| Author |
Topic: Twin Reverbs |
Darryl Logue
From:
Raytown, Missouri, USA
|
Posted 2 Jun 2009 9:34 pm |
|
| I just scored a late 70's 130watt twin with JBL's. It's in great shape. A/B with my 69 twin W Altec Lansings. I like the 69 better, warmer yet less headroom. The newer Twin has a ultralinear trans former and is heavier if that is possible. The base player tonight forgot his amp head ! We plugged my 69 into his 4/10 cabinet and played old style country. Lots of fun for a Tuesday. I'll post some pictures soon.Thanks Darryl |
|
|
 |
Gary Lee Gimble
From:
Fredericksburg, VA.
|
Posted 2 Jun 2009 11:38 pm
|
|
Hey Darryl,
I too, just obtained a late 70's ultralinear and had her outfitted inside a split cab configuration, pic'd below. Rick Johnson, a Forum member, builds these gems and has made my life so much easier, toting around what use to make an excellent paper weight 
 |
|
|
|
Colin Mclean
From:
Rancho Santa Margarita, CA
|
Posted 3 Jun 2009 12:54 pm
|
|
Nice score Darryl. I have a '78 UL Twin (the amp on the right) and it sure does crank out the clean tone. However like Gary I had to split it up into seperate parts because it is just too heavy. I'm not quite done yet but when I am I plan on posting more pics on the forum.
I wasn't fortunate enough to get one with JBL's so I replaced the speakers in mine with a couple of Webers, a California and a Blue Dog. BIG improvement.
Enjoy your "new" amp.
BTW Gary, looks like Rick did a great job on yours, I sure hope mine looks that nice when I'm finished! |
|
|
|
Darryl Logue
From:
Raytown, Missouri, USA
|
Posted 3 Jun 2009 3:32 pm
|
|
| I just checked the weight. 69 w/Altecs 75# 77 w/JBL 85# I am a cabinet maker /carpenter. I may split the 77, it's in excellent condition, and save the original cabinet. Thanks. |
|
|
|
Chris Erbacher
From:
Sausalito, California, USA
|
Posted 4 Jun 2009 1:04 am
|
|
| i also scored one of these puppies a few years back and was overwhelmed by the weight (two jbl e-120's) so i had a split cab made and it makes a huge difference...plus it gave me a chance to poke around under the hood so to speak and replace some of those old caps with new ones...big difference there too...lots of posts by brad sarno on these and caps that made getting a great sound easier...killer steel amps IMHO, and the non-reverb channel works great for my electric banjo...super heavy though... |
|
|
|
chas smith R.I.P.
From:
Encino, CA, USA
|
Posted 4 Jun 2009 10:24 am
|
|
The original Twin 135 with a couple E-120's weighed 105#. If you can find something that sounds better than this combination, I'm not sure I could stand it...
 |
|
|
|
Darryl Logue
From:
Raytown, Missouri, USA
|
Posted 4 Jun 2009 11:02 am
|
|
| My original idea was 85to100 watts verses 135 watts. The rebuilt 69 is warmer but less headroom. The 77 ultralinear transformer has more headroom but a little sterile or brittle. MY next comparison would be a/b the speakers. When I started using the 69 I quit using my profex it doesn't need anything else. The 77 is so unused when you heat it up it has a new car smell. When did fender start making the 135 watt amps? Mine has a line out and hum balance control on the back.I still like Mesa Boogie amps too. Thanks everyone. |
|
|
|
James Morehead
From:
Prague, Oklahoma, USA - R.I.P.
|
Posted 4 Jun 2009 1:33 pm
|
|
| Seems that the 135 watt'ers came out in '77. the mastervolume appeared in '72. the 85 watt amps were done, when, in '67-68? |
|
|
|
Kyle Everson
From:
Nashville, Tennessee
|
Posted 4 Jun 2009 3:40 pm
|
|
| James, my '69 and '71 are both 85 watts. My early '74 is 100. Hope that helps. |
|
|
|
James Morehead
From:
Prague, Oklahoma, USA - R.I.P.
|
Posted 4 Jun 2009 3:50 pm
|
|
| Hey Kyle, my '71 is 100 watts. |
|
|
|
Colin Mclean
From:
Rancho Santa Margarita, CA
|
Posted 4 Jun 2009 4:12 pm
|
|
Who knows. Fender was notorious for using tube charts long after they were obselete. I'm sure they used up a couple of rear panels with the 85w rating printed on there a year or so after they changed it to 100w.
Legend has it if you can get rid of the extra negative feedback you can get a nicer tone, but you will lose a little headroom. Maybe if you rigged up a pot for controlling -FB you can dial it in for the room. Better sound if you can have it, headroom if you need it.
I've thought about doing this on mine but it'll just add to the already long list of unfinished projects so I'm trying to restrain myself.  |
|
|
|
Chris Erbacher
From:
Sausalito, California, USA
|
Posted 5 Jun 2009 6:14 pm
|
|
| i noticed the brittleness of the 135 watt version when i first got it, and did some research about caps and ended up changing a lot of the caps and was blown away by the difference, loads more detail and more transparency with a blooming midrange...sweet! |
|
|
|
Colin Mclean
From:
Rancho Santa Margarita, CA
|
Posted 5 Jun 2009 7:52 pm
|
|
What did you change Chris? Values types or both?
BTW I love Sausalito. My wife and I were just up in Frisco last week and always enjoy making a stop there. |
|
|
|
Chris Erbacher
From:
Sausalito, California, USA
|
Posted 5 Jun 2009 9:33 pm
|
|
| i just changed the type of cap and kept the values the same...after long deliberation about type of cap to use, i chose auricaps...they are expensive for caps, but man, what a difference...very transparent and detailed sound, but not overly hard sounding...natural...more like what the string sounds like, if that makes any sense...all in all it wasn't that expensive a buy, and since i did the replacement myself, it saved me a lot of money and bs to deal with...and i learned a lot...most people would say that they are too expensive, but i am happy with the results, and get a lot of positive feedback and questions about the amp and what is different about it... |
|
|
|
