Marshall JCM 2000 TSL602
- Thread starter gilaltom3
- Start date
schecterplayer
New member
Re: Marshall JCM 2000 TSL602
Never used one, I'm a big fan of the JCM 2000 DSL if that means anything though. The 2000s have admirably good clean and light overdrive tones for a Marshall, through the right speakers it cops a pretty good fendery blues tone.
Never used one, I'm a big fan of the JCM 2000 DSL if that means anything though. The 2000s have admirably good clean and light overdrive tones for a Marshall, through the right speakers it cops a pretty good fendery blues tone.
Re: Marshall JCM 2000 TSL602
I have had many Marshall's, as well as other amps over the years. I have a TSL 60 head. Here is the deal with these amps. They have a bad rap which is not really deserved for the most part tone wise. Here is the skinny...
The clean channel is decent.
This amps needs to get loud or it's fizzy on the OD channels.
The red or lead channel has stupid amounts of useless gain that really is not practicle. The gain over 4 or 5 sounds like a bees nest.
The reverb is so so at best.
The footswitch is a $150 nightmare of bad design just waiting to break on you. If you gig this amp, you WILL break this footswitch. I babied mine and it still broke.
This amp needs to be tweaked EQ wise. The knobs make a big difference with slight turns. If you put everything on 10 it will sound like mud.
This amp really benefits from old glass or at the very least decent CP tubes.
These are a tech's nightmare. They are very difficult to fix when they break. Mine has been in the shop now for 2 months. Lots of techs won't touch them.
Ok that's the bad...now here is what is important.
The crunch channel, with the gain up about halfway and the master cranked is the essence of bone crushing kick ass vintage Marshall tone. It is very cranked 800ish and sounds totally killer. I use a DR Z Airbrake so I can crank this Thing or else it sounds like a different amp. I have put it next to quite a few Marshall's other guys were using and it blew their minds, as most had either never given this amp a chance or read a lot of Internet rehash from people who can't get tone from these things.
Bottom line, it really only has one great tone. If you want a super versatile 3 channel amp, it will do the job but you may be dissatisfied. If you want a great sounding classic Marshall tone that's FAT...this will work for you but it must be loud.
I have had many Marshall's, as well as other amps over the years. I have a TSL 60 head. Here is the deal with these amps. They have a bad rap which is not really deserved for the most part tone wise. Here is the skinny...
The clean channel is decent.
This amps needs to get loud or it's fizzy on the OD channels.
The red or lead channel has stupid amounts of useless gain that really is not practicle. The gain over 4 or 5 sounds like a bees nest.
The reverb is so so at best.
The footswitch is a $150 nightmare of bad design just waiting to break on you. If you gig this amp, you WILL break this footswitch. I babied mine and it still broke.
This amp needs to be tweaked EQ wise. The knobs make a big difference with slight turns. If you put everything on 10 it will sound like mud.
This amp really benefits from old glass or at the very least decent CP tubes.
These are a tech's nightmare. They are very difficult to fix when they break. Mine has been in the shop now for 2 months. Lots of techs won't touch them.
Ok that's the bad...now here is what is important.
The crunch channel, with the gain up about halfway and the master cranked is the essence of bone crushing kick ass vintage Marshall tone. It is very cranked 800ish and sounds totally killer. I use a DR Z Airbrake so I can crank this Thing or else it sounds like a different amp. I have put it next to quite a few Marshall's other guys were using and it blew their minds, as most had either never given this amp a chance or read a lot of Internet rehash from people who can't get tone from these things.
Bottom line, it really only has one great tone. If you want a super versatile 3 channel amp, it will do the job but you may be dissatisfied. If you want a great sounding classic Marshall tone that's FAT...this will work for you but it must be loud.
ItsaBass
New member
Re: Marshall JCM 2000 TSL602
What I really wish is that there was a version of the DSL that was clean and crunch instead of clean and lead. The built-in Marshall lead tone was practically useless to me, but crunch was great. That is why I got a TSL instead of a DSL – not because it was three channels, but because it had the crunch channel.
Tonally, the TSL was great. In fact, it had my favorite tone of any Marshall I've played...and I think the combination of two different speakers was largely to thank for that. But the channel switching was a bit cumbersome, and pretty confusing at first. Plus the foot switch was unreliable. I had to replace it twice under warranty.
I'd certainly buy one again some day, and I might go for one of the lower powered models instead of the 122. But I think the two different speakers are the key to this amp's tone. I was less impressed by the 1x12 models.
What I really wish is that there was a version of the DSL that was clean and crunch instead of clean and lead. The built-in Marshall lead tone was practically useless to me, but crunch was great. That is why I got a TSL instead of a DSL – not because it was three channels, but because it had the crunch channel.
Tonally, the TSL was great. In fact, it had my favorite tone of any Marshall I've played...and I think the combination of two different speakers was largely to thank for that. But the channel switching was a bit cumbersome, and pretty confusing at first. Plus the foot switch was unreliable. I had to replace it twice under warranty.
I'd certainly buy one again some day, and I might go for one of the lower powered models instead of the 122. But I think the two different speakers are the key to this amp's tone. I was less impressed by the 1x12 models.
Last edited:
lex666
New member
Re: Marshall JCM 2000 TSL602
I couldn't agree more.
