Author Topic: Good clean amp (Read 20226 times)

Henk · « **Reply #60 on:** January 17, 2008, 10:13:56 AM »

Dont need to pull out a valve offcourse(really stupid to suggest such a thing), its a T S/N so its from 1985. Its still basically an upgraded 2204, and no it does not have the 'bleed' flaw the 2210 design had in the earlier version. The filtering and power supply structure was changed in '86 i think, the 2205 design was changed after the 2210.

Anyway, this one sounds pretty good to me, would like to have other tubes then the EL34's in it some time, still this one is still stock which makes me hesitate to alter it. For what its worth i dont believe anything written about these marshalls, i have heard better tones coming from a JCM900 HG dual rev after a point to point mod(i think it was called that), so nothing lost. If you have a later 2210 with a cheaper OT(main difference IMO) and such, just replace them with a better one, small cost, big tone!

_tom_ · « **Reply #61 on:** January 17, 2008, 10:18:42 AM »

I tried out a 900 dual reverb a while ago, I honestly dont see why they ever get bad rep, it sounded great. Ok so it was shite through the Marshall cab, but through my G12H cab it was awesome, I even liked the clean channel.

Henk · « **Reply #62 on:** January 17, 2008, 11:03:27 AM »

Thats what its about i guess, listen and develop your hearing. Alot is said about the post JCM 2203/2204 production JCM's. I dont really agree with the 'they s@ck because they have no 100% valve cirquits'. There are some good mods made to the late JCM800's and the 900's, offcourse some cost reduction modifications, like the cheap OT, are a shame but can bet corrected IMO. If i remember correctly the modded JCM900 i was talking about had all non tube cirquits replaced with old JMP spec cirquits, greatly improving (clean) tone. Again getting to the bare truth of the matter i think earlier JCM's do have a better clean sound but when you play a RAW distorted kind of sound the later ones are AS good or even better IMVHO.

The only real problem i have with the stock JCM900's(and modern JCM's) is that the cranked sound of it is rather dissapointing IMO, ive heard most of this is due to the cheap OT, so that would be a 'must' to replace if i would get one.

LazyNinja · « **Reply #63 on:** January 17, 2008, 11:20:30 AM »

Quote from: Henk

Dont need to pull out a valve offcourse(really stupid to suggest such a thing), its a T S/N so its from 1985. Its still basically an upgraded 2204, and no it does not have the 'bleed' flaw the 2210 design had in the earlier version. The filtering and power supply structure was changed in '86 i think, the 2205 design was changed after the 2210.

No, it's not a stupid suggestion it's just a sure way of telling which version you have without opening the amp up. It's not very clear when Marshall changed the spec as I've heard of some people with their '84 models with the later spec whilst some with their '86 with earlier spec. I've looked around the net about this amp when I bought it and it seems that none of the 2210 models, early or later are free of the bleed problem. It's just less obvious on the later ones. Apparently, it's to do with the channel switching mechanism which uses transistors.

Early ones - boost bleeds into normal
Later ones - normal bleeds into boost

Now, I know the later 2205s have the same bleed characteristic as the later 2210s (I know because I used to have one). I'm not sure about the early 2205s. I thought they were similar to the early 2210s but from what you say it might not be the same.

A lot of people with later versions pull the v2 out permanently to disable the normal channel for good to prevent the bleeding completely.

Quote

Anyway, this one sounds pretty good to me, would like to have other tubes then the EL34's in it some time, still this one is still stock which makes me hesitate to alter it. For what its worth i dont believe anything written about these marshalls, i have heard better tones coming from a JCM900 HG dual rev after a point to point mod(i think it was called that), so nothing lost.

Sorry I didn't follow you there. But if you meant that 2205/2210s have bad rep but you don't agree with them, I agree with you. I think they sound great :) EDIT:I was saying I wanted to sell mine because I want a more vintage voiced Marshall.

Quote

If you have a later 2210 with a cheaper OT(main difference IMO) and such, just replace them with a better one, small cost, big tone!

