Bare Knuckle Pickups Forum
Forum Ringside => Guitars, Amps and Effects => Topic started by: hamfist on May 05, 2008, 06:49:48 PM
-
I'd just like to start by saying - "hi, my name's Alan and I'm an ampaholic. :?
Just got a bargain (I think) on the 'bay. A '78 50W JMP 2204 head. These are often considered some of the best amps that Marshall made for the rock musician. Supposedly it is in very, very good condition, and completely unmodified. And just by chance it will cosmetically match perfectly to my '78 Marshall cab.
So it's down to another head to head (there's a good pun in there somewhere !), between my Ceriatone 1987 with PPIMV (a very, very awesome amp) and this new JMP.
Strangely, I'm actually hoping for more headroom from the JMP. The Plexi doesn't really do clean, and doesn't clean up particularly well from the guitar volume either. It is a true gain monster (not in a high gain sense, but in a 70's Marshall sense). I have read that the 2204 actually has more headroom than the classic 1987 circuit.
I got the amp for such a price that I can even afford to pay for a bit of troubleshooting, and a cap job on the amp, and still potentially have some money left from the sale of the Ceriatone, if it comes to it.
I almost can't imagine a better amp for my purposes than my 1987, but I read a few bits and pieces and listened to one or two mindblowing clips of the 2204 circuit, and just knew I would not be satisfied unless I actually tried one. I'm actually hoping it will be rather more mid-heavy than the 1987, which is itself not mid-scooped at all. I love the crunch from the 1987 but I seem to crave mids these days.
So Dave, I'm sure your antenna's picked this one up. Either a top quality '78 JMP 2204 , or a Ceriatone 1987 available in the near future.
-
Nice one. How much did you pay for it? I am guessing it was the one that finished in the lower to mid 300's?
I have one coming this week too :) same year 8)
-
.... Strangely, I'm actually hoping for more headroom from the JMP. The Plexi doesn't really do clean, and doesn't clean up particularly well from the guitar volume either. It is a true gain monster (not in a high gain sense, but in a 70's Marshall sense). I have read that the 2204 actually has more headroom than the classic 1987 circuit.
More headroom? Where did you read that? I'd be very surprised as essentially you've got two very similar amps, both with master volumes. The lack of headroom in your 1987 is in part due to the master volume which affects the negative feedback loop. The pre-PIMV of the 2204 will get rid of that problem but at lower volumes you're going to get a thinner tone. Which leads me to...
.... I'm actually hoping it will be rather more mid-heavy than the 1987, which is itself not mid-scooped at all. I love the crunch from the 1987 but I seem to crave mids these days.
I doubt it'll have more mids just by circuit alone. Different valves may come into play here though, as I'm sure you know.
.... So Dave, I'm sure your antenna's picked this one up. Either a top quality '78 JMP 2204 , or a Ceriatone 1987 available in the near future.
Just let me know when you decide which one you're selling ;) I'm still after a 50w Plexi/MV :)
-
I'd just like to start by saying - "hi, my name's Alan and I'm an ampaholic. :?
I think we know :) And I feel your pain.
I hope it works out for you! (The amp, not the ampaholism)
-
very nice, now you need the ultimate attenuator :O)
-
Nice one. How much did you pay for it? I am guessing it was the one that finished in the lower to mid 300's?
I have one coming this week too :) same year 8)
Yup, that was the one - £336. Cheap, even for ebay prices for a really good condition one. I'll find out tommorow exactly what it's like but it all sounds A1.
-
very nice, now you need the ultimate attenuator :O)
Living in the middle of nowhere :D
Well mine was £350, great condition etc. There are a few of them on there at the moment, so I figured it was a good time to buy as the price was a bit lower.
I was controlling my excitement before you posted this :shock:
-
very nice, now you need the ultimate attenuator :O)
Hunter, I'd love a UA, but my Hotplate does me OK for the moment. A UA, with a couple of the options, plus import charges, would be outrageously expensive.
Dave - yes I am hoping for more headroom. I've read several descriptions of both amps - and there are definately more than one exact circuit for each type, as marshall did various changes and upgrades through the years.
the Ceriatone 1987 is a very gainy version, and if you read the HC reviews, you'll see mine is not the only one. Even on the low gain input, it makes little difference. It's into full crunch at 3 (on both dials, if you are jumpering channels). I have read many reviews that state the 2204 (on the low gain input) has really good headroom. Even on the high gain input, some folks are saying that it doesn't get really crunchy until 5 or 6. It may get more gainy than the Plexi, when on 10, but also has more headroom (if that makes sense). I've never played a 2204 so, to be honest, I'll just wait and see what all the fuss is about, when I get the amp.
