Succumbed to GAS

The Boogie Board

Help Support The Boogie Board:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

jnoel64

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 27, 2013
Messages
420
Reaction score
35
Location
Southwest Michigan
I couldn't take it anymore and ordered a TC50 from Sweetwater last night. If all goes well, I should be spending Wednesday or Thursday night ignoring my family and immersing myself in new Boogie love. The suspense is killing me. I will have to change my signature....
 
And, I also ordered a pair of Mesa 6V6 tubes a week ago. I bet the amp gets to me before the tubes. Already have a spare set of 6L6s, so I can swap out each type of power tube the amp can take. My initial instinct leads me to believe I will stick with the 6V6s.
 
For a brief moment, I had buyer's remorse even before I got the amp. I kept second guessing myself, wondering if I should have ordered the JP-2C instead. But, after unpacking my new TC-50 head tonight and giving it a 2 hour test run... Wow! There are definitely pieces of the Dyne in this amp, but it also has it's own sonic magic going on.

I found I prefer the drive toggle activated in channel 1, but the gain turned down to 9 o'clock and all eq at noon with single coils. It sounds like it really wants to break up, but doesn't quite get there. The bottom end is full, but not flubby, and the mids are rich and warm without sounding honky.

On Channel 2, I found I prefer the mini toggle on normal. With the gain just a hair above 3 o'clock, I feel the Dyne's lo mode vibe creeping in with the bass and mids at 10, treble and presence at noon. It definitely has more upper mids than the Dyne, but the tone is not too far off. Kind of like a "new and improved" Electra Dyne.

For channel 3, I prefer the mini toggle set to tight, gain at 1 o'clock, bass at 2, mid at 9:30, and treble and presence at 11. I found no need to push the gain past 1, for what I play. But someone who really wants a flame thrower would be in nirvana with the available gain on the 3rd channel.

What really blows me away about this amp is its sensitivity. I may as well dump out my Xotic SP compressor. I could sit there, at bedroom levels, and do hammer-ons all day and never have to pluck a string. I started thinking I am a better player than I originally thought! You could play mostly with one hand using this amp - on any channel. Granted, the sustain isn't as strong on channel 1, but it's still there, more than the Dyne. On channel 2, sustain starts setting in more strongly. On channel 3, I gave my picking hand a rest. I have a fairly heavy attack, and I see how I will have to adjust my playing style with this amp, and I know I will become a better player for it.

I used a single 12 Texas Heat in a custom closed back cab. I plan to pair that with another single 12 Swamp Thang in a custom open-back cab. I couldn't crank the amp, which is an initial let down, but if it gets more dynamic beyond the bedroom level I was at, I will have to invest in more underwear.

I left the stock EL34s in just long enough to find out all 3 channels were intact. I put 6V6s in and those will stay there for a while. The bouncy clean tones I get on channel 1 are just too **** good to change for now. Once those wear out, I will give some 6L6s a shot and see where that takes me.
 
Thanks for the quick review. Reminds me of the RA as it is the most responsive to pinch harmonics. Yes, it is more reactive than the JP-2C, however both amps are about as forward as they come. I definitely want to add the TC-50 to my collection so my time will come soon. Perhaps next month or the month following. Still building on my studio funds and after that it is new amp day. Still I love the JP-2C but it is very loud amp near its sweet spot. Note: the JP can only use one type of tube which is the 6L6 variety :cry: but that is not a bad thing.

Having the ability to run the 6V6 has my interests. Drops you down to half power but yet gives you that mojo without having the shake the house down around you. I have to wait as it does not fit my budget plan at the moment, unless I sell something.......
 
As much as I would LOVE a JP-2C, it's 100 watt power section is what made me get the TC-50 instead. I've never heard cleans as good as the JP-2C, and that's very important to at least one of the bands I'm in. If they made a half-power (not the 60 watt scaled mode) version of that amp, I would have purchased that one instead, regardless of price. For all the gigs and genres I play, I have no need for a high power amp. Which is sad because my beloved Electra Dyne is collecting dust. And the weight alone of my RK1 keeps that amp in storage, lol!

