tsl hatred - I don't get it.

relic245

Seems that anytime anyone mentions a marshall tsl around here the discussion turns to they are one of the worst sounding marshalls ever. 

I'd never heard one until last night when there was one set up at an open mic night. The guy who brought it was playing an SG through it and it sounded really good to me. It was a head played through a 4x12, no idea what that was loaded with.  The sound was set for what I would call classic rock - kind of AC-DC back in black territory. 

I played through it using my 335 and again, I thought it sounded really good. The neck pickup cleaned up really nicely for some chimey picking then flick to the bridge up full and I got a nice rock tone. Didn't seem any need to change channels. 

I get it that they may not be well made, have design flaws and be generally unreliable but I would happily gig one. It was the 100 watt version if that makes a difference. 

ICBM

relic245 said:

I get it that they may not be well made, have design flaws and be generally unreliable but I would happily gig one. It was the 100 watt version if that makes a difference. 

Yes, it does.

The "60 watt" one is even worse . It's not even 60W for a start - it's 50 - and is almost certainly the weakest-sounding "60W" valve amp I've ever heard. It's also built even worse than the 100.

I'd possibly agree that the 100 isn't *too* bad-sounding by comparison with some of the other crap they've produced, but it's nothing like a classic Marshall, which I think is where the hatred comes from, for those who don't have to try to repair them on a regular basis at least.

If you thought it sounded like Back In Black, that can only be because you didn't have the real thing - a 2203 or 2204 Master Volume model - to compare it to.

hugbot

They're not that bad. They sound very much like the marshalls that came before them only slightly worse which is the annoying thing about them, but not a bad sound in its own right. 

Its like when they changed the recipe for Cadburys creame eggs. Still tastes like a cream egg, but if you've had it before you know somethings off.

ICBM

hugbot said:

They're not that bad. They sound very much like the marshalls that came before them only slightly worse which is the annoying thing about them, but not bad. 

The problem is that the same is true of every series going back to the late JMP MVs - some people would say the early-JMP non-MV models.

So the cumulative effect is that four or five generations down the line, they don't really sound like the originals at all.

timmysoft

I like them, I've seen plenty out in your that have been fine reliability wise. I know a few very good rock producers that use the tsl over 800s and JMP's, because of their unique take on the Marshall tone. They can sound huge on a recording.

jpfamps

I've had two in the workshop this week.

One with a blown OT, and one for a PCB swap.

Neither was a cheap repair, and both faults due to poor design / component choice.

siraxeman

I don't think they sound bad at all - had a TSL122 and my band mate gigs with a TSL601 - and they sound good to my ears. Espesh when cranked a bit. Iron Maiden sounded quite alright when they were their 'amps' cant say I've noticed their sound get better with the JVMs or whatever else they're using.

...but I will say DSL's sound betterer - the DSL vs TSL that raged on forums everywhere a few years back showed consensus was hugely in favour of the DSL....when I had em both at the same time I realised it was a very clear win for the DSL in terms of tone. The TSL sacrificed a bit of tone for versatility.

MattFGBI

The TSL is an ok amp but I do really like the DSL 50 from the JCM2000 range. Especially with KT77's. 

But yeah, a few reliability problems. 

Modulus_Amps

I have a DSL 50 head, gigged it for years, sounded really good on the clean channel - set to the higher gain mode for more classic Marshall sounds. The high gain channel was way to compressed. thinking about selling it but it needs a re-valve...

MattFGBI

Try new valves. I've found thses amps quite sensitive to poor \ worn valves. 

NOS Mullards are probably a step to far but something good quality will be a good investment. If you don't like it just put the old ones back and sell it.  

Nerine

I've found the TSL series to be largely shite. And yep, I've owned more than one of the series. 

impmann

They aren't bad.

But there are better sounding amps imho.

ICBM

MattFGBI said:

Try new valves. I've found thses amps quite sensitive to poor \ worn valves.

One of the problems is that they're set far too hot at the factory, which increases the wear rate.

I always set them to 30mA per valve instead of 40, which also makes them sound slightly better.

andyoz

Money's better off put towards a JVM series IMO

ICBM

Yes. I would say the JVM is the first time in 25 years that quality has gone up not down with a new series.

Cabicular

I had a DSL which I hated
The crunch channel sounds decent
but setting that up nicely makes everything else sound barbaric
you can't have a nice sounding clean and a nice sounding drive and a nice sounding crunch (maybe it's easier with more controls on the TSL but then look at the state that it leaves the front panel in .. It's insane. Far too many knobs)
I'm not a fan. The DSL is one of the only amps
ive ever moved on. I get stuck with them a lot in rehearsal rooms and in shared backline
i tend to go in via the fx return

andyoz

ICBM said:

Yes. I would say the JVM is the first time in 25 years that quality has gone up not down with a new series.

They seem to be undervalued to as most lobe them in with Marshalls other modern offerings. 

Fiftyshadesofjay

I toured one for a short while and thought it sounded pretty good.

However I stopped using it after the output transformer blew for the 2nd time after already having a new transformer and board from Marshall.

ICBM

andyoz said:

ICBM said:

Yes. I would say the JVM is the first time in 25 years that quality has gone up not down with a new series.

They seem to be undervalued to as most lobe them in with Marshalls other modern offerings. 

It's sad that Marshall have applied the "what can we get away with this time?" approach to design and build quality for so long that it's come to this, but they only have themselves to blame.

Even with the JVM it took Joe Satriani to tell them how do do it properly before it was really any good.

siraxeman

is the JVM Satriani actually better built inside ? Thought it was just a tweaked version ie no reverb add noise gates and make the last 2 dirty channels voiced the same...always thought build wise it'd be the same level of quality internally ?

Fiftyshadesofjay

siraxeman said:

is the JVM Satriani actually better built inside ? Thought it was just a tweaked version ie no reverb add noise gates and make the last 2 dirty channels voiced the same...always thought build wise it'd be the same level of quality internally ?

I believe it's a different layout, the amp as a whole feels a lot better quality than the original JVM.

This gives a pretty good insight if you can get past the somewhat "eccentric" nature of the review - http://www.tonymckenzie.com/marshall-jvm410hjs-satriani-review.htm