Marshall Handwired??

[fps_dean]

the HW and the SLP doesnt sound the same, I'm NOT sayin' that one is better than the other, only that I think there are some caps in that change the tone (however they are not 2 different worlds its obvious), I think that people have to buy the one that they prefer.. the HW IMHO has a better tone but its very high priced, it gives you also the possibility to mod your amp completely in an easy way.. but in the end its all a matter of what you're searchin' and the money you have... try 'em and choose the best... for who thinks that old ones are better... maybe but I've seen many and I can say that only a 5% where completely stock, the other or have problems or have changes inside.. beware

PS : trannies thoeries are not true

I think there are some differences between them as well but nothing a couple hundred dollars in mods will not obtain.... but the tranny bit is very much true...

sorry if I have a different opinion    but I own a 1959HW head and I've changed it to all type of specs ('67, '68, '69, '70s  8) ) and I can assure you that when I've changed the Tranny the sound doesnt do that "big" change that people claim, the biggest difference you can hear comes from the change of filtering type, even caps change affect the tone a very small bit especially if you have an high filtering...
also the SLP is different in sound with the HW even when you have the same type of caps/filtering in it, the sound of the SLP is a bit more "metallic" and has less "boom" and deep I think that one can hear the difference simply, if you mod the SLP this differences remain if you change Power and Output Trannies things get better but you are goin' in the price range of the HW which have stock very good Trannies...
believe it or not thats my experience  :D

That's funny because a '68 spec and '69 spec and '70s spec are all exactly the same.  Some of the '67 specs are the same as well depending on the model and when it was made.  So the reason that it sounded the same was that you kept replacing the OT with the same one.  If you put in a different one, you would know!

A transformer swap is not that expensive as well.  You can buy a PCB 1959SLP and try about 3 OTs with labor, heavily mod the amp, retube and recap it and still spend less than you would on a single handwired with an 80s spec transformer in it for a brighter JCM 800ish sound.... and that is why the JCM 800 line 2203/2204s sounded brighter.

If you know anything about electronics, the only thing that handwired will do vs. PCB is theoretically use larger wires that do not drop below the resistance being carried over the wire.  Being that this is not a problem with PCB, there is no problem to be fixed.  If you wired the PCB exactly the same with the same components, it would sound the same.  And as I said, a small price will do that.

There is a website that discusses on how to convert a RI PCB Marshalls to sound just like the real thing... not a handwired RI, the real deal from back in the day and the first thing that you do is replace the transformer and a few components.  I think they also have a book as well, but the before and after clips were quite amazing what a few dollars into one of them will do.

[JamesHealey]

marshall are going to cut corners and always will dispite this "handwired" reissue stuff if they can cut corners on quality they will.. because there such a huge buisness regardless of the price tag they slap on the amps..

i'd never touch a marshall made after the JCM800 2203.. last great amp they made and it's a shame.

[fps_dean]

i'd never touch a marshall made after the JCM800 2203.. last great amp they made and it's a shame.

I pretty much agree with you but I thought the 900s were pretty good too but the dual channel 800s were pretty bad.  Honestly, I have a slightly modded SL-X and I kind of like it better than any of the 800s I've played.  The other 900s with clipping diodes are more of limited use though..

And even with a 2203/2204 you really gotta get the vertical input models too because when they went to horizontal inputs, they made a couple of small cost cutting options and with the lower gain levels, the extra thinness did it no favors.

[Hell Hound]

The early 900s were good but after that it's all cr@p IMO

[Bainzy]

Dammit my PC packs up for 2 weeks and all the decent threads come along at once!  :x

My suggestion would be to go with the little Marshall clones from www.ampmaker.com - the components are at least as good if not better than those in the 2061x and it's a reputable British company that I'd vouch for 100%.

The HW Marshalls do have on the whole slightly better components than their PCB counterparts, which helps Marshall perpetuate the myth that handwiring things makes them sound better. I don't think they're using it as an excuse to inflate the price though - the amount of time it takes to wire an amp by hand can be quite high, and bear in mind you're paying for British labour in wiring this amp at a real wage, not a chinese sweatshop. When Marshall want to inflate the price, they just make it a limited edition or slap Hendrix's name on it like the JTM 45/100's they've released - no way in hell are those amps worth several thousand pounds.

