Marshall 2104

Re: Marshall 2104

KGMESSIER said:
I hate you.


DON'T HATE BABY!!!!

I almost went over there this evening so the guy doesn't change his mind or investigate a little further. I ran into him about 2 months ago & he mentioned he was selling it....about 2-3 weeks ago, he said after we spoke, he started to play it & just fell in love with it all over again, so he was gonna keep it.

I came into work this morning & a mutual friend told me that he was looking for me...the wife is pissed & he needs to sell some stuff, but he was giving me 1st crack because he felt bad about leaving me hanging.

I've got 20 hrs. OT coming up & this seems like a fine way to spend the dough!

If it doesn't work out, I'll make a little more.....sounds good to me!

BTW...he mentioned he was selling some pedals & a guitar or 2. This guy went to Berklee or one of the big music schools, so I'm guessing he doesn't have cr@p. I'll take notes on what he's selling & maybe post it here for anyone interested before it hits "The Bay". :wink:
 
Re: Marshall 2104

If it has 6550's and you want EL34's, it requires a resistor change and rebiasing. I have EL34's in my head and I asked about going to 6550's and was told that it would require that so common sense tells me that going to EL34's would require that. I could be wrong on those models though.
 
Re: Marshall 2104

PUCKBOY99 said:
I took it that the earlier models were designated MK I & then when the design differed (PTP to PCB & non-master to master volume) the new designation was named MK II.....anyone care to elaborate?
That was my thought, but I don't think the designation appeared until after the design change, but I don't have any documentation other than my rather poor memory.
 
Re: Marshall 2104

And here's the weird thing- on page 200 of the Doyle book, there's Marshall schematics for a model 1987 MKII dated July of 70.

So, if that's right, then we're all wrong! :blackeye:
 
Re: Marshall 2104

tone? said:
is this the kind of marshall that he is selling

i found this on ebay england which is close to me.

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=10171&item=7336596322&rd=1

...........England is close to Greece??? :rolleyes:

I'm not sure if it's the same model, but I guess it could be. I'll keep an eye on that one to see where it ends up, but $102.00 British pounds is about $180.00 US Dollars, right?

Looks like either a good deal or perhaps the mods are keeping it down????
 
Last edited:
Re: Marshall 2104

Here's some info on the Mk1, MkII designation from Marshall Arts. It is different than what Dr. Tube has posted so there's two contradicting positions so far. It doesn't look like the non-master/master volume change was a factor in it.

http://www.blamepro.com/br01320.htm
 
Re: Marshall 2104

The Golden Boy said:
And here's the weird thing- on page 200 of the Doyle book, there's Marshall schematics for a model 1987 MKII dated July of 70.

So, if that's right, then we're all wrong! :blackeye:


HHHmmmm.....Joneser....anyone??????? Wanna chime in here???

ErikH said:
If it has 6550's and you want EL34's, it requires a resistor change and rebiasing. I have EL34's in my head and I asked about going to 6550's and was told that it would require that so common sense tells me that going to EL34's would require that. I could be wrong on those models though.

Thank you Sir!!!
 
Re: Marshall 2104

The Golden Boy said:
And here's the weird thing- on page 200 of the Doyle book, there's Marshall schematics for a model 1987 MKII dated July of 70.

So, if that's right, then we're all wrong! :blackeye:

If it's the same one as the scan I'm lookin at from Unicord dated 11/23/70, then it's the same schematic as the one dated 11/19/70 with the only difference I see between the two being the 11/23 schematic has 6550 power tubes (with appropriate resistor changes) and the 11/19 schematic has EL34's. I don't have that book to compare these with what's in it.

If you want to look, they are here:
EL34's - http://www.drtube.com/schematics/marshall/1987u.gif
6550's - http://www.drtube.com/schematics/marshall/1987mk2u.gif
 
Last edited:
Re: Marshall 2104

JeffB said:
I personally think 6550's sound like @ss in a Marshall...I was ecstatic when they went back to El34s....
I have 6550's in my 50w head, and there's no way I'd change them out. I've traded around several 100w and 50w heads, EL-34 and 6550, this one's the best one I've gotten my hands on.
3516_p46230.jpg
 
Re: Marshall 2104

ErikH said:
so there's two contradicting positions so far. It doesn't look like the non-master/master volume change was a factor in it.
Since we've dug up those tidbits, the hard part is finding that designation on the amplifier. I've heard of the MKII being a seperate tag, as early as '74, but no other markings prior to that.
 
Re: Marshall 2104

NICE GEAR Golden Boy!!!

I'll check it out either Wed or Thurs....I'll get back to ya' either way though!

Thanks for the "HELP" ! :rolleyes: :beerchug:
 
