Marshall DSL vs JCM900
- Thread starter OlinMusic
- Start date
ErikH
Well-known member
Re: Marshall DSL vs JCM900
Which JCM900? Dual Reverb, MkIII Master Volume or SL-X?
If comparing apples to apples, since the DSL is dual channel, then up against the Dual Reverbs I'd lean towards the DSL. I was never fond of the Dual Reverbs myself. They're good with EL34's but not superb.
If it's between the DSL and MkIII or SL-X, I'll take the MkIII or SL-X hands down. They're simple and have a great tone, from mild drive to tear your head off drive.
For reliability, hard to compare since the DSL's haven't been around as long. There's lots of 900's still going strong and you yourself told me that it's hard to kill a Marshall.
Which JCM900? Dual Reverb, MkIII Master Volume or SL-X?
If comparing apples to apples, since the DSL is dual channel, then up against the Dual Reverbs I'd lean towards the DSL. I was never fond of the Dual Reverbs myself. They're good with EL34's but not superb.
If it's between the DSL and MkIII or SL-X, I'll take the MkIII or SL-X hands down. They're simple and have a great tone, from mild drive to tear your head off drive.
For reliability, hard to compare since the DSL's haven't been around as long. There's lots of 900's still going strong and you yourself told me that it's hard to kill a Marshall.
LesPaulRules
New member
Re: Marshall DSL vs JCM900
I have owned both (and still own a DSL 50).
The only JCM 900's I've liked are the SL-X's. Even then, I only like the EL-34 version. (and these are a one trick pony).
The DSL 50 is simply one of the best sounding, most versatile Marshalls ever made.
If you need a good clean sound, with the ability of everything from blues, classic rock, to even metal.
Get a DSL 50
I have owned both (and still own a DSL 50).
The only JCM 900's I've liked are the SL-X's. Even then, I only like the EL-34 version. (and these are a one trick pony).
The DSL 50 is simply one of the best sounding, most versatile Marshalls ever made.
If you need a good clean sound, with the ability of everything from blues, classic rock, to even metal.
Get a DSL 50
Gearjoneser
Gear Ho
Re: Marshall DSL vs JCM900
I agree with Eric. Overall, I think the DSL's are amongst the best Marshalls, and are well worth buying. The 900 dual reverbs sounded stale....at least the ones I've plugged into. The MKIII and SLX 900's are the ones to buy, if you're looking for 900's. I'd only consider a Marshall with EL-34's, so that rules a few out.
I may start buying and selling Marshall heads again, because it's fun to own different ones, and they're easy to resell for more.
I agree with Eric. Overall, I think the DSL's are amongst the best Marshalls, and are well worth buying. The 900 dual reverbs sounded stale....at least the ones I've plugged into. The MKIII and SLX 900's are the ones to buy, if you're looking for 900's. I'd only consider a Marshall with EL-34's, so that rules a few out.
I may start buying and selling Marshall heads again, because it's fun to own different ones, and they're easy to resell for more.
ErikH
Well-known member
Re: Marshall DSL vs JCM900
You will find a majority of the SL-X's with 5881's. They were introduced in 1993 and the swap to 5881's occured about a year after that and for the remainder of their production life, 1998-1999, they came with 5881's. The only 900 models guaranteed to have EL34's stock every time are the MkIII heads and combos.
You will find a majority of the SL-X's with 5881's. They were introduced in 1993 and the swap to 5881's occured about a year after that and for the remainder of their production life, 1998-1999, they came with 5881's. The only 900 models guaranteed to have EL34's stock every time are the MkIII heads and combos.
T
theodie
Guest
Re: Marshall DSL vs JCM900
I will take my MkIII 2100 over any amp I have ever played!
I will take my MkIII 2100 over any amp I have ever played!
the guy who invented fire
Fuzzy. Guitars
Re: Marshall DSL vs JCM900
I'd go for a DSL...truth is that those amps sound great. They are not made as well as old Marshalls but then again, neither are JCM 900's!
The DSL's have a great clean channel and both a modern and classic Marshall crunch tone as well as the best reverb on any Marshall ever...however the TSL's are a joke...at least IMO...then again I play through a Sound City!