Is this true? I had no idea that the later ones had cheap transformers. They are huge.

Henk · « **Reply #64 on:** January 17, 2008, 01:11:35 PM »

Well actually a 2 channel/one master amp does bleed when the switching is bad, ive heard that alot op early 2205 had their switching diodes(?) changed and some resistors to prevent bleeding, never had any bleed issues but ill check it out again when cranked. It could also be a dodgy channel switch though, at least i think.

Ive found that the 2205 and 2210 schematics were officially changed in 1988, i have read here that there also have been cost reducing alterations in 1985(they changed the 2203 in '86, sorry for the mixup) on the 100w models.

Quote

However, during circa 1985, the design of the 100 watt JCM 800 series changed in order to cut costs.

Quote

The circa late-1986 2203's, to reduce costs further, incorporated reduced power supply requirements and specifications and was able to eliminate one "pair" of the series-run caps, reducing the number to three filter caps total.

Source: http://www.legendarytones.com/marshallshoppers2.html

If i look at the transformers(not only the OT, the only thing i can see on the outside is that the smallest in the earlier versions is the same silver color and in the later versions is a bit more copper color. Mine also has a label saying T100 on it and the later ones dont have that. I do think most differences would be on the inside though....

I think all transformers were originally drake transformers, but mine have different labels then the later ones, later ones have date stamps on the label.

PS. Try 6550 tubes, theyll sound much more vintage marshall.

RadioElectric · « **Reply #65 on:** January 17, 2008, 03:49:44 PM »

I played a Sessionette 75 watt MOSFET amp when I was in halls last year. I never played it very loud but so long as it's the afternoon nobody will complain really at university.

You're not the only person who will be noisy. There'll be musicians with more traditional instruments who can't control volume when they practice and people who insist on blasting their music 24/7. I did find that the walls were better soundproofed than I expected, you might want to experiment and see the volume you have to reach before people can hear you outside the room, and then how loud you can go before it becomes objectionable. One instrument that this doesn't apply to is normal acoustic drums. They will not survive in a university environment as I have seen first-hand.

I never had anybody complain about the volume of my guitar, on the contrary, I got a few people who were interested in learning. Even better, when I was staying with my ex-girlfriend in Cardiff University's halls for a week having bought a *deep breath* Squier Master Series Chambered Mahogany Telecaster I borrowed an amp from a friend of her's to keep myself busy during the day time and as a result met some guitarists to hang out with who overheard my playing and knocked on the window.

I'm staying in a house this year where I've converted the basement from "dark-hellish-tip" to a carpeted, lit practice room (a friend I live with has an electric drum kit with a special amp for it down there too). In my room I have an Epiphone Valve Junior amp that cost me £120. It gives very good cleans. I've also made a lightbulb attenuator for it so I can get it into crunch at a lower volume.

Sorry if there are lots of typos etc. in the above, I did it on my girlfriend's macbook pro and it has an annoying keyboard.

sgmypod · « **Reply #66 on:** January 17, 2008, 03:53:59 PM »

Lightbulb attenuator?

RadioElectric · « **Reply #67 on:** January 17, 2008, 05:45:26 PM »

It's basically a jack socket soldered to two lightbulbs in parallel soldered to another jack socket with a bypass switch. It goes between the speaker out of the amp and the speaker. The lighbulbs have a variable resistance depending on how much current is running through them so they act a bit like a compressor. Also, the lightbulbs light and flash in time with your playing. Quite fun.

EDIT: I should add that they're little lightbulbs, 7 volt I think.

Henk · « **Reply #68 on:** January 18, 2008, 10:41:46 AM »

Ohh man i just hate this, but anyway i ended up taking my amp apart last night just to find out how and what.

It seems they changed the switching (and some other stuff i cant figure out) judging from the schematics and the soldering. It seems like they put the switching in the beginning of the schematic and relayed the clean channel instead of the other way around.