-
Furry 'nuff! Looking forward to the review...
-
I had a 2204 for a while and that was very a very nice amp. I swapped it for my VH100R at the time because I needed a 2 ch amp but otherwise I would have kept it! It didn't sound as rich or thick as my Ceriatone but it's a really cool sound, exemplary Marshall sound. Make sure you get the caps replaced if it hasn't been serviced for a while though.
BTW I heard that this guy (http://hoelectronics.com/Product2.php) makes the Ultimate Attenuator but you can buy it directly from him without the "Ultimate" label for a big discount. Not sure if that's true but could be worth investigating.
-
very nice, now you need the ultimate attenuator :O)
Hunter, I'd love a UA, but my Hotplate does me OK for the moment. A UA, with a couple of the options, plus import charges, would be outrageously expensive.
Dave - yes I am hoping for more headroom. I've read several descriptions of both amps - and there are definately more than one exact circuit for each type, as marshall did various changes and upgrades through the years.
the Ceriatone 1987 is a very gainy version, and if you read the HC reviews, you'll see mine is not the only one. Even on the low gain input, it makes little difference. It's into full crunch at 3 (on both dials, if you are jumpering channels). I have read many reviews that state the 2204 (on the low gain input) has really good headroom. Even on the high gain input, some folks are saying that it doesn't get really crunchy until 5 or 6. It may get more gainy than the Plexi, when on 10, but also has more headroom (if that makes sense). I've never played a 2204 so, to be honest, I'll just wait and see what all the fuss is about, when I get the amp.
thats not true - with the gain on 10 you get crunch at every master volume level. its true it sounds a bit thin with really low volumes, but I think its acceptable, i don't miss an attenuator. it is true though that the amp sounds the best with the MV 4->6 or thereabouts.... at least in my experience
enjoy your fine new amplifier!
-
I think I'll need a power attenuator, buying a clone of Plexi MV 50w...
But this Ultimate is VERY expensive, £550 :o
There is any other good?
-
I think I'll need a power attenuator, buying a clone of Plexi MV 50w...
But this Ultimate is VERY expensive, £550 :o
There is any other good?
THD Hotplate works very well with my Ceriatone 50W Plexi clone !
-
Ho hum. Well, I picked up the amp today. Plugged it in at the sellers house, just to check that everything works fine - which it did.
Got it home, plugged it in. Within about 3 seconds I knew the amp was not going to be staying with me. I played for a few minutes trying to get sounds that I really liked, but couldn't. I didn't realise how much brighter the amp would be than my 1987 clone. It's got that Marshall broken glass thing going on. I know many, many folks love that, but it's not for me. I know I could start fiddling with bright caps, but I simply can't be bothered.
And yes, the 2204 had much more clean headroom than my 1987. I'd actually say that my 1987 has more gain overall too. With all controls maxed on the 2204 (heavily attenuated obviously - I'm not stoopid !), the amp has about the same levels of gain as my 1987 on about 8.
Cosmetically the amp was pretty good for a 30 year old amp. A few nicks and minor lumps out of the tolex - nothing too bad. Completely unmodified too. In fact, generally a very saleable amp. I can't believe I got it quite so cheap. In fact I expect to sell it for more than I paid for it.
Unless someone here is desperate for it, I'll be turning it over on ebay in a couple of days. If anyone here is willing to pay £360 plus shipping, they can have it. However, I would strongly prefer the amp either to be collected or I would deliver within 120 miles for the cost of fuel.
One of the knobs had lost it's gold cover, so I've ordered a replacement. Once that arrives, if no-one here wants it, I'll get it all ship shape, take some photos, and start yet another donation to ebay's profits.
-
I had a feeling you wouldn't like it Alan :(
I need to find out if I have £360 lying around. I think it would do a good "Angus on the If You Want Blood live album" tone........
-
What trannies does it have?
-
Woooooooooaaaaah. Just had a look inside. Couldn't believe my eyes !!!
Pre-amp tubes - 1 x Blackburn Mullard, 2 x brimar.
