JCM 900 SLX 2500, JCM2000 DSL50, why the shear hatred?

[Clockworkmike]

I own both a JCM 900 SL-X 2500 EL34 series and an original JCM 2000 DSL50. Where I live, talking to local guitar shops and repair shops, I get faces of both disgust and lengthy stories of why both amps are garbage and why random amp A) B) and C) are better. ( For instance, today I took the DSL into a repair shop that i drove over 2hrs away to get repaired and heard about how it's not a real Marshall valve amp and that the 900 SLX is awful in it's own right, only to be informed of how the last real Marshall was the JCM800 series).

What is the hatred of these two specific amplifiers and is it justified? I've actually owned both for over 20+ years and until today , have never had to have one serviced. They have been both extremely reliable, very fun to play and created great sound. But, when talking to anyone else, I might as well own a plague infested pile of dirty brown trash water, according to them.

Any thoughts on this?

 

[Dogs of Doom]

because both amp's were kind of a parody of those making a parody of Marshall... ...

They were Marshall's response to the modders of the day. Many people thought that they failed to accomplish what they set out to do, in regards to that.

The 1st JCM900 had diode clipping & that really gnawed on the tube purist bunch, although, they didn't know, at the time that the Jose mod was pretty similar...

The modders were doing 2 channel, or, simply doing an A/B that bypassed the pre-amp, for clean. It was crude. As time went on, mod's got better & better.

Marshall answered that & w/ the DSL/TSL, they didn't live up to what the customers expected.

Some of that was based still, on the bad press of the 900 series. Same as today, w/ internet fodder & forum outrage mobs, the word got out & 900 bad, 2000 bad...

In time, the DSL became the #1 selling Marshall amp ever, so, somewhere along the line it became popular, in spite of it's rough beginnings & some board troubles, etc. Some people though, once they hear a bad rap, never get past that...

The JVM is a great amp, & Marshall has released plenty of great amp's since 1984...

 

[Clockworkmike]

because both amp's were kind of a parody of those making a parody of Marshall... ...

They were Marshall's response to the modders of the day. Many people thought that they failed to accomplish what they set out to do, in regards to that.

The 1st JCM900 had diode clipping & that really gnawed on the tube purist bunch, although, they didn't know, at the time that the Jose mod was pretty similar...

The modders were doing 2 channel, or, simply doing an A/B that bypassed the pre-amp, for clean. It was crude. As time went on, mod's got better & better.

Marshall answered that & w/ the DSL/TSL, they didn't live up to what the customers expected.

Some of that was based still, on the bad press of the 900 series. Same as today, w/ internet fodder & forum outrage mobs, the word got out & 900 bad, 2000 bad...

In time, the DSL became the #1 selling Marshall amp ever, so, somewhere along the line it became popular, in spite of it's rough beginnings & some board troubles, etc. Some people though, once they hear a bad rap, never get past that...

The JVM is a great amp, & Marshall has released plenty of great amp's since 1984...

Thank you for the honesty of that!

I agree that Marshall has had some misfires after the heydays of the the JTM45s, SLPS, JMPs and 800s. But they've also produced great amplifiers as well, afterwards. ( The jvm has done quite well as you've mentioned and the DSL in my opinion is a fantastic amp, I even like the 900 SLX a lot as well and the 6100 is known to be a beloved amp by those who have used it). I had a JCM900 dual reverb 50 for about a month and i wasn't crazy about it, because it just seemed to lack any real punch but it wasn't terrible either at the same time, but it just was not for me. I heard the JCM 600 series and again, not terrible but not for me.

I love a wide variety of Marshalls and I personally don't believe in one being alpha above all others, although I know that sentiment doesn't stand with a lot of people. I also know that not all vintage marshall's were completely infallible at the same time either, however and had issues of their own.

Personally, I think it's almost a prerequisite for a guitar store guy or repair tech to trash whatever you have, no matter how great it is, even it was the holy grail, it wouldn't be good enough lol. The guy who sold me the 900 SLX actually ripped that amp to shreds after a year or two when I went back to his shop, when he originally held it as a masterpiece. Go figure lol

 

[Dogs of Doom]

the main thing is you being able to dial it in & get some tones & feel that inspire you...

I've never been able to get on w/ Mesa Boogie amp's. Once upon a time, I was doing sound for this band & the singer/guitarist in the band was playing/singing & as I was dialing him in, I noticed that he was getting a great tone & it was easy to mix, etc.

After soundcheck, I asked if I could try it out for a minute. He said, "yeah, sure - go for it"

After about 20 seconds, I put it down. I couldn't put it down fast enough. It was the worst tone imaginable. Blech!

But... it worked for him, he sounded good w/ it, he liked it & felt inspired by it.

More power to him. Not for me, but it was for him...

