Marshall 50 watt (1987)

[maltone]

Guys, I'm new to the forum, and I have some questions about tonal differences, and variations of different 50 watt Marshalls with similar circuits.

I found this clip: [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_jxwnjgQS0w]YouTube - 1973 Marshall 50 Watt Demo[/ame]
This is THE TONE I consider one of the best - classic AC/DC, Malcolm Young etc. But, not quite cleaned up enough for me.

There's a very clear separation in each note while he plays - despite the amp's volume being at 8. From what I've read, Malcolm Young has said that he rarely turns his amps up past 4 on volume.

Next, this Granger M50 Plexi — listen to the Granger M50 sound clips http://grangeramp.com/m50.php
Not the You Tube clip below it.

This amp also sounds great, but I find that the harmonic content isn't as smooth or separated as in the first 73' 50 watt clip. I wanted to know, what imparts that "machine grinding" distortion sound? - Which I DON'T like. It sounds too over-driven, where the chords don't have string separation. Instead, when a D chord is played, you don't hear all the notes in the chord, but rather you hear the root note "D" on the D string, then a harmonic D - 1 octave higher. It sounds a bit "80's" metal to me - and I don't like that sound.

Mal's tone is much more articulated, separated and on the cleaner side. Is this just the way they pushed the amp, or will different components like transformers, and Sprague Orange caps VS Sozo's make a difference?

I'm just trying to understand the nuances and differences between these 2 of amps that have the same circuit. I'm tired of hearing clips where all these guys do Eddie Van Halen - machine roaring tones. - The chords and articulation of the notes are lost in the severely over-driven sound. Often what I hear is this, "Chonka-Chonka, thug, thug sound. No jangle, no dynamics, just over crunch.

Can someone please explain what governs the balanced sound of the harmonic content in the older 73' Marshall VS the Granger? Or is it just the settings that each clip used?
Even if you listen to Pro Guitar Shop's demo of the 50 watt 1987X, [ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fR3Os80p0u4[/ame] it doesn't sound as rich or full to me as the first 73' clip.

Please shed some light on the subject. Thanks.

 

[Lespaulnmarshall]

They're all (slightly) different. The granger is a clone that sounds a bit more 80's metal than the real deal, while the 1987x is a definately different than the real deal but still focused on that authentic lat 60's/70's tone. Many people prefer the real deal over both, it's worth more and it's value will only increase, while the Granger and the reissue's values will onlt desincrease. You might want to look at metro plexi clones too. They're great amps and as close to late 60's plexi's as you can get without getting one. You can also order it with NOS mustard caps etc.. in it if you want.

The 1987x might not sound as good as the Granger because of the settings, recording gear, guitar and mic placement. If you'd compare them side by side they'd probably sound much more similar, and then it would come down to personal preference.

 

[maltone]

Thanks Les Paul Marshall. I guess what I was trying to get at, is WHAT makes them different. I'm fully aware that they're different - but really shouldn't be because they're based on the same circuit.

Therefore, what makes the 73 so much more.... dynamic. There are very subtle nuances that make them sound different from one another, enough though that I can tell one from another, and that makes me prefer one more than the other.

If it's that much trouble to find a circuit schematic and layout for this 73's I might just as well go with a Dr Z with a half power option - they sound absolutely amazing. Don't get me wrong, I love the Marshall sound, but it seems like all of the "NEW" amp lines since the early 80's are lacking in different ways - marketing, sales etc can sometimes get in the way of the simplest amps sounding the best - as is the case with my Vintage Modern combo - which I do not like at all. I'm trying to unload this thing as soon as possible.

 

[Lespaulnmarshall]

Thanks Les Paul Marshall. I guess what I was trying to get at, is WHAT makes them different. I'm fully aware that they're different - but really shouldn't be because they're based on the same circuit.

Therefore, what makes the 73 so much more.... dynamic. There are very subtle nuances that make them sound different from one another, enough though that I can tell one from another, and that makes me prefer one more than the other.

