banner

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Hughes & Kettner Triamp Mk. I vs. Mk. II

Collapse
X
Collapse
 
  • Page of 1
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
Previous template Next
  • #1

    Hughes & Kettner Triamp Mk. I vs. Mk. II

    Other than reverb or lack thereof, what are the primary differences between the Triamp Mk. I and Mk. II? I've got an opportunity to score an EL-34 Mk. I at a really great price, but I was wondering if they have any drawbacks? It seems to be a bit muddy at lower volumes, but other than that I like it a lot so far. I just want to be sure that I really want this amp before I commit to buying it.
    Originally posted by crusty philtrum
    And that's probably because most people with electric guitars seem more interested in their own performance rather than the effect on the listener ... in fact i don't think many people who own electric guitars even give a poop about the effect on a listener. Which is why many people play electric guitars but very very few of them are actually musicians.
    Tags: None
  • #2
    Re: Hughes & Kettner Triamp Mk. I vs. Mk. II

    I like the headroom on Amp 1A better on the Mk I than the Mk II. However, as I recall they revoiced 2B and 3A for the Mk II and added a 1/2 power switch on the Mk II. Also with the Mk II, the Amp 1 section was redone so that "gain" controls 1A (which I thought was stupid because in order to match the level on other channels, it can't stay completely clean) and 1B is able to break up earlier (which was a nice touch).

    I really liked the amp, but I noticed that it liked humbuckers more than singles (which I use primarily now) and it can be noisy. Bear in mind the Mk I Triamp is loaded with something like 13 tubes total, so a retube is definitely not cheap. The amp head is not small and it's pretty heavy, so it can be cumbersome to carry by yourself. Besides that, they are very well built, great sounding amps that are very underrated.

    The Mk 1 came in two versions: the 6l6 and EL-34. The EL-34 one was much better (that's what I used to own myself) so you have the good one.


    In short, buy it if you need a lot of power and flexibility to your rig
    Last edited by That90'sGuy; 10-14-2005, 03:21 PM.
    Originally posted by kevlar3000
    I learned a long time ago that the only thing that mattered regarding tone was what my ears thought.
    Originally posted by Zerberus
    Better is often the enemy of good
    Originally posted by ginormous
    Covers feed the body, originals feed the soul.

    Comment

    • #3
      Re: Hughes & Kettner Triamp Mk. I vs. Mk. II

      I definitely need the flexibility, I just hope it isn't too loud... I thought it compared to a Bogner Ecstasy pretty well, it was just much harder to dial in and it didn't sound as good at low levels.
      Originally posted by crusty philtrum
      And that's probably because most people with electric guitars seem more interested in their own performance rather than the effect on the listener ... in fact i don't think many people who own electric guitars even give a poop about the effect on a listener. Which is why many people play electric guitars but very very few of them are actually musicians.

      Comment

      • #4
        Re: Hughes & Kettner Triamp Mk. I vs. Mk. II

        I have found my new perfect amp, and I wasn't even looking for one.

        I had a chance to check out the Triamp over the weekend, and I must say that the cab makes a world of difference. The Triamp cab it was paired with in the shop sounds like complete and total ass compared to my 1970s Marshall 1982B. Not only did I find the Triamp to sound better than an Ecstasy (for my style at least), but I was able to dial in some very usable tones at roughly bedroom level. Now I just need to find the source of that obnoxious crackle (phase inverter?) and score a midi module. I don't suppose anyone knows where I can get a good deal on one?

        P.S. It took me about 30 minutes of playing to find out why the guy on HC sold his 2555 after buying a Triamp. IMO the H&K pisses all over the Marshall but sorry guys, I can't part with that cool toy just yet.
        Originally posted by crusty philtrum
        And that's probably because most people with electric guitars seem more interested in their own performance rather than the effect on the listener ... in fact i don't think many people who own electric guitars even give a poop about the effect on a listener. Which is why many people play electric guitars but very very few of them are actually musicians.

        Comment

        • #5
          Re: Hughes & Kettner Triamp Mk. I vs. Mk. II

          How much are you getting it for? Personally, I like 3 channel amps like the Ecstacy and Triamp. They're much more versatile for a gigging rock player. If you buy it, retube it with top notch tubes, and use the current ones as spares. On these types of amps, I've done a lot of tube experiments, and the JJ EL-34's or E-34L's and GT12AX7C's are the proven winners. It'll probably sound better than it did brand new. GT12AX7C's are tight, gainy, and focused, so the low volume tone will be better.

          And, I agree with you about using a Marshall, VHT, Mesa, or Bogner cab. They make a huge difference in the overall tone. I HATE budget cabs w/mediocre speakers!
          Originally posted by Boogie Bill
          I've got 60 guitars...but 49 trumpets is just...INSANITY! WTF!

          Comment

          • #6
            Re: Hughes & Kettner Triamp Mk. I vs. Mk. II

            Yep, whatever you do, don't put JJ 12AX7s in there because it will kill any sort of overdrive, sustain etc. you have in that amp (as strange as that sounds). My Triamp sounded great with Chinese and I found out the hard way that "better" tubes may not equate to "better" tone, atleast in high gain beasts like the Triamp (I happen to love JJs in my Fargen Epic 30 DC).

            I could never understand why the Triamp cabs are so bad, but they are. A good Greenback loaded Marshall 4x12 is heaven (as I had found out after I had sold the amp).
            Originally posted by kevlar3000
            I learned a long time ago that the only thing that mattered regarding tone was what my ears thought.
            Originally posted by Zerberus
            Better is often the enemy of good
            Originally posted by ginormous
            Covers feed the body, originals feed the soul.

            Comment

            • #7
              Re: Hughes & Kettner Triamp Mk. I vs. Mk. II

              I just sealed the deal today for $895 and after some swapping out over the weakend I'm going to leave the tubes alone for now. The previous owner replaced the tubes with EH 12AX7s in the preamp and winged-C EL-34s in the power amp. I don't much care for Greenbacks as they sound a bit mushy, but I love how it responds to my G12Hs.
              Originally posted by crusty philtrum
              And that's probably because most people with electric guitars seem more interested in their own performance rather than the effect on the listener ... in fact i don't think many people who own electric guitars even give a poop about the effect on a listener. Which is why many people play electric guitars but very very few of them are actually musicians.

              Comment

              • #8
                Re: Hughes & Kettner Triamp Mk. I vs. Mk. II

                Winged C Svetlanas were the tubes GJ recommended to me and they were great power tubes! That's one hell of a deal as well dystrust, you simply can't get any lower than that
                Originally posted by kevlar3000
                I learned a long time ago that the only thing that mattered regarding tone was what my ears thought.
                Originally posted by Zerberus
                Better is often the enemy of good
                Originally posted by ginormous
                Covers feed the body, originals feed the soul.

                Comment

                Previous template Next
                Working...
                X