ever use one of these? how are they? the only marshall i used was a jcm 800. how does it compare to that?
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Marshall 1987x
Collapse
X
-
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.
Comment
-
Re: Marshall 1987x
Originally posted by ErikHIt 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.
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.Last edited by JeffB; 04-26-2006, 12:07 PM.I'm an internet person. All we do is waste time evaluating things that have next-to-zero real world significance.
Remember, it's just a plank of wood. YOU have to find the music in it - The Telecaster Handbook
Comment
-
Re: Marshall 1987x
Originally posted by JeffBI 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.
Comment
-
Re: Marshall 1987x
I almost had one.............
Guitars: Frankinstein TeleBird/Classic Vibe Esquire w/BG-1400/Martin 000-28EC
Amps: 3rd Power Dream Solo 4 '68 Plexi/Port City Wave 2x12
FX: Skinpimp Faceplant/Skinpimp 3OD/Flyin' Dragon
https://itunes.apple.com/us/album/fa...wn/id786464154
http://www.cdbaby.com/cd/seanhanley
Comment
-
Re: Marshall 1987x
Originally posted by ErikHI 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)I'm an internet person. All we do is waste time evaluating things that have next-to-zero real world significance.
Remember, it's just a plank of wood. YOU have to find the music in it - The Telecaster Handbook
Comment
-
Re: Marshall 1987x
Originally posted by JeffBThey 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)
Comment
-
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?I'm an internet person. All we do is waste time evaluating things that have next-to-zero real world significance.
Remember, it's just a plank of wood. YOU have to find the music in it - The Telecaster Handbook
Comment
-
Re: Marshall 1987x
Originally posted by RidAnd with the right speakers it will be all that wonderful Marshall glory you would ever need
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.
Comment
-
Re: Marshall 1987x
Originally posted by esandesi'd like to mate that head with 4x12 greenbacks.
it seems like it's kinda like the jcm 800, which is what i want. .I'm an internet person. All we do is waste time evaluating things that have next-to-zero real world significance.
Remember, it's just a plank of wood. YOU have to find the music in it - The Telecaster Handbook
Comment
-
Re: Marshall 1987x
Originally posted by ErikHThe difference in volume between 100 watts and 50 watts is only 3db. That's not very much. Just something to think about.
i may as well get the reissue jcm 800 then.
Comment
Comment