Marshall 1968 plexi(original) vs Marshall 1968 Plexi Clone

[pat_rocks]

Part of the fun is finding the most accurate parts for a build.

the worst part is the mica capacitors and the double electrolytic caps x)

ah and do not forget the pots because i believe marshall used 10% tolerance accuracy pots while nowadays unless you buy pec pots you will only find 20% x)

that's one of the main reasons old marshalls sound different... the pots... from 10 to 20% it is a huge difference.

 

[chocol8]

I just buy a bunch of pots and measure them. Most of the time they are within 5% of spec but there are the occasional outliers.

 

[Amadeus91]

I just buy a bunch of pots and measure them. Most of the time they are within 5% of spec but there are the occasional outliers.

Speaking of pots, found 3 NOS Centralab 250K pots from '64.
Gonna try them in my Strat.

 

[playloud]

the worst part is the mica capacitors and the double electrolytic caps x)

ah and do not forget the pots because i believe marshall used 10% tolerance accuracy pots while nowadays unless you buy pec pots you will only find 20% x)

that's one of the main reasons old marshalls sound different... the pots... from 10 to 20% it is a huge difference.

I've found the mica capacitors pretty easy to find (except for some earlier values like 556pf). And if you're going for "EVH spec", dual electrolytic caps are less of a concern....

The thing about component tolerance is that whatever it was when brand new is virtually irrelevant now. I've seen posts by at least one experienced member here (was it @neikeel?), pointing out that the AB RS pots (correct for this era) now test consistently higher than their nominal values. 20% may be on the low side!

I've also noticed that PEC pots are less popular than they were a few years ago. I wonder if this is because, being sealed, you can't just spray them with Deoxit when they get stiff/scratchy - unlike their cheaper counterparts.

 

[chocol8]

I think the old pots are usually carbon traces, so like carbon comp resistors, they should be expected to drift up with time and moisture exposure.

 

[Amadeus91]

I've found the mica capacitors pretty easy to find (except for some earlier values like 556pf). And if you're going for "EVH spec", dual electrolytic caps are less of a concern....

The thing about component tolerance is that whatever it was when brand new is virtually irrelevant now. I've seen posts by at least one experienced member here (was it @neikeel?), pointing out that the AB RS pots (correct for this era) now test consistently higher than their nominal values. 20% may be on the low side!

I've also noticed that PEC pots are less popular than they were a few years ago. I wonder if this is because, being sealed, you can't just spray them with Deoxit when they get stiff/scratchy - unlike their cheaper counterparts.

I would also add on the PEC pots, they can be a b%tch to solder due to their stainless steel
backs. I have a set in my Les Paul Custom, from George Alessandro. They are from PEC but were
made to his specs, very nice pots.

It is always a nice surprise to get hold of some dual electrolytic caps.
I did not have the heart to use this Radiospares in my clone, it instead went to a friend for restoration of his vintage JTM45.

ERIE dual

The carbon trace in those old Centralab pots are HUGE, no wonder they can last so long.

 

[C-Man]

If the original poster (OP) can spring for an original that would be the best option because while I agree with what has been said here about them sounding different (Not Always Better) due to components, as far as a tool for music, this really only matters to you personally. Besides, owning vintage gear like anything coveted means you are essentially a custodian. What I and my colleagues despise the most is the snobbery that goes around with people who own vintage gear in general, as if all others are less worthy. Thankfully, there are a pool of passionate Marshall custodians who are humble enough to share their knowledge and such about vintage Marshalls for the few of us that cannot partake in such endeavors to build incredible clones of these fabled amplifiers.

If you decide to build a clone the right way, this can take extensive amounts of research and time. I think the biggest respect one can give to these amplifiers is to replicate faithfully. This is part of the fun, and the experience can be extremely rewarding. A clone can also be whatever you want it to be.

First, as for transformers, I am fortunate enough to have three of the same amplifier with same model replica Drake output transformers from Mercury, Heyboer (Marstran), and Merren. As a gigging musician, I have had the opportunity to play pristine vintage pieces all the way to the "I've only replaced a couple components" examples side by side with a few of my replicas, and in a blind test, if we are talking about the vintage pieces equipped with Drakes, I could not personally tell any discernable difference between the vintage pieces or the modern pieces other than me thinking, this vintage piece should sound better here. This is great news for you and your wallet.

