My tale of two Marshalls, and what I have learned over the years…

[TheLoudness!!]

I can relate to this. I believe that anytime more options and features are added to something, the more complex and failure prone it can become.

I think the most knobs I have on an amp is around 8. I always thought the simple amps always sounded better. Certain amps have so much on them that realistically...I'd never use half of what they do.

This is also why I'm not the biggest fan of modelers.

On the Marshall side, that is why the Jubilee and the 800 speaks to me.

I have a Fender Super Champ. It has 6 knobs on it. Simple and sounds crazy good. Tone is the only real feature I need.

I do like a good channel switching amp as long as it's not too complex. It seems like a lot of them compromise one thing for another.

 

[tidbit]

My band mate has a JVM (nice amp) and I have a 2203. To each their own but I wouldn’t trade mine for his ever, “limitations” and all. The sound is glorious (not that his is bad at all…just more “modern”)
His has been in the shop three times in about 10 years.
I’ve owned mine since around 1994-5 and it has been in the shop twice….once for caps and tubes and another time for a bias mod that I wanted as it uses 6550s. I have gigged that amp 10 times more than he has as well as I’m always in multiple bands.

 

[spacerocker]

My band mate has a JVM (nice amp) and I have a 2203. To each their own but I wouldn’t trade mine for his ever, “limitations” and all. The sound is glorious (not that his is bad at all…just more “modern”)
His has been in the shop three times in about 10 years.
I’ve owned mine since around 1994-5 and it has been in the shop twice….once for caps and tubes and another time for a bias mod that I wanted as it uses 6550s. I have gigged that amp 10 times more than he has as well as I’m always in multiple bands.

I have both! (1980 2203 and 3 JVMs) - As I have said previously - I never use my 2203, as my JVMs can do the same job, plus a load of other stuff. Plus I don't need pedals....

Your band mate should be able to get very close to a 2203 sound on Crunch Orange. Maybe he doesn't want to? With a few small mods a JVM on Crunch Orange can duplicate the sound of a 2203...

Out of interest - what has his JVM been into the repair shop for?

My 2009 JMV410H has only ever had one pre-amp valve changed and the digital reverb replaced (in about 2011). Having said that, my 2203 has only ever had one valve replaced also! In my experience a JVM is every bit as reliable as a 2203 (excepting the possiblity that modern valves are not as robust as they were in the 80's....)

 

[tidbit]

I have both! (1980 2203 and 3 JVMs) - As I have said previously - I never use my 2203, as my JVMs can do the same job, plus a load of other stuff. Plus I don't need pedals....

Your band mate should be able to get very close to a 2203 sound on Crunch Orange. Maybe he doesn't want to? With a few small mods a JVM on Crunch Orange can duplicate the sound of a 2203...

Out of interest - what has his JVM been into the repair shop for?

My 2009 JMV410H has only ever had one pre-amp valve changed and the digital reverb replaced (in about 2011). Having said that, my 2203 has only ever had one valve replaced also! In my experience a JVM is every bit as reliable as a 2203 (excepting the possiblity that modern valves are not as robust as they were in the 80's....)

Once it was tubes when it was new. The other two times, I don’t know. The power went out live. It wasn’t a fuse though. Something else blew.
I had my 2203 fall out of a van 6 feet into the snow and played the gig without incident. It’s a tank.
The JMV is a versatile amp and it sounds really good. If that’s what I had, I would play it no issue. I’ll even say it sounds better at low volume than my 2203 (now I use an attenuator) but, to me, the 2203 has a 3D complexity to the sound that I don’t hear in the JMV. Maybe it’s the tubes, maybe it’s the transformer…I don’t know. He’s always fiddling with the knobs so I never know what channel he’s on.
I’m not slagging on the JMV at all but just offering my perspective. If he wanted to do an even trade, I would not be tempted in the least.
Overall, I tend to like simple setups as well. I just played a gig last night with a horn band playing marching arrangements. I used my 76 5 watt Vibro Champ. 3 people came up after the show asking what I was using to get that sound. Simple circuit- easy setup - beautiful tone (one trip in and one trip out was nice too).
Lately I’ve been gigging my SV20. A little lighter on the back (especially the 2x12 cab I have for it). The JMP and the SV 20 sound different but both sound like Marshall amps. As does the JVM. I don’t have any expectation that the SV20 could stand up to the abuse that the 2203 has suffered all these years. It’s just not made as robustly.

