Mike,
I've had a busy day so I'm too lazy to check it out myself;
What is the value of the bypass cap on Stage #2?
On the original WE circuit there was no bypass at that point. Marshall settled on .68uf as the 4-input amps
evolved. Now you don't have the cathode follower, but its still "basically" the same circuit. Put a .047uf there,
(just use any coupling cap you've got handy) trust me, this will boost the harmonic complexity without creating "mud". Also, the tone stack slope resistor, originally 47k in the WE circuit, can be increased to 100k (Marshall lowered this to 33k). If I remember right you are not at 1meg on the Bass pot and 25k on the Mid? (1meg 25k, that's what works with this circuit)
Stay with 250pf, .02uf and .02uf; just my 2 cents, but I'm telling you that's what "works"!

I thought the "clean" rhythm work sounded gorgeous.

Again, just me.

.

Hey Mike,
I'm almost reluctant to stick my nose back in here, but I've already done it so here goes...

Stage #1 bypass C16 should be 22 or 25uf. This is what Fender used in the Blackface days, the '59
Bassman and early Plexis shared 220uf on the Normal & Bass channels. (Ron you still with us here?)
But that gives you "boost" right down to like DC. Every "Fat" switch I've seen is switching between
1uf and 25uf; who doesn't use the Fat setting?

Stage #2 bypass C12, as I have already stated, should be .047uf or .068uf. Remember as the 4-input
Marshalls evolved the trend was for more and more distortion. When you "crack" the Volume on the
"High Treble" the amp is at 100 watts, this does not make for a "versatile" amp.
I've already commented on the "tone stack", I like C7 at 250pf, this is a "season to taste" thing.
But, VR3 1m C8 .02uf and VR4 25k C9 .02uf are the "right" way to go.

You've got a bunch of voltage coming off the Master, more than enough to drive the 6L6 or EL-34.
As fas as the SPL's go, I'm not at all surprised, especially if you're comparing it to the
Princeton. The Princeton's are "weak"; they get to a point of just "sweeting up" and quit (I know
I'm gonna get flamed now!). The Deluxe is a much better amp. Never really been a Champ fan. (but
I'm an EL-84 guy, so that should explain that)

I use what I've just described (tone stack) on both my Clean and Drive channels. No Master on the
Clean, it goes direct to the Verb "splitter" and then at the "mixer" output is where I "Master" the
amp. This way I can dial in whatever level of "harmonic" complexity I want.
The Drive tone stack is followed by the "Master" pot like your amp. This way the two channels can be balanced.

I mention this only because I think you said that you had the Volume "dimed" and adjusted the Master.

The circuit you are using is exactly what the early "Master Volume" Marshalls used. Which is more popular;
the Plexis or the later "Master Volumes"? Talkin' 4 input amps here not the later single channel stuff.

Open up the Master and let the Volume control the amp; just my 2 cents, but I loved my Plexi Super Lead in the day.



Listen to "Since I've Been Lovin' You" from the BBC sessions, Page gives a "Master Class" in controlling the Marshall
from the Volume pot on a "real" Paul. Clean when he wants it, and driving like a fine Italian sports car when he needs it!

Sorry to hijack your thread, I guess I'm just passionate about this stuff...

Like this?



I "preferred" the Super Lead!
That Bassman on the 4 pre-Rola Celestions had a certain, shall we say, "rich and luscious" drive tone though...
Only Fender Blackface I ever really liked.
Had a '56 Twin (dual rect, $25 "miscellaneous for sale") I was fond of, never really "pushed" it though, I had eaten up too
many 12's by that time.



Might have listened to those albums a time or two.

John (Two Tickets to Paradise) Nelson (E. Money fame) refers to us as "Beanos" children as opposed to "Chuck's children...



Tom

.

.

I've just been served breakfast so one last thought.

DO NOT BUY A MODERN PAUL! read this

Search for an ES-339, play as many as you can, they are not all created equal.

The '57 Classic is, IMHO, a MUCH better pickup than the 'Burst Bucker'; real PAF's "clean" up. (Lindy's ARE the best!)

Gibson "FINALLY" got it "RIGHT" (their quote, not mine) in 2003 with the Braz board, and they continue to get it "RIGHT"
every year with something "NEW".
BEWARE, YOU HAVE BEEN FOREWARNED!
"It's not your Daddy's Gibson" to coin a phrase.
I'm sure there are some "GREAT" Pauls out there, but unless I played 20 of them I'd be hard pressed to buy one.

I guess I'm spoiled, I've been very fortunate to own a few, and play many, Golden Era Gibsons.

The ES-339 is a GREAT guitar; tone, playability, size and weight. Just play as many as you can, mine is a 'Bacca Burst.
Thought I wanted an "ice tea" (is that what they call the faded one?) but you can't drive the color so to speak.

Tom

Very sweet, a  friend had one of the DC Pauls that played and sounded great.

"Fretless Wonder" that would be the original "Custom", not my "cup of tea" much prefer the bigger fret wire on the
later 50's Pauls and the '68.



One of my girls BITD, not my "main" squeeze, but "sweet" nonetheless! Pro re-fret with "big" wire, never did get used
to the Bigsby. Fought it just like the Bigsby on my Tennessean. That's why I put the PAF's on the GT.

I really must go...

.

.

I like the Sovtek 5751's, its a low gain 12ax7, but I get very nice tone in my 15 watter with them.

The bypass cap on stage #2 is probably the single most important thing. I had mini switches doing all kinds of things protoing.
My good friend Dave Wellman turned me on to the "small" cap. It works!

.

.

.

.