Author Topic: Buying a new stack! Laney, Marshall or something else? (Read 19115 times)

LazyNinja · « **on:** December 11, 2006, 03:30:48 PM »

Hi everyone, first of all I'm new and this is my first post so nice to meet you all :D
I play a Gibson LP studio with BKP Nailbombs set :twisted: and I have a Fender HRD combo and use Keeley MT-2 with BOSS CS-2 thru the clean channle to get my gain sound. BUT,

I want a proper high(ish) gain amp so that I dont need to depend on the stomp boxes (I want to keep them effects-only). And since my band started gigging recently, i thought I'd get myself a stack. My budget is around 800 quid. I was looking at:

Marshall DSL50 + 1960AV
as above but TSL60/100
Laney GH50L + GS412 or TT412 (or with a marshall cab)
Laney VH100R + same

I'm kinda leaning towards the VH100R due to good reviews and when I heard it live at a local gig. But it's the most expensive of the lot and I'm not sure if i need 100 watts.
Are there people with experiences on the amps mentioned above? what are the advantages of each and if have you experienced any troubles?

Feel free to make any suggestions!

Thanks

_tom_ · « **Reply #1 on:** December 11, 2006, 03:37:10 PM »

If you dont really need a perfectly clean channel, I'd go for a GH50L. I got one and it sounds really good for any music. Can get kinda bluesy cleans when you roll back the guitars volume with the gain boost not engaged but if you want to switch from Fendery clean to brutal high gain I dont think it'll work very well for that.. If you do go for a Laney bare in mind they're really bright amps so they dont tend to work well with really bright speakers.

Oh and the other guitarist in the band I'm in uses a DSL50, even he agrees the Laney sounds loads better (which is funny as my head and cab cost less combined than his head did I think) :D

Twinfan · « **Reply #2 on:** December 11, 2006, 03:45:41 PM »

Greetings matey :D

First question - are you looking to buy new? If so, then you'll struggle to get a 1960AV or a TT412 as they've been discontinued. I was looking to swap my 1960A for one of those two cabs but ended up just swapping the speakers instead as I couldn't get one for a reasonable price.

I have a GH50L and (what's now) a 1960AV and it's a great combination. The GH50L is very bass and low mid heavy, and combined with the four V30s it gives a very thick sound. Think of a cross between Black Sabbath and Guns 'N' Roses and you're probably in the right ballpark. It's solid as a rock and I've had no problems with it at all, and neither did the previous owner.

The DSL50 gets good reviews and is a good Marshall by all accounts, but it will be more expensive than the GH50L. You do get two channels though (the GH50L is single channel) so it depends if you need the clean channel or not (I never use one).

Second question - how much versatility do you need? I wouldn't bother getting a dual or triple channel amp if you're only ever going to use one of them. Waste of time and money! How many tones do you need?

Final question - what size gigs are you playing? I play small to large pub gigs and 50w through a 4x12 is more than enough. At bigger venues than that you'd usually mic up to a PA so 100w is really not necessary these days. I would suggest sticking to 50w as they break up easier too and have a slightly sweteer tone than 100w. They're also cheaper to re-valve (2 EL34s rather than 4).

For a good all round setup that can cover a lot of bases I think a DSL50 and a 4x12 with your preferred speakers would be the way to go. If you don't need the clean channel, I'd get a GH50L.

LazyNinja · « **Reply #3 on:** December 11, 2006, 03:50:16 PM »

heh that direct comparison with the DSL is very interesting... As you said, the DSL costs more so I'm guessing we're paying more for the badge then :(

GH50L does sound very good I know coz Opeth sabbath Paul Gilbert etc use em right? I like their tone a lot. But is it pretty much impossible to get a clean clean sound from the GH50L with it rolled to a high gain setting? Shame, because what I play does require clean sound. I'm using the Fender atm so I don't want too much of a drop in the clean tone quality.

