Marshall JCM800 vs DSL100

[MRscratch]

this is an 82. rerial # 06969 p. all original. with n.o.s. seimens el34

and jj ecc83 s in the pre amps.

this amp rules. once warmed up, and at right volumes. nothing touches the explosive mids of an 800 that has been properly tuned up. i have an s.l.o and a hot cat to compare it to.

[MRscratch]

Originally posted by MRscratch this is an 82. rerial # 06969 p. all original. with n.o.s. seimens el34 and jj ecc83 s in the pre amps. this amp rules. once warmed up, and at right volumes. nothing touches the explosive mids of an 800 that has been properly tuned up. i have an s.l.o and a hot cat to compare it to.

forgoy one

[illini]

I have played both. I ended up spending my money on a late 70's 2203, but would still consider selling something to pick up a DSL as well.

 

My 2203 has more pronounced mid's than any DSL I have played. But I do like the added gain that the DSL provides.

[MRscratch]

Originally posted by MRscratch forgoy one

ok may be this one

[kannibul]

 

Originally posted by anti-flag193 Let me guess, you either own a jcm 2000, or have never heard a jcm 800.

 

 

I own a JCM2000 and a Plexi - and I agree with the guy. (Pigsinzen)

 

You have a thread that is X vs. Y then the thread-starter has a hugely biased post, then all that will happen is others wil follow what the guy is saying, and anyone who says otherwise will be starting a flamefest and on and on.

[keith335]

Not trying to start a flame war guys. I have a JCM800 and haven't been satisfied I believe because of my cab with 80 watt celestions. Another cab might sound beter. I have a line on a brand new DSL50, so I was interested. The amps do have that Marshall voice on the lead chanel with plenty of gain. They don't do the 800 edge or roar.

[The*Ataris]

I'll tell you that I don't like Marshalls w/6550's (that is what the reissues come with, right?). I think they sound really brittle on the top end. Coincidently, I also feel the same way about higher wattage speakers...

 

I would first find a cab w/V30's (a good starting point) and see if you have a different reaction. If not, try some different EQ settings...

 

Start w/presence at 12:00, Bass at 3:00, Mids at 1:00-2:00, and Treble at 12:00. Most people switch to Marshalls and automatically dial in settings they would use on another amp...

 

Then last, switch the amp to EL34's. That's where it's at anyway. Best thing I ever did to my JMP 2203. So much smoother on the top end...

[Guest Anonymous]

The key phrase is "properly tuned 2203". The same logic applies to the DSL series, and amps and guitars in general. The era of the JCM 800 series saw a lot of hands on workmanship and fine tuning of the head. Now they just throw 'em together and ship them out as is. The bias settings on my DSL50 were much higher than the recommended settings from the factory, and I bought it new. The real issue beyond that is the factory bias settings of 45mV per tube are apparently a general specification at best. I and quite a few other DSL owners have learned through experience that lowering the bias setting to 40mV per tube or lower yields the best tones from the DSL series.

 

I ran my DSL50 head into my soundcard one night using a MASS50 and was blown away by how good it sounded. I realized there was a major issue with speakers and/or wiring, despite the fact I was using a 1960A cab loaded with V-30's. Marshall should have developed speakers just for the DSL/TSL series IMO. I ended up rewiring the cab with 14 gauge Monster speaker cable and tighter connectors, also ditching the cheesy impedance selector switch that came with the cab which warped due to overheating, despite the fact I never play with the rig cranked. It's like having a different amp. If you haven't played through a properly tuned DSL50 head into a tuned up cab then you don't know what you're missing.

[Ryan Turner]

 

Originally posted by The*Ataris I'll tell you that I don't like Marshalls w/6550's (that is what the reissues come with, right?). I think they sound really brittle on the top end. Coincidently, I also feel the same way about higher wattage speakers... I would first find a cab w/V30's (a good starting point) and see if you have a different reaction. If not, try some different EQ settings... Start w/presence at 12:00, Bass at 3:00, Mids at 1:00-2:00, and Treble at 12:00. Most people switch to Marshalls and automatically dial in settings they would use on another amp... Then last, switch the amp to EL34's. That's where it's at anyway. Best thing I ever did to my JMP 2203. So much smoother on the top end...

