Members Hardvalve Posted December 20, 2011 Members Share Posted December 20, 2011 Yeah you are totally correct. The reissue JTM45 and 2203 sound completely {censored}. I should knowI own them. The 2203 is really a different animal, and the JTM45 has changed numerous times on the reissue over the years, so hard to say. I do like the 2203, but prefer the original vertical input 2203 that has hardwired pots and tube sockets, to the board mounted later and reissue versions. Still much better than most of the new channel switchers. I like the KK2203 okay, but the it does have a smaller output transformer than the original, and is not a Drake. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members bass_n_drums Posted December 20, 2011 Members Share Posted December 20, 2011 i can't believe this has gone into a childless bantering of opinions of amps. Come on??? This isn't the Engl powerball thread....lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Sordid1 Posted December 20, 2011 Members Share Posted December 20, 2011 For all you that couldn't drive an El Diablo, really? Open it up, EQ with your ears not your eyes and EQ in the band's mix. Active EQs can be tricky, but really? I completely when you all rip on that amp. What were your EQ settings, Dimed bass, mids cut, dimed highs, tube contour cut and gain dimed? I love my VH100R, I'd hate to be w/o it, but my El Diablos (I have the 100 watt head and the 60/30 combo) do all that the VH100 does and more w/o the noise, with better articulation and handle modern tones BETTER than the Laney VH100R. The 60/30 combo is easier to drive, but neither are hard to dial in killer tones if you use your ears and realize which knob to turn in sequence to get the tones you're looking for. If you can't drive an El Diablo, your ears are esta Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members doomsdaymachine Posted December 20, 2011 Members Share Posted December 20, 2011 So yea, I am ignorant. I'd say your second post confirms it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Hardvalve Posted December 20, 2011 Members Share Posted December 20, 2011 I'd say your second post confirms it. No, I just like good amps. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members timmyfirst Posted December 20, 2011 Members Share Posted December 20, 2011 Not to be offensive, but that right there is utter crap.I even turned my jvm410 back on just to verify. It's perfectly fine. It's exactly the same as any other Ive ever owned.to that end, I can only theorise that possibly you were using a {censored} cable with it? Maybe that makes a difference, I don't know, I only have planet waves stuff. But no, that's pure crap. I can only speak from my experience with the amp. I was all set to buy one when the other guitarist in my band got his, but the switching put me off instantly. Tried doing the footswitch factory restore, tried the midi footswitch too but with the same problems. I've tried two other jvm's since that have had the same problem and i heard a guitarist using one the other night and i could actually hear the switching which in an application that i'd use it just isnt acceptable. I wouldnt dismiss it as crap, judging by the marshall forums switching latency is something that a lot of people have found to be a problem. The original Blackstar s1's used a very similar switching circuit and share the same problems. I'm not just bashing the JVM for no reason, i have spent a great deal of time with it and i just didnt think it was all that good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members tech21man Posted December 20, 2011 Members Share Posted December 20, 2011 The 2203 is really a different animal, and the JTM45 has changed numerous times on the reissue over the years, so hard to say. I do like the 2203, but prefer the original vertical input 2203 that has hardwired pots and tube sockets, to the board mounted later and reissue versions. Still much better than most of the new channel switchers. I like the KK2203 okay, but the it does have a smaller output transformer than the original, and is not a Drake. KK 2203 has the same transformers with the JVM and handle KT 88s fine according to santiago alvarez. Also drakes? Really? Cheaper than cheap piece of {censored} transformers of that time are to be adored now? You know I overreact here but most people with a small dick almost touch themselves on seeing a big transformer or whatever and tend to dismiss that marshall (and not only them) put whatever was leftover and with specs that varied. As if this is not enough, a read on aiken amps will make one realize that the correct OT for an amp is the one it fits certain needs of the amp and not the largest all the time. Rectifiers and f50 have undersized transformers that WANT to sag earlier. Changing the transformer to something else will change something in the amp, in larger volumes perhaps but not always for the best. I mean, you have several people here who actually build amps and even those say that you shouldn't get so much caught up in that and then comments like " it is smaller and it is not a drake". F**K if I wanted a pos drake transformer instead of heyboyer! Oh and having played some "vintage" marshalls you can't imagine how many {censored} amps are out there for more reasons than some should care to mention here. JVM, a new trouble free JVM may not be (or is it for some) the holy grail tone but easily takes out a dick and shoves to many {censored}ty old marshalls that around. If you live in england and you can shop with your ears you can find gems in them though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.