Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Roland JC-77 amp review
1,384 views
Skip to first unread message
Greg D
Feb 23, 2012, 11:23:11 AM2/23/12
to
I picked up a cherry (as in EXC condition) JC77 recently and had been
holding off posting about it until I could put it through its paces.
Like it's much bigger sibling, the JC120, the JC77 let's you set the
chorus manually as well as use the built-in chorus setting, knowing
most here don't use chorus. Unlike it's larger sibling, the amp is
smaller than Fender's Princeton Chorus, but has 40Wx40W stereo amps
instead of Fender's 25Wx25X setup. Both have 2x10" speakers and are as
equally as light (or heavy, depending on your perspective). The JC77
cabinet has a place for casters of which I had 4 laying around. As for
EQ, it's got bass, mid, trebel, and high treble. Like the Fender, the
JC77 has reverb, chorus(depth and rate) and OD; Unlike the Fender, the
JC77 does not have a limiter knob. The JC77 has mono/stereo line-outs
while the Fender PC has a mono/stereo effects loop.
Both amps have 2 inputs, but the high input on the JC77 makes that amp
way louder than the Princeton Chorus.
The JC77 is built like a tank - literally with the rivets and such for
an 80's industrial look :) The amp was Made in the USA and the speaks
in Japan.
In the past, I've played through a JC90 and found it to be overly
bright and no better with a Gibson ES135 outfitted with Classic 57's.
I remember being turned off to the whole JC line due to that brief
experience with the JC90.
So I plugged up my Epi ES-339, which I love - and sho'nuf, I was
nearly blinded by the brightness of the amp. It wasn't icepickish
bright, though, thankfully. Immediately, I realized that the JC77
would make a great rock amp and all the more considering it took to
MFX/OD pedals quite well compared to the Princeton Chorus.
Though I like the brighter tone of the amp, I know I'd tire of it
fairly quickly for traditional jazz tone. So, I tried my Aira Herb
Ellis archtop. totally different tonal vibe with that guitar. The JC77
sounds clearer than my Fender PC with more note definition. I've
always maintained that I like Fender tube amps because of the bell-
like roundness of tone they produce when used clean. Well, that's how
I feel about the JC77's clean tone. I'm not saying it's better than a
good Fender tube amp, only that compared to a similar SS amp, the JC77
sounds more like a good clean Fender tube amp. Good enough for me to
keep it.
JC77s can be had for around $300 via eBAY.
holding off posting about it until I could put it through its paces.
Like it's much bigger sibling, the JC120, the JC77 let's you set the
chorus manually as well as use the built-in chorus setting, knowing
most here don't use chorus. Unlike it's larger sibling, the amp is
smaller than Fender's Princeton Chorus, but has 40Wx40W stereo amps
instead of Fender's 25Wx25X setup. Both have 2x10" speakers and are as
equally as light (or heavy, depending on your perspective). The JC77
cabinet has a place for casters of which I had 4 laying around. As for
EQ, it's got bass, mid, trebel, and high treble. Like the Fender, the
JC77 has reverb, chorus(depth and rate) and OD; Unlike the Fender, the
JC77 does not have a limiter knob. The JC77 has mono/stereo line-outs
while the Fender PC has a mono/stereo effects loop.
Both amps have 2 inputs, but the high input on the JC77 makes that amp
way louder than the Princeton Chorus.
The JC77 is built like a tank - literally with the rivets and such for
an 80's industrial look :) The amp was Made in the USA and the speaks
in Japan.
In the past, I've played through a JC90 and found it to be overly
bright and no better with a Gibson ES135 outfitted with Classic 57's.
I remember being turned off to the whole JC line due to that brief
experience with the JC90.
So I plugged up my Epi ES-339, which I love - and sho'nuf, I was
nearly blinded by the brightness of the amp. It wasn't icepickish
bright, though, thankfully. Immediately, I realized that the JC77
would make a great rock amp and all the more considering it took to
MFX/OD pedals quite well compared to the Princeton Chorus.