Second, if you spring for a dead on faithful replica, the only thing you'll inevitably have trouble with in a clone is achieving the look of the components if you don't spring for vintage (especially the levant for a '68) or as close as possible to vintage. Part of the beauty of the vintage Marshall amplifiers is the look, and sadly, many clones, even the big name players in this area often do the bare minimum to satisfy this need. So you'll have to take this area into your own hands. At least for me, it isn't a faithful replica if certain areas of the looks are skipped that are important to me. Therefore, to me, if you can't nail the looks with the sound, then your in the crude Ferrari/Pontiac Fiero type of clone territory. Make of that what you will if you could care less about how the amplifier looks.

Building replicas is also highly addictive, and for me, I always want to outdo my last attempt. My next attempt will have all vintage transformers so I can personally put the notion of "all the transformers have to be vintage to nail the old sound" to bed. At the end of the day, this is more of an art for me, not a hobby, so my opinions might grind on the gears of some people.

 

[pat_rocks]

If the original poster (OP) can spring for an original that would be the best option because while I agree with what has been said here about them sounding different (Not Always Better) due to components, as far as a tool for music, this really only matters to you personally. Besides, owning vintage gear like anything coveted means you are essentially a custodian. What I and my colleagues despise the most is the snobbery that goes around with people who own vintage gear in general, as if all others are less worthy. Thankfully, there are a pool of passionate Marshall custodians who are humble enough to share their knowledge and such about vintage Marshalls for the few of us that cannot partake in such endeavors to build incredible clones of these fabled amplifiers.

If you decide to build a clone the right way, this can take extensive amounts of research and time. I think the biggest respect one can give to these amplifiers is to replicate faithfully. This is part of the fun, and the experience can be an extremely rewarding. A clone can also be whatever you want it to be.

First, as for transformers, I am fortunate enough to have three of the same amplifier with same model replica Drake output transformers from Mercury, Heyboer (Marstran), and Merren. As a gigging musician, I have had the opportunity to play pristine vintage pieces all the way to the "I've only replaced a couple components" examples side by side with a few of my replicas, and in a blind test, if we are talking about the vintage pieces equipped with Drakes, I could not personally tell any discernable difference between the vintage pieces or the modern pieces other than me thinking, this vintage piece should sound better here. This is great news for you and your wallet.

Second, if you spring for a dead on faithful replica, the only thing you'll inevitably have trouble with in a clone is achieving the look of the components if you don't spring for vintage (especially the levant for a '68) or as close as possible to vintage. Part of the beauty of the vintage Marshall amplifiers is the look, and sadly, many clones, even the big name players in this area often do the bare minimum to satisfy this need. So you'll have to take this area into your own hands. At least for me, it isn't a faithful replica if certain areas of the looks are skipped that are important to me. Therefore, to me, if you can't nail the looks with the sound, then your in the crude Ferrari/Pontiac Fiero type of clone territory. Make of that what you will if you could care less about how the amplifier looks.

Building replicas is also highly addictive, and for me, I always want to outdo my last attempt. My next attempt will have all vintage transformers so I can personally put the notion of "all the transformers have to be vintage to nail the old sound" to bed. At the end of the day, this is more of an art for me, not a hobby, so my opinions might grind on the gears of some people.

I think what matters the most is having fun and not doing it to show off.

i think the best attempts to create close sounding replicas by a brand would be metropoulos :

It isn't always the same exact components but the sound is litteraly almost perfectly cloned :

 

[Dirty-D]

I've never heard of "dead ass nuts transformers", do they have a website?

 

[Amadeus91]

I've never heard of "dead ass nuts transformers", do they have a website?

For the love of God, Do Not google that!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[stickyfinger]

I think what matters the most is having fun and not doing it to show off.

i think the best attempts to create close sounding replicas by a brand would be metropoulos :

It isn't always the same exact components but the sound is litteraly almost perfectly cloned :

The parts around 5:33 and 6:33 where the amps are turned up and chords are played is what really lets you hear how different they sound. There is a softness maybe mellowness is the right word without the brittle top end harshness of a new clone. What I really dislike about this comparison is most of the clip is slight break up and or single notes.