 

[Seventh Son]

The most valuable thing I've learned owning a few Marshalls over the years is: each amp has its own character and response, and it is what it is. You can't make one amp sound like the other, as there are so many possible differences in EQ curves that different amps can have. If you don't like an amp, find something that sounds more like what you want, as when you buy an amp, you're pretty much mostly buying a unique EQ profile.

 

[EADGBE]

I wish amps would be made more simple and reliable. But a lot of people want all of the extra channels, switches, buttons and knobs.

 

[spacerocker]

I wish amps would be made more simple and reliable. But a lot of people want all of the extra channels, switches, buttons and knobs.

That's true. I'm one of them because I don't like compromises. Simple, basic amps come with compromises...

Others buy a simple amp, then add half a dozen transistor drive/boost/OD/distortion pedals to make it sound like something else, or to try to make it sound more versatile live....

But simplicity doesn't guarantee reliability, and complexity doesn't necessarily mean more failures either! I have 3 JMVs now, the first is from 2009 and has been almost 100% reliable over 200+ gigs and numerous band practices. Look at the computer (or phone) you typed this on it has literally billions of transistors in it. How often does it fail?

 

[thesunship]

My Dsl40cr has had no issues for 5 years now. I haven't seen many posts about reliability issues with that amp in general. It's possible Marshall has tried to find ways to make the latest amps more reliable. Funny though, there is an ignorant bias against Vietnam manufactured Marshalls. If mine breaks, the used ones are going for very cheap, sometimes under $500 (probably because of said bias). The 6100 made in England I had lasted a full week before it crashed.

 

[spacerocker]

Once it was tubes when it was new. The other two times, I don’t know. The power went out live. It wasn’t a fuse though. Something else blew.

As I said- valves can fail on any valve amp....

Regarding to the other failure - it was probably a valve problem that took out the HT fuse, or possibly even damaged one of the 1 Ohm bias resistors.

Either of these failures could have happened on a 2203. It is important to realise that the JVM was developed by taking the 2203 design and modding it. Thus, the Power and output transformers on the JVM are the same, the design of the power section is identical (apart from 1 resistor value) and the valve types and circuit configuration is the same as a 2203 (apart from the extra gain stages for the high-gain channels, obviously)....There is nothing in a JVM that would make it more susceptable to the kind of failures you describe compared to a 2203.

I had my 2203 fall out of a van 6 feet into the snow and played the gig without incident. It’s a tank.

As I pointed out above - the construction of a JVM is pretty much the same as a 2203, both electrically and mechanically. The 2203 IS a tank! But the JVM is also a tank...

to me, the 2203 has a 3D complexity to the sound that I don’t hear in the JMV. Maybe it’s the tubes, maybe it’s the transformer…I don’t know. He’s always fiddling with the knobs so I never know what channel he’s on.
made as robustly.

Here, I agree with you! For a good, mid gain basic rock rhythm guitar sound, a 2203 is hard to beat! When I first got my JVM I was pleased with it - but after a back-to-back comparison with my 2203, I was a little disappointed in the JVM crunch channel. It sounded OK- and similar to the 2203 on crunch orange - but as you say it lacked that "3D" quality!

It's not the valves (unless he uses all "JJ" pre-amp valves - which can sound a little dark!), it's certainly not the transformer (for the reasons I stated above) - it is largely down to three things:

1) the value of negative feedback resistor - which is lower on the JVM and makes the amp feel a little stiff

2) the voicing of the tone circuit which is not quite as bright as the 2203

3) The JVM lacks the "treble peaker" circuit of the 2203, which again means it is less bright

All these differences can be changed by changing the value of about 4 components on the JVM, and would take a tech less than an hour! I know, because I have done these mods for myself, and others - and Yes - the JVM can get that "3D" quaility, and can (if desired) exactly replicate the 2203 sound and feel using the crunch orange or red modes. If I were forced to chose between playing though a stock JVM somehow permanently stuck on Crunch Orange, and a real 2203, I'd chose the latter for the reasons we both agree on. But if the choice were the same but involved a JVM with the mods I described, I wouldn't care which amp I used because they would be electrically and tonally the same...

