Friedman Runt or JJ vs Marshall DSL

NelsonP

How much better?

spirit7

Much better (although different).

CHrisP86

I haven’t played the JJ (which is meant to be one of the best 20w Friedman’s) but I had a Runt 20 and DSL401 combo at the same time and preferred the DSL.

It had more of that Marshall bite to it.

Are you talking about the 20w versions of these amps or the 50w/100w versions?

I’ve not played the larger Friedman’s but the new DSL100 is a really nice sounding amp with a load useful features. 

Nerine

The JJ seems to be very much regarded as THE 20w amp to have at the min. 

leerocker

If we are talking the dsl100hr compared to the full size Friedmans no contest imho.
 I had the dsl hoping that it would be a great amp and sell the friedman. Nope Friedman still here. They are pricey but I really can't see what more I could want from the amp as it's so versatile. 

I have the 100 deluxe head and it just does everything so well and I am not primarily a balls to the wall high gain player although i can easily get the JJ with the gain structure switch and other options on the amp which was my favourite friedman prior to the deluxe.


Never selling mine I've been close then realise I would be an absolute fuckwit to do so!

spirit7

+1. The 100 Deluxe is the best amp I’ve ever played.  

bananaman

I've never had both amps in the same room, so take this with a pinch of salt, but here the BE doesn't sound any better than the DSL: Comparison Marshall DSL100 - Friedman BE100 - YouTube

Flotsam

I owned a JJ Jr. for a few weeks. It was fine but I didn't think it was anything special. It was good at highly saturated modded Marshall tones and the clean channel has a sweet Vox-ish vibe but I felt that the mid-gain tones were mediocre at best. It just sounded a bit thin - as did the Runt I played. For me, the JJ Jr was good but waaaay over-priced in the UK for what it is. I really don't understand the hype about it, frankly.

TTBZ

Well the current DSL just sounds like a Marshall to me and can do a few different eras from classic to modern depending what channel you're on. In my quite limited experience of the BE100, the Friedman sound is more like a sanitised/cleaned up and EQ'd Marshall. Thought it felt a bit stiff. Possibly better in isolation but to me it feels like it's missing something. That JJ Jr does seem cool though and I'm a massive Cantrell fan so its of interest for sure!

Flotsam

I think you're on the money when you describe the Friedman as a 'sanitised/cleaned up and EQ'd Marshall'. I've only played the JJ Jr and the Runt but they did sound more like a mastered and recorded tone. I guess I want my core Marshall tone to sound a bit ragged and edgy. Like a Marshall!

spirit7

If you want a Marshall, buy a Marshall (preferably one made before 1985, with a boost).  If you want a produced Marshall with more girth, buy a Friedman.

Daiganzen

Personally i like the DSL. But is the freidman worth the extra dosh ?

Fortheloveofguitar

Friedman’s lack the rawness and hard edge of a Marshall. It’s a very polished tone

I sold my Friedman BE-50 Deluxe on very quickly as it was almost too hifi sounding in tone.Sounds very much like a polished mixed tone  

Nerine

You can kind of level these criticisms at most modded Marshall’s to be fair. And I do agree that a well fettled 800 Reissue with an EQ pedal in the loop and a boost in front will always be able to cop those modified tones. Whilst not perhaps the other way round. 

I’ll add that my Small Box does sound slightly more “polite” in the room than my 800 due to the high mids not being quite so raspy/strident, but the sounds I am currently getting whilst recording my Solo EP are anything but polite. That said, it isn’t designed to sound like an 800 or be quite as aggressive.  

However, It’ll easily do aggressive styles with a bit of EQ adjustment and a boost such as a TS9 to push the mids (and roll off a touch of bass creating the illusion of more aggressive/pronounced top) a bit more. 

I don’t think Friedman’s are lacking balls or anything like that. They just have a slightly different EQ curve on them. More focused in the lower mids rather than the upper mids. 

CHrisP86

I think the context of where you use the amp makes a difference as well.

At home, I imagine the Friedman's are a more enjoyable sound to play through.

In a band mix, I think it would be hard to tell them apart or to at least say that the Friedman sounded much better.

Onpar

Any reason you are not considering Jcm800 studio Classic?

20 watts down to 5 watts. 

TTBZ

Nice comparison here around 6:40. That's what I mean about the lack of aggression and bite in the Friedman sound compared to the Marshall

Ch2 seems a bit closer but I'd rather just have the real thing personally! 1987x is a great amp.

rockmonster

I like the new DSL100HR. I sold mine but it does the Marshall thing very well and at a very, very good price IMHO. The best Friedman for me was the Butterslax- now that is one mean sounding amp! Ossum. I agree with the refined Marshall tone on the Friedmans- I haven’t owned either deluxes though. They kinda fell out of favour with me coz I sound the same through every bloody amp! Lol! I’m trying to luv my CAA PT-100 at the moment/ don’t suppose that’ll last too long either!