Bare Knuckle Pickups Forum
Forum Ringside => Guitars, Amps and Effects => Topic started by: maliciousteve on October 25, 2006, 05:55:04 PM
-
http://www.marshallamps.com/product_range.asp?productRangeId=23
sounds promising, i'll look forward to hearing them at the NEC next month
-
Hmmm... This does sound good, however it is easy to make something sound good and then find out it's shite.
-
Sounds interesting.. if they are anything like the JCM2000 series though then no thanks.
Btw, does anyone know if Laney are at Music Live this year?
-
True, if it's like the JCM2000 then they've made a big mistake. But i've left for greener pasteurs (probably spelt that wrong haha)
Laney are never at Music Live i think. I never noticed them there before. But i'll be hovering the Cornford, Bareknuckle and Marshall stands this year
-
Is it me, or do they sound like they'll be very similar to the Laney GH50L and GH100L????
-
yea im gonna try one at Music Live.. can't wait!
-
The concept actually reminded me of Splawn with the gears for different gain structures.
It's interesting they're using kt66 tubes. I know they were in the early Marshalls but I don't think Marshall has gone near a kt66/6L6 since. Have they?
-
Sounds interesting.. if they are anything like the JCM2000 series though then no thanks.
Btw, does anyone know if Laney are at Music Live this year?
If they're like any of their amps (RIs, etc.) come the recent 10 years or so, then no thanks. Seriously, all the RIs sound horribly thin and have way too much high end even with the treble and presence at 0 to be considered usable.
I was playing a plexi RI at Guitar Center. I play a note and I couldn't help but saying "holy thin tone and overkill high end," and the guy working there is like "oh yeah the old Marshalls always had overkill high end like that"....... WHAT?? I've played a few, I own one, and I never had a problem like that with any of them.
And seriously for about the same price new, Roccaforte or a Bogner Shiva is a great alternative to Marshalls.
-
But i've left for greener pasteurs (probably spelt that wrong haha)
yeah, you've left for a dead scientist, but at least your milk won't give you any nasty infections
(that's louis pasteur, originator of pasteurisation for the uneducated amongst us :wink: )
-
the cabs look bogus.
-
Looks mean jack shite
-
the cabs look bogus.
??
How do they look bogus (as in fake??)
Just look like a trad 4x12 t me
Marshalls and laneys are voiced very differently
To my ears laneys work well with single coils whilst I prefer the crunchier - more toppy Marshall with a humbucker
The oldest Marshall I had was a 1965 JTM 45 with a square metal logo
The newest other than a rack power amp is a JCM800 split channel amp that I love
The new ones interest me somewhat - nice to see reverb on there
But I am more tempted by a Splawn these days
-
I was just looking over it more, and it looks like a SL-X with some new features (reverb, mid boost, and a dynamic range button which will add or remove the fourth preamp tube) and with probably much cheaper components.
-
there's a full review in this month's guitarist, and i don't know if it's only for subscribers but mine had a dvd with it from Marshall with a full demo of the new amp and a factory tour. it seems quite good to me, i'd love to try one out. the amp, not the factory :wink:
-
Sounds pretty good but not for me I wanna 80s amp not 70s, they don't have enough gain.
I would love it if they said "we are making a Dokken style amp" or something along those lines. I guess I need a splawn :twisted:
-
But i've left for greener pasteurs (probably spelt that wrong haha)
yeah, you've left for a dead scientist, but at least your milk won't give you any nasty infections
(that's louis pasteur, originator of pasteurisation for the uneducated amongst us :wink: )
also the discoverer of chirality as a molecular property, much more useful than pasteurisation.
EDIT: as for the marshalls- I'd need to try them. I haven't tried any of the reissues, but I haven't been impressed by the jcm2000's, that's for sure.
-
also the discoverer of chirality as a molecular property, much more useful than pasteurisation.
EDIT: as for the marshalls- I'd need to try them. I haven't tried any of the reissues, but I haven't been impressed by the jcm2000's, that's for sure.
Sadly I understand the chirality reference.
From what's said Marshall amps seem to be reversing the evolutionary trend to improve. The further away from the 'borrowed' design they move the more folks dislike them. Certainly Lainey seem to be on a roll with popular amps (I remember Laneys where disliked in the 80s)
Rob...
-
Sadly I understand the chirality reference.
From what's said Marshall amps seem to be reversing the evolutionary trend to improve. The further away from the 'borrowed' design they move the more folks dislike them. Certainly Lainey seem to be on a roll with popular amps (I remember Laneys where disliked in the 80s)
Rob...
woot, i'm not the only saddo around here! :lol:
but yeah- marshall seem to be getting worse- i think the problem is they're trying to hedge their bets too much. They're trying to make an amp that'll appeal to the vintage guys, and an amp that appeal to the modern guys (i'm talking about the jcm2000's here), and it just doesn't really work.
