Gibson Skylark and EQ
Question:
Hello there, The amp I’m trying to improve the tone on is a ‘62 or thereabouts Gibson Skylark GA-5 (two 6AQ5s as output tubes, push-pull design … about 9 watts or so.) [Lots of messages in the archives on Skylarks ... I'm trying to glean a bit more understanding.] The only problem: it can be rather shrill and is very much tilted towards the upper mids and treble. (It has a new Weber 10" speaker in it. Speaker is good. Tubes are good, caps, everything, etc., checks out.) However, it doesn’t have a tone control. That’s probably the problem. So I’m thinking of EQ before the input. [ Don't want to add a tone knob, unless that's the only option. I'd rather not hack the amp up too much; it's in nice condition. ] I’m looking for a more balanced (nothing that kills birds flying overhead-brightness) kind of tone–not expecting the kind of bass I’d get from a high-powered amplifier … just a sense that all the registers (probably not the right word) are represented nicely. Controlling it with the tone/volume knobs on my guitar works to an extent, but there’s still that high-frequency ringing pretty much no matter what, and this introduces muffled strumming. If anyone out there has a suggestion for an EQ, or there’s another Skylark owner who has managed to tame the high end on their amp, I’d appreciate any help. I’ve looked at the EQs mentioned on amptone.com and read other articles. I’m just not sure if this is something that can be controlled by EQ before the input, or if the circuit design is such that it’s not capable of anything else (short of rebuilding the amplifier with a different circuit, which would be silly; I could just have someone build me an amp to specs that I like. Or just buying a different old amp.) Suggestions, suggestions … I’m very open to new ideas. (The main reason I like this amp is the ‘immediacy’–not like the sound is buried somewhere deep inside the amp.) I guess this is characteristic of low-power amps. I’ve been a bit long-winded, but I thought it better to include more detail than to leave anyone guessing at what I mean. Sincerely, Brent Addendum: If you want to hear the amp in action, there’s a hastily recorded improvised song I put together with the Skylark and an SM-58: http://pages.prodigy.net/bbechtel/archive/mu/love_is_a_good_thing.mp3 Not necessary — just an afterthought … anyway. Guitar is a Samick RL-4; humbuckers. Vocals are goofy. Kind of fun.
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->Hello there, >The amp I’m trying to improve the tone on is a ‘62 or thereabouts >Gibson Skylark GA-5 (two 6AQ5s as output tubes, push-pull design … >about 9 watts or so.) [Lots of messages in the archives on Skylarks ... >I'm trying to glean a bit more understanding.] >The only problem: it can be rather shrill and is very much tilted >towards the upper mids and treble. >(It has a new Weber 10" speaker in it. Speaker is good. Tubes are good, >caps, everything, etc., checks out.) >However, it doesn’t have a tone control. That’s probably the problem. >So I’m thinking of EQ before the input. [ Don't want to add a tone >knob, unless that's the only option. I'd rather not hack the amp up too >much; it's in nice condition. ] >I’m looking for a more balanced (nothing that kills birds flying >overhead-brightness) kind of tone–not expecting the kind of bass I’d >get from a high-powered amplifier … just a sense that all the >registers (probably not the right word) are represented nicely. >Controlling it with the tone/volume knobs on my guitar works to an >extent, but there’s still that high-frequency ringing pretty much no >matter what, and this introduces muffled strumming. >If anyone out there has a suggestion for an EQ, or there’s another >Skylark owner who has managed to tame the high end on their amp, I’d >appreciate any help. >I’ve looked at the EQs mentioned on amptone.com and read other >articles. I’m just not sure if this is something that can be controlled >by EQ before the input, or if the circuit design is such that it’s not >capable of anything else (short of rebuilding the amplifier with a >different circuit, which would be silly; I could just have someone >build me an amp to specs that I like. Or just buying a different old >amp.) >Suggestions, suggestions … I’m very open to new ideas. >(The main reason I like this amp is the ‘immediacy’–not like the sound >is buried somewhere deep inside the amp.) I guess this is >characteristic of low-power amps. >I’ve been a bit long-winded, but I thought it better to include more >detail than to leave anyone guessing at what I mean. >Sincerely, >Brent >Addendum: >If you want to hear the amp in action, there’s a hastily recorded >improvised song I put together with the Skylark and an SM-58: >http://pages.prodigy.net/bbechtel/archive/mu/love_is_a_good_thing.mp3 >Not necessary — just an afterthought … anyway. Guitar is a Samick >RL-4; humbuckers. Vocals are goofy. Kind of fun.