Now, you might say - "it can't be a very good amp if you have to mod it!" - and again, I would agree with you! I never said a stock JVM was perfect. Pretty good out of the box, but not perfect! That is largely because it was aimed more at the modern metal sound on the OD channels, and was voiced in a particular way to suit that market, whcih had a knock-on effect on the crunch channel...But in my opinion a modded JVM can exactly match the sound of a 2203, but also gives you a ton of other options, including great clean channels, "fender-ish" edge of break-up sounds, full-on High gain metal sounds and (most importantly for me) an independent, singing, sustaining and LOUD lead channel - all without the need for a single effects pedal!

Of course if you want to try a JVM that gives you that "3D" sound straight out of the box - try the Joe Satriani version! I have recently bought JS model and it has that sound. It has an awesome Crunch channel (much better than a 2203), and the clean and OD channels sound amazing also...It has most of the mods I described above as stock, and a few more making it an even better amp than the original JVM, and no mods required!

 

[Michael Roe]

I could write a story like the OP here but mine ended in Fractal.

 

[V-man]

That's true. I'm one of them because I don't like compromises. Simple, basic amps come with compromises...

Others buy a simple amp, then add half a dozen transistor drive/boost/OD/distortion pedals to make it sound like something else, or to try to make it sound more versatile live....

But the thing is that it absolutely comes with compromises, I’d contend all roads do.



Buy a single channel amp without all those onboard features, what’s the compromise?

You will need to source all featured gear externally if you want such.


Ok, how is a fully-equipped amp a compromise, then?

First, the single channel is cherry-picked exclusively for its base tone, which should be legendary i.e. MV/NMV Super Lead. The multi channels, particularly Marshalls are always a compromise. Almost nobody says “I absolutely *must* have that red channel… so much so that I’d spend thousands just for that.“ No, it is a “compromise” of some good working tones, but to date nothing “grail” or “legendary” in it of itself.

The other thing about box ‘o bells & whistles tracks similarly to pedal board vs multi FX unit. You get a ton more, but it’s stock features that you would not get yourself were they commissioning your sig. Not only is that ”base tone” (green, orange, whatever) not as good as the single as a rule, but the other stuff follows as well. I have never heard a 2-3 channel fan positively salivate over every single channel. I have heard plenty owners who were content (at the least) with the overall package, but it seems one channel is preferred (loved) the next liked, and the last tolerated.

The single requires outside sourcing, but this is all hand-picked to be custom-tailored to the player. More gain? What’s your poison… Transparent clean boost? here are 36 popular choices… Tight OD? here are 284… or fuzz? 112…or Distortion? 67 to look at, etc. etc. There are endless permutations limited only by your personal tone chase, allowing your legendary “70‘ rock” base tone to transition to 3 hand-picked flavors of thrash metal, or one 80’s hair, and 2 flavors of 90’s alt. The exact same goes of on-board reverb, trem, or chorus… FX which as a rule are better than stock amp features, particularly with Marshalls.

Now, nothing is stopping a 3-channel guy from adding the same, but now the default set of compromises (lesser base tone and accessories, more complex dialing) are being exchanged/hybridized with the single channel compromises (all the accessorial goods need external sourcing). There really is no having your cake and eating it too… it merely becomes a question of which compromise is best tailored to your preferences.

 

[spacerocker]

@V-man I think we have said all we can say about this topic now (and have probably bored most other readers rigid in the process!)

I don't think I am ever going to convince you that multi-channel amps are inherently superior for most people (and certainly me) and you will never convince me that a simple, single channel amp is going to meet my needs....

It doesn't matter if we do things differently....

I have played a single channel amp exclusively for 25 years, and multi-channel JVMs exclusively for the past 14 years....I've done it both ways. For me, my current way of doing it is for me light years better than what I used to do, and I've never been happier with my set up!

If you are happy with yours, and it does everything you want - then that's fine too!

 

[V-man]

@V-man I think we have said all we can say about this topic now (and have probably bored most other readers rigid in the process!)
....

It doesn't matter if we do things differently....

I think we got on the same page within 2 posts about preferences, and I wouldn’t say either has argued his choice as the one others should embrace.

Now we are just mopping up misconceptions and picking the respective nits.

 

[Deftone]

I prefer single channel with an MV. An EFX loop is nice feature for me but that's about it.

If I was in a cover band and needed multiple tones I have long thought a Modeler would be perfect.

