Which to get, JCM800 2205 or JCM900 SL-X ?

[JD-MAN]

Hi all, I’ve been looking for a new amp lately.

I always wanted to have a nice 2210 (‘87-’89) for high gain, but they are hard to find or they are the early models, etc..
Also, I didn’t really know about the 900 SL-X that it is a different animal compared to other 900’s.

Can someone tell me how the following 2 amps compare to eachother?

- JCM 800 2205 (1988, the better year)
- JCM 900 SL-X (with 6L6 tubes)

I know the 800 is a 50Watter and the 900 is a 100Watter, but aside from that... how do these compare and what can one expect from one or the other? If anyone has some A-B clips?
Which would you get and why?

 

[Blacque Jacque]

Both 800 & 900's were available in 50 or 100w versions, 2205 / 2210 for the 800 or 2500/2100 for the 900's.

The 900SL-X is a little different from the earlier 900 MkIII sound wise, but not hugely so. They are voiced pretty much the same, a very late 80's early 90's metal sound (but they're not restricted to that).

Which would I get ? I'd go for an 800 (but then I already have an SL-X ).

 

[JD-MAN]

I know about the different 50w/100w models etc...

When I read about the SL-X, especially with 6L6's, I read that it differs a lot from the other 900's.

 

[Adrian R]

[/COLOR]Also, I didn’t really know about the 900 SL-X that it is a different animal compared to other 900’s.

The SL-X differs mostly from the Dual Reverb series. (41/4500 100/50w). The DRs are two channel amps with reverb, in where the SL-X 'MK4' (21/2500) is a single channel amp with A FOOTSWITCHABLE master volume control. (Vol. A & B) The JCM 900 'MK3s' (21/2500) are essentially the same amp as the SL-X MK4 in that they sport the same model numbers, and share the exact same format; single channel, two master volumes, no reverb..etc..The control panels are identical as well. The MK3s were introduced in 1990, and were produced to 1992, and then was replaced by the 900 21/2500 'MK4' in 1993. The difference between these two amps are that the SL-X uses an additional preamp tube to achieve more gain in where the MK3 uses solid-state circuitry to achieve the same thing, almost like a built in tube screamer.

I've owned both and actually preferred the MK3. There are many others who share the same sediment.

Can someone tell me how the following 2 amps compare to eachother?

- JCM 800 2205 (1988, the better year)

The Marshall JCM800 2205/2210 are DUAL channel amps with reverb. I believe this is Marshall's first attempt at a 2 channel amp. The two amps are COMPLETELY different animals and as such, are voiced very differently. I've a owned a 2205 and loved it. Downside is the amp's 'clean' channel. IMO, as well as many others, seemed to be under developed. I just thought it lacked any real character. However, the amp's B channel was very hot, and sounded AWESOME..essentially a hot rodded 2203/2204.

If I were in the Market for either one of those amps, and a single channel format is all I desired I would want the 800 10/05 first, the 900 MK3 secondly, and then the MK4 SL-X lastly.

 

[kebek]

My choice is definitly JCM 800 2205/2210 version 1987 or more recent only.

The only JCM 900 that I like is the DR...

I really dont like the tone of JCM 900 MK3 and the JCM 900 SL-X (MK4).. the only good feature is the 2 master volumes...

 

[medicjg]

I would go with the 2210. They are getting difficult to find. Then save and get the SLX. mkIII is close to the 2210 IMO.

 

[NewReligion]

2205/2210 hands down.

New Religion

 

[diesect20022000]

SL-X is hard rock and metal. more gain, more compression. 2205's hard rock and metal, less gain and compression. the 900's darker and warmer. the 800's brighter and clearer.

both can get metal tones but, the 900's more modern and higher gain. I prefer the 2205.

 

[sccloser]

Downside is the amp's 'clean' channel. IMO, as well as many others, seemed to be under developed. I just thought it lacked any real character. However, the amp's B channel was very hot, and sounded AWESOME..essentially a hot rodded 2203/2204.

Clean channel a downside? You just aren't using it right. Turn it up to 8...sounds like AC/DC. The 2205 is best used as a Dirty and less dirty configuration....

 

[sccloser]

Oh, and to the OP...the 2205 rocks!

 

[diesect20022000]

yeah the 2205' not meant to have a "clean" channel. it's meant to be essentialy a 2204 on one side and a boosted 2204 on the other though it's not a boosted 2204 it DOES have some imence character and tone imo. It is my number one coveted Marshall,lol. MKIII's a close second for price mainly.

 

[sccloser]

Mkiii can get a good tone as well. I stuck some vintage glass in mine and really got the mkiii tweaked good. So good, it was making my 2205 sound inferior, so I had to put some vintage glass in it as well. Amperex's in the v1 can't hurt!

 

[JD-MAN]

Thanks, since I've always wanted a late 2210 really, I'm gonna make an appointed for the '88 2205 anyway.