Does 50 Years Make A Difference? || Vintage Fender Deluxe vs Reissue 

Hey just found your video because I was gifted what appears to be an original deluxe reverb. It needs tubes and a fuse. Any advice would be much appreciated

this is why I love my 65 pre cbs twin reverb.. What's crazy though is. I have 2 greenbacks in it🙃🙃

There's some tweeks that can be done to them reissue to improve it. For example the reverb drive circuit is way too hot and hits the tank too hard causing a mushy reverb that loses articulation after about two on the dial. It's an easy fix and there are several others. There's a fellow here on yt who's channel is called psionic, I think 🤔. Anyway he's worked on a bunch of them and is gracious enough to share some of his knowledge about them. He also See's alot of hot rods and blues DeVilles and gives loads of tips and tricks on those. Check him out!

😂

😂

Or in 2069 and compare the 1969 👽

We’re all dead in 10... at least that’s what I heard.

the 2017 will be toast by then... the 1967 will still be going...

Dartheomus totally agree With you! I realized that the 2017 was lacking highs and had Too much bass in the overdriven sounds compared to the 67’... and thats something you can fix by adjusting the eq a bit... I have a 2012 deluxe... and recorded with it with great oberdriven-not mushy tones...

You said exactly what I was thinking. Comparisons are totally pointless unless you set the knobs by ear, and not by a number.

Would setting the nunbers the same be the perfect comparison? Because that really shows the differences between the amps? It would make a better comparison than getting the exact same tone on both of them, then its the same.

Totally agree. The second amp is louder and that affects the sound greatly. Back of the second amp to the same volume level as the first and then run again.

Certainly no comparison with overdrive, the '67 wins hands down.

I was completely the opposite. To me the vintage 67 sounds better for cleans.

I agree. But the 2017 was louder and not as chimey. I suspect the pots have aged? and scooping mids from the 2017 would reveal the true difference.

I agree. The 2017 has a great warm clean tone. But the ‘67 has a great overdriven tone.

Same

I was gonna say the same thing!

yes, yes, YES!!! (thank-you)

No

Yeah other than the volume they sound the same

Other then the volume they sound the same

Yeah, I thought the same thing... I preferred "amp B" (the reissue), but was thinking, do I only like it because it's louder??

Correct

Yep

Saw a video where they swapped the speaker from the modern hand wired to this one with the Jensen and probably most of the difference was the speaker. So therefore the higher end ceramic speaker alone was a really nice upgrade to sound better and more like the 67. I wonder what the 67 would sound like with the ceramic speaker

He's comparing combo to combo. Combos include speakers. If things were any different in testing it'd get stupid (play them on a wednesday, wearing denim, facing east.....etc etc etc etc etc).

@@ProcalHarem sure bro lol

Is changing a speaker easy to do on your own? Or is paying someone necessary?

What speakers come in the twin and what did you put in that sounded better?

Which speakers do you recommend?

@@9uidin9li9ht2 Man! On a Fender Twin, If you can afford it..... I would score a pair of the 90watt Alnico Celestion Creamback speakers. They sound incredible but whoa, they cost alot. Probably going to spend $600 or more on a pair!

@@southboundsuarez9832 Thanks for that tip! What do you think is making the overdriven sound better on the '67?

Canaan Lawrence This exactly!

I am no expert but if u turned the vintage amp up, its a diiferent story, great vid but u gotta crank that shit to see the real difference,

Dont be shy.... the distortion on the RI is a freaking train wreck. Unlistenable. Fire the designer

I'd go for the modern because of the better clean. It's more open. Then I'd run pedals on the clean channel. I played a Fender Deluxe at my church for a while. Loved the tone but the distortion was limited. Pedals over the clean is the answer.

Exactly, same reflection

Really annoyed me

See I think a lot of the perceived roundness of the vintage amp is because of a well worn in speaker

Let me tell you something about that 20%. Those old machines were full of trimpots that would be calibrated at the factory. In practice, few resistors were ever over 10%. And even if one was off, they would have found out. Positions where values were critical had beefed-up solderable lugs and putting in different parts would be part of the setup. I remember a service manual calling for accuracy better than 0.1% in a particular thyristor welder and due to vibrations, you had to calibrate it by soldering on several fixed resistors. No trimpot allowed. Did you know that the tolerance of capacitors actually got worse over the years essentially swapping places with the resistors?

