Marshall Major 1967

[terminalgs]

regarding the notion of lowering the B+ voltage and hoping to get the same sound as the higher voltage Major,  I'm reminded of the attempt that many have tried and failed to convert Sound City amps into Hiwatts.  It seems tempting,  there are those imposing great partridge transformers,  a nearly identical layout, chassis, and build style,  very very similar power section design and phase inverter section, and well, it seems the only difference is the preamp...  So, gut the SC's preamp, install a Hiwatt preamp, and voila~!! right?


I once thought this too!! but the part of the magic of the hiwatts,  and what significantly separates SC's from Hiwatts is the voltage on the plates.  BIG PART!!! 


The 6xEL34 Hiwatt DR200 has 650V on the plates, the 5xEL34 SC LB120 has 375V. No where even close!  a LB120 with a hiwatt preamp != DR200.  The same with all the others.  the only one that might come close  is the SC LB50 @ 420V and the DR506 @ 460V.


if you lower the voltage, reduce the tube count, etc...  you might end up with a nice sounding amp, but I doubt it'd be a  miny  Major.  build the real thing, send the family to see Frozen-II, lower the shades.., etc..

[Ritchie200]

if you lower the voltage, reduce the tube count, etc...  you might end up with a nice sounding amp, but I doubt it'd be a  miny  Major.  build the real thing, send the family to see Frozen-II, lower the shades.., etc..

HAHA!  I do that already! 

I guess what peaked my interest was that Michael R/T is playing his amp in what basically looks like a closet.  I guarantee you that the master is on 1.  SOOO, he was able to get incredibly close to the Cal Jam tone at an incredibly low volume with the OWM and PPIMV.  My thoughts were that if we could get a power section that was controllable, we could have a REALLY cool thing.  Will it sound exactly like the videos I just posted - no way to my ears.  But I'd be willing to bet we have the folks here to push, pull, swap, and tweak to get it sounding pretty darn close, and I'd be willing to bet that only a very small handful of people could tell the diference.  Yes, my pants flapping in the 625v on the plates dB breeze was golden and there is no substitute for big tubes working hard and speakers moving a lot of air, but that breeze also grabbed some of my hearing.

Speaking of Hiwatt (besides the many, many variations of circuits for the same amp), if you notice in the Cal Jam video, Glenn Hughes is playing through two 200watt DR201's (KT88 versions) on top of those huge reflex bins.  Ritchie's amp tech told me that he could not turn them up past 6 or 7 because those open frame Partridge tranny's would feed back.  As awesome as the stacks looked, he was not very loud at all.  Keith Emerson had the same problem with his.  Early design flaw?  Another useless factoid rattling around in my head...

Jim

[PRR]

> I can not imagine not having enough headroom even playing in a small club with a 30w

Then grab Dyna 35W iron. It is very fine quality. It has UL taps. Dyna worked two EL34 pretty hard, but 6550/KT88 can be used the same way (bit more G1 bias and drive). Dyna 35s are good hi-fi amps but they are also fine PARTY!! amps with a pleasant distortion.

Dyna had an all-purpose driver, which is fine, but I think for your purposes you may as well stay with the Major's driver.

[jazbo8]

I guess what peaked my interest was that Michael R/T is playing his amp in what basically looks like a closet.  I guarantee you that the master is on 1. 

Here is MichaelR/T's settings used on the videos: " I plug my guitar into channel II then turn Channel I and Channel II volume up to 10, then keep the (PPIMV) Master Volume around 4 to control the overall volume. Than to add extra gain and crunch I use a 1/4 male jack only with no cable attached to it. I take this plug and stick it into channel 1 jack (high or low) and "bingo" it bring the amp right over the top in gain." from here.

So with PPIMV on 4, the the output stage would be nowhere near clipping, what we hear is nearly all preamp distortion (pretty much square wave), so that begs the question, just how much do the KT88 and the UL OPT contribute to the tone?  5%? 10%? Who knows...

[Ed_Chambley]

I prefer this tone.




Child in time (Made in Japan) - Blackmore's solo






Here is the Reel to Reel tone, but with killer vocals.  Love this lineup.


Rainbow - Stargazer

[SILVERGUN]

I prefer this tone.

