My take on the Peavey Windsor head...

[vivanchenko]

Re: My take on the Peavey Windsor head...

Another thing is that because of the low budget, quality was inconsistent. Some people, including me, could be lucky to get a good one. Most people who didn't like the amp that I have seen either expected a great clean headroom from it or turned the preamp volume way up. Incredible amount of great and very expensive amps played with gain knob dimed sound like a_ss - all hiss, fizzle and chainsaw buzz. This includes most high gain Marshalls. Well, I am out of here. Just don't kill the player, he did his best. I didn't mean to rub anyone the wrong way. Sorry if I did.

 

[Myaccount876]

Re: My take on the Peavey Windsor head...

What really sucks is no argument at all. And so does the "general consensus" which is different on each forum and according to which, not too long ago, Gibson Les Pauls sucked too. To the point that dealers couldn't sell them and Gibson had to discontinue them. The same people now call it a Holy Grail and sell originals for hundreds of thousands dollars and copy each minute details of them.

Not having an argument is better than this type of "discourse" (I'm using that term very loosely) here where no one learns anything. I think I got dumber just reading this thread. But not dumb enough to think this ****storm contained anything of value. You've pandered on people to provide evidence for their reasoning that the Windsor sucks, except you've incorrectly judged this community, by thinking the consensus here is "it sucks". The attitude here is more like, 'take it for what it is - don't fool yourself into thinking it's the greatest thing ever, or into thinking it is the worst thing ever. It's usable, but you got what you paid for.' What people here will get up in arms about is the straight-up BS arguments being made in this thread. You're also demanding evidence for the perceived stance of the forum, but you're the only person who has made any real claims, and wanting to argue them. If you make a claim - you provide the evidence. It's no one else's job to prove your point. Then the "evidence" you've pulled out is from YouTube (non-credible source) and your arguments completely rely on rhetoric rather than reasoning. That's why people have been responding the way they have.

 

[Securb]

Re: My take on the Peavey Windsor head...

What really sucks is no argument at all. And so does the "general consensus" which is different on each forum and according to which, not too long ago, Gibson Les Pauls sucked too. To the point that dealers couldn't sell them and Gibson had to discontinue them. The same people now call it a Holy Grail and sell originals for hundreds of thousands dollars and copy each minute details of them.

My understanding is Les Paul discontinued his relationship from Gibson during his divorce to Mary Ford. Les didn't want Ford to get any of his Gibson money. During the period of 63 - 68 the Les Paul not only became more popular because of players like Keith Richards and Eric Clapton but used Les Pauls were going for double their original sales price. This prompted Les Paul and Gibson to get back in bed together in 68. The other spin on the story is Les Paul did not want his name on the SG because he felt the neck joint was weak and inferior. This prompted Les Paul to discontinue his partnership with Gibson and ended production of the Les Paul. I am not sure which story is true, I get the feeling it is a combination of the two. However, the Les Paul was not discontinued because it sucked.

 

[vivanchenko]

Re: My take on the Peavey Windsor head...

Not having an argument is better than this type of "discourse" (I'm using that term very loosely) here where no one learns anything. I think I got dumber just reading this thread. But not dumb enough to think this ****storm contained anything of value. You've pandered on people to provide evidence for their reasoning that the Windsor sucks, except you've incorrectly judged this community, by thinking the consensus here is "it sucks". The attitude here is more like, 'take it for what it is - don't fool yourself into thinking it's the greatest thing ever, or into thinking it is the worst thing ever. It's usable, but you got what you paid for.' What people here will get up in arms about is the straight-up BS arguments being made in this thread. You're also demanding evidence for the perceived stance of the forum, but you're the only person who has made any real claims, and wanting to argue them. If you make a claim - you provide the evidence. It's no one else's job to prove your point. Then the "evidence" you've pulled out is from YouTube (non-credible source) and your arguments completely rely on rhetoric rather than reasoning. That's why people have been responding the way they have.

Reasoning, without argument??? I am sorry, what are you even talking about? What exactly is wrong in my statements? Did Gibson discontinue what's known today as the Holy Grail Les Paul or not? Did Marshall discontinue the "holy grail" amps or not? Why?

You didn't learn anything from this thread that's fine. Other people's millage may vary.

 

[Edgecrusher]

Re: My take on the Peavey Windsor head...

Reasoning, without argument??? I am sorry, what are you even talking about? What exactly is wrong in my statements? Did Gibson discontinue what's known today as the Holy Grail Les Paul or not? Did Marshall discontinue the "holy grail" amps or not? Why?