 

[Smokie 54]

TL;DR - skip down to the “lessons” (and iff pissed read above that later to see where they came from)


It was the end of the 2000s and a horrible motorcycle wreck pulled me out of the stream of life, and in that debilitating lonely existence, I rediscovered the world of guitar, that being the horrifying unending quest for new shit (now fueled by the internet’s reach of the furthest corners and latest baubles).

And in that sickness, I rebuilt a mountain of gear I did not need, apexing at 9 Marshalls, from my humble lone 4100 I bought back in my HS days. This was also the Golden age of the modern Marshall: the Sig series revolution... a dizzying array of exciting classic and cutting edge designs. Within those offering I weighed options for my first and only “plexi-type circuit.” Marshall offered 3 then - the never discussed 1992 LEM, (Lemmy’s Murder One clone), and the shedder’s weapons of choice… where my story takes us.


Two Amps, One Choice

Marshall offered two signature 1959 circuits: the striking 1959RR for one of my ultimate guitar heroes; and the YJM-100, Marshall’s boldest most innovative product since the 30th Anniversary series, or the “Ultimate Plexi.” Knowing that owning both was a ridiculous pipe dream (hell, one was an absurd extravagance amidst the 3 or 4 flagship Marshalls I had my hands on at the time) I was going to have to make a hard decision, and perhaps it was my loyalty or the looks that influenced me, but I went with the simple modestly-appointed 1959RR.

The problem was after I lost my office (where I would destroy foundations after hours) I was as overwhelmed as any kid today. The amp was smply absurd and as unmanageable as a pet tiger. I confess quite frankly that for many years this amplifier was a room ornament in the collection being insanely over-powered for residential use, and more candidly, I oft reconsidered this dilemma wondering if I regrettably chose the wrong sig for my “plexi needs,” considering the wonder features of the YJM, like its 50w mode and bedroom-level power scaling options, which would have served admirably me at those times.

The happy outcome finally came for me during the pandemic where smaller quarters and daily use forced me to look into attenuators and the bang-for-the buck Captor X was a Godsend then. That RR was cranked all hours of the night and almost daily during that awful time. This evolved further just this year with the acquisition of a PS-100 attenuator/reamper…But fast-forward to last week, where the reconciliation finally appeared before me… !


The Dilemma Finally Resolved. (?)

Can you believe my surprise just weeks ago when wanting to compare my beloved and reconciled RR with a stock 1959… that I discovered of all things in my local shop, a YJM for sale! Not a YJM for sale, but for a “steal” of a deal. I made an offer on the already absurdly-low price and it was accepted. Marshall’s crown jewels of the late-2000s would finally be under one roof after over a decade of wanting and wondering. Sadly, my elation lasted ONE HALF of the initial evening when I realized after @ 20 min of actual play that something was wrong.

A few search terms and forum hops later and I discovered 2-3 longstanding issues this amp bore the symptoms of having. Worse still, it was uncertain from a few posts and videos whether such issue(s) were even reparable at this point, notwithstanding the expense. Here I discovered how far apart the “ultimate plexi” was from its simple and rugged ancestor. Tube sockets mounted directly on the board. Boards so rare they were irreplaceable with Marshall only offering a repair kit for sale to “maybe“ the amp back to health... 10 years ago. For all the brilliant ideas of its designers (and yes, they were)… for all the amazing features of this amp (damned well they are) this amp, I am sorry my fellow YJM owners/fans… is pretty much junk.

I never bought a 6100, always knowing that WHEN an issue cropped up that complex amp. It would be costly as hell to repair. This was why I dumped my MF350 off as an “as-is” project when it developed its issues. But even the 6100 was built “900-rugged” and well-represented with the amount of units sold. At last the revelations came regarding this tale of two amps: The YJM was returned the following day, never to be considered again despite it’s wonderful “on paper“ presentation. At long last, the issue was settled for me between the two titans of the Sig era… despite the dark years of the white tiger being caged until I coukd successfully work around the simple and brash RR, it turned out to be the clear choice over the more showy, less-stable competitor, and herein came the lessons learned from my experiences.


At Long Last… The Lessons

1. The first one being the obvious and has been my signature style over the years now (thus confirmed with the above debacle): The simpler, the better, preferably single-channel. MkIIs, MV and NMV, which is where it’s at for Marshall… both for tone and ease of living (when inevitable servicing is necessary).

