Why are Marshall DFX/solid state "bad"?

[L.W. Badger]

Is it "tube snobbery", or a legitimate reason why the DFX amps are looked down upon? I've got a MG250 (2x12 stereo, 50w ea.= 100w amp = LOUD in house).........it rocks for what it is.......there's the start-up fan noise, but tube users know to turn on the power and walk-off a bit till the amp's warmed up......old habit for me at least. So what's the real deal about Marshall MG DFX series please?

 

[Metalman_666]

Re: Why are Marshall DFX/solid state "bad"?

In my experience, they just plain don't sound that good. I've both played through an MG series head and combo, and heard bands who've recorded and played live with them, and the tone has never been what I would call great.

I used to own a Randall RG100SC 2x12 combo, all solid state, and that blew away any Marshall SS offering I've played to date. Plugged into an external cab the amp sounded better than it did with the combo's speakers on its own too. There are some good solid state amps out there, but I don't know anyone (or haven't heard from anyone yet) who prefers soild state to tube tone. For me, I've gone tube and I will *never* go back.

 

[marvar]

Re: Why are Marshall DFX/solid state "bad"?

I agree, I don't think they sound all that good
Most folks have always associated Marshall with a certain tone- for years Marshall's were sought after, and where the grail- they were expensive, and not so plentiful, people expected a Marshall to sound like a roarin Marshall, and they feel Marshall has tarnished their rep by releasing the MG other non-tube amps. So naturally some of us are biased in our thinking- I'm guilty too- but I've yet to find an AVT or MG that I could live with.

 

[James Rock]

Re: Why are Marshall DFX/solid state "bad"?

For the price they don't sound great it would be ok if they were marketed just at beginner players it would be ok but they aren't. In australia you can get a pro junior for the price of the larger MG combos. Much better SS's out there (Fender, Randall, Roland of course, Even the Peavey Rage aint bad)

 

[Dirtyking]

Re: Why are Marshall DFX/solid state "bad"?

I think Marshall should of released the solid state lines under a different line as well. Kinda like Gibson/Epiphone does. Not to say ones better than the others. But to clarify classification (tube/solid state), made where? (China, Mexico, UK, USA) and price.

To answer the OP. When I first started playing shows I used a Randall SS head. Now I have a Mesa Recto coming my way. Would I have wanted the Mesa from the beginning? NO. The Randall was perfect for gigging. Most of the material was thrash/punk and turned up way too loud. I spilt beer on it, dropped it and abused it to all hell. But now that I can play alot better and can appreciate using the master volume and guitar volume. I've grown into Tube amps.

 

[Diego]

Re: Why are Marshall DFX/solid state "bad"?

A friend of mine just bought an MG250, which I tried today.
I swear his old MG30 sounded better. I actually dialed a pretty good EVH sound on that one.

Frankly, I didn't like the sound one bit.
I don't think it sounds good for "what it is". The sound was very thin, raspy and unnatural.
I guess if you want a modern Hard Rock sound it could be useful, but there's better tone to be had for the price.

 

[misterwhizzy]

Re: Why are Marshall DFX/solid state "bad"?

To be honest, the thing I found most lacking when I had my Randall was the lack of dynamics. Roll off the volume, you may notice a slight difference, but not like a good tube amp. Pick softer or harder, you may notice a slight difference, but not like a good tube amp. I feel like the tube amp allows me to express myself better through my hands.

 

[WhoFan]

Re: Why are Marshall DFX/solid state "bad"?

The MG series sounds ok for some sounds... i mean for the money... but i've found them to be quite noisey...

i use a few older SS amps quite a bit... i have tons of tube amps, JCM 800, JCM 2000, 5150, 65 Fender Deluxe, some Peavey Classic's, a 30 and a 50... yet around the house i use various 90's era Fender SS amps for practice at low volumes...

i find SS and Modelers good for low practice volumes... Tube for Higher Volume Band work... Different tools for different jobs!

