Talk:Fender amplifier

Comments

Just merged all the articles together, it may need to be rwwritten. Izzy007 Talk 23:19, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

67.162.201.9 (talk) 14:06, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

While there are many possible improvements to this article, one group in particular which need attention is the Dick Dale references. These need serious attention, as such urban legends gain quick credibility via Wikipedia, and soon enter the vernacular as "facts". :-/

At a minimum, I suggest that the Dick Dale comments be modified to note that "it is reported by some", or other such equivocation. This seems especially appropriate for the Tom Wheeler quote which, though previously ublished, seems unsupportable with reliable independent and contemporary sources. To report as fact that in 1960 Leo Fender didn't "happen" to have any brown Tolex around the shop on the day that Dick Dale needed to pick up his custom built amp is almost laughable. To suggest that the ultra frugal Leo Fender happened to have experimentally acquired some blonde Tolex which he didn't like, but quickly whipped onto the amp and cabinet for a performance that evening is just silly. The sole source of this fantasy is an interview by Tom Wheeler with Dick Dale. Thus it is not a corroborated fact at all, but rather an unsubstantiated comment from Dick Dale about Dick Dale! This should be noted as such in the text. Given Mr. Dale's well known tendency towards hubris, the claim should be viewed with extreme caution, as I will show in the next set of comments.

While it is difficult to establish the veracity of the tolex comment, it is well established that Dick Dale fabricated out of whole cloth his influence on JBL designs, and in a fashion which is suspiciously similar to the rather unbelievable tolex story. This imaginary influence is confirmed by Harvey Gerst, former JBL employee during the era in question. Mr. Gerst is the man directly responsible for the creation of the D series loudspeaker. He is still living, and has widely and repeatedly stated that there was no such Dick Dale influence on the JBL D-130 design. This seems to me like a clear and highly credible evidence against the entire Dick Dale/Fender legend. Mr. Gerst has been modest and quiet about the issue. He has certainly not made a campaign over it, and has nothing to gain career-wise by contradicting Dale - except to report the facts about the situation for the purpose of telling the truth. Thus, it seems almost impossible to accept the Dale JBL story at face value. There is no documented Dick Dale influence on the invention of the JBL-D130. His contribution to the D-130 inclusion in the Fender lineup was merely that he was an high-profile user of Fender products which were experiencing failures of the Jensen 15's for well established reasons.

Finally, the comments about the Showman's "interleaved" transformer are pure invention. All Woodward Schumacher transformers, as used in ALL class AB1 Fender amp designs from about 1960 onward, are in fact "interleaved" EI core transformers. (engineers, take note) To suggest there was something special about the Showman's transformer is silly and just plain inaccurate. The Showman used a Woodward Schumacher #45550 transformer. This is exactly the same transformer as used in the same-era Vibrasonic, 2x6L6 design, by the way! There is one and only one reason this is so. The 45550 transformer was selected strictly because the secondaries matched the JBL D130's rated impedance of 16 ohms when the primary was loaded with 4x6L6, as in the Showman! The Vibrasonic's 2x6L6 configuration simply meant that it was even less likely to fail than the identical transformer in the 4x6L6 Showman, as the 2x6L6 plate impedance was double that of the Showman.

As far as "more power" at Dick Dale's request, this too is unsupportable. The plates on every single 4x6L6 Fender amp of the era ran 430 volt B+ @ -55v bias. This means that the blonde Twin and the Showman were making exactly the same amount of current at the primary. Of course, with the 16 ohm output on the Showman, the reality is that the measured power was exactly half that of the blonde Twin (at twice the impedance, of course!). The more efficient JBL D-130 in the closed back cabinet was the source of the perceived increase in volume with the Showman, just as it would be with the 4x12 closed back Marshall half stack a few years later. Thus the claim that the Showman amplifier design had special powers is pure invention - apparently at the hands of Dick Dale, which matches his general trend of exaggeration and invention. Any competent tube amp designer or technician can easily observe that the electronic design choices that Leo Fender and his team made for the Showman appear primarily to be to improve reliability, NOT to increase power. Such a conclusion is obvious, and seems imminently reasonable to the situation in 1960. It is important to remember that relative loudness in a concert situation is a perceptual and subjective observation, whilst the failure on stage of a Fender Amplifier during a well-attended concert of a high profile artist is a purely objective event. To suggest that Leo would take such a risk with his entire brand, and especially his flagship model, at the hands of Dick Dale just to squeeze out a few more db from the Showman is silly, specious, and contrary to the vast bulk of published material about the character of Leo Fender. Repeated failures of Fender Amps onstage would have been totally unacceptable to Leo, which is probably why he got involved with Dick Dale in the first place. He was blowing up the Jensens, just like everybody else - only he was doing it in front of hundreds or even thousands of potential customers.