The 6V6 option is exactly why I got the TC-50. I can get to the power section's sweet spot without rattling the walls or moving the audience back from the stage. Of course, I COULD get/build an ISO cab, but then I couldn't hear the amp except through monitors, and I'm not about to do that. And attenuators? No thank you. Every one I have tried ruins the tone. Power sections were made to be pushed and heard.

Tomorrow I plan to open the amp up, power-wise. Wife and kids will be out of the house and neighbors be damned. Another Boogie player is coming over for the sole purpose of taking the TC-50 for a test drive. Really looking forward to hearing the amp an gig levels and way beyond.
 
I like the 6v6 tubes too. At home they help to get thing cooking much sooner regarding volume and the clean tone is sweeter. After about a week the EL34s went back in as I wanted the headroom and extra punch for an outdoor gig.

I've found that as the volume is increased the TC50 gets brighter, could just be how my ears perceive things. The good news is the presence control easily keeps everything in balance. I was worried at the outdoor gig my tone would get too bright and harsh with the semi-open back combo. With the presence around 10:00 on channel two the tone was great, never better in fact. When I listened to the recording later I was surprised how beefy my guitar sounded.

Compared to the ED, I don't find very much similar between channel two and vintage Lo, it's interesting that you do. The clean channel is much more similar. Maybe it's the type of music I play or my guitars, but channel two of the TC is way more touch sensitive and doesn't mud up when Palm muting notes. Also when reducing the guitar volume I find the ED looses the higher harmonics and muffles down somewhat. The RA100 vintage Lo responds in a very similar way, but the added presence control of the TC allows way more control and variance.
 
I had the chance to really open the amp up today, volume wise. I, too, noticed the amp getting brighter at higher volumes, and, just as you said, JJ, the presence control easily bring it back to a more controlled state. The Dyne has always sounded best at higher volumes to me. It's as if it needs a second master volume. I never let that stop me from enjoying it, though! I don't know what it is about the Lo mode on the Dyne and channel 2 on the TC, but I still get a similar vibe. Not a clone, and, yes the TC is more sensitive, but there is something underneath where I hear shades of the Dyne, especially if the Dyne is cranked.

I also pushed the gain on channel 3 up to 3 o'clock. I had to back up to stop the feedback, lol! Some may desire a flame thrower, but I don't need that much gain for what I play. 1-1:30 is perfect for what I do. I spent more time on the clean channel than any so far. The more I play this amp, the more I love it. Even with the different genres I play, the TC can cover all I need it to, and that's a slam dunk for me.

There may come a time when I will need more headroom for some gigs, and I am glad to have plenty of tubes at my disposal to swap out. But for now, the 6V6s are staying put.

Speaking of which, I have pairs of Mesa, JJ, TAD, and Tung-Sol 6V6s at hand. None of them look similar, so I can't say with any certainty who makes the Mesa tubes. They have a similar number as the Tung-Sols, but structurally they are not similar at all. Another part of this forum has a post that claims Mesa's 6V6s are Chinese even though Mesa claims they are Russian. That post also linked Mesa's 6V6s with TAD. But, I can tell you, they definitely are NOT TADs. I have the Mesa tubes in for now. I did automatically replace V1 with Mesa's SP12AX7. That's just a bad habit I need to quit, but I had a spare so in it went.

Sweetwater's review tried to say it has a long tank reverb. Clearly, they didn't look inside the head, because the tank is much smaller in the TC than it is in the Dyne. Normally, I don't really care about reverb in an amp, but for what I will be using the TC for, I am glad to report, long tank or not, it still sounds beautiful.
 
