Del Rei
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jun 26, 2013
- Messages
- 629
- Reaction score
- 1,515
Interesting point to chat about...
I love Friedman (I have 3). For sure they were made to have a Marshall "feel"...
Don't know if you guys are aware, but initially Dave Friedman branded his amps under the name "Marsha" - until the day he received a nice letter from Marshall asking him to change the name. On Google we can still find some old Marsha.
But... In fact they're not supposed to be exactly a Marshall. Marshall tone is the point where Dave started to, but hey have different feel. Different bites. More modern. Specially because Dave started modding some Marshalls...
When I compare my Marshall with my Friedman, I can say they are all from same family in tone. But there are other things to consider.
I can relate some points in Friedman's favor:
1) Master Volume. The difference here is from heaven to hell. Friedman sounds ridiculously good at 0.1 and my Marshall need to be at least on 3 (and that's loud) to get the real "Marshall tone". I mean... Marshall sounds good at low volumes, but the classic Marshall tone only appears when you turn it up. Can't play my Marshall without attenuator anymore.
2) Noise at high volumes. Friedman is much more silent when Master is above 5.
3) Loop FX. Never find loop so transparent as Friedman's.
4) Not exactly a problem, but the "firmness" of Friedman's pots are really good. My Marshall's pot are a little loose compared to Friedman.
5) Support. As a "smaller" company, Dave can personally answer all your questions on the Facebook. And he is a really nice guy. And you can talk to him and ask for a completely custom product to fill your needs. That's priceless. For those who lives in the USA, it's a great positive factor.
Now my points in Marshall's favor:
1) It's a Marshall
And the fact that we see a lot more of Marshall in stage, I think the most important point is: Marshall exist since the 60's right? Most part of great albums we love were recorded when Friedman didn't even exist... And also, If Marshall didn't exist, Friedman would not either - or at least with a different tone reference (that's my humble opinion).
But that's how the world works... Probably if Fender didn't exist, Marshall would not be as we know today, right?
I love Friedman (I have 3). For sure they were made to have a Marshall "feel"...
Don't know if you guys are aware, but initially Dave Friedman branded his amps under the name "Marsha" - until the day he received a nice letter from Marshall asking him to change the name. On Google we can still find some old Marsha.
But... In fact they're not supposed to be exactly a Marshall. Marshall tone is the point where Dave started to, but hey have different feel. Different bites. More modern. Specially because Dave started modding some Marshalls...
When I compare my Marshall with my Friedman, I can say they are all from same family in tone. But there are other things to consider.
I can relate some points in Friedman's favor:
1) Master Volume. The difference here is from heaven to hell. Friedman sounds ridiculously good at 0.1 and my Marshall need to be at least on 3 (and that's loud) to get the real "Marshall tone". I mean... Marshall sounds good at low volumes, but the classic Marshall tone only appears when you turn it up. Can't play my Marshall without attenuator anymore.
2) Noise at high volumes. Friedman is much more silent when Master is above 5.
3) Loop FX. Never find loop so transparent as Friedman's.
4) Not exactly a problem, but the "firmness" of Friedman's pots are really good. My Marshall's pot are a little loose compared to Friedman.
5) Support. As a "smaller" company, Dave can personally answer all your questions on the Facebook. And he is a really nice guy. And you can talk to him and ask for a completely custom product to fill your needs. That's priceless. For those who lives in the USA, it's a great positive factor.
Now my points in Marshall's favor:
1) It's a Marshall
And the fact that we see a lot more of Marshall in stage, I think the most important point is: Marshall exist since the 60's right? Most part of great albums we love were recorded when Friedman didn't even exist... And also, If Marshall didn't exist, Friedman would not either - or at least with a different tone reference (that's my humble opinion).
But that's how the world works... Probably if Fender didn't exist, Marshall would not be as we know today, right?