Me too....
So much so that I skipped lunch all week and pulled the trigger on some toobs

You guys will have to tell me if I made a mistake or not, because I got a little trigger happy with a NIB pair of Mesa Boogers for $50
And I have no point of reference to compare them to 

At least they may have been matched/tested by someone with a Mesa T-shirt on....that's gotta be good for something right?
 

[Ritchie200]

SG

Well, the net says they are either Russian or Chinese - you are welcome for that info!   The net also says they are good solid toobs, but nothing to write home about tone wise, or they are really good, or they are just ok - you are welcome for that info too!  They do say that Mesa does have a pretty rigorous testing procedure.  And $50 a pair is a deeeeel!  If you are going to use Jeff's lower plate voltage, even the crap will live a long life.  The mesa's are running mid 500v so these have to be pretty decent.

Here is another example of my favorite things!

Jim

Lazy - Deep Purple [Made in Japan 1972] (Remastered Edition)

[DummyLoad]

that was one of my favorite wake_n_bake albums...


--pete

[Ritchie200]

Pete,
You forgot the munch!  I think this is the best live album ever.  If you listen to it in it's entirety, you can certainly get a sense of how incredibly diverse, talented, and tight, the MKII version was.  Just incredible.

Ok, not to duplicate, but I think this is important.  The first Cal Jam Burn video I posted was from the ABC video feed probably pulled off the board.  The show was simulcast on a local FM station who had placed several mics on stage.  Some guy synced up the video with the radio station's audio feed and posted it.  If you listen close you can tell a HUGE difference in Ritchie's Major tone as the radio stations mics actually sound much better than the compressed, flat sounding video feed.  This is a MUCH better reference of the Major's tone at the time.

Jim

Deep Purple / Burn / 1974 California Jam

[Ritchie200]

One more with some really good solo stuff.


Deep Purple / You Fool No One - Mule / 1974 California Jam

[jazbo8]

At least they may have been matched/tested by someone with a Mesa T-shirt on....that's gotta be good for something right?
 

More than good for something...

[Ed_Chambley]

that was one of my favorite wake_n_bake albums...


--pete

So you no longer listen to Deep Purple during morning activities.

[DummyLoad]

no sir i don't. i got burned out.


pun intended.   


--pete

[jojokeo]

At least they may have been matched/tested by someone with a Mesa T-shirt on....that's gotta be good for something right?
 

More than good for something...

Questions: are they a matched pair, self biased, ultra linear, any negative feedback?

[mAx___]

Hi guys,

I wanted to contribute my experience with a 2xKT88 Major build that I've had for the past two years. I was directed to this thread by a friend of mine who is thinking about building one too. After considering the RBMM route for a while I decided it was going to cost me too much so I commissioned it to the guy who showed the most enthusiasm about the project, Union Jack Amps in Seattle. I'm very happy with the quality of the build and the amp's sound. These are the specs I gave him FWIW:

- 2xKT88 (Gold Lions for now)
- 2xECC83 + 1xECC82
- UL MM OT
- Lead circuit
- PPIMV
- OWM (added later)
- Variable Negative Feedback.

After several sound tests I ditched all other forms of lowering the amp's volume in favour of the Rivera Rockcrusher and an isolation cab I made for less than $150. Nothing sounds better in this amp to my ears than pushing those KT88 to the max. PPIMV won't give you that. The OWM is too noisy and the distortion is too wild. I never use it. IMO this amp sounds at its best like Blackmore used to play it: With treble boosters (MKII) or the AIWA preamp (MKIII).
Here are two sound tests I recorded using the original Machine Head backing tracks and a Hornby Skewes booster that I built. I hope you guys like them:

http://youtu.be/RyeWVwsDVhQ?list=UU2MhqnWNx1yl5Qr3bLjdy0g

http://youtu.be/M6pljHMnHe0?list=UU2MhqnWNx1yl5Qr3bLjdy0g

[jojokeo]

After several sound tests I ditched all other forms of lowering the amp's volume in favour of the Rivera Rockcrusher and an isolation cab I made for less than $150. Nothing sounds better in this amp to my ears than pushing those KT88 to the max. PPIMV won't give you that. The OWM is too noisy and the distortion is too wild. I never use it. IMO this amp sounds at its best like Blackmore used to play it: With treble boosters (MKII) or the AIWA preamp (MKIII).

