Marshall's next step...

[Mr Wolf]

Re: Marshall's next step...

Last years london guitar show on the marshall stand i got some hand-out with the history of Marshall Amps and they talked about marshalls being designed for the working class musician. Thinking about the MG series and AVT, JCM2000 they are not expensive amps in comparison to other brands so seem to still be following it. Bringing out re-issues by demand so so. I know jack about construction so dunno if the reissues are rightly priced in that department. Thinking about it in this show i was briefly chatting to Jim Marshall (got 2 posters signed by him, one also has Nicko McBrain's autograph), i could have told him what to do with marshall then! Hehe oh well.

 

[Bludave]

Re: Marshall's next step...

I think Lew is on the right track.. It is really hard to attack an Amp unless you have owned it for a while. I own a 50W 900 Combo. I have had it for about 10 years. When I first got it I did not like it, but I stuck with it and have learned how to get this Amp to work for me. It is certainly not the best Marshall ever made. It is a good Amp for what I need it to do. IMO the best sounding Marsall I ever heard was a 1969 50W Plexi. That being said it was being played at ear shattering Volume. This is just not feasable for most people. A Master Volume Amp is almost a necessity in todays Giging world. We all play in many different Sized Clubs, and need Amplification that can work in all different situations. As much as I would love to play through a 1969 Plexi. I would only be able to use that Amp effectivley about once or twice a year. As far as the new Marshalls I agree that many of them leave a lot to be desired. It would be nice to see Marshall design a Plexi type sounding Amp with a Master Volume. This I would buy in a heartbeat!!!

 

[Gearjoneser]

Re: Marshall's next step...

I own a DSL50 and I do understand a few of the gripes against Marshall. The DSL50 was the ONLY Marshall I considered when I went shopping for a new power amp head. I was attracted to its features, the 50 watt output, and its versatility. The more I've played it, the less satisfied I've been, and I am very tempted to hand this thing over to an amp tech and let him play with the thing's inards. It definatly needs an attenuator, too, since, IMO, the great tone doesn't show up until you push the power tubes fairly hard, which usually means the volume knob is set to atleast 5-6; way past the point of sonic death for your ears and enough to get the cops called.

Trace at Voodoo Amps has a Hex mod for the DSL's, which changes the output tranny from Axiom to OEI, and dramatically improves both the clean and OD channel. Forum member Chi3f just bought a DSL 100 with that Voodoo mod yesterday. In a few weeks, I'm sure he'll have a lot to say about it. I can't wait to hear his reaction to that $1100 amp with $400 in mods. This is what I'm talking about. Marshall needs to simply follow the ideas of techs who are improving thier amps. Pay someone like Trace to come into their design dept. and sit down for a few weeks, designing the best direction for the new Marshall amps. Revamp the whole line, ditch much of that SS stuff, and win back their waning reputation.

 

[Maximusgordon 2.0]

Re: Marshall's next step...

I think everyone should realize that Marshall has always tried to be affordable, thats the whole reason there is a Marshall, becasue Fenders were so expensive. But still most any all valve Marshall combined with the right settings, guitar, and PLAYER can get great tones. As was mentioned by Lew, Jeff Beck sounds INCREDIBLE with his DSL's, it also helped that he uses old style Marshall cabs with Greenbacks. But as far as Marshall's next step goes, it would be great to see less cost cutting while still being afforable like in the 1400$-1500$ range. I can almost guarantee that within the next 5-10 years Marshall will realize that high gain amps are all fine and good, but an increasing number of players arent using such as large amount of distortion and are more into those great old crunch tones. BUT, for many of us the single channel heads just arent versatile enough. So heres what you get......................


A 2 channel master or non master head that has great crunch like the old Marshalls, but is a bit more responsive to the amps EQ. Then a clean channel that has a straight up sparkling sound that doesnt break up. Imagine it, still simple and pure but more versatile...

