• Guys, we've spent considerable money converting the Les Paul Forum to this new XenForo platform, and we have ongoing monthly operating expenses. THE "DONATIONS" TAB IS NOW WORKING, AND WE WOULD APPRECIATE ANY DONATIONS YOU CAN MAKE TO KEEP THE LES PAUL FORUM GOING! Thank you!

TWINrri guts etc.

eh-man

New member
Joined
Jan 4, 2002
Messages
2
Hi. Haven't posted here for a while, just been lurking. Using a new logon handle - see intros if you are curious as to why.
Does anyone have a link to pics that show a visual comparison of the Twinrri pcp guts to a sf or bf twin? Do the trri controls and inputs mount to a pcboard strip like the bdlxe, hrdlxe and devilles? Or do the controls mount "traditionally" and run to the Pcboard? etc. etc. etc. Thanks for your thoughts and happy new year.
 

Fast Eddie Clarke

New member
Joined
Aug 3, 2001
Messages
26
Sorry but I don't know about where pics would be posted to compare.

But, far as I know from reading up on it and from looking inside the one I owned (a 1999 year TR RI), the RI Twin Reverb has the controls, inputs, outputs etc all mounted to the chassis and then connected to the PCB board by leads. It all looked very solid and able to take some knocks without damage. In fact, I played a second hand one at a music store that obviously been knocked very hard - two knobs broken off and the plywood cab hit so hard it split on one side (that takes some doing) - and the thing sounded fine, so the separation of the pots and the PCB seems to work well.

If you're worried about the old PCB vs. PTP debate, don't be, it's all sillyness (in my ignorant opinion, based only on lots of reading and comparing that to real world experiences. One of the most reliable and bashed about things I own is an old SS PCB Roland Cube 60, I can't begin to tell you about the abuse that poor box suffered, and it's been working perfectly for nigh on twenty years now).

FWIW, and probably well excess to what you actually needed to know, I was very happy with mine - always reliable, and when I found an excellent sounding original blackface and compared the two at length (I used to run them in stereo), the RI always held up really well, to the point where I figured that nobody in an audience would ever be able to tell them apart. Only difference I could figure out was that the RI sounded a little bit brighter at the same settings than the oldie, but that disappeared when rolling off some treble - I could get them to sound pretty well the same.

Only other thing is that on the RI the tremolo always worked (er, need to get the old one fixed I think), and the RI didn't exhibit funny noises in the studio after a few hours of use, mostly idling on standby.

I did get to compare my RI at a jam with a later silverface TR that sounded totally awful at gig volume though (was OK down low) - sounded so shrill and ear piercing that I almost believed all the hype about silverface amps generally being in need of some (or a lot) of work to make sound good. With all the guitar lore and anything-old-is-better hype generally turning out to be BS upon examining the actuality of the works, there must be some great silverface amps, but holy jesus that thing pierced my eardums!

Also with the RI there's no maintenance dramas to speak of, at least according to the tech I asked (I was worried the PCB thing would be a hassle, but he figured a well-made new PCB was easy to work on. That's as opposed to a wafer thin doublesided pots-mounted-to-board cheapie, of course, like my little SS Fender Bronco amp, which the Fender RI's are not).

So in short, the RI has the pots mounted separately and connected by leads to the PCB - and that's A Good Thing.

Hope that helps.
 
B

Bufo

Guest
Thanks for the info

Bufo here (aka eh-man - 2 name explanation in introductions)
Thanks. You answered everything I wanted to know and then some. Particularly the idea of the of the controls being wired to the rest of the guts and not sitting on a pcboard strip. I think I might start sniffing one of these babies out. And I agree with your pcboard reliability comments. I gigged many gigs with a Rolly JC120 from 83- 91. It is stone cold reliable and the only thing I have ever fixed on it was the reverb tank after it got dropped (very tired after a 5 hour gig tear down). I used a 68 bandmaster(68-73) then a 72sftwin (73- 82) before that but have been recently using a sf pro reverb, drri gigging and a princetonr for rehearsal. The only problems I have had with pcb were with a blues deluxe and a blues deville 410. That being said my tech bud didn't have any problems repairing them other than tracing the particular problems. One of them was a blob of solder somewhere that expanded enough to ground something out after the amp was up to heat. The other was the wimpy input to pcb board and the input took a bump and partially separated from the board causing the cut in/out syndrome. Thanks again for your thoughts.
 

