New HX?

[Deleted member 5962]

I know quite a bit about amp circuits and an amp design. A plexi is not just a tone. It is a response to one's playing. The amp feels like it is breathing when cranked up. That is due to the relatively short signal path that contains two gain stages, a cathode follower to buffer the gain stages being loaded down by the tone stack, a phase-inverter, power tubes, and a output transformer to convert a high voltage/low current hi-impedance circuit to a lower voltage/higher current lower impedance circuit. Adding an effect loops alters the tone and response of the amp and so does adding gain stages and switching. The plexi circuit responds well to a post-phase inverter circuit, but that is an easy mod. Like most older amp circuits, every component in the plexi circuit makes a difference.

Plus 100!

Also to add, the P/I tube is important to this magic.

And yes, I too am curious as to why they chose not to do a post PI master. I'm sure once these have been out for a while, some will mod it as such. The really creative might add a copy of the Kmaster and really have something special!

Edit to add: If I were ordering one of these, I'd just get a cost of adding a PPIMV at the factory and tell them to build it that way.

 

[László]

Um... Some people have too much money and have misconceptions about where tone comes from. I think Eddie proved without a doubt that it's from the fingers. This cork sniffing "purity of the circuit" stuff is a marketing gimmick for amp makers that want people to spend thousands on amps with chosen top shelf components. You are right. I'm not the prime marketing target for this amp. Maybe I would be if it had more utility. But, a non-master volume amp with no effects loop and no built in attenuation doesn't scream "usable". Let me clue you into something else. Plexis were never "great". It was the tool available at the time but the legend of the plexi is one that is blown out of proportion.

I only agree with one sentence here: You're not the prime marketing target for this amp. The rest is BS.

There's no point in talking about the things you can't hear, but I got a good chuckle out of your assertion "Let me clue you into something else. Plexis were never "great""

I'm from that era. People loved Plexis and thought they were great amps, which is how Marshall built its business and reputation. Fact is, your claim that they were what was available is far off the mark. There were tons of amps on the market at the time, including Fenders, Hiwatts, Ampegs, Gretsches, Magnatones, Kustoms, Laneys, Standels, Voxes, Danelectros, Orange, and a SLEW of others. Guitarists had plenty of choices.

Incidentally, back then I was a Fender amp player. I have no axe to grind for Marshalls.

 

[CrimesAgainstMusic]

It's the Koch attenuator.
Koch Loadbox LB120 II - Koch Amps (koch-amps.com)

Yeah ... I thought it interesting that they would endorse the attenuator ...And that it did not cost a bizillion $$$. I need one (or 2) of those things and this endorsement is as good as any ...

I guess its Bartel that claims to have a Master Volume that works as well as an attenuator ...

 

[Black Plaid]

Um... Some people have too much money and have misconceptions about where tone comes from. I think Eddie proved without a doubt that it's from the fingers. This cork sniffing "purity of the circuit" stuff is a marketing gimmick for amp makers that want people to spend thousands on amps with chosen top shelf components. You are right. I'm not the prime marketing target for this amp. Maybe I would be if it had more utility. But, a non-master volume amp with no effects loop and no built in attenuation doesn't scream "usable". Let me clue you into something else. Plexis were never "great". It was the tool available at the time but the legend of the plexi is one that is blown out of proportion.

 

[Drew]

I only agree with one sentence here: You're not the prime marketing target for this amp. The rest is BS.

There's no point in talking about the things you can't hear, but I got a good chuckle out of your assertion "Let me clue you into something else. Plexis were never "great""

I'm from that era. People loved Plexis and thought they were great amps, which is how Marshall built its business and reputation. Fact is, your claim that they were what was available is far off the mark. There were tons of amps on the market at the time, including Fenders, Hiwatts, Ampegs, Gretsches, Magnatones, Kustoms, Laneys, Standels, Voxes, Danelectros, Orange, and a SLEW of others. Guitarists had plenty of choices.

Incidentally, back then I was a Fender amp player. I have no axe to grind for Marshalls.

The rest is NOT BS. I'm entitled to my opinion. I think forward, not backward. Maybe because I'm younger than you (and apparently most everyone else here too) and not locked into a certain period of time. I don't hang onto the golden years of rock and roll and try to re-create those sounds in my basement. So, I'm not biased that way towards certain amps. To my ears, a lot of the plexi recordings don't really hold up that well. I don't for one second think the plexi was not revolutionary for it's time in the dawn of high gain amps/music. It was. But, in the modern context, it doesn't hold up, at least to me. I'm not just referring to what you get out of it. I'm referring to how rudimentary it is from a functional standpoint. Heck, even Marshall started putting FX loops on some of the re-issues.