Solving the problem for a temperamental artist like Dick Dale involved more than telling him to "turn it down"...Leo had to employ all his cunning to come up with an amp which was both perceptually louder, and more reliable. The result is the Showman. Physically larger, apparently louder than a combo, but probably more reliable night after night than the open back designs.

67.162.201.9 (talk) 14:06, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Comments: Article Really Needs Work

This is supposed to be an encyclopedia article, not a collectors reference catalog. To me a collector's catalog will focus on the distinguishing features that separate two similar models, where as an encyclopedia entry will try to explain the overall importance of the object in the context of the era in which it was produced,

Even the pictures show this bias: for an article on Fender Amps we have a comparison of the two logo badges. If I really didn't know what a "Fender Twin" was as a twelve year old just reading about the blues for the first time those pictures are not going to be too helpful.

AND: even if it desired to keep the collector's catalog type of focus, this article fails on that too.

For instance, a table would be one way to show models and eras, with notes. As an example of an article that does a good job of overviewing a long-term product with many variations look at the article Ford_F-Series.

There is way too much focus on the cosmetic aspects of the amps. While the division's used of "Tweed" "Blonde" "Blackface" are the common names used in most reference books, for a general article it might be better to go by years than model families.

Something like:

• Early Models: which could go from prototype through the first commercial amps, which I believe there were three of.

• Tweed Era ending in 1960: Which could include other coverings as it's the "era" not them models.

• Pre-CBS: from 1960 to the sale to CBS in 1967

• CBS era

• Post CBS

• Fender in the 21st Century

etc.

Even if we decide to maintain the structure using these categories there is very little information given about the models included in the various families.

Because Fender amplifiers were very early and popular guitar amplifiers I think more attention should be paid to the very early amps, their years of release, their acceptance and proliferation.

In summary: Article needs to be re-thought and re-written.

ZeroXero (talk) 18:56, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Fender Amplifiers. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071008021430/http://www.tcguitar.com/articles/gagliano_pt3.html to http://www.tcguitar.com/articles/gagliano_pt3.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:40, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Capitalization

Is there a company named "Fender Amplifiers"? Is there a brand name called "Fender Amplifiers"? I haven't been able to find them yet and the article name was changed in 2008 as the "correct title". If there is indeed a proper "Fender Amplifiers," an edit to at least the lede is necessary. Ponydepression (talk) 02:04, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

I don't know of a company named that. There is Fender Musical Instruments Corporation. The title should be singular instead of plural, and the second word should not be capitalized, see Wikipedia:Article_titles#Article_title_format. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 02:20, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

• I put in a move request at Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 03:52, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Fender amplifiers?

Shouldn't this article be named "Fender amplifiers", plural? If there's no reason not to, I'll perform the rename in about a week or so ... -- Mikeblas (talk) 22:32, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

@Anthony Appleyard:, @Anthony Appleyard:, looks like ya'll requested and performed the last move. Why should the article be singular when it describes a range of products? I don't see this in the WP:MOS. -- 22:37, 7 March 2023 (UTC)22:37, 7 March 2023 (UTC)22:37, 7 March 2023 (UTC)~

Blackface? Brownface? Black panel? Brown panel?

A recent series of edits deleted the terms "blackface", "brownface", etc. in favour of "black panel", "brown panel" etc. I noticed this because the redirect at "Blackface (Fender)" is now broken. Does this change reflect actual usage in the Fender amp community? Jean-de-Nivelle (talk) 19:56, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

It does not reflect actual usage in the Fender amp community. They're still called "Brownface," "Blackface" and "Silverface" by the vast majority of the community. I'm not sure if I've ever heard "Brown panel," "Black panel" or "Silver panel" in serious usage. 74.130.69.50 (talk) 04:47, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

In fact, I seldom peruse the "Talk" sections on Wikipedia, but this change was peculiar enough for me to want to find out what was going on. I'd suggest reverting. 74.130.69.50 (talk) 04:49, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks - I'd forgotten about this. I've reverted for now. Jean-de-Nivelle (talk) 19:40, 17 January 2024 (UTC)