• TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
    Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
    Join freeLog in
    Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.

Jule Amps Monique Part III

Status
Not open for further replies.
As a result of this I looked at a few tube pages. Hard to know where to start though - lots of somewhat seemingly random choices.

If anyone has suggestions on how I can spend small amounts of money in interesting ways, I'm all eyes :D

I've had very good results with this guy. He takes returns if you simply don't like the way a tube looks, much less sounds. Odd-branded tubes are often the best bang for buck, and with some research you can figure out whether that Motorola or Philco tube is actually a GE or RCA built piece, for example. Lots of Sylvanias were even made by RCA to fulfill military contracts, and vice versa. Those can be harder to suss, but as long as they sound good I don't really care what the label says.
 

I like their RCA NOS JAN 6SL7s not expensive. More 3D more harmonic co tent. I'm fond of the EH rectifier as it gives great punch. It's tighter tha. The vintage RCA and Brit rectifiers I have. The old ones have some sag that guitarists may like or you may like in a recording environment. I love tight punch.

As everyone has said the OEM tubes are fine. The stock Monique sounds amazing and can be left alone.:)
 
I've bought from multiple people over the years, but recently I've ordered from both Brent Jesse: http://www.audiotubes.com/6sl7.htm
and from http://www.vacuumtubes.net

Both are reputable dealers and both have decent prices (I think that Brent is a bit cheaper). Both will also take the time to help you understand what you're looking at. Vacuumtubes.net also has someone on board who is supposedly versed in tone/circuits who may provide some help in terms of tone color. I think that Brent may give you a bit of general advice but I don't think he goes overboard in that kind of way.

I see some of the 6SL7's on Brent's list that I'd think would be a good buy, like the RCA NOS grey glass and clear glass for 19$ each...or the Tung Sol Brownbases that are 29$ each. There are a bunch of other Sylvania and other options for similar pricing. I wouldn't spend a ton on a 12AU7 for the monique...You should be able to find a decent one for under 20$.
 
I like their RCA NOS JAN 6SL7s not expensive. More 3D more harmonic co tent. I'm fond of the EH rectifier as it gives great punch. It's tighter tha. The vintage RCA and Brit rectifiers I have. The old ones have some sag that guitarists may like or you may like in a recording environment. I love tight punch.

As everyone has said the OEM tubes are fine. The stock Monique sounds amazing and can be left alone.:)

Never hurts to remind myself, and others that tube sockets can loosen and fail to make proper electronic contact. I am thinking of this because I found one (brand new) loose last week during a final test procedure.

Extremely easy to fix. Push a needle/pin between the socket hole and the little metal crimp that grabs the tube pins. This bends the little crimp nicely so it can continue to do its job.

This is also a way to make a few bucks from your guitar buddies, and amaze them yet again. :) This happens quite frequently in vintage tube amps that suspend their tubes upside down.

Keep having fun.
 
This was posted in another thread, but it is great info on Baxandall.

If anyone asks you why Monique sounds so great, tell them it is partially due to the Baxandall tone stack and show them this!:spit::D

http://makearadio.com/tech/tone.htm

P.s. I just realized that I have had my Monique for just over 7 months.... And have had zero amp related GAS and still don't. For me, this is an amazing feat!

This makes me very happy. As I build continuously, it is this that makes the tasks very worth while. Thank you.

Another Rack Mount Monique in the box ready for the jaunt to Switzerland this week. Second one to Switzerland in a month.

And it is now a lot more fun to drop by the shop and play. As several friends/customers will tell you, my rig in the shop was often pretty bleak. With loans of gear to locals and the technical environment of the shop, there was often limited playing ability. All fixed - There is now dedicated gear for the shop that will always be available for wandering minstrels. :) Bring your bass and drop by.
 
There's also another really good discussion right here on TB, including a link to the actual Baxandall white paper: http://www.talkbass.com/forum/f15/some-discussion-amp-eqs-950782/.

As the good folks of Ampeg did long ago in the SVT, it is best to throw the mathematical basis of the Baxandall out the window for our purposes. The math does establish a good place to start. Then it is a process of playing and tweaking.

The "normal" eq stack that guitarists have grown to expect, that has also crawled its way into the bass world, was originally seen in the back pages of the RCA Tube Handbook as an "example" of how to use RCA tubes. First copied component by component by Leo Fender ... And then copied with slight modification by Jim Marshall ... And then copied by everyone else. It is economical.

This speaks very well of the good people of Ampeg that had the guts and skills to implement this so long ago.

I am glad folks like the Baxandall in Monique. I do to.
 
I've been more than happy with my sound (G&L L2500 -> Acoustic Image Clarus going into an Epifani UL2-112) and receive compliments on my tone almost every time, but have become really interested in trying out this Jule Monique (presumably I'd go with the De-Monique.

I do however like the high impedance of the Clarus because I also double with an upright bass. Furthermore I can't find the EQ frequencies for the EQ.

Is there more info (technical specs) available on these subjects?
 
