JCM2000 DSL vs vintage plexi re-issue
Dr. Anton Phibes
> I played a DSL 50 watt one day at length in a back room at MARS. I
> thought it kicked assed. If I needed a head-only situation with
> channel switching and a clean tone, that would be my choice. I'm glad
> you like you new amp, but with that last statement about tone and
> emotions <included in a post about a Marshall JCM2000> you have just
> opened yourself up to considerable bashing by some of the elitist tube
> snobs in here. Good luck with your mod and I hope you enjoy the amp
> for years to come.
>
I haven't heard the 50 JCM 2000 series amps, but as the owner of a JCM
2000 DSL-100 I just have to interject here and discuss what I
experienced not less than 3 hours ago. Last weekend, out of curiousity
and the constant ravings of several frequent contributors to this news
group, I decided to rent a plexi 100 watt re-issue for 1 month, and
compare it my JCM 2000 DSL-100.
Supposedly, vintage Marshalls kick the JCM-2000's ass because of their
lack of diode clipping circuits and huge output transformers. Tonight I
took the rented brand new plexi re-issue out to band practice, as well
as the 2000. The general consensus amongst my band members (and myself,
but of course, I am biased) was that the JCM 2000 has a way bigger,
better, far more "ballsy" sound. And by ballsy, I don't mean overly
distorted. I mean big, warm, loud and clear, with way more bottom end.
The plexi re-issue is noisy (you can hear the ocean when you're not
playing) and it's simply way to loud and clean for my taste. I don't
care what anyone says, you simply can't get convincing Van Halen sounds
out of a stock plexi reissue. The gain is just not there.
So, once again, I have yet to "see the light" when it comes to
experiencing that fabled huge late 60's/early 70's Marshall sound.
Perhaps it will happen one day, but until then, the JCM 2000 shines
through as a pretty killer amp, and will do me just fine. I strongly
suggest that if you are in the market for a new amp, that you check out
these fine amps, and ignore the b.s. about the size of the output
transformers, diodes, etc. Use your ears, and decide for yourself.
As far as the construction issues are concerned, I have owned my 2000
since last x-mas, have played it hard, and have had no problems. Maybe I
just lucked out.
Loving the sound of the JCM 2000,
- Anton Phibes
a...@ibm.net
If you didnt see my post, I talked directly to Marshall in England. The
assured me that the DSL amps have NO DIODES in the signal path, except for
the fx loop and reverb circuits. So, if you are using no FX in the loop, and
the reverb is off--you are getting PURE MARSHALL TUBE TONE!
By listening to the DSL, you can instantly tell there is some serious tube
mojo going on!! And, for the "small" tranny debate, Marshall told me that
although the trannies are a little smaller than the 800's:
1) They are mounted thru the chasis, so there is more to them than meets the
eye.
2) Because they are thru mounted, there is enough ventilation to warrent the
use of smaller units and still be able to drive them and heat em up, without
risking a blow out!
Andy
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
Admiral Ballsy
a...@ibm.net wrote:
> By listening to the DSL, you can instantly tell there is some serious tube
> mojo going on!! And, for the "small" tranny debate, Marshall told me that
> although the trannies are a little smaller than the 800's:
>
> 1) They are mounted thru the chasis, so there is more to them than meets the
> eye.
>
AB: This just means that they are 'laydown', and don't have an end bell on
the chassis side. The JTM45 RI PT is mounted this way. All the laminations
are visible; there's no material 'hiding' inside the chassis.
> 2) Because they are thru mounted, there is enough ventilation to warrent the
> use of smaller units and still be able to drive them and heat em up, without
> risking a blow out!
>
AB: I can't see how mounting a transformer this way would increase
ventilation or cooling. In fact, it strikes me that it would probably run
hotter, unless the laminations are in direct physical contact with the
chassis, which would act as a heat sink.
The issue over OT size has several facets, and heat dissipation is only one of
them. Actual mass of the laminations has a great effect on the tone,
especially in the low end.
a...@ibm.net
Laminates, eh? Hmmm...good point. The DSL trannies are definately smaller, or
less thick as far as laminates...
The Marshall guy's point was based on heat reduction, and not tone then? I
realize the bigger the tranny, the better at HIGH volumes, but is this the
same at low to moderate levels?
Tonefactor
>although the trannies are a little smaller than the 800's:
>
>1) They are mounted thru the chasis, so there is more to them than meets the
>eye.
>
>use of smaller units and still be able to drive them and heat em up, without
>risking a blow out!