If it's that much trouble to find a circuit schematic and layout for this 73's I might just as well go with a Dr Z with a half power option - they sound absolutely amazing. Don't get me wrong, I love the Marshall sound, but it seems like all of the "NEW" amp lines since the early 80's are lacking in different ways - marketing, sales etc can sometimes get in the way of the simplest amps sounding the best - as is the case with my Vintage Modern combo - which I do not like at all. I'm trying to unload this thing as soon as possible.

I don't exactly know what the differences are, but they definately are all a bit different. Different trannies and chokes make big differences, caps and filter caps make more subtle differences. Curt Granger might have made some cirquit changes to make his amps unique and to give them more of the sound that he likes. What also makes a difference is the wich plexi the M50 (i.e. wich year) was based on. The granger was based on an early 70's plexi while the Marshall was based on the 68' plexi. And as Curt Granger has tweaked the amp a bit it sounds different than the 73' plexi in the video with the es-335.

Metropoulos amplification makes excellent clones that are as close to the original as possible!

I used to have a VM too. I got rid of it beacuse I had bought an 83' JCM 800 2204 and a Bluesbreaker (JTM 45) reissue. I got a JVM410h to replace it, that I am now trying to trade for a 50w plexi, reissue, clone or vintage.

 

[maltone]

Les, do you know of any source online where I can find a legible schematic for the 73' 50 watt (1987) circuit.

If I was going to go your route - and buy a JCM 800, I'd have a tech in my area convert to the 87's circuit - with lead and bass inputs.

I can't find a good source for legible schematics. I found this one:
Marshall Amps Info & Schematics

But I can't find the schematic for this 73's model.

 

[Lespaulnmarshall]

Les, do you know of any source online where I can find a legible schematic for the 73' 50 watt (1987) circuit.

If I was going to go your route - and buy a JCM 800, I'd have a tech in my area convert to the 87's circuit - with lead and bass inputs.

I can't find a good source for legible schematics. I found this one:
Marshall Amps Info & Schematics

But I can't find the schematic for this 73's model.

If dr. tube doesen't have one it'll be hard to find... I googled '73' Marshall 1987 schematic' But I couldn't find a single schematic of an early 70's 1987, let alone a 73' (not sure if a 73' is any different from other early 70's 1987's)

 

[Username2]

I have a M50, awesome handwired amp that sounds great. AC/DC, yeah it will nail that. You cannot beat the price and quality for the money, plus Curt stands behind his products 100%. The M50 is based off a 72 JMP50 with a few mods. In my opinion a nice option to a 1987, one isn't better then the other but again for the money the M50 is a great amp.

 

[Steve0525]

Not trying to be mean...but please find your tone instead of Malcoms...

If your not malcom, you WILL NOT sound like him. Period.

Try some amps/listen to some clips and pick up what you like...

 

[SoloDallas]

Not trying to be mean...but please find your tone instead of Malcoms...

If your not malcom, you WILL NOT sound like him. Period.

Try some amps/listen to some clips and pick up what you like...

With this, I respectfully disagree. This thing that has been going around for ages that tone is in the hands, has no meaning to me.
At least, when we're looking at the tonal characteristics that are embedded - and they are, by god - in equipment.

I spent a lifetime researching this, and I'm far from being finished and/or drawing conclusions, but this "can't get that tone because you're not him" isn't true /and or is largely exaggerated.

I am not trying to say that I am Angus Young. And I've got lots of flak in the years from people who thought I wanted to be him.
He's my hero; there is a difference.

But there IS tonal characteristics that is well embedded into gear.
A 1971 SG standard will not sound like any other SG, period.
A some older Marshalls do not sound like other Marshalls, period.

If you ask Malcolm to strum his guitar not even fretting it and you do the same with his guitar on his amp, you will get the same "sound".
Then your style may be different; you may not make it to sound exactly like him, but boy, you can satisfactorily get so close to accomplish your dream.

And I, among many others including - presumably - the OP, are just after this.

Gear DOES contribute greatly at making the sound; otherwise, many of our heros would just have one guitar - any guitar - and be happy with that.

Which doesn't seem to be the case, as most of them - with exceptions - have become - thanks to more wealth - collectors in the hundreds of items, between guitars and amps.

It's just the way it is.

