tsl hatred - I don't get it.

ICBM

Same build quality, but it has a proper choke in the power supply instead of the cheaper resistor in the standard version, and they fixed the channel-switching drop-out. It's especially poor that Marshall couldn't get the second thing right - it's one of the major complaints. The choke is an unforgivable omission on a flagship amp too really.

Fiftyshadesofjay

Did they change the pots as well? They feel pretty decent on the Satch version. On the original they felt like they'd snap off in a strong gust of wind.

ICBM

Can't remember - it's a long time since I've been inside either version... telling in itself really. They're nowhere near as unreliable as the JCM2000s.

GoldenEraGuitars

I owned a TSL a few years back. The best channel amp was the clean imo. The other channels sounded scooped, fizzy and nasty. My favourite Marshall is a 77 JMP 2204, now THATS an amplifier!

crunchman

hugbot said:

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.

Not had a Creme Egg since they changed the recipe.  I figured if everyone boycotts them they may change it back.  I think too many people have caved in though.

Moltisanti

i've used a TSL60 a few times clean and it's a horrible to experience to use one in a band. It doesn't "sound" that bad, but it's punishing to play, very sterile, flat and with zero punch. It just does a meh dead clean sound and you have to work really hard to get anything nice from it

slacker

I borrowed one for a rehearsal in a house. Drummer had an electric kit and the band level was set so the we could sing without a pa. Also we was classic rock. I had the amp barely one and ran the red side of the King of Tone. Really sounded nice. Not sure how much was the amp and how much was the pedal.

I could have found a good one. BTW I feel the same about the Fender HRD, poorly made and poorly sounding but some people love them.

I'd like to know TSL sales figures and how many go wrong.

PolarityMan

ICBM said:

Same build quality, but it has a proper choke in the power supply instead of the cheaper resistor in the standard version, and they fixed the channel-switching drop-out. It's especially poor that Marshall couldn't get the second thing right - it's one of the major complaints. The choke is an unforgivable omission on a flagship amp too really.

dont get me started on the switching dropout!!!! I havent tried the JS version to know if they fixed it or not, despite the fact that I posted actual evidence alot of people who owned them back on the MR forum couldnt hear the difference or swore blind their JVM didnt have the problem. The amp designer himself eventually confirmed it was working as designed.

ICBM

slacker said:

I could have found a good one. BTW I feel the same about the Fender HRD, poorly made and poorly sounding but some people love them.

I'd like to know TSL sales figures and how many go wrong.

So would I. But what I can say from my experience - and I think jpfamps, martinw, RiftAmps, DJH and other techs will back this up - is that they're significantly worse than other very common amps, including the Fender Hotrods which are pretty good these days (the Blues Junior being a slight exception).

What's so telling with the Marshalls is *why* they fail - in most cases it's down to very poor design mistakes and some component quality choices. Some of these should have been obvious to anyone with valve amp experience even before they were signed off by Marshall's R&D.

Bear in mind that even if the failure rate is as high as 25%, three-quarters of owners still have no trouble - but 25% would be a *terrible* failure rate for any electronic product.

martinw

ICBM said:

slacker said:

I could have found a good one. BTW I feel the same about the Fender HRD, poorly made and poorly sounding but some people love them.

I'd like to know TSL sales figures and how many go wrong.

So would I. But what I can say from my experience - and I think jpfamps, martinw, RiftAmps, DJH and other techs will back this up - is that they're significantly worse than other very common amps, including the Fender Hotrods which are pretty good these days (the Blues Junior being a slight exception).

What's so telling with the Marshalls is *why* they fail - in most cases it's down to very poor design mistakes and some component quality choices. Some of these should have been obvious to anyone with valve amp experience even before they were signed off by Marshall's R&D.

Bear in mind that even if the failure rate is as high as 25%, three-quarters of owners still have no trouble - but 25% would be a *terrible* failure rate for any electronic product.

Yep.

Danny1969

ICBM said:

What's so telling with the Marshalls is *why* they fail - in most cases it's down to very poor design mistakes and some component quality choices. Some of these should have been obvious to anyone with valve amp experience even before they were signed off by Marshall's R&D.

Bear in mind that even if the failure rate is as high as 25%, three-quarters of owners still have no trouble - but 25% would be a *terrible* failure rate for any electronic product.

That experience with valve amp design which automatically eliminates stupid layouts that are more suited to lowish voltage transistor \ IC outputs is something that could well be lost in the coming years. I mean none of the tech guys I work with are savvy with valve design and the pitfalls of getting it wrong. Neither am I.  It's such a different architecture to common mainstream  electronics . To fully understand it means working with a lot of valve amps over a lot of years and observing what goes wrong rather than running schematics through LT Spice. It's got to become a lost art at one point with the last guys standing getting very well paid hopefully

DaveB666

Built to a price point rather than a quality....