In getting back to the topic of this thread, I thought Paul was the guy who moved things forward. Gave us an improved strat. I would figure he'd want the challenge of doing the authentic hendrix circuit, retaining that quality, but doing it within the space of an amp with modern features like MV, FX loop, multi wattage, etc.

 

[László]

The rest is NOT BS. I'm entitled to my opinion. I think forward, not backward. Maybe because I'm younger than you (and apparently most everyone else here too) and not locked into a certain period of time. I don't hang onto the golden years of rock and roll and try to re-create those sounds in my basement. So, I'm not biased that way towards certain amps. To my ears, a lot of the plexi recordings don't really hold up that well. I don't for one second think the plexi was not revolutionary for it's time in the dawn of high gain amps/music. It was. But, in the modern context, it doesn't hold up, at least to me. I'm not just referring to what you get out of it. I'm referring to how rudimentary it is from a functional standpoint. Heck, even Marshall started putting FX loops on some of the re-issues.

In getting back to the topic of this thread, I thought Paul was the guy who moved things forward. Gave us an improved strat. I would figure he'd want the challenge of doing the authentic hendrix circuit, retaining that quality, but doing it within the space of an amp with modern features like MV, FX loop, multi wattage, etc.

You're starting off with a bad assumption. I'm not into classic rock. I don't sit around in my studio re-creating Cream or Hendrix. I'd be out of business if I still played that stuff. I do national ad work, and it has to embrace a lot of current styles.

However, the Plexi sound is timeless and very useful in current music.

The other incorrect assumption is that the bells and whistles like MVs and FX loops don't affect the tone. They do.

It's easy to hear this - spend some time with an amp like Mesa's Lone Star, that allows the player to switch the global MV and FX loop out of the circuit. Switch them out, the amp sounds more transparent. I have one sitting in my studio, so I'm familiar with what it does. Anyone with ears can hear exactly what MVs and FX loops do with a simple switch.

Any time you add a gain stage, you add a little wool to the tone of the amp.

I used to use FX loops back in the 80s and 90s. FX loops have been around for over 40 years! Putting an FX loop in an amp is hardly moving things forward. It's retrograde. I'd argue that it's more progressive to wake up and eliminate the stuff that sucks tone.

Loops also add noise. In addition, there's a desirable saturation that happens running FX in front of the preamp. You want clean effects? Run them at the console. It sounds better than any FX loop.

The reason that companies haven't been able to replicate the Plexi tone correctly is because they cave in to notions like "We have to have a master volume and FX loop." You make a compromise in design, you hear that compromise in tone. Simple as that.

As to Paul Smith, there are lots of different kinds of challenges in gear. Moving the ball forward is only one of them. Another one might be, "Can I re-create the tone of a much-loved icon whose recordings still inspire guitar players?" If the answer to that questions is yes, he's got a super-desirable product for a lot of different players.

 

[Steve's addiction]

Does anyone think maybe Paul WANTED to build the amp this way to capture the essence of Jimi's plexi without the unreliability? No manufacturer builds just one amp for everyone. That's why there are so many models out there. I never take an effects loop or master volume into consideration when purchasing. None of that matters if the amp at its most basic doesn't sound good. I have amps with and without effects loop and even have 2 amps without master volume on chan1 but a master on Chan 2. They all sound great. I do believe this amp is targeted for a specific style but you can make any amp work for you if you know what you are doing

 

[Drew]

You're starting off with a bad assumption. I'm not into classic rock. I don't sit around in my studio re-creating Cream or Hendrix. I'd be out of business if I still played that stuff. I do national ad work, and it has to embrace a lot of current styles.

However, the Plexi sound is timeless and very useful in current music.

The other incorrect assumption is that the bells and whistles like MVs and FX loops don't affect the tone. They do.

It's easy to hear this - spend some time with an amp like Mesa's Lone Star, that allows the player to switch the global MV and FX loop out of the circuit. Switch them out, the amp sounds more transparent. I have one sitting in my studio, so I'm familiar with what it does. Anyone with ears can hear exactly what MVs and FX loops do with a simple switch.

Any time you add a gain stage, you add a little wool to the tone of the amp.

I used to use FX loops back in the 80s and 90s. FX loops have been around for over 40 years! Putting an FX loop in an amp is hardly moving things forward. It's retrograde. I'd argue that it's more progressive to wake up and eliminate the stuff that sucks tone.

Loops also add noise. In addition, there's a desirable saturation that happens running FX in front of the preamp. You want clean effects? Run them at the console. It sounds better than any FX loop.

The reason that companies haven't been able to replicate the Plexi tone correctly is because they cave in to notions like "We have to have a master volume and FX loop." You make a compromise in design, you hear that compromise in tone. Simple as that.

As to Paul Smith, there are lots of different kinds of challenges in gear. Moving the ball forward is only one of them. Another one might be, "Can I re-create the tone of a much-loved icon whose recordings still inspire guitar players?" If the answer to that questions is yes, he's got a super-desirable product for a lot of different players.

