Marshall JCM900 Series

[BleedMarshall]

Off subject, but why do people always say, "I played this amp today, and...", when you can't actually play an amp, but yet play through the amp? I have yet to see an amp with strings on it. :lol:

Hehe ... it's the parlance of the times!

:lol:

It is like people saying hot water heater. :? Why do you need HOT water heated anyway? :lol: Anyway...back on topic. Were we booing or cheering the JCM900? Oh yes....Yeah for the JCM900 w/ the gain turned down! :lol:

[Zinguera]

It seems that the Sl-X series are hard to get nowadays :roll:

is there another JCM 900 apart from SLX and Dual reverb?

[HTH AMPS]

is there another JCM 900 apart from SLX and Dual reverb?

there was the original single channel JCM900 before the SL-X came out, thats a nice amp too - there are some opamps in the signal channel on the original JCM900 though (if that bothers you).  Basically, if it sounds good then whether it's valve or transistor doesn't matter imo.

 :twisted:

[fps_dean]

They have a bad reputation because of the diodes in the preamp section of the Dual Reverb model. That results in a buzzy distortion.
The SL-X series on the other hand is a rock monster! :twisted:  It has 4 tubes in the preamp. It's almost like a hot rodded JCM800.

I got a '68-'80 spec Marstran OT installed on my SL-X and had the gain toned down a little and it does sound almost identical to a hotrodded early 70s Marshall now, and I can get a dry almost Mesa-like distortion out of it or typical Marshall distortion, and it sounds good now with the master volume below 5 where before it was almost unusable with the MV below 5.  I also got it all retubed, but the transformer and the mod work cost under $300 and was it ever worth it!

The dual reverbs or the original JCM 900 hi-gain heads properly biased (factory biasing is very cold and the MV at 10 sounds like it should at 7)
 were not bad either but they are sort of limiting.  I'd gladly take one over a newer Marshall without having to think about it.