2. RULE - Anything past the JCM 900 series should be excluded. The complexity is not worth the headache, especially as things have become cheaper and more flimsy over time.

3. RULE- Forget Marshalls with tactile switches in particular. Behind a tactile switch circuit is an IC and behind that IC is a destined failure. I already feel the rebuttals brewing… hang in there. I have had problems with 5 Marshall amps since 1993. 2 of those amps were op-error (my fault). 3 were not. Those 3 were all tactile switch amps unexpectedly going down for no appreciable reason (including the YJM).

4. EXCEPTION - those last two rules will have many up in arms, so I offer this discretionary exception… if I/you/we MUST ignore the aforementioned rules, then the amp must be so ubiquitous that spare parts and repair familiarity aren’t a possible concern. To this end, I would feel fairly confident with the properly-researched DSL brand or the JVM (understanding bench time on the JVM 410 is likely going to hurt). I would think the Studio amps will prove popular (and simple) enough to consider with confidence as well. The big takeaway here is anything rare/limited must be bombproof-simplistic or avoided like the plague, because the YJM fiasco has proven to me that Marshall (particularly under new ownership) gives no guarantee that critical replacement parts will be offered when your day finally arrives… something we’ll likely never have to worry about with their simplest and most famous circuits.

These lessons are merely my code based on my experiences. They may or may not be for you and certainly many may vehemently disagree (which is fine), but observance of this code has served me well when followed (and provided much headache when ignored), So, I leave it here for you to consider (or discard) as your discretion dictates.

That was fun and I would not disagree with anything you wrote. Marshall is NOT the same company we used to know. I was shocked to find that replacement boards are not available for many of the models going back to the 2000s. They've left amp owners up shit creek without a paddle. And by the way, the quality of the boards is not good so they won't take too much soldering.

Older and simpler is better. Caps and tubes can be replaced easily. Reminds me of cars.

 

[tidbit]

As I said- valves can fail on any valve amp....

Regarding to the other failure - it was probably a valve problem that took out the HT fuse, or possibly even damaged one of the 1 Ohm bias resistors.

Either of these failures could have happened on a 2203. It is important to realise that the JVM was developed by taking the 2203 design and modding it. Thus, the Power and output transformers on the JVM are the same, the design of the power section is identical (apart from 1 resistor value) and the valve types and circuit configuration is the same as a 2203 (apart from the extra gain stages for the high-gain channels, obviously)....There is nothing in a JVM that would make it more susceptable to the kind of failures you describe compared to a 2203.



As I pointed out above - the construction of a JVM is pretty much the same as a 2203, both electrically and mechanically. The 2203 IS a tank! But the JVM is also a tank...




Here, I agree with you! For a good, mid gain basic rock rhythm guitar sound, a 2203 is hard to beat! When I first got my JVM I was pleased with it - but after a back-to-back comparison with my 2203, I was a little disappointed in the JVM crunch channel. It sounded OK- and similar to the 2203 on crunch orange - but as you say it lacked that "3D" quality!

It's not the valves (unless he uses all "JJ" pre-amp valves - which can sound a little dark!), it's certainly not the transformer (for the reasons I stated above) - it is largely down to three things:

1) the value of negative feedback resistor - which is lower on the JVM and makes the amp feel a little stiff

2) the voicing of the tone circuit which is not quite as bright as the 2203

3) The JVM lacks the "treble peaker" circuit of the 2203, which again means it is less bright

All these differences can be changed by changing the value of about 4 components on the JVM, and would take a tech less than an hour! I know, because I have done these mods for myself, and others - and Yes - the JVM can get that "3D" quaility, and can (if desired) exactly replicate the 2203 sound and feel using the crunch orange or red modes. If I were forced to chose between playing though a stock JVM somehow permanently stuck on Crunch Orange, and a real 2203, I'd chose the latter for the reasons we both agree on. But if the choice were the same but involved a JVM with the mods I described, I wouldn't care which amp I used because they would be electrically and tonally the same...

Now, you might say - "it can't be a very good amp if you have to mod it!" - and again, I would agree with you! I never said a stock JVM was perfect. Pretty good out of the box, but not perfect! That is largely because it was aimed more at the modern metal sound on the OD channels, and was voiced in a particular way to suit that market, whcih had a knock-on effect on the crunch channel...But in my opinion a modded JVM can exactly match the sound of a 2203, but also gives you a ton of other options, including great clean channels, "fender-ish" edge of break-up sounds, full-on High gain metal sounds and (most importantly for me) an independent, singing, sustaining and LOUD lead channel - all without the need for a single effects pedal!

