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

What's Hot
13

Comments

  • gearaddictgearaddict Frets: 894
    edited November 2017
    Not dissing the experts on here but I think you need to form your own view. Buying a piece of gear based only on the design and build quality won't necessarily get you what you want. If we all made decisions based on that then nobody would ever buy a Gibson

    Not saying you should buy a piece of shit that's definitely going to break immediately but conversely, I've been guilty of being too influenced by technical opinions on things when actually I really liked a piece of kit and it was probably 'fine'.

    I loved my DSL50. But ,that said, it did die on me.
    1reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom
  • ICBMICBM Frets: 71951
    Not dissing the experts on here but I think you need to form your own view. Buying a piece of gear based only on the design and build quality won't necessarily get you what you want. If we all made decisions based on that then nobody would ever buy a Gibson

    Not saying you should buy a piece of shit that's definitely going to break immediately but conversely, I've been guilty of being too influenced by technical opinions on things when actually I really liked a piece of kit and it was probably 'fine'.

    I loved my DSL50. But ,that said, it did die on me.
    That's true - it's all about the percentages. My guess is that even now, the majority of DSL owners have never experienced a major failure, even if the rate and the causes are much worse than for other similar amps.

    If you like the sound of it and you understand the reliability issues, and you're either a home player or you always take a proper backup to gigs, then by all means ignore the reputation! But that said, I would strongly advise anyone not to buy one if they were planning on relying on it at a gig.

    To re-state again, this only applies to the older UK-made DSL (and TSL) amps as far as I've seen.

    "Take these three items, some WD-40, a vise grip, and a roll of duct tape. Any man worth his salt can fix almost any problem with this stuff alone." - Walt Kowalski

    "Just because I don't care, doesn't mean I don't understand." - Homer Simpson

    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom
  • SassafrasSassafras Frets: 30273
    Anything can break at any time but it seems foolhardy to buy something with known design flaws.
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom
  • dindudedindude Frets: 8534
    ICBM said:
    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.
    So basically they haven’t made a good amp in 30 years then. There’s always Christmas jumpers I guess.
    1reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom
  • Sassafras said:
    Anything can break at any time but it seems foolhardy to buy something with known design flaws.
    Everything has design flaws though, surely...whether known or not. I only know these amps have design flaws because I've read about them on here. So are they really 'known' in the sense that they are so badly flawed that only an uninformed idiot would buy one?

    Gibson Les Pauls have known design flaws, right? And we buy them by the truckload. :)

    I dunno - If you like Marshalls, you like Marshalls. I wouldn't gig without some backup, regardless of the amp's reputation for reliability.

    Mind you, if the newer ones are much more robust then cool. However, I did try and buy a newer DSL50 to replace my dead one and it never quite sounded the same to me. Maybe just rose tinted earplugs. :)
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom
  • dindude said:
    ICBM said:
    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.
    So basically they haven’t made a good amp in 30 years then. There’s always Christmas jumpers I guess.
    You dont realise the truth you speak, in my opinion the last good amps marshall made were the vertical input jcm800 2203/2204 heads and the last of those were circa 1983, simple, uncomplicated and reliable tone monsters they were too. Pretty much everything  since with the exception of the 1987 jubilee has been cost cutting and penny pinching unreliable shit.......just my 2 cents
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom
  • jpfampsjpfamps Frets: 2723


    I certainly couldn't recommend buying an older UK-made DSL / TSL either (and not just sonically........).

    Regarding the design faults, these should not have happened in an amp at any price.

    Valve amps are very mature technology (in fact the most mature electronic technology).

    The newer Vietnamese amps are much better built and I've not seen any with major problems, usually valves, and none with defective transformers.

    In contrast I've seen tons of DSL/TSLs with both blown mains and output transformers. 
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom
  • TelejesterTelejester Frets: 743
    edited November 2017
    http://i25.tinypic.com/2k4prt.jpg

    The above picture is of the innards of a marshall jcm 800 2204 heads, looks bang tidy to me.

    http://www.marshallforum.com/gallery/data/500/medium/Inside_Head_1.jpg

    There are the innards of a marshall dsl50 head

    https://cdn.dribbble.com/users/6191/screenshots/1650241/teddy.gif



    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom
  • ICBMICBM Frets: 71951
    dindude said:

    So basically they haven’t made a good amp in 30 years then. There’s always Christmas jumpers I guess.
    For new designs, that's more or less true at least until the current range.

    But they've been making the vintage reissues for all that time, which are probably the best-made amps they've ever done - pretty much the same as the 'high point' of around 1979-1984, after they'd ditched the horrible unreliable pull-out voltage and impedance selectors, and before they switched to PCB-mounted pots and jacks.