If this was true, why would Marshall even bother using the bigger trannys for
the 6100's and Plexi reissues?
Tonefactor
Whats the guy supposed to say, "We switched to smaller transformers to skimp on
costs"? There is no other reason for them to switch besides them wanting to
cut down on cost, but there not going to come right out and tell the customer
that.
Andy
Tonefactor wrote in message
<199809011901...@ladder03.news.aol.com>...
Guess you are right...
I know I would (and will) gladly pay up if Marshall up-charged for a beefy
tranny! Why not just charge the extra $100 or so and equip the DSL with a
tranny like they built for that POS Slash re-issue (inter-leaved, weighs a
ton...)??
Boogie aint my thing, but at least they charge a fortune for amps that have
quality parts, huge trannies, and great build quality--bet you wont have to
return 3 Recto's for defective reverb springs, switches, etc!
Waaaa.
Andy
Dr. Anton Phibes
>
> >Boogie aint my thing, but at least they charge a fortune for amps that have
> >quality parts, huge trannies,
>
The simple truth remains: I compared a plexi re-issue (with huge output
transformers) with my JCM 2000, DSL-100, and the 2000 sounds WAYYYY
beefier, and much more powerful. There is no comparisson as to just how
much the 2000 kicks the plexi's overrated, coveted ass. As long as the
transformer can deliver enough current to the load (speakers), without
saturing the transformer core, there should be no problems with using
slightly smaller output transformers, and the tone should not be
affected.
The proof is in the sound, and the JCM 2000's sound killer (and they
don't use diode clipping either, contrary to some bogus comments posted
by "experts" on this newsgroup!).
Steve
> >
> > So, once again, I have yet to "see the light" when it comes to
> > experiencing that fabled huge late 60's/early 70's Marshall sound.
> > Perhaps it will happen one day, but until then, the JCM 2000 shines
> > through as a pretty killer amp, and will do me just fine.
Try a 50watt plexi with a Rat or Centaur in front.
The 100watt was probably to over-powered for you
to experience the power-tube distortion.
I have a THD 50watt "plexi" head, and a CAE3+se preamp/VHT 2/50/2
power amp. Personally, I prefer the CAE because of its vastly
greater flexibility and the smoothness of the higher preamp-gain
violin tone capapability. Nevertheless, there is something
rawer, more "touch sensitive", more dynamic and unpredictable about the pedal+"plexi"
combination that is fantastic--but you do have to play it loud-
not ear-splitting loud, but loud enough to get the power tubes cooking.
My THD has a "variac" mode feature that drops the power to
28watts and gives you more power tube distortion and less
transformer saturation at lower volume, but I don't find
the 50 watt mode excessively loud. I use the Rat or Centaur OD
to get a bit of sustain and distortion, but most of the tone
comes from the amp.
Steve
Tonefactor
TimTube
<drphi...@direct.ca> writes:
>The simple truth remains: I compared a plexi re-issue (with huge output
>transformers) with my JCM 2000, DSL-100, and the 2000 sounds WAYYYY
>beefier, and much more powerful. There is no comparisson as to just how
>much the 2000 kicks the plexi's overrated, coveted ass. As long as the
>transformer can deliver enough current to the load (speakers), without
>saturing the transformer core, there should be no problems with using
>slightly smaller output transformers, and the tone should not be
>affected.
>
>The proof is in the sound, and the JCM 2000's sound killer (and they
>don't use diode clipping either, contrary to some bogus comments posted
>by "experts" on this newsgroup!).
>
>
The simple truth is that you like the amp, and that's great...so go like it,
different strokes for different folks. If you are after modern sounds the
reissue plexi is going to be too loud and clean...or in your words suck. The
SLPs do sound pretty thin until you crank the bias up...typical factory
settings are running EL34s under 20ma per tube...I've seen them as low as
11ma.... they really come to life when crank 'em up to about 35ma. Turn it up
to 6 or 7, smack it with a Les Paul and it's ZZ Top...or Paul Kasoff, or Cream,
or a million '70s hard rock bands.
Tim
A great amp can make a lousy guitar sound great.
A lousy amp will make a great guitar sound lousy.
Admiral Ballsy
"Dr. Anton Phibes" <drphi...@direct.ca> wrote:
> Tonefactor wrote:
> >
> > >Boogie aint my thing, but at least they charge a fortune for amps that have
> > >quality parts, huge trannies,
> >
> > The Rectos have small trannies like the newer Marshalls.