 

[Clockworkmike]

I can completely agree with that. I had an uncle who had a Mesa/Boogie Mark 3, as well as a Peavey 5150. I actually bought the 5150 off of him and could not get a decent sound out of it no matter how I tried, nor could I conjure any sound I liked out of his Mesa when playing it. However, he used both to great effect for years in bands and had an amazing tone ( albeit, each being different). I just chalked it up to them being 6L6s but I know that's not true lol ( the Mesa did have EL34s as well with it being a Simul-Class series)

I think in the end, the player themselves is what can make or break an amp in regards to sound sometimes

 

[marshallmellowed]

Who cares what anyone else thinks. If you like an amp, and it does what you want, their opinions mean shit. I have a 50w SL-X, and it's a cool amp (IMO). They do, however have a reputation for needing BR3 replaced with a higher current part, which might give tech's a reason to bash.

 

[Clockworkmike]

Who cares what anyone else thinks. If you like an amp, and it does what you want, their opinions mean shit. I have a 50w SL-X, and it's a cool amp (IMO). They do, however have a reputation for needing BR3 replaced with a higher current part, which might give tech's a reason to bash.

Absolutely! Fortunately, I've dodged any significant issues with the SL-X other than some scratchy pots. It does have a little issue now with the volume cutting our intermittently, but that's a topic for another board, and is right now in fact lol

 

[Drinkingdeath01]

With all due respect I think both of you are over thinking the situation. The fact is the 800's or prior are held in high regard because they deserve it. The 900's and beyond are fantastic amps, but they are much more complex to work on. I think a lot of "techs" hate them because there is much more work involved vs the older amps.

Either way a good tech shouldn't criticize your amp. If its what your into then more power to you. Your tech should be your guy to fix whatever you want, not judge you on what you have or like.

 

[ampmadscientist]

I own both a JCM 900 SL-X 2500 EL34 series and an original JCM 2000 DSL50. Where I live, talking to local guitar shops and repair shops, I get faces of both disgust and lengthy stories of why both amps are garbage and why random amp A) B) and C) are better. ( For instance, today I took the DSL into a repair shop that i drove over 2hrs away to get repaired and heard about how it's not a real Marshall valve amp and that the 900 SLX is awful in it's own right, only to be informed of how the last real Marshall was the JCM800 series).

What is the hatred of these two specific amplifiers and is it justified? I've actually owned both for over 20+ years and until today , have never had to have one serviced. They have been both extremely reliable, very fun to play and created great sound. But, when talking to anyone else, I might as well own a plague infested pile of dirty brown trash water, according to them.

Any thoughts on this?

I have tweaked some 900s and they sounded pretty monstrous. I think it has a lot of potential.
The DSL you gotta deal with the circuit board, but people love the way they sound.
These amps being more complicated to maintain compared to a super lead etc...maybe that's why the low ratings. But they both still sound great and I like it.

 

[RCM 800]

With all due respect I think both of you are over thinking the situation. The fact is the 800's or prior are held in high regard because they deserve it. The 900's and beyond are fantastic amps, but they are much more complex to work on. I think a lot of "techs" hate them because there is much more work involved vs the older amps.

Either way a good tech shouldn't criticize your amp. If its what your into then more power to you. Your tech should be your guy to fix whatever you want, not judge you on what you have or like.

Lol right maybe its not bad amps but shoddy techs. OP play what you like.

 

[snow lizard]

I picked up an SLX 2500 a while ago for cheap. It had a blown power tube and was badly in need of a good pot cleaning. After cleaning the pots and changing the tubes it seems to be fine now. I didn't have any experience with the 900 series but did some reading up on it. My understanding is that this head is similar to the Mk. III but instead of diode clipping they added an extra 12AX7 gain stage. Initially I found it too gainy for my taste. It seems I have to have the volume and sensitivity controls both cracked open enough for it to pass a guitar signal properly. At first if I went just a touch higher on the sensitivity control it just went straight into hyper death shred gain levels. I read somewhere (probably on this forum) about using a 5751 in V2. Tried that, and it works like a charm. The sensitivity control is nowhere near as sensitive and by just using the 1st gain stage volume control you can get anywhere from sort of clean with just a bit of hair on it to something that sounds very close to a Plexi or 2203. The sensitivity control still works but you have to crank it a lot higher to get into ultra high gain territory. There's a wide range of cool sounds you can get out of it and it sounds big.

I have no idea how the SLX compares to a Dual Reverb or Mk. III. I've tried a few of the more recent DSL's and honestly they're not my cup of tea. Probably great for someone that wants the high gain. I thought I was going to flip the SLX but it's harder to do now because I think it sounds great.

 

[marshalltsl]

I have a JCM900 mk3(EL34) 50W and two Tsl100. Great amps! But they need mantenance. A lot of people still think a tubes don't need replaced and an amp lasts forever. The tube amps needs check It time to time. They need clean It too.

