Dumble Tone

[guitarbeau]

New to the board. Have been playing a .50 Caliber plus for a long time. I recently picked up a Mark IV and couldn't be happier.

I think I'm on to that elusive Dumble tone with the Mark IV. Can anyone direct me to a string that has already covered the topic.

Or, if there isn't one, anyone interested in what I come up with?

 

[MesaGod666]

What the heck is a Dumble tone?

 

[snave]

The definition of "boutique".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dumble_Amplifiers

I believe he coats the entire circuit board in epoxy several times to prevent imitations?

 

[mikeymike]

The definition of "boutique".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dumble_Amplifiers

I believe he coats the entire circuit board in epoxy several times to prevent imitations?

Didn't he die? I saw a video of him on youtube talking about how the reason why tubes sound so good is because harmonics cant "live inside the crystalline structure of a chip" I lol'd.

SRV used his amps though. So does/did Santana.

 

[lyman]

I believe he coats the entire circuit board in epoxy several times to prevent imitations?

Just the pre tone stack circuitry. But yes, that part is gooped over. Didn't Mesa do the same with their Subway amp or something?

Actually, it's interesting to compare Mesa against Dumble, or rather the approaches of Randall Smith vs. Howard Dumble. They both started off modifying the basic Fender clean platform for higher gain. Both were based in CA, similar time frame too. One took a traditional business approach, built a company, did some marketing, and is a mainstream vendor. The other kept the scale much smaller (there are maybe 300-400 of his amps out there), takes a very proprietary/reclusive/secretive approach, he actually makes the buyer sign something saying they won't disclose the design or sell it to another party. I just think it's interesting that you take 2 guys who had a very similar starting point but diverged radically in their business model.

Supposedly Dumble amps vary quite a bit. He tweaks them specifically around the player, sometimes around a specific guitar the player likes. You're not guaranteed to get the holy grail that you're paying for, unless of course you're one of the lucky ones who Mr. Dumble decides is worthy of his amp....

 

[mikeymike]

Here is the video of dumble talking about HARMONICS AND CRYSTALLINE STRUCTURES. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iVTj08qTwGw

 

[injected]

Didn't he die? I saw a video of him on youtube talking about how the reason why tubes sound so

I think you're thinking of the dude that built Trainwreck amps

 

[mikeymike]

Didn't he die? I saw a video of him on youtube talking about how the reason why tubes sound so

I think you're thinking of the dude that built Trainwreck amps

Oh yes correct. My bad

 

[fishyfishfish]

A Mark 1 can sound like a Dumble if you want. I got to mess around with David Lindley's Dumbles in the 80's. Cool amps imagine if a Fender Twin smashed you in the chest. Very loud, complex sounding, and the part about Howard liking you before he built an amp for you is very true. He was very secretive about his work, and that made it all the more appealing.

 

[igfraso]

Is the Mark I similar to the Dumble tone? Or is it the II-A?
Maybe, I am confused.
Regards

 

[fishyfishfish]

I think they could be both Boogies. Howard did make a few models that did the high gain thing like the 2C's. Mr.Mister's Broken Wing comes to mind for the 80's Dumbles. The 2C is way more "In your face" metal though.
Most people think of Dumble they think of Ford, Carlton and the like. That would be a Mark 1.

 

[igfraso]

Maybe I am wrong but I read that:

- the BF Fender vibrato channel and the Mark I input 2 channel have a First Gain-Tone/Volume-Gain makeup-Gain-Reverb path
- the Mark I input 1 channel has a Extra First Gain- First Gain-Tone/Volume-Gain makeup-Gain-Reverb path
- the Marks II, III and IV in lead mode (and the Dumble) have added a fifth gain stage and a fourth volume control in the signal path.

I also recall that there was an interview to Randall Smith where he was asked who came in first: himself with the Mark II-A or Dumble with his amp. He replied that both of them were working on similar designs with no knowledge of what the other one was doing.

 

[igfraso]

Anyone around with some knowledge or opinion over my previous email, here above?

In Randall Smith's own words... "As far as Dumble, I don't know much. I've never been inside of one of his amps, although I hear they're all gooped up to prevent copying and that they are built on printed circuit boards. I did run across a hand-drawn block diagram somewhere — I don't know — Gerald Weber's book or Aspen's — of an Overdrive Special and it looked to me like the functional equivalent of a Mark II. The configuration was the same, deriving the overdrive the same way, had the controls and internal switches in the same locations and so on. Howard no doubt has his own ways of doing things and makes great amps, so many of the parts values and such could be different, or the whole thing could be different for all I know. Really, my only exposure to his amps is that one block diagram, although I did meet him briefly in 1973 or'74."

Regards

 

[igfraso]

Maybe I am wrong but I read that:

- the BF Fender vibrato channel and the Mark I input 2 channel have a First Gain-Tone/Volume-Gain makeup-Gain-Reverb path
- the Mark I input 1 channel has a Extra First Gain- First Gain-Tone/Volume-Gain makeup-Gain-Reverb path
- the Marks II, III and IV in lead mode (and the Dumble?) have added a fifth gain stage and a fourth volume control in the signal path.

I have just found a Mark II-C preamp block diagram in one of Mesa's old brochures.

Lead mode has a First Gain - Tone (and Treble shift)/Volume - Gain makeup - Lead Drive volume - First Lead Gain - Tone shaping - Second Lead Gain - Tone shaping - Mixer Gain - Lead Master volume - Reverb - Effects Send/Return - Effects buffer gain - Master Volume - Graphic EQ path

FWIW.
Regards