Though I like the brighter tone of the amp, I know I'd tire of it
fairly quickly for traditional jazz tone. So, I tried my Aira Herb
Ellis archtop. totally different tonal vibe with that guitar. The JC77
sounds clearer than my Fender PC with more note definition. I've
always maintained that I like Fender tube amps because of the bell-
like roundness of tone they produce when used clean. Well, that's how
I feel about the JC77's clean tone. I'm not saying it's better than a
good Fender tube amp, only that compared to a similar SS amp, the JC77
sounds more like a good clean Fender tube amp. Good enough for me to
keep it.
JC77s can be had for around $300 via eBAY.
pmfan57
Feb 23, 2012, 2:30:39 PM2/23/12
to
sounding from dust in the pots, etc. I don't think it ever sounded
particularly good for any style, even when new.
van
Feb 23, 2012, 2:53:25 PM2/23/12
to
On Feb 23, 11:23 am, Greg D <oasy...@gmail.com> wrote:
JC77, while I was using an old, orange cube-60, and this guy buried me
with the sound he got out of that thing.
That was the last time I ever used my cube professionally. He also had
a rack unit that must have added a lot to the amp's output.
He was so loud that he drowned out the entire production, and the
director and conductor both begged him to turn down.
I subbed for him in a big production in NYC for him once, and listened
to him demolish an entire string section with his JC120.
I used his JC120 and played with proper dynamics, and they loved me
for it The JC120 is a great amp for my B120, but too heavy.
I think it sounds better than my SF Twin with my B-120
Graham
Feb 23, 2012, 3:05:41 PM2/23/12
to
On Feb 23, 7:53 pm, van <sg...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> I did a show a few years ago with another guitar player who used a
> JC77, while I was using an old, orange cube-60, and this guy buried me
> with the sound he got out of that thing.
What you need to beat guys like that is one of these:
> I did a show a few years ago with another guitar player who used a
> JC77, while I was using an old, orange cube-60, and this guy buried me
> with the sound he got out of that thing.
http://www.pawnplex.com/Musical-ins/old/jc-160/index.htm
Charlie X
Feb 23, 2012, 3:34:29 PM2/23/12
to
I bet it does sound great though...my local sam ash as a JC 60 for
$200..i would snag it but it only has the single 12 and i do like the
stereo chorus effect of the 2 10s...i also had a jc 90...i liked
it..but it was just over the weight limit..so i sold it. If i see a 77
i will bag it though..they are great...there is also a 55 that is
super portable and can hold up with any loud drummer...(well...not the
drummers i play with, but 'many' loud drummers...i use a marshall 100w
stack with my drummers).
rpjazzguitar
Feb 23, 2012, 5:40:38 PM2/23/12
to
I have the JC55.
With my D'A EXDC (humbuckers) it can sound very good, particularly if
it's cranked a bit. The volume seems to warm up the tone.
But, with my stock Am. Std. Strat, it's too icy. No matter what I do,
I can't get a tone I like. The Strat sounds fine with other amps.
The JC55 weighs something around 25 lbs, so it's pretty easy to tote
around. It is plenty loud. My thought is that if I ever need to be
louder, there ought to be a PA.
I think I paid $280 used several years ago. Definitely worth the
money.
With my D'A EXDC (humbuckers) it can sound very good, particularly if
it's cranked a bit. The volume seems to warm up the tone.
But, with my stock Am. Std. Strat, it's too icy. No matter what I do,
I can't get a tone I like. The Strat sounds fine with other amps.
The JC55 weighs something around 25 lbs, so it's pretty easy to tote
around. It is plenty loud. My thought is that if I ever need to be
louder, there ought to be a PA.
I think I paid $280 used several years ago. Definitely worth the
money.
Greg D
Feb 23, 2012, 7:55:45 PM2/23/12
to
On Feb 23, 3:05 pm, Graham <graham...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
word :)
Greg D
Feb 23, 2012, 8:02:13 PM2/23/12
to
For those with nothing better to do with your time... a very detailed
history of rland: http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/nov04/articles/roland.htm
history of rland: http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/nov04/articles/roland.htm
Graham
Feb 24, 2012, 6:50:41 AM2/24/12
to
On Feb 24, 12:55 am, Greg D <oasy...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Heh-heh, I'll be that thing is a monster - in every sense of the
> word :)
They should have called it the Roland Godzilla.
> Heh-heh, I'll be that thing is a monster - in every sense of the
> word :)
0 new messages