@@zwz.zdenek Where are the trimpots located in a vintage Fender BlackFace Deluxe Reverb? Do you mean the bias pot? Yes that compensates the tubes static dissipation. Silverface amps changed the bias pot into a balance pot to balance both sides of the output transformers waveform. I dont believe your statement about trimpots is valid ....

Nerd

@@Mardello Well, as a matter of course, this is absolutely a nerdy type of tone geek thing. That is what this all about. Do you think that the average Jon Q Public , Lay audience member is going to notice that the performer playing guitar in the band up there on stage in a crowded nightclub is going to perceive enough of a tonal significance to actually say to himself "ah... that vintage Fender tone is superb!" ? No, but it does matter very much to those of us who make up the community of folk that participate in or take stake that make or break current trends that support or favor our best and favorite own agendas. Fortunately their exist a large nerd based community of fan boys that have enough of a esoteric taste for the quality nuances and ability to perceive a definitive of subjectivity for proper tone. The exclusivity of this community supercedes even that of the "Audiophile" people despite many crossover fellows that occupy both, Tone Chasers, Geeks and Nerds are certainly Members Only! Are you in "the know" ? Can you perform the secret handshake? No? Well then piss off!

Tim Perry but the clean sound sounds better one 2017 right?

@@poiiiiiiiiiii3049 Honestly, my ears are telling me, even the cleans sound better on the 1967

Theres a huge difference in sound quality, the vintage sounds so much better.

I beg to differ. The 2017 sounded much much cleaner.

@@poiiiiiiiiiii3049 Yes

B was louder.

I agree. Amp B sounded brighter and more lively

@@justsumguy2u Lol I also like B better but I think that the amp A was more twangy and with less depth also less reverb.

@@davidarana791 thats why country guys used to love fender amps ;) sooooo much twang for days lol

I think it might have something to do with the old amp not being in a great condition internal electronics wise, lots of gain, reverb and volume difference between the two amps, I preferred the amp B as well.

Yeh B ate it for breakfast.

Nah, aging has exactly zilch to do with it. If that were the case, my vintage amps (I own a studio filled with gear all from the 40s to the 60s) wouldn't sound exactly the way they did 50, 50+ years ago - modern recordings make this abundantly clear.

@@allrequiredfields hahaha, . ok . i'm not putting the farm on that opinion .

There's a reason why the AB763 circuit is the one most people want. Its cleans are great yet when you turn it up the breakup is wonderful. The Fender SF amps can be converted easily to the AB763 circuit

Same.

Nicholas Pro same here

Same. As soon as Amp B came in I felt it sounded brighter and more modern.

Yup, that was the tell for sure.

Agreed. The 2017 would work for me - I like a lot of headroom, use pedals for overdrive, and would just turn the bass down almost completely. But the '67 was leagues better in the latter parts of the video. You get used to your gear if its decent and you spend time with it. You learn how to EQ it, play dynamically with it, it breaks in more, etc., and you and the gear just kind of mold to each other. So I could see getting the 2017 to sound great after some time, closer to the '67. Will it ever quite reach it? Maybe not. Or maybe it will - in 2067.

Having experience with vintage amps, the answer seemed obvious to me. I like the organic sound of vintage. Plus, the vintage amps are so much easier to repair. Great for do-it-yourselfers, i don't hesitate to gig with vintage amps. Life is too short not to sound your best!

My guess here is that a big difference is how broken in the speakers are. Put a couple hundred hours into the reissue and I'd bet that they sound MUCH closer.

Brighter tone so the decay on a reverb would be perceived as longer.

DONT USE ANY REVERB WHEN YOU TEST AN AMP!!!

The reverb is a part of the amp...

3rd knob from the right is the reverb knob. It can be turned up or down. It was turned up on Amp B to sweeten the sound and trick casual listeners. Doing so also discerns the real players from gear snobs.

Yes

I thought the same thing..

when was the last time or last gig you got to crank one like that ??? I got an 87 silver jubilee that has never seen 3 at a gig ...

david isenberg Did it as my main rig for a few years with an attenuator 🍻

@@davidisenberg125 That is the beauty of a smaller 2x 6v6 based tube amp and a where the Deluxe shines in decent all around size as compared to a 4x EL34 or 6550 based arena styled monster amp. Many opportunities to play in the Deluxe sweet spot without pissing off the FOH

I wonder if the 67 is handwired and changes the compression and break up

Gabe Elias, me, too.

Me too, seems fatter and clearer, though my ears may be fooled as it has a bit more reverb and gain in the clip

Likewise

Me too.