And why dont you guess get over the P2P thing, if there done right, PCB boards can sound just as good P2P but are much more consistant. Marshalls being P2P would just increase cost A TON and make quality control a big problem because of the HUGE production. By the way, anyone heard of Bogner.... yah, there heads are PCB based and there considered the best amps currently in production....

 

[Jeff_H]

Re: Marshall's next step...

The best Marshall amp is in my signature.

 

[B2D]

Re: Marshall's next step...

B2D, at 20 years of age, I'm curious how many Marshalls you have actually owned... ....it's differant owning one than it is trying a few out in a music store. Which models have you owned?

I've had extensive experience with a few different models, although I haven't personally owned them all. And when I saw extesive experience what I mean I've probably spend around 150-200 hours playing time in gigging, rehearsal, or recording sessions, not sitting in the store playing enter sandman on 'em LOL. Lemme break it down for you:

Amps i've actually bought/owned: VS265R combo, VS100R head, JCM800 2204-type combo.

Amp that I've had extensive experience with: JCM800 2205 head, JCM900 100w dual reverb head, JCM2000 TSL100 combo, MG100RCD head, AVT150H, 1987X 50w plexi RI.

As for all the other amps that Marshall currently makes... I used to work for Guitar Center up until May of this year so I've gotten a good opportunity to play pretty mch all of the amps. Granted I've not used them all in a gig/rehearsal/recording environment but I've tried them enough to know what I like and what I don't, as well as observe the maintenance/problem trends for broken ones that come in the store.

Gearjoneser actually voiced my main gripe in his first post... marshall amps are starting to cut too many corners. Granted they are still good amps but there's a lot of room for improvement.

I beleive that if Marshall really wanted to they could make a much improved DSL50 and keep the price close to what it is now. My current amp is a Mesa Single Rectoverb 50w head, and I bought it because it outperformed the DSL50 in almost every observable castegory I was testing. I feel that the construction is much better on the Mesa, the tone integrity is better at lower volumes, the clean channel is more full-bodied, and then the capability to switch tubes can get me a very marshally sound if thats what I need that day. And at MAP price that amp is only slightly more expensive than the DSL50 is.

Naps made a good point as well... Marshall shouldn't try to do the whole rectifier thing like they tried to do with the mode four because IMO that certain sound is now too well associated with a certain other amp company... I think the best thing Marshall could do for themselves is to really take that signature classic tone from their older amps that they are known for and improve upon it and max it out and get as much mileage and range out of it as possible.

I think current Marshall amps have a lot of potential to be much better than they are right now. But if that potential is not realized by the powers that be then thats all it is... potential and what could have been. Granted they still sound good IF you can throttle them or use a good power attenuator, but its amazing how good and how close I can get to that with my boogie at bedroom levels...

 

[B2D]

Re: Marshall's next step...

I think everyone should realize that Marshall has always tried to be affordable, thats the whole reason there is a Marshall, becasue Fenders were so expensive. But still most any all valve Marshall combined with the right settings, guitar, and PLAYER can get great tones. As was mentioned by Lew, Jeff Beck sounds INCREDIBLE with his DSL's, it also helped that he uses old style Marshall cabs with Greenbacks. But as far as Marshall's next step goes, it would be great to see less cost cutting while still being afforable like in the 1400$-1500$ range. I can almost guarantee that within the next 5-10 years Marshall will realize that high gain amps are all fine and good, but an increasing number of players arent using such as large amount of distortion and are more into those great old crunch tones. BUT, for many of us the single channel heads just arent versatile enough. So heres what you get......................


A 2 channel master or non master head that has great crunch like the old Marshalls, but is a bit more responsive to the amps EQ. Then a clean channel that has a straight up sparkling sound that doesnt break up. Imagine it, still simple and pure but more versatile...

And why dont you guess get over the P2P thing, if there done right, PCB boards can sound just as good P2P but are much more consistant. Marshalls being P2P would just increase cost A TON and make quality control a big problem because of the HUGE production. By the way, anyone heard of Bogner.... yah, there heads are PCB based and there considered the best amps currently in production....