Cool simple design. Is this the one?: https://schematicheavencom.secure.powweb.com/gibsonamps/ga5_crest.pdf It’s not shrill in that recording. In fact, it seems to record very well. Although, it’s really hard to listen to your amp through that singing. It’s sort of… distracting. Since it doesn’t record as being shrill, and since it’s a small low powered amp, my guess is that how you orient the amp in the room will have a huge effect on how much treble you hear. The more it’s aimed at your ears, the more treble you’ll hear. But if you reflect the amp off something, I think that a lot of that shrill sound will be absorbed. Pete — But if you are after mere parlor tricks, you will be sorely disappointed. –Dr. Orpheus
Response:
<snipping myself> > Cool simple design. > Is this the one?: > https://schematicheavencom.secure.powweb.com/gibsonamps/ga5_crest.pdf
Pete, thanks for the reply. Yes, that looks like the GA-5 that I have, at least by the tube compliment, which matches. Resistor values and the like, I can’t say for certain (I read on one of the USENET amp/guitar groups that changes to the circuit can exist from amp to amp, maybe true? Anyway.) > It’s not shrill in that recording. In fact, it seems to record very > well. Although, it’s really hard to listen to your amp through that > singing. It’s sort of… distracting.
Good, good. My amp tech thought it was excessively shrill and another friend described it as "brassy", but off-axis recording a few feet away (actually, I’ve had better results with a boom mic pointed at the back corner of the amp at a 45-degree angle) seem to capture the right characteristics … The singing … agreed (Maybe the singing is shrill? Ha.) I think I have a track minus the singing, I could chop out a 30-second mp3 or so and upload it for reference, I think. I’m glad though that it doesn’t record as being shrill; that takes care of half of the problem (if there is any)– The only other part might be: for general playing around with friends, would an EQ be able to change frequency characteristics given the simple amp design? I’m ready to plonk down $100 or so on an EQ, since if it doesn’t work with this amp, it’ll likely work with my JTM-30 (retubed and re-biased; doesn’t run hot at all now — I think that was the problem with these Marshalls–the 6L6s it shipped with were something like 66 milliamps, the new tubes are biased around 22 mA … just a side note.) Thanks again, especially for giving a listen. Sincerely, Brent – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Since it doesn’t record as being shrill, and since it’s a small low > powered amp, my guess is that how you orient the amp in the room will > have a huge effect on how much treble you hear. The more it’s aimed > at your ears, the more treble you’ll hear. But if you reflect the amp > off something, I think that a lot of that shrill sound will be > absorbed. > Pete > — > But if you are after mere parlor tricks, > you will be sorely disappointed. –Dr. Orpheus
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->Hello there, >The amp I’m trying to improve the tone on is a ‘62 or thereabouts >Gibson Skylark GA-5 (two 6AQ5s as output tubes, push-pull design … >about 9 watts or so.) [Lots of messages in the archives on Skylarks ... >I'm trying to glean a bit more understanding.] >The only problem: it can be rather shrill and is very much tilted >towards the upper mids and treble. >(It has a new Weber 10" speaker in it. Speaker is good. Tubes are good, >caps, everything, etc., checks out.) >However, it doesn’t have a tone control. That’s probably the problem. >So I’m thinking of EQ before the input. [ Don't want to add a tone >knob, unless that's the only option. I'd rather not hack the amp up too >much; it's in nice condition. ] >I’m looking for a more balanced (nothing that kills birds flying >overhead-brightness) kind of tone–not expecting the kind of bass I’d >get from a high-powered amplifier … just a sense that all the >registers (probably not the right word) are represented nicely. >Controlling it with the tone/volume knobs on my guitar works to an >extent, but there’s still that high-frequency ringing pretty much no >matter what, and this introduces muffled strumming. >If anyone out there has a suggestion for an EQ, or there’s another >Skylark owner who has managed to tame the high end on their amp, I’d >appreciate any help. >I’ve looked at the EQs mentioned on amptone.com and read other >articles. I’m just not sure if this is something that can be controlled >by EQ before the input, or if the circuit design is such that it’s not >capable of anything else (short of rebuilding the amplifier with a >different circuit, which would be silly; I could just have someone >build me an amp to specs that I like. Or just buying a different old >amp.) >Suggestions, suggestions … I’m very open to new ideas. >(The main reason I like this amp is the ‘immediacy’–not like the sound >is buried somewhere deep inside the amp.) I guess this is >characteristic of low-power amps. >I’ve been a bit long-winded, but I thought it better to include more >detail than to leave anyone guessing at what I mean. >Sincerely, >Brent >Addendum: >If you want to hear the amp in action, there’s a hastily recorded >improvised song I put together with the Skylark and an SM-58: >http://pages.prodigy.net/bbechtel/archive/mu/love_is_a_good_thing.mp3 >Not necessary — just an afterthought … anyway. Guitar is a Samick >RL-4; humbuckers. Vocals are goofy. Kind of fun.