 

[playloud]

The parts around 5:33 and 6:33 where the amps are turned up and chords are played is what really lets you hear how different they sound. There is a softness maybe mellowness is the right word without the brittle top end harshness of a new clone. What I really dislike about this comparison is most of the clip is slight break up and or single notes.

I'm glad I'm not alone in thinking the differences are quite distinct.

The clone sounds more scooped.

 

[pat_rocks]

The parts around 5:33 and 6:33 where the amps are turned up and chords are played is what really lets you hear how different they sound. There is a softness maybe mellowness is the right word without the brittle top end harshness of a new clone. What I really dislike about this comparison is most of the clip is slight break up and or single notes.

i agree there are subtle differences but done with new components it isn't that bad.

 

[Derrick111]

Second, if you spring for a dead on faithful replica, the only thing you'll inevitably have trouble with in a clone is achieving the look of the components if you don't spring for vintage (especially the levant for a '68) or as close as possible to vintage. Part of the beauty of the vintage Marshall amplifiers is the look, and sadly, many clones, even the big name players in this area often do the bare minimum to satisfy this need. So you'll have to take this area into your own hands. At least for me, it isn't a faithful replica if certain areas of the looks are skipped that are important to me. Therefore, to me, if you can't nail the looks with the sound, then your in the crude Ferrari/Pontiac Fiero type of clone territory. Make of that what you will if you could care less about how the amplifier looks.

Interesting to finally see someone mention the cosmetics. That has always been something that bothered me about Marshall and some VOX reissues, clones, and such, but we never seem to hold manufacturers too responsible for this aspect... we just silently share a collective disdain for the minimal efforts in that regard. There is such a beauty in the real thing. By contrast, many efforts are visually dull in comparison with notable exception to Fender, Orange, and Hiwatt... possibly Supro. If people take a stand that this is important, then builders/companies would be forced to appease us to make their money and for the product to be any success. Since we don't, they focus on other aspects. They have been hedging their bets on the general public not knowing any better to date.

I got into vintage amps when they were about the same price or cheaper than the present day amps of the time (quite a bit cheaper even), so my opinion that the old stuff sounded better was not a placebo effect or swayed by popular trends, forums, and hyped periodicals on gear. They just truly sounded and looked better to me. The internet didn't even exist in people's homes then. Most people looked down at my "old" gear as less cool and were often very happy to get rid of it to me for something more "rad". I get that these amps can be used in ways that the differences sometimes aren't heard very easily, but they can also be "holy-shit!" in comparison if healthy and set up correctly. I thought the Hiwatt reissue that people collectively agree is a faithful, great replica sounds quite flat (consistently) compared to my original. On it's own, it sounds really great... until you put an original next to it, then you hear the difference. The Fender reissues of anything never sounds as good as the originals (by a far margin). On the other had, Marshall does a pretty good job on some models. I thought the Pete Townshend '65 Marshall Superlead stack sounded fantastic! Reissues/clones still may not have the full depth of magic, but if you can get 70-80% or so of the way there on them, than that is close enough for many now that the prices of originals are where they are today. But sorry, reissues aren't the same and ultimately it's a choice you must make for yourself rather than for everyone else. I think if people haven't owned or at least had a reasonable amount of experience with some properly set up vintage examples, they don't know what this stuff really sounds like just going by YouTube videos and online demos. Even Johan Segeborn's YouTube videos don't sound like these amps do in person or on professionally engineered recordings to me, and he tries hard. All this to say that you can often get close enough with clones/reissues that today's prices make that good enough for a lot of people, but there is indeed a difference with a healthy vintage original set up properly. People can argue there's no difference in originals and clones, but what you think you are getting from comparisons/demos online are almost never really accurate representations because most of us aren't professional recording engineers using $200,000 worth of recording equipment. They usually sound buzzy/fizzy and unnatural. My experience is that putting a properly set up vintage original next to a clone/reissue will open your eyes (and ears) similar to how your preamp tubes when getting a bit dull still sound fine to you until you change them for healthy ones.

 

[chocol8]

Funny how different opinions are on cosmetics. For me, I want a clone to sound like the real thing, but I want it to look different. The "Marshall" head I am building now will go into a green tolexed cab whose appearance and dimensions are intentionally different from anything Marshall ever made. It isn't a 1960's Plexi and I want that to be obvious from 100 feet away, just like Jim made the JTM 45 look nothing like a Bassman.

