No mass produced classic circuits?

ThePrettyDamned

It's just occurred to me that 'classic' and oftentimes simple circuits, with lower parts count, are normally only available as a more expensive range of production or from boutique builders, yet newer, more modern circuits with multiple channels, several pcb's and in built boosts are in the budget ranges.

Is it just because people are happy to pay more for a simple circuit? I can imagine that Marshall doing a jtm45 circuit in a lunchbox sized chassis and made here in the UK would be relatively affordable and a huge seller because... Well, Jtm 45s are great sounding amps.

I know, typically, cheaper circuits are made off shore but the parts count is much bigger, so it makes me wonder why they don't make a simple circuit amp in a smaller head here in the UK.

Surely tooling for a PCB would pay for itself with a timeless circuit, and would possibly make more money than the expensive reissue ones that are hand wired. They could even simplify the circuit somewhat and give a global volume and tone control, much like the 18w Wem.

Edit: in a similar case, orange make the 15 watt Jim root terror using something resembling the rockerverb preamp and it sounds immense. I'm guessing that preamp is relatively complex, and they've kept cost down with power and off shore manufacturing.

stickyfiddle

ThePrettyDamned said:

It's just occurred to me that 'classic' and oftentimes simple circuits, with lower parts count, are normally only available as a more expensive range of production or from boutique builders, yet newer, more modern circuits with multiple channels, several pcb's and in built boosts are in the budget ranges.

Is it just because people are happy to pay more for a simple circuit? I can imagine that Marshall doing a jtm45 circuit in a lunchbox sized chassis and made here in the UK would be relatively affordable and a huge seller because... Well, Jtm 45s are great sounding amps.

I know, typically, cheaper circuits are made off shore but the parts count is much bigger, so it makes me wonder why they don't make a simple circuit amp in a smaller head here in the UK.

Surely tooling for a PCB would pay for itself with a timeless circuit, and would possibly make more money than the expensive reissue ones that are hand wired. They could even simplify the circuit somewhat and give a global volume and tone control, much like the 18w Wem.

Edit: in a similar case, orange make the 15 watt Jim root terror using something resembling the rockerverb preamp and it sounds immense. I'm guessing that preamp is relatively complex, and they've kept cost down with power and off shore manufacturing.

I'd buy that, potentially, though I've never had a Marshall. But their strategy suggests they'd rather put out slightly wimpy 1W versions of stuff at too-much-money instead.

ThePrettyDamned

Exactly.  Being PCB based might mean it's a bit noiser, and cheaper parts might mean a slightly different overall tone (and, again, noise floor) but it would be a great way to get people using reliable, great sounding classic circuis for less money.  If they then want a quieter one with better components, the Marshall JTM45 Reissue would provide that, for a more premium price.

ThePrettyDamned

I'll just say, I have bugger all use for a classic circuit for the most part (I do love a Bassman/JTM 45 for cleans and blues though) and so I wouldn't be a likely buyer because I like heavy gain.  

However, I'd say the vast majority of guitarists want a simple, reliable and versatile amp, and these oldies nail it.  There is something very 'pretty' about the sound, compared to the modern high gain stuff I like, and if I ever get into a funky/poppy band, a 5150 won't be any good!

ICBM

It would be as expensive to do a lunchbox-size JTM45 as the normal one. The size of the chassis makes no difference to the cost, it's almost all in the labour and the rest in the electrical parts.

And although they are great-sounding, they're of limited use to most players because they're too loud to use at most gigs for anything other than a clean sound (at least without an attenuator), and the gigs which are big enough you probably want the full-size one on a full-size cabinet anyway.

ThePrettyDamned

ICBM said:

It would be as expensive to do a lunchbox-size JTM45 as the normal one. The size of the chassis makes no difference to the cost, it's almost all in the labour and the rest in the electrical parts.

And although they are great-sounding, they're of limited use to most players because they're too loud to use at most gigs for anything other than a clean sound (at least without an attenuator), and the gigs which are big enough you probably want the full-size one on a full-size cabinet anyway.

Dammit, I knew the voice of reason would come in...

You're almost certainly right.  I was just wondering if a flow soldered PCB with lower cost parts would drag the cost down in a meaningful enough way. 

I guess not?  

It occurred to me because I might have a go at an ampmaker PP18 kit sometime in the next year.  I was going to try a while back, but wound up making a guitar instead.  Now I've got two more on the way... It's addictive!

p90fool

The JTM45 reissue is already PCB based and sounds fine for all that. I love mine, but can't ever imagine paying for a new one, they're quite seriously overpriced IMO.

