A cool thread and some pages on how the Fender tone stack works.

[Zut8083]

A neat discussion from another forum.  I thought it was a pretty interesting bit to read and a useful springboard to look elsewhere on the internet.

https://www.gearslutz.com/board/so-many-guitars-so-little-time/846390-can-someone-explain-fender-tone-stack-interaction-newbie.html

Here's the external reference cited in the article-http://pickroar.com/1003/the-tone-stack-explained-in-english-for-humans/

And here's the "Tone Stack Calculator" from Duncan's Amps also cited in the article-
http://www.duncanamps.com/tsc/

Another interesting Fender-based tone stack page-
http://monster.partyhat.co/article/amplifier-tone-stacks/

A "note" taken from the RCA Receiving Tube Manual, 1970 Ed., Technical Series, RC-27, p. 45 showing a bass/mid/treble circuit similar to the Fender tone stack, and archived by the internet wayback machine on the following page, presumably used for educational purposes-
http://web.archive.org/web/20151004082212/http://www.thermionic.info/tonecontrols/tone_control.html

Thanks,
-Zut

[David Houck]

It's been quite a while, but if you run a site search you'll find similar threads here, including an adjustment to make for the Tone Stack Calculator to more closely emulate an Alembic preamp.

In the past I used the Calculator often to give myself a better understanding of how adjustments I make to the preamp controls affect the overall shape of the frequency curve.  This visualization helped in dialing in my desired tone.

[Zut8083]

Cool!  Thanks, Dave!

[Zut8083]

I have yet to pull the threads mentioned above, but here are some talkbass and diyaudio threads that could be germane to the discussion-
https://www.talkbass.com/threads/fender-alembic-bbe-tone-stack-explained.491699/

http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/instruments-and-amps/286277-output-impedance-effect-tone-stack.html


Aaand, is this one the threads?  Maybe? http://club.alembic.com/index.php?topic=3427.msg37874#msg37874

[David Houck]

13 years ago.  I did say it had been a while. 

[Zut8083]

Naw, David, I'd like to think of things like this being more like a tesseract.  It wasn't long ago; it was tangentially ago.  If it's good enough for space-time, it's certainly good enough for me.

[David Houck]

Or ... it didn't actually exist until you found it, bringing it in to this present experience.

[Zut8083]

Perhaps buried in the human collective unconsciousness?  It answers to "Google", "Siri", or "Alexa", it seems...but not "Patricia".

[hankster]

"Tangentially ago".  That captures so much about my life it is frightening.

[gtrguy]

I had a 1965 Fender Champ amp for a while. I put in a pull pot that bypassed the tone stack. The amp instantly gained what sounded like 100% more output. I discovered that 1/2 of one 12AX7 does nothing more than make up for the signal loss of pushing the guitar signal through the tone controls! It still didn't have enough headroom, so I sold it.

[edwin]

I had a 1965 Fender Champ amp for a while. I put in a pull pot that bypassed the tone stack. The amp instantly gained what sounded like 100% more output. I discovered that 1/2 of one 12AX7 does nothing more than make up for the signal loss of pushing the guitar signal through the tone controls! It still didn't have enough headroom, so I sold it.

I don't think the lack of headroom was from the preamp section. A '65 Champ is known for other qualities. But yeah, that's the nature of a passive tone stack.

[glocke]

For whatever reason I have trouble wrapping my head around this stuff.

"Bass and treble are Boost and cut, midrange is cut only. Diming the Mid is the same as not having a mid control on other Fender amps. Approximation of flat (no guitar amp is ever really flat) is 5-10-5."

I have a couple of Demeter amps, (201s and bass 400), and I think i read somewhere they use a fender tone stack (been awhile so may not be 100% on that)

I had always thought tone controls were straightforward.  12 o'clock is flat, CCW is cut, CW is boost but apparently thats wrong.  When they say midrange is cut only, they are saying the more CW you turn the knob the less mids you will have?

[edwardofhuncote]

Crazy idnit, Greg?


I wish I could remember exactly how Will Gunn explained it, but the words he used somehow got through to me that using the mid control on my F-1X at full-on was almost like a gain stage, and the bass and treble then became the tone-shaping tools. Since then, I have found that for most applications, my F-1X is set to (appox.) 1.75 Bass × 8.25 Mid × 2.50 Treb. with both the 'Bright' and 'Deep' switches disengaged. These settings are a kinda' "mid-scooped" starting point for my 5-string Alembics, but vary just a little for the 4-string models. For instance I might flick the 'Deep' switch, or boost the Bass a touch. They change quite a bit for other basses, depending upon which one is on deck.


The hardest thing for me, (because I seldom if ever load up all that gear for a gig) was replicating (enough of) that glorious sound with the Mesa Walkabout/Scout 15 I gig with regularly. It took some doing, but I found it.

[hieronymous]

I understand flat on the F-2B to be 2-10-2 (bass-mid-treble)


My starting point is usually 4-6-4 - so bass & treble boosted a little bit, mid scooped a bit. Then I adjust for taste. Depends too if I'm just playing through headphones or if I'm recording - through headphones I've been cranking the bass to 6 or 7, but for recording 4 is about right.

[cozmik_cowboy]

All [passive tone controls are cut-only; to boost you need active.  The 2-10-2 flat setting for Fender (and thus most) tone stacks reflects the frequency & roll-off each is set for at 10, and anything CCW rolls off more; CW does not boost, it just cuts less. 

Peter