Max - welcome to the forum! Thanks for the contributions, the tone sounded pretty spot on. I especially like the Lazy vid example and playing.
 
You also confirmed what I'd been saying about trying to make it differently yet expecting the same or even similar sound & performance. It just isn't the same. If one realizes this and is okay with it then great. But it's not reasonable otherwise.
 
For me in my Dumble & 18watt builds putting extra gain stages in didn't an amp make. They became one trick ponies. But if that's what someone wants is a bedroom or special recording amp full of gain, then fine. But, they don't make for practical performing amplifiers. All that gain just isn't practical or useable in a performance setting.
 
Just as Jim keeps insisting on the use of KT88s, doing something that diminishes and/or overshadows them reduces the amp into something else. And anything else then is just not the Marshall Major or even a Minor.

[Ritchie200]

Hey Max, welcome to the forum!  It's nice to see another KT88 abuser holding the flag!  Very nice chops!


I've seen the Union Jack 200 watt Major amps on fleabay.  It looks like they do very nice work!  That is pretty cool that they built one custom for you.


Per Ritchie's tech he ditched the HS live after Marshall did the OWM with the light bulb limiters around the Fireball album - although Ritchie still used the HS for recording, presumably at lower volumes.  The MkIII was as you said adding the Aiwa push.  Then his tech built a 12ax7 treble booster into his Major for the Rainbow days using the unused PA tube knockout. (See pic below)


Like you said, I am a huge fan of working these tubes hard and as I said many times in this thread, I think it is a large part of what makes this amp sound so fantastic and unique.  However, as you probably know, it comes at a high dB cost.  That was what was so great about Michaels video.  I think he was able to capture some of that magic at a lower volume.

[DummyLoad]

max, thanks for the feedback and clips.


--pete

[mAx___]

Thank you so much guys, I'm glad you liked the tests. I'm surprised at how well it's holding up, I play it always at full volume with the treble booster and other than having to replace KT88 pairs every few months it doesn't even run too hot. I think I'm biasing the tubes at around 35mA or less.

[TIMBO]

Hi guys, After mulling over the Holden Wasp schem things became strangely similar to the MAJOR. Because it had been modded and the original schematics were only traces of other models and a weird PI that had a tube between it and the power tubes.

When I finally was able to nut out the probable preamp, it then looked similar a Marshall pre, just some slight changes to component values that would not have altered the sound much.

The Ecaps need replacing so the PCBs need to be removed, this is not too difficult as there is only a few wires attached.

This got me thinking of other components that could be replaced to get some better MOJO as it has been said they are a little lacking in this department.

So finding that the circuit is very similar to the MAJOR it is now a guide for me to do some much needed tweaking.

I have not played it as there was some crackling happening and one of the power tube sockets was loose, also it has a fixed, fixed bias and the resistors had drifted a bit.

The tone stack was said to be a bit lifeless.

The PCB themselves are OK to look at, so to change the components will be easy, so if both channels of the MAJOR are a useable circuits I will change components to suit.

Again the PI and driver are on a PCB, this is different to the MAJOR with driver feeding the power tubes from the CATHODE 

The 6550s I think are biased to 100w which I agree is tooo much watts for me. The PT and OT are huge,so its a bit of a waste to lower the output to 60-70 watts but this I think would run the 6550s a bit cooler.

To add a PPIMV would be great as well as a master vol (after TS) I did this on a JTM 60 and it worked very well.

OWM, looks to be a great feature and rather remove one channel, there is room for another preamp tube in the chassis. This would mean I may have to etch another PBC but that won't be a problem.
There is room on the front panel for a Master vol at the end of tone control/presence, PPIMV on the back and the OD between the volume and treble. This can be switched via a pull pot.

Angus liked them and now I can see why, so being not a exact copy I don't want it to be a"WANTA BE" but tweak it to be a better useable amp that "COULD BE" Thanks

[6G6]

Good stuff!
Minor?
Jr?
Hey, what about ya start with SVT iron and build a Lt. Col.? 
Sure, you'd have to stand about 10 miles a way to get the full on effect, but...