Saying that cross talk is a problem with PCB's is a bit of a moot point to be honest, since hand wired amps made in the style of the old Marshalls tend to use much longer component leads, physically larger capacitors etc to be more authentic, which increases cross talk. I've always had far more of it with turret board circuits than when using PCB's.

Marhshall didn't suddenly turn corporate or anything after the JCM800's were made - they've always been exactly the same, ie. that they know feck all about the amps they make. Marshall only used high quality components in the late 60's because that's what was there at the time - as far as they are concerned, as long as it's the right value it'll do. Marshall shouldn't have to search far and wide for good sounding examples of their old amps, they should be able to discern for themselves what makes a great sounding amplifier. By the way, for those who say that the 1959HW sounds bright or 'ratty' sounding, that's how the original amp sounded. I know the guy who owned the amp Marshall cloned for the 1959HW, and he said they made a perfect replica of it - including it's tonal flaws.

There's nothing particuarly special about any Marshall circuit, and they would all sound good as long as good components are used. If JCM900's were made in the 1960's they would probably have sounded good because Marshall will have had decent sounding transformers and capacitors in their parts bins. Those old components weren't even supposed to be 'high quality' anyway; aside from their military spec ratings, it's just a lucky coincidence that their composition means that they sound particuarly good for guitar amps. It becomes an issue when Marshall start using different components, but don't stop to think "hang on a minute, that doesn't sound as good, let's stick with the old components".  

That's funny because a '68 spec and '69 spec and '70s spec are all exactly the same.

That's not strictly true; there were plenty of transitional 12000 series amps made in 1968 with bassier values (I've actually heard that all these amps were made in 68 but cant say that for sure), and it wasn't until well into 1968 (midway I believe) that the lead circuit became standardised. In addition, 70's spec is different - for some reason Marshall decided to remove the .68uF cap on V2a, and started messing with the NFB setup and presence control.

[Johnny Mac]

Having seen a HW 100w head and also had a HW-series OT I wouldn't say they're shitee.  They're certainly better than the PCB amps, but I would say that the PCB amps can be modded to be better for less than the difference between the two models.

Also, anyone that buys a new Marshall valve amp is a f'in idiot - there are THOUSANDS of used Marshalls out there, save yourself some cash off the shop price.

 :twisted:

I'll second that! I saw a 50w plexi or that design at least witht the 4 inputs on the right, for $1250 in LV. Year was 1976 and it had been loved too.

[fps_dean]

That's not strictly true; there were plenty of transitional 12000 series amps made in 1968 with bassier values (I've actually heard that all these amps were made in 68 but cant say that for sure), and it wasn't until well into 1968 (midway I believe) that the lead circuit became standardised. In addition, 70's spec is different - for some reason Marshall decided to remove the .68uF cap on V2a, and started messing with the NFB setup and presence control.

Depends which one you get though.  The spec for the standard 100 watt transformers as found in the 1959SLP, the Dagnalls, did not change until 12 years later... of course some '68s still had the older, larger transformers in them as well, and sometimes you could get an oddball unit too.  With the Drakes (50 watters typically) they would change them around a bit more but most of them were very minor.

But yeah, Marshall was becoming very corporate and the reason they went PCB was to reduce costs, speed up production times, etc.  Most of the cost cutting options started in the mid 80s though.  I do prefer the '69-'74 era Marshalls to JCM 800s by quite a bit though, and as Heavier than Hell suggested, they can be purchased starting at a quarter the price of a new handwired.  I've seen some dead mint sell from $800 to $1500.

The reissues, HW and PCB sound very thin where the old Marshalls have this gigantic tone.

[fps_dean]

The early 900s were good but after that it's all cr@p IMO

The early ones were the super thin sounding ones, at least compared to the later ones.... ever played a SL-X?

[Johnny Mac]

Hi Rooky,

Welcome to the forum!

A good scr@p is a cool way to start a good friendship IMHO!  :D  8)

So did you come here to find out about the pickups?

My mate in a very big tribute band which tours the UK full time tried the handwired plexi. He didn't like it and went back to his JMP pre-amp and 100 stereo valve monoblock rack stuff. It's never gone wrong, he has it seviced once a year and it sounds brilliant.

Just thought I'd add that. I'm not taking sides here either.

 8)

[Bainzy]

That's not strictly true; there were plenty of transitional 12000 series amps made in 1968 with bassier values (I've actually heard that all these amps were made in 68 but cant say that for sure), and it wasn't until well into 1968 (midway I believe) that the lead circuit became standardised. In addition, 70's spec is different - for some reason Marshall decided to remove the .68uF cap on V2a, and started messing with the NFB setup and presence control.

