If You Were In Charge At Marshall....

[LPMarshall hack]

Sorry I don't read every single thread in here.

That thread is Dans legacy.

 

[el_bastardo]

That thread is Dans legacy.

That's kind of sad.

 

[Springfield Scooter]

Sue for what? He made a false statement on a podcast. If I understand libel, Marshall would have to prove financial harm was done.

I almost purchased a brand new Marshall, but did not, due to Friedmans false words reguarding Marshall Amplification...

Slander.

Friedman who?

 

[Springfield Scooter]

Fuk friedman and his pink taco runt slander.

I wonder if the California Wild Fires were started by a brown eye catching on fire...

Ive lost ALL respect for the fat guy after his latest stunt.

Ill take a Marshall.

 

[el_bastardo]

I almost purchased a brand new Marshall, but did not, due to Friedmans false words reguarding Marshall Amplification...

Slander.

Friedman who?

You better be telling the truth, or that's libel!

 

[Springfield Scooter]

Absolutely no Pink Taco's in my future!

 

[el_bastardo]

Absolutely no Pink Taco's in my future!

No doubt, and probably in more ways than just the amp.

 

[Springfield Scooter]

No doubt, and probably in more ways than just the amp.

Whatever you and him do in your private time, is no business of mine!

 

[Ghostman]

 

[Gain Man]

This post is more of a rant than a short answer, but I think this must be said:

I would simplify and streamline the product line-up of tube amps. Build all heads in 100W, 50W (if the demand is there) and 20W versions, the latter in a compact size to fit on a unified line of well designed and great sounding 2x12 (slanted, vertical) and 1x12 cabs.
All amps would have accessible bias points and pots (or if there is a reliable and well-working auto-bias feature perhaps even that).

Why do people keep asking for reissues? Because they are looking for the design quirks and limited features of the original amps or because they are looking for the sound?
Since the latter is the obvious answer, I would cancel all reissues as they are and combine the original circuits with modern features.

Does anybody remember the JCM 900 Hi Gain Master Volume line? That was basically taking the single channel JCM 800 to the next level.
So why not reintroduce such an amp again? The features of the MkIII, but using the circuit of the 2203, which is what people are actually after.
2 gain controls: one gives you the original JCM 800 sound and you can add some more distortion with the other gain control to your liking.
Combine that with switchable Master Volumes (which competitors seem to have in pretty much every amp line today). I would have this feature in EVERY amp line (apart from non-Master-Volume amps for obvious reasons).
The 100W head could be named "JCM100h" - that sounds like a new line, but captures the essence of what this amp is about.

Or what about an amp with the Silver Jubilee circuit, put into a true dual or multi channel amp? Perhaps add switchable gain modes like in the JVM?

And while we are at it: why not transfer the concept behind the JVM to other amp lines?
Why are the modes in the DSL not switchable? Why not apply the JVM's mode switching concept to the DSL? Two channels with two modes each? How would that sound? Oh and 2 switchable master volumes of course.

Since many people seem to think the JVM needs a choke and whichever mods are often mentioned, I would have the JVM and JVM JS merged into one better product line.
Why not introduce another JVM type amp which tries to capture a "modern" approach to guitar tone? And I don't mean that in an OD2-way, but in a more Engl-, Diezel-, Boogie- way, while somehow still sounding Marshall.

So to sum things up, this would be the product line:

Improved version of the JVM 4 (probably without the 20W version, because not enough space for the dials) as flagship.

Another modern multi-channel amp with a more modern voicing (After LISTENING to what customers say).

DSL with modernised features to cover the 2-channel market.

The JCM single channel series.

Silver Jubilee modernised feature-wise, or even just as a channel within a 2- or multi-channel amp.

The Plexi (including a 20W mini head).

Other than that, some high quality solid state, digital and hybrid products should also be released.

 

[MaskingApathy]

This post is more of a rant than a short answer, but I think this must be said:

I would simplify and streamline the product line-up of tube amps. Build all heads in 100W, 50W (if the demand is there) and 20W versions, the latter in a compact size to fit on a unified line of well designed and great sounding 2x12 (slanted, vertical) and 1x12 cabs.
All amps would have accessible bias points and pots (or if there is a reliable and well-working auto-bias feature perhaps even that).

Why do people keep asking for reissues? Because they are looking for the design quirks and limited features of the original amps or because they are looking for the sound?
Since the latter is the obvious answer, I would cancel all reissues as they are and combine the original circuits with modern features.

Does anybody remember the JCM 900 Hi Gain Master Volume line? That was basically taking the single channel JCM 800 to the next level.
So why not reintroduce such an amp again? The features of the MkIII, but using the circuit of the 2203, which is what people are actually after.
2 gain controls: one gives you the original JCM 800 sound and you can add some more distortion with the other gain control to your liking.
Combine that with switchable Master Volumes (which competitors seem to have in pretty much every amp line today). I would have this feature in EVERY amp line (apart from non-Master-Volume amps for obvious reasons).
The 100W head could be named "JCM100h" - that sounds like a new line, but captures the essence of what this amp is about.

Or what about an amp with the Silver Jubilee circuit, put into a true dual or multi channel amp? Perhaps add switchable gain modes like in the JVM?

And while we are at it: why not transfer the concept behind the JVM to other amp lines?
Why are the modes in the DSL not switchable? Why not apply the JVM's mode switching concept to the DSL? Two channels with two modes each? How would that sound? Oh and 2 switchable master volumes of course.

