteristics giving clarity to some amps. Sounds good in my SLO. I would still look to speakers, cab or guitars first to help over pre’s, but doesn’t hurt to try it all
I see you’ve been reading TheToneDig’s book. How’s it so far?
I meant the vintage ones. I wouldn’t bother with current made pre-amp tubes in it, but guessing some will disagree. Greenbacks should be great with it, especially if pre-rolaI like my Greenbacks - I’m not changing speakers.
No, not currently using V30s.
The circuit could have a snubber cap added - I’ll experiment further. It’s nowhere near stock which is why I’m not traveling down that road.
I do appreciate all of the preamp tubes discussion. The change I need is subtle and not severe. I’m looking to tame high end and give notes girth on the top end, problems not necessarily inherent to Greenbacks but mainly my amp as it currently stands.
For those that mention mullard - are we talking NOS?
In fairness, it does seem like the guy is looking for a zebra to solve a problem that a horse could easily handle.
How exactly do Treble and Presence controls fall short in “taming brightness,“ exactly? The guy hasn’t even mentioned what specific Marshall circuit he’s talking about.
If it’s a modern master volume Marshall, Treble and Presence should work fine. If you absolutely have to spend money, put an EQ in the loop or something. You’re going to get infinitely more flexibility out of that than the extremely subtle changes you may or may not perceive with preamp tubes, not to mention their modern manufacturing consistency issues. Any given two of the same type could be brighter or darker, fatter or thinner, whatever. You never know with tubes these days. seems like amp or external EQ controls would be a lot more reliable and predictable to me at least.