[tubenit]

Timbo,

Man, thanks for sharing this!  Your schematic looks great.  IF you are OK with it, let's post the SCH schematic in the SCH Library of schematics under the Marshall Major thread. Feel free to add any comments about your design that you think would be useful.

http://el34world.com/Forum/index.php?topic=17556.0

Best regards,  Tubenit   

[Michael R/T]

You guys are good !!
You all basically figured out the circuit, here's a few picture I took of the board.

[Lucid_Alice]

Hi Guys. It's been a long time since I have even lurked. You guys are great. But I'm afraid I will catch the 'fever' as it is contagious.



In the proposed schematic: Major Marshall OWM & PPIMV. In the power rail, B+ segment, should there be a tie in the middle between the two 56K resistors and the two caps? If so, it is missing in the drawing.


Here is some lore as I understand it. When Richie started using the Major he was using a Gibson. After a conversation with Eric Clapton he gave the strat a try and never looked back. My point being that he found the amp first and changed everything else in his set up. So it must be something special to play through.


All amps are a compromise. I think the 30 watt version, with 2 KT88's and a lower B+, sounds like an ideal compromise. The problem has always been volume. If you look at the 1959 and the 1987 the major difference is two power tubes vs four power tubes. But the 1987 lacks that 'in your face' sound that the 1959 produces. A car anology would be small block vs big block. That is one of the trade offs selected. The other trade off is the lower voltage to the power tubes. A car anology would be a single carb vs dual carbs. So we know before one is built that it will not be the same, and how could it be at 30 watts vs 200? I am hopeful that it will capture the Major essence by matching the preamp at near original voltages and tapping the unique characteristics of the KT88 at lower voltages.


But if it doesn't do it for everyone on this board, it may require a higher watt version in the 60 to 80 watt range. My question is: if it has to have more output to get close enough, would it be better to go to four tubes at a lower voltage, or two tubes at a higher voltage? Four tubes would put the output at around 60 watts. The 1959 vs 1987 anology says more tubes at a lower voltage might come closer, but I am uncertain because both amps are running similar voltages into the power tubes. But we do know that the current flow to the OT is what is making the difference in the sound. A car anology would be: a big block with a single carb would deliver more torque off the line but may not reach top end as fast as a small block with dual carbs. Somehow, in my sorry little mind, I am equating more torque with the 'in your face' sound... cleaner low end punch due to a higher current flow. Or is it because with 2 tubes on each side of the push/pull the average flow is a more accurate or smoother reproduction of the original signal making it sound cleaner and punchier? Or is it because with two tubes on each side in parallel, the circuit impedance is halved yielding a cleaner reproduction? Is my car anology backwards or perhaps worthless for sorting this out? I know this is subjective, but I don't have enough build time to know from personal experience.

When it comes to volume, the standard application of an amplifier is to apply a small signal to a higher current flow in order to make the signal larger. Thus the standard power rail where each stage operates at a higher voltage than the stage before it. What would happen if a custom power rail was used such that it applied a higher voltage at B+ than it did at A+? The power tubes move a higher current by design but if the voltage is lower it would equate to a lower current at the OT without altering anything else in the original design. Would the power tube still operate correctly or fry the grids?

[Ritchie200]

Great analogy. I actually tried my Major with two tubes and it sounded different. Talking with Ritchie's amp tech I was extremely lucky I didn't let out the magic smoke when i did that. But again, talking to him I was extremely lucky doing all the things I did to this amp over the years to get that tone at a lower volume.  Yes Ritchie started out with the Gibson running through a hornbey skewes treble booster (half of the Zonk Machine). Then the strat. Then the factory master volume that was finally on pipe by machine head. Ritchie was in the factory tweaking for almost a year.

I don't know which way to go for tube quantity because we have made some concessions to the design anyway.   I can tell you the Park 75 was an awesome sounding amp with the kt88s!

Jim
Ps good to see you back!