Power tubes - nice looking Mullard XF4's
Sheeeeeet. I can't believe he sold it to me with those tubes inside. he clearly didn't really know what they were. he was a pro musician, and sent it of to Marshall for servicing/tubes etc. He told me the amp was re-tubed 18 months ago. This means those tubes should have loads and loads of life left in them.
I pocketed the Mullard 12ax7. But the amp will sell with 2 x Brimar ECC83's in V1 and V2, a brand new JJ in V3, and the Mulllard Xf4 power tubes.
That must put the price up a bit. I'm not quite sure how much though. I need to spend a few mins on ebay to check out the Xf4's.
-
I'm afraid I won't be letting the amp go, with these tubes, for less than £390 - and I think that is still a damn fine deal for someone. That's a BKP forum-only price !
-
Too rich for my tastes I'm afraid. I really don't get this "paying shedloads for old valves" thing...
-
What trannies does it have?
All original
-
Too rich for my tastes I'm afraid. I really don't get this "paying shedloads for old valves" thing...
Me neither, probably because I've yet to experience the 'magic'. Every time I bought so called NOS tubes off ebay it was either very normal sounding or a dud :( I'm sure a genuine NOS would sound great though.
Did the transformer have any sticker on it? Like Drake, Dagnall etc.
-
Did the transformer have any sticker on it? Like Drake, Dagnall etc.
I couldn't see a sticker, but I didn't pull the chassis out, just took of the back panel. If I pull the chassis out, I'll take a closer look.
-
mine (1976) has drake anyway
-
Every time I bought so called NOS tubes off ebay it was either very normal sounding or a dud :( I'm sure a genuine NOS would sound great though.
I've had a lot of luck with NOS pre-amp tubes in particular. In my experience with a number of different amps, really good NOS pre-amp tubes like Mullards, Raytheon, Siemens, Amperex, RFT, Tesla, Tungsram can make a big difference. "cheaper" NOS brands, and most American tubes like GE's, Sylvania, Tung Sol & RCA, I've never thought worth the money. There is a school of thought (and it's pretty logical really) that says that you want old European tubes for British sounding amps, and old American tubes for American sounding amps. It seems to make sense as that's what the manufacturers would have put in the amps when they were made in the 60's and 70's.
I've also tried several sets of NOS power tubes in various amps (all EL84's), and sometimes I could hear an improvement (always only small), sometimes not.
I would strongly recommend anyone who runs a non-high gain amp to try a known good 12ax7 in V1 of their amp. Find the right tube, and it can definately be magic. Sometimes its not even the expensive tubes that sound the best. In my AC30, it was an RFT 12ax7 in the input stage of the Top Boost channel that smoked any Mullard I put in there.
BTW, any forum member is welcome to bring their amp around my house and try out some nice Pre-amp tubes to see if they think it might be worth buying some. Beware, though, Ailean and Prozacbear tried out some of my old tubes in their amps - it was not good for their wealth !!
-
Beware, though, Ailean and Prozacbear tried out some of my old tubes in their amps - it was not good for their wealth !!
Yeah, not good at all. But I will add that the right tube can definately have a big impact on your amp, and it's not always a case of 'better' sometimes it's just different emphesis / sound balance, but that might be better for what you play.
I'm not sure I'd pay mega bucks for a NOS tube, but I'd pay up to 30/40 quid for a good one if it fits my tone. And that's not that much money compared to the cost of an amp.
Sorry the amp didn't work out Alan, I can't say I'm not tempted myself... must....fight....AAS!
-
Ailean, buy it!!
-
Right, some bad news about the amp. The Mullard El34's (well at least one of them), are duff. They cause crackle when you prod the amp. With a known good set of JJ's put in, I could not replicate the crackle however hard I hit the amp. Put the Mullards back in and the crackle was instantly easily produced.
Also, the more I play it, the more I believe that something is just not right with the amp. I really should like the tone, and I don't, It's truly harsh and horrible. I have been through a lot of amps, and read a lot of opinions, and listened to a lot of soundclips to get to the point of buying this amp. I also have a very similar amp, the 1987, which I just love. I cannot believe that this is what a proper functioning 2204 sounds like. Also, there's nowhere near as much gain as I thought a 2204 should have. Also, the amp is definately noisier than I would like
It's not the tubes, I have replaced all of them with known good tubes - nothing changes.
