jp
Senior Member
Onstage feedback problem?Default said:
Guild vs. Fender
- Thread starter dane
- Start date
gregsguitars
Member
No ,that was a good thing...
- Joined
- Jul 30, 2007
- Messages
- 13,649
- Reaction score
- 3,075
- Location
- Philly, or thereabouts
- Guild Total
- 11
I'm in the process of repairing my Fender Princeton, and have been shopping around for a back-up amp to use in the meantime. I figured I would stick with Fender, but I've found their selection of amps very discouraging.
I play an archtop hollow-body (X-160). Is it just my imagination or do tube amps tend to feed-back more than solid state amps (at the same volume)?
I play an archtop hollow-body (X-160). Is it just my imagination or do tube amps tend to feed-back more than solid state amps (at the same volume)?
Hi Jake: these guys have the answer here. It's the guitar's hollow body the generates the feedback. There was an eBay vendor a couple of years back trying to sell a Guild hollow body ... with the body stuffed with cotton balls to damp the feedback ... he didn't offer an alternate price for him to take the cotton balls out ... I wonder if it would have been an add or a deduct? :wink: Any luck with the Princeton? Johnjmac said:
Gents,
Did the Guild Thunderbird ever come in an iteration that used that 30 watts to push a set of four X 10" speakers? might be fun to try that... where do you estimate the amp would begin breaking up? (given a nicely worn-in set of, say Jensen P10 and definitely nothing similar to a Weber 10" California with the aluminum dust covers. That is a great Weber speaker, btw. just not for how I would use the amp). doing clean jazz, I would be blowing through another amp entirely.... say a Musicman 210 Sixty-Five with two of those 10" Weber Cali's, incredible clean headroom but forget about finding any usable distortion, the sweetspot on those amps is at very high volume levels (I know this from long experience of playing through one of the early models--tube PI stage--for many years. I love the way they will reproduce a big box archtop with very nice accuracy.... on the other hand, if I want to get all of the grease I can squeeze from my ES 335, it is not the go-to amp.)
interested to hear your input regarding the possible sound of a Thunderbird using a 4X10" speaker configuration that I mentioned.
blue
Did the Guild Thunderbird ever come in an iteration that used that 30 watts to push a set of four X 10" speakers? might be fun to try that... where do you estimate the amp would begin breaking up? (given a nicely worn-in set of, say Jensen P10 and definitely nothing similar to a Weber 10" California with the aluminum dust covers. That is a great Weber speaker, btw. just not for how I would use the amp). doing clean jazz, I would be blowing through another amp entirely.... say a Musicman 210 Sixty-Five with two of those 10" Weber Cali's, incredible clean headroom but forget about finding any usable distortion, the sweetspot on those amps is at very high volume levels (I know this from long experience of playing through one of the early models--tube PI stage--for many years. I love the way they will reproduce a big box archtop with very nice accuracy.... on the other hand, if I want to get all of the grease I can squeeze from my ES 335, it is not the go-to amp.)
interested to hear your input regarding the possible sound of a Thunderbird using a 4X10" speaker configuration that I mentioned.
blue
Capn',
funny you should mention stuffing the body of a hollow full of material to abate excessive/unplanned-for feedback. back in the 1960s I played a T-100 D model and had foam rubber pads stuffed inside the F-holes. after filling guitar's cavity, I followed up with duct tape over the F-holes.... that once beautiful instrument was sacrificed to 1960s ubervolume and stupid expediency. I had the devil of a time cleaning up all that mess when I later came to my senses about a decade later. But, we were young and poor musicians and forced to make what we had fill the genre niche we inhabited, whether the instrument was able to hack the demands or no. if not, we adapted our instruments to the need of the moment.
In those days I had 2 guitars... an acoustic and an electric. Both Guilds and even with the reasonablness of the Guild pricepoint... I had had to save and go without a lot of stuff I either needed or wanted to get both those axes. of course, at that time I was just out of high school (waiting for the draft to snatch me up for the green machine in vietnam) and working bullshit jobs that paid little or nothing... still, I was a performer and understood the necessity of sacrificing for the sake of my art. sorry, I babble when I start strolling down the memory lane,
blue
funny you should mention stuffing the body of a hollow full of material to abate excessive/unplanned-for feedback. back in the 1960s I played a T-100 D model and had foam rubber pads stuffed inside the F-holes. after filling guitar's cavity, I followed up with duct tape over the F-holes.... that once beautiful instrument was sacrificed to 1960s ubervolume and stupid expediency. I had the devil of a time cleaning up all that mess when I later came to my senses about a decade later. But, we were young and poor musicians and forced to make what we had fill the genre niche we inhabited, whether the instrument was able to hack the demands or no. if not, we adapted our instruments to the need of the moment.
In those days I had 2 guitars... an acoustic and an electric. Both Guilds and even with the reasonablness of the Guild pricepoint... I had had to save and go without a lot of stuff I either needed or wanted to get both those axes. of course, at that time I was just out of high school (waiting for the draft to snatch me up for the green machine in vietnam) and working bullshit jobs that paid little or nothing... still, I was a performer and understood the necessity of sacrificing for the sake of my art. sorry, I babble when I start strolling down the memory lane,
blue
Hi CE; no, they didn't; Guild didn't sell a 4X10" combo Thunderbird although they might have sold 4X10" in a tower cab.ce blues said:
Version 1 Thunderbird; 2X7591s ... 30 watts, 1X12" and 1X8" reverb speaker:
The very rare Version 1 SuperThunderbird: 2X8417s ... 50 watts, 2X12" (from BBer matsickma's collection) ... nice pair of beatle boots in background ...
And the Version 2 Thunderbird; 2X6L6s ... 50 watts, 2X12"
I remember cotton-ball boy because we threaded his guitar and speculated how long it would take to fish all the balls out of there ... seller said he was playing stadium-sized venues ... it was pretty funny actually.
matsickma
Senior Member
Interesting you brought up the 4-10 Thunderbird. I have been considering altering a Superstar amp by removing the 1-15 and adding 4-10's in Super Reverb kind of style. The Superstar electronics are identical to the final Thunderbird amp that used a pair of 6L6's. The later Guild amps have seperate preamps and power amps so you can mix and match power amp sections. The power amps from the Thunderstar, Superstar, Thundrbird and Quantum all have a similar footprints and jacks so you can swap power amp sections.
I have altered a Thunderstar Bass 1-15 cab to accomidate 4 -10's. I have used this cab inliew of the internal speaker in the combo amps with good sonic results. Unfortunatly these cabinets are smaller in width than the preamp section of the later amps so a custom piggy-back model is not a possibility.
M
I have altered a Thunderstar Bass 1-15 cab to accomidate 4 -10's. I have used this cab inliew of the internal speaker in the combo amps with good sonic results. Unfortunatly these cabinets are smaller in width than the preamp section of the later amps so a custom piggy-back model is not a possibility.
M