Plus there are other guys who do versatile a lot better (and even then it's unlikely to please everyone).
-
Plus there are other guys who do versatile a lot better (and even then it's unlikely to please everyone).
A camel is a horse designed by a focus group.
Needless to say nobody actually want's to ride the damn thing, but theyre stuck with it.
Marshall, the camel of the amp world ?
Rob...
-
^ that's about it in a nutshell, rob (just to be safe, I must point out I only mean the jcm2000's!).
:drink:
-
Bought Guitarist today and heard all the demos of the Vintage Modern with KT66 tubes.
I don't like it. It either sounds too thin or too bloated :(
-
It looks promising but I doubt they'll actaully sound good. Marshall do not care about the 'sound' of thier amps anymore, all they care about is amp sales, profit and money. Jim Marshall would be nowhere without Jimi Hendrix, Joe Satriani, Jeff Beck, Slash, Zack Wylde and Frank Zappa for that matter! I'll give them a listen though because I was impressed with the DSL 20, 40 and 50 watt amps, dunno why people say the JCM2000 range is so bad, the DSL's sound very good, with the right tubes in them of coarse JJ Tesla's. If anyone gets one these new amps, post some clips.
-
Bought Guitarist today and heard all the demos of the Vintage Modern with KT66 tubes.
I don't like it. It either sounds too thin or too bloated :(
sweet, guitarist's out. I'll have to get that tomorrow. :D
It looks promising but I doubt they'll actaully sound good. Marshall do not care about the 'sound' of thier amps anymore, all they care about is amp sales, profit and money. Jim Marshall would be nowhere without Jimi Hendrix, Joe Satriani, Jeff Beck, Slash, Zack Wylde and Frank Zappa for that matter! I'll give them a listen though because I was impressed with the DSL 20, 40 and 50 watt amps, dunno why people say the JCM2000 range is so bad, the DSL's sound very good, with the right tubes in them of coarse JJ Tesla's. If anyone gets one these new amps, post some clips.
the dsl's are better than the tsl's, in my opinion, i don't think they're amazing, though- though with a tube swap and speaker swap, maybe they're alright. :drink:
-
the cabs look bogus.
??
How do they look bogus (as in fake??)
Just look like a trad 4x12 t me
Marshalls and laneys are voiced very differently
To my ears laneys work well with single coils whilst I prefer the crunchier - more toppy Marshall with a humbucker
The oldest Marshall I had was a 1965 JTM 45 with a square metal logo
The newest other than a rack power amp is a JCM800 split channel amp that I love
The new ones interest me somewhat - nice to see reverb on there
But I am more tempted by a Splawn these days
Nah, I just mean cosmeticaly(The 1960's look way better IMO). I just do understand why Marshall insists on introducing a new cab with each and every new amplifier they produce. Why dont they just keep to the 1960's?
-
Bought Guitarist today and heard all the demos of the Vintage Modern with KT66 tubes.
I don't like it. It either sounds too thin or too bloated :(
Any chance you could rip those tracks off the demo disc and post em up here? Would like to hear em but dont really wanna shell out for the mag :P
-
Twinfan, i've just got that magazine also and it does sound pretty horribly thin or like u said bloated, doesnt really live up to the hype..
thank god my splawn is coming! :) muahahahah
-
It sounded like a good amp for classic rock or for blues fusion stuff, but it just doesn't have enough crunch for me.
-
Sounds quite good to me. Not as spectacular as my Shiva , 8)
but nice and useable.
I like the different characters you can get with the mid boost, as well as the two preamp volumes that work in tandem.
I reckon when they produced the DVD, they left it quite pure and didn't enhance the sound so much, which is nice style advertisement i find.
Wondering what it would sound like with a Vintage 30 Cab and how much the speakers do to the tone...
-
i thought it sounded quite good too, certainly good enough to make me want to try one. i've got a complex multi channel amp, i wonder if i might've been better with one channel and my volume knob?
-
i wonder if i might've been better with one channel and my volume knob?
Normally that's a yes, but only if the amp is complex and responsive. Might be these Marshalls do it ... wanna try one, too.
-
Remember DVD audio is also compressed and not meant for anything other than film soundtracks.
Thats why floyd released the anniv Dark Side on SACD not DVD (there was a lot of debate and James Guthrie ended the discussion by refusing to do a DVD version because of audio quality issues)
Probably good enough to represent the amp, but if you want to be fussy wait till after the Music Live event (the amps are bound to be there)
Rob...