Since many people seem to think the JVM needs a choke and whichever mods are often mentioned, I would have the JVM and JVM JS merged into one better product line.
Why not introduce another JVM type amp which tries to capture a "modern" approach to guitar tone? And I don't mean that in an OD2-way, but in a more Engl-, Diezel-, Boogie- way, while somehow still sounding Marshall.

So to sum things up, this would be the product line:

Improved version of the JVM 4 (probably without the 20W version, because not enough space for the dials) as flagship.

Another modern multi-channel amp with a more modern voicing (After LISTENING to what customers say).

DSL with modernised features to cover the 2-channel market.

The JCM single channel series.

Silver Jubilee modernised feature-wise, or even just as a channel within a 2- or multi-channel amp.

The Plexi (including a 20W mini head).

Other than that, some high quality solid state, digital and hybrid products should also be released.

I like those ideas, especially the DSL, JCM, and Silver Jubilee ones. The JCM one, I think that's what they were trying to do with the Super 800 (that never made it out to market). And I agree about having accessible bias points or an auto bias feature.

 

[Springfield Scooter]

Auto bias would be icing on the cake!

 

[solarburn]

I'm a fan of autobias too and I can bias amps myself. Tube wise plug and play is nice.

After hearing clips of Ceriatones 6V6 20 watt plexi I'm a fan. I already have big iron offerings so I know how good it gets.

If Marshall added one to the stable...auto bias...means mix/match same pin out power tubes id be all over it. Course that's my fav kind of Marshall. We all are going to have leanings toward what we love to play.

 

[roxynoodle]

I have a surprise for some of you. I am a retired high school teacher. A few years ago one of my students brought his guitar to school. It was a Squire acoustic with the worst action I've ever seen and the filthiest strings, but nevertheless, my class asked me if I would play something. I don't know the music they listen to and told them it would be something from my day instead. I did "Over the Hills and Far Away". Well, most of them jumped up excitedly and started yelling, "Yes! Led Zeppelin!"

So, apparently today's youngsters do know that "old" music after all.

 

[BrentD]

After hearing clips of Ceriatones 6V6 20 watt plexi I'm a fan. I already have big iron offerings so I know how good it gets.

I think this is a spot where Marshall could sell some amps. I'm curious about using bigger transformers, though. Although the wattage would go up marginally, over-specced transformers might make 20 watts feel like more even if it's not much louder.

 

[Crunchifyable]

Since many people seem to think the JVM needs a choke and whichever mods are often mentioned, I would have the JVM and JVM JS merged into one better product line.
Why not introduce another JVM type amp which tries to capture a "modern" approach to guitar tone? And I don't mean that in an OD2-way, but in a more Engl-, Diezel-, Boogie- way, while somehow still sounding Marshall.

You hit the nail on the head right there. The problem with most Marshalls is they sound like Marshalls. And what people probably want is a clean to AC/DC channel, a Marshall drive (Old EVH, crunch mode on a 5150 II for me) and a Mesa/Peavey/Engl grind (6505+ Lead channel for me) in a box. Mesa, Peavey, etc., have been doing that for decades. And Marshall is still hung up on making 4 channels of Marshall (or four channels of Saxon / Iron Maiden / hair metal, etc...). Marshall naturally does the Marshall thing better than imitators, but a lot of people want flexibility. If Marshall just copied the 5150 II or III they'd be 90% of the way there.

The JVM is awesome but at $2500 USD I can probably get 3 Peaveys. Or ~5 Bugeras.

Marshall syndrome at it's finest. If they could get it down to $700 and add a 5150 channel, I'd buy one.

 

[el_bastardo]

You hit the nail on the head right there. The problem with most Marshalls is they sound like Marshalls. And what people probably want is a clean to AC/DC channel, a Marshall drive (Old EVH, crunch mode on a 5150 II for me) and a Mesa/Peavey/Engl grind (6505+ Lead channel for me) in a box. Mesa, Peavey, etc., have been doing that for decades. And Marshall is still hung up on making 4 channels of Marshall (or four channels of Saxon / Iron Maiden / hair metal, etc...). Marshall naturally does the Marshall thing better than imitators, but a lot of people want flexibility. If Marshall just copied the 5150 II or III they'd be 90% of the way there.

The JVM is awesome but at $2500 USD I can probably get 3 Peaveys. Or ~5 Bugeras.

Marshall syndrome at it's finest. If they could get it down to $700 and add a 5150 channel, I'd buy one.

You can get a used 4-channel JVM for about $1100. If $1100 is too much for a four-channel, three modes per channel amp with all the bells and whistles, then...I don't know what to tell you.

 

[Crunchifyable]

Didn't reallize they went for so cheap used. I thought that they'd be at least $1500.

$1100 for a used UK Marshall aint bad. $2500 for a new one is more than I'll ever pay for anything gear related.

 

[slide222]

lets talk about 20 watt tube heads and possible new marshall products that the forum bros would like to see -this thread has more life yet, lots of possibilities
but what?

 

[G the wildman]

Well of course it is a market led answer that helps them survive.

I suspect there are more bedroom players than giggers. So I would look to improve on Blackstar's small amps. Including a Fender clean channel. But the big Marshall amps are special so no work there, except to make the DSL40 a little warmer sounding. But that may kill JVM sales. . . .Think I might leave it to them.