How much can we trust reviews the new Marshall DSL's are going to get ?

darcym

ICBM said:

Telejester said:

Im real keen to try the new dsl20 hr head but I do know the older dsl's are hideous under the lid and i hope this wont be repeated.

The current Vietnamese-made series is much better than the previous UK-made series.

timmysoft said:

I've said it before, I toured with old DSL's, hundreds of gigs every year, shit venues, cold vans, sweatbox festivals and it never missed a beat. I know plenty of guys who did the same. They've got a bad rep because there are so many out there, you're bound to get more failures.

Up to a point. It's not so much how many fail - although it is quite a lot, even in relation to the number out there - it's *why*. The type of failures shows serious design flaws and possibly a material quality issue.

Blown transformers are common - partly because both the amps and the cabinets use a poorly-designed impedance-switching system which can leave the amp with no load, partly because they're just not very good quality.

Burnt-out main PCBs are common because the layout is terrible and the material isn't good enough to withstand the voltages across it. Marshall had at least two goes at re-designing it and still didn't fix it completely.

Any of these failures is a roughly £100 parts, plus labour, repair - even if valves don't blow as well (they often do). Repair bills well over £200 are not unusual.

There are several other more minor faults too, including bias runaway or outright failure which can destroy the whole set of power valves.

Compare them to the other really common valve amp - the Fender Hotrod series - and although the number of failures is probably roughly similar, the severity of the ones on the Marshalls is usually far worse. It wouldn't be an exaggeration that I've changed more than ten times as many transformers on Marshall DSLs and TSLs (same amp apart from the control section) as Fender Hotrods, and I've never had to replace a board on a Hotrod (Blues Juniors are another matter!).

I don't deny that you may well have used DSLs with no trouble - you were lucky, or at least not unlucky. The proportion of failures means the majority of users probably don't experience them, but it's still far higher than it should be.

Ask any tech, not just me.

I'm sure I've asked you this in previous threads but I can't find them.
Like Timmysoft - I've got 3 DSL's 50/100 heads, the old version, and I've never had a single problem with them at all, I have them maintained by a professional, and it's just normal wear and tear. 

That said....I have zero doubt about what you are saying as too many knowledgable people say almost word for word the same thing, and the internet is filled with tails of the amps dying, some in quiet spectacular fashion. 

Is there anything a professional amp tech could do to fix these flaws, make them road worthy without impacting the sound ? 
I don't use these amps often, but when I do I have a "burst" of using them and would love them to be road worthy incase my luck has run out (it must be 10+ years of using them - so it has to run out at some point).

I've been told "get the new version they are designed so much better" but I've a/b'd them and I don't like them compared to the older version, especially the 40 watt version, so what can be done with the 50/100 watt old version to get them to spec ?

ICBM

darcym said:

Like Timmysoft - I've got 3 DSL's 50/100 heads, the old version, and I've never had a single problem with them at all, I have them maintained by a professional, and it's just normal wear and tear. 

That said....I have zero doubt about what you are saying as too many knowledgable people say almost word for word the same thing, and the internet is filled with tails of the amps dying, some in quiet spectacular fashion. 

Is there anything a professional amp tech could do to fix these flaws, make them road worthy without impacting the sound ? 
I don't use these amps often, but when I do I have a "burst" of using them and would love them to be road worthy incase my luck has run out (it must be 10+ years of using them - so it has to run out at some point).

I've been told "get the new version they are designed so much better" but I've a/b'd them and I don't like them compared to the older version, especially the 40 watt version, so what can be done with the 50/100 watt old version to get them to spec ?

There are some improvements you can make - in particular bypassing the stupid speaker circuit switching, and using the latest version of the main PCB (although that's over £100 for the part) - but at the end of the day you can't really make them totally reliable, there's just too much wrong with the design and the quality of the major parts.

Probably the best thing you can do is to get a 100W one and convert it to a 50 - removing the valve sockets and all associated components from the 2 and 4 positions, which are where the bulk of the board failures occur, and reconnecting the output transformer to match the impedance, removing the 4-ohm option. This also stresses the transformers less because they're then only operating at half power. I've done that (and all the other upgrades, including hardwiring the cabinets to 16 ohms) to several belonging to rehearsal studios I work for, and they have proved pretty reliable since, although every one of them blew up at least once before I did this.

