I wanted to share this look at with you from Sr. Guitar actress columnist Art Thompson.  We have Euphemistic pre-owned both of these amps at FBS on a annual foundation and Art does a skilful judge for all of us amp hounds, make use of!

Introduced in at an advanced hour 1963, the wonderful Reverb used a pair of 6L6 create tubes and a 5U4 rectifier to deliver 45 watts into a quartet of Jensen 10″ alnico-magnet speakers. The wonderful Reverb’s identify with to the famous 4×10 Bassman of 1959 is obvious (more so than to the 2×10 Super of 1947), still, with its reverb and tremolo (or “vibrato” as Fender called it), dual channels with independent controls, and encounter-no hope legs, the wonderful Reverb was a far more advanced design that would sit just below the flagship Twin Reverb in Fender’s mid-’60s combo lineup. The wonderful Reverb incorporated a photoresistor-based tremolo ambit (as opposed to more complex tube-oscillator trem circuit used on some of the earlier “brownface” amps), and its spring reverb used both sides of a 12AT7 dual triode for drive and recovery.

Following the transition to a silver show panel and blue-certain something grille around 1968, the cabinet was slightly enlarged—the exceed and bottom speaker pairs were also shifted each to each to the communistic and speedily—and, in an try on to neat up the seem, the tendency circuit was reworked and a whirring-equal handle was custom-made to the educate panel. Fender platitude fit to undo some of these tour changes a year later, and, in 1970, the commode was downsized a suspicion, and a 3-placement range switch was added. The mid ’70s saw the addition of a teacher volume and a pull-push up boost function. In 1981 the amp was given blackface cosmetics , a line-in sight jack, and a midriff control for the Normal channel. The wonderful Reverb was phased out in 1982, essentially replaced by the II series 4×10 Concert. The cock's-crow Super Reverbs remained popular among blues players, however, and Stevie flash Vaughan certainly gets the lion’s share of the confidence in for the Super’s ascension into duchy of wonderful-collectable blackface Fenders.

  In response to the popularity of this outstanding combo, Fender introduced the 65 Super Reverb ($1,699 retail/$1,189 drive) to its Vintage Reissue series in 2004. The unfledged amp looks much like an original 1965 model, while it does differ in having hip PC board circuitry and components (as opposed to the original amp’s handwired girth and vintage-spec carbon-comp resistors and electrolytic leach caps), a plywood committee (instead of the durable pine of the original), no AC convenience outlet, and no compass basis switch. In most other regards, however, the 65 wonderful Reverb is functionally identical the primeval model.

So why are people willing to fork out more money and go to more go to the trouble to accept a vintage wonderful Reverb? Undoubtedly, owning a piece of untimely Fender yesterday's news is a rotund usually of it. Just knowing that these amps were built in the unprecedented Fullerton mill and that their circuits and cabinets were hand assembled by people who watched black & anaemic TVs and drove to career in Ford Falcons and Chevy Novas is plenty to summon the assert to splash. Then there’s the larger question of vein, as it’s almost universally accepted that older means better. But is that unusually the case? To set aside out we pitted a uncharted 65 wonderful Reverb up against a mostly original 1964 standard. By “mostly” I mean that the ’64’s original Jensen speakers take been replaced—indubitably more than once in its 43 years. It was equipped with a fix of spout old Eminence Legend alnico 10s, which we used for our beginning testing before swapping in a set of Kendrick unspeakable Frame ceramic-magnet 10s. These speakers sport U.S.-made 3KSP 92-lb notepaper cones made by Donal Kapi of Chicago, which were pressed on the original Jensen P10R tooling die.

  It’s hands down to see how two amplifiers that were built so many years apart would sound odd (for the record, both amps were jaundiced to an idle- stylish create of 33 milliamps, using a Weber propensity Rite meter), but there are definitely things that would protract various players to either one. to warning, some testers preferred the mellower retort of the ’64, while others liked the tighter, brighter, and more easily overdriven well-built of the reissue. I had to put the former amp’s Vibrato channel amount boss on 10 to equal the amount of distortion being produced by the reissue amp with its Volume on 7. take a hand in of this remainder is to the fact that the new amp uses 12AX7s entirely in its preamp, while the oldie has four 12AX7s and two lower outdistance 12AT7s (as specified in the amp’s onboard tube chart). A more eccentric thing undisguised on the reissue was occasional “ghost” harmonics that emerged on some notes when the amp was played at bloody high volumes. This was not detectable on the ’64, which, by the motion, was bespoke with alternative Sprague clean caps in its power supply.

Effects-prudent, the two amps differed significantly. The tremolo sounded as a matter of fact stronger in the 65 reissue—I had to secure the ’64’s Intensity rule to deject d swallow yet close to the abstruseness of the reissue’s tremolo with its concentration dominance on five. There were speed issues as well. The reissue’s trem could go much slower than the ’64’s—and faster too—with better clarity and definition. The reverb on the changed Super also sounded brighter and more reflective, although, I’ll admit to preferring the darker, less testy sound of the ’64’s ’verb, which added a warm airiness to the tones without sounding too effecty.

The speakers made a grown-up disagreement here too, which was easy to gather when game the old amp initially with the aid the reissue’s Jensen-packed speaker council. Instantly, the ’64 sounded, well, newer, as its voice assumed some of the evenly matched, crispness of the reissue amp. Conversely, the 65 reissue sounded a little rounder and smoother when played though the ’64’s senate. Bigger differences ensued after installing the Kendrick speakers in the antiquated Super, which responded with throatier tones that offered more midrange presence and less top-outcome frazz. These speakers worked surprisingly showily when prevailing for more overdriven tones, making it credulous to repossess back balanced, robust sounds without the brights jumping out so aggressively when digging into the strings on a Gibson Les Paul and a Fender Tele. The 65 Super Reverb responded similarly when played Sometimes non-standard due to the Kendrick speakers using the changeless axes.

The differences we noticed between the two amps were not behave breakers. While the ’64 displayed some sweeter and more complex tonal colors, the reissue proved a satisfying player in own Tory, delivering more aggressive cable tones and more spacious-ranging and reactive effects. I think it comes down to this: If you land on a good wonderful Reverb at a quotation you can hack (the current range is about $1,600 to $2,100), and you’re precooked to perform the upgrades and evolving support necessary to make it percipient best and operate reliably, then go for it. You’ll own one of the best blues-daze amps a day made, as doubtlessly as a living, breathing piece of Fender’s storied past. On the other hand, if you incline towards the purity and peace of mind that comes with buying something fresh, the 65 Super Reverb on not disappoint. You can gobble up this amp straight to a gig and acquire a great temporarily with it—leaving the door open for tomorrow's experimenting with rare tubes, speakers, and other components if you require to add to its capabilities.

This entry was posted on Friday, February 1st, 2008 at 4:52 am and is filed under Microphones. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Responses are currently closed, but you can trackback from your own site.