The only thing i can hear is the gain channel set at low volume getting the hotter power stage from a cranked clean channel when the gain channel is set very low. When i crank both you cant hear any difference or bleed. The clean channel pretty much sounds the same regardless of the gain channel being cranked, dont see any difference on the power tube glow intensity either.

Actually it sound really good, like a build in attenuator, allthough it is a bit noisier then when both are set at low volume. I did check the power tubes and they do glow a bit more intense with the clean channel cranked.

The master volume pot seems to be replaced with a different one then stock too, not sure though but its alot larger then the other volume pots at least.

_tom_ · « **Reply #69 on:** January 18, 2008, 01:06:48 PM »

Heard a band last night using Laney VC amps and they sounded great for medium gain, so am now thinking about getting a VC15 and some kind of attenuator. The lightbulb attenuator sounds interesting, do you have a diagram/picture of it and is it possible to make one suitable for 15w amps?

Henk · « **Reply #70 on:** January 18, 2008, 02:21:08 PM »

Errrrr, are there any Laney's suitable for high gain??????

I always though they sounded fairly like marshall head but then a bit thicker and with a bit more low end basically.

If you have a 50watt head it wont sound much different then a 15 watt. Actually the 15w VC sounds very bland IMO.

Just try this, volumes at 3, gain just over noon(find 'dirty rock' sweet spot but definately not past 3 oclock), eq at B-noon, M-1 oclock, H-2 oclock. At this setting the preamp gets a sweet edgy tone, quite dirty but then..... Put a booster in front (just some basic od pedal is fine, distortion works differently though), volume at 2-3 oclock and gain at about 8-9 oclock st start with. Now when you kick in the booster the amp goes from a nice edgy dirt to nicely saturated drive, open up the gain/volume a bit to find the right amount of gain. Could be you need to cut a bit on the lows bit if i remember correctly it worked fine on the laney combo i tried,

This pretty much works on any 50w marshall type amp, if it doesnt like the teets your doing something wrong!!! :lol:

_tom_ · « **Reply #71 on:** January 18, 2008, 02:27:56 PM »

The GH has loads of gain if you want it. With a booster to tighten up the low end its great for metal if thats what you're into. Will try out the GH on clean with a booster when I get home next, I'm thinking of making a BYOC Screamer clone.

I've only tried a VC30, it sounded good to me. Apparently they're greatly improved with a speaker change though, the stock ones arent meant to be amazing.

Henk · « **Reply #72 on:** January 18, 2008, 03:03:10 PM »

Yeah i know it can be done,

http://www.myspace.com/consumingimpulse

But not many do it this well..... (marshall though not laney)

Anyway, ive tried but i guess youve given up on your amp, still a shame though since i think amps are basically very similar, just need a good tweakin', well that and a cab with greenbacks offcourse :P

PS: at least listen Twisted truth :twisted:

_tom_ · « **Reply #73 on:** January 18, 2008, 03:09:14 PM »

Well I'll give it a go, I actually quite like the cleans I get from the GH. Would try a blackstar pedal out but theyre quite expensive and I dont know anywhere locally that sells them.

edit - just listening to Pestilence now, not a bad tone but really thin, typical thrash style sound though. Listen to the You Could be Mine cover in the link in my sig, I love the recorded tone I got for rock, slightly fizzy/high gain (master was only on 1, which is still too loud for playing at home for more than 10 minutes) but I like it :)

Henk · « **Reply #74 on:** January 18, 2008, 03:38:30 PM »

The cleans are the hardest to get right because one cant do much to the power amp part, the preamp can be made to sound like you want usually. The blackstar is the most versatile stompbox ive had, the ISF voicing makes it sound totally different with a nodge. It sounds quite alot like a marshall preamp, at least the dist version does, i would try them out before you buy one because there is a subtle difference between them you have to hear to make your mind up IMO. I do think either dist or dual would be great though. I do think the dist i have sounds best on the clean channel though, it does sound impressive on the gain channel too, but a normal stombox is less noisy and is tighter sounding IMO.