I'd go for a DSL...truth is that those amps sound great. They are not made as well as old Marshalls but then again, neither are JCM 900's!
The DSL's have a great clean channel and both a modern and classic Marshall crunch tone as well as the best reverb on any Marshall ever...however the TSL's are a joke...at least IMO...then again I play through a Sound City!
greendy123
New member
Re: Marshall DSL vs JCM900
I definitely take a jcm 900 over a dsl. On the dirty the channels the tone was too stale and thin for me on lower volumes. My MkIV jcm900 2100 SLX sounds great at all volumes. This is a single channel, but rolling down the volume is good enough for me for cleans. I set the gain low sometimes for the clean tone and it sounds pretty decent. It doesn't matter that its a single cause some of the best Marshalls "1959 SLPs" can play many genres. The thing other than tone is that basically there are twice the knobs on dsl compared to my JCM900, it just makes it that much harder to tweak for tone. I like my amps easy to use, volume, pre-amp, gain, treble, mids, bass, presence is all I need, this unlike some modern amps like the Mesa Road king with the massive amount of knobs on the back and front.
I definitely take a jcm 900 over a dsl. On the dirty the channels the tone was too stale and thin for me on lower volumes. My MkIV jcm900 2100 SLX sounds great at all volumes. This is a single channel, but rolling down the volume is good enough for me for cleans. I set the gain low sometimes for the clean tone and it sounds pretty decent. It doesn't matter that its a single cause some of the best Marshalls "1959 SLPs" can play many genres. The thing other than tone is that basically there are twice the knobs on dsl compared to my JCM900, it just makes it that much harder to tweak for tone. I like my amps easy to use, volume, pre-amp, gain, treble, mids, bass, presence is all I need, this unlike some modern amps like the Mesa Road king with the massive amount of knobs on the back and front.
V!N
New member
Re: Marshall DSL vs JCM900
But a 100 Watt SL-X has been my main gigging amp for about three years now. Set semi-clean and using guitar volume and a little pedal for crunch and leads. Too bad it was a rental, I must have spent enough money on rent than one and a half times the price they go for these days ..
I raised hell at the shop that after so much money and so many years, they wouldn't let me take it on a European tour.
So it seems I switched to acoustics after all ..
If you're talking about the Dual Reverbs, then the answer is neither. If those are the only two I could choose from, I'd switch to playing acoustic ..OlinMusic said:
But a 100 Watt SL-X has been my main gigging amp for about three years now. Set semi-clean and using guitar volume and a little pedal for crunch and leads. Too bad it was a rental, I must have spent enough money on rent than one and a half times the price they go for these days ..
I raised hell at the shop that after so much money and so many years, they wouldn't let me take it on a European tour.
So it seems I switched to acoustics after all ..
Lake Placid Blues
New member
Re: Marshall DSL vs JCM900
I once counted 14 seperate op-amps in the preamp of the Dual Reverb. No wonder it was a poor follow on to the JCM800 2210/05. They padd the signal for various reasons, then build it back up using Op-amps in those amps. I don't think the use of something like diode clipping is nessasarily bad, (it might actually be better in some ways) but there's a limit to how much one should intergrate solidstate devices into the signal path of a tube amp and expect to maintain tube quality tone.
The MKIII 2100 and the SL-X are more worthy of the JCM800 2203/04 amps they superceded. Those two JCM900 era amps are essentially the same design as the legendary 2203 but with extra gain stages inserted. In the case of the MkIII it's a diode clip, and in the case of the SL-X it's an extra 12AX7.
The DSL is the channel switching with reverb amp they have been trying to build with varying degrees of nonsuccess since around 1982. For all it's complexity, the JCM800 2210 didn't have the clean channel tone, and the distortion just wasn't as sweet as it could have been, and the JCM900 dual reverb wasn't the solution they hoped for.
DSL are great sounding amps, clean or dirty, and they claim an all tube signal path. The DSL is simply one of the best channel switching with reverb amps ever built, if a modern channel switching amp is what your looking for. If one wants single channel rock amp, with higher gain than a JCM800 2203/04, then the MKIII or the SL-X are hard to beat.