Good post... I tend not to use as much distortion as you would think and rely more on power tube drive instead. When I was younger i used to crank the distortion or OD up all the way and didn't understand that along the way there were excellent crunch tones to be had... it was either crystal clean or balls-out for me haha. Now I tend to spend more time in between. I usually keep the amp gain gain on the dirty channel of my Rectoverb around 6 and let the power tubes do the sweaty work.

Oh yeah and I use a Marshall greenback cab with it and it sound GREAT!!! I may not be satisfied with the amps but they sure do have the cabs down right!

Randall Smith did a good job in the boogie sales manual about explaining why P2P is not all its cracked up to be. PCB is just fine if you build everything around in securely like boger and boogie have. The Flying Leads from the pots to the board were a GREAT idea... I think Smith summed it up best when he said, "where p2p is a better option, we use it. If not, then pcb will do the same job."

in the same article he told a story about how he discovered that over the years some older Fender amps would start to hum for no apparent reason and he couldn't figure out why, until he discovered that the P2P tag board was actually absorbing moisture from the air slowly over the years! Plus some of them would warp a little biut as well. Plus it depended on their environment they were kept in and protection by their owners but it was still a funny thing to find!

 

[Majestic]

Re: Marshall's next step...

Am I stuck in Twlilight Zone or something?

Marshall is about to release a bunch of $2500+ amps, starting with an 18 watt Bluesbreaker, point-to-point amp, the next step will be a 25 watt point-to-point mini-Plexi, all the way up to a true point-to-point 100 watt Plexi.

Hello, guys.

 

[Quencho092]

Re: Marshall's next step...

ohhh my....IM GETTING THE PLEXI NEXT SUMMER FOR SURE!!!!!!!! Though it will dent my wallet severely, i must........

 

[Quencho092]

Re: Marshall's next step...

the 20 watt is 1600, how much do you guys project the others will shoot for

 

[Stevo]

Re: Marshall's next step...

I rate an amp on what it sounds like in a band mix.. and, with my experience , a LOUD band haha. The DSL 2000s are pretty sweet but I have never cranked one up in a band situation. I spent some time with one in a sound room (a couple of times) and I really liked it for tone and versatility. The clean tone is waycool and the crunchy sound is not bad at all, even at low volumes.
I had a 79 2204 and a 2203 from the early 80s.. not sure of year. I now have a 50w plexi which I totally love. I like it more than any of my other Marshalls, and I know it will be even better with a couple of simple mods. This thing has stellar rock tone. It projects in the mix and sounds better with volume, rather than thinner and wimpier, like so many other amps.
I love Marshall as a company and still believe they can make great amps - and of course, the old non mv are treasures

 

[shred-dog]

Re: Marshall's next step...

MARSHALL can make great amps again but will they !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[B2D]

Re: Marshall's next step...

Am I stuck in Twlilight Zone or something?

Marshall is about to release a bunch of $2500+ amps, starting with an 18 watt Bluesbreaker, point-to-point amp, the next step will be a 25 watt point-to-point mini-Plexi, all the way up to a true point-to-point 100 watt Plexi.

Hello, guys.

No, you're not in the twilight zone man. Those amps are a step in the right direction but as people have pointed out in this thread P2P wiring alone is not a mark of greatness.

What I was trying to ask of the forum members is what they thought Marshall needs to and should do to start making better "regular" modern tube amps. Plexis and Bluesbreakers are nice but frankly I'm a little less interested in what people were playing through 35 years ago and a little more interested in what they'll be playing through 35 years from now... Are the "main" lines of Marshall amps going to start looking back on their classic designs and modernizing them and changing them to suit modern needs? The Plexi RI's with the FX loops were a good start... now lets take a 2205 and give it a better clean channel and more range on the drive control like Jeff Seal does, only lets make the amp that way right out of the box. I'm just afraid that Marshalls gonna start cutting too many corners in construction (in some ways they already have) and we'll be left with amps that are only mediocre at best or have too many shortcomings to justify buying one.