EDIT: Having said this, dear Maltone, I can't help you, as I am no expert at all in these fine differences among amps. I am still learning a lot from trial and error.
I will tell you - just in line with what I stated above - that an older Gretsch will help you immensely.
I have a 1963 one in fact, same year as Malcolm's (AC/DC Malcolm's, if he is the one we are talking about?) and it does contain embedded characteristics.

I am posting this short clip here for you. The Gretsch is on the left stereo position.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m-rVHbN33d8[/ame]

 

[Steve0525]

True sir, but what do you think Malcom or Angus did the same thing, chasing another players EXACT setup? I do things because of my heroes too, dont get me wrong. But dont base every little thing off of someone else's sound.

This is all too common with the Slash debate... I know i will get crap for this, but honestly whether he's on AFD playing the "secret" amp, his 800, his 2550SL, his AFD, his VM, IT STILL SOUNDS LIKE SLASH to me. switching pics to the same ones warren haynes uses just isn't going to give you his tone...

 

[Adwex]

Dallas, who are you trying to fool, we all know you ARE Angus.

 

[BluesRocker]

Dallas, who are you trying to fool, we all know you ARE Angus.

I agree...He even has the facial expressions.

 

[SoloDallas]

What you say is also true, and I do see your point.
However, you must keep in mind that - at least folks like me - try to get even more specific with single album "sound", which differs at times greatly and at times, just slightly in the history of a band/artist.

I will tell you this, and I have sweat it drop by drop as a concept, in years: exact gear helps. It helps greatly. It helps learning to play.

If you hear guitar hero A and he does influence you a great deal (it happened to me, you have my word) then your concept of guitar playing is with a certain sound in mind.
There is no shame in this. Even Angus Young or Malcolm or Clapton, Page, ... have their heros. Their heros had different gear though, that goes without a doubt. But it was a different era altogether. This have really changed since then.

Now there is a world of "bedroom rockers" such as ourselves. Pardon me, I give for granted things: such as "Myself". I am mostly a bedroom rocker (a basement rocker , to tell it all). I noticed in the years that getting exact models of guitars and amps that - as I researched - were more period correct to the ones my hero had used on album A, B or C would help me replay those licks very, very closely.

If you are "that" into it, and you do it purely, with sincere, genuine devotion, passion for research, for learning, for the pleasure of the ear and the mind and even of your own body, it is beautiful.

I have reached new heights since I got certain things. You have my word of honor.

I have no intention to humiliate you starting a flame nor I wish that anyone else would give you a hard time for thinking it differently; however, I do suggest that you consider that gear can really, greatly help the more mature player to accomplish something.

I am not talking about the "slash tone" youth though; that may have different aspects of egos/personalties that I really am not interested into and I could agree with you on that specific subject (slash tone).

But there isn't only slash tone. There are many great tones out there that made history.

Let's study

 

[Steve0525]

I was just gonna say I guess you 'researched' and fond having his faces with you play give you his tone???

Sounds killer BTW, nice recording and playing

 

[SoloDallas]

Dallas, who are you trying to fool, we all know you ARE Angus.

I just SO knew it that you'd jump on me Sir

 

[SoloDallas]

I was just gonna say I guess you 'researched' and fond having his faces with you play give you his tone???

Sounds killer BTW, nice recording and playing

Thank you

Would you believe me if I told you that - yes - faces 'n' body moves help me play? I swear on my kids.
It's been debated very much; and much flak I got for it in the years (and much I still have to get lol) but moving and the faces greatly help shape your tone.

I know, it sounds like paranormal shit, don't it?
This is that, I move to stay in the rhythm; that simple.

I do those faces because... it's a fkcung pain for me phisically to bend strings and keep timing decent. Also, I think of the sound in me head before I try to get it on the guitar. Those ugly, ridiculous faces that I do - I do really look like a subpar like that, and maybe I am! - really are a necessity to me

I don't do them to be Angus; however, trying to get a sound in my head that has greatly, enormously influenced by Mr. Angus Young, brings me to do all that.

 

[Steve0525]

What you say is also true, and I do see your point.
However, you must keep in mind that - at least folks like me - try to get even more specific with single album "sound", which differs at times greatly and at times, just slightly in the history of a band/artist.