>
> The simple truth remains: I compared a plexi re-issue (with huge output
> transformers) with my JCM 2000, DSL-100, and the 2000 sounds WAYYYY
> beefier, and much more powerful. There is no comparisson as to just how
> much the 2000 kicks the plexi's overrated, coveted ass. As long as the
> transformer can deliver enough current to the load (speakers), without
> saturing the transformer core, there should be no problems with using
> slightly smaller output transformers, and the tone should not be
> affected.
>
> The proof is in the sound, and the JCM 2000's sound killer (and they
> don't use diode clipping either, contrary to some bogus comments posted
> by "experts" on this newsgroup!).
>
The proof is also in reliability. Twenty years from now, let's see how many
JCM2000s are still on the road.
Admiral Ballsy
"Andy" <a...@ibm.net> wrote:
<snip>
> Boogie aint my thing, but at least they charge a fortune for amps that have
> return 3 Recto's for defective reverb springs, switches, etc!
>
Actually, you might. You'd be surprised at some of the shitty build quality
you occasionally find in Mesa products. And Mesa's attitude when you need
service.
AB
a...@ibm.net
Admiral Ballsy <cle...@ecicnet.org> wrote:
> In article <35eca...@news1.ibm.net>,
> "Andy" <a...@ibm.net> wrote:
> <snip>
> > Boogie aint my thing, but at least they charge a fortune for amps that have
> > quality parts, huge trannies, and great build quality--bet you wont have to
> > return 3 Recto's for defective reverb springs, switches, etc!
> >
>
> Actually, you might. You'd be surprised at some of the shitty build quality
> you occasionally find in Mesa products. And Mesa's attitude when you need
> service.
>
> AB
Really? Thanks, AB, I needed that!
Andy
a...@ibm.net
Ross M Stites
>The simple truth is that you like the amp, and that's great...so go like it,
>different strokes for different folks. If you are after modern sounds the
>reissue plexi is going to be too loud and clean...or in your words suck. The
>SLPs do sound pretty thin until you crank the bias up...typical factory
>settings are running EL34s under 20ma per tube...I've seen them as low as
>11ma.... they really come to life when crank 'em up to about 35ma. Turn it up
>to 6 or 7, smack it with a Les Paul and it's ZZ Top...or Paul Kasoff, or Cream,
>or a million '70s hard rock bands.
Here's a question from someone who's never gotten to play an SLP.
At that volume of 6 or 7 will you be able to hear an unmiked drummer,
or will the drummer be lost in all that power? What about the 50W
version? Most of my favorite tones come from 70's hard rock/metal
acts, but I always assumed that those Marshall's are impractical
for my use. How close does one of the single channel MV's get to
this sound?
In other words I look for that great tube overdriven
sound that has nice chunk on the rhythm, but still allows arpeggios
to ring out - like early Lifeson (Rush) stuff. Everything modern
I play is either too clean (no crunch) or is too saturated to let
individual notes ring out of a chord. There's a nice border somewhere
out there that I simpy haven't found. Note that I'm not interested
in it for bedroom levels, but I do want it to be had at typical
stage levels - ie. about the level that my 2553 gets at 8-9 on the
MV. How close do the 30th Anniv. heads get to this sound? It'd
be nice to have the flexability...
Lottsa questions, TIA,
Ross
Tonefactor
>In other words I look for that great tube overdriven
>sound that has nice chunk on the rhythm, but still allows arpeggios
>to ring out - like early Lifeson (Rush) stuff.
Thats what those old 4 input Marshalls excel at.
>How close do the 30th Anniv. heads get to this sound? It'd
>be nice to have the flexability...
>
>
They come really close on the crunch channel plexi setting. They don't sound
exactly like the old Marshalls, but still do the crunchy/clean thing your
talking about well. You also have the option of footswitching to a high gain
sound or a totally clean sound.
TimTube
(Ross M Stites) writes:
>
>tim...@aol.com (TimTube) writes:
>
>>The simple truth is that you like the amp, and that's great...so go like it,
>>different strokes for different folks. If you are after modern sounds the
>>reissue plexi is going to be too loud and clean...or in your words suck. The
>>SLPs do sound pretty thin until you crank the bias up...typical factory
>>settings are running EL34s under 20ma per tube...I've seen them as low as
>>11ma.... they really come to life when crank 'em up to about 35ma. Turn it
>up
>>to 6 or 7, smack it with a Les Paul and it's ZZ Top...or Paul Kasoff, or
>Cream,
>>or a million '70s hard rock bands.
>
>Here's a question from someone who's never gotten to play an SLP.