Depends which one you get though.  The spec for the standard 100 watt transformers as found in the 1959SLP, the Dagnalls, did not change until 12 years later... of course some '68s still had the older, larger transformers in them as well, and sometimes you could get an oddball unit too.  With the Drakes (50 watters typically) they would change them around a bit more but most of them were very minor.

I think he was referring to circuit spec though, not transformer spec.

[fps_dean]

That's not strictly true; there were plenty of transitional 12000 series amps made in 1968 with bassier values (I've actually heard that all these amps were made in 68 but cant say that for sure), and it wasn't until well into 1968 (midway I believe) that the lead circuit became standardised. In addition, 70's spec is different - for some reason Marshall decided to remove the .68uF cap on V2a, and started messing with the NFB setup and presence control.

Depends which one you get though.  The spec for the standard 100 watt transformers as found in the 1959SLP, the Dagnalls, did not change until 12 years later... of course some '68s still had the older, larger transformers in them as well, and sometimes you could get an oddball unit too.  With the Drakes (50 watters typically) they would change them around a bit more but most of them were very minor.

I think he was referring to circuit spec though, not transformer spec.

Oh this was about transformers.  Around 1970 we got some resistors changed to up the gain level, but thin out the tone a little bit too as gain was becoming in demand.

[HTH AMPS]

Around 1970 we got some resistors changed to up the gain level, but thin out the tone a little bit too as gain was becoming in demand.

That thin tone is mainly a combination of the (split cathode) lead circuit and the big (4700pF, sometimes even 680pF) bright cap on the volume pot.

With the volume set lower 2 or 3 you're getting alot of extra treble you don't want and also lose all that gradual onset of overdrive.  Those 70s Marshalls were born to RAWK - turn 'em up past 5 to get the glory  :D

 :twisted:

[fps_dean]

Around 1970 we got some resistors changed to up the gain level, but thin out the tone a little bit too as gain was becoming in demand.

That thin tone is mainly a combination of the (split cathode) lead circuit and the big (4700pF, sometimes even 680pF) bright cap on the volume pot.

With the volume set lower 2 or 3 you're getting alot of extra treble you don't want and also lose all that gradual onset of overdrive.  Those 70s Marshalls were born to RAWK - turn 'em up past 5 to get the glory  :D

 :twisted:

Yeah the resistors don't thin the tone out that much, and it's not like they dropped them that much then either....  they were still a much higher value than most modern amps today are.

[rooky]

Hi Rooky,

Welcome to the forum!

A good scr@p is a cool way to start a good friendship IMHO!  :D  8)

So did you come here to find out about the pickups?

My mate in a very big tribute band which tours the UK full time tried the handwired plexi. He didn't like it and went back to his JMP pre-amp and 100 stereo valve monoblock rack stuff. It's never gone wrong, he has it seviced once a year and it sounds brilliant.

Just thought I'd add that. I'm not taking sides here either.

 8)

Thanks for the welcome Johnny. as some of you might have guessed I work in the the musical equipment manufacturing business. What I had to say was not about Marshall in particular but about hand wired amps in general. I worked in product development for a very large multinational for a number of years and participated in the meetings that decided which way a product would go and thought I'd speak up particularly since guys like yourselves are well into vintage sound and vintage gear.

My band like so many others now use a big PA system with solid state power amps, guitar pre-amps and virtually no back line so the comments were specifically aimed at guitar amps

Nothing I said was speculative it was all hard fact.

I love the pickups by the way; it's a shame that there isn't more gear out there to match them

[HTH AMPS]

Around 1970 we got some resistors changed to up the gain level, but thin out the tone a little bit too as gain was becoming in demand.

That thin tone is mainly a combination of the (split cathode) lead circuit and the big (4700pF, sometimes even 680pF) bright cap on the volume pot.

With the volume set lower 2 or 3 you're getting alot of extra treble you don't want and also lose all that gradual onset of overdrive.  Those 70s Marshalls were born to RAWK - turn 'em up past 5 to get the glory  :D

 :twisted:

Yeah the resistors don't thin the tone out that much, and it's not like they dropped them that much then either....  they were still a much higher value than most modern amps today are.

what you say 'dropped them' I'm not sure what you mean - do you mean their wattage rating or the actual value of the resistor?

 :?