Numbers would help us remember where we were, but would otherwise give incorrect impressions. I expect there are others using Monique who can now suggest better than I, but I would think you'd have to take down some of the high and mid both to get where you want. By design, there is some overlap (mids) between the high and mid EQ knobs. Not so with the Low.

Cool, thanks. I do understand the Baxendall does things differently, and don't mind at all learning how one ticks and differs from other types. And thank you Baird6869 and Passinwind, for those links! Diving in now.


Monique isn't really a numbers kind of girl. Play with the knobs until it sounds good. Don't be afraid to be radical with the eq, but if you're expecting surgical precision you're going to be disappointed. Monique is an instrument rather than a box with knobs to be twiddled. The real action is the interplay between fingers/strings/bass and the sensitivity knob. The eq is more like salt/pepper to taste. It's not going to change meat into fish.

Hmm.
Box shape (rackmount)? Check.
Knobs that turn? Check.
Female, so if like most females, probably enjoys a little knob twiddling now & then? Check. :D

Kidding, I understand what you mean. :cool:
(Though to me, "twiddle with knobs" and "play with the knobs until it sounds good" are just two different ways to say the exact same thing, so you have me a little bit confused saying no to the former and yes to the latter.)

But no matter, I have a followup, which includes a little self-facepalm. I'm juggling far too many things at once, and it bites me once in a while:

First a clarification. I should have worded my question a little better, by "upper mid metal cut" I meant dialing in more of the upper mid frequences that can slice right through the wall of loud/thick/crunchy guitars one encounters in some metal. For example, with a parametric I'd maybe pull out a little in the mid-mids (maybe around 500Hz), and boost a little somewhere around 800-1000Hz, whereever it sounds right. Which I suppose is a sort of surgical precision that might need to happen elsewhere. Which is fine, was just looking for a little info that might help me decide what to do eq-wise and where to do it. For when I might know what I want, but have little or no time to look for it. (Maybe after going out in room with wireless, with many more bodies having filled in, and initial room adjustments aren't quite right anymore. Have done that plenty of times when carrying a room.)

I have a bunch of eq options available, most sitting otherwise unneeded and unused on the bass, in various pedals, and so on. I usually just dial in the amp for the room, including a low-mid bump wherever it sits right, and call it good... the rest is finger and pick positions and an occasional treble roll-off at the instrument. For this one band I sometimes goose the upper mids a little as described. Perhaps an atypical move... plus my cab isn't exactly upper-mid shy to begin with. :eek:

Anyhow, I discovered the lack of "cut" up there likely had nothing to do with Monique.

I had just put new strings on two of my basses a few days before, and had been enjoying exactly that sound at home. In rehearsal with the bass I brought it wasn't there... of course not, solo vs. mix tone being different animals. What sounds good in my room never works in any other room, let alone in a band mix. Commence the usual adjustments, start playing.

Now, it wasn't bad or anything, just not quite enough "up there". I was going all over the place with mid & high, trying to get something like that up there, but wasn't finding it. Was slamming through a set quickly with no pauses, and few moments for reaching up there for more adjustments. Never got as far as dropping the bass knob below noon (which might have been the ticket).

But when I plugged in later (after my post), it really wasn't there solo anymore, either. Wha? Plugged in the other bass with new strings... BANG. There it was back. Listened to the other bass again with no amp... whoah, new strings lost most of the zing already, didn't see that coming. Usually they take a little while to settle down, then are just right for a few months. They weren't dead, but far from fresh, more like the tail end of life when I'm starting to consider a new set. I swear I didn't eat a big pile of fried chicken before playing, so not sure what happened there. (OK, I actually did... but I washed my hands! :ninja: )

Took only a few seconds of listening to that bass unamplified to explain exactly what was going on, and that it had nothing to do with my new pre/power setup. (The most obvious "thing that changed" variable.) So... I guess I was looking for a "fresh strings" knob, and Monique didn't have one. Maybe that could be the next piece of magic Jule cooks up? :hiding:

This weekend at a rehearsal (different band/room/bass/strings) had no such trouble. Go figure. :rolleyes:
 
Monique isn't really a numbers kind of girl. Play with the knobs until it sounds good. Don't be afraid to be radical with the eq, but if you're expecting surgical precision you're going to be disappointed. Monique is an instrument rather than a box with knobs to be twiddled. The real action is the interplay between fingers/strings/bass and the sensitivity knob. The eq is more like salt/pepper to taste. It's not going to change meat into fish.

Good afternoon all. After reading this thread and from the reviews I read, my interest has really grown in possibly purchasing the Monique pre. Nostatic's description above is exactly how I feel about the Read Purity pre that I am using now. I do not engage the eq on the Read pre at all. By altering my right hand position I am able to get so many different tones out of this pre that I do not need to use the eq at all. The eq on my bass is more than enough.

So my question is this... Has anyone ever compared the Monique to the Read pre? I love my Read pre but I do have concerns because it is old, and Jack doesn't service them anymore so I'm starting to think about a replacement. But I would like a replacement that is similar to the Read pre. The Read pre truly does bring out the natural tone of my bass, and I absolutely love the emphasis knob on the Read pre.