ErikH said:Which JCM900? Dual Reverb, MkIII Master Volume or SL-X?
I once counted 14 seperate op-amps in the preamp of the Dual Reverb. No wonder it was a poor follow on to the JCM800 2210/05. They padd the signal for various reasons, then build it back up using Op-amps in those amps. I don't think the use of something like diode clipping is nessasarily bad, (it might actually be better in some ways) but there's a limit to how much one should intergrate solidstate devices into the signal path of a tube amp and expect to maintain tube quality tone.
The MKIII 2100 and the SL-X are more worthy of the JCM800 2203/04 amps they superceded. Those two JCM900 era amps are essentially the same design as the legendary 2203 but with extra gain stages inserted. In the case of the MkIII it's a diode clip, and in the case of the SL-X it's an extra 12AX7.
The DSL is the channel switching with reverb amp they have been trying to build with varying degrees of nonsuccess since around 1982. For all it's complexity, the JCM800 2210 didn't have the clean channel tone, and the distortion just wasn't as sweet as it could have been, and the JCM900 dual reverb wasn't the solution they hoped for.
DSL are great sounding amps, clean or dirty, and they claim an all tube signal path. The DSL is simply one of the best channel switching with reverb amps ever built, if a modern channel switching amp is what your looking for. If one wants single channel rock amp, with higher gain than a JCM800 2203/04, then the MKIII or the SL-X are hard to beat.
ErikH
Well-known member
Re: Marshall DSL vs JCM900
LPB is right on there. In the MkIII and SL-X models, the only op-amp in there is used to drive the effects loop.
I see nothing wrong with diodes either, in the right place. The MkIII has them in the right place, in a rectifier configuration which gives a sweet clipping sound, almost tubish, and it can be removed from the circuit by turning the Gain Sensitivity all the way down. It's funny when people talk about them being bad things in amps but then they toss a tube screamer or super overdrive or some other OD/Distortion pedal out front of their setup.
There's diodes in those too.
LPB is right on there. In the MkIII and SL-X models, the only op-amp in there is used to drive the effects loop.
I see nothing wrong with diodes either, in the right place. The MkIII has them in the right place, in a rectifier configuration which gives a sweet clipping sound, almost tubish, and it can be removed from the circuit by turning the Gain Sensitivity all the way down. It's funny when people talk about them being bad things in amps but then they toss a tube screamer or super overdrive or some other OD/Distortion pedal out front of their setup.
There's diodes in those too. 
Bludave
New member
Re: Marshall DSL vs JCM900
I am not an amp tech., and don't pretend to be. I don't know a lot about the inner workings of an amp. But I do know what sounds good to me. I had played thru a lot of Marshall amps when I was looking to buy one and I wound up buying a 900 Dual Reverb 50W combo. For a number of reasons.... all related to performance issues. It had a Master volume which allowed me to dial in a decent sound at low volumes although I don't play at bedroom levels. I play it loud the way it was meant to be played. It was channel switching even though IMHO the clean channel was no where what I needed my cleans to be (this was not an issue seeing I was/am A/b'ing this with a Fende Super Reverb). It was light and easy to carry for Gigs and for the most part it was going to be miked and run thru the PA so buying a head and a 4 12" was just not what I wanted to do. I bought this long before Marshall came out with the DSL. This being said the other guitar player I play with uses a DSL and for the most part it sounds very good, although I think the cleans are not very clean, but I have not played thru it much so this opinion is with very limited hands on with it. I prefer the 900 that I have if I had to pick one. It works for me. The main thing I do mot like about it is the effects loop. I don't use a lot of effects that need to go thru the loop...... Chorus and Delay. The delay sounds like crap if I don't take enough time to dial it in. I have had this amp for a vrery long time and this has/is my only major complaint about it. On occasions the Drive can be a tad buzzy, but it seems once the amp warms up it goes away. I think they are both really good amps, its just a matter of finding the right one for the sound you are after.
