Amp GAS time!!! Marshall 1W tubes NEW!!!

[theManfromAlabam]

I'm sorry, they are cool as hell but not at the price point...I have a new Class 5 combo, I love it so much I am seriously considering getting another before Marshall hikes up the pricing.

 

For low, mid and sometimes high volume dirt I use my Source Audio soundbox Classic Distortion and SD Twin Tube Blue I also use a reverb ped at it lowest setting for a little slap back.

[Deadbeat Son]

I always laugh when people state things that are perceived...as "fact." Just because someone will pay $5000 for a Les Paul does not make it a "fact" that the guitar is worth it....it just means that someone believed the Guitar Hero hype and forked over the cash. If these amps are actually just clones of the preamps through a 1 watt amp...that's some SERIOUS mark-up in price. Hey...if you want to pay that for one, be my guest...

 

Personally, like you, I wouldn't pay that for one. However, the economic definition of worth in a free market is what someone is willing to pay for an item. Therefore it is a FACT these amps are worth the money. It is YOUR OPINION they are not.

[Willyguitar]

^^ It remains to be seen however, whether people will buy them of course, so it is not yet 'fact' by your definition. However, people probably will buy them, but more than likely on a slightly mistaken assumption about what they actually are capable of.

[Deadbeat Son]

 

^^ It remains to be seen however, whether people will buy them of course, so it is not yet 'fact' by your definition. However, people probably will buy them, but more than likely on a slightly mistaken assumption about what they actually are capable of.

 

 

Not my definition.

[scolfax]

The Egnater guy designed the modular preamps for Randall. He says that the different tone stacks in each amp is what gives them their signature sounds. I understand that power-tube distortion is a factor in how an amp sounds live, but do you guys really think it's so important that the lack of proper power tubes will cause these to suck? The demos I saw sounded really cool.

[Willyguitar]

 

Not my definition.

 

 

Well, since you didn't cite anybody else's, it was perfectly reasonable for me to assume that it was a definition you supported, and therefore something you subscribe to. It came from you on this thread, therefore I was perfectly within my rights to use the term 'your definition'. Please go ahead and provide the source of your definition.

 

But that is beside the point, since whoever you have cited has stated that something is 'worth' whatever a person will pay for it, but I don't think these things have really gone out on the market yet have they? Therefore it's not the definition, but your use of the word 'fact' that I was disputing.

 

I think that in any case you took people's interpretation of the word 'worth' far too literally and technically. It's not 'worth' it for them. Therefore, their statement is true for them. They do not feel the amp to be 'worthy'.

[oates]

Yep, right now I'm REALLY jonesing for the THR10. Love Marshalls but this lot is over-priced. Not really home recordist friendly either like the Blackstar HT1

 

 

How are they not home recordist friendly?

[Deadbeat Son]

 

But that is beside the point, since whoever you have cited has stated that something is 'worth' whatever a person will pay for it, but I don't think these things have really gone out on the market yet have they? Therefore it's not the definition, but your use of the word 'fact' that I was disputing. I think that in any case you took people's interpretation of the word 'worth' far too literally and technically. It's not 'worth' it for them. Therefore, their statement is true for them. They do not feel the amp to be 'worthy'.

 

 

It is very likely Marshall's marketing department has a good grasp of the economic viability of the products they produce, and have done accurate research to evaluate effective consumer reception of their products, but that's not the point here.

 

The point I am arguing is as follows.

 

Dismissing a product as not being worth the asking price is an incorrect use of the term and is often thrown around inappropriately. Examples of correct statements are, "I would not pay that much for the amp", or "The amp is not worth that much to me." But to purport, as FACT (as evidenced by his subsequent post), that something is not worth its selling price, is a misrepresentation of fact.

 

As I mentioned, I don't find the value in these amps at their projected prices, but one cannot overlook the limited production of these models and the lack of economies of scale greater production numbers otherwise bring. Not only does Marshall incur increased manufacturing costs because of the aforementioned reason, but demand is also increased due to the limited availability of the product. These are two substantial contributing factors in determination of market pricing.