The first thing I did was look in the back of the head unit my local shop had to see what iron and reverb tank the TC 50 had. I was a bit disappointed to see the short tank, but since it sounds good in the Mark V:25 there wasn't much reason to doubt it in the TC (and it does sound great as you said). The combo though does have a long tank, so Sweet water are partly right :mrgreen: the long tank has a very long decay and while it is great sounding reverb I sometimes think the short tank would suit better, especially for channel 2.

I think the 6V6 tubes would be fine for most gigs. It was only the outdoor gig with the 1x12 one semi open back combo that made me put the EL34s back just in case. If I had the head wth the extra focus of a closed back 2x12 cab I wouldn't have bothered changing tubes. There don't seem to be many complaints about volume from guys with Deluxe reverbs running a pair of 6v6s.

Tungsol 6v6 sound great. I have a pair in my Deluxe reverb and they are a good upgrade from the groovetubes. Haven't tried any in the TC yet. Generally I mix and match tubes to get what I want tone wise, but in this case the Mesa tubes including the 6v6 set are working so well I don't need to.

The TC50 is my favourite Mesa yet. Channels one and two are just about perfect for me. Channel three is keeping me busy. It's general nature just seems to be suited for tones I'm not so interested in. If I ever want to play metal though... I probably should look more towards a boost for channel two.
 
J.J said:
The first thing I did was look in the back of the head unit my local shop had to see what iron and reverb tank the TC 50 had. I was a bit disappointed to see the short tank, but since it sounds good in the Mark V:25 there wasn't much reason to doubt it in the TC (and it does sound great as you said). The combo though does have a long tank, so Sweet water are partly right :mrgreen: the long tank has a very long decay and while it is great sounding reverb I sometimes think the short tank would suit better, especially for channel 2.

I think the 6V6 tubes would be fine for most gigs. It was only the outdoor gig with the 1x12 one semi open back combo that made me put the EL34s back just in case. If I had the head wth the extra focus of a closed back 2x12 cab I wouldn't have bothered changing tubes. There don't seem to be many complaints about volume from guys with Deluxe reverbs running a pair of 6v6s.

Tungsol 6v6 sound great. I have a pair in my Deluxe reverb and they are a good upgrade from the groovetubes. Haven't tried any in the TC yet. Generally I mix and match tubes to get what I want tone wise, but in this case the Mesa tubes including the 6v6 set are working so well I don't need to.

The TC50 is my favourite Mesa yet. Channels one and two are just about perfect for me. Channel three is keeping me busy. It's general nature just seems to be suited for tones I'm not so interested in. If I ever want to play metal though... I probably should look more towards a boost for channel two.

I see in your signature that you have both Dyne and RA's. Many have reflected on hearing the ED tone in the TC-50 to some extent on CH2, what about the RA? Any characteristic similarities of the RA to the TC-50?
 
After hearing the amp at higher volumes, I changed my Channel 1 settings. I flipped the toggle back to normal, but cranked the pre-amp to about 3 o'clock. That definitely increased my output volume and gave me a touch more headroom. Its perceived volume is greater than its actual volume, and that is exactly what I want with single coils. The amp will be HEARD. Tubedepot has a bunch of tubes on sale, so I grabbed 2 Mullard CV4004 to put in V2 and V3 of the TC. I've had some wonderful success with those tubes and want to see if they do the same for the TC.
I'm glad to hear about the tone of the Tung-Sols. That brand has never let me down in any amp I've tried various tubes in. My Dyne has EL34Bs and a few 12AX7s from Tung-Sol, and, until the TC, that was my favorite amp of all time.
My Granger V20 Nitro has to have 6V6s that can take higher plate voltage. That leaves me with JJ (Granger's tube of choice), TAD, and I think Electro Harmonix. I've tried the TADs in that, and wasn't really impressed. JJs have sounded best in that amp so far. I initially wanted the Granger to be my go-to amp for all gigs, but it doesn't clean up enough on the clean channel unless I roll my guitar volume about half way down. Even with the treble bleed circuits on all my guitars, I just don't like doing that. Plus, it's way too easy to accidentally hit the volume knob and lose the right setting. But it's crunch channel is beautiful.
 