I love the signature Marshall sound but there is a REASON I went with a Mesa... :wink:

 

[Quencho092]

Re: Marshall's next step...

I just want that marshall crunch with no other features, i dont need fancy switching or any of that other effects and 4 channel preamplification. I'm glad they turned to their roots, maybe it will inspire more people to make real music again.

 

[Gearjoneser]

Re: Marshall's next step...

I have a video of Jeff Beck using his DSL 50's and noticed something interesting.
The green LED's were on all the time, which says he's either using them with a cranked clean tone, boosted by pedals, OR those heads are slave amps being fed a preamp signal by another preamp section. Jeff Beck is the type of player who finds a great tone, whatever amp it is, cranks it all the way up, then uses his volume control all night.

The day Marshall steps up to the plate and creates a a dual or triple channel amp that gives you 60's era amps on channel 1 and the best 80's - 2000's gain channel you've ever heard is the day they will have redeemed themselves. To do it right, they'll have to reverse engineer the amps by guys who reverse engineered all the good Marshalls. That means figuring out a modern way of truly duplicating the magic of the old amps. Charging $3500 for an amp won't fly with most musicians, so they're gonna have to do it by NOT cutting the corners they do now, while charging no more than they do now. If I looked inside a boutique Marshall clone and figured the difference between their components and the current Marshall components, we're talking about less than $200, if that. Fix that problem, and they'll have a current DSL or TSL that would impress even the Marshall diehards. Go back to Drake trannies, replace all the small low wattage components with orange drops or similar, and use wiring harnesses instead of hand wired flying leads. Still cheap, but superior and easy to manufacture.

 

[That90'sGuy]

Re: Marshall's next step...

Marshall is slowly getting better. I'm glad they're bringing back the plexis. The best tone I've ever heard in my life (by far) has got to be a Marshall Super Lead.

However, Marshall is too late, they don't quite realize that there are already atleast 10 different boutique companies that make amps that can do that tone at more reasonable volumes. Roccaforte, Aiken and Two Rock are three that come to mind.

What we need is versatility. If all you play is rock and roll, then a plexi is right up your alley, but nowadays, people like clean tones too For the high prices that some companies charge for their amps, I'm surprised they don't have atleast a great clean and overdrive.

If Marshall stepped up to the plate, they'd have a winner for sure, but I have a feeling they will try to cut too many corners so I doubt it would ever work out.

 

[B2D]

Re: Marshall's next step...

Well regardless of the tone, it seems as if Marshall sure didn't try to cut corners with their new handwired amps or that "White Jaguar" Bluesbreaker they put out a while back.

These amps probably sound great, and its good to see that Marshall can still pull it off but they need to start improving on their regular amps for the common man and not just turn out hyper-expensive s**t for rich tone freaks every now and then.

I don't buy the fact that they can't make a better JCM2000 DSL and TSL, while they're making p2p stuff at the same time.

CBS-era Fender had a similar problem in the 70's when its guitar kept going downhill and the corners kept getting cut more and more until by the late 70s you were left with a mediocre guitar with bad hardware and finish on it thick enough to kill a rhino. Dan Smith and Bill Schultz really did a good job of turning the whole thing around after 1985-6 on up and now the MIA Fender guitars are better thn they have ever been. They revamped their whole line and reworked all the problems and engineered it to get a killer guitar at a price that was not all that much more expensive than the old ones. Marshall needs to have a team like that rework the amps.

 

[B2D]

Re: Marshall's next step...

NOTE TO ALL!!! I've just sent emails with a link to this thread and a short note of the topic to the Feedback and Players View section of Marshalls web site. Hopefully someone will see it and maybe we'll get a response or something.