I wouldn't be happy to sell the amp in this state, unless it was a "sold as seen". For someone who knows amps and amp repairs it might be a great buy.
I think my main option is to get a good tech to install some new EL34's, bias it up correctly, and then spend some time troubleshooting the amp. It could be something as simple as just needing a cap job. The amp is 30 years old after all. At least then I'll find out what this amp is capable of. And if I still don't like it, I can sell it with a clear conscience knowing that it was all sorted.
Great - another money pit - just what I need right at the moment.
-
Hmm not much luck with that one Alan :(
Oh well at least that removes my temptation to buy it :)
-
Alan,
I may take it off you "as is" as I know someone who could fix it up for me ;) I'll happily take it without valves as I have some spares knocking about.
I'll drop you a PM...
-
... however hard I hit the amp...
!
-
Right, latest installment !
I've organised for Steve at Steve's Amps, in Godalming to sort it out.
It'll definately need a new set of EL34's and I would like a full cap job done anyway, as a problem-preventing thing for the future. Also, he can troubleshoot any other problems for me.
If I don't get the amp sorted and never hear it at it's best, I will never know if a 2204 is the "one", the ideal amp for me. I'm pretty close in my amp search with my 1987 but, as I'm trying to find my perfect amp "soulmate" I really do need to try a fully functioning 2204.
So in the end, I'll have a fully functioning (almost "reconditioned") amp, still all for less than £500.
If after all that I STILL don't like it, then it will be a very saleable amp I think. I'll have the receipts to prove that it's just been fully gone over, so it should be pretty attractive to a potential buyer.
-
I've always found Marshall's to sound better with valves.
Tubes (or "toobs") work well in Fenders, but over here they clash with our 240V mains.
:wink:
-
:lol:
Fair enough on your decision Alan. Let us know how it sounds when you get it back :)
-
I've always found Marshall's to sound better with valves.
Tubes (or "toobs") work well in Fenders, but over here they clash with our 240V mains.
:wink:
And I thought I was a pedant...
Oh wait, I am a pedant!
-
I've just got into the habit of always calling them tubes. I'm always talking on international forums, where they get very confused if you start talking about "valves".
Whatever they are, the old ones are the best !!
-
...allegedly ;)
-
I've always found Marshall's to sound better with valves.
Tubes (or "toobs") work well in Fenders, but over here they clash with our 240V mains.
:wink:
Ok, newbie moment. There's a difference? I always thought they were the same thing?
-
No,
Valves have a clockwise electron spin, whereas tubes have a predominant anticlockwise "accent".
-
No,
Valves have a clockwise electron spin, whereas tubes have a predominant anticlockwise "accent".
Cool, thanks for that, how do I tell the difference?
-
No,
Valves have a clockwise electron spin, whereas tubes have a predominant anticlockwise "accent".
:?: :?: :?: :?
-
The US 'tubes' (like 6L6s for instance) have the anticlockwise spin...
-
No! End it now, before it becomes a 40 page thread on The Gear Page and becomes part of internet "fact"!
Sorry Ailean :oops: I was joshing. :wink:
Valves is tubes! :)
-
Ha ha :lol:
Spoilsport!!!!
-
bah, you had me all worried about X-ray emissions then, Martin :crzy:
I've had my amp checked over by Steve, and I have to say he was an absolute star. Definitely putting your amp in good hands, there!
Once you've got it all fixed up, you might as well keep both, and run them in stereo :)
Roo
-
The US 'tubes' (like 6L6s for instance) have the anticlockwise spin...
That's exactly what Martin said - Unless I'm mistaken?
-
Yeah, Dave. :lol:
I used to work on these, gave me the idea:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spin_valve
-
Once you've got it all fixed up, you might as well keep both, and run them in stereo :)
Roo
That's a fine idea. all I need to do is persuade the wife now.
Could you possibly write me some sort of persuasive reference or testimonial stating how beneficial it would be to my marriage, life and the universe in general if I could keep both amps. I'll pass it on to my good lady and, together, we'll see if we can swing it !
-
Dear Mrs Fist,
Your beloved Ham and I, along with the vast unpolled majority of the tone gurus at the BareknucklePickups.co.uk forums, hold the firm and unwavering belief, backed by undisclosed scientific evidence, that the simultaneous use of two Marshall amplifiers is not only good for the soul, but is also good for the soul(s) of those who dwell with the player. Scientific studies have also clearly shown that, in some cases -particularly where the player's online nickname begins with "h" or "f", or even some combination of the two - the use of two amplifiers is necessary for the male libido to continue from the late teens towards the early seventies or eighties, which in turn is a prerequisite for life during that period.1
1Data not shown.