If you want a hot sounding tube in the EL34 format, I would recommend the Mullard Reissue. I have those as well as the Tung Sol EL34B. Mullard's are killer tubes where as the Tung Sol sounded more like a weak 6L6 tube. The Mullard LP 12ax7 sound really good too when compared to the CV4004, awesome preamp tube to tame a bright amp like the Mark V. Only issue with the long plate design is mechanical noise may be an issue. The short plate of the CV4004 is very similar to the Tung Sol 12ax7 but with a different tone character to it. It depends on what amp you use them in. The CV4004 seems to have a mid scooped sound to them (at least in the Roadster that was the effect), in the Mark V, depending where in the circuit you put them, increased the amount of compression in the later gain stages. Did not do much for the RA100 as it basically sounded the same but with more gain sensitivity. I think that is where I have misplaced the one's I have as they are no longer in the boxes they came in.

Note: I did try a different complement of preamp tubes in the JP, that was not satisfactory, seems the Mesa's 12ax7a seem to be a better fit in that amp. Not sure what the plate voltages are on the preamp tubes but using alternates sounded like a speeding motor boat gaining momentum. I do have plenty of the old style Chinese Mesa tubes with the square foil getter, best tube I have ever used in the Mark V to silence any power supply hum or excess in white noise. Have not tried those yet.

Thanks for the push on the TC-50. My tank is not full yet to empty it on another amplifier but will be soon enough. You know what will happen if I get my hands on the TC-50? Get prepared for too much text with little said about anything in particular. Sure enough it will be placed against the RA100's and most likely the JP-2C. Not sure what I will do with the Mark V at the moment.
 
From all the demo vids I've seen of the JP2C, there really isn't anything in current production that I could compare it to. It's in a class all by itself, and I believe its price tag reflects that. My dad has an old Mk II, but no idea if its a C or C+ or just an early version. I just remember him buying it "off the shelf" at a store in Denver. When I played around with it in the late 80s, I didn't know a **** thing about Mesas. If and when I get to see that amp again, I may have to sneak it out of his house. He's the one that gave me my RK.

The TC is definitely more upper-mid voiced, and I was concerned with that, being a guy who likes a darker tone. But, it seems no matter what I play through, my choices in speakers, strings and pickups deliver the tone I prefer. Now, with the TC, my "darkness" has a spike to it, and I love it.

I tried Mullard EL-34s in my Dyne and had the exact opposite reaction you did to those versus Tung-Sols. I found the Mullards to be a bit dull and the Tung-Sols just nailed the sweet spot. Tone is so subjective, and even different amps of the same make and model can have slight variances, depending on age and use/abuse. As long as it all comes down to hearing what you want, then that's all that really matters. I do love Mullard EL84 tubes, though. And these CV4004s have a nice warmth and creaminess that I don't hear from other 12Ax7s.

I also wound up ordering some JJ EL34Ls to test at a later time. I have plenty of OLD mesa 6l6s and some JJ 6L6s. I freely admit I am not a JJ fan in general. But, I have found some instances where only a JJ would work well. If winged =C= weren't so rare and outrageous, I would have several of those.
 
I am curious how the TC50 overall clean tone is, compared to the Electra Dyne?
 
To me, the Dyne has a very Fender blackface tone. Personally, I don't think I can get mine bright enough without switching to single coils because of the shared EQ. Not a big deal for me, just one more switch to flip. But, with separate EQs for all 3 channels on the TC, it's a brand new game. You can also get pretty crunchy on the TC very easily with the flip of one toggle on the amp. First impressions: the TC has a much more versatile clean tone. With the separate EQ and the added gain, it's not a fair comparison. I've heard many complain about the shared EQ on the Dyne, but I've always been able to make it work for me. Now, I can customize my clean tone much more so than the Dyne. I would also say that the TC's clean is brighter "out of the box" than the Dyne. But that's what I love so much about the Dyne: it's a darker voiced amp.
 