>At that volume of 6 or 7 will you be able to hear an unmiked drummer,
>or will the drummer be lost in all that power? What about the 50W
>version? Most of my favorite tones come from 70's hard rock/metal
>acts, but I always assumed that those Marshall's are impractical
>for my use. How close does one of the single channel MV's get to
>this sound?
>
>In other words I look for that great tube overdriven
>sound that has nice chunk on the rhythm, but still allows arpeggios
>to ring out - like early Lifeson (Rush) stuff. Everything modern
>I play is either too clean (no crunch) or is too saturated to let
>individual notes ring out of a chord. There's a nice border somewhere
>out there that I simpy haven't found. Note that I'm not interested
>in it for bedroom levels, but I do want it to be had at typical
>stage levels - ie. about the level that my 2553 gets at 8-9 on the
>MV. How close do the 30th Anniv. heads get to this sound? It'd
>be nice to have the flexability...
>
>Lottsa questions, TIA,
>
>Ross
>
>
I have found no other amp that can deliver the sound of a 4 input 50w or 100w
Marshall. The biggest dif between the 50s and the 100s is that the 100s have
this thundering bottom. Single channel MVs sound thin and whiney in
comparison...and the more modern Marshalls sound more modern (decided buzzy is
a bit over-used). As for your drummer...some drummers can rise above Marshalls
and some can't....I guess this is a good reason for a 4x12 to be so
directional.
Ross M Stites
>>In other words I look for that great tube overdriven
>>sound that has nice chunk on the rhythm, but still allows arpeggios
>>to ring out - like early Lifeson (Rush) stuff.
>Thats what those old 4 input Marshalls excel at.
I assumed that, but I've always assumed that they were just too
damn loud for my use. Like I said before, the 50W Jubilee on 8-9 MV
and about 5 preamp and gain is the right volume for my situation.
Several have mentioned on here that the Jubilees have noticably less
volume for their wattage ratings that either the older MV or non-MV
amps. Unfortunately, this is one of those things that can't be tested
in a store (even the ones with a sound room), so you never know until
you get the thing to a practice...
>>How close do the 30th Anniv. heads get to this sound? It'd
>>be nice to have the flexability...
>>
>>
>They come really close on the crunch channel plexi setting. They don't sound
>exactly like the old Marshalls, but still do the crunchy/clean thing your
>talking about well. You also have the option of footswitching to a high gain
>sound or a totally clean sound.
I'm going to have to try one of these. The build quality of these
really has me concerned - especially since for $ reasons I'll have
to look for a used one if I decide to buy.
Thanks,
Ross
sim...@my-dejanews.com
stit...@maroon.tc.umn.edu (Ross M Stites) wrote:
> tim...@aol.com (TimTube) writes:
>
> >The simple truth is that you like the amp, and that's great...so go like it,
> >different strokes for different folks. If you are after modern sounds the
> >reissue plexi is going to be too loud and clean...or in your words suck. The
> >SLPs do sound pretty thin until you crank the bias up...typical factory
> >settings are running EL34s under 20ma per tube...I've seen them as low as
> >11ma.... they really come to life when crank 'em up to about 35ma. Turn it up
> >to 6 or 7, smack it with a Les Paul and it's ZZ Top...or Paul Kasoff, or
Cream,
> >or a million '70s hard rock bands.
>
> Here's a question from someone who's never gotten to play an SLP.
> At that volume of 6 or 7 will you be able to hear an unmiked drummer,
> or will the drummer be lost in all that power? What about the 50W
> version? Most of my favorite tones come from 70's hard rock/metal
> acts, but I always assumed that those Marshall's are impractical
> for my use. How close does one of the single channel MV's get to
> this sound?
>
> sound that has nice chunk on the rhythm, but still allows arpeggios
> I play is either too clean (no crunch) or is too saturated to let
> individual notes ring out of a chord. There's a nice border somewhere
> out there that I simpy haven't found. Note that I'm not interested
> in it for bedroom levels, but I do want it to be had at typical
> stage levels - ie. about the level that my 2553 gets at 8-9 on the
> be nice to have the flexability...
>
>
> Ross
>
Ross , depending on how loud your drummer is probably not !!, however thats
what marshall made the power brake for . So people like you and me who want
the same sound ( clasic overdrive ) can achieve this at any volume level,
bedroom or flat out at a gig. I have played muso nights with my 100W SUPER
BASS head AND my 100W 1959SLP running into power brakes in full stereo with
onlt a 250W FOH , and had people creaming in their pants!!!!!. Simon