I am not an amp tech., and don't pretend to be. I don't know a lot about the inner workings of an amp. But I do know what sounds good to me. I had played thru a lot of Marshall amps when I was looking to buy one and I wound up buying a 900 Dual Reverb 50W combo. For a number of reasons.... all related to performance issues. It had a Master volume which allowed me to dial in a decent sound at low volumes although I don't play at bedroom levels. I play it loud the way it was meant to be played. It was channel switching even though IMHO the clean channel was no where what I needed my cleans to be (this was not an issue seeing I was/am A/b'ing this with a Fende Super Reverb). It was light and easy to carry for Gigs and for the most part it was going to be miked and run thru the PA so buying a head and a 4 12" was just not what I wanted to do. I bought this long before Marshall came out with the DSL. This being said the other guitar player I play with uses a DSL and for the most part it sounds very good, although I think the cleans are not very clean, but I have not played thru it much so this opinion is with very limited hands on with it. I prefer the 900 that I have if I had to pick one. It works for me. The main thing I do mot like about it is the effects loop. I don't use a lot of effects that need to go thru the loop...... Chorus and Delay. The delay sounds like crap if I don't take enough time to dial it in. I have had this amp for a vrery long time and this has/is my only major complaint about it. On occasions the Drive can be a tad buzzy, but it seems once the amp warms up it goes away. I think they are both really good amps, its just a matter of finding the right one for the sound you are after.
Re: Marshall DSL vs JCM900
I'm gonna chime in here for the DSL.
I'm not a huge fan of the DSL for 'heavy' rock. While it has enough gain on the lead channel, I much prefer a 5150 for that type of sound. But, if you're looking for AC/DC tones, the DSL will do that all day long. The clean channel is exceptional for a Marshall, IMO. I don't like the amp much at all with most of my Strats, but my Wolfgang sounds killer through the DSL.
I much prefer my DSL to the majority of 900's that I've played. It feels more 'natural' to me in some way, as well.
IMHO, of course.
I'm gonna chime in here for the DSL.
I'm not a huge fan of the DSL for 'heavy' rock. While it has enough gain on the lead channel, I much prefer a 5150 for that type of sound. But, if you're looking for AC/DC tones, the DSL will do that all day long. The clean channel is exceptional for a Marshall, IMO. I don't like the amp much at all with most of my Strats, but my Wolfgang sounds killer through the DSL.
I much prefer my DSL to the majority of 900's that I've played. It feels more 'natural' to me in some way, as well.
IMHO, of course.
Lake Placid Blues
New member
Re: Marshall DSL vs JCM900
A JCM 900 is probably going to be more sturdy in the long hual because it still used to a greater extent older style construction methodology. I havn't heard of the DSL giving a lot of reliability troubles though.
I think that is a key factor. With a Dual Reverb you still have the traditional Marshall power amp regardless of the preamp configuration. At gigging volumes that power amp will start to come alive. It's still a Marshall. I would rather gig with just about any EL34 Marshall over perhaps 75% of the alternative amps out there. As far as using a clean channel along with an overdriven channel and switching back and forth, the DSL is probably the best Marshall ever for that type of use though.Bludave said:
A JCM 900 is probably going to be more sturdy in the long hual because it still used to a greater extent older style construction methodology. I havn't heard of the DSL giving a lot of reliability troubles though.
fretburner
Well-known member
Re: Marshall DSL vs JCM900
I think the vast majority of the guys here like the MkIII 2100 and SL-X, so my question is:
How does the MkIII 2501 compare to the MkIII 2100?
From what I read, the only difference is that one is the combo version of the other. Or do I need to google more?
also, what's a good price for a 2501?
P.S. I'm the dude who's been thinking about the jtm30 (now out of the market ... another dude bought it), jcm900 4501 (recently re-tubed with sovteks), V65r (i can get it really cheap) and now, 2501 (somebody just put this out for sale).
I think the vast majority of the guys here like the MkIII 2100 and SL-X, so my question is:
How does the MkIII 2501 compare to the MkIII 2100?
From what I read, the only difference is that one is the combo version of the other. Or do I need to google more?
also, what's a good price for a 2501?
P.S. I'm the dude who's been thinking about the jtm30 (now out of the market ... another dude bought it), jcm900 4501 (recently re-tubed with sovteks), V65r (i can get it really cheap) and now, 2501 (somebody just put this out for sale).
