Marshall 1987x

[esandes]

ever use one of these? how are they? the only marshall i used was a jcm 800. how does it compare to that?

[Vasshu the humanoid typhoon]

Re: Marshall 1987x

Big muscular, more gainy than the 1959, can get some very cool oldschool sounds.
Loud 50 watts, it sounds great both clean and cranked, jump the channels for most sonic variation.

[ErikH]

Re: Marshall 1987x

That Marshall is the predecessor to the JCM800's, and even the JMP's. It's a reissue of the classic 50 watt Super Lead.

It has less gain than the 800's, and even less than the JMP's. There is no master volume either. To get really screaming tones out of these things, you must push the tubes hard, which means crank it up. Get an attenuator to keep it down so you don't p*ss off the neighbors a few blocks away.

[JeffB]

Re: Marshall 1987x

It has less gain than the 800's, and even less than the JMP's.

I wouldn't say that based on having owned all three of them. It however is not as tight at the higher gain levels as an 2203/2204 (JMP or JCM). 1987X is based on the monster 1973 circuit, which SUPER hot compared to previous amps and right on par with a 2203.

There is no master volume either. To get really screaming tones out of these things, you must push the tubes hard, which means crank it up. Get an attenuator to keep it down so you don't p*ss off the neighbors a few blocks away.

Even attentuated it still needs some volume to sound good.... enough to piss off most neighbors..but yeah this is pretty much spot-on, as are Rid's comments.

Look for an older one pre- FX loop. Sadly I had to sell mine, and even more heartbreaking was that I sold it to Terry, and UPS thrashed it to bits, and it now resides in the UPS Graveyard in AZ or somesuch.

EDIT: It is a brighter and more crunchy amp...bridging the gap between the "plexi" type sound and the MV sound. Basically it shares the best qulaities of both, IMO...the more agressive voicing of the 2203/4 and the sparkle, dynamics, and pure tone of a NMV circuit.

Go listen to Yngwie Malmsteen, Pre 1986 Adrian Smith, UFO and early MSG Schenker etc for an idea.

[ErikH]

Re: Marshall 1987x

I wouldn't say that based on having owned all three of them. It however is not as tight at the higher gain levels as an 2203/2204 (JMP or JCM). 1987X is based on the monster 1973 circuit, which SUPER hot compared to previous amps and right on par with a 2203.

I never thought they put out the same amount of gain as the 2203/2204, unless they're goosed with an overdrive or booster. They always sounded "cleaner" to me. Still, I loved playing through either of them.

[PUCKBOY99]

Re: Marshall 1987x

I almost had one.............

[JeffB]

Re: Marshall 1987x

I never thought they put out the same amount of gain as the 2203/2204, unless they're goosed with an overdrive or booster. They always sounded "cleaner" to me. Still, I loved playing through either of them.

They have a similar amount of gain on tap..the 1987X just doesn't handle it as well..I'm sure someone like jeff Seal or another amp guru could tweak out the flubby bass (and it's more of an issue when you jumper the channels, which I personally did not do)

Cranked up to 2-3 o'clock or so with the Celestion 75s in my laney cab and a PAF type or Duncan custom, it would do NOTB Maiden just fine without a goose (for rhythm work). Any higher than that on the volume control and it would mush out...I only hit the goose for leads.

Half the sound is coming from those speakers clipping...it NEEDS volume...moreso than an 800 (i.e. 2203/4)

[ErikH]

Re: Marshall 1987x

They have a similar amount of gain on tap..the 1987X just doesn't handle it as well..I'm sure someone like jeff Seal or another amp guru could tweak out the flubby bass (and it's more of an issue when you jumper the channels, which I personally did not do)

Cranked up to 2-3 o'clock or so with the Celestion 75s in my laney cab and a PAF type or Duncan custom, it would do NOTB Maiden just fine without a goose (for rhythm work). Any higher than that on the volume control and it would mush out...I only hit the goose for leads.

Half the sound is coming from those speakers clipping...it NEEDS volume...moreso than an 800 (i.e. 2203/4)

Gotcha. Yeah, they can get flubby when you jumper those channels, but open 'em up and slam an A chord...Waaaaaahhhhh. Windows can shatter. Plug in a Strat with some Texas Specials and it's SRV and Hendrix land all the way. Ahh, the days of working in the music store. I think we cranked every tube amp in there at least once.....the better sounding ones twice. Not for very long either, just enough to get the tubes cookin'. We sold more by doing a slight "break-in" like that rather than leaving them on the floor cold.

[JeffB]

Re: Marshall 1987x

I guess I should clarify.

If you take the 1987X and put it on 5. It's not gonna have as much gain as a 2203 with the Preamp on 10, and the Master on 5

The gain on the 1987X is all at the end of the rotation...least was on on mine.

Hence why I say you need volume...LOTS of it. And the right speakers. And why they just aren't practical for 99% of the people out there.

I found on mine that tweaking the dark (low input) channels volume control affected the bass frequencies slightly...even when plugged into the bright channel only (i.e. not jumpered)...maybe one of the amp gurus could elaborate?

[Vasshu the humanoid typhoon]

Re: Marshall 1987x

And with the right speakers it will be all that wonderful Marshall glory you would ever need

[esandes]

Re: Marshall 1987x

And with the right speakers it will be all that wonderful Marshall glory you would ever need

i'd like to mate that head with 4x12 greenbacks.

thanks for the tips people. keep them coming. it seems like it's kinda like the jcm 800, which is what i want. i prefer this over the 1959 plexi because i don't need 100 watts. and the reissue jcm 800 is only in 100w.

[ErikH]

Re: Marshall 1987x

The difference in volume between 100 watts and 50 watts is only 3db. That's not very much. Just something to think about.

[JeffB]

Re: Marshall 1987x

i'd like to mate that head with 4x12 greenbacks.

My choice as well if I could do it all over. Or H30s. Note that the bass will be a little less tight with GBs.

it seems like it's kinda like the jcm 800, which is what i want. .

Well if you WANT a 2203/4 (JMP or JCM) then get that. They def are not the same, the 1987X is just a very nice middle ground between an 2203/4and a Plexi era 1987..it's more aggressive yet still "classic" or "plexi-ish" sounding. If you are looking for "brown" or 70s/early 80s metal tones, it's great. If you are looking for "LA hair metal" or something to goose for newer type metal, the 2203/4 is the way to go.

[Vasshu the humanoid typhoon]

Re: Marshall 1987x

The difference in volume between 100 watts and 50 watts is only 3db. That's not very much. Just something to think about.

Yeah but 3db in certain frequencies can be very loud
Plus the feel of the power is very different.

[esandes]

Re: Marshall 1987x

The difference in volume between 100 watts and 50 watts is only 3db. That's not very much. Just something to think about.

WHAT?!?!?! wow man that's amazing. no wonder my 50 watt jcm 800 could keep up with my bandmates 100 watt peavey.

i may as well get the reissue jcm 800 then.