I thought reverb on the reissue was much thicker. On the 67, you could barely notice it.

Yes, let's get him to play both amps through the same speaker(at different times) so we van see if a simple treble adjust or vol adjust makez em sound similar.

That's called nit picking. Total nonsense. If you can hear these things on actual records, I will congratulate you. Most of the time this sound is manipulated by various pedals, compressors, EQs and what have you, so this miniscule difference between the two is actually not difference. Even the two same vintage amps will sound different from each other. Videos like these and subsequent wanna be expert comments are totally ridiculous. Instead of being happy there actually is a reissue of a great piece of equipment that we get a chance to own because the original is financially out of reach and so rare, we are looking for defects on the honest piece of work. What a bunch of bullshit.

All fenders I've used are the same... when you aren't playing there's just that bzzzzz to remind you to play a riff or two to get it to screw off hahaha

@@evmanbutts hahahahahahaha!

If he had the tremolo on, it would have been the beginning of Talk Talk's Laughingstock to perfection... except for his talking.

That's not unique to fender amps nor guitar amps in general. High end studio monitors do the same thing. You *can* get rid of it, but it also effects the high frequency response of the system, so it's generally not an issue since you only hear it when you're.. not playing anything. So, who cares.

You’re so right about the boutique amps.

I think the same

I think the reason the amp sounded better initially was because the reissue was actually coming through louder than the original. Unfortunately, we percieve louder as better... when the volume was better adjusted you could better notice the character in the '67.

New transformers would help tame the low-end flub that plague the smaller fenders. Worked well on my 70’s Princeton reverb

I like B

Another part of this is why don’t they or can’t they make the modern reissue that matches the tone of the older amps they made. Sometimes they make something that is great or even perfect and perhaps it should never have been changed at all.

@@shawnglass108 I really do think they copied the ingredients but you just can't get that sugar anymore. What Rhett is calling cheaper parts are not so much to cut costs so much as it's what's easily available. Making it cheaper for the customer isn't the end goal considering you can follow the schematics and build one yourself cheaper without having the buying power for parts they have at fender. Anyways sorry for this long book that I'm writing but my main point is that difference in materials that were accessible today compared to the ones accessible in the 60s. The copper wiring the tubes the power plug etc.

I am 1:25 into the video. So far I like B, so expect it to be the Vintage issue

Now an 5:07 into the video, was surprised to see that I initially preferred amp B which turned out to be the RI. But once the demo continued and the tones got dirtier after volume turned up amp A, the 67, was my preference. It will be interesting to see how this ends up.

What? Who are you to tell someone what they think sounds better? Maybe they like how the 67 sounds. The sound is the sound. You can’t make it sound a certain way. Your fingers don’t create tone. They shape tone

@@lobstermendez "Foam" surround??

@@lobstermendez Did Fender really use foam and rubber surrounds? What was their reason for doing that? I've only seen bare or coated paper surround speakers (Eminence, Celestion, CTS... etc.) in aguitar amps.

Kearney Dillon it’s the speaker. I’m guessing they’d sound exactly the same with the same one.

67 much brighter and clearer

​@@lobstermendez There's way more to it than just the speaker wearing out. Most of the caps and resistors in there have probably drifted 20% off spec by now

What speaker would you recommend?

Throw a Jensen in it. Thatd chill it out, like the older one.

Caius Madison didnt the old ones come with jensens?

@@thefail1999 yes, for a while and then Eminence. Jensen is the magical key to the old Fender sound, in large part.

@@caiusmadison2996 a agree. Those old Jensens are warm. I own a 1951 Valco National 12 watts with a 12 “ field coil Jensen in it. You should hear that baby purr!

By lose you mean people just steal your stuff?

@@Daz912 had a great player and dear friend lose a ES 335 at a gig... guy grabbed it and took off running and he never saw it again

Thissss is tru. Some guys rock the "dad rig" and bring out the vintage stuff or overkill expensive gear. Like you don't need a 4x12, in ear monitors and a wireless system if you're playing a small bar with an even smaller stage. If anything It might even make the gig more difficult. I feel like an amp like this is special and needs to be for the studio, a special gig or a really good gig with good sound. If you're trying to do it for a career at least. If you're just having fun on the weekends with the boys/not playing often then completely ignore my crusty musician nonsense.

DO THIS!

Tubes too.. If that old deluxe has RCA tubes, that makes a difference too. New tubes don't sound quite as good.

