Jcm 2000?

[shredaholic]

Re: Jcm 2000?

I think the clean channel is fantastic on those amps, sounded fenderish, totally not what I'd expect from a Marshall.

 

[JeffB]

Re: Jcm 2000?

.... I really couldn't care about it's clean sound ...

These are the words of a TRUE Rock & Roll Guitar player...


Cleans? who dat?

 

[MikeS]

Re: Jcm 2000?

I haven’t had any reliability issues with my DSL50 at all. So far it’s performed very well.

One thing people have to get through their thick vintage-tube-boutique-snobby heads is that this amp is neither meant to replicate vintage tones or be a replacement for a boutique amp. It is, however, intended to be a more modern sounding tube amp for those incapable of spending three or four thousand bucks on a boutique. This falls on deaf ears I fear, as there are types out there that are probably going to dismiss the amp immediately for some reason that makes absolutely no sense to reasonable players.

Anyway, the “classic” channel pays homage to classic British tones. There are two modes… a clean channel and a gain channel. The cleans will never be mistaken for Fender cleans, but they are very usable. The gain mode adds a bit of preamp distortion for a little bit of crunchy goodness. One word of caution, though, is that with the DSL50 you don’t have a lot of headroom, so the “clean” channel breaks up very early.

The lead channel is a modern interpretation of the “hot-rodded” Marshall sound. It’s a bit more pre-amp gain based than most, but it still works well for just about any genre. Again, two modes are on tap… one heavy and crunchy, the other a bit brighter and very gainy. I don’t spend much time on the ultra gain mode, mostly because I find it has a little too much top end and sounds a bit shrilly at times. It’s extremely versatile and does a lot of things well, but perhaps nothing great. It’s a jack-of-all-trades type tube amp. Spend some time turning dials and I’ll bet you’ll find some good tones.

I attribute most negative criticism of the DSL line to ignorance regarding the model and impatience to dial in a usable tone. The DSL reacts very well to even minor dial tweaks and makes an excellent platform for pedals. Even I admit that it took me a long time to really dial the tone I was looking for… then I go and throw a thing or two into the loop and I have to do more tweaking. If you are patient with it you can find a tone that pretty darn good. If you can’t, start saving pennies, because you won’t find a better all tube amp for less.

Speaking of tubes, I’m about due for a change. Maybe I’ll try Wattage’s tube combo.

 

[JeffB]

Re: Jcm 2000?

I attribute most negative criticism of the DSL line to ignorance regarding the model and impatience to dial in a usable tone.

Or in my case...I just prefer the vintage sounds that the DSL/TSL cannot deliver. It does deliver good tones, but a NMV/JMP/800 it is not. I would say rather, for many that don't care for the DSL/TSL, thats the issue..taste...not ignorance.

Thats how I feel anyway

 

[MikeS]

Re: Jcm 2000?

Or in my case...I just prefer the vintage sounds that the DSL/TSL cannot deliver. It does deliver good tones, but a NMV/JMP/800 it is not. I would say rather, for many that don't care for the DSL/TSL, thats the issue..taste...not ignorance.

Thats how I feel anyway

Understandable, Jeff, but I'm referring to the people claiming the amps are horrible when in fact they really mean to say "these amps are not my cup of tea." Fact remains that the DSL/TSL line requires a lot of knob turning (which may be one of the very few negative critiques I have of the amp) that isn't easily accomplished without a couple hours of private use. There seems to be a lot of DSL naysayers out there whose tone criticisms are not founded on what I would call unbiased tested. That's a discussion for another time, though. Far too often are people quick to call a product "bad" simply on the basis that it isn't their style.

 

[JeffB]

Re: Jcm 2000?

Fact remains that the DSL/TSL line requires a lot of knob turning (which may be one of the very few negative critiques I have of the amp) that isn't easily accomplished without a couple hours of private use. There seems to be a lot of DSL naysayers out there whose tone criticisms are not founded on what I would call unbiased tested. That's a discussion for another time, though. Far too often are people quick to call a product "bad" simply on the basis that it isn't their style.

Also understandable. I don't know about you, but I believe some of the reason why (barring the circuit design) many immediately dismiss it (I did at first) are the piss poor combo cabs (boxy), as well as the current V30 speakers Marshall is using. I cannot remember zakkly what other cab I played one through one time..possibly a 5150 or a MESA with 90 watt Black Shadows, but the DSL noticeably improved, tone-wise...more open...less "buzzy".

 

[Wattage]

Re: Jcm 2000?

I played the head through a 1936 2x12 cab and a Mesa 2x12 the other night and it ripped it up, I was really liking that 1936. It sounds really good though my 412MS bottom that I am pretty sure are Sheffields. They don't disperse sound real well but if you are up on them they sound great and they mic up real well.

 

[Benjy_26]

Re: Jcm 2000?

Benji,

didnt you have a new Prosonic??
i think your the one.
well, i think you should do yourself a favor and buy an OLD marshall if you want to get one.
why spend a bunch of money here and there and not just get something good?
my problem is that here in Greece we have hardly any amps to look at. so its like either choose a or b. but i am going to England in a few days and hope to remedy my amp problem.

No Prosonic here, unfortunately.

My main rig at the moment is a Boss GT-8 into a Mesa 50:50 power amp and a Vox 2x12 cab and a Marshall 2x12 cab. This works great for outdoors and big rooms, but sometimes, I play smaller places or just want to take a guitar and an amp and rip.

I also have a BF Bassman head that I love, but to get it sounding really good I have to crank it, and this thing is LOUD!

That's kind of why I'm attracted to this amp. It's multi channel with MV, plenty of gain, and it's 50 watts. This I think would work well in the smaller rooms in conjunction with the Marshall cab and would give me a ton of cool tones with a LP. I also think that 50 watts would be enough for decent clean headroom.

Am I correct in my assumptions?

 

[tone?]

Re: Jcm 2000?

sorry, wrong forum member!

 

[Kommerzbassist]

Re: Jcm 2000?

I'm not sure what you think, but I've heard many guys having great tone with the DSLs and TSLs... I think this is really just a matter of taste and/or lack of time customising your settings.
And for the pedalability... both also are a great base for pedals imo.
Listen to newer Fu Manchu's records... nice TSL & DSL sounds using Fuzz pedals.
Hmm... as I still don't have my amp yet after waiting 3+ Month for my new flat to be finished, I'm currently thinking about even gettin ga TSL100 because it has some quite cool features (the Virtual Power reduction, the Emulated Line Out) I haven't seen on any other amp in that price class...

 

[chcjunior]

Re: Jcm 2000?

I owned a DSL 50 for a spell and really like the amp. Got some great sounds out of it, clean and dirty alike. The only reason I got rid of it is I had the same issues Mike M. had and then some...and...I went thru THREE of the DSL50's before I finally gave up.

 

[MikeS]

Re: Jcm 2000?

The nice thing about the DSL50 is that it even sounded good without having to completely saturate the power tubes. In fact, I liked the tone I got out of teh thing unattenuated with volume at "5" than I do with the power section cranked and attenuated to the same volume. That may have a lot to do with tone suckage by the attenuator, but that doesn't change the fact the amp sounded great at loud, but not eardrum shattering, volumes.

The amp also prefers 4x12. 2x12 is nice for break up, but the amp really works best with a more robust 412 cabinet.