We went over this already Marshall never discontinued the plexi...to this day you can still buy a model 1959 or model 1987. They did stop using plexiglass control panels but the circuit 100% unchanged soldiered on into the aluminum face era. Any changes during that time were due to supply and not redesign. The circuits remained the same.

so apparently

You didn't learn anything from this thread that's fine. Other people's millage may vary.

Neither did you.

 

[Edgecrusher]

Re: My take on the Peavey Windsor head...

Reasoning, without argument??? I am sorry, what are you even talking about? What exactly is wrong in my statements? Did Gibson discontinue what's known today as the Holy Grail Les Paul or not? Did Marshall discontinue the "holy grail" amps or not? Why?

You didn't learn anything from this thread that's fine. Other people's millage may vary.

By the way... none of this has anything to do with the Windsor. Try and muddy the water all you like but at the end of the day the Windsor is an "also ran" amp.

 

[vivanchenko]

Re: My take on the Peavey Windsor head...

Why Marshall had to come up with the reissues in 1988 then? Did Marshall make Plexies in 1986 for instance?

The reason why I am bringing it up is to demonstrate that opinions supported by majorities can often be delusional. There is a history of people snobbing many good things until some celebrity makes some obscure thing famous and then tables get turned. Many good things remained obscure for ever because they didn't find their celebrity...

 

[Securb]

Re: My take on the Peavey Windsor head...

Peavey discontinued the Windsor

/end thread

 

[JeffB]

Re: My take on the Peavey Windsor head...

1959s and 1987s were produced in the original plexi, Metalface, jmp style logo, and 800 series logo. IOW-from 68-89. Quality of parts changed, quality of build changed, aesthetics changed, but the circuit remained and they were made and never cancelled until the end of the 800 series.

Then came the 1987S and 1959S reissues right after. They were short lived and and replaced by the X and XL (effects loop) series which are still in production today. So pretty much they have been around since 1968 in one form or another.

The Vintage Modern has nothing to do with any 800 series amps at all. It is a Modded JTM45. Jumped internally and "hot-rodded". It was not meant to do anything related to a JCM800 series amp.


As I sated before, you should really do some research (i.e. trying them) because you do not seem to know very much about Marshall amps, but are making alot of claims.

P.S. the Windsor sucks.

 

[Edgecrusher]

Re: My take on the Peavey Windsor head...

Why Marshall had to come up with the reissues in 1988 then? Did Marshall make Plexies in 1986 for instance?

The reason why I am bringing it up is to demonstrate that opinions supported by majorities can often be delusional. There is a history of people snobbing many good things until some celebrity makes some obscure thing famous and then tables get turned. Many good things remained obscure for ever because they didn't find their celebrity...

They made the models 1959 and 1987 through the entire lifetime of the JCM800 range. They reintroduced cosmetics... not circuits


Do you want me to repeat myself The circuit that people call the "plexi" was and is being made all the way from 66 until this day. The circuit has always been available. Only the cosmetics of the plexiglass panel were discontinued and reissued. ONLY THE COSMETICS.

You have demonstrated that so such opinion exists and need to look up what the word "delusional" actually means.

 

[vivanchenko]

Re: My take on the Peavey Windsor head...

1959s and 1987s were produced in the original plexi, Metalface, jmp style logo, and 800 series logo. IOW-from 68-89. Quality of parts changed, quality of build changed, aesthetics changed, but the circuit remained and they were made and never cancelled until the end of the 800 series.

Then came the 1987S and 1959S reissues right after. They were short lived and and replaced by the X and XL (effects loop) series which are still in production today. So pretty much they have been around since 1968 in one form or another.

The Vintage Modern has nothing to do with any 800 series amps at all. It is a Modded JTM45. Jumped internally and "hot-rodded". It was not meant to do anything related to a JCM800 series amp.


As I sated before, you should really do some research (i.e. trying them) because you do not seem to know very much about Marshall amps, but are making alot of claims.

P.S. the Windsor sucks.

You should really understand what people say before jumping on conclusions. I said that if the DSL was exactly what Marshall's manual says (which is that it sounds like the JTM 45 on the green channel) there wouldn't be a Vintage Modern. Why Marshall would want a Vintage Modern if this ground was covered by DSL's green channel? Obviously, the green channel is not exactly what Marshall says. Far from that and this is why there is a Vintage Modern.

