Marshall amp solution

Ant1981 · #1 01-19-2006, 11:30 PM

Hey I'm back! After a suspension by some whining idiot who didn't like what I wrote, how lame and *****!

Anyway, I came up with a solution to a problem I was having with the JCM 2000 TSL 100 channel switching. As it switches from any overdrive channel to clean, there seems to be a non-seamless gap, slight muting of the sound for a split second. After talking to Marshall, I'm told it's meant to be there to stop a pop, and unlike what someone said, its not modifiable by Marshall. I still don't get the FX loop switch on the pedal, as when you use it, the whole volume changes, so therefore making it useless.

So I found an origional JCM 900 Dual Reverb with 4x12 cab, second hand in mint condtion, so I bought it.

Seamless channel change, superb cleans and overdrives and to boost for lead work, I'm going to get the MXR Micro Amp pedal, which just adds a volume boost when you need it.

Job Done, although when I took the TSL out with the band, the volume muting is less noticable up loud. I also compared the sound difference between my TSL and JCM 900 Dual Reverb and SL-X heads and to be honest, there isn't a dislikable difference in sound with the TSL. It still sounds like a Marshall. Just having EL34's instead of 5881's if anything, gives it a little brighter tone, but WOW when you push in the deep switch when going through a 4x12 cab! Shakes the room!

red5 · #2 01-20-2006, 01:49 PM

That 900 must still be on the original bias then (real, real cold). Get it properly done and hear the difference. 2000s are just... fizzy in comparison. You have to turn your MV up too to know the difference. At lower levels the 2000s may sound slightly better.

wallie! · #3 01-20-2006, 10:40 PM

ive been looking around for an old JCM 800 or a old plexi but cant find one

I was thinking of getting one for a backup head, also in my spare time to get closer to randy rhoads tone

Ant1981 · #4 01-21-2006, 12:34 PM

I had one of my 900's biased and re tubed not so long ago, and there isn't a big difference. The only difference is the sound of the 5881 tubes in the 900's and the EL34 tubes in the 2000's. The TSL sounds a little brighter. You must have tried a dodgy TSL, as mine is not at all fizzy, its got a lovely crunch and superb gainy lead channel. Doesn't sound fizzy at all, and I'd know a bad sounding amp if I heard one, as I've got two JCM 900's and an JCM 800 to compare it to.

red5 · #5 01-22-2006, 07:35 PM

I must have played at least 100 JCM 2000s. They all sucked hard.

Chud · #6 01-23-2006, 02:39 PM

My TSL isn't fizzy at all, only if i want it to be (e.g prescence and treble wacked up). It's a smooth distortion which is really nice - great for shredding.

I love mine anyway but i'm sure i'll end up getting a Mesa Dual Recto in the future.

chris101 · #7 01-23-2006, 03:51 PM

My DSL100's sound way better than my JCM900s at lower volumes, the 'low boost' can be a little over the top for the 1960a's though!

red5 · #8 01-23-2006, 06:25 PM

^^ Yes I agree that a 2000 sounds better with the MV under 4. But when you turn the MV up, the 900s will sound good and the 2000s will not.

I never use the low boost. That's just crap

Ant1981 · #9 01-29-2006, 03:37 PM

Unblock your ears then OR try a correctly biased one.

red5 · #10 01-29-2006, 04:50 PM

I have done both. That unblock your ears comment was pretty unnecessary. I guess I could say they are decent, just not by my standards. JCM 2000s are just very poor Marshalls

Ant1981 · #11 01-29-2006, 05:56 PM

I just can't find the sound problem with the 2000's, I've got a JCM 900 Dual reverb and SL-X and JCM 800 and I can get those sounds from the 2000.

Maybe I got a bloody good one eh?

Nordhauser · #12 01-29-2006, 06:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by red5

I have done both. That unblock your ears comment was pretty unnecessary. I guess I could say they are decent, just not by my standards. JCM 2000s are just very poor Marshalls

+1