 

 

Marshall uses 6550's in their Zakk Wylde signature JCM 800 RI. They use EL-34's in the JCM 800 2203X RI.

 

I love the tone a JCM 800 gets, its just too much work for me to get the tone I want out of one. I don't like using boost pedals that much, well at least full time. The one channel JCM 800's don't naturally get me the level of saturation I want. Also, no clean channel. I can deal without one at home, but live, I have to have an instaneous switch to a clean channel sometimes. It also helps with some cover songs as well.

 

I decided to get a DSL 50 instead. I think it sounds great. It doesn't have the same kind of punch or openess the JCM 800 has, but I like it. Its also more compressed sounding than the JCM 800, but its more open sounding than most amps I've owned before it. Also, the DSL has a great sounding clean channel, one of the best I have had on a high gain switcher.

 

The single channel JCM 800 may have a more "pleasing" tone to it, but the DSL is hands down WAY more versatile. Plus, it gets that classic Marshall tone.

[keith335]

Thanks dude, that is kinda of the way I see it. I, too, don't like having to use a pedal although my OCD sounds awesome through it. The DSL does do the Marshall thing on that first lead setting albeit not the roar of the JCM800. What is you opinion of the DSL50 or the 100?

[DannyM]

I had both the DSL 50 the DSL 100.

I prefer the 100. Its meatier, thicker, more in your face.

It just feels and sounds like it has more balls than the 50.

[Marshall Freak]

Originally posted by DannyM I had both the DSL 50 the DSL 100. I prefer the 100. Its meatier, thicker, more in your face. It just feels and sounds like it has more balls than the 50.

 

:thu:

[zepman]

 

Originally posted by DannyM I had both the DSL 50 the DSL 100. I prefer the 100. Its meatier, thicker, more in your face. It just feels and sounds like it has more balls than the 50.

 

 

100 Watters have more bottom end thump to them:thu:

[Pigsinzen]

Amps have no balls to have more of.

 

No legs to walk over.

 

No devices to kill with

 

100w sound better in a bigger room.

 

50w sound better in a smaller room.

 

This of course is MHO.

 

(I switch my 50 to 25 at home, sounds great)

 

A 100w would sound like ass in my house.

[BillyCorgan]

This is why i love the JMP-1 preamp.

 

OD1 = JCM 800 or JMP 100 with an OD pedal or without.

 

OD2 = TSL/DSL type tones or it can get close to a Recto type tone.

 

There is no versus in this situation

I've owned a JCM 800 and i currently own a JMP 100 and can say that the rack can get near exact tones and is WAYYYY more versatile.

[Daneswede1]

I just bought a 1981 JCM800 2203 in MINT Condition with EL34s. It has more gain stock than say the later 80s versions. Has the original Daly caps and Drake Transformers. I run a KLON CENTAUR through it and it sounds excellent . Kind of ZZ topish. Warm and spongey with an excellent growl. The Bogner Ubercab i use with it adds some bottom end as well. Great cab to use with the JCM800 IMO. I used to use the 80s version of the slant Marshall 1960a. I say "80s version" because the new Marshall cabinets have CHINESE CELESTIANS INTHEM! What will Marshall farm out next? Sheesh!!! I have been playing on the JCM800s for many years and will always own one or two.

 

Also own a reissue 2203x that I just found a wrong screen resistor in and had to replace. Running Mullard Reissue EL34s and Tung sol 12ax7s in it. Sounds tight. I TOTALLY AGREE THAT YOU CAN NOT expect to get a great tone in a friggin bedroom with a 100 watt STACK! That is funny! Go buy a 20 watt Marshall head for that.

 

__________________________

The amps

1981 Marshall 2203 w/ Daly caps and Drake Trannies

2004 Marshall 2203x reissue

Bogner Ubercab #1

Bogner Ubercab #2

BUYING

Metroamp 66 replica JTM45/100

or

MARSHALL HW 59SLP

[Pigsinzen]

Originally posted by Daneswede1 I TOTALLY AGREE THAT YOU CAN NOT expect to get a great tone in a friggin bedroom with a 100 watt STACK! That is funny!

Or a small club..

Go buy a 20 watt Marshall head for that.

I'd rather just keep my 50, and switch it to 25 when at home.

 

If I need more than 50, I can just mic it.