What you say is your opinion, and in my opinion the Windsor is a great amp.

 

[vivanchenko]

Re: My take on the Peavey Windsor head...

The circuit was the same but each consecutive model sounded as different from previous models as different can be. I mean why abandon the venerable tone of JTM 45? JTM 50's EQ was distinctly and intentionally different. Very much so. Why? May be there were some things which people didn't like?

 

[JeffB]

Re: My take on the Peavey Windsor head...

You should really understand what people say before jumping on conclusions. I said that if the DSL was exactly what Marshall's manual says (which is that it sounds like the JTM 45 on the green channel) there wouldn't be a Vintage Modern. Why Marshall would want a Vintage Modern if this ground was covered by DSL's green channel? Obviously, the green channel is not exactly what Marshall says. Far from that and this is why there is a Vintage Modern.

The DSL manual does not say anything about a JTM45 and the DSL Green Channel. Go change your argument with someone else.

The VM has nothing to do with being a successor to the DSL or any model 800 series in any way, shape, or form. It was a new design meant to give us a modernized JTM45.

 

[vivanchenko]

Re: My take on the Peavey Windsor head...

The DSL manual does not say anything about a JTM45 and the DSL Green Channel. Go change your argument with someone else.

The VM has nothing to do with being a successor to the DSL or any model 800 series in any way, shape, or form. It was a new design meant to give us a modernized JTM45.

OK, the manual says Plexi, but wasn't a JTM 50 a modernized JTM 45? Though it was modernized to the point that it had completely different feel and tone. Well, a I mean a JTM 45 with ss rectifier?

 

[Edgecrusher]

Re: My take on the Peavey Windsor head...

When people say plexi they are not referring to the JTM45 or the JTM50 they are referring to the 1987 or 1959

 

[vivanchenko]

Re: My take on the Peavey Windsor head...

Well the plexiglas panel JTM 50s are considered to be plexis as well.

 

[Edgecrusher]

Re: My take on the Peavey Windsor head...

Well the plexiglas panel JTM 50s are considered to be plexis as well.

The late JTM45's also had plexi panels but that isnt what people are talking about when they say "plexi"

When people say plexi they are not meaning JTM50... Its that simple.


You are just trying to back pedal on another one of your grossly incorrect statements.

 

[Myaccount876]

Re: My take on the Peavey Windsor head...

Reasoning, without argument??? I am sorry, what are you even talking about? What exactly is wrong in my statements? Did Gibson discontinue what's known today as the Holy Grail Les Paul or not? Did Marshall discontinue the "holy grail" amps or not? Why?

You didn't learn anything from this thread that's fine. Other people's millage may vary.

Work on your reading comprehension. I did not write "reasoning without argument," because that is backwards. Your argument, does not use reason. According to you, a general consensus is worthless. You proceed to use the general consensus of a limited sample size - one that can not possibly represent the opinion of a significant body of people - such as YouTube comments, as evidence to support your position. You're allowing that BS pass as evidence because it agrees with your preconceived opinion, but if a general consensus disagrees with your opinion, you retort to saying how worthless public opinion matters. That's extremely flawed logic. That's only one point against your whole argument in this thread. There's also the question-dodging because you know answering truthfully would hurt your argument. There's a flaw where you post a YouTube link as evidence without any real analysis - you're expecting readers/listeners to find the evidence and do the analysis themselves to support your argument. Doesn't work. There's the flaw where you call people out for not stating why they don't care for the amp (they don't have to, because they didn't start the conversation), but you yourself have failed to explain what's so great about the amp, with factual statements - not the flawed reasoning I just stated.

 

[allbutromeo]

Re: My take on the Peavey Windsor head...

I'm amazed that this thread hasn't been locked yet

 

[Securb]

Re: My take on the Peavey Windsor head...

OK, the manual says Plexi, but wasn't a JTM 50 a modernized JTM 45? Though it was modernized to the point that it had completely different feel and tone. Well, a I mean a JTM 45 with ss rectifier?

The JTM 45 was a bassman clone with KT66 (6L6) tubes. The JTM 50 was the first Marshal departure from the Fender design and featured EL34 tubes. Also the 50 had a valve rectifier only the 100 had a solid state rectifier. There are a lot of other changes made between those two amps but the 50 is not a modernized 45. It is Jim Marshall starting to think out of the box and moving away from clone building for the first time. Never the less the Windsor doesn't have the characteristics of either of these amps (or the 800) so I don't know why we are discussing this.