(VIDEO) Marshall vs Friedman (JCM800 SC20H vs Dirty Shirley Mini)

[What?]

Sorry to disagree, but that's the whole purpose of an IR, to digitally (and accurately) replicate a mic'd cab. If the IR does not react consistently (like a "real" cab) when placed in the signal chain (or added in the DAW), regardless of the amp being used, the IR was done poorly and is useless (IMO). All that aside, as the OP stated, he used an actual speaker, mic'd in an isolation box, so IR's played no part in his comparison.

Impulse responses do not react because they are not dynamic. A speaker IR is a static snapshot of a speaker and mic at a given amplitude. A speaker's behavior changes as the amplitude goes up and especially so for speakers that provide distortion characteristics. IR's are a terrible way to present amps because they do not react with amps, where speakers do react via a dynamic impedance relationship as well as via speaker distortion (which IR's don't do!). It's the same reason why room IR's don't sound like convincing dynamic rooms that react differently according to volume in the room. They are static reverberation snapshots, and they sound like it. IR's can still be used as tools for given purposes, but they are not adequate replacements for real physical reactive spaces, speakers, and microphones.

In case it isn't clear what I'm saying, here is an example. If you could heavily attenuate an amp to get essentially the same output curves for any practical given input signals as would happen at high volume, that amp will still sound different* give different output curves through the same greenback at low volume vs. at high volume, because the speaker will compress and distort at high volume. And when someone plays dynamically, there are essentially volume changes taking place across the audible spectrum. Replacing the greenback in this scenario with a greenback IR, the IR only has one curve by it's very nature, reacting in the exact same way no matter any volume changes via attenuation or dynamics.

This is why IR's sound less dynamic, because they are not dynamic at all! In other words, soft picked notes get exactly the same speaker filter curve as hard picked notes, because an IR is only a single curve. Dynamic response will eventually be brought to the speaker IR world, likely via multiple curves from low volume to high volume with interpolations filling the inbetweens and some sort of distortion algorithms. But I haven't heard of anyone doing it to date, likely because it is a complicated thing to pull off.

This is also why manufacturer speaker curves don't tell us much. Because we are only seeing a single curve at a given amplitude! That single curve can't show how a greenback's response will change and distort at high volume vs. stay clean at low volume, compared to a high power speaker which will react differently at high volume vs. low volume and stay pretty clean throughout the amplitude range.

* Human hearing perceives sound differently according to volume. See: Fletcher Munson curves for example.

I should also say here that for super distorted djent type amps and players, IR's might well be perfectly acceptable, because they aren't using anything near as much dynamic range as say an edge of breakup classic rock player.

 

[Sustainium]

Pretty much sound the same to my untrained (not shot) ear also.
OP should of asked which amp sounds better and then reveal which amp it was.

 

[Söulcaster]

Compare the price.

Peace

 

[LargeBoxSmallBox]

Impulse responses do not react because they are not dynamic. A speaker IR is a static snapshot of a speaker and mic at a given amplitude. A speaker's behavior changes as the amplitude goes up and especially so for speakers that provide distortion characteristics. IR's are a terrible way to present amps because they do not react with amps, where speakers do react via a dynamic impedance relationship as well as via speaker distortion (which IR's don't do!). It's the same reason why room IR's don't sound like convincing dynamic rooms that react differently according to volume in the room. They are static reverberation snapshots, and they sound like it. IR's can still be used as tools for given purposes, but they are not adequate replacements for real physical reactive spaces, speakers, and microphones.

In case it isn't clear what I'm saying, here is an example. If you could heavily attenuate an amp to get essentially the same output curves for any practical given input signals as would happen at high volume, that amp will still sound different* give different output curves through the same greenback at low volume vs. at high volume, because the speaker will compress and distort at high volume. And when someone plays dynamically, there are essentially volume changes taking place across the audible spectrum. Replacing the greenback in this scenario with a greenback IR, the IR only has one curve by it's very nature, reacting in the exact same way no matter any volume changes via attenuation or dynamics.

This is why IR's sound less dynamic, because they are not dynamic at all! In other words, soft picked notes get exactly the same speaker filter curve as hard picked notes, because an IR is only a single curve. Dynamic response will eventually be brought to the speaker IR world, likely via multiple curves from low volume to high volume with interpolations filling the inbetweens and some sort of distortion algorithms. But I haven't heard of anyone doing it to date, likely because it is a complicated thing to pull off.

This is also why manufacturer speaker curves don't tell us much. Because we are only seeing a single curve at a given amplitude! That single curve can't show how a greenback's response will change and distort at high volume vs. stay clean at low volume, compared to a high power speaker which will react differently at high volume vs. low volume and stay pretty clean throughout the amplitude range.

* Human hearing perceives sound differently according to volume. See: Fletcher Munson curves for example.

I should also say here that for super distorted djent type amps and players, IR's might well be perfectly acceptable, because they aren't using anything near as much dynamic range as say an edge of breakup classic rock player.

I enjoyed this post, thanks for sharing!

 

[Marshall Boogie]

my statement was not in any way about the op and what he did or did not do(it started out as a statement about how similar the amps sounded to me). They still sound similar to me.