-
I've heard the Guitarist CD sound clips too though. Same tone issues to me - way more modern than vintage (and not in a good way) :(
-
build quality looks 'blah' - valve sockets mounted direct to the pcb, never a good sign :(
I'd really like these amps to be good but I doubt they'll anything other than 'average'. Marshall should zero in on genres and put out amps for specific purposes, e.g.
* JTM45, Bluesbreaker, 1987, 1959, JTM100 - all good for blues/classic rock
* JMP 2204, 2203 - good hard rock/metal amps (pedals needed for metal)
* Silver Jubilee (why isn't this a current production amp?, wtf!!!) - great for metal as used by Scott Ian back in the day
* JCM900 (single channel models) - also great metal amps, 'chug' for days.
* JCM????? - new amp needed for modern face-melting metal, take cues from the likes of Diezel, Bogner etc...
:twisted:
-
Remember DVD audio is also compressed and not meant for anything other than film soundtracks.
Thats why floyd released the anniv Dark Side on SACD not DVD (there was a lot of debate and James Guthrie ended the discussion by refusing to do a DVD version because of audio quality issues)
Probably good enough to represent the amp, but if you want to be fussy wait till after the Music Live event (the amps are bound to be there)
Rob...
the audio on a dvd video is compressed, but a dvd-audio is a different story, arguably capable of even better quality than SACD. unfortunately the format seems to have pretty much died for the time being, along with SACD. it's sad that people are more interested in really awful sounding mp3 files than fantastic quality audio, really amazes me almost every day just how dumb most people are. :cry:
anyway, even in Dolby Digital, the sound shouldn't be bad, but no matter what the playback format, there's no substitute for being in the room with the amp. it's the feel as much as the sound, the way you and your guitar interact with it. the whole can then be greater than the sum of it's parts :?
how many guitarists have produced great music, and great sounding music, with what you or i might consider cr@ppy equipment? and who's really to say what a cr@ppy sound is? there's the general consensus, and there's what your own ears hear. no one should dismiss this or any other amp just because others say it's no good.
-
I've heard the Guitarist CD sound clips too though. Same tone issues to me - way more modern than vintage (and not in a good way) :(
Can someone post these for me?
I thought they were supposed to come out thursday, so I went to Guitar Center to check them out but they didn't have any, or even know anything about them at all which makes me think the release date has been delated.
They do have a vintage/modern toggle switch too, but neither may sound acceptable in a good way....
-
the audio on a dvd video is compressed, but a dvd-audio is a different story, arguably capable of even better quality than SACD. unfortunately the format seems to have pretty much died for the time being, along with SACD. it's sad that people are more interested in really awful sounding mp3 files than fantastic quality audio, really amazes me almost every day just how dumb most people are. :cry:
how many guitarists have produced great music, and great sounding music, with what you or i might consider cr@ppy equipment? and who's really to say what a cr@ppy sound is? there's the general consensus, and there's what your own ears hear. no one should dismiss this or any other amp just because others say it's no good.
I stand corrected (but will blame James Guthry for my ignorance on the subject).
MP3 is (on the whole) for people who don't know any better, low bandwidth connections and also to get a reasonable number of tracks on a player (not so much of a problem these days). Though as I remember one of the main reasons for MP3 was for digital radio (so the goverments can raise more revinue by taking parts of the audio spectrum off broadcasters and then selling it back to them for digital transmission)
Well I adore the sound of John Lee Hooker, and certainly amp wise he used whatever happened to be about at the time, and I would kill for his tone (& ability it may be primitive but it even makes me want to dance)
Rob...
-
Remember DVD audio is also compressed and not meant for anything other than film soundtracks.
Thats why floyd released the anniv Dark Side on SACD not DVD (there was a lot of debate and James Guthrie ended the discussion by refusing to do a DVD version because of audio quality issues)
Probably good enough to represent the amp, but if you want to be fussy wait till after the Music Live event (the amps are bound to be there)
Rob...
the audio on a dvd video is compressed, but a dvd-audio is a different story, arguably capable of even better quality than SACD. unfortunately the format seems to have pretty much died for the time being, along with SACD. it's sad that people are more interested in really awful sounding mp3 files than fantastic quality audio, really amazes me almost every day just how dumb most people are. :cry:
anyway, even in Dolby Digital, the sound shouldn't be bad, but no matter what the playback format, there's no substitute for being in the room with the amp. it's the feel as much as the sound, the way you and your guitar interact with it. the whole can then be greater than the sum of it's parts :?
how many guitarists have produced great music, and great sounding music, with what you or i might consider cr@ppy equipment? and who's really to say what a cr@ppy sound is? there's the general consensus, and there's what your own ears hear. no one should dismiss this or any other amp just because others say it's no good.
i guess it just depends what you want. An MP3 player is a lot easier to carry around than an SACD player, and probably cheaper too- if you're commuting all the time, I can understand why an MP3 player would be popular.