[jojokeo]

My opinion is the appropriate higher voltage on two tubes will definitely make them sing properly and also give them the proper headroom and break-up characteristics you're looking for to get that in your face / torque going. Less power on the power tubes makes them "softer" and the grids more sensitive to being hit so they give it up much easier (why I say softer) with the same amount of signal. The only sure way to find this out is lower your power tubes' B+ artificially using your temporary favorite method of choice. But also know that it will have an affect on your OT's reflected impedance too. Not like it should do any damage of any kind - just that it will cause a performance difference here too once lowered to a certain point. Your primary impedance should lessen as voltage lowers so you could be better off simply plugging your 8ohm speaker into your 16ohm setting/output jack to get the magic back?

[Lucid_Alice]

CORRECTION:After looking at the guts photos provided by Michael R/T (thanks!), I see a problem with the circuit as drawn. On the V2 triode after the tone stack the 1M resistor ties across the triode tail to ground between the 2.7k resistor and the 100k. It does not just go directly to the .047 cap to V3. You can see this connection to the right of the last orange cap to the right in the photos. That last orange cap on the right is the .02 cap from the treble center wiper (you can see the pink wire connecting the cap to the pot), which is the input to the V2 triode. Someone else brought this up earlier, was it Pete? There was some discussion as to why that triode tail had a 2.7k and a 100k in series to ground. This is why. The old schematics did not have this connection drawn in, (seems like some showed this as a jump-over instead of a connection point) but the pictures tell all. EDIT: Never mind... I see that this has been corrected since I downloaded the schematic.


EDIT: I also see that he has a wire jumpering the output from the first channel into the second channel  (large white wire from the volume out on the pot to the input of the next channel). This is similar to the one wire mod except you retain the clean output from the first channel. With the OWM as drawn you only have the output from the second channel going through. This may actually be a better approach. The input to the second channel would also see two 68K resistors in parallel to ground from the channel's input jacks. This would keep the signal from the first channel from overloading the second channel too much and get a better overdrive from the second channel. Which channel is the bright channel, Volume I (second from the jacks) or Volume II (right next to the jacks)? It looks to me that he is plugging into the normal channel (II) and using the bright channel (I) for overdrive with the one wire mod. If so, that is the opposite of the new circuit as drawn. Or do I have my bright and normal channels reversed?

[Michael R/T]

I'm putting the pre amp section in cascade (series)
Gain factor is multiplied when in series instead of in parallel (as it is normally know, stock).

I plug my guitar into channel II then turn Channel I and Channel II volume to 10, then keep the Master Volume (PPIMV) low to control the overall volume.
I get a good amount of gain and crunch this way. Now to add extra gain and crunch I use a 1/4 male jack only with no cable attached to it.....
I take this plug and stick it into channel 1 jack (high or low) to get even more of a blast in gain. :-)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ZBWayUpmpc

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tQp52C10Wvs

[Lucid_Alice]

Michael,

With the assumption that the components on the turret board follow in order in the preamp section, then Channel II is the normal channel. That is the one you are plugging in to. That channel output is cascaded into the treble channel (Channel I) for the cranking overdrive. This is the opposite order of channels from the new circuit schematic with the one wire mod built in.


It makes sense that the components would follow in order to avoid confusion and errors during assembly. Starting from the end of the chassis, the first input jacks are Channel II, the first components on the turret board are Channel II and it goes to the first triode (pins 1,2,3) of V1, this is the normal channel. The second input jacks are Channel I and the second group of components on the turret board are Channel I and it goes to the second triode (pins 6,7,8) on V1, this is the treble channel. Based on this logic the preamp circuits need to be swapped in the new design to achieve a sound similar to yours.



The input jacks in the marshalls have shorting contacts in them. When nothing is plugged in the input is shorted to ground through the chassis. This keeps the channel input quiet. When you insert a plug it lifts that contact. So when nothing is plugged into channel I with the one wire mod the channel input sees the signal through a 68K resistor to ground. This will lower the input signal slightly. When you plug in the dummy plug the input now sees the 1M resistor to ground letting all of the input signal reach the tube.


The other difference is that your one wire mod takes the signal directly from the volume wiper and inserts it directly into the next channel tube, bypassing the 68K resistor. In the new circuit the signal is tapped after the 470K mixing resistor following the volume control. This will reduce the signal and cause some loss of treble compared to yours. This may not be a significant point, but it is a difference.


Another thing I noticed is the preamp in the Major is really hot. For example:The voltage at pin 1 of V1 is 190v. In the 1959 it is 150v, and in the 1987 it is 100v. This is a heck of a difference in how hard the preamp is being pushed before the tone stack. No doubt this is a contributing factor in its sound.


