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

randella

Telejester said:

http://bbcpersian7.com/images/png-angry-hornet-clipart-png-17.jpg


JCM900...............nah

They are fitted with both treble and presence controls

As a long-time user of a hi-gain JCM900 I will say, in fairness, they do need to be loud to get going. And when I say loud, I mean too loud for a pub gig. 

I once played a big-ish function room with mine unmic'd and 100+ punters to soak up the sound. It cooked that night, but for the average boozer it's too much. 

I thought so anyway. The 1x12" is also north of 25kg so mine now adorns the dining room while I play out with a Mesa Mini Rectifier. Reaches its sweet spot much sooner and doesn't present the danger of a visit to the spinal unit. 

Badnotes

@ICBM ; The amp will solely be for bedroom use, and with a young daughter volume or lack there of isn't too much of an issue, but I will keep the Blackstar in mind. 

Thank you for your insight, I'm always grateful to hear people's thoughts on these things, especially when they are more knowledgeable than myself. 

rico

I don’t think the 50th anniversary models are that great. I own the JVM1 combo and it’s alright for noodling on the sofa but thin and buzzy at any real volume. 

Definitely not worth the overly inflated prices. 

Telejester

rico said:

I don’t think the 50th anniversary models are that great. I own the JVM1 combo and it’s alright for noodling on the sofa but thin and buzzy at any real volume. 

Definitely not worth the overly inflated prices. 

anyone who paid the shop asking prices were well and truly done , those ridiculous prices for amps that make a guitar sound like a banjo......dear oh dear

Telejester

I truly hope someone at bletchley is a member here or a lurker and has read concerns posted. when you look at the lovely constructed innards of the 2204 i posted , and then compare the dsl50 innards i also posted which look like someone scraped a plate of spaghetti bolognaise into a black box, i think buyers have every right to be worried about putting out money on a new marshall.

TTBZ

---

ThePrettyDamned

Telejester said:

I truly hope someone at bletchley is a member here or a lurker and has read concerns posted. when you look at the lovely constructed innards of the 2204 i posted , and then compare the dsl50 innards i also posted which look like someone scraped a plate of spaghetti bolognaise into a black box, i think buyers have every right to be worried about putting out money on a new marshall.

To be fair, looks can be deceiving - take a look at the guts of a Carr amp, for example, and to the untrained eye it looks horribly messy. 

More important is things like layout, component choice and pcb quality. Hard to judge that without experience from a picture (I put myself in the "without experience" category and defer to the amp techs on here!). 

rico

TTBZ said:

I work at Marshall and it is a worry reading all the concerns about reliability etc. I have nothing to do with that side of things so can't comment on anything technical but if IC reckons the newer Vietnamese ones are better designed then I'd hope that things are headed in the right direction now. I don't think I'm really allowed to talk about new stuff either but all I'll say is as a guitarist who loves Marshall amps I'm excited for 2018

Can you confirm or deny that there are new valve amps (other than the new DSL range) being released next year?!

TTBZ

No comment

Telejester

TTBZ

If you can tell us that for 2018 that Marshall will be providing guitar players with :

Heads and combos that look under the lid nothing like the dsl50 abomination picture I posted earlier in this thread

Heads and combos with overspecced transformers that will not implode like many of the sub standard marshall products made since 1983 when the last vertical input 2203/2204s rolled out of bletchley.

Heads and combos fitted with better quality resistors, caps. and filters than the 4th rate junk that has populated pcb boards rife with cold solder joints over the years.

Heads and combos made with a sense of pride, marshall have been going down the gibson route for years with an any old shite will do philosophy, keep this up and marshall will be lucky to survive.

TTBZ if you can comment on the above and give us assurances, myself and those following this thread would be most grateful.

TTBZ

I'm not a spokesperson for the company nor can I comment on the electronics as that's not what I do, I just make the videos and take the photos! Fitting a pickup and following a DIY pedal kit is about as techy as I get so wouldn't be fair for me to comment on amp innards! 

timmysoft

Building amps the same way as 35 years ago would mean sonething like an 800 would cost about £2500! Marshall has always been about affordable and realistic amps. The Astoria is proof of this, great sounding amp series but because of the build costs, they’re just too expensive for a Marshall. Current reissues are brilliant amps, I know plenty of guys who gig those with no problem.

the comment that Marshall will be “lucky to survive” is hilarious. Marshall make heaps more revenue from their solid state and budget lines than they do from top end valve amps.

as for reliability and build quality, unless you’re going out and doing 150+ gigs a year then you don’t need to worry. 

Collings

I think the construction of a typical modern Marshall is no different to most others construction techniques at that price point (maybe even better than some) and is a necessity (they are designed for manufacture) to allow them to compete at that price point.Also remember that these techniques (PCB mounted valves, pots and push on interconnection cables) have now been used by many manufacturers for many years with many of these amps still performing reliably. 

That is no excuse for silly design errors however.

Personally I've used Marshall's of all types for the past 30yrs and luckily enough have never experienced any major reliability issues

ICBM

timmysoft said:

Building amps the same way as 35 years ago would mean sonething like an 800 would cost about £2500!

£1500 actually - that's what a new 2203 costs and is almost identical to an original. (Apart from having an FX loop, which must actually add a bit to the cost.)

timmysoft said:

Current reissues are brilliant amps, I know plenty of guys who gig those with no problem.

Exactly. It's just a shame they don't offer more models, or not-quite-reissues based on them. (eg a 2204, and a 25 watt version.)

timmysoft said:

the comment that Marshall will be “lucky to survive” is hilarious. Marshall make heaps more revenue from their solid state and budget lines than they do from top end valve amps.

I doubt that's true. They don't even make a mid-range series of solid-state amps any more, since the AVTs were dropped. The profit on the MGs can't be huge either, no matter how many they make - they're just not very expensive.

It's certainly true that Marshall is profitable now - but that may be partly because they've recently ditched a lot of their range, including all the amps that were notorious for problems, and shifted the core line (DSL) to Vietnam.

I'm actually surprised they don't have a current successor to the Valvestates - maybe that's what's coming next.

Telejester

if marshall made a 20w el34 2204 with decent build quality and made to last, id be throwing women and small children outta the way to buy one, they would fly off the shelves.

Telejester

its tantalisingly close to the release date, im expecting gear shill tom quayle to have a yt clip proclaiming it the best amp he has ever used, a prolonged greeeeeeeeeetings followed by the most dreadful playing whilst using one and the cover of guitarist magazine showing the editor having sex with one.

gosh i hope im wrong but i just want a look under the lid and a go on a dsl20hr myself.