Bare Knuckle Pickups Forum

Forum Ringside => Guitars, Amps and Effects => Topic started by: hamfist on October 04, 2008, 10:43:18 AM

Title: NAD - 2204
Post by: hamfist on October 04, 2008, 10:43:18 AM
Well, I'd been patiently waiting for about 7 weeks when it finally arrived - my new Ceriatone JCM800 2204 clone.
  Extras are an FX loop and a PPIMV (as well as the standard pre-PI MV).

As usual from Ceriatone, the amp was packed superbly.

As usual, the build quality of the chassis, and soldering was superb.

As usual, the cab was merely OK, cheap, light, and bit of cracked ply if you look inside (but I'm not complaining, as they charge so little for the cab - it'll surely last for years, if I look after it, anyway).

(http://www.box.net/shared/static/sj7cf6o9yo.jpg)
(http://www.box.net/shared/static/j1cb1f4anc.jpg)

It sounded unmistakably JCM800 as soon, as I plugged it in. Comparing it to a 1978 Marshall 2204 I owned earlier this year, I like the Ceriatone better. it's just tighter, less bright and with much, much less background noise - it really is a very quiet amp, even at full gain.

  Being a tinkerer, I had the beast open on the first day, and have been tweaking and modding the thing. I knew to start with that I like a much fuller, less bright tone than 800's standardly have.  With a few simple mods, the amp is now a chunky, beefy rock monster. Basically, I've added mids and bass, whilst cutting the harsh bright treble that 800's are famous/infamous for.  It still sounds unmistakably like a JCM800, but just nicer !

 I'll get round to doing some clips at some point, hopefully soon - just need to get my sh1t together !

The FX loop seems to play very well with my DD-20, even though the loop is not buffered at all. I certainly can't hear any tone loss using it.

I've found that the PPIMV is pretty useless with this circuit. It just makes the tone very harsh and bright when you use it (caused by the reduction in negative feedback as you turn down a PPIMV). The standard 800's pre-PIMV sounds much better.

 I'll keep the PPIMV installed though, as it doesn't seem to add noise, and I'll just leave it on full.   It'll be handy to have installed if I ever change the circuit to 1987 (50W plexi) spec.

So altogether I'm very pleased, and as I seem to be playing 70's/80's classic rock mostly these days, it fits me very well.

I still need to sort out what pedals I'm going to boost it with. My trusty Blue Boy Deluxe does a good job of upping up the gain to get a very full, saturated rhythm tone when I need it, but I'm still searching for a pedal to get those singing lead lines.

I'm thinking tube screamer, or tube-screamer-like pedal. Any suggestions ?

Edit - OK, got round to doing a soundclip. It's through a Marshall 412, with greenbacks. The Back in Black clip is the pre-amp dimed, the other bit is with it on about 8. Master is on about 0.5 - only just on really. I think this amp will be astounding when I get to open it up properly !!
 Here's the clip - http://www.box.net/shared/static/tazlev9ma4.wav .  (sorry its a wav - just sounds better than the mp3 conversion I did)
 
Title: Re: NAD - 2204
Post by: hamfist on October 04, 2008, 12:33:23 PM
Soundclip now added to original post.
Title: Re: NAD - 2204
Post by: Twinfan on October 04, 2008, 01:57:03 PM
Sounds nice!
Title: Re: NAD - 2204
Post by: sgmypod on October 04, 2008, 02:23:58 PM
Nice
Title: Re: NAD - 2204
Post by: dave_mc on October 04, 2008, 04:46:11 PM
excellent, those ceriatones have a very good rep. :)
Title: Re: NAD - 2204
Post by: PhilKing on October 04, 2008, 04:48:13 PM
Sounds good, very like my Silver Jubilee (not really too much of a surprise I suppose!)
Title: Re: NAD - 2204
Post by: MrBump on October 04, 2008, 04:50:03 PM
Just to pervert the thread a little, how are you finding the Laney 2x12?
Title: Re: NAD - 2204
Post by: Crazy_Joe on October 04, 2008, 05:28:33 PM
Looks awesome!
Title: Re: NAD - 2204
Post by: FernandoDuarte on October 04, 2008, 06:05:13 PM
Sounds good, do you have a link of the modification you've done? :D
Title: Re: NAD - 2204
Post by: opprobrium_9 on October 04, 2008, 06:16:12 PM
Sounds Awesome!!!  Has a some nice open Bass Frequencies! :D  I am sure you could play some kick ass downtuned stuff on that!
Title: Re: NAD - 2204
Post by: _tom_ on October 04, 2008, 06:25:05 PM
Sounds a bit fizzy, probably the low volume though. I bet it sounds good in the room when its a bit louder :)
Title: Re: NAD - 2204
Post by: hamfist on October 04, 2008, 10:28:15 PM
Just to pervert the thread a little, how are you finding the Laney 2x12?