Of course if you want to try a JVM that gives you that "3D" sound straight out of the box - try the Joe Satriani version! I have recently bought JS model and it has that sound. It has an awesome Crunch channel (much better than a 2203), and the clean and OD channels sound amazing also...It has most of the mods I described above as stock, and a few more making it an even better amp than the original JVM, and no mods required!

All good and true but construction is definitely different as well. The guy that works on my amps is also a good friend of mine. He has pointed out differences in modern construction that he comments on.
He points out where corners got cut and where failure is possible. Overall, most modern amps are not nearly as robust in construction as vintage amps.
He gets surprised and excited when encounters a well made modern amp. It’s not that often, however.
The JMV is a really good and versatile modern Marshall. No doubt about it that Marshall listened to what the people wanted. That being said, as great as it is, I still wouldn’t trade it for my JMP. The JMP has “that sound” and “that sound” is something I enjoy working with. It inspires me.
Now…if a trade offer came along of a JVM for my DSL, I’d take that in a heartbeat.

 

[Matthews Guitars]

My opinions:

The only Marshalls that are likely to survive 50 years from now are the ones that have already survived 50 years. So that pretty much means JMP and earlier series, plus the non-channel-switching 1959, 2203, 2204, and 1987s that made it into the JCM800 era.
In my opinion, no later era Marshalls can be truly valuable collectibles due to their cheapened build quality and questionable reliability.
I have a DSL100H that sounds good and I paid 400 dollars for it. I can probably sell it for 600 or so. But it'll NEVER match the value of a JMP OR match the reliability of one. I'll keep it and play with it and see how long it lasts.

Marshall has relentlessly cheapened build quality as a guiding principle all in the search for profit. Marshall worships at the Church Of Divine Profit to the exclusion of all other factors. Including reliability, longevity, and brand reputation. They want you to be happy with your purchase....but just long enough to get it out of the limited warranty phase.

My 1959s and 2203 will last decades to come. Maybe the day will come when components age out of tolerance and workable replacements will no longer be available at any price. But I don't expect to live that long.

The OP is right, behind every tactile switch on a Marshall is a failure waiting to happen. Marshall has not mastered the fine art of getting bulletproof long term reliabilty out of solid state electronics, because they have never wanted to do that. That would cost more. So that's out.

All channel switching Marshalls are lower value than any earlier, comparable, non channel switching Marshalls for that reason. The YJM100 is a cool amp but it's born to fail. I won't be buying one. A friend of mine has one. He puts very little usage time on it, realizing that it's bound to fail after an unknown number of hours is on it.

I don't have a problem with cranking my 1959, without attenuator, in my house. Yeah it's brutal. No the neighbors don't complain, I guess I'm lucky in that respect for a variety of reasons. Concrete block walls, triple pane windows, good soundproofing, deaf neighbors who are never home...whatever, I can let the tiger roar when I'm in the mood for it. (Wearing hearing protection.) It's far from uncontrollable, unless I turn up the gain pre-input by turning up the Tube Screamer I use as a clean boost. Even then it's all about relative location of guitar vs. speaker cabinets. And I can hook up the Power Brake if I want to.

 

[TheKman76]

Marshall has not mastered the fine art of getting bulletproof long term reliability out of solid state electronics

Nailed it. I blame a lack of testing for known failure modes. Maybe they didn't care?

Regrettably I'm almost 100% in agreement with the OP, except where the owner has the skills to fix it themselves without direct support from the manufacturer.

 

[Plexitim]

About making a simply designed (and reliable) Marshall much more useable. For what it is worth I've had really good experience using a Bogner RED pedal in front of my non master Marshall's. Among other things it has the ability to preset a higher volume solo mode - kick it in at the press of a footswitch. Then later click it back off to revert to rhythm mode. Also has a tone altering Variac switch built in which is pretty awesome adding tonal coloring. Kinda transforms a one trick pony non Master Marshall into dual personalities.

 

[Adrian R]

That all of them *sound like Marshalls* Speakers make the biggest difference...generally speaking..