I think of all the complaints I’ve ever heard about old Gibsons, across all models, the "shrill" complaint is far and away the most common. That’s the problem I still have with my GA-8T. Most people with tone controls end up turning the treble way down. In my experience (and other’s too, I think) that still doesn’t completely solve the problem. I found that using a different speaker helped a lot, but that didn’t completely solve it either. If you do an advanced Google group search in old AGA posts for "Shrill" and "Gibson" I think you’ll find some suggestions for taming the high end. IIRC it probably involves caps/resistors at the input. I agree with Pete that the shrillness isn’t so apparent in the recording. Mic placement has a huge effect on EQ. If you’re just looking to record it, then remember where you put the mic for that recording and you’ll probably be OK. Good luck, -Scott McKnight
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Hello there, > The amp I’m trying to improve the tone on is a ‘62 or thereabouts > Gibson Skylark GA-5 (two 6AQ5s as output tubes, push-pull design … > about 9 watts or so.) [Lots of messages in the archives on Skylarks ... > I'm trying to glean a bit more understanding.] > The only problem: it can be rather shrill and is very much tilted > towards the upper mids and treble. > (It has a new Weber 10" speaker in it. Speaker is good. Tubes are good, > caps, everything, etc., checks out.) > However, it doesn’t have a tone control. That’s probably the problem. > So I’m thinking of EQ before the input. [ Don't want to add a tone > knob, unless that's the only option. I'd rather not hack the amp up too > much; it's in nice condition. ] > I’m looking for a more balanced (nothing that kills birds flying > overhead-brightness) kind of tone–not expecting the kind of bass I’d > get from a high-powered amplifier … just a sense that all the > registers (probably not the right word) are represented nicely. > Controlling it with the tone/volume knobs on my guitar works to an > extent, but there’s still that high-frequency ringing pretty much no > matter what, and this introduces muffled strumming. > If anyone out there has a suggestion for an EQ, or there’s another > Skylark owner who has managed to tame the high end on their amp, I’d > appreciate any help. > I’ve looked at the EQs mentioned on amptone.com and read other > articles. I’m just not sure if this is something that can be controlled > by EQ before the input, or if the circuit design is such that it’s not > capable of anything else (short of rebuilding the amplifier with a > different circuit, which would be silly; I could just have someone > build me an amp to specs that I like. Or just buying a different old > amp.) > Suggestions, suggestions … I’m very open to new ideas. > (The main reason I like this amp is the ‘immediacy’–not like the sound > is buried somewhere deep inside the amp.) I guess this is > characteristic of low-power amps. > I’ve been a bit long-winded, but I thought it better to include more > detail than to leave anyone guessing at what I mean. > Sincerely, > Brent
Without a schematic, I’m unsure about some things. Since Gibson has a reputation for not following the "established" schematic, that can make it a bit more complicated, as well. With that understanding… I’ve got a GA17-RVT Scout, running two 6AQ5’s and I suspect, if you cut the tremolo and reverb circuits out of it, it’s about the same as your GA5. I has just 3 knobs, volume, reverb, and trem, so, like yours, no tone knob and none needed. IMO, it’s a great sounding amp, even with the R and T switched off. Not harsh or ice-pick like at all. It’s my recollection that the last time I had it on the bench, I confirmed that the circuit conforms the "established" schematic you’ll find at www.schematicheaven.com . This is good, because it gives us a decent frame of reference. For starters, I suggest that you use the schematic for the GA17-RVT as a comparison and reference to your amp. I’d also check every resistor to be sure it’s in spec, and if you know how to check the caps, do that, too. You might want to replace any cathode bypass caps with fresh stock, but barring any obvious problem, I’d be inclined to save that for last if nothing else helps [1]. Finally check the plate voltage on the 6AQ5’s. It should be in the range of 290 to about 315 and both tubes should read within about 1 volt margin. If there is a bigger spread you’ve likely got a tube