I will tell you this, and I have sweat it drop by drop as a concept, in years: exact gear helps. It helps greatly. It helps learning to play.

If you hear guitar hero A and he does influence you a great deal (it happened to me, you have my word) then your concept of guitar playing is with a certain sound in mind.
There is no shame in this. Even Angus Young or Malcolm or Clapton, Page, ... have their heros. Their heros had different gear though, that goes without a doubt. But it was a different era altogether. This have really changed since then.

Now there is a world of "bedroom rockers" such as ourselves. Pardon me, I give for granted things: such as "Myself". I am mostly a bedroom rocker (a basement rocker , to tell it all). I noticed in the years that getting exact models of guitars and amps that - as I researched - were more period correct to the ones my hero had used on album A, B or C would help me replay those licks very, very closely.

If you are "that" into it, and you do it purely, with sincere, genuine devotion, passion for research, for learning, for the pleasure of the ear and the mind and even of your own body, it is beautiful.

I have reached new heights since I got certain things. You have my word of honor.

I have no intention to humiliate you starting a flame nor I wish that anyone else would give you a hard time for thinking it differently; however, I do suggest that you consider that gear can really, greatly help the more mature player to accomplish something.

I am not talking about the "slash tone" youth though; that may have different aspects of egos/personalties that I really am not interested into and I could agree with you on that specific subject (slash tone).

But there isn't only slash tone. There are many great tones out there that made history.

Let's study

I never wanted you to think I totally disagree with you. I'm just talking about the kids out there who are beginners who's mommy bought them a Plexi and a RI SG, they will NOT sound like Angus... and that's what I though was happening.

I play original music, and find satisfaction in having a sound I find on my own. When my ears hear it and I'm not biased and I truly love the sound... Also, the cool thing is it never ends that way. If I wanted Angus' tone on July 16, 1978 all I have to do is goggle it, buy every piece of gear, and a size Small schoolboy outfit, and wa'la! im there, but there's no-where to go from there, you're stuck. this way, I get to hear new things and pick-up new tricks and gear that make MY own special sound. It's a living hunt...

 

[Steve0525]

Thank you

Would you believe me if I told you that - yes - faces 'n' body moves help me play? I swear on my kids.
It's been debated very much; and much flak I got for it in the years (and much I still have to get lol) but moving and the faces greatly help shape your tone.

I know, it sounds like paranormal shit, don't it?
This is that, I move to stay in the rhythm; that simple.

I do those faces because... it's a fkcung pain for me phisically to bend strings and keep timing decent. Also, I think of the sound in me head before I try to get it on the guitar. Those ugly, ridiculous faces that I do - I do really look like a subpar like that, and maybe I am! - really are a necessity to me

I don't do them to be Angus; however, trying to get a sound in my head that has greatly, enormously influenced by Mr. Angus Young, brings me to do all that.

I make faces too man. All real players (from the heart) do.

 

[SoloDallas]

I never wanted you to think I totally disagree with you. I'm just talking about the kids out there who are beginners who's mommy bought them a Plexi and a RI SG, they will NOT sound like Angus... and that's what I though was happening.

I play original music, and find satisfaction in having a sound I find on my own. When my ears hear it and I'm not biased and I truly love the sound... Also, the cool thing is it never ends that way. If I wanted Angus' tone on July 16, 1978 all I have to do is goggle it, buy every piece of gear, and a size Small schoolboy outfit, and wa'la! im there, but there's no-where to go from there, you're stuck. this way, I get to hear new things and pick-up new tricks and gear that make MY own special sound. It's a living hunt...

Both things you state here are true.
The first one, I agree to it wholly.
The second one, not entirely.

I DO sound a bit (and some may say more than so, gratifying me immensely lol) like Angus Young, but I also do have my style. Bits and pieces coming from other sides. You're not stuck if you don't want to be stuck.
We always progress, we never stop, even if we wanted to be stuck, frozen, we couldn't, for the worse or for the better.

But anyway, I think we've come to understand each other closer than anticipated previously. It's been a good talk

 

[Steve0525]

Truly, all that matters is that at the end of the day you're happy with YOUR sound...