But i've not been too impressed by any of Marshalls SS stuff in a while... i was so tempted to buy a used AVT 150 head last summer... but after trying it out i didn't want it anymore

 

[ratherdashing]

Re: Why are Marshall DFX/solid state "bad"?

This can be said of all Marshalls in a way, but it's especially true for their current solid state stuff: you're kind of paying for the name.

In short, you can get far better amps for the same amount of money.

 

[ACH91332]

Re: Why are Marshall DFX/solid state "bad"?

Idk I think the MG stack is the best solid state stack on the market. Every other one I can't stand to play but the MG didn't sound bad. Seems to me most solid states are sterile and lifeless. The MG is the only one I could stand playing. I think it's the roundest sounding and most versatile solid state on the market but then again I haven't played a solid state in 2 years so there could be some real good ones out there now.

 

[James Rock]

Re: Why are Marshall DFX/solid state "bad"?

Idk I think the MG stack is the best solid state stack on the market. Every other one I can't stand to play but the MG didn't sound bad. Seems to me most solid states are sterile and lifeless. The MG is the only one I could stand playing. I think it's the roundest sounding and most versatile solid state on the market but then again I haven't played a solid state in 2 years so there could be some real good ones out there now.

Also from what I've heard from others the MG and AVT stuff used to be better then what it is now. Could be wrong though. The first amp I wanted was an MG and the salesman didn't even let me look at it before recommending a pro junior and I'm so glad he did. Good music store had actual guitarists who knew **** about tone.

 

[crguti]

Re: Why are Marshall DFX/solid state "bad"?

I think the problem with those marshall mg is the cheap cab/loudspeaker. I played the mg15 connected to an Orange ppc112 with celestion vintage 30... OMG, it was pretty cool. Not like a tube amp, but the improvement was outstanding.

 

[eschoendorff]

Re: Why are Marshall DFX/solid state "bad"?

I have a Marshall Valvestate VS100R and a DSL 50. The VS100R is VERY aggressive and 100 watts (SS), but it has nowhere near the body and size of sound as the 50 watt DSL.

I like the Valvestate. You can get some real nice Marshall sounds out of it, as well as some ultra-sick death metal aggression. It also doesn't mush out at volume. However, it does not have the same authority as the DSL.

I guess it boils down to this: neither is inherently bad; you just have to chose the right tool/sound for a given situation.

 

[richard parker]

Re: Why are Marshall DFX/solid state "bad"?

I think Marshall are just getting worse at making solid state amps. I was using a rehearsal space recently where they had MG amps. They are a very poor imitation of the rectifier type amps. The original Valvestate series weren't too bad although nothing very special but each new generation of Valvestates is worse than the one before. On the other hand they haven't built a decent new valve amp in over 20 years. There are much better solid state amps out there for similar money.

 

[ksmith63]

Re: Why are Marshall DFX/solid state "bad"?

This can be said of all Marshalls in a way, but it's especially true for their current solid state stuff: you're kind of paying for the name.

In short, you can get far better amps for the same amount of money.

+1

I had a Marshall MG and it sucked. Distortion was fizzy, cleans were rough and no matter what I did the amp was always lost in the mix. Everything on the amp was cheapest of the cheap but somehow these amps are more expensive than similar offerings from the competition.

If you have an MG series amp and like it, I would suggest not playing anything else.

Marshall is just a name.

 

[BowerR64]

Re: Why are Marshall DFX/solid state "bad"?

They have a few SS amps that are good but they didnt over do those. The Mosfet lead 100 uses 2 types of distortion opamps and LEDs but it sounds good because it uses a nice mix of both so it doesnt sound like an old peavey and it doesnt sound like an MG.

The first generation MGs they went the cheapest route and rely on most of the distortion with LEDs and this gives it a cheap fizzy sound that sucks. They are better if you roll back the gain with a resistor this takes all the high end fizzyness out of em and they get better. Whats good about them is the effects, a few of the better MGs have delay and chorus so this can slim down your gear.