Good points.... what may differ from model to model that remains unseen to the average user is the plate voltages. Also the bias setting is not the same for different models nor is the tone shaping circuity. Mark V blew me away with Gold Lion KT77 but did not sound as satisfactory in the Roadster or the RA100. Same would apply to the Mullard EL34 as the characteristic was not as desirable in the Roadster. Hard to compare a simul-class circuit to class A/B as well as a Dual Rec vs trans Atlantic based amp. My suspicions is that the TC-50 may be similar to the JP-2C in that it is in a class by itself. Somehow I believe the gain structure of the JP-2C will be softer than the TC-50 based on what I have heard in recordings. The sweetwater demo of the TC-50 CH3 was very close in sound character of the PRS Archon. This I have noticed in watching the two demo videos of each as I was comparing what I could get for about the same cost.

Mullard EL34 in the RA100 sound almost sinister in its driven character but when I ordered those I specifically indicated what amp they will be used in (same would apply for the KT77). The Tung Sol EL34B was the same deal, not as sweet as the mullards in the RA. EH (Mesa) EL34 are a bit harsh sounding in the RA.

Perhaps I will surprise myself with a birthday present next month..... the surprise would be if I can afford it along with all the other gear I am working on.... Life can be boring sometimes....
 
bandit2013 said:
I see in your signature that you have both Dyne and RA's. Many have reflected on hearing the ED tone in the TC-50 to some extent on CH2, what about the RA? Any characteristic similarities of the RA to the TC-50?

TC50 channel 2 and RA100 vintage Lo are very similar, much more so than than ED. I see the TC channel 2 as an evolution of the Ra Vlo. The notable differences are the TC has more gain and wider tone control range. While I love the RA100, at times I would want a bit more In the upper mids and top end, but turning up the treble could easily make things too brash and harsh. Turning up the mids seemed to add to much lower mid content. Now with the TC I can get the exact amount of top end spray without harshness by using the presence control. Treble still controls the amount of grit or brashness. Darker tones with more prominent bass can also be had. I haven't found much use yet for the tight mode, but it certainly adds more possibilities.

As far as feel and response go the RA and TC very similar.

To sum it up the TC channel 2 can do pretty much anything the RA vintage Lo can and much more.

The clean channels are also very similar. Some have said the TC clean doesn't break up, but winding up the gain it will even with Low output pickups. I think it probably has a little less gain in normal mode, but flicking the drive switch certainly adds plenty. The ED clean is bolder and definitely has more going on in the mids.

Channel 3 and vintage high have little in common tone wise.
 
jnoel64 said:
To me, the Dyne has a very Fender blackface tone. Personally, I don't think I can get mine bright enough without switching to single coils because of the shared EQ. Not a big deal for me, just one more switch to flip. But, with separate EQs for all 3 channels on the TC, it's a brand new game. You can also get pretty crunchy on the TC very easily with the flip of one toggle on the amp. First impressions: the TC has a much more versatile clean tone. With the separate EQ and the added gain, it's not a fair comparison. I've heard many complain about the shared EQ on the Dyne, but I've always been able to make it work for me. Now, I can customize my clean tone much more so than the Dyne. I would also say that the TC's clean is brighter "out of the box" than the Dyne. But that's what I love so much about the Dyne: it's a darker voiced amp.

Thanks very much. I have a Dyne head I pair nowadays with a Royal Atlantic 1x12 27" cabinet. The bright thing is my biggest complaint - I wish it were a tad less dark. I have no problem with the shared EQ and the blue & red voices work really well. Just wish it were a bit less dark.

Until a few weeks ago I had both the Dyne head and an Express 5:50 Plus head. Something had to go and I wound up selling the Express and in some ways I wonder if I made a mistake. It was a struggle - I liked the clean tones of the Express better, but I liked the blue & red voices on the Dyne better than the gain channels on the Express.
 
Back
Top