Mellotronists

I'm surprised no-ones mentioned valves, because, surely the mk 2 would have 
had these and the m400 not. To me this fact alone would have meant the two 
instruments would have been sonically different.
Don't call me Shirley
Andy K 
EMI m400 # E4/1405

kinchmusic@... wrote:

> I'm surprised no-ones mentioned valves, because, surely the mk 2 would have
> had these and the m400 not. To me this fact alone would have meant the two
> instruments would have been sonically different.  Don't call me Shirley
> Andy K        EMI m400 # E4/1405
>

________________________________________________________________

Hi Gang, Surely the MK-I and II models with valve preamps contributed to that
"classic" and different violin sound from later solid-state models. And surely the
3-violins EQ were "toned-down" for the M400 series,making them less harsh.

BTW, work is proceeding nicely on "Julia", it surely will be done early next year.

Cheers, Shirley MacLaine and Shirley Bassey

I'm certain the amp has a lot to do with the sound quality. In the Chamberlin
M's, the preamp is a refugee from an eighth grade shop class (!!). I take my
signals straight from the head racks and put it through a Cerwin-Vega
(transistor) pre-amp and then to the main amp. Much better sound by far.
Shirley this pertains to trons as well......Has anyone modified their M400 to
allow for a tapehead signal straight to an outboard pre-amp??

Vance....aka Shirley U. Mustbekidding

kinchmusic@... wrote:

> I'm surprised no-ones mentioned valves, because, surely the mk 2 would have
> had these and the m400 not. To me this fact alone would have meant the two
> instruments would have been sonically different.
> Don't call me Shirley
> Andy K
> EMI m400 # E4/1405
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> Mellotronists-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

for those of us in the states:

valve = tube

On Thu, 26 Sep 2002 kinchmusic@... wrote:

> I'm surprised no-ones mentioned valves, because, surely the mk 2 would have 
> had these and the m400 not. To me this fact alone would have meant the two 
> instruments would have been sonically different.
> Don't call me Shirley
> Andy K 
> EMI m400 # E4/1405
> 
> 
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> Mellotronists-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> 
>  
> 
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ 
> 
>