1) You can't just put any effect into the front of a pre-amp. A lot you can. But not all.
2) Amp makers cave to....wait for it...customer demand. The reason we have amps with MV, FX loops, built in attenuation and/or multi wattage is because that is what players need. Not everyone is like you who gets to play around in your secret lab. People need to jam/gig with these things. Most gigging musicians aren't playing huge venues where they can use their non-MV 100 watters and crank them. Do these features detract from "tone"? Maybe. But, then we are getting into the debate about the balance between functionality from the utility standpoint and then functionality from a pure audio perspective and what should the balance be with those.
3) You reference tone repeatedly but that in itself is subjective. I'll take the lead channel of a Mesa Mark IV over just about anything else and that is anything but a pure circuit with boutique hand wired components.

 

[RallyFanatic]

Does anyone think maybe Paul WANTED to build the amp this way to capture the essence of Jimi's plexi without the unreliability? No manufacturer builds just one amp for everyone. That's why there are so many models out there.

100% agree. This is a niche amp - if it’s what you’re after, it’s perfect. If it’s not - there’s a million other choices. Just like he took the essence of what made Mayer’s 63/64 strats great and made them play better with the silver sky, he took Hendrix’s touring amp and made it reliable.

In addition to Hendrix there is a wealth of modern and classic players that get along with Plexi’s just fine despite not having a master volume or fx loop. I personally don’t see the big deal. It’s certainly not the only amp out there like this, and it won’t be the last. I think it’s refreshing that Paul did it this way as opposed to caving in to what people think they want.

 

[RickP]

1) You can't just put any effect into the front of a pre-amp. A lot you can. But not all.
2) Amp makers cave to....wait for it...customer demand. The reason we have amps with MV, FX loops, built in attenuation and/or multi wattage is because that is what players need. Not everyone is like you who gets to play around in your secret lab. People need to jam/gig with these things. Most gigging musicians aren't playing huge venues where they can use their non-MV 100 watters and crank them. Do these features detract from "tone"? Maybe. But, then we are getting into the debate about the balance between functionality from the utility standpoint and then functionality from a pure audio perspective and what should the balance be with those.
3) You reference tone repeatedly but that in itself is subjective. I'll take the lead channel of a Mesa Mark IV over just about anything else and that is anything but a pure circuit with boutique hand wired components.

Drew, your point on your choice of what sounds good to you is totally valid. No one can tell you what you like but you, and no one should have an issue with that. Honestly, I don’t think that’s the portion most are disagreeing with as much as the assertion that, essentially, a classic tone and amp design have no place in today’s gigging world.

On the tone front, non-MV amps are used all the time by pros, and models or designs from many decades ago are still in demand by today’s young music makers. Even the tone you reference, the Boogie MK IV, came out 31 years ago and was an adaptation of the Simul-Class circuit introduced even farther back (1984, I think). It’s decades old, possibly even older than you. Heck, even for a young feeling older guy like me, it’s a touch over half a lifetime ago! It’s not a “moving forward” tone, it’s an evolution of the tones of the previous 20 years of Randall Smith’s great work. In that vein, the advent of modeling (particularly the Axe FX and Kemper) is the forward technological movement. I gig an Axe Fx rig, and it works great. And I own and play a dozen tube amps, including two HX/DAs that still see regular band time. On the Mesa front, I’ve got a Nomad 55 and a Road King II (talk about options in one amp!) so I’m neither a Luddite praying to glowing vacuum tubes, or a techy decrying all that came before as useless and obsolete junk. I like things that sound good. I like things that fit in songs and genres of music. I use gear from as far back as 1964 all the way to 2021.

The point of my long dialog here is that gear that isn’t useful to me can be eminently useful to the next guy… today, making music on the radio or internet right now. I think if you’d allow that in your opinion, it might sound less like you’re peeing in everyone’s cereal bowl and more like what you intend… your take on an amp that just doesn’t fit your needs.

Or not! Just throwing it out there.

 

[WeFixFlats]

PRS will sell every HX model that's built...and there will be a long waiting list...it's that simple.

 

[Drew]

Drew, your point on your choice of what sounds good to you is totally valid. No one can tell you what you like but you, and no one should have an issue with that. Honestly, I don’t think that’s the portion most are disagreeing with as much as the assertion that, essentially, a classic tone and amp design have no place in today’s gigging world.

