Talk:Marshall Bluesbreaker

6V6 Error

The reissue Bluesbreaker does not now nor has it ever used 6V6 valves, and it certainly does not use a different socket. It uses 5881/6L6 valves depending on the market and when it was sold. In fact, the only issue preventing the use of KT66 valves was that between 1989 and 2002 the reissue's cabinet was too narrow at only 9"/22.5cm to accept these valves easily. Since 2002 the cabinet is 10.5"/~26cm deep and can comfortably accept the KT66s of vintage proportion. If the amp had been fitted with 6V6s it may have only been rated for perhaps 25W, whereas with a 5881/6L6/KT66 and its current transformer it puts out 32-38W.

I am removing this part as although it does have a reference, it is inaccurate. The Doyle reference book while an excellent resource has been shown to be inaccurate in many of its claims due to scarcity of information available to the author. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.120.161.6 (talk) 12:40, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Doyle's book is an excellent reference, but is not without error. Indeed the early, shallow BB reissue cabinets do make for a tight fit with KT66s, but original GEC KT66s and those reissue tubes that match the original GEC dimensions (and not all do) can be fitted, albeit oftentimes with the help of a washer or two to space the chassis away from the front of the cab. References for tube upgrades such as this one (http://www.raw-sewage.net/jtm45ri_mods.html) have been available online since circa ~2000, and upgrades to KT66s for even the earlier shallow cabs are possible, but require attention. Vapeur (talk) 14:57, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

• I think you should have a look at WP:RS, and Wikipedia:No original research. We write what's verified, not what we think we know to be true. Doyle is a reliable source, raw-sewage.net is not. Drmies (talk) 23:40, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Please give me one good reason why I shouldn't just revert the whole lot--for the introduction of original research, overwikilinking, unreliable sources, etc. Drmies (talk) 23:44, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
• I've removed the statement about the tubes sourced (inaccurately!) to Doyle--you can't change a fact but keep the source, especially if the source contradicts that information. I've added 5881s, sourced to the Marshall website. I have removed the information about the space for installing things for a number of reasons: first of all, it is excessive detail of a non-encyclopedic nature, and that it's not really notable is evidenced by the fact that there are no reliable sources that provide it, and that's the other problem: those forum threads are not reliable sources. Now, if it turns out that Doyle is incorrect (which isn't impossible but it's not proven--your word is not enough), that's another matter. I've ordered Wiley's book; perhaps that will clear this up. But in the meantime, please do not re-add information based on forum messages, as well-intentioned they may be; they do not count as reliable here. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 03:49, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Being in print doesn't make it fact. I am one of the listed contributors on the raw-sewage.net page, which I co-authored some 10 years ago. I have repaired/restored and built tube amps for 20+ years, and I am one of several who has successfully fitted (with minor difficulty) GEC and VA KT66s into the shallow RI BB cabinets on several occasions. This comes from first-hand experience, not Doyle's supposition. I've pointed to blogged accounts of others who have successfully followed suit for the benefit of your knowledge, as this information is hardly a secret at this point in time, except to someone who's learned what they know from reading a coffee table book. As I indicated previously, Doyle's book isn't perfect, and the various errors contained therein have been amply discussed over the years. Now, if you want to argue that it's beyond the scope of the article to mention the possibility of a power tube swap, that is another matter. Omitting the passage makes little difference to me. Anyone who does their homework will find the facts in the recaps of first-hand experiences, and in this instance, it isn't what's printed in Doyle. Just because Doyle got it wrong doesn't require it to be incorrect here. I am interested only in the accuracy of information presented in the article. Vapeur (talk) 13:22, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

The claim about the Dallas Rangemaster is exactly that, and is disputed. Said claim is rooted in one person's opinion, and isn't supported by so much as a single piece of evidence, photographic or otherwise. This claim is in dispute, and the article needs to consider this.

From Wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treble_booster It is widely believed that Eric Clapton used a Rangemaster on John Mayall's Blues Breakers with Eric Clapton album. Though most likely a myth (no photographic evidence of Clapton using a Rangemaster has ever surfaced), the association with Clapton helped the Rangemaster circuit gain a fair bit of popularity.[4]

From Premier Guitar Magazine (referenced in the article): As stompbox fanatics, we want to believe this one, but the fact is it’s never been confirmed. It’s pretty well documented that Eric Clapton used an original sunburst Gibson Les Paul Standard coupled with a Marshall JTM45 combo to achieve his legendary tone on the album John Mayall and the Blues Breakers with Eric Clapton, a.k.a. Beano, but there is nothing to support the claim that Clapton used the Rangemaster. He may very well have, but there’s no solid evidence to confirm it, and Slowhand himself has never mentioned using it or not using it.Vapeur (talk) 13:22, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

• That reference to Premier Guitar is fine. But statements like "Said claim is rooted in one person's opinion" and "Being in print doesn't make it fact" overlook one of the most basic tenets of Wikipedia, laid out in Wikipedia:Verifiability. Wikipedia works by way of verifiable information from reliable sources. A book in print (from a relevant author and properly published by a real press) weighs more heavily than a thousand message boards, no matter how experienced the contributors are. Wikipedia:Truth is not a guideline or policy, it's an essay, but it's very helpful. Thanks for the reference to that article. Drmies (talk) 18:01, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm aware of the tenets of Wikipedia, and I appreciate your concern. Whereas the opinions and judgments expressed in a printed book remain forever static and reflective of what was accepted at the time of printing, Wiki is a living resource that is continuously updated. This particular subject may be somewhat unconventional in that online resources easily contain the greatest pool of knowledge, much of which is presented in good faith and cannot be found within printed matter. And while I am in full agreement that information presented therein cannot be taken for granted, neither should it be ignored by default. Matters of relevance, credibility, and consideration are often matters of human judgment and consensus of opinion. Vapeur (talk) 20:34, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Car boot

I linked car boot to the page for trunks, I'm not sure which word we should use considering both are equally common on both sides of the Atlantic. The article that already exists is titled "Trunk" but I figured Clapton would have used this word himself. So I just wanted to make sure this was the right way to go about this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dkyguy1995 (talk • contribs) 03:43, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Rename this Marshall 1962?

I really think this article should be renamed to properly follow the correct nomenclature for this amp. It was only ever informally referred to as the Bluesbreaker amp before Marshall re-issued the amp in the 1980s, and most of the article refers to Clapton's use of it prior to that. It's almost as if the Vox AC30 article was titled "Vox Hank Marvin" or "Vox Beatles Amp".

Obviously the common nickname for it can be clarified in the lede, and a redirect set up. I just think this should be more accurately titled. Verlaine76 (talk) 12:13, 9 September 2018 (UTC)