Friedman's take on RAUNCHY? Yes please.

purpleplexi

purpleplexi

Member
So I have a BE100 which I love - just to get that out of the way.

But today something happened... I ended up buying a cheap Marshall DSL 100 to use for rehearsals and jams - basically to keep the Friedman in good shape. I wasn't expecting much but when I got it all figured out... holy shit! That amp SMOKES. It has this super raunchy edge to it that the Friedman does not have. The Friedman is very smooth and really not offensive at all where the DSL, on the "lead 1" mode, sounds like a pissed off rattlesnake. It reminds me of the tones that Joe Holmes gets in his live Ozzy videos.

Dave, if you read this, I love your amps but... when you are considering making new models please come out with something totally raunchy. Something closer to a modded JCM 800 with that nasty Jose type sound.

Merry Xmas everybody : )
 
I agree with you in that the DSL is a fantastically voiced amp. It just lacks the 'quality' extra dimension that friedmans bring. I've had 3 and sold all 3 unfortunately even after modding.

If Dave could make a DSL lead 1 channel with all the Friedman goodness, thickness and quality build, I'd probably be onto that.

Actually, I could get the DSL plexi clean channel to sound almost exactly like my BE mod 2204 after some Eq,ing. Gain all the way up and hit the front with a Klon + ts808 and when switching between the two you could hardly tell. Only difference was that 4th dimension in the Friedman. Recorded and to the ear, you'd hardly tell.
 
jferla":nda5srsk said:
I agree with you in that the DSL is a fantastically voiced amp. It just lacks the 'quality' extra dimension that friedmans bring. I've had 3 and sold all 3 unfortunately even after modding.

If Dave could make a DSL lead 1 channel with all the Friedman goodness, thickness and quality build, I'd probably be onto that.

Actually, I could get the DSL plexi clean channel to sound almost exactly like my BE mod 2204 after some Eq,ing. Gain all the way up and hit the front with a Klon + ts808 and when switching between the two you could hardly tell. Only difference was that 4th dimension in the Friedman. Recorded and to the ear, you'd hardly tell.
Click to expand...

When I listen to the DSL while I'm playing (Lead 1 channel) I can hear some overtones or harmonics that are not that pleasing to the ear. I almost want to think that those nasty overtones are what is necessary to get that nasty tone. Friedman has none of that - It has overtones and harmonics but they are very pleasing to the ear. I was watching videos of the Phil X amp and that is closer to what I'm talking about - it has some nasty edge to it that isn't "pretty" at all. To me, the BE100 is always "pretty" even when it's roaring which is awesome, don't get me wrong. I just personally prefer a nastier edge to the tone.

As far as the DSL goes I have to admit I'm almost blown away at how much I love the tone. It just has that "Marshall" thing going on in spades. There is a reason why guys like Bonamassa, Jeff Beck, Nuno Bettencourt, Doug Aldrich and a zillion others still use the DSL for live gigs. It has JCM 800 (Green channel set on crunch) and it has modded JCM 800 (Lead One). WTF else do you need for the most part? And you can get it for $500-$600!
 
Guys when you talk about a Marshall DSL 100, you meant the old 2000 series amp or the new model Marshall DSL 100H?
 
mxr2000":19i0zqeo said:
Guys when you talk about a Marshall DSL 100, you meant the old 2000 series amp or the new model Marshall DSL 100H?
Click to expand...

Played and owned both. Their tone is virtually identical. DSL 100 resonance dial is cooler than the bass boost switch on the JCM2000's. However, the digital reverb is terrible on the new DSL series.
 
I'm talking about the old JCM 2000 DSL 100. I've never played the new one and before I bought the one I just got I'd never played one of the old ones either. Too bad... could have saved some cash on other Brit style amps I've purchased over the years.

Lesson learned for me... Don't listen to what other's say about how good an amp sounds. The world is full of people with no clue. haha
 
honestly though tons of folks are getting super aggressive tones from the BE100. sounds like there is some user error and/or trolling involved here.
 
I have a Be100 and recently had a first version DSL at the same time. I've recorded and played live with both. The DSL is a supremely underrated amp and sounds awesome but myself and quite a few others all picked the BE every time in blind clips. With the EQ at noon on the BE it's definitely more polite but upping the presence to 3:00 it's just as aggressive as the DSL on Lead 1. The tone stack has a lot of range, you just need to get past the "everything at noon" mentality.
 
rpurdue":gl0gs9wv said:
I have a Be100 and recently had a first version DSL at the same time. I've recorded and played live with both. The DSL is a supremely underrated amp and sounds awesome but myself and quite a few others all picked the BE every time in blind clips. With the EQ at noon on the BE it's definitely more polite but upping the presence to 3:00 it's just as aggressive as the DSL on Lead 1. The tone stack has a lot of range, you just need to get past the "everything at noon" mentality.
Click to expand...

Well I have a BE100 and a DSL right now. I'll try cranking the presence on the BE tomorrow and report back! haha
 
I gigged a DSL100 for years...actually owned that amp 3 times. GREAT amp but it can't hold a candle to the tones I'm getting out of my BE-100 now. The BE is super aggressive to me and tight as hell. Everything I think a marshall should sound like. I'd still take another DSL though.
 
SkyhighRocks":1rpxva0u said:
I gigged a DSL100 for years...actually owned that amp 3 times. GREAT amp but it can't hold a candle to the tones I'm getting out of my BE-100 now. The BE is super aggressive to me and tight as hell. Everything I think a marshall should sound like. I'd still take another DSL though.
Click to expand...