Question: Does it really make no difference whether you insert the dummy plug into the low or high jack on channel I? The reason I ask is that the typical wiring representation of the marshall input jacks show a different circuit and only plugging into the high signal input will enable the 1M resistor to ground. Inserting a dummy plug into the other jack should make little difference.

[Ritchie200]

Alice,


If I am not mistaken, Michael's is a 1978 Bass model so no treble channel.  The schematic that was drawn up referenced a Lead model.


Jim

[Lucid_Alice]

I checked a bass schematic. It's a Marshall Major but its designation is 1978. The tails to ground for both channels bridge together and go to a single pair of 820R/250uf. The output cap is .02 for channel II and .002 for channel I same as the lead model. The only difference between channels is the output cap, with channel I being brighter. The remainder of the circuit is identical to the lead. I guess it would be OK to leave things as they are. If it doesn't sound the same it would be a simple mod to match the bass circuit. At least with the design as is, you still have the lead channel I with the OWM turned off.
I was just trying to be sure it was right. You can't do things differently and expect the same result. If you are trying to get Michael's sound, this design has differences in the preamp. But that isn't the core objective of this design.

[Ritchie200]

I checked a bass schematic. It's a Marshall Major but its designation is 1978. The tails to ground for both channels bridge together and go to a single pair of 820R/250uf. The output cap is .02 for channel II and .002 for channel I same as the lead model. The only difference between channels is the output cap, with channel I being brighter. The remainder of the circuit is identical to the lead. I guess it would be OK to leave things as they are. If it doesn't sound the same it would be a simple mod to match the bass circuit. At least with the design as is, you still have the lead channel I with the OWM turned off.
I was just trying to be sure it was right. You can't do things differently and expect the same result. If you are trying to get Michael's sound, this design has differences in the preamp. But that isn't the core objective of this design.

Some additional lore...  I have heard examples of the OWM on a Major lead version with the lead channel (channel 1) into channel 2....AND visa versa...  Some sound good but different, others sounded like mushy blatty crap.  The lead channel on the lead version has a "top boost" type circuit and it is VERY hot.  Ritchie's amps before the Marshall OWM were Lead versions.  His amps after the OWM were all Bass amps - but with some treble added.  This is when he spent time at the factory blasting the poor women and tweaking the mod.  The details of this mod are lost to the Marshall employees who performed the work and his amp tech who removed it all, and who is not talking.  His amp tech did a few mods to make the amp more stable but took it back to it's original design, made sure they had the custom wound OP replacement trannies, then added his built in treble booster for the Rainbow years and beyond.  Ritchie's amp tech is who figured out for Marshall why the Majors were blowing up on an alarming basis.  Marshall did not have a clue as it was designed by GEC, and GEC could not figure it out either.  He was fixing Ritchie's amps every few days and he used to work for McIntosh so he had a pretty solid background!


Jim

[Lucid_Alice]

Here is a mod. Take a SPDT switch and connect pin 8 of V1 to the middle contact. Connect the 2.7k/.68uf to one side, this is the 1967 model. Connect the other contact to pin 3 of V1, this is the 1978 model. The lead amp has two 500pf caps that make channel 1 brighter by jumping the treble over the channel volume control and channel mixing resistor, but other than that they are the same. Now you can switch between the models.

[Ritchie200]

As you can see, there are some differences between the old plexi version and the one from 1973 that I have (besides being a lead version).  These are some old pics that I took when I first got it.  Notice the old doorknob resistors.   Also notice the additional double insulation on the B+ runs to try and reduce the 1800v flyback arcing.  Also pointing at what needs to be on 8+ to reach nirvana.....


Jim

[DummyLoad]

current and corrected schematics in .SCH format can be found in the link below:


http://el34world.com/Forum/index.php?topic=17556.0


thanks jazbo8 for the errata. :-) 


PDF version attached to this message.


Major_Major is 200 Watt Fixed Bias
Major_Minor is 100 Watt Fixed Bias
Major_Minor_III is 50 Watt Cathode Bias.