    "Take these three items, some WD-40, a vise grip, and a roll of duct tape. Any man worth his salt can fix almost any problem with this stuff alone." - Walt Kowalski

    "Just because I don't care, doesn't mean I don't understand." - Homer Simpson

    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom
  • They should just release a JCM 800 with a built in Tubescreamer to provide the second channel and possibly even a seperate EQ for both channels, throw in a decent digital reverb and you have a very simple circuit that shouldn't go wrong.
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 2reaction image Wisdom
  • ICBMICBM Frets: 71951
    They should just release a JCM 800 with a built in Tubescreamer to provide the second channel and possibly even a seperate EQ for both channels, throw in a decent digital reverb and you have a very simple circuit that shouldn't go wrong.
    The problem is that it isn't as simple as that sounds.

    Tube Screamer or SD-1? Probably no consensus.
    Separate EQ - makes the amp more complicated because it comes after the bulk of the gain, so you will need relay or solid-state switching.
    Digital reverb - ditto, plus level matching since the signal level there is far too high for a digital processor. Do you give access to the parameters, or pick a setting and hope everyone likes it?

    Pretty soon you've got something as complicated as a JCM900 or a Vintage Modern, and you can guarantee that it won't be built quite as well as you'd like and won't be as reliable.

    For me, the only worthwhile onboard addition to a 2203 is an FX loop - because you can then uses external pedals to achieve everything else. And that is in fact exactly what they've done.

    "Take these three items, some WD-40, a vise grip, and a roll of duct tape. Any man worth his salt can fix almost any problem with this stuff alone." - Walt Kowalski

    "Just because I don't care, doesn't mean I don't understand." - Homer Simpson

    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom
  • why can marshall not just release the jcm 800 2203/2204 built like  the one ive shown above and price it at the £700 mark, they would sell by the shitload
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 1reaction image Wisdom
  • ICBMICBM Frets: 71951
    why can marshall not just release the jcm 800 2203/2204 built like  the one ive shown above and price it at the £700 mark, they would sell by the shitload
    Uncynical view - because they've found that it has to be £1500 or it isn't economical.
    Cynical view - because they've found out that it sells at that price, so why reduce it?

    If the former, the cost will be down to the fairly high labour cost compared to a more modern design. That might also explain why there is no 2204 reissue, since the only difference is the marginal cost of two slightly smaller transformers, and two valves and sockets - so it would still have to be about £1400 and it wouldn't sell.

    "Take these three items, some WD-40, a vise grip, and a roll of duct tape. Any man worth his salt can fix almost any problem with this stuff alone." - Walt Kowalski

    "Just because I don't care, doesn't mean I don't understand." - Homer Simpson

    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom
  • TTBZTTBZ Frets: 2873
    If you want a boosted 800 sound with the pedal built into the amp you might as well just get a Jubilee!
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 2reaction image Wisdom
  • ICBMICBM Frets: 71951
    TTBZ said:
    If you want a boosted 800 sound with the pedal built into the amp you might as well just get a Jubilee!
    Or a JCM900 High Gain Master Volume… although that has the boost as a solo level boost after the distortion, rather than a gain boost in the preamp - which is what some people prefer.

    "Take these three items, some WD-40, a vise grip, and a roll of duct tape. Any man worth his salt can fix almost any problem with this stuff alone." - Walt Kowalski

    "Just because I don't care, doesn't mean I don't understand." - Homer Simpson

    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom
  • I'm really looking forward to trying the 1watt version out. Some of the DSL amps I've tried in the past I've found lacking in one way or another, but in all fairness I've never spent much time with them. Fingers crossed the 1 watt version can get at least an approximation of the classic Marshall sound at very useable volumes. 
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom
  • ICBMICBM Frets: 71951
    Badnotes said:
    I'm really looking forward to trying the 1watt version out. Some of the DSL amps I've tried in the past I've found lacking in one way or another, but in all fairness I've never spent much time with them. Fingers crossed the 1 watt version can get at least an approximation of the classic Marshall sound at very useable volumes. 
    If it's anything like the 50th Anniversary 1W one you may be disappointed… doubly.

    "Take these three items, some WD-40, a vise grip, and a roll of duct tape. Any man worth his salt can fix almost any problem with this stuff alone." - Walt Kowalski

    "Just because I don't care, doesn't mean I don't understand." - Homer Simpson

    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom
  • @ICBM , as an owner of an Orange Micro Terror that I bought without trying first I know all about disappointment!! I'll be spending some serious time with one first and making up my own mind about if it's right for me. 

    Although reading here about past reliability issues does give me some concern. 
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom
  • ICBMICBM Frets: 71951
    Badnotes said:

    Although reading here about past reliability issues does give me some concern. 
    And if it matters I've fixed one of the 50th Anniversary DSL1s (UK-made) with a faulty pot…

    I'll be completely honest, I think they sound thin and weak, not like a real Marshall, and not as loud as you would expect even for 1W. The Blackstar HT-1R blows it away - it has much more limited EQ (which I don't particularly like), but also reverb.

    Hopefully a Vietnamese-made DSL1 will be better.

    "Take these three items, some WD-40, a vise grip, and a roll of duct tape. Any man worth his salt can fix almost any problem with this stuff alone." - Walt Kowalski

    "Just because I don't care, doesn't mean I don't understand." - Homer Simpson

    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom
Sign In or Register to comment.