Is the sensitivity knob on the Monique similar to the emphasis knob on the Read pre?

Any input / comparisons would greatly be appreciated.

Thanks,
Mike
 
Good afternoon all. After reading this thread and from the reviews I read, my interest has really grown in possibly purchasing the Monique pre. Nostatic's description above is exactly how I feel about the Read Purity pre that I am using now. I do not engage the eq on the Read pre at all. By altering my right hand position I am able to get so many different tones out of this pre that I do not need to use the eq at all. The eq on my bass is more than enough.

So my question is this... Has anyone ever compared the Monique to the Read pre? I love my Read pre but I do have concerns because it is old, and Jack doesn't service them anymore so I'm starting to think about a replacement. But I would like a replacement that is similar to the Read pre. The Read pre truly does bring out the natural tone of my bass, and I absolutely love the emphasis knob on the Read pre.

Is the sensitivity knob on the Monique similar to the emphasis knob on the Read pre?

Any input / comparisons would greatly be appreciated.

Thanks,
Mike

I haven't owned a Read Purity preamp for a long time, but at one point, I had two of them. Ultimately, I found myself preferring the more open sound of my Kern IP-777 to the more mid-focused tone of the Read. But that Read did have beautiful mids!

The nice thing about Monique, is that she sits somewhat in between the Kern and the Read, with expansive lows (if you want them) and singing highs, but tons of midrange complexity and the ability to dial in many different midrange focuses.

Tom.
 
I haven't owned a Read Purity preamp for a long time, but at one point, I had two of them. Ultimately, I found myself preferring the more open sound of my Kern IP-777 to the more mid-focused tone of the Read. But that Read did have beautiful mids!

The nice thing about Monique, is that she sits somewhat in between the Kern and the Read, with expansive lows (if you want them) and singing highs, but tons of midrange complexity and the ability to dial in many different midrange focuses.

Tom.

I haven't had the Read, but I do have the Kern, and I've kept it because even as another high-voltage pre with good transformers, its a VERY different preamp to me. The Kern is a big wide lush sounding pre, but never had much drive or punch. It did have these moments of utter beauty. The Monique is a much burlier, muscular sounding pre...more punch, seemingly tighter and faster and can get lowdown dirty in a way that the Kern never did.

The Monique has this WEIGHT to the tone that just feels huge & natural and solid.
 
I haven't owned a Read Purity preamp for a long time, but at one point, I had two of them. Ultimately, I found myself preferring the more open sound of my Kern IP-777 to the more mid-focused tone of the Read. But that Read did have beautiful mids!

The nice thing about Monique, is that she sits somewhat in between the Kern and the Read, with expansive lows (if you want them) and singing highs, but tons of midrange complexity and the ability to dial in many different midrange focuses.

Tom.

I haven't had the Read, but I do have the Kern, and I've kept it because even as another high-voltage pre with good transformers, its a VERY different preamp to me. The Kern is a big wide lush sounding pre, but never had much drive or punch. It did have these moments of utter beauty. The Monique is a much burlier, muscular sounding pre...more punch, seemingly tighter and faster and can get lowdown dirty in a way that the Kern never did.

The Monique has this WEIGHT to the tone that just feels huge & natural and solid.

Thanks to you both for the responses. The thing I love about the Read is the mids. I do not like the eq on it; I think it robs the point to point wiring magic the pre has to offer. I do agree Tom that the Read lacks some round bottom tonality to it when used this way; that is why I find myself goosing my bass pot a bit on my Fodera to compensate (I also tend to favor my bridge pickup a tad so I have to make up the low end loss), or adjust my right hand playing closer to the fretboard to get a rounder tone for certain tunes.

I'm happy to read that the Monique does offer tons of midrange complexity which is what I desire, and expansive lows and punch as the both of you suggested. This would help me out a lot because I want to be able to cut back on the bass pot on my Fodera because it can have the tendency to clip some of the inputs of my stompboxes if I'm not careful, especially my korg G5. I would love to be able to make up the bottom in my pre; I just don't like the bass pot in my Read pre, that is why I bypass the eq.

So I guess I'll be listing some gear in the classifieds for my Monique fund!

One other question, while I would love to buy the demeter power amp to go with this, its just not going to be financially possible at this time. I would be using the power section of my STL900 for the Monique. Would I get good results doing that?

Thanks for your help,
Mike
 
One other question, while I would love to buy the demeter power amp to go with this, its just not going to be financially possible at this time. I would be using the power section of my STL900 for the Monique. Would I get good results doing that?

Thanks for your help,
Mike

My guess is that you would get adequate results, but it might not let you fully appreciate what Monique brings to the table. I'm not sure about the Streamliner 900, but I know that on all of the other Genz-Benz heads I've owned (and on the ones we tested), the "tube amp emulation" slash limiter circuit is located downstream of the power amp in, and cannot be bypassed.

So, it'll probably sound quite nice, but I am suspecting that it will still have some of that Genz-Benz coloration built in.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.