Yes is it, I tried it. Tone is in the speaker.

@@R3TR0R4V3 Definately a plus on a decent set of RCA Blackplates if ya can find 'em. The whole caveat here being in finding "decent" blackplates, I dont beleive it when a vendor says the RCA's are actually really "NOS" ! Many hundreds of RCA vintage used tubes but a greater and greater majority of those tubes are coming up pretty much hammered and well used up. But ahhhhh yeah, a vintage blackplate in a vintage Blackface is a beautiful thing. For total tonal perfection try vintage Telefunkens for the preamp tubes, a vintage Mullard for the rectifier and a vintage Amperex Bugle Boy on the Reverb, a modern TungSol reissue in the P.I. and some early 50's vintage RCA Blackplates or late 50's TungSol 6V6's! I have rolled many many tubes thru many Deluxe Reverbs, also including modified reissue amps too. Overall for production tubes, I am liking the Reissue Tung Sol. I dont know what Reflektor is doing different in the production, but they are very consistient. I use them exclusively in the P.I. of most all amps, where they are very robustful!

Of course you have to be very selective in what you buy.. I won't just blindly buy any old "NOS" tubes without data & proof. I gotta see some numbers to back it up. On the reissues though, I absolutely agree on the new Tung Sols.. They sound great and the price is certainly right! 😎 Cheers

Yeah, I wish I had a pocket full of cash back in say 79-80 or so, and could have bought up all those old Fender BF combos that the progressive new age guitarists were passing down the backline.

I disagree. The 2017 will still be around. I mean the early 90s when the reissues just came out are still around with all original parts. Which one would I bet would last longer. The 67 yes but I doubt the reissue is going to die in another 50 years. The only thing that makes the original more serviceable is the lack of circuit board but even if a couple traces lift in 50 years that's still easily repairable with a jumper wire. I work on amps is where I'm coming from with this info.

@@richiesguitarshanktuary6923 Good points. So maybe the 2017 will still be around, but, replace some traces, replace some PCB mounted jacks and pots, replace a PCB, etc. -- the 1967 will still be more original in 50 more years than a 2017. To quote Doctor Who (12th Doctor): “Question: you take a broom, you replace the handle, and then later you replace the brush. And you do that, over and over again. Is it still the same broom? Answer: no, of course it isn’t, but you can still sweep the floor."

@@richiesguitarshanktuary6923 Good points. So maybe the 2017 will still be around, but, replace some traces, replace some PCB mounted jacks and pots, replace a PCB, etc. -- the 1967 will still be more original in 50 more years than a 2017. To quote Doctor Who (12th Doctor): “Question: you take a broom, you replace the handle, and then later you replace the brush. And you do that, over and over again. Is it still the same broom? Answer: no, of course it isn’t, but you can still sweep the floor." I mainly hope people that care about either will still be around!

Most people are not very experienced listeners. Listening actually requires you to turn the volume down to a comfortable level and then really relax your mind to the point of stillness... maybe even turn the mind off completely? I haven't got there yet...

The question wasn't which one sounds better.

Im a sound engineer long time and I was about writing same comment, but I spotted Batchiano's. people don't see the sound so we can talk to them like to the wall. there is no possible comparison of two sounds if volume is not matched. louder always sounds better and because of it we have shitty compressed and limited to the bone pseudo music this days without any dynamics left. so called war on loudness.

@@Radical_Middle Please go on about the today's psuedo music. Your writing intrigued me. War on loudness, dynamics, etc.

@@jimbo4311 computers took over most of recording studios (except most expensive ones). When digital audio processing max loudness level is measured with binary code, so whatever precision on measurement is (number of bits - 16bits for CD, 24 to 32 todays home studios) the result of this measurement can not cross number 1(16 ones or 24 ones, doesn't matter) in other words there is a limit of 1 for loudness of a digital music file. It was discovered as well, that humans tend to change a song they listen to on radio rather than raise up volume level of the song. It correlates with concept of loudness matching for comparison of two audio files (pieces). Therefore since 90's producers want sound engineers to make a song as loud as possible (whole dynamic range of the song has to be compressed and limited to fit 6dB range down from max level which is a fixed one - all ones in binary code - it is called war on loudness). Result of this process is an audio file with flat dynamics and high loudness - quiet bits volume is raised, loud bits volume is lowered. In addition - today's music is based on samples and computer plugins like melodyne, pitch correctors, all of this eliminates those human mistakes so called 'air' in music. digital processing is slicing a waveform and measuring that slice with bits, it reduces odd harmonics (which are part of the sound responsible for warmth, color and travel of sound wave) in noticeable way. So prepared wave file is compressed further for less weight (trade) to mp3 format. we use bad quality audio equipment today - in ear headphones, cheap Audio/Digital converters, preamplifiers, (all built into our toys) so people are not able to hear difference because it is not possible without comparison - for that you need proper acoustically treated room and analog audio equipment, or at least good cans, converters, preamps and proper wave file before compression to mp3.

