How do the new handwired RIs compare

[CRobbins]

To the vintage amps?
Do they sound close?
Thanks...

 

[Dogs of Doom]

yes...

 

[seeker88]

At one point I owned at the same time a 1970 100 watt Super Lead, a 1971 100 watt Super Lead that was modified with a cascading gain channel and a 35th Anniversary 1987x RI. Other than varying points of where they would "crunch" on the dial - they all had the same inherent tone which was classic Marshall.

 

[plexilespaul]

 

[sinner 13]

This should be fun....

 

[sinner 13]

All bullshit aside, I have never owned or played a "vintage" Marshall.
Some guys will argue and say they sound nothing like the originals because the pre amp is based on one year, and the power amp another.
But my 1959hw sounds just the way I expected it too, even better than maybe.

Just 'cause it's old doesn't mean it'll sound good, too many inconsistencies from month to month due to the fluctuation parts suppliers used.

I personally think that the CP 1959HW are the best of both era's and the CP HW Series as a whole are hands down are some of the best amps Marshall has made to date.

 

[CRobbins]

Thanks. The reason I ask is because I'm considering a Marshall 1959HW 100-Watt Handwired. I was just wondering how they might compare next to a nice vintage amp.

 

[lew81]

I didn't notice any difference between the HW and the regular re-issue FWIW

 

[Blueslicks]

I find the HW a smoother and less aggressive circuit than the PCB SLP. The HW sounds more old school to my ears. And like sinner 13 mentioned, inconsistencies from month to month due to fluctuating parts suppliers makes "do they sound like the originals" as moot as the fact that the reissues have not undergone aging of components that can also lend to an amps character.

To me the RI's be they HW or PCB are as close to a vintage amps tone as I need and I can count on reliability as well as not having to bring an expensive museum piece out of the house.

The RI's are all of pretty solid build quality IME. Not fragile and nice simple circuits.

 

[jack daniels]

Maybe if one inherited Eric Johnson's ears (that are in the doggy range lol) they may/might be able to hear the subtle differences apples to apples, all things being considered.

The real question here is, if it were possible to clone two amps by using exact components, matching of values, tolerances, I mean everything exactly alike to the exclusion of all others, excepting only the two different board types, would you really be able to hear the difference(s)? See my first comment.

 

[Georgiatec]

Well my '04 HW 2061x sounds spot on. I played through a '73 1987 last week that wasn't good sounding at all....may have been the shop's V30 cab I used. I also played through a '71 1959 a few weeks ago that sounded like the gates of rock heaven opening. I guess you can only give each amp you come across a listen and make buying decisions based on what you hear. The type of cab you play through will also make a big difference. Where ever possible I take my 1922 with two old re-coned G12-30 GB's in it for consistency.
I would like to get an original 2061 and test side by side with the RI.
The guy who owned the '71 1959 said he was going to have it buried with him when he goes.....if I'm still here I'll be doing a spot of grave robbing....it was THAT good.

 

[janarn]

It's only one way to find out.
A/B-test an old Plexi with a RI, and use the same cab.
I have done it and know the answer.

 

[seeker88]

Well my '04 HW 2061x sounds spot on. I played through a '73 1987 last week that wasn't good sounding at all....may have been the shop's V30 cab I used. I also played through a '71 1959 a few weeks ago that sounded like the gates of rock heaven opening.

It's funny, one of the last older Marshalls I bought was a '73 1987. It had no crunch hence no soul. Honestly the worst of the bunch for me. I later read somewhere that in 1973 the amps were designed to be cleaner in tone and the circuit might of been changed slightly, not sure though?

Apparently this is the opposite of 1972 where it is said they were the quickest to distort. If I'm correct "flame thrower" was how the '72's were described in that article. IDK 100% as I was never able to get a hold of a '72.

I can tell you the RI 1987x (35th anniversary) I had "crunched" at around 2 1/2 on the dial. Very usable as a classic Rock or more amp.

 

[Joshabr1]

It's only one way to find out.
A/B-test an old Plexi with a RI, and use the same cab.
I have done it and know the answer.

Not a fair comparison. The components; capacitors,resistors,transformers in the old ones just add this special something that can't really be written. But like he said play a 68-73 and then play a hw thru the same cab. If u can't hear it then it doesn't matter anyways.

 

[dreyn77]

they themselves know the amp is different and they deliberately made it that way. it's destined to become another highly sort after amp product.

you're lucky marshall can do this sort of amp today.

these type of amps always had a level of fame but I thought they got more fame with the introduction of more gain, and therefore a sound with extra bight, during the late 70's/80's.

 

[charveldan]

Tone is subjective.

Some say po-tate-toe, some say pot-tot-toe.

Generally speaking, new & improved never is and a remake is not the same [including cinema].

Reissue 800's dont sound like early 80's 800's to me and reissue JMP's lack the character, MoJo & harmonic majic of 60"s & 70's MARSHALLS.

Part of the majic of old MARSHALLS is that the components were inconsistant from all different types & suppliers even tho the specs were the same.

Thats part of what lacks in mass produced wave soldered amps.

They automated the majic right out of the amp.

Grail tone comes from human hands not CNC devices.