The is good, but I have Scumback H75's in it now. THe 70/80's it came with are really not nice speakers IMO. Anyone buying this cab would be losing out on a lot if they didn't upgrade the speakers IMO.
Title: Re: NAD - 2204
Post by: hamfist on October 04, 2008, 10:29:32 PM
Sounds good, do you have a link of the modification you've done? :D

Sure thing Fernando.

The mods were :-

- treble peaking circuit between low gain input and pre-amp gain dial replaced with a 68K resistor.(reduces treble)

- 10K resistor placed between the grounded tab of the mids pot and ground (more mids available)

- Bypassed V2a cathode resitor (820 ohm) with a 0.68 uF cap (more plexi-like mids)

- put a 0.0033 uF cap between the 4 ohm tap on the output selector and the negative feedback resistor (100K) (increases bass response)

- put a 330pF cap across the 68K input resistor of V1a (tweaks the mids a bit - in a nice way to my ear)

The Ceriatone 2204's come without a brite cap on the pre-amp gain pot. If there had been one, I would have removed it.
Title: Re: NAD - 2204
Post by: hamfist on October 04, 2008, 10:32:39 PM
Sounds a bit fizzy, probably the low volume though. I bet it sounds good in the room when its a bit louder :)

I agree Tom, it is a bit fizzy, although I think that "fizz" would help it cut through with a band to a certain extent. In one way, I think that it's also part of the signature sound of a 800.
    I think it would definately get a bit "fuller" at a decent volume.   I daren't get this above 0.5 in the house though.    I've borrowed a friend's Hotplate this evening though, so it will be interesting to see what difference that makes.
Title: Re: NAD - 2204
Post by: horsehead on October 05, 2008, 08:49:45 AM
Glad some one asked about the 2 x 12". How does the amp sound through the laney? or are you running it through marshall?
Title: Re: NAD - 2204
Post by: hamfist on October 05, 2008, 01:04:43 PM
Glad some one asked about the 2 x 12". How does the amp sound through the laney? or are you running it through marshall?

Running it through both or either !   The Laney now has H magnet speakers in (Scumback H75's), so has rather a different tone to the M magnet speakers (greenbacks) in the 412. Amp sounds great through both, but a bit more "vintage" through the greenbacks.
Title: Re: NAD - 2204
Post by: hamfist on October 27, 2008, 04:36:42 PM

The mods were :-

- treble peaking circuit between low gain input and pre-amp gain dial replaced with a 68K resistor.(reduces treble)

- 10K resistor placed between the grounded tab of the mids pot and ground (more mids available)

- Bypassed V2a cathode resitor (820 ohm) with a 0.68 uF cap (more plexi-like mids)

- put a 0.0033 uF cap between the 4 ohm tap on the output selector and the negative feedback resistor (100K) (increases bass response)

- put a 330pF cap across the 68K input resistor of V1a (tweaks the mids a bit - in a nice way to my ear)

The Ceriatone 2204's come without a brite cap on the pre-amp gain pot. If there had been one, I would have removed it.

Just a quick update, for completeness of the thread.
I have now got an Ultimate Attenuator, which actually allows me to open the amp up and use it as it was intended.
With the mods I described above, it sounds good at very low volume but (as I suspected) very muddy when you get the master much above 1.
So now I have undone all the mods I described above, except for the mod replacing the treble-peaking circuit between the low gain input and the pre-amp gain pot with a 68K resistor.
So now, it sounds great at higher master volume settings. I generally run it with the master between 2 and 3. It sounds much thicker and generally better now than the clip in the first post.

One other beneficial thing I have done is to change the negative feedback circuit to a 47K off the 8ohm tap. THings are just a bit tighter than with 100K off the 4ohm tap. The amp has a tiny bit less gain like this but I prefer it.
Still loving the amp to bits though !!