--pete

[tubenit]

FusionBear (who posts on TAG and the GearPage) is building a "Major Minor":

http://www.thegearpage.net/board/index.php?threads/the-marshall-major-and-a-tribute-mini-build.1750906/

I've seen his previous builds and videos and they are pretty impressive.  It will be interesting to follow this thread and see what he comes up with?  He also is a great player.

Just thought you guys might want to know.  I think he is using a "mirror image" of a layout pretty similar to what we have come up with for this project.

With respect, Tubenit

[Ritchie200]

Just saw your post with the link.  Wow!  That is a beautiful build!  Looking forward to the sound clips!


Jim

[tubenit]

! No longer available

Well, FusionBear got the Major Minor built!  Sounds pretty good to me.

The thread is here on the Gear Page:
http://www.thegearpage.net/board/index.php?threads/the-marshall-major-and-a-tribute-mini-build.1750906/page-4

It's fixed bias with 50k pot I opted for a PT that is 390-0-390 @ 300mA   OT is 120 watt @ 4.3k primary Ultra linear

With respect, Tubenit

[Ritchie200]

Listened to it with headphones and it kind-of has that full bodied KT88 UL ballsy sound.  However, I think he has gone too far away from the Major tone.  He did say he was looking for, and tweaking for, the Van Halen 1 tone so he has admitted that was his goal.  There is also that high end squealish edge that I'm not real keen on....and that was with a humbucker.  The Major on pipe has a nice smooth ringing high end, not unpleasant.  I guess what I don't understand is why?  He could have built a 50 or 100 watt EL34 plexi style amp to nail the Van Halen tone, so why go through all the trouble with a Major design and then move away from it?  The Major has such a unique sound, I don't know, I'm kind of disappointed.  But hey, that was a beautiful build and if that's what he wanted, more power to him. 

Jim

[Backwoods Joe]

If anybody decides to build a low watt (30-40 watts) cathode biased major... please give us feedback ASAP. THX joe

[Zapp]

B

If anybody decides to build a low watt (30-40 watts) cathode biased major... please give us feedback ASAP. THX joe

Building one now.I don't know if it is exactly what you are looking for as i won't be using an ultralinear output transformer.

[Backwoods Joe]

Sounds good....I probably wouldn't either. Please keep us posted. thx, joe

[DummyLoad]

quote i received June 1, 2017 from heyboer for marshall major iron - in case you're interested...

On the PT , HTS-5725  Original wind  0-110-120-200-225-245 primary with M-6 core steel for 50/60 Hz   laydown mount 1 3/4 EI X 2 1/2 " stack
1 pc  $265
2 pcs $250

HTS-5725-1 is a dual 120v primary. hook parallel for 120 , series for 240  is M-50 core steel for 60 Hz    laydown , same as above
1pc $225
2pc $210
 
HTS-5402  200 watt OT original wind , has 2 primary sections and 5 secondary sections. these are hooked series or parallel to get different speaker loads
M-6 grain oriented core steel. Stand up mount ,1 3/4 EI X 2 1/2 " stack
1pc $250
2pc $235


--pete

[Ritchie200]

Pete,
 
Are you building?

Jim

[DummyLoad]

Pete,
 
Are you building?

Jim

possibly: if the hayboer OT offering isn't a copy of the flawed OT.


--pete

[Ritchie200]

The original used a single layer of very thin masking tape between windings.  I think the mylar will work just a little bit better!  I do know a few owners who used Heyborer for repairs and never had a problem.  Also know a few who used it on new builds.  Never heard a complaint.  Different preamp?  Noooooooo!!!!!

Jim

[DummyLoad]

Different preamp?  Noooooooo!!!!!

Jim

i guess i shouldn't be telling you that the player who wants the different preamp will be playing a tele through it too... 


oh, wait, just did! doh!      


--pete

[Ritchie200]

I don't know you......


Jim

[DummyLoad]

I don't know you......


Jim

yes, yes you do... i'm the forum idiot that won't follow convention,   

mine will be the major amp in all it's glory, the other will be a spin of it with an added spring reverb.

see, all is not lost. have faith in this wiley texas hacker...   

--pete

[shooter]

i'm the forum idiot that won't follow convention

+1
You can buy convention of the shelf, creativity and craftsmanship comes special order