Re: Marshall 2104

hey there
I have that exact combo, and i love it, though there are a couple of things to bear in mind.
It is a 2x12, and it is indeed the combo verson of the jmp mk2 50watt 2204 head. Mine is a '78 with el34s.
That ebay pic someone sent is indeed it.
It is bloody heavy, partly because it is bigger than it needs to be - certainly bigger than most 2x12 combos you will find nowadays. It is open-backed and definitely lacks a bit of bass. I know this because i also have a 2x12 closed back cab that i sometimes use it with. It will have two celestion speakers, that are usually greenbacks. The amp is also very bright sounding and you may find yourself turning the treble sown to about 3. Like all marshalls, they only really sound good with the master volume at least above half way, and at this point it is LOUD - louder i think than modern 50watt marshalls would be. I have used a hotplate with it, but i am just not an attenuator fan - whatever you gain by being able to get more power tube gain, you lose in tone, at least if you want to play at bedroom volumes.
On the other hand, the tone is superb. It of course only has a single channel, with two inputs. If you want a true clean sound you need to use the low input. As you turn the gain up you get the most beautiful crunch sound you could ever want. It is very touch sensitive and dynamic- with the gain on 3-5, strum lightly and the sound is almost clean, a little harder and you get that lovely marshall grit where you can just feel that hint of drive. Strum hard and its just a fantastic classic rock tone. There is no horrible fizz that you get with most modern amps including marshalls. With the gain on 8 or 9 you get an excellent rock sound, though it is never gonna do thrash.
I also have a jubilee. The sound from the JMP is considerably more touch sensitive and dynamic, less fizzy, more toneful. But i have to say that when i gig, i use the jubilee, as it is easier to get around, and has 2 channels which i find easier to deal with (i am crap at using my volume pot while playing)
Also compared it to a non master volume 50 watt 1987x that the shop had in stock. I have to say i prefer the sound of the 1987x (thicker, warmer), but just decided it was not practical to go without a master volume.

Finally, id say that your idea of turning it into a head is worth considering. Of course, on the down side, you are messing with a classic piece of vintage gear. But on the other hand, with a closed back cab and the right speakers (i would go for one greenback and one G12H), the sound would be superb, and would make a great gigging amp as long as you get on with single channel amps.
 
Last edited:
Re: Marshall 2104

The Golden Boy said:
Since we've dug up those tidbits, the hard part is finding that designation on the amplifier. I've heard of the MKII being a seperate tag, as early as '74, but no other markings prior to that.

I've heard the same thing. It appears that the change from JTM to JMP is where it really was designated MkII although it's stated that some early amps didn't have any Mk designation at all.

zak, nice review.
 
Last edited:
Re: Marshall 2104

zak said:
hey there
I have that exact combo, and i love it, though there are a couple of things to bear in mind.
It is a 2x12, and it is indeed the combo verson of the jmp mk2 50watt 2204 head. Mine is a '78 with el34s.
That ebay pic someone sent is indeed it.
It is bloody heavy, partly because it is bigger than it needs to be - certainly bigger than most 2x12 combos you will find nowadays. It is open-backed and definitely lacks a bit of bass. I know this because i also have a 2x12 closed back cab that i sometimes use it with. It will have two celestion speakers, that are usually greenbacks. The amp is also very bright sounding and you may find yourself turning the treble sown to about 3. Like all marshalls, they only really sound good with the master volume at least above half way, and at this point it is LOUD - louder i think than modern 50watt marshalls would be. I have used a hotplate with it, but i am just not an attenuator fan - whatever you gain by being able to get more power tube gain, you lose in tone, at least if you want to play at bedroom volumes.
On the other hand, the tone is superb. It of course only has a single channel, with two inputs. If you want a true clean sound you need to use the low input. As you turn the gain up you get the most beautiful crunch sound you could ever want. It is very touch sensitive and dynamic- with the gain on 3-5, strum lightly and the sound is almost clean, a little harder and you get that lovely marshall grit where you can just feel that hint of drive. Strum hard and its just a fantastic classic rock tone. There is no horrible fizz that you get with most modern amps including marshalls. With the gain on 8 or 9 you get an excellent rock sound, though it is never gonna do thrash.
I also have a jubilee. The sound from the JMP is considerably more touch sensitive and dynamic, less fizzy, more toneful. But i have to say that when i gig, i use the jubilee, as it is easier to get around, and has 2 channels which i find easier to deal with (i am crap at using my volume pot while playing)
Also compared it to a non master volume 50 watt 1987x that the shop had in stock. I have to say i prefer the sound of the 1987x (thicker, warmer), but just decided it was not practical to go without a master volume.

Finally, id say that your idea of turning it into a head is worth considering. Of course, on the down side, you are messing with a classic piece of vintage gear. But on the other hand, with a closed back cab and the right speakers (i would go for one greenback and one G12H), the sound would be superb, and would make a great gigging amp as long as you get on with single channel amps.

Hey Zak.....thanks alot for the great post!

Yeah, I want it for the sole purpose of the "Marshall Crunch"!!! I have a 2x12 already loaded with Mojo's "Greenback" & G12H30. I'll eventually grab a head box & just stick the cab in the back of the closet for safe keeping!

I've also got an amp switcher so this will go nicely with the others:

Bluesbreaker RI w/KT66s & RFT ECC83s, ECC81 in the P/I

Matchless Clubman w/EL84s thru Yellowjackets, JJ 12AX7s & NOS Dario Miniwatt EF86.

AND this, eventually with Sovtek EL34WXTs & Sovtek 12AX7LPS (maybe a Shuguang in the V1).

I think I'm set after this..................... :22: :laugh2: :laugh2: :burnout:
 
Re: Marshall 2104

zak said:
The sound from the JMP is considerably more touch sensitive and dynamic, less fizzy, more toneful. (snip snip)
Also compared it to a non master volume 50 watt 1987x that the shop had in stock. I have to say i prefer the sound of the 1987x (thicker, warmer), but just decided it was not practical to go without a master volume.

Finally, id say that your idea of turning it into a head is worth considering. Of course, on the down side, you are messing with a classic piece of vintage gear. But on the other hand, with a closed back cab and the right speakers (i would go for one greenback and one G12H), the sound would be superb, and would make a great gigging amp as long as you get on with single channel amps.
That is a really great description of the amp- and is most of what I look for in an amplifier.

The idea of "messing with" an older amp is worth considering, however it's pretty much undoing 4 screws. But don't lose the nuts!
 
Back
Top