DrJazzTap

I had a tsl. I was gigging at the time. Not massively (two to three gigs a month if that) and it wasn't chucked about. Mine developed a mysterious honking sound when you changed channel with the reverb engaged. I cured it by using an external reverb pedal.

Eventually ended up driving four hours to Milton Keynes to get it fixed at the Marshall factory. Because no amp tech in the south west wanted to work on it. One guy even said to me "by the time I've figured out what's wrong with yours, I could have serviced five fender amps". 
Seeing as I paid over twelve hundred quid, I thought that was a bit shit. Ended up getting it fixed and selling it on and bought a fender instead. The overdrive and distortion did sound quite good though inho. The clean channel was pants.

webrthomson

Danny1969 said:

ICBM said:

What's so telling with the Marshalls is *why* they fail - in most cases it's down to very poor design mistakes and some component quality choices. Some of these should have been obvious to anyone with valve amp experience even before they were signed off by Marshall's R&D.

Bear in mind that even if the failure rate is as high as 25%, three-quarters of owners still have no trouble - but 25% would be a *terrible* failure rate for any electronic product.

That experience with valve amp design which automatically eliminates stupid layouts that are more suited to lowish voltage transistor \ IC outputs is something that could well be lost in the coming years. I mean none of the tech guys I work with are savvy with valve design and the pitfalls of getting it wrong. Neither am I.  It's such a different architecture to common mainstream  electronics . To fully understand it means working with a lot of valve amps over a lot of years and observing what goes wrong rather than running schematics through LT Spice. It's got to become a lost art at one point with the last guys standing getting very well paid hopefully

And while that is all very true Marshall are a guitar amplifier company that make valve amps - if they cant get it right then we are in trouble!

If they are lacking the skills themselves they can look at the JMP / JCM800 schematics - you would assume they have a copy somewhere in Milton Keynes

For the record I've played some DSL's that I thought were pretty good - however the Marshall's I own are a 6100 head, JCM 800 superbass and a (Dan Gower modded) Vintage Modern.

Does seem to be mostly true that Marshall's with more than 6 knobs are a waste of time!

jpfamps

ICBM said:

slacker said:

I could have found a good one. BTW I feel the same about the Fender HRD, poorly made and poorly sounding but some people love them.

I'd like to know TSL sales figures and how many go wrong.

So would I. But what I can say from my experience - and I think jpfamps, martinw, RiftAmps, DJH and other techs will back this up - is that they're significantly worse than other very common amps, including the Fender Hotrods which are pretty good these days (the Blues Junior being a slight exception).

What's so telling with the Marshalls is *why* they fail - in most cases it's down to very poor design mistakes and some component quality choices. Some of these should have been obvious to anyone with valve amp experience even before they were signed off by Marshall's R&D.

Bear in mind that even if the failure rate is as high as 25%, three-quarters of owners still have no trouble - but 25% would be a *terrible* failure rate for any electronic product.

I'd agree with this.

The HRD is in my opinion a pretty reliable amp. Most of the repairs I see on the HRDs are extrinsic to the amp, ie valves and reverb trays etc. The earlier versions had a few minor faults (power supply resistors overheating, poor input jacks), but this has been corrected in later versions. Additionally Fender must have had a bad batch of caps in the late 90's as I've seen plenty of Fender amps, across the entire range, with bad filter caps from this era, so this not bad design on behalf of the HRD.

cf the DSL/TSL which are usually intrinsic to the amp, ie mains and output transformers, or PCB swap, and are the result of poor design and poor quality components.

PolarityMan

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.

Thought I'd come back to this as I noticed last night that the (plastic) cooling grill on the top of mine as started to melt O_o

The handle also failed and and became a razorblade like strip of metal within a year.

I appreciate you might mean the design of the amp circuit itself but looking at the amp as a whole it doesnt feel to me like its going to last as long as some of the early ones.

ICBM

PolarityMan said:

Thought I'd come back to this as I noticed last night that the (plastic) cooling grill on the top of mine as started to melt O_o

Have the bias checked, that sounds like it's running far too hot.

PolarityMan said:

The handle also failed and and became a razorblade like strip of metal within a year.

I appreciate you might mean the design of the amp circuit itself but looking at the amp as a whole it doesnt feel to me like its going to last as long as some of the early ones.

Sadly that's common with modern handles, not just Marshall ones.

jpfamps

DaveB666 said:

Built to a price point rather than a quality....

Fixing a lot of faults though would be cost neutral.

PolarityMan

ICBM said:

PolarityMan said:

Thought I'd come back to this as I noticed last night that the (plastic) cooling grill on the top of mine as started to melt O_o

Have the bias checked, that sounds like it's running far too hot.

PolarityMan said:

The handle also failed and and became a razorblade like strip of metal within a year.

I appreciate you might mean the design of the amp circuit itself but looking at the amp as a whole it doesnt feel to me like its going to last as long as some of the early ones.

Sadly that's common with modern handles, not just Marshall ones.

Good shout on the bias, havent changed power amp tubes or had it serviced since I got it so its prob due a once over.