And even then one had a blown output transformer recently… although it's impossible to tell if it had been abused.

Telejester

if the dsl20hr head performs like it should then count me in as interested, but am i going to splash the cash when they  come out in november , and gear mong tom quayle says its the best amp he has ever played and then a gushfeast from lee anderton and that idiot chapman quickly follows.....you bet your freakin life i will not.

of course guitarist mag will be all over the dsl range like a randy alsation behind a bitch in heat, but i think i will sit it out a while and see if people are saying the new dsl range is good and watch and see if online boards gets swamped with blown tranny stories or other things that are the result of poorly designed and cheaply made amps. im in no hurry and it will be interesting to see, i just wish mjw were still making amps.

ICBM

I can't speak for the other techs but I haven't seen a single one of the new DSL series for any repair other than a blown valve yet. Marshall appear to have finally got a grip on the design and quality problems, I think - after a terrible run of about 20 to 25 years where almost nothing they did was really any good. The JVMs are proving pretty reliable - I've only seen one dead one, for some sort of obscure switching fault I couldn't diagnose (it went back to Marshall), and someone brought me a blown transformer out of one to test to see if it was really dead… but that's it. Even the current MG series seems totally reliable, I've never even seen one.

Before that the history isn't good, from about the JTM30/60 onwards they pretty much all have serious design and build quality issues. Even the JCM900s only seem better by comparison with what followed… at the time they came out they were a massive downgrade from the 800s. The low point is probably the Mode Four, but a few of the other attempts around that time weren't good either.

darcym

it really saddens me to hear such utter crap design for no reason other than lazy/cheap approach.

I need some good "marshall" amps in the arsenal, and the DSL's where a pretty good all rounder, because I use them so infrequently I struggle to justify grabbing the Friedman smallbox and a few others I'd need to get the spread of sounds I want, So frustrating how a few sloppy bits of work taints a pretty solid / value for money amp.

jpfamps

darcym said:

it really saddens me to hear such utter crap design for no reason other than lazy/cheap approach.

You forgot at add incompetence.

jpfamps

darcym said:

it really saddens me to hear such utter crap design for no reason other than lazy/cheap approach.

You forgot at add incompetence.

ICBM

darcym said:

it really saddens me to hear such utter crap design for no reason other than lazy/cheap approach.

I need some good "marshall" amps in the arsenal, and the DSL's where a pretty good all rounder, because I use them so infrequently I struggle to justify grabbing the Friedman smallbox and a few others I'd need to get the spread of sounds I want, So frustrating how a few sloppy bits of work taints a pretty solid / value for money amp.

It wasn't just a few bits of sloppy work, it was an entire cultural shift at Marshall, really - I'm pretty sure it started after Jim stopped being the hands-on CEO and became just a figurehead. A friend of mine described the design process for each new series after that as "what can we get away with this time?" and from my point of view there's a lot of truth in that.

The first time I opened up a JCM900 I was shocked - not just by the amount of solid-state in what was still marketed as a 'valve' amp, but the low quality of the pots and the way they were anchored to the panel, the lack of a proper choke in the power supply, and even the poor fit of the chassis to the cabinet. It only got worse from there…

30th Anniversary - sounds great… when it works.
Valvestate - flimsy MDF cabinets, rattly construction. (They sound good and are not that unreliable, at least.)
JTM30/60/JCM600 - terrible layout, prone to overheating and transformer failures, MDF cabinets etc.
DSL/TSL series - enough said already. (Other than that the TSL60 is the weakest-sounding 60W valve amp I've ever heard.)
AVT series - fan-cooled IC power modules which blow if the wind changes direction.
MG-DFX series - ditto.
Mode Four - double ditto - four AVT power modules in a box, four times the failure rate!
Vintage Modern - some good ideas, but poorly executed and with some critical cost-cutting which made them unreliable, and stupid footswitching.
Class 5 - 'The Rattler', and sounds poor - no headroom even for 5W, and oddly too loud and too quiet at the same time.
Haze series - oh dear. Unreliable and sound shit.
MA series - starting to run out of descriptive terms now…
JVM410 (1st version) - finally some improvement, but needed Joe Satriani to tell them how to do it right.

There may be more which I have forgotten - or blanked out.