problem. Once you establish that the components of the circuit are "correct", it’s time to think about tubes and speaker. There are two things that I did for my amp, both of which made a big difference. The first was to find some good 6AQ5 tubes. These come up for sale on eBay regularly and don’t cost an arm and a leg [2]. Hold out for known quality, like RCA or Mullard. I’ve got a Mullard and a Philips branded that I think is a Mullard. New tubes made big difference and right away the amp sounded very sweet. You might also consider (as a lower priority) new pre-amp tubes. I’m assuming yours uses 6EU7. Here are some Mullards at a decent price. http://cgi.ebay.com/2-6EU7-GT-Britain-Seeburg-Juke-Box-Amp-Tubes_W0QQ… I have no idea about the new production 6EU7, except that you will pay about $20 for one. NOS from reputable dealers go for about the same as new, if you can find them. Personally, I’ve had luck with used Mullards, but that’s not the only good brand. I’ve got some decent Westinhouse branded ones, but am not sure who actually made them. The 6EU7 tends to be a bit pricier, maybe in the $10 range. All that having been said, I wouldn’t expect a dramatic change from the pre-amp tubes. The other change I made was the speaker (Celestion G10L-35). Just because you bought a great speaker, doesn’t mean it’s great in your amp. I think this is trial and error. Fortunately, if you’ve got other 8 ohm speakers in other cabinets, you can just disconnect yours and run a jumper wire for a test — not perfect, but you’ll get the idea. I’ll tell you that the tubes made a bigger impression on me than the speaker. That having been said, when I first swapped the stock CTS for the Celestion, I was surprised by my reaction. Though the statement is seemingly contradictory, my initial reaction was that I didn’t like the speaker. And I didn’t like it so much that I couldn’t stop playing for almost an hour. Of course, by then I had totally reversed myself on the speaker choice. Let’s say it just took a little getting used to. [1] The V1 cathode bypass caps, if not the "right" value can contribute to the shrillness of the amp as they determine the frequencies that are passed to the rest of the circuit. My knowledge on this subject is weak, at best, so you will need advice from others if you want to fool with it. The bypass cap on the input circuit of my amp is 20mfd. I actually had another amp where it was left out and putting one in also made a big difference. [2] Buying tubes on eBay is like Russian roulette. You should have low expectations and expect to get burned. That way, you won’t feel bad when it happens. You have no idea about the seller or quality of the tubes. 6AQ5’s can be had for ~$5 each or less including shipping, so don’t overpay. Mullards might command a small premium. When searching remember to look for all the equivalents: (6AQ5, 6AQ5A, 6AQ5W, EL90, 6005). Run your search in parens just as shown here — the parens are the proper grouping symbol and the comma is the "or" symbol. Note that 6005 may bring too much trash up and you may want to search that one separately in the Consumer Electronics category. Before trying to buy, watch things for a week or so and you’ll get a feel for that market. You might even consider a lot of supposedly good used tubes — often a good quantity is available for under $10. Finally, the new Russian EL90 is not a compatible tube as it has the wrong number of pins (9, I think). Can you tell? I’ve got a soft spot for this type of vintage amp, as I know they can sound great, are good for low volume situations, and don’t cost an arm and a leg. Good luck. Phil
Response:
Brent, Just a short note on the eBay link to the Mullard 6EU7’s…that particlar seller has too much bad feedback for my taste. For me to bid with that kind of FB, the tubes would have to dirt cheap. Sorry I didn’t see this, as I wasn’t shopping, I was only looking for an example. Regards, Phil
Response:
mondrian, tied to the tracks, said: … > The only problem: it can be rather shrill and is very much tilted > towards the upper mids and treble.
An easy thing to try that might solve the problem; replace that second coupling cap (the 250uuF (pF)) with something more reasonable, like another .022 like the first coupler. If the volume goes up too much, try dropping the 47K resistor to ground just before that cap to 33K or 22K. > (It has a new Weber 10" speaker in it. Speaker is good. Tubes are good, > caps, everything, etc., checks out.)