The newer MGs have corrected the older MG sound issues, they use diodes now insted of LEDs and the diodes have a smoother sound not so fizzy. These are the MGs with the splat graphics around the power button. They have morphed into the carbon series. THey are slowly gaining some respect that the first gen MG soured

The early Marshall setup was to run a tube screamer into the front of a tube Marshall, the tube screamer was a mild overdrive that did more by boosting the input overdriving the preamp the tube screamers used LEDs or diodes but they wernt pushed very hard so they had a mild dirty sound.

THe mosfet does this using an opamp as the preamp then a mild set of LEDs as the tube screamer stage and it sounds better not so fake like the early MG series. If you can pickup an MG cheap enough a few little mods and you will have a decent sounding cheap amp though.

 

[El Supremo]

Re: Why are Marshall DFX/solid state "bad"?

Didn't like the MG nor the AVT series myself (fizzy, grainy distortion without a solid low end), but that could be because of the cabs that came with them. I could always get along just fine with the Valvestate series though.

 

[Securb]

Re: Why are Marshall DFX/solid state "bad"?

Is it "tube snobbery

In most cases yes. I had a smaller MG 15 DFX series and the amp worked fine. My buddy is using it to this day and the little thing delivers a great tone. I know Judas Priest has used a variety of MGs in the studio. A lot of other bands use them to record. The amp cops a pretty convincing Marshall tone.

 

[LLL]

Re: Why are Marshall DFX/solid state "bad"?

Is it "tube snobbery", or a legitimate reason why the DFX amps are looked down upon?

Highly doubtful; especially when a number of people say they suck.

To clear up the confusion around here -

"tube snobbery" and especially "corksniffing" are terms that are widely misunderstood.

9 times out of 10 when someone is called a "tube snob" or "corksniffer", what the accuser is actually saying is:

"I can't afford the gear you use"

or:

"I'm not as picky as you in choosing my gear because I don't care as much about my tone"

or the most common:

"I'm whining and crying like a little butthurt ***** because you think you know it all"

Truth be told, real corksniffers are actually inexperienced people who spend tons of money on fancy expensive crap (that sometimes doesn't do much; such as $800 balsa wood knobs for their audiophile home stereo).

Keyword being "inexperienced".

And being picky about your tone isn't an unpardonable sin or "snobbery"; it just means you are experienced and/or you care how you sound.

 

[80's_Metal]

Re: Why are Marshall DFX/solid state "bad"?

I would like to add my very humble 2 cents worth:

I don't feel that the term "bad" really applies... I mean...compared to what exactly? I have certainly played far far worse sounding amps than the dfx or MG...

I feel that (sometimes) if someone says that they sound like crap, or they just don't live up to the expectation.... then it's just that :not living up to "their expectations" so it's often a persons prejudice that defines how much something sucks... (ie: I see a marshall logo, it better sound like Tommy Shaw himself is playing it kind of thing)

Now people can claim that there are perhaps better sounding amps for the same money, arguable yes, correct??? maybe so.

My money spent towards my previous MG and DFX amps ( I owned a couple of both) was, at the time, pretty well spent money....


To my ears, they just sounded ok.... better than some... not as good as some others.... BUT keep in mind that I most often use only a clean channel with some real dirt on the floor in front of them.

I actually kind of liked the one little dfx practice amp I had.... it was great for what it was.... (did I have delusions of blowing the walls out and having the tone guru's come running to my house to hear this masterpiece of awesomeness) well... no. It was just a little practice amp.... good enuff. {Truth is, the knob was loose and I ended up giving it and a BCRich Bich to this kid who was trying to start a youth music ministry} was he ever happy... ha ha BEST amp he'd ever owned!!!

Perspective guys.... it makes the webz a happier more gentle place to live.