joey_truelove
Well-known member
- Joined
- May 8, 2006
- Messages
- 410
- Reaction score
- 0
The signal path through a Egnater or Randall pre-amp follows:
AV1(input stage) > MV1 (first pre-amp stage) > MV2 (second pre-amp stage) > AV2 (phase inverter) > AV3 (summing and buffer)
Transfering the valve arrangements of e.g. vintage Fender and Marshall amps we find the signal path goes through two amplifying 12AX7s/ECC83s maximum before reaching the phase inverter or other functional valve. In the case of Marshalls and some earlier Fenders these were AX7s/83s too; in later Fenders these were AT7s/81s
The AT7 offering less gain and more output would give us more headroom and more tranparency compared to the AX7. The AU7/82 has about the same output but even lower gain. I figure using either of these would put distortion to the first three valves or, with one of the above on the module, the first two valves - hence the harmonic contents would decend from the "right place" for these amps.
Does anyone have any ideas as to how much gain the functional valves would require to drive the circuit?
AV1(input stage) > MV1 (first pre-amp stage) > MV2 (second pre-amp stage) > AV2 (phase inverter) > AV3 (summing and buffer)
Transfering the valve arrangements of e.g. vintage Fender and Marshall amps we find the signal path goes through two amplifying 12AX7s/ECC83s maximum before reaching the phase inverter or other functional valve. In the case of Marshalls and some earlier Fenders these were AX7s/83s too; in later Fenders these were AT7s/81s
The AT7 offering less gain and more output would give us more headroom and more tranparency compared to the AX7. The AU7/82 has about the same output but even lower gain. I figure using either of these would put distortion to the first three valves or, with one of the above on the module, the first two valves - hence the harmonic contents would decend from the "right place" for these amps.
Does anyone have any ideas as to how much gain the functional valves would require to drive the circuit?