You might also try it through a bigger cab. But I bet you’ll love it with the cap change. Adding anything more than the simplest tone control will definitely change the amp’s character. -Miles
Response:
Miles, Excellent, thank you. My knowledge of actually getting inside the amp and working on it myself is limited, but I’m fairly handy with a soldering iron, and these seem like simple modifications to at least test out. It’s a simple circuit, so it’s probably a good place to start. It’s about time I dig in and start learning how to do this sort of work myself. Sincerely, Brent
Response:
Phil, (I’m responding to this post of yours so as not to quote too much text) Hey, wow. Excellent and very helpful. I’ll try all of the above in one combination or another. Speakers I’ve tried: the original Utah, a 70s Jensen of some sort, and a few others that my amp tech connected to it with jumper cables. Different character to the Weber 10F150T (I think that’s the model) but among those the Weber sounded best still. Tubes are a mix of Raytheon that came with it, and the output tubes are RCA 6AQ5As (also stamped 6005), NOS/new in box. I’m not sure when they were produced. The RCAs over the Raytheons seem to produce a rounder overdriven sound, but I don’t notice anything too drastic. (And yes — wonderful pricing. NOS for $5 a piece, new in box. Old in box, rather.) I think this matter of changing values as suggested will be the next place I go with this. Very good, very good. Definitely have a soft spot for the amp; not sure why. It was an $80 ebay buy, kind of like finding a lost pet that needs a good home. It pairs nicely with my $10 Tel-Ray Super Organ Tone that I picked up a couple months ago. Something about mixing in about 1 to 3 percent of the wet signal from the Organ Tone makes everything sound more lush. (Not part of the signal chain on the recording I linked to in my original post.) Maybe I just like taking humble, bargain-priced equipment and working on it till I hear what I like. I think that’s it. Perhaps. That’s kind of rock n’ roll. I’d like to find a reliable source for Mullard tubes just to hear what they might do. I’m also going to go ahead and pick up an EQ. I’m thinking an MXR 10-band. I’ll post an update once I’ve experimented, and how those mods worked out. Sincerely, Brent Miscellany: Also, thanks to all for the comments on the recorded sound being good … Probably would sit well with a bass guitar in a mix since it doesn’t have an overload of low frequencies.
Response:
Miles, Actually, after looking at the schematic, I was wondering if you could clarify something … it doesn’t look like the 47k goes to ground (well, it’s a ways from ground, at least,) but to the power supply … (?) I’m not certain, though. Would simply changing the 250pF coupler be safe in itself–meaning, if the volume goes up, and I don’t change the 47k value–any harm to the amp or oscillation possible? (I’m okay with extra volume as long as it isn’t going to ruin other components in the amp. I can always change it back.) Just checking because it looks like some odd stuff going on around that second coupling cap in the tone circuit … Sincerely, Brent
Response:
mondrian, tied to the tracks, said: > Miles, > Actually, after looking at the schematic, I was wondering if you could > clarify something … it doesn’t look like the 47k goes to ground > (well, it’s a ways from ground, at least,) but to the power supply … > (?) I’m not certain, though.
No, you’re right. I got in too much of a hurry, and was thinking of my shcematics, whch always have the B+ up top to avoid confusion. My bad. > Would simply changing the 250pF coupler be safe in itself–meaning, if > the volume goes up, and I don’t change the 47k value–any harm to the > amp or oscillation possible? (I’m okay with extra volume as long as it > isn’t going to ruin other components in the amp. I can always change it > back.)
SHould be nor problem at all. I can’t guarantee there won’t be oscillation, but it’s not likely so long as you just stick the new cap in where the old one was. > Just checking because it looks like some odd stuff going on around that > second coupling cap in the tone circuit …
You’re probably just not used to that style phase inverter… and I really dislike how they drew the voltage divider for the 2nd stage plate supply. But that was a common way to do it back then.
Response:
Scott McKnight, tied to the tracks, said: >… > I think of all the complaints I’ve ever heard about old Gibsons, > across all models, the "shrill" complaint is far and away the most > common. That’s the problem I still have with my GA-8T. Most people > with tone controls end up turning the treble way down. In my > experience (and other’s too, I think) that still doesn’t completely > solve the problem. I found that using a different speaker helped a > lot, but that didn’t completely solve it either. If you do an > advanced Google group search in old AGA posts for "Shrill" and > "Gibson" I think you’ll find some suggestions for taming the high > end. IIRC it probably involves caps/resistors at the input.
Scott, The same suggestion applies for you that applies for his Skylark. Swap that second coupling cap, the one that’s 500uuF in your case, for something more normal like a .022. That did wonders for the GA-8T I just finished.