Twinfan · « **Reply #4 on:** December 11, 2006, 03:53:15 PM »

Quote from: LazyNinja

GH50L does sound very good I know coz Opeth sabbath Paul Gilbert etc use em right? I like their tone a lot. But is it pretty much impossible to get a clean clean sound from the GH50L with it rolled to a high gain setting? Shame, because what I play does require clean sound. I'm using the Fender atm so I don't want too much of a drop in the clean tone quality.

How about the TT50H? Triple channel, 50w head?

http://www.imuso.co.uk/ProductDetail.asp?StockCode=EG01252

LazyNinja · « **Reply #5 on:** December 11, 2006, 03:55:52 PM »

Sorry, the title was probably misleading. I dont mind buying second hand, but preferably new coz i have had a few bad experiences, mainly thru ebay.

I dont really need three channel. But I do want two. A good clean and a good gain.

Didnt know that AV or TT were discontinued...shocking coz Vintage 30s rock!

indysmith · « **Reply #6 on:** December 11, 2006, 03:56:44 PM »

how about using the fender for clean and the Laney for oveerdriven sounds?

Twinfan · « **Reply #7 on:** December 11, 2006, 04:00:03 PM »

Quote from: indysmith

how about using the fender for clean and the Laney for oveerdriven sounds?

Bit of a hassle for gigs. I lug two amp heads about and that's bad enough!

You might struggle to find the 1960AV and TT412A used as they don't crop up on eBay very often. I'm not sure who makes a decent priced 4x12 with V30s any more. You could always buy a 1960A (which crop up a lot) for around £200 and then swap the speakers. Selling the originals would then recoup some of the cost.

For the head, I would say try the TT50H and the DSL50 as they sound like just the thing you're after within your price range.

LazyNinja · « **Reply #8 on:** December 11, 2006, 04:06:03 PM »

Quote from: indysmith

how about using the fender for clean and the Laney for oveerdriven sounds?

I suppose that's an option but it's such a trouble so I doubt i'd do that.

I like the idea of the TT50H twinfan. I've never heard it in flesh properly though (the reason why I say properly is because Dragonforce's tones are so ...well. bizarre). Does the TT have a lot of gain on its own?

Crazy_Joe · « **Reply #9 on:** December 11, 2006, 04:09:15 PM »

Laney all the way.

Twinfan · « **Reply #10 on:** December 11, 2006, 05:36:41 PM »

Quote from: LazyNinja

I like the idea of the TT50H twinfan. I've never heard it in flesh properly though (the reason why I say properly is because Dragonforce's tones are so ...well. bizarre). Does the TT have a lot of gain on its own?

No idea mate. It can't sound that different to a GH or VH though I wouldn't have thought? You could give Laney a call or drop them an email to ask?

indysmith · « **Reply #11 on:** December 11, 2006, 06:15:57 PM »

i lack patience with companies that don't have clips. i realise clips can never really do equipment justice, but they should be there to give a vague idea of the sound. Another annoying thing is 'gibson' style clips - which are always of their guitars played through loads of different spacey effects, into an amp that just ain't a marshall. People want to hear the guitar, played through a standard production amp that people know, and not your pedalboard yu bloody fool.
[/Rant]
Sorry about that folks.

Davey · « **Reply #12 on:** December 11, 2006, 07:13:59 PM »

Laney

JamesHealey · « **Reply #13 on:** December 11, 2006, 07:26:48 PM »

Laney pwns new marshalls

Davey · « **Reply #14 on:** December 11, 2006, 07:44:00 PM »

look for a llaney LH50R

it's what i got. two channel, GREAT cleans. AWESOME gain (very opeth like... you can get sabbath out of it any day of the week too, switch the pup to paralel, re-eq and you got gilbert sounds at your fingertips)

6L6 valves, so the cleans are close fenderish. realy nice, working EQ, so it's versatile in that respect.

only catch is, they are discontinued =/
i got mine for 390 euro NOS though, so it's not like they're ultra expencive.