[Willyguitar]

 

While I do support the definition, I did not coin it. This is discussed in any basic economics textbook. From Wikipedia (bold added for emphasis): I realize Wikipedia is not a scholarly source, but I do not own any economics textbooks at the moment. It is very likely Marshall's marketing department has a good grasp of the economic viability of the products they produce, and have done accurate research to evaluate effective consumer reception of their products, but that's not the point here. The point I am arguing is as follows. Dismissing a product as not being worth the asking price is an incorrect use of the term and is often thrown around inappropriately. Examples of correct statements are, "I would not pay that much for the amp", or "The amp is not worth that much to me ." But to purport, as FACT (as evidenced by his subsequent post), that something is not worth its selling price, is a misrepresentation of fact. As I mentioned, I don't find the value in these amps at their projected prices, but one cannot overlook the limited production of these models and the lack of economies of scale greater production numbers otherwise bring. Not only does Marshall incur increased manufacturing costs because of the aforementioned reason, but demand is also increased due to the limited availability of the product. These are two substantial contributing factors in determination of market pricing.

 

 

All points I agree with, although the very fact that so many people are arguing about the price-point of these amps would suggest that their market research might be unstable (although admittedly, on HERE, the bargain hunter reigns supreme).

 

Also, I suppose I think you are being a bit over-sensitive about people's use of the word 'worth'. When someone says, or writes 'it's not worth it' or 'how can it be worth that?', I think most people would assume that they mean 'it's not worth it for me', and not take them to issue for misunderstanding the use of the term in modern economics. After all, we freely use all manner of terms from a range of social science or scientific disciplines in a way that often diverges from the meanings they have been given by specialists...

 

However, I'm not sure why I'm defending steveman here, but what the heck.

[Deadbeat Son]

 

Also, I suppose I think you are being a bit over-sensitive about people's use of the word 'worth'. When someone says, or writes 'it's not worth it' or 'how can it be worth that?', I think most people would assume that they mean 'it's not worth it for me', and not take them to issue for misunderstanding the use of the term in modern economics.

 

 

Quite possibly so. I do tend to get aggravated with all of the dismissive, and often condescending, blanket statements that get made around here about gear that is anything other than bargain basement priced.

 

One final comment, it's not modern economics. It's classic economics dating back hundreds and hundreds of years. (See the writings of Adam Smith, et al.) All of that information was required reading in my education, so I often incorrectly tend to assume it was for others as well.

 

Next time you find yourself in colorful Colorado here in the colonies, I'll buy you a beer.

[Wyatt]

 

The Egnater guy designed the modular preamps for Randall. He says that the different tone stacks in each amp is what gives them their signature sounds. I understand that power-tube distortion is a factor in how an amp sounds live, but do you guys really think it's so important that the lack of proper power tubes will cause these to suck? The demos I saw sounded really cool.

 

 

Yes, and the Egnator and Randall MOD amps are legendary...aren't they? They only get get maybe 80% of the amp's tone they are trying the emulate.

 

Many amps are designed almost entirely around the sound of the preamp and preamp overdrive...Mesa, Dumble, Soldano, 5150/6505, etc. MV high-gain amps like these are designed to get their tone from the preamp and use big power 100 power amps to deliver the volume...you don't want power amp OD because that turns everything to ud.

 

On the flip-side...non-master volume amps are all based around low-gain preamps and it's the amp as a whole that delivers the true overdriven rock tone. You element the power amp from a 5E3, AC30, Plexi, JTM45, etc. and you loose a massive chunk of the amps personality. That's why there has been so much R&D into attenuators, post-PI master volumes, variable voltage reduction, etc. ALl of these are attmepts to retain some of that classic non-V tone without having to blow your family clean out of the house. Unfortunately, all of those are compromises and the more you turn down, the more the tone is lost.

 

Do I think these amps will suck because they use 12AU7 power amps...no. But these will sound significantly different than than their larger predecessors. They will be less thick, less full, and more preamp overdrive with completely different less power amp overdrive (and no PI overdrive). You can tell it in all the videos of JTM1, it doesn't sound anything like the JTM45, it's thinner, brighter, hotter, raspier, etc., it's more of fire-breather than the real deal. As you move past the JTM and JPM, Marshalls became more preamp-centric, so that's the JCM, DSL and JVM relied less on the power amp OD and will be closer to their larger brethren.

 

As to the cost...most of these will sell out, which is all Marshall wants, they are marketed as collectible with a manufactured since of "limited availability." There are not only plenty of people who will buy one, but lots who will collect all 5.

[Steadfastly]

 

I've heard a few people say that. Can you list a few so that I can get an idea?

 

 

Go to Musician's friend and click on amps. Put in your criteria for anything up to that price range and do a comparison on them. Here's a few Traynors you can check out.

 

http://www.long-mcquade.com/?page=search&SearchTxt=traynor%20amps

[Honky-Tonk]

i started this thread with a major case of GAS for a sweet 1 watt marshall amp. The price, and all the information on this thread has thoroughly cured my GAS. If i could pick one up for around $200 though, i'm sure i could rip one real nice

[steve_man]

Not my definition.

and yet...STILL not a fact bro...