I saved up for for a Boogie Mark 5 head.
The Marshall still gets plenty of play time tho.
I couldn't agree more.
I saved up for for a Boogie Mark 5 head.
The Marshall still gets plenty of play time tho.
ItsaBass
New member
Re: Marshall JCM 2000 TSL602
My statement that the lead channel was unusable simply reflects my personal opinion. Plenty of others like Marshall's built-in lead channels, but I am not a fan, with any pickup.
My statement that the lead channel was unusable simply reflects my personal opinion. Plenty of others like Marshall's built-in lead channels, but I am not a fan, with any pickup.
chadd
New member
Re: Marshall JCM 2000 TSL602
It's not my favorite either, but it certainly helps me to have another tone on hand for cover material. I've had pretty good luck getting a reasonable "slash" tone out of it as well. It all depends on what you play and the kinds of tones that you like. As with anything else, personal preference is a huge factor.
EDIT: I wasn't trying to take a shot at you with my previous post, sorry if you took it that way.
It's not my favorite either, but it certainly helps me to have another tone on hand for cover material. I've had pretty good luck getting a reasonable "slash" tone out of it as well. It all depends on what you play and the kinds of tones that you like. As with anything else, personal preference is a huge factor.
EDIT: I wasn't trying to take a shot at you with my previous post, sorry if you took it that way.
Toe-Knee
New member
Re: Marshall JCM 2000 TSL602
I had one of these for a while before I got into building amps and I really wasn't too keen on it stock but after a few mods here and there I got some really nice sounds from it.
I wish I would have recorded with it more in fact.
These are some of the better sounds I got from it
http://soundcloud.com/boyes/in-memoriam
I had one of these for a while before I got into building amps and I really wasn't too keen on it stock but after a few mods here and there I got some really nice sounds from it.
I wish I would have recorded with it more in fact.
These are some of the better sounds I got from it
http://soundcloud.com/boyes/in-memoriam
Simon_F
Super Moderator
Re: Marshall JCM 2000 TSL602
I don't find much I like in the DSL red channel either. A DSL with two green channels would be great. You could have clean/clean (not sure who'd want that), clean/crunch or crunch/crunch. I would run it crunch/crunch for rhythm/lead, with slightly more gain and volume on the lead. I've heard that the C12 mod better aligns the red channel with the green channel tonewise to make rhythm/lead more viable.
I don't find much I like in the DSL red channel either. A DSL with two green channels would be great. You could have clean/clean (not sure who'd want that), clean/crunch or crunch/crunch. I would run it crunch/crunch for rhythm/lead, with slightly more gain and volume on the lead. I've heard that the C12 mod better aligns the red channel with the green channel tonewise to make rhythm/lead more viable.
Mr. B
New member
Re: Marshall JCM 2000 TSL602
I've had two of them over the years and still play the one I have left regularly. I never had a problem with either one of them. What common problems did you run into as a repair guy? I think the TSL series required a little more tube, speaker, and tone tweaking to realize its potential, but I liked it better than the 50 watt DSL head I had in the end.
I've had two of them over the years and still play the one I have left regularly. I never had a problem with either one of them. What common problems did you run into as a repair guy? I think the TSL series required a little more tube, speaker, and tone tweaking to realize its potential, but I liked it better than the 50 watt DSL head I had in the end.
UberMetalDood
New member
Re: Marshall JCM 2000 TSL602
I like the TSL602 a lot. I have a 50th anniversary DSL50, but I'd rather have a TSL60 reissue if they made one. To me, the TSL is a bit warmer and I actually like the clean channel a bit more. It's easier to tame than the DSL50 which requires some careful tweaking and a pedal if you want to do anything near bedroom volumes. The TSL60 I had sounded fine for home use.
I missed out on an NOS new in an unopened factory box that sold for $600 a while back. I should have jumped on it because I haven't seen one since or at least at that price.
I like the TSL602 a lot. I have a 50th anniversary DSL50, but I'd rather have a TSL60 reissue if they made one. To me, the TSL is a bit warmer and I actually like the clean channel a bit more. It's easier to tame than the DSL50 which requires some careful tweaking and a pedal if you want to do anything near bedroom volumes. The TSL60 I had sounded fine for home use.
I missed out on an NOS new in an unopened factory box that sold for $600 a while back. I should have jumped on it because I haven't seen one since or at least at that price.
gunslinger
New member
Re: Marshall JCM 2000 TSL602
I love mine. I have two of them. One a head. The other a 2x12 combo. They're my favorite Marshalls. They have a lot of cool features. Including a real reverb tank. And the deep and shift switches can make the amp sound huge and and more modern. One of the things I love about these amps is they sound great at low volume. And they were designed for EL34s. One of the best tubes for rock. The DSL50 is also a nice sounding amp. The TSL series are easy to change the tubes and bias. A very nice design feature.
I love mine. I have two of them. One a head. The other a 2x12 combo. They're my favorite Marshalls. They have a lot of cool features. Including a real reverb tank. And the deep and shift switches can make the amp sound huge and and more modern. One of the things I love about these amps is they sound great at low volume. And they were designed for EL34s. One of the best tubes for rock. The DSL50 is also a nice sounding amp. The TSL series are easy to change the tubes and bias. A very nice design feature.
