Jump to content

New Marshall (revised) DSL for 2012


Mesa/Kramer

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 63
  • Created
  • Last Reply
  • Members

Damnit, all you had to do was have separate EQ for each channel and I would have been all over this. The other stuff is neat but I don't really care.

 

fak u marsal

 

And it already had a mid shift button. I think it was called "tone shift", but it scooped the mids.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

Damnit, all you had to do was have separate EQ for each channel and I would have been all over this. The other stuff is neat but I don't really care.


fak u marsal


And it already had a mid shift button. I think it was called "tone shift", but it scooped the mids.

 

 

Yes, All they needed was better eq separation for each channel and foot switchable Modes per channel and this would be perfect.

 

Still, cool that they did what they did and didn't just simply re-release the same ole thing again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

Yes, All they needed was better eq separation for each channel and foot switchable Modes per channel and this would be perfect.


Still, cool that they did what they did and didn't just simply re-release the same ole thing again.

 

 

Agreed. I'd buy that in a heartbeat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I wish they made the clean and crunch (classic) channel foot switchable :(

 

But if they have improved lead 1 and 2 this might be on my shopping list.

 

Damnit, all you had to do was have separate EQ for each channel and I would have been all over this. The other stuff is neat but I don't really care.


fak u marsal


And it already had a mid shift button. I think it was called "tone shift", but it scooped the mids.

 

That's a tsl

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I bet it still doesn't sound great unless you crank it. That's my #1 beef with most Marshalls.

 

As a former DSL owner, I agree that it would need either separate EQ for both channels or a better balance between the two. From what I can remember the biggest issue was bass. If you had the green channel dialed just right, then the red channel had way too little bottom end.

 

So basically they revised everything that didn't really need revising.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

So basically they revised everything that didn't really need revising.

 

 

Definitely in the case of the reverb but if it's bypassable it's fine. The amp was a big seller for Marshall so I'm not surprised they are releasing them again. It was a little lame when they did this a few years ago and only changed the color of the piping. At least they changed a few things this time. The adjustable resonance control instead of the deep switch sounds like an improvement to me. As long as I could dial in a nice rhythm tone and have a hot lead tone a stomp away I would be happy. Wanting more from a Marshall is asking for too much.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

?


I never once had a problem with my DSL I have no idea what you are talking about. I see so many touring bands with them and they never have a problem.

 

No sense of humour I see. Not all Bugeras fail either but the fire extinguisher jokes are WAAAAYYY more fitting to these Marshall amps than to those German wonders. :cop:

836d1185043245-jcm2000dsl.jpg

lwMarshall1.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

Like {censored} I'm sure. The digital reverb in my Vintage Modern sucks. The amp's designer didn't want it but management forced it on him.

 

 

The digital reverb in my JVM sounds great!

 

The "Vintage Modern's" have a digital plate reverb. It sounds fine for what it is, but if you want a lush reverb you will be disappointed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

No sense of humour I see. Not all Bugeras fail either but the fire extinguisher jokes are WAAAAYYY more fitting to these Marshall amps than to those German wonders.
:cop:
836d1185043245-jcm2000dsl.jpg
lwMarshall1.jpg

 

 

I think you mean the early combo's the heads are fine. I completely trust most Marshall products out of a hundred + gigs I never had 1 fault.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Yeah it was the DSL combos that had issues (overheating) but the heads were fine, though they're not exactly the epitome of build quality but good enough.

 

I really don't know why Marshall keeps making so many models. You'd think the two channel JVMs would've replaced the DSL by now as they're pretty much what people really wanted when it comes to features. Don't know how they sound tho.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

The TSLs sound way different than DSLs. They aren't the same thing with independent EQ/more channels.

 

 

They are not so different, but thats the option for dual tone controls in the JCM2000 range. I am not worried about the dual controls more the switching between clean and classic modes

 

 

 

Also I like the look of the joe satriani JVM

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

.... I like the look of the joe satriani JVM

 

This!

 

I already have a JVM 410H, but the "Joe Satriani JVM" looks very cool!

 

JVM410HJS-large.jpg

Marshall JVM410H Joe Satriani Edition $2600.00

 

Joe Satriani Edition Amplifier Head Features:

 

* Modified version of the classic JVM410 amp, voiced to Joe Satriani's tonal specifications

 

* Four noise gates help you dial in a defined tone on every channel

 

* Clean channel is the same design found in the Marshall LM6100

 

* Orange crunch channel is the same design found in the Marshall JCM800 (2203)

 

* Red crunch channel is similar to the Marshall AFD100 in AFD mode

 

* Overdrive channels sound more dynamic and open, thanks to a re-designed power supply

 

* "Mid Shift" control on OD1 and OD2 shifts the midrange focus for extra tonal versatility

 

* 12AX7 preamp tubes, EL34 power tubes

 

* Footswitch included

 

* MIDI input for configurable switching and control

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

The TSLs sound way different than DSLs. They aren't the same thing with independent EQ/more channels.

 

 

No they don't, I've owned the TSL100 and DSL100 multiple times and side by side. The differences are negligible and indistinguishable when EQd more or less the same. If anything, the TSL sounds tighter with the lead channel engaged!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

?


I never once had a problem with my DSL I have no idea what you are talking about. I see so many touring bands with them and they never have a problem.



Some one who plays classic rock at pub gigs, or for rehearsals.

 

 

Initially they had a pc board that would break down and become conductive causing the failures pictured, they would burn up!

The board was replaced by a better version.

 

Also, they really need to make the modes for each channel footswitchable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...