It is for this exact reason that I believe that the older one is not worth DOUBLE the price for people who are not collectors. If you are a player, I would elect the reissue and buy new speakers.

Same thing I thought... “talk to me about the tubes in both amps...those alone will make a significant difference.” I hand built a ‘65 BF clone and the difference between NOS GE Reverb Driver and modern tube was HUGE on the amount and lushness of the Reverb.

I have tried 1958 vintage alnico's in my 2 DRRI'S and it helped but it still was not the same rich tone of the old. Remember about all the components today Fender is using are of lower quality, much of this adds to the tone and some to the robustness. They do not even use a silver mica cap, for the highs, a $1 cap you can get from radio shack to replace the one they use.

This is the first thing I thought. It was too obvious that amp A was the vintage one. The worn in sound of an old speaker would play a huge part in the sound.

Well , he found out how much it was worth way later ! I got even with him for stuff he did to me growing up ! LOL

LOL!

My wife was helping a relative at their storage unit a few years ago and someone had left a guitar and amp outside with a "free" sign on it. She called me and asked if I wanted it. "Sure, why not!" I said. The guitar was a Strat copy that wasn't worth jack so, I gave it to my neighbor but, the amp was a TubeWorks RT2100 Mosvalve! Free is a very good price!

If that were the case they would have to sell them for nearly the same price, if not more, and most player couldn't afford it and would rather have the vintage option anyways. The main difference is the speakers and you can get a pair of vintage Oxfords, which aren't made anymore, for less than $200 on Reverb. People seem to forget that Fender is the original budget brand, making affordable amps and guitars that fit almost any income bracket. I scoff at vintage purists and for those prices, I'll take a handwired modern amp from nearly any boutique builder (Swart, Magnatone) rather than a 67 which likely needs new caps, per my ears.

Been to a lot of concerts where the guitarist was playing the reissue Deluxe Reverb so Fender did some things right. I do like the 1967 more in this comparison.

@JM Coulon The speaker is perhaps half the tone. Hand wiring can also means better caps, higher rated resistors, (1/2 watt vintage carbon comp verse 1/4 watt silicon ) better pots, switches, tube sockets, plugs, jacks, quality transformers....I have worked on both and owned a few DRRI's. So you can end up with a more robust amp that sounds better being hand wired,,, but not necessarily as quiet when turned down, the one possible drawback.

@@jacobl6572 Hand wired is definately more reliable.

Lol, I knew exactly the section before I listened, it was the moment I regretted having the Reissue.

@@etoirelav i feel you, bro

Yeah I guessed after the first riff Hand wired no comp

i agree. I have a new one my other guitarist has an old 1 and his sounds way better when its driven.

also he's way better lol

JACMUSTANGCAT the speaker has

Yes & No and maybe,,,,, there's a few variables that come into play. General principle I would greatly agree! However, the electronic components that populate the recent PC board amp have a much greater potential survivability and better overall ability in their consistiency than the vintage produced component. Parts such as old carbon comp resistors that are touted as being so magic vs the superior and ultra stable and bulletproof metal oxide and film resistors of today. The limited shelf life of bulky, temp sensitive electrolytics compared to the advances of exotic diaelectrics found in todays super-capacitors. Or for in fact all capacitors in general, especially when compared to that of basic foil paper and wax construction?! (despite a belief in some sort of voodoo magic that invokes special mojo tone, the favor for longevity, durability and tonal hair splitting precision can be argued as going to modern tech) Also, you have to take a consideration of the serviceability of modern design vs vintage designs? What is the likelyhood of servicing period.... On another slight tangient,,,, Who remains that is going to perform future servicing? Music instrument electronics is probably the last remaining "consumer electronic" device that is still being repaired and maintained by a fewer and smaller infrastructure of specialized electronic repair technicians! Ever notice how rare it is to find even a television repair shop? Greater and greater of all forms of electronics are essentially designed as disposable or with a certain engineered target lifespan. Seemingly the consideration of technical obsolescence being the dominate criteria.... I am sure we are likely to see a similar existence of 1967 era vintage amps as seen today, as in say 2037 than the likelyhood of 2017 era amplifiers existing in 2037. This is regardless of yet another consideration that comes to my mind. This is despite the actual number of units produced (surely 2017 production units exceed 1967). Much of the 2017 production units produced will likely be deemed obsolete and have already been returned to the form of scrap metal or discarded as consumer waste. While the remainder of those real vintage 1967 still standing today are already revered and collectible. They have been already maintained and will continue to be maintained with a growing number of modern component replacement parts... On another all together different but similar point I wish to make or have others please ponder... Do you ever wonder just how many Blackface amps were actually produced at the factory containing Spraque or other Poly "Orange Drop" capacitors????? NONE! Yet 7 out of 10 vintage amps must contain Orange Drops.... so go figure?