 

[Del Rei]

Thank you all for the comments.

About the IR... Actually, for me it does not work. Probably it's my fault. I tried some times, but never got a convincing organic tone. Always sounded a bit digital or in an unnatural way. But there's a lot of people in Youtube playing great tones with IR. I have no patience to tweak it for more than 10min to get good tones. I'm a oldschool man, plug n play.

Thank you for all for the debate on how IR works. I had no ideia. @What? made a very good explaining article!

Hey @Gene Ballzz Thanks for the comment. In fact, you're probably right about tubes differences. I never thought it was "possible" to run low watt amps with EL34. Actually, I have never seen it before this Studio series. And now I'm wondering why most part of these amps uses EL84...
Yeah, no pedals in the chain. But used my attenuator Two Notes Captor, because the SC20 needs Master at least on 5 to sound in all his glory (to my ears). And added a little reverb from Reaper because the isobox give a "boxy" feel, not natural sound.
I wish I could try the SV20, this must be a really good amp. It's hard to find here in Brazil. Thanks for the comment, man!

@Söulcaster
If I remember correctly, SC20H was about $1,299 and DSM about 1,499.

 

[DBi5]

Compare the price.

The Marshall is half the price of the Friedman in Europe.

How do they compare in the "Great Southern Land"?

 

[Gene Ballzz]

The Marshall is half the price of the Friedman in Europe.

How do they compare in the "Great Southern Land"?

In what Used To Be America, the list prices are as @Del Rei stated, $1,299 for the Marshall and $1,499 for the Dirty Girl, although most good shoppers can usualy beat a vendor up for a 10% to 15% discount! I'd take the Marshall over Shirley, any day of the week!

Just My $.02,
Gene

 

[RCM 800]

I could make either amp work for me. Marshall sounds a little brighter to me, maybe more presence? Once the drums and bass kick in its a wash lol.

 

[Söulcaster]

The Marshall is half the price of the Friedman in Europe.

How do they compare in the "Great Southern Land"?

Exactly the same. The Friedman is around $2600. The Marshall $1300.

Peace

 

[Kelia]

I wonder how a Lead 12 would do against those two guys !

 

[Sapient]

Definitely the Marshall.


Marshall is ...the winner.

 

[BanditPanda]

In what Used To Be America, the list prices are as @Del Rei stated, $1,299 for the Marshall and $1,499 for the Dirty Girl, although most good shoppers can usualy beat a vendor up for a 10% to 15% discount! I'd take the Marshall over Shirley, any day of the week!

Just My $.02,
Gene

Good one Gene. "Born in the UTBA"
BP

 

[What?]

Exactly the same. The Friedman is around $2600. The Marshall $1300.

Peace

Friedman amps are definitely on the high end price wise. They are handwired though. The only handwired amps I see Marshall offering today are over $3k. Glad I bought a Ceriatone.

 

[ken361]

The studio series are rock solid never saw one go down on here knock on wood.

 

[Carl M]

I preferred the Marshall in the band context demos, but alone it was less obvious which one to prefer. Perhaps that's why band players tend to prefer Marshalls while home players may prefer Friedman..?

I have a SV20H which I am really impressed by, even though I have been playing 70's Super Leads for decades...

 

[Carl M]

This is why IR's sound less dynamic, because they are not dynamic at all! In other words, soft picked notes get exactly the same speaker filter curve as hard picked notes, because an IR is only a single curve. Dynamic response will eventually be brought to the speaker IR world, likely via multiple curves from low volume to high volume with interpolations filling the inbetweens and some sort of distortion algorithms. But I haven't heard of anyone doing it to date, likely because it is a complicated thing to pull off.

Universal Audio is actually addressing this problem in their "OX" and are using a hybrid technology which is partly IR and partly modeling to emulate the speakers different behavior at different levels.

I have never tried one, so I don't know how good they are.

 

[purpleplexi]

Preferred the Marshall. More complexity and depth. Thanks for the vid - I think you just cured my Friedman GAS and saved me a few bob.

 

[obx351]

FWIW, the DS sounds more like a boutique, higher end amp than the Marshall. The DS is tighter, less raw and seems more focused in the mix than the Marshall. Granted the way it was recorded might be the reason for why the DS came across better in the mix. This is not my style amp but if I needed a 20 watt JCM 800 and money wasn't an issue then I'd go with the Friedman, if not, the Marshall gets the job done. Or maybe a better scenario, if I was gigging I get the Marshall and if I was recording I'd get the Friedman.

 

[SuperFleeky]

Hi, there!

Just recorded a fast clip comparing these 2 20W amps...

Important note: Couldn't use same EQ. These amps sounds VERY different when using same EQ. Marshall is much more bright. So, I tried to make both amps sound the same EQ, using my "preferred" tone as a reference.

Hope it's useful for someone... \o/

I own and play the SC20 (both the head/cab and combo), and I LOVE it. I'm in the same ballpark as far as how I set it, but I did have a Dirty Shirley and could never get it as bright as I hear in your recordings. Did you use any external EQ?

At any rate, you've got them both sounding superb; well done!