close
Thanks
I modified my marshall 2204 to use el34s instead of 6550s. I lost headroom and got more of a compressed tone, with a little more snarl.
6550's are louder and cleaner sounding...kind of hi-fi in a way although they can sound very good. EL-34's seem to have more grit and more of the classic Marshall crunchy honk. I prefer EL-34's...they're more soulful and seem to have more of a rock n roll personality. Lew
It's generally accepted that 6550's sound harsh(er) than el34's. I think Zack Wylde is one of the few players to use 6550's.
* Disclaimer - your opinion of quality of tone may differ
I love EL34's
Compared to EL34s, 6550s will have much more head room, a harsher breakup and more lowend than EL34s. Also, 6550s have a *much* stiffer feel compared to EL34s which have a spongier, more compresed feel when driiven moderatly hard. 6550s on the other hand never really start to sag, no matter how much you turn up.
I luvs my 6550 Marshall. It's somewhat smoother than my EL-34 equipped Park. There is no way I would ever get it changed to EL-34s.
My Marshall was originally equiped with 6550's. I found the tone to be very harsh and when cranked became very brittle. When I had it rebiased for EL34's the tone became much smoother and gave off the appropriate Marshall snarl and snort. Jim Marshall himself didn't quite care for the 6550 sound. The only reason for their installation in the first place was that the Mullard EL34 was having reliability problems due to the traumas of shipping and the 6550 was put in only because it would physically hold up better (why didn't they just put in KT77's instead).
The 6550 is only really appropriate (where Marshalls are concerned) in the 350 watt behemoths from the late '70's/early '80's or as a cheap substitute for KT88's in the 200 watt Major.
Just my .02
I modified my marshall 2204 to use el34s instead of 6550s. I lost headroom and got more of a compressed tone, with a little more snarl.
6550's are louder and cleaner sounding...kind of hi-fi in a way although they can sound very good. EL-34's seem to have more grit and more of the classic Marshall crunchy honk. I prefer EL-34's...they're more soulful and seem to have more of a rock n roll personality. Lew
It's generally accepted that 6550's sound harsh(er) than el34's. I think Zack Wylde is one of the few players to use 6550's.
* Disclaimer - your opinion of quality of tone may differ
I love EL34's
Compared to EL34s, 6550s will have much more head room, a harsher breakup and more lowend than EL34s. Also, 6550s have a *much* stiffer feel compared to EL34s which have a spongier, more compresed feel when driiven moderatly hard. 6550s on the other hand never really start to sag, no matter how much you turn up.
I luvs my 6550 Marshall. It's somewhat smoother than my EL-34 equipped Park. There is no way I would ever get it changed to EL-34s.
My Marshall was originally equiped with 6550's. I found the tone to be very harsh and when cranked became very brittle. When I had it rebiased for EL34's the tone became much smoother and gave off the appropriate Marshall snarl and snort. Jim Marshall himself didn't quite care for the 6550 sound. The only reason for their installation in the first place was that the Mullard EL34 was having reliability problems due to the traumas of shipping and the 6550 was put in only because it would physically hold up better (why didn't they just put in KT77's instead).
The 6550 is only really appropriate (where Marshalls are concerned) in the 350 watt behemoths from the late '70's/early '80's or as a cheap substitute for KT88's in the 200 watt Major.
Just my .02
全站熱搜
留言列表