It's a bit like guitarists who buy a modeller over a valve amp that does one tone magnificently- if you need the versatility, and don't have the cash for something like an Engl SE (or equivalent), you really don't have all that much choice (especially if you don't get the opportunity to crank the thing often, or at all).
As you say, who are we to say they're wrong?
-
i guess it just depends what you want. An MP3 player is a lot easier to carry around than an SACD player, and probably cheaper too- if you're commuting all the time, I can understand why an MP3 player would be popular.
It's a bit like guitarists who buy a modeller over a valve amp that does one tone magnificently- if you need the versatility, and don't have the cash for something like an Engl SE (or equivalent), you really don't have all that much choice (especially if you don't get the opportunity to crank the thing often, or at all).
As you say, who are we to say they're wrong?
I don't like MP3 but I have an MP3 player as the wife broke the mini disc that to me sounds far better (even at lower bit rates), and indeed when travelling cattle class from London to Belfast even a small portable SACD player would be unwieldy (even if there where enough releases out there to justify it)
I have a blues Jr that gives me a decent clean and a decent bluesey tone (especially with single coils) thats fine for 70% of the time, for the rest it's a modeller. Though thanks to you guys I want the option of something harder hitting than the Blues Jr now.
Sometimes expedience wins out over quality, but almost everything I acquire in the ROIO world is download in a lossless format, as poor recording equipment etc don't need the cr@ppy quality boosted by intentionally lossy encoding.
What I meant was listen to the marshalls with your own ears before judging quality, as you are also having to tolerate what somebody else thinks is the best sound, for the average magazine readership as long as it's distorted and scooped its fine.
Ok it's probably awful (as it looks like an amp designed by the marketing dept) but give it a chance.
After all what happened to that fender amp from a few months ago that everybody wanted to try ? Did anybody actually try it.
Rob... (Jeez I talk too much)
-
^ seconded. I have minidisc too- I kind of stupidly bought a portable mini disc player just before (about a year before) ipods came out.
I already had them in my hifi, and at the time, minidisc was the best thing out- the sound quality is great- problem is, it's a pain to record- when I got mine anyway, you can only record at normal speed- if you want to record one hour of music, it takes you an hour.
Also, you have to carry loads of discs round with you.
-
I just listened to the clips and they didn't impress me. To me it sounds alot like the JCM2000 series. Still fizzy and still not enough balls. Though the cleans have improved a bit.
-
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=marshall+vintage+modern&search=Search
there's some clips up there peeps - i don't like it. Just a bit lacklustre...
-
^ cheers! that's a lot handier than me having to fire up my dvd player! :lol:
:drink:
-
Recent audio DVDs are of significantly higher quality than SACD by the specs. SACD uses 96khz for all the channels. DVD Audio uses 96 or 192, and can be stereo or 5.1 (stereo is less channels so more quality devoted to each channel even at 96 stereo vs 192 surround).
However in all practical purposes, DVD audio isn't all that much better. Both are quite high quality, and given a blind listening test, chances are no one would get it 100% right if even 60%.
Enough said about that.
-
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=marshall+vintage+modern&search=Search
there's some clips up there peeps - i don't like it. Just a bit lacklustre...
Thanks for posting. It's hard to tell from those clips really... sounds like it has possibly more balls and is significantly smoother than a JCM 2000, but it's still not quite perfect either. I'd like to hear it with the fourth tube turned on as well.
-
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=marshall+vintage+modern&search=Search
there's some clips up there peeps - i don't like it. Just a bit lacklustre...
Thanks for posting. It's hard to tell from those clips really... sounds like it has possibly more balls and is significantly smoother than a JCM 2000, but it's still not quite perfect either. I'd like to hear it with the fourth tube turned on as well.
that what i thought too- totally from the clips mind you, so far from a valid opinion. But yeah, from the clips I thought they sounded better than the jcm2000's.
I'm not fussed on them having digital reverb and fx loop, though.
-
i've just watched the DVD - obviously a lot higher quality - i'm more impressed with them, but still not blown away by any stretch. Still sounding lacklustre - sounds to me like the mids have been somehow...rounded? i like jagged biting mids.
Edit: Just got to the mid-boost part. sounds good. bit fizzy