Response:
Miles, Good, good. I’ll give it a go. Excellent and wonderful information, especially if you’ve had success with a similar mod on other amps like the GA-8T. You’re right about me not being familiar with the phase inverter … I only know enough to be dangerous, as they say, right now. Sincerely, Brent
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->Scott McKnight, tied to the tracks, said: >… > I think of all the complaints I’ve ever heard about old Gibsons, > across all models, the "shrill" complaint is far and away the most > common. That’s the problem I still have with my GA-8T. Most people > with tone controls end up turning the treble way down. In my > experience (and other’s too, I think) that still doesn’t completely > solve the problem. I found that using a different speaker helped a > lot, but that didn’t completely solve it either. If you do an > advanced Google group search in old AGA posts for "Shrill" and > "Gibson" I think you’ll find some suggestions for taming the high > end. IIRC it probably involves caps/resistors at the input. >Scott, >The same suggestion applies for you that >applies for his Skylark. Swap that second >coupling cap, the one that’s 500uuF in your >case, for something more normal like a .022. >That did wonders for the GA-8T I just finished.
Miles, Mine is one of the Crestline amps with the EL84s (I don’t remember what-all else). Would that change your advice? -Scott
Response:
>For me to bid with that kind >of FB, the tubes would have to dirt cheap.
And then you risk "Sore Loser (seller) Syndrome" It depends on specific feedback, because a good percentage can be in retaliation. The only neg that I have is just one example. eBay called it a "battle scar" in their response to my request to have it removed. I don’t bid without checking feedback. -DC
Response:
Scott McKnight, tied to the tracks, said: … > Mine is one of the Crestline amps with the EL84s (I don’t remember > what-all else). Would that change your advice?
[sigh... go, Gibson. Go change your components with every build...] I don’t have that schematic. All I can say is if either of the coupling caps (usually the second one) is unusually small, that’s the place to start. That and a bigger OT. If you have a schematic and can scan it, I can better answer. -Miles
Response:
>For me to bid with that kind >of FB, the tubes would have to dirt cheap. > And then you risk "Sore Loser (seller) Syndrome" > It depends on specific feedback, because a good percentage can be in > retaliation. The only neg that I have is just one example. eBay called > it a "battle scar" in their response to my request to have it removed. > I don’t bid without checking feedback. > -DC
Hi Dave, I told the OP, it’s like playing Russian roulette. Keep your expectations very low. Don’t fork over big money to someone you don’t have experience with, etc… It can get pretty brutal out there. Overall, I’ve done OK. Consider: 1-I’m not professional, so I don’t need consistency or reliability, 2-I don’t play out, so I only have to answer to myself. If I were a pro musician (no day job), I doubt I’d fool with unreliable antique amps or eBay tubes for a minute. The cautionary note can’t be stressed enough. BTW, for browser I’m using Mozilla Firefox. Someone wrote an add-in for it that will call up and display only the non-positive eBay feedback. It’s a work of art and saves you from having to plow through pages to find out how bad someone is. In the particular case cited, there are IMO enough nasty notes exchanged, and not all with the same pair of customers. I’m willing to look past the occasional NFB, but when I see a common theme, it’s time to leave. Regards, Phil
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->>For me to bid with that kind >>of FB, the tubes would have to dirt cheap. > And then you risk "Sore Loser (seller) Syndrome" > It depends on specific feedback, because a good percentage can be in > retaliation. The only neg that I have is just one example. eBay called > it a "battle scar" in their response to my request to have it removed. > I don’t bid without checking feedback. > -DC >Hi Dave, >I told the OP, it’s like playing Russian roulette. Keep your expectations >very low. Don’t fork over big money to someone you don’t have experience >with, etc… >It can get pretty brutal out there. Overall, I’ve done OK. Consider: 1-I’m >not professional, so I don’t need consistency or reliability, 2-I don’t play >out, so I only have to answer to myself. If I were a pro musician (no day >job), I doubt I’d fool with unreliable antique amps or eBay tubes for a >minute. >The cautionary note can’t be stressed enough. >BTW, for browser I’m using Mozilla Firefox. Someone wrote an add-in for it >that will call up and display only the non-positive eBay feedback. It’s a >work of art and saves you from having to plow through pages to find out how >bad someone is. In the particular case cited, there are IMO enough nasty >notes exchanged, and not all with the same pair of customers. I’m willing >to look past the occasional NFB, but when I see a common theme, it’s time to >leave. >Regards, >Phil
Agreed. I’ve only been burned once, so all in all I’ve had good luck. It *is* kinda like gambling, though. -DC
Response:
Related Posts