That said, I do a fair bit of development work for a well-known pedal manufacturer, and components for "classic" circuits have really started to climb in the last few years as mainstream demand drops, though for the time being it remains a drop in the ocean compared to labour costs.

monquixote

I would presume that you couldn't have a lunchbox JTM45 because part of it is having decent sized transformers and the like?

p90fool

monquixote said:

I would presume that you couldn't have a lunchbox JTM45 because part of it is having decent sized transformers and the like?

I wouldn't say it was impossible, but it makes wiring, routing and noise considerations more complicated for no real reason.
I don't get the whole "lunchbox head" trend anyway. You still need a cab, so it's not like they save any space on stage. 5w maybe, but 30w and up, what for?

ICBM

p90fool said:

monquixote said:

I would presume that you couldn't have a lunchbox JTM45 because part of it is having decent sized transformers and the like?

I wouldn't say it was impossible, but it makes wiring, routing and noise considerations more complicated for no real reason.
I don't get the whole "lunchbox head" trend anyway. You still need a cab, so it's not like they save any space on stage. 5w maybe, but 30w and up, what for?

I always thought traditional Marshall heads were a silly size when you see the amount of wasted space in them. It makes carrying them unnecessarily awkward, for a start.

Actually just making the head box the right size for the existing chassis would make a big difference! You could just about get it into a 20W head box.

You could also reduce the internal spacing and make it still smaller, although you'd need to be careful that didn't introduce crosstalk problems (not that likely on a relatively low-gain amp though).

martinw

ICBM said:

Actually just making the head box the right size for the existing chassis would make a big difference! You could just about get it into a 20W head box.

Well I do! I use a JTM45 sized chassis for everything from my 5W Goldstar up to 50W 2 channel Electra Twin. It can get to be a bit of a squeeze for the bigger amps if you have an effects loop, Power Scaling and channel switching!

 

I do away with all the empty space in the Marshall head box. I use pretty much the same size head cab for amps from 5W to 50W (530 x 215), just a bit taller for amps above 20W.

You need a bit more room with spring reverb as you need to keep the tank away from the PT obviously to minimise noise.
As was mentioned, transformers are the limiting factor with a JTM45. By the time you've got the trannies, choke, 2 big old KT66s with appropriate spacing, external can caps, you might be able to drop a couple of inches off the 17" chassis, add the savings on the cabinet and you could get it down to maybe 18" including the head box. Not really lunch box size.

p90fool

ICBM said:

I always thought traditional Marshall heads were a silly size when you see the amount of wasted space in them.

It's not wasted, it's a REAL lunchbox amp, keep your sarnies in there and hey presto, a lovely toasty snack at the end of every gig!
(Hint; don't use tinfoil )

ThePrettyDamned

What about other simple circuits? I know mjw has pretty much hit the 'small enough to be considered cute' with the bantam. I almost went 'aww' when I first saw it... And that's all hand wired and stuff.

I suppose the main point was that a lot of smaller amps are pretty complex and are often regarded as sounding not as good as tweed deluxe, dominator etc. The tiny terror, for example, doesn't sound brilliant to my ears, though some love it. The mofo has 2 channels, a 2 watt mode and an effects loop I think.

ICBM

The Tiny Terror is a very simple amp. So simple they made a more expensive hand-wired version of it, which I haven't heard personally but people who have say it sounds better than the PCB one… although they would, if they've bought it . (It genuinely might, though.)

ThePrettyDamned

I meant the dual terror... I forgot there are so many of them around now!

ThePrettyDamned

The other thing with lunchbox amps is they are easy to carry.

But even smaller heads are - my old laney lh50 fit perfectly on top of a smaller 1x12, and was nicely portable despite a feck off toroidal at one end. Much easier than a larger head that weighs half as much, so to speak.

guitargeek62

ICBM;122873" said:

The Tiny Terror is a very simple amp. So simple they made a more expensive hand-wired version of it, which I haven't heard personally but people who have say it sounds better than the PCB one… although they would, if they've bought it . (It genuinely might, though.)

I've only heard/played the hand-wired one and it was a superb little thing, can't compare to the PCB one though.

ThePrettyDamned

guitargeek62;123155" said:

ICBM;122873" said:The Tiny Terror is a very simple amp. So simple they made a more expensive hand-wired version of it, which I haven't heard personally but people who have say it sounds better than the PCB one… although they would, if they've bought it . (It genuinely might, though.)

I've only heard/played the hand-wired one and it was a superb little thing, can't compare to the PCB one though.

I got a good sound out of it, but if you cranked it more it sounded not so great, and less and it wasn't good. Acquired taste, I just thought the reviews gushed a bit more than it deserved.

But that's the pcb one Also, valves vary. Maybe this one just had bad valves!