On the tone front, non-MV amps are used all the time by pros, and models or designs from many decades ago are still in demand by today’s young music makers. Even the tone you reference, the Boogie MK IV, came out 31 years ago and was an adaptation of the Simul-Class circuit introduced even farther back (1984, I think). It’s decades old, possibly even older than you. Heck, even for a young feeling older guy like me, it’s a touch over half a lifetime ago! It’s not a “moving forward” tone, it’s an evolution of the tones of the previous 20 years of Randall Smith’s great work. In that vein, the advent of modeling (particularly the Axe FX and Kemper) is the forward technological movement. I gig an Axe Fx rig, and it works great. And I own and play a dozen tube amps, including two HX/DAs that still see regular band time. On the Mesa front, I’ve got a Nomad 55 and a Road King II (talk about options in one amp!) so I’m neither a Luddite praying to glowing vacuum tubes, or a techy decrying all that came before as useless and obsolete junk. I like things that sound good. I like things that fit in songs and genres of music. I use gear from as far back as 1964 all the way to 2021.

The point of my long dialog here is that gear that isn’t useful to me can be eminently useful to the next guy… today, making music on the radio or internet right now. I think if you’d allow that in your opinion, it might sound less like you’re peeing in everyone’s cereal bowl and more like what you intend… your take on an amp that just doesn’t fit your needs.

Or not! Just throwing it out there.

No intent to pee in anyone's cereal, except Les's bowl. He gets a double helping. Debate is always fun and healthy.

 

[RickP]

No intent to pee in anyone's cereal, except Les's bowl. He gets a double helping. Debate is always fun and healthy.

I’ve learned a lot from Les, he’s quite a knowledgeable pro at what he does. He’s a good guy, and like you, has and holds to his opinion. He loves a good debate as much as anyone and is one of the better thinkers I’ve encountered online. We’ve found much we disagree on, but more interestingly in these divisive times, have forged a friendship based on common ground and love of music making.

And you’re right… (respectful) debate is fun and healthy. Life goes on

 

[andy474x]

I'm not a Hendrix mega fan, although I appreciate his music. I think the amp stands on its own merits, sounds freaking fantastic, and pending similar results of a more robust demo with humbuckers, I could see one being added to my arsenal.

I've recently discovered, via use of my load box, that for vintage type amps, I like them either without a MV, like my Vibrolux, or with the master wide open and adjusting via the preamp gain, like the Sweet 16 or rhythm channel of the Custom 50. The tone is more smooth. I won't bother justifying further.

For those wanting something different, I don't think we've seen the end of new PRS amps. We know the MT100 is coming, I'm wondering if it could possibly be made in Maryland, due to the Archon being switched to the import line. If not, I'll bet there's some other Maryland made, 2 channel, gigging-utility type amp in the works.

 

[László]

No intent to pee in anyone's cereal, except Les's bowl. He gets a double helping. Debate is always fun and healthy.

Good thing I skipped breakfast.

 

[dmatthews]

Good thing I skipped breakfast.

It's not just the flakes that are frosty

 

[RickP]

It's not just the flakes that are frosty

A nice bowl of Pist Toasties, anyone?

 

[dmatthews]

A nice bowl of Pist Toasties, anyone?

 

[László]

1) You can't just put any effect into the front of a pre-amp. A lot you can. But not all.
2) Amp makers cave to....wait for it...customer demand. The reason we have amps with MV, FX loops, built in attenuation and/or multi wattage is because that is what players need. Not everyone is like you who gets to play around in your secret lab. People need to jam/gig with these things. Most gigging musicians aren't playing huge venues where they can use their non-MV 100 watters and crank them. Do these features detract from "tone"? Maybe. But, then we are getting into the debate about the balance between functionality from the utility standpoint and then functionality from a pure audio perspective and what should the balance be with those.
3) You reference tone repeatedly but that in itself is subjective. I'll take the lead channel of a Mesa Mark IV over just about anything else and that is anything but a pure circuit with boutique hand wired components.

To respond to your points:

1. I put all of my effects in front of an amp without exception. This includes time based effects and micro pitch effects that lots of people put in loops.

2. Amp makers do respond to customer demand. There are customers who do not need or particularly want MV amps. There are fewer of us, no doubt. To use your turn of phrase, "MV, FX loops, built in attenuation and/or multi wattage is because that is what players need" isn't telling the full story. That's what lots of players need, but not all players.

I wouldn't have a problem with any of your opinions if you didn't make such sweeping generalizations like the one above, and unwarranted assumptions, like the one you made about the kind of music I play.

3. I'd say that appreciation of tone is subjective, the amp sounds like what it sounds like regardless of whether you or I like it.

You and everyone else on the planet are entitled to your opinions. And there's nothing at all wrong with the Mk IV's lead channel. It's a great sound. It's entirely possible to like a lot of different sounds. I certainly do. That's why I have PRS amps AND Mesa amps. And I've had, and enjoyed, plenty of others. Amps can be a serious topic, but they're also a lot of fun to work with.

BTW, while you were peeing in my cornflakes I pooped in yours.

 

[RickP]

BTW, while you were peeing in my cornflakes I pooped in yours.

Count Chocula strikes again!