 

[Amadeus91]

Interesting to finally see someone mention the cosmetics. That has always been something that bothered me about Marshall and some VOX reissues, clones, and such, but we never seem to hold manufacturers too responsible for this aspect... we just silently share a collective disdain for the minimal efforts in that regard. There is such a beauty in the real thing. By contrast, many efforts are visually dull in comparison with notable exception to Fender, Orange, and Hiwatt... possibly Supro. If people take a stand that this is important, then builders/companies would be forced to appease us to make their money and for the product to be any success. Since we don't, they focus on other aspects. They have been hedging their bets on the general public not knowing any better to date.

I got into vintage amps when they were about the same price or cheaper than the present day amps of the time (quite a bit cheaper even), so my opinion that the old stuff sounded better was not a placebo effect or swayed by popular trends, forums, and hyped periodicals on gear. They just truly sounded and looked better to me. The internet didn't even exist in people's homes then. Most people looked down at my "old" gear as less cool and were often very happy to get rid of it to me for something more "rad". I get that these amps can be used in ways that the differences sometimes aren't heard very easily, but they can also be "holy-shit!" in comparison if healthy and set up correctly. I thought the Hiwatt reissue that people collectively agree is a faithful, great replica sounds quite flat (consistently) compared to my original. On it's own, it sounds really great... until you put an original next to it, then you hear the difference. The Fender reissues of anything never sounds as good as the originals (by a far margin). On the other had, Marshall does a pretty good job on some models. I thought the Pete Townshend '65 Marshall Superlead stack sounded fantastic! Reissues/clones still may not have the full depth of magic, but if you can get 70-80% or so of the way there on them, than that is close enough for many now that the prices of originals are where they are today. But sorry, reissues aren't the same and ultimately it's a choice you must make for yourself rather than for everyone else. I think if people haven't owned or at least had a reasonable amount of experience with some properly set up vintage examples, they don't know what this stuff really sounds like just going by YouTube videos and online demos. Even Johan Segeborn's YouTube videos don't sound like these amps do in person or on professionally engineered recordings to me, and he tries hard. All this to say that you can often get close enough with clones/reissues that today's prices make that good enough for a lot of people, but there is indeed a difference with a healthy vintage original set up properly. People can argue there's no difference in originals and clones, but what you think you are getting from comparisons/demos online are almost never really accurate representations because most of us aren't professional recording engineers using $200,000 worth of recording equipment. They usually sound buzzy/fizzy and unnatural. My experience is that putting a properly set up vintage original next to a clone/reissue will open your eyes (and ears) similar to how your preamp tubes when getting a bit dull still sound fine to you until you change them for healthy ones.

As @C-Man originally posted and you reiterated, the cosmetics seems to be
relegated to an afterthought and can be a hard nut to crack. Finding parts seemed an
exponentially easier task, than deciding what to do on this subject. I ended up with
this for my '64 clone. All things considered, I am satisfied with what I ended up with using.

 

[Derrick111]

As @C-Man originally posted and you reiterated, the cosmetics seems to be
relegated to an afterthought and can be a hard nut to crack. Finding parts seemed an
exponentially easier task, than deciding what to do on this subject. I ended up with
this for my '64 clone. All things considered, I am satisfied with what I ended up with using.

I like that a lot! Where did you source the thick gold fascia across the front?

 

[Amadeus91]

I like that a lot! Where did you source the thick gold fascia across the front?

My builder got the head shell for me.
Unfortunately, my builder has long since gone MIA.
Let me know, if you want me to go thru my notes to find who built it.
I think the builder was Ray D

 

[Derrick111]

My builder got the head shell for me.
Unfortunately, my builder has long since gone MIA.
Let me know, if you want me to go thru my notes to find who built it.
I think the builder was Ray D

This is the part I'm wondering about..Do you know where that came from or did your MIA builder source it?

 

[Amadeus91]

This is the part I'm wondering about..Do you know where that came from or did your MIA builder source it?

View attachment 122126

The builder of the head shell provided all the materials himself.
The builder was indeed, Ray D. I believe he has been mentioned on this site.