----------
Cut 'n' Paste. Job Done.
-
No! End it now, before it becomes a 40 page thread on The Gear Page and becomes part of internet "fact"!
Sorry Ailean :oops: I was joshing. :wink:
Valves is tubes! :)
Ya know I really should have spotted that :) I assumed you meant that the internal current flow was different, not the physical quantum properties.
In atonement I want a fully referenced study on the effects of quantum spin in a valve amp, and if quantum entanglement can be used to remove the need for biasing. :D
Or a 10% discount ;)
-
Dear Mrs Fist,
Your beloved Ham and I, along with the vast unpolled majority of the tone gurus at the BareknucklePickups.co.uk forums, hold the firm and unwavering belief, backed by undisclosed scientific evidence, that the simultaneous use of two Marshall amplifiers is not only good for the soul, but is also good for the soul(s) of those who dwell with the player. Scientific studies have also clearly shown that, in some cases -particularly where the player's online nickname begins with "h" or "f", or even some combination of the two - the use of two amplifiers is necessary for the male libido to continue from the late teens towards the early seventies or eighties, which in turn is a prerequisite for life during that period.1
1Data not shown.
----------
Cut 'n' Paste. Job Done.
very nice, Roo.
I'll give it a shot !
-
In atonement I want a fully referenced study on the effects of quantum spin in a valve amp, and if quantum entanglement can be used to remove the need for biasing. :D
Or a 10% discount ;)
Hmm, tricky one. :?
Not the first bit, that's easy. Discounts though, ouch!
-
Not the first bit, that's easy. Discounts though, ouch!
Payback should hurt :twisted:
-
master volumes ruin tone! :shock:
-
Not always. Depends on which type.
A good PPIMV (and there are several types) can be a useful compromise to reduce volume, as long as the amp's preamp has good enough tone in the first place.
If an MV sounds bad, it's usually because it's a bad design, or the preamp is a poor sounding preamp.
Nothing sounds as good as being loud of course! :twisted: Speaker/guitar interaction, Fletcher-Munsen effect, yada-yada....
Sadly, that's not always possible.
-
I'll second that- the PPImv Martin fitted on my Marshall sounds fantastic- when run at bedroom levels it really gets close to the sound when run past say 6 or so on the master barring any volume/speaker enhancing effects. I've a Cornford Harly that was bought specifically for low volume- haven't used it since the Marshall was modded......................
Martin I will eventually get round to posting some clips!
-
I was refering more to the Pre-PI MV on the JMP Master Volume Series, I don't think these amps have a scatch on the older Non-MV Marshalls..
I like the Post Phase Inverter designs, they're somewhat better but once u start pulling the volume down too far you look that interaction with the power tubes they're great for shaving off 10% of the volume.
Personally I just prefer to use 97dB sens speakers, 2x12 cab and crank.. rather than using high sens speakers and a 4x12..
-
I was refering more to the Pre-PI MV on the JMP Master Volume Series...
Then maybe you should have said that? :wink:
I agree that the best option is to use , in the first place, a smaller amp, smaller cabs, less efficient speakers etc, but beyond that, a well sorted MV needn't necessarily take too much out of your tone, other than the effect you get by playing at lower volumes anyway.
Master volume Marshalls are very easy to turn into very nice sounding amps (eh, Dean?) with a virtually identical signal path to the NMV versions, and the bonus of more gain if required. :)
-
Well, I am in love with mine! It is so much sweeter than the jcm900, and the 0-10 gain on it beats the 900!
Was quite noisy when it got to 4 on the MV, and didn't react well to pedal gain (I boost the level and like to give it a little bit of gain, usually use 0 - 0.5 gain, at 2, it feedbacks horribly)
The gain on the amp for me was great, from 6 - 10 it added more bottom end thumpiness to the sound, and the low input is a cool new feature for me :D
Anyway, my point being, I miss it already, dropped it off this afternoon at the factory for a service. Their supplier is Svetlana I think, so thats what I am getting stuck with for a bit, are the ok? confident enough to change the preamp valves later though.
...don't know if I can be bothered to even plug the 900 back up, I just know I will be disapointed