George Smith : WTF are you talking about? Both these Deluxe Reverbs are tube amps.

Good point. I couldn't tell a lot of difference between the two. I liked the 17's clean tone better, as it sounded brighter to me.

Brandon Bryson it definitely is. The speaker is a huge factor as well as the rectifier tube. Thus the modern being super dynamic and LOUD AF.

James Gretsch often times, the materials used were much better back then. For example, the glue used in a 59 les Paul is no longer used because it’s not very ethical to use it, but it gave them better sustain. As time wears on, the lore of the instruments do as well. In many cases a custom shop guitar from any brand does the trick. Just maybe not as much mojo in the repro

If it was/is unethical to use the glue they used on a vintage 59 LP, then that makes them similar to blood-diamonds. Why isn't there the same backlash against owning a 59 LP as there is about owning blood-diamonds or wearing fur? - Not questioning your information or making some kind of statement / rhetorical question of my own. Actually just wondering why.

Start The Rebellion that’s a good question, however the glue is simply glue that we don’t use anymore, at least to my knowledge. It’s not really of the same magnitude. In addition to the glue, the wood was also much older and thus, more resonant. Glue was just an example, but it’s definitely a good question.

True, and there's political implications and human lives currently being lost over blood-diamonds in particular... as where the glue thing might have just been something like we realized the production of it was harming some species or the environment rather than an ongoing source of funding for brutal dictators, lol.

Ben Ewer they use hide glue in the custom shop still. Tite bond wood glue is what the regular teams use I believe

I liked the 2017 better as well. however I feel like the 1967 would sit in a mix a lot better

See, I did virtually the same thing but with the opposite result. Every time I looked up to see, it was the vintage box. Go figure.

I agree

You really have to hear them live to appreciate the old.

Cory Waters yup same here, every single time!

Eric Kay just try to Move a wire in the wrong pace - causes harmonics It's a lot different

disagree, most of the difference you hear will be 50 + years of speaker wear and different components. There are many boutique builders who dont make their amps all handwired, from an electronics POV it's hard to argue a handwired amp sounds any better than a well built PCB amp. Toneking, Bogner, both amps well regarded in the amp world who's products arent handwired.

Why is that

Old Hands and the original wiring that is sheath coated the new Deluxe Reverb don't have the 110 plug in adapter on the back of the amp the new one does. The electronic in the new amps are cheapened by usinf foreign electronics back in the 12960s and 50s everything was made and produced by Fender

lol. I guess the made in china electronics used nowadays makes all the difference...

Toneglue

Bad Hombre like a good pair of shoes 😂🤣

You can hear it. The tone is that great blues tone from back in the day.

@@TheMad0ne that got eleven thumbs up lo

BRG 👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻💦💦

You mean it sounds worn out - tired and out of energy. Lol

In this case I did tweak the 17 to try and match the 67, and I couldn’t really get it close. The 67 has a sweetness and balance to it that the 17 couldn’t keep up with, I think a major part of that is the original speaker from 67. I think modding a DRRI can go a long ways but in this case the 67 won hands down.

Yeah, it definitely did.

I am with you on this!

There are ways to get the reissue pretty close for the old ones - a few value changes and snipping of resistors and tweaking the tone path to get a little close to ab763

@@grosebud4554 ...... can you elaborate? Sounds like you have that down to a science. Isn't there a difference in cabinet wood as well? It seems like if Rhett had played the 2017 circuit through the vintage amp speaker in it's cabinet, that would have made a difference ...