msawitzke said:I'm makin' these posts simple. Whats the cheapest solution to GOOD Marshall tone. The DSL 60 watt head looks pretty promising. Anything cheaper that is as good or better than that?
I don't have any money to spend at the moment, but dammit, I need a Marshall!
Mike
msawitzke said:Not to hijack my own thread, but I remember reading that the DSL was preferrable to the TSL. Why is that? The channel switching seems great, so it must be a tone thing...
No offense taken. You're right on the money. Except the MkIII isn't a channel switching amp, it's single channel with switchable master volumes, same signal goes through both. Still a very simple amp.JeffB said:welp..this is my opinion.....
Marshalls sound best...when they are simple...the more Marshall tries to put in an amp, the more of the classic marshall tone goes by the wayside...
The TSL has more "features" and such..it's a more complicated circuit/design. The DSL is a bit "browner"..or more marshally...not quite as tight/modern/compressed as the TSL...(but is alot more-so than say a JMP MV, 800 2203 or 1959/1987)
There's a reason most marshall folks prefer the old heads...simple designs that produce more lively tones. They aren't versatile, but do that one thing EXTREMELY well. The channel switching 800's,900s, and later (no offense Odie, Sune, and Erik) series amps all are trying to be a "jack of all trades" and thus are a master of none. Thats a general thing though. I've heard some great channel switchers, 900s, DSL/TSLs, etc.
For amps, simple=best tone...but they are not versatile on their own...they require the pedal dancing, guitar knob tweaking, etc.
ErikH said:No offense taken. You're right on the money. Except the MkIII isn't a channel switching amp, it's single channel with switchable master volumes, same signal goes through both. Still a very simple amp.![]()
Ahh, gotcha. Yeah, those things sorta lost the character.JeffB said:I meant to put an "800" before "channel switchers" , Erik...I meant the 2205, etc....