It's really sad how much time and money they must have spent over the years developing most of these, and the fortune it must have cost for warranty repairs on some of them in particular. It's really been noticeable how much less reliable almost any modern Marshall product has been than their direct competition - even 'cheap' brands - until the current series.

It doesn't make me happy to say this, I started playing Marshalls in the mid-80s because they were great amps, and I would just like them to be again… I'm not a 'hater', just disappointed really. But now with some hope.

TTBZ

---

Nerine

As I just mentioned in another thread, Marshall's NPD department need sacking. They're totally useless. Along with Gibson's, actually. 

The only good amps Marshall make is the Handwired and Vintage Reissue series. 

That said, at least they still make those properly and they still sound as they should. 

Their lines that aren't the above are totally laughable. They've had more flops than a poker table. 

TTBZ

DSL is one of the most successful Marshall amp series iirc... makes sense to give it a bit of a revamp. Astoria was a bit of a flop but they're great amps.

Plectrum

I think the new 20 watters will fly off the shelves.

ICBM

Plectrum said:

I think the new 20 watters will fly off the shelves.

I think it's becoming fairly obvious that around 20W seems to be an 'optimum power' for many players. (And I say that even though I like the 'thump' of bigger amps.)

In my opinion, rather than release a new series with a common sound and different power levels, they should also introduce a new series all with 20W output and the various different historic voicings, in a head box that's a more useful size in the modern world - ie will fit comfortably on a 1x12" cab.

Basically like the 50th Anniversary 1W series, but with usable power and which actually sound good .

The production economies of being able to use the same transformer set and head box size for all of them would be substantial, I think.

Telejester

Plectrum said:

I think the new 20 watters will fly off the shelves.

as long as they dont fly off the shelves straight onto a tech workbench

Plectrum

Telejester said:

Plectrum said:

I think the new 20 watters will fly off the shelves.

as long as they dont fly off the shelves straight onto a tech workbench

There's no reason to believe that the new ones will be any less reliable than the current-soon-to-b-ex series.

Telejester

Plectrum said:

Telejester said:

Plectrum said:

I think the new 20 watters will fly off the shelves.

as long as they dont fly off the shelves straight onto a tech workbench

There's no reason to believe that the new ones will be any less reliable than the current-soon-to-b-ex series.

im only being extremely cautious as I had a new dsl50 head which blew a transformer in no time and a new dsl100 head which blew a transformer right out of the box......thats pretty shit by anyone's expectations. on both heads the ultra gain channel sounded dreadful and the reverb was pathetic to say the least.

Nerine

ICBM said:

Plectrum said:

I think the new 20 watters will fly off the shelves.

I think it's becoming fairly obvious that around 20W seems to be an 'optimum power' for many players. (And I say that even though I like the 'thump' of bigger amps.)

In my opinion, rather than release a new series with a common sound and different power levels, they should also introduce a new series all with 20W output and the various different historic voicings, in a head box that's a more useful size in the modern world - ie will fit comfortably on a 1x12" cab.

Basically like the 50th Anniversary 1W series, but with usable power and which actually sound good .

The production economies of being able to use the same transformer set and head box size for all of them would be substantial, I think.

That would all make too much sense...  

ICBM

Telejester said:

im only being extremely cautious as I had a new dsl50 head which blew a transformer in no time and a new dsl100 head which blew a transformer right out of the box......thats pretty shit by anyone's expectations

That's pretty unusual even by their standards. Out of curiosity, what cab were you using - the standard Marshall 1960 4x12" with the switching panel?

Telejester

ICBM said:

Telejester said:

im only being extremely cautious as I had a new dsl50 head which blew a transformer in no time and a new dsl100 head which blew a transformer right out of the box......thats pretty shit by anyone's expectations

That's pretty unusual even by their standards. Out of curiosity, what cab were you using - the standard Marshall 1960 4x12" with the switching panel?

no it was a cornford 2 x 12 cab

ICBM

Telejester said:

no it was a cornford 2 x 12 cab

Sounds like just crap transformers then, unless you had a faulty speaker cable. The other problem if it was an 8-ohm cab is that the switch in the 16-ohm jack (which the current to the 4/8-ohm jacks has to pass through) can do it, but it would be unlikely that two new amps would both have the same fault. For what it's worth that's a truly stupid design mistake that anyone with practical experience with valve amp repairs should never have made, but which is sadly typical of several faults on these amps.

I don't blame you for being suspicious about the new ones...