I totally agree with "aggressive" but it's still always "nice". It's never "raunchy and nasty" which is something I find that I like very much. And I'm not pimping the DSL at all - It's a good, cheap amp with a great tone but it has this nastiness that I really dig right now. The DSL is also all computer wires inside and can likely melt down at any time. That's why I posted here - Hoping that Dave might consider a Brit tone that is more on the raunchy, nasty side. As I said, the Phil X is defiantly more in that direction.
 
purpleplexi":2b6ti9e2 said:
SkyhighRocks":2b6ti9e2 said:
I gigged a DSL100 for years...actually owned that amp 3 times. GREAT amp but it can't hold a candle to the tones I'm getting out of my BE-100 now. The BE is super aggressive to me and tight as hell. Everything I think a marshall should sound like. I'd still take another DSL though.
Click to expand...

I totally agree with "aggressive" but it's still always "nice". It's never "raunchy and nasty" which is something I find that I like very much. And I'm not pimping the DSL at all - It's a good, cheap amp with a great tone but it has this nastiness that I really dig right now. The DSL is also all computer wires inside and can likely melt down at any time. That's why I posted here - Hoping that Dave might consider a Brit tone that is more on the raunchy, nasty side. As I said, the Phil X is defiantly more in that direction.
Click to expand...

We must have different definitions of raunchy and nasty. The Be is all that and more while the DSL is more tame to me.
 
Have you tried THE BUTTERSLAX? Hello? lol It has a great raunchy, very responsive tone that makes it a great gritty blues rock amp to me.
 
SkyhighRocks":qaoi7rcb said:
purpleplexi":qaoi7rcb said:
SkyhighRocks":qaoi7rcb said:
I gigged a DSL100 for years...actually owned that amp 3 times. GREAT amp but it can't hold a candle to the tones I'm getting out of my BE-100 now. The BE is super aggressive to me and tight as hell. Everything I think a marshall should sound like. I'd still take another DSL though.
Click to expand...

I totally agree with "aggressive" but it's still always "nice". It's never "raunchy and nasty" which is something I find that I like very much. And I'm not pimping the DSL at all - It's a good, cheap amp with a great tone but it has this nastiness that I really dig right now. The DSL is also all computer wires inside and can likely melt down at any time. That's why I posted here - Hoping that Dave might consider a Brit tone that is more on the raunchy, nasty side. As I said, the Phil X is defiantly more in that direction.
Click to expand...

We must have different definitions of raunchy and nasty. The Be is all that and more while the DSL is more tame to me.
Click to expand...

Yup - we have different ideas about it. haha
 
ur2funky":1yhx0noz said:
Have you tried THE BUTTERSLAX? Hello? lol It has a great raunchy, very responsive tone that makes it a great gritty blues rock amp to me.
Click to expand...


This, the Butterslax is brutal, raunchy, aggressive. You can tame it back for vintage tones too.
:doh: why would Dave make something he already has.
 
LunatiBSW":2tyr9vcu said:
ur2funky":2tyr9vcu said:
Have you tried THE BUTTERSLAX? Hello? lol It has a great raunchy, very responsive tone that makes it a great gritty blues rock amp to me.
Click to expand...


This, the Butterslax is brutal, raunchy, aggressive. You can tame it back for vintage tones too.
:doh: why would Dave make something he already has.
Click to expand...

I find the Butterslax to sound close to a really gained up Orange Rockerverb - It has that Orange kinda thing going on which I do not prefer. It also sounds very "nice" regardless of the gain level (according to the videos I watched of it).

I've thought about this more and come to the conclusion that I just prefer souped up JCM 800 or JMP tones more than I like modded Plexi tones. Although I do love the tones Joe Holmes gets from his Jose modded Marshall's which I believe are old super leads.

Thanks for the input guys. Just let this thread die now.
 
LunatiBSW":fwh4nggp said:
The Butterslax has zero similarities to an orange.
And is no where near "nice"
End of thread!
Click to expand...

Sure does. I watched several videos of it (Butterslax) with one of them just a guy re-amping a song and tweaking the EQ and gain. Definatly has that Orange thing going on but not as ratty. Makes sense since the guy from Mastodon (I know his name is Bill but don't wanna misspell his last name) used Orange amps.

There's nothing wrong with Orange amps by the way. Lot's of guys love them.
 
You must be correct then because you saw a YouTube video. :doh: :thumbsdown:


I've played/owned plenty of oranges and own a butterslax.
We are talking about a completely different league of amp here.
Bill played 800's with orange cabs, friedman heads/cabs, other vintage marshalls, diezels with Brent (other guitarist). They rarely used a orange head, and it was always layered with a diezel or other marshalls.
If you do a couple quick searches, it even says the goal
Of the butterslax is a super tight-Brutal sounding Marshall. Hence the butterslax. There is zero orange dna: ie; tonestack, gain staging, filtering, make, build, schematic, zero similarities. Every amp Mastodon will play, they will make it sound like mastodon.
Bill played a JJ for a while and wanted to do a gainier more brutal version of it.

How does that relate to an orange.
Sure you can tune the amp to sound thicker and more wall of sound like, but it always has this
Clarity and tightness (unlike an orange), but I make the butterslax slice harder than my Uberschall twin jet, which is why I'm actually about to put it up
For sale.
What direct comparisons do you have now? :confused:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top