Fast Eddie Clarke

New member
Joined
Aug 3, 2001
Messages
26
Out of interest, how do you find your silverface amps?

I've been so scarred by that screeching SF TR monster, I've passed on every SF amp I've seen since then. I'm assuming your experience with them is better?
 
B

Bufo

Guest
Silverfaced Twin etc

I have never believed the all the debate of the SF/BF thing! Some if it is of merit though. I think the deal is like this SF= louder cleaner, Bf= warmer earlier breakup. Bf more collectable due to tons of hype. 2 different overall sounds but both good ptp amps. I actually have 2 sf pros. One is earlier 70's pull mv with tube rectifier and stamped 45 watts by the speaker output. The other is late 70's pullmv with diode rectifier stamped 70 watts. Although both sf, they have the following difference. The early 70s breaks up sooner and is warmer, the late 70s is a clean twanger. The late 70s is best described as being a twin with 2 6L6's instead of 4. Now the caveat: although I generally like sf, I have tried a few sf twins that do the shrill scrapey metal grating crisp horrible tone thing. I think this is the issue you are speaking about with the sftwin (correct me if I am misinterpreting you). But I have played through some which are just fine others which suck slough water. I do think the sloughwater specials can be tweaked though without doing a whole bf gut thing. New tubes, maybe speaker changes and some intense tone pot twisting can calm them down. The early 70's twin I had had the mv but it was the one without the pull function, just a volume control. It was a good amp. I also had a mid 70's twin that did more of the shrill scrapey tone thing but it was tameable with watching the mids and highs. I do think the MV on the sfs is rather silly and uneccessary as what is does isn't of enough tonal consequence. I run all my mvs on full and not pulled and then set the channel to about 3 at a gig. I need two pros like I need the plague. I have only bought these initially as I snagged them well below internet market value. The late 70s one was in a pawn shop. It lacked power tubes and an on off switch. Soldered one in and replaced the tubes. It still had a bit of crunchy note distortion after. Took it to the tech and he replaced the power tube socket bases and that cured it. It is loud and clean! Sounds good! I would have done the sockets myself, but I believe when you take it to another to find the problems, you pay them for their time. You don't rip them off my using their knowledge and then taking the work away and doing it yourself. I think this is bad pool and disrespectful to the tech. Enough! I am rambling and beaking off with way more comment than you asked for.
 

Bwayno

New member
Joined
Nov 26, 2020
Messages
11
I have a Fender 65 Twin Reverb Reissue built in "92". It had scratchy volume control pots when I bought it several years ago, so I replaced them. All the front panel controls and jacks except for the bright switches are soldered directly to a printed circuit board. They snap in place and then are soldered. There are ribbon cables that connect this control board to the main PCB. The entire control board assembly is held to the chassis by all the control pot and jack nuts.TRRI 2.jpg
 

Bwayno

New member
Joined
Nov 26, 2020
Messages
11
For comparison, I also have a Silver Face Duel Showman Reverb built in "71". The chassis is identical to the Twin Reverb but is rated at 100W instead of 85. It also needed the volume pots replaced. These amps are very similar but I run the Showman head with 2 x 15 JBL cabinet
DSR2.jpg
 

Wally

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 27, 2003
Messages
3,535
For comparison, I also have a Silver Face Duel Showman Reverb built in "71". The chassis is identical to the Twin Reverb but is rated at 100W instead of 85. It also needed the volume pots replaced. These amps are very similar but I run the Showman head with 2 x 15 JBL cabinet
View attachment 12815
fyi, all Showman/Dual Showman/Dual Showman Reverb are the same output as their contemporary TR amps. That is, all of the BF and early amps were 85 watt amps. At some point...late ’60s???...they became 100 watt amps. The Vibrasonic, Quad reverb, and super .six reverb amps were 100 watts. All of these amp that were in production from early 1977 through the end of thier producti9n run in 1981 were Ultralinear 135 watt amps.
 
Top