J
Jessie's ghost
Guest
Re: DSL vs TSL
Thanks for reminding me that I've got the undisputed black sheep of the family.
:jester:
Thanks for reminding me that I've got the undisputed black sheep of the family.
:jester:
DSL vs TSL
- Thread starter JonnyG92
- Start date
Northwinds
New member
Re: DSL vs TSL
I thought the SL-X is the same basic platform as the MkIII? just an extra gain stage and I believe reverb? I think the MkIII did not have the diode clipping circuit either or does it
I am a SL-X fan from way back. Honestly as a lifelong Marshall player, none of the 900s are quite as good as the DSL, they are noisy, not quite as articulate and run hot as hell
but they sound oh so good for sure, especially at 5 and above
The DLS is born of the 900 series, just more refined
TSL's? They had early reliability issues as I recall but I have played through a few and they are good sounding amps
I thought the SL-X is the same basic platform as the MkIII? just an extra gain stage and I believe reverb? I think the MkIII did not have the diode clipping circuit either or does it
I am a SL-X fan from way back. Honestly as a lifelong Marshall player, none of the 900s are quite as good as the DSL, they are noisy, not quite as articulate and run hot as hell
but they sound oh so good for sure, especially at 5 and above
The DLS is born of the 900 series, just more refined
TSL's? They had early reliability issues as I recall but I have played through a few and they are good sounding amps
ErikH
Well-known member
Re: DSL vs TSL
The MkIII does have a diode rectifier in the preamp for additional clipping, the SL-X does not. Neither have built-in reverb, that was the 4100 and 4500 Dual Reverbs. The MkIII and SL-X are similar from the tone stack to the speaker outs only. The preamp is different between them, they just "look" the same on the outside.
The MkIII does have a diode rectifier in the preamp for additional clipping, the SL-X does not. Neither have built-in reverb, that was the 4100 and 4500 Dual Reverbs. The MkIII and SL-X are similar from the tone stack to the speaker outs only. The preamp is different between them, they just "look" the same on the outside.
Lake Placid Blues
New member
Re: DSL vs TSL
The MKIII is essentially a JCM800 2203/4 with a diode chip thrown in between V1 and V2 for more gain -just looking at the schem. The SLX uses an extra 12AX7 tube there instead.
The dual reverb 900 is whole different animal with all sorts of SS circuits all over the place- it looks an absolute mess on its schem.
I'll try to find a DSL and/or TSL schem.......
The MKIII is essentially a JCM800 2203/4 with a diode chip thrown in between V1 and V2 for more gain -just looking at the schem. The SLX uses an extra 12AX7 tube there instead.
The dual reverb 900 is whole different animal with all sorts of SS circuits all over the place- it looks an absolute mess on its schem.
I'll try to find a DSL and/or TSL schem.......
J
Jessie's ghost
Guest
Lake Placid Blues
New member
Re: DSL vs TSL
Actually they arn't too hard to follow. It's set up for the modern ribbon connection construction so you have to follow the connections but other than that it's pretty straight forward schem reading.
The DSL is all tube signal path. No diode clipping that I can find (I think the chips right after V1 are for the reverb). I have a SLO100 Schematic and the DSL is essentially very similar in principle. The designs are the basic split cathode Marshall preamp but with an extra 12AX7 tube (two extragain stages) thrown in between what would be V1 and V2 of a vintage circuit. And the Clean/Classic gain Ch is created by tapping it right after V1A bypassing the addition tube gain stages before returing it to main signal path at the cathode follower stage. It's completely different from the JCM900 DR design. I looked at the JCM600 design too, and it is also very similar, but it has a diode clipp.
The TSL design looks like the DSL design but with an extra clean ch circuit piggy backed on the front end of the circuit. The added on clean channel is all SS with FETs and it completely by-passes the first two 12AX7 tubes. But here's the kicker, the guitar input goes directly into the SS clean circuit, so all your signal must run through (probably bypassing the Clean tone stack) the SS clean CH first before it goes to the V1, where it becomes virtually the same all tube signal path as a DSL.
Actually they arn't too hard to follow. It's set up for the modern ribbon connection construction so you have to follow the connections but other than that it's pretty straight forward schem reading.
The DSL is all tube signal path. No diode clipping that I can find (I think the chips right after V1 are for the reverb). I have a SLO100 Schematic and the DSL is essentially very similar in principle. The designs are the basic split cathode Marshall preamp but with an extra 12AX7 tube (two extragain stages) thrown in between what would be V1 and V2 of a vintage circuit. And the Clean/Classic gain Ch is created by tapping it right after V1A bypassing the addition tube gain stages before returing it to main signal path at the cathode follower stage. It's completely different from the JCM900 DR design. I looked at the JCM600 design too, and it is also very similar, but it has a diode clipp.
The TSL design looks like the DSL design but with an extra clean ch circuit piggy backed on the front end of the circuit. The added on clean channel is all SS with FETs and it completely by-passes the first two 12AX7 tubes. But here's the kicker, the guitar input goes directly into the SS clean circuit, so all your signal must run through (probably bypassing the Clean tone stack) the SS clean CH first before it goes to the V1, where it becomes virtually the same all tube signal path as a DSL.
J
Jessie's ghost
Guest
Re: DSL vs TSL
So when you're using the Clean channel, you're rockin' a solid-state preamp, then an all-valve power stage? Or are you saying that the SS clean stage is always in the signal path, even when you're using the other channels? Or both?
