DSL… the WORST of ALL Marshalls?!?!

[V-man]

TELL ME THE TITLE DOESN’T IMMEDIATELY SUMMON THIS IMAGE OUT FROM THE MAGIC DOUCHE NOZZLE



REGARDLESS, the question remains… JCM 2000 Bias Drift and Overheating with certain years/models… MIVs, HRs etc. models having issues… there certainly have been other Marshalls with certain problems or “teething issues” (2204s, 2203Xs, 800 channel-switchers, even the JCM 25/50 early Jubs), but has any other amp circuit/production line been more problematic than the DSL?

Obviously you have gathered we are “click-bait discussing“ worst in the context of problematic issues for operatIon as the DSL is a well-respected amp for its tones and capabilities. This then is the thread to discuss the various and different issues that plagued the multiple DSL series and weigh in on whether these are in fact the “most unreliable” of the Marshall line… or whether other factors suggest other Marshalls as a more worthy recipient of the title.

 

[FracStrat]

Frickin’ Fricker Frick !!

 

[scozz]

Sorry @V-man, I just had to!

 

[V-man]

Sorry @V-man, I just had to!

Holy shit… what a blast from the past. must be a decade ago.

 

[Maxbrothman]

My first generation 15W DSL without FX loop was horrid. They don't even make it anymore it was so horrid.

I was going to get the revised series 20W but it is missing a tone shift feature the 40W and 100W have. I want a head version so that narrows my option to just the 100W. If I am going to get a 100W Marshall I would probably get a JVM. So I'm in a bit of a conundrum when it comes to DSLs but one dialed in properly sounds great.

 

[livebiz]

Holy shit… what a blast from the past. must be a decade ago.

And still just as funny

 

[FleshOnGear]

Seriously, though, the JTM60’s and the MA series probably rival the DSL for worst Marshall. I always thought the JTM60s sounded really good, they just aren’t reliable.

 

[Rudy v]

The Marshall 900 slx has a bridge rectifier problem.

 

[PelliX]

I think there are two factors easily overlooked that one must take into account when comparing "the DSL" (that's 3 generations, by now) and other amps.

1. Survivorship bias. Plenty of amps back in the day blew themselves up (or got blown up more often), but we tend to forget those and stare in awe at the (random example) 60 year old models that survived and work because they've been lovingly cared for, maintaned and/or restored.

2. Pure numbers. Many more DSL's in the wild than any of Marshall's more expensive lines - because of the price and feature set. Because of this, people tend to skip the satin glove treatment a spanking new 1959HW might get.

I'm not defending some of the shoddy work on DSL's (and there's plenty), but if you actually had a percentage of returned/defective units of say the DSL's and perhaps the JVM's - I think one might be surprised how well they actually work/last.

 

[paul-e-mann]

I havent met a DSL I like...

With that said, I'm gonna spend some time on my friends JCM2000 DSL100 next weekend to revisit what I didnt like about it.

 

[jeffb]

Among the tube amps-As far as quality goes the 90s JTM and 600 models are really bad and worse than the JCM DSLs. I don't think the MA's or HAZE series have a very good rep for quality, either.

Personally I have had hardware issues/factory defects on new amps with the JTM60, 4210, Origin 20, CODE25, 2204, MG30, MG15 micro stack, 9001 pre-amp, and my Class 5.

 

[Rudy v]

The 2046 specialist, 25 watts has also overheating problems, finished it in 1973 after about one and a half years of production.

 

[Gene Ballzz]

I think there are two factors easily overlooked that one must take into account when comparing "the DSL" (that's 3 generations, by now) and other amps.

1. Survivorship bias. Plenty of amps back in the day blew themselves up (or got blown up more often), but we tend to forget those and stare in awe at the (random example) 60 year old models that survived and work because they've been lovingly cared for, maintaned and/or restored.

2. Pure numbers. Many more DSL's in the wild than any of Marshall's more expensive lines - because of the price and feature set. Because of this, people tend to skip the satin glove treatment a spanking new 1959HW might get.

I'm not defending some of the shoddy work on DSL's (and there's plenty), but if you actually had a percentage of returned/defective units of say the DSL's and perhaps the JVM's - I think one might be surprised how well they actually work/last.

Some wise and thoughtful observations, right there! You saved me a bunch of typing!

Still Screechin' & Squawkin'
Gene

 

[Dogs of Doom]

I think you spelled TSL wrong...

 

[PelliX]

I think you spelled TSL wrong...

Relax, Dogs. Marshall are working on a PTP TSL now...



No, I know that's a telephony circuit...

 

[PowerTube44]

Sound-wise, it's actually one of the best.

 

[FracStrat]

It’s surprising how often the JCM2000 DSLs are requested as Backline by the traveling players

 

[colchar]

Sorry @V-man, I just had to!

First thing I thought of too.

The JVM section is funny.

 

[scozz]

My first generation 15W DSL without FX loop was horrid. They don't even make it anymore it was so horrid.

I was going to get the revised series 20W but it is missing a tone shift feature the 40W and 100W have. I want a head version so that narrows my option to just the 100W. If I am going to get a 100W Marshall I would probably get a JVM. So I'm in a bit of a conundrum when it comes to DSLs but one dialed in properly sounds great.

I’m pretty sure the Dsl15 you’re referring to is the 2nd generation Dsl from 2012 to 2017.

I don’t think the first generation Dsl, Jcm2000 Dsl’s from 1997 to 2011, offered a 15 watt amp.

From your post it seems the Dsl40cr sounds like the right Dsl for you.

 

[PelliX]

I’m pretty sure the Dsl15 you’re referring to is the 2nd generation Dsl from 2012 to 2017.

I don’t think the first generation Dsl, Jcm2000 Dsl’s from 1997 to 2011, offered a 15 watt amp.

From your post it seems the Dsl40cr sounds like the right Dsl for you.

We both know Mitch is gonna agree here....