 

[ampmadscientist]

I picked up an SLX 2500 a while ago for cheap. It had a blown power tube and was badly in need of a good pot cleaning. After cleaning the pots and changing the tubes it seems to be fine now. I didn't have any experience with the 900 series but did some reading up on it. My understanding is that this head is similar to the Mk. III but instead of diode clipping they added an extra 12AX7 gain stage. Initially I found it too gainy for my taste. It seems I have to have the volume and sensitivity controls both cracked open enough for it to pass a guitar signal properly. At first if I went just a touch higher on the sensitivity control it just went straight into hyper death shred gain levels. I read somewhere (probably on this forum) about using a 5751 in V2. Tried that, and it works like a charm. The sensitivity control is nowhere near as sensitive and by just using the 1st gain stage volume control you can get anywhere from sort of clean with just a bit of hair on it to something that sounds very close to a Plexi or 2203. The sensitivity control still works but you have to crank it a lot higher to get into ultra high gain territory. There's a wide range of cool sounds you can get out of it and it sounds big.

I have no idea how the SLX compares to a Dual Reverb or Mk. III. I've tried a few of the more recent DSL's and honestly they're not my cup of tea. Probably great for someone that wants the high gain. I thought I was going to flip the SLX but it's harder to do now because I think it sounds great.

.

 

[Clockworkmike]

With all due respect I think both of you are over thinking the situation. The fact is the 800's or prior are held in high regard because they deserve it. The 900's and beyond are fantastic amps, but they are much more complex to work on. I think a lot of "techs" hate them because there is much more work involved vs the older amps.

Either way a good tech shouldn't criticize your amp. If its what your into then more power to you. Your tech should be your guy to fix whatever you want, not judge you on what you have or like.

Completely agree here! Marshall didn't build it's reputation in the 60s on thru to the 80s for making mediocre, crappy sounding amplifiers for nearly every guitar icon who ever picked up the instrument. It would be an understatement to even say they helped shape rock music in general.

But at the same time, they continued to produce great amps onward to this very day. But I think a lot of them became increasingly overlooked or ignored because of the changes in music and people began looking for even more ultra gain, ultra expensive amplifiers, like Mesa Boogie, Diezel, Bogner, Engl, etc. And that's awesome if that's your thing, because to each their own.

But at the end of day, no matter many pedals or FX units you might dabble with, how many newer hi gain amps you toy around on: for me? I will always eventually, sooner than later, go back to the simple Marshall Crunch, straight into the guitar. It just works and sounds right

 

[Clockworkmike]

I picked up an SLX 2500 a while ago for cheap. It had a blown power tube and was badly in need of a good pot cleaning. After cleaning the pots and changing the tubes it seems to be fine now. I didn't have any experience with the 900 series but did some reading up on it. My understanding is that this head is similar to the Mk. III but instead of diode clipping they added an extra 12AX7 gain stage. Initially I found it too gainy for my taste. It seems I have to have the volume and sensitivity controls both cracked open enough for it to pass a guitar signal properly. At first if I went just a touch higher on the sensitivity control it just went straight into hyper death shred gain levels. I read somewhere (probably on this forum) about using a 5751 in V2. Tried that, and it works like a charm. The sensitivity control is nowhere near as sensitive and by just using the 1st gain stage volume control you can get anywhere from sort of clean with just a bit of hair on it to something that sounds very close to a Plexi or 2203. The sensitivity control still works but you have to crank it a lot higher to get into ultra high gain territory. There's a wide range of cool sounds you can get out of it and it sounds big.

I have no idea how the SLX compares to a Dual Reverb or Mk. III. I've tried a few of the more recent DSL's and honestly they're not my cup of tea. Probably great for someone that wants the high gain. I thought I was going to flip the SLX but it's harder to do now because I think it sounds great.

That actually sounds intriguing and worth a try!

 

[South Park]

It is what the consumer wants is what is built gizmo gadgets.

 

[marshalltsl]

I bought my Jcm900 mk3 very cheap from Germany on eBay. When It arrives comes with 5881tubes. It sounds but It has red plating on the power tubes. I need replaced the bias feed cap C15 and the bias pot. When I turned off the power swith It make noise. I replaced filter caps. I solved.
I bought an amp that was used a lot! Some pots will be replaced. But It's a rock machine.

 

[Adrian R]

What is the hatred of these two specific amplifiers and is it justified?

** No, and why? Because many people are mindless knuckleheads...allowing opinion to rule their way of thinking. All 3 amps mentioned are excellent guitar amps that perform and sound like Marshalls in the right hands. I've owned all 3...and aside from a few +/- s.....they all kicked ass through my cabs, guitars and chops.

 

[LPMarshall hack]

They are only hated by the 60s burnouts due to the PCBs, and the fact that these amps weren’t played on their beloved Foghat records.

 

[Gunner64]

I've had the 100 watt version of the sl-x, and still have the 2k DSL100, and both, when operating correctly are great amps, with all the balls and Marshall tone you could hope for.

I think The hatred stems from people who crank the gain, and keep the volume low, and then complain the amps sound thin and fizzy with their Les Paul customs with the tone dimed..or their hot sizzley pick ups..hmm no shit...couldn't imagine why..

..Or from amps that are not functioning correctly. When these amps work, and they are used to their abilities they are great amps.