So when you're using the Clean channel, you're rockin' a solid-state preamp, then an all-valve power stage? Or are you saying that the SS clean stage is always in the signal path, even when you're using the other channels? Or both?
Re: DSL vs TSL
that explains some things... i had heard from some (including Marshall themself) the TSL is the same circuit as the DSL for the 2 gain Channels... It must be the fact that the imput passes thru this clean channel first that players have noticed a tone difference between the 2...
also what i have heard is to stay away from the 60 watt versions of the TSL... said to of been more in the repair shop over the TSL100's... but i always say if it sounds good stick with it no matter what others say...
you will not find me using my TSL trying to do some SRV stuff... but as i said it's great at the metal tones... it's better then a SS Marshall i could of bought for the same money this used TSL cost me... i for sure would of not paid the $2000 Canadian for the TSL 100 head when it was new... for that type of money i would of gone with a Boogie combo or even the EVH heads....
on the used Market i have seen DSL100's go for a just over a Grand... yet most of the TSL100's go for a few hundred less....
that explains some things... i had heard from some (including Marshall themself) the TSL is the same circuit as the DSL for the 2 gain Channels... It must be the fact that the imput passes thru this clean channel first that players have noticed a tone difference between the 2...
also what i have heard is to stay away from the 60 watt versions of the TSL... said to of been more in the repair shop over the TSL100's... but i always say if it sounds good stick with it no matter what others say...
you will not find me using my TSL trying to do some SRV stuff... but as i said it's great at the metal tones... it's better then a SS Marshall i could of bought for the same money this used TSL cost me... i for sure would of not paid the $2000 Canadian for the TSL 100 head when it was new... for that type of money i would of gone with a Boogie combo or even the EVH heads....
on the used Market i have seen DSL100's go for a just over a Grand... yet most of the TSL100's go for a few hundred less....
J
Jessie's ghost
Guest
Re: DSL vs TSL
I've always thought Donna R's endorsement of the DSL carried some weight in that schism.
Honestly, I never would have thought of the clean channel as being solid state. It's so warm, elastic, and free of hardness. I really like it, a lot, and unless I want Fender cleans, that's what I use for a clean channel.
I've always thought Donna R's endorsement of the DSL carried some weight in that schism.
Honestly, I never would have thought of the clean channel as being solid state. It's so warm, elastic, and free of hardness. I really like it, a lot, and unless I want Fender cleans, that's what I use for a clean channel.
stevie_bees
Cat In The Hatministrator
Re: DSL vs TSL
Yeah, that surprises me too. I ended up just using my pedalboard through the clean channel...
Yeah, that surprises me too. I ended up just using my pedalboard through the clean channel...
Lake Placid Blues
New member
Re: DSL vs TSL
The Roland Jazz chorus is all SS, including the power amp, and its a clean sound a lot of people really like. With a tube power amp and output transformer your going to get some nice elasticity and warmth on the cleans. I think I would have true by-passed the clean CH for the DSL channels though.
The Roland Jazz chorus is all SS, including the power amp, and its a clean sound a lot of people really like. With a tube power amp and output transformer your going to get some nice elasticity and warmth on the cleans. I think I would have true by-passed the clean CH for the DSL channels though.
Lake Placid Blues
New member
Re: DSL vs TSL
I wonder if the clean channel is delivering a too boosted signal to V1. This may be why it seems to have too much gain and fizz on those channels to some ears. If so running a 12AY7 or a 5751 (?) in V1 may be interesting. Maybe its a bit padded and that's why it works better with buckers?
I wonder if the clean channel is delivering a too boosted signal to V1. This may be why it seems to have too much gain and fizz on those channels to some ears. If so running a 12AY7 or a 5751 (?) in V1 may be interesting. Maybe its a bit padded and that's why it works better with buckers?
GuitarGuy503
New member
Re: DSL vs TSL
The DSLs are very cheaply made and very limiting with the shared eq. If you are seriously looking at the DSL be ready to replace the stock Transformer as it is very noisey and irritating. lol It's hard to believe that the DSLs used to sell for $1,200.00 New. CRAZY. IMO your money would be better spent elsewhere even if you have to save a bit more. I ended up selling my old DSL50 to help fund for a Mesa Boogie.
The DSLs are very cheaply made and very limiting with the shared eq. If you are seriously looking at the DSL be ready to replace the stock Transformer as it is very noisey and irritating. lol It's hard to believe that the DSLs used to sell for $1,200.00 New. CRAZY. IMO your money would be better spent elsewhere even if you have to save a bit more. I ended up selling my old DSL50 to help fund for a Mesa Boogie.
Last edited:
Re: DSL vs TSL
Raytheon black plate high gain in V2 and Phillips E.H. in V1 sofar JJ pre`s in V3/V4. the all JJ pre`s nuetered my tone controls
Raytheon black plate high gain in V2 and Phillips E.H. in V1 sofar JJ pre`s in V3/V4. the all JJ pre`s nuetered my tone controls
Re: DSL vs TSL
Not to be a jerk but I call Bull****!
I have heard it first hand in my TSL
Not to be a jerk but I call Bull****!
I have heard it first hand in my TSL
richard parker
Active member
Re: DSL vs TSL
I heard a lot of guys using TSLs and they were very Solid-State sounding. Reminded me of Peavey Bandits.
I heard a lot of guys using TSLs and they were very Solid-State sounding. Reminded me of Peavey Bandits.