[gsus]

Well, there needn't be a war (of words) about the JCM800 and the DSL2000. They're completely different in sound and concept. The DSL2000 is a "pure" valve amp, that is, there's no silicon in the "sound building" path of the amp. The result is a "smoother" overdriven (or distorted) sound with lots of gain, much more than with the JCM800. Whereas the JCM800 has silicon in his sound building path. The result is a "rawer", bitier, but much cleaner sound. Many Metal Players love the bite of the JCM800 tone but usually need more gain and therefore use "boosters" for their sound (e.g. Kerry King of Slayer or Zakk Wylde of Ozzy's band).

Somebody said that the JCM is punchier. That's not true, because the "punch" is defined by the amount of gain you use. The less gain, the punchier the sound. It's logical that highly distorted (tube-)sounds are much more compressed and therefore less punchy!

[Jack Luminous]

We're talking about 2203/2204 here. No silicon in the signal path.

 

 

Originally posted by gsus Well, there needn't be a war (of words) about the JCM800 and the DSL2000. They're completely different in sound and concept. The DSL2000 is a "pure" valve amp, that is, there's no silicon in the "sound building" path of the amp. The result is a "smoother" overdriven (or distorted) sound with lots of gain, much more than with the JCM800. Whereas the JCM800 has silicon in his sound building path. The result is a "rawer", bitier, but much cleaner sound. Many Metal Players love the bite of the JCM800 tone but usually need more gain and therefore use "boosters" for their sound (e.g. Kerry King of Slayer or Zakk Wylde of Ozzy's band). Somebody said that the JCM is punchier. That's not true, because the "punch" is defined by the amount of gain you use. The less gain, the punchier the sound. It's logical that highly distorted (tube-)sounds are much more compressed and therefore less punchy!

 

[Dereeko1]

does anyone have a 2203x or 2204 for sale.

 

derekmitts@insightbb.com

[anti-flag193]

 

Originally posted by Pigsinzen No never owned a 2000 (But have played through one many times) And I have owned 2 800s. I just know this "Eats for breaksfast" "Runs circles around" "not a real amp" vagina talk is just that. They all sound good. But different. This Marshall cork sniffery is obnoxious.

 

 

exactly. Different to me means that in my opinion, a 2203 {censored}s on a dsl100.

[Marshall Freak]

Originally posted by anti-flag193 exactly. Different to me means that in my opinion, a 2203 {censored}s on a dsl100.

 

That won't work, you don't agree with him, so your opinion is invalid. The statement he made, only applies if you agree with him.

 

[anti-flag193]

Originally posted by gsus Well, there needn't be a war (of words) about the JCM800 and the DSL2000. They're completely different in sound and concept. The DSL2000 is a "pure" valve amp, that is, there's no silicon in the "sound building" path of the amp. The result is a "smoother" overdriven (or distorted) sound with lots of gain, much more than with the JCM800. Whereas the JCM800 has silicon in his sound building path. The result is a "rawer", bitier, but much cleaner sound. Many Metal Players love the bite of the JCM800 tone but usually need more gain and therefore use "boosters" for their sound (e.g. Kerry King of Slayer or Zakk Wylde of Ozzy's band). Somebody said that the JCM is punchier. That's not true, because the "punch" is defined by the amount of gain you use. The less gain, the punchier the sound. It's logical that highly distorted (tube-)sounds are much more compressed and therefore less punchy!

uh.....

[Pigsinzen]

 

Originally posted by anti-flag193 exactly.

 

Exactly? You didn't agree with me at all.

 

Different to me means that in my opinion, a 2203 {censored}s on a dsl100.

 

Do you realize how silly it sounds when people make such statements?

 

"{censored}s on" "runs circles around" "eats for breakfast"

 

You guys act like it's an olympic sport, or some car race.

 

It's 100% Pretentious. And highly annoying.

 

The 800 is better for some things, and crappy for others. The Same with any Marshall amp I have played.

[Pigsinzen]

Originally posted by Marshall Freak That won't work, you don't agree with him, so your opinion is invalid. The statement he made, only applies if you agree with him.

 

No, I am saying the way he is expressing his opinion is pretentious and silly.

 

I don't own either amp, no bias here.

 

Just because an amp has different characteristics or sounds different, doesn't mean another amp is BETTER.

 

Too many people think owning an amp is a competition.