[Steadfastly]

 

i started this thread with a major case of GAS for a sweet 1 watt marshall amp. The price, and all the information on this thread has thoroughly cured my GAS. If i could pick one up for around $200 though, i'm sure i could rip one real nice

 

 

Wise decision, IMHO.

[Willyguitar]

Quite possibly so. I do tend to get aggravated with all of the dismissive, and often condescending, blanket statements that get made around here about gear that is anything other than bargain basement priced. One final comment, it's not modern economics. It's classic economics dating back hundreds and hundreds of years. (See the writings of Adam Smith, et al.) All of that information was required reading in my education, so I often incorrectly tend to assume it was for others as well. Next time you find yourself in colorful Colorado here in the colonies, I'll buy you a beer.

 

 

Don't be condescending now! I'm a historian, so as far as I am concerned it's 'modern', in the sense that most of the economic theories we use are a product of the 'modern', ie. post Enlightenment world - and The Wealth of Nations (1776) epitomises that, even though I am perfectly aware it is a product of what is known as 'classical economics'. The classical there does not denote a period of time. In fact, 'Classical Economics' completely marked the 'modern' in the sense that it set out the patterns of commerce that we now still live by. However, this is a guitar forum. People post for fun, not to demonstrate the level of their intellect, and we should never assume that others are ignorant.

 

However, if I ever made it to Colorado, would happily have a beer... in between, maybe, doing research on the colonial state (;-))

[Deadbeat Son]

Don't be condescending now! I'm a historian, so as far as I am concerned it's 'modern', in the sense that most of the economic theories we use are a product of the 'modern', ie. post Enlightenment world - and The Wealth of Nations (1776) epitomises that, even though I am perfectly aware it is a product of what is known as 'classical economics'. The classical there does not denote a period of time. In fact, 'Classical Economics' completely marked the 'modern' in the sense that it set out the patterns of commerce that we now still live by. However, this is a guitar forum. People post for fun, not to demonstrate the level of their intellect, and we should never assume that others are ignorant. However, if I ever made it to Colorado, would happily have a beer... in between, maybe, doing research on the colonial state (;-))

 

As soon as I posted that comment, I thought to myself, "wait...I wonder if he was using "modern" in the historical sense and not in the relative context."

 

By no means did I intend what I wrote to be condescending toward you or anyone else. To assert that my educational background is "better" than yours or anyone else's would be asinine; it is simply different. These differences in trains of thought and views are an absolute necessity in our society.

 

I was basically thinking out loud about my different view toward the term "worth" in this whole topic of gear and opinions of perceived value. I tend to look at certain terms in a different context than others due to my particular background.

 

Admittedly, I am ignorant in many historical topics, but I do realized Colorado was never a British colony.

[neilr11]

 

Yes, and the Egnator and Randall MOD amps are legendary...aren't they? They only get get maybe 80% of the amp's tone they are trying the emulate. Many amps are designed almost entirely around the sound of the preamp and preamp overdrive...Mesa, Dumble, Soldano, 5150/6505, etc. MV high-gain amps like these are designed to get their tone from the preamp and use big power 100 power amps to deliver the volume...you don't want power amp OD because that turns everything to ud. On the flip-side...non-master volume amps are all based around low-gain preamps and it's the amp as a whole that delivers the true overdriven rock tone. You element the power amp from a 5E3, AC30, Plexi, JTM45, etc. and you loose a massive chunk of the amps personality. That's why there has been so much R&D into attenuators, post-PI master volumes, variable voltage reduction, etc. ALl of these are attmepts to retain some of that classic non-V tone without having to blow your family clean out of the house. Unfortunately, all of those are compromises and the more you turn down, the more the tone is lost. Do I think these amps will suck because they use 12AU7 power amps...no. But these will sound significantly different than than their larger predecessors. They will be less thick, less full, and more preamp overdrive with completely different less power amp overdrive (and no PI overdrive). You can tell it in all the videos of JTM1, it doesn't sound anything like the JTM45, it's thinner, brighter, hotter, raspier, etc., it's more of fire-breather than the real deal. As you move past the JTM and JPM, Marshalls became more preamp-centric, so that's the JCM, DSL and JVM relied less on the power amp OD and will be closer to their larger brethren. As to the cost...most of these will sell out, which is all Marshall wants, they are marketed as collectible with a manufactured since of "limited availability." There are not only plenty of people who will buy one, but lots who will collect all 5.

 

 

 

Your answers are well thought out and informative, thanks!