Smash
Hack
Man, at first, I thought you were serious, before i got to the "I've written a retarded book about it."
To say the least, I was fucking incredulous. I was about to message you about just how the fuck you do that...lmao
To say the least, I was fucking incredulous. I was about to message you about just how the fuck you do that...lmao
DanTravis62
Moderator
No, that was one of his retarded reasons that you can supposedly make a 20 watt amps sound exactly the same as a 100 watt.
Because you see, it's all just frequencies man, anything that the 20 watt is missing you can just add in with EQ.
Because when we're talking about "chest thump" and "headroom" and the difference between tight and loose, were talking about frequency response, obviously.
I heard it on youtube, so it must be true. It must be so true, that I wrote an Ebook about it.
cardinal
Well-known member
The 3 db difference is meaningful IMHO. I can be in a smaller room with a cranked AC30 and it's totally fine. In the same room with a full volume 2204 is a bit uncomfortable but can deal. In the same room with a full volume 1959 is absolutely terrible.
Not sure if a full volume 2203 is quite as rip-your-face-off as a 1959. Never had 2203 up that loud.
Not sure if a full volume 2203 is quite as rip-your-face-off as a 1959. Never had 2203 up that loud.
Smash
Hack
I have a randall 150 watt head. I used to use a graphic eq in the loop; 31 band or something ridiculous like that. I could dial in the low mids and bass to a point that it would literally feel like it would knock you down when I palm muted. at around 110 decibels. I was a little worried about destroying the cones of my v 30s..but I never did. Eq can help for sure if you have enough power there to begin. But i would be really impressed to feel punch out of a 20 watter
R
Racerxrated
Well-known member
It's not, in fact not really that close....which is why I sold a very nice sounding '83 2203 after I got my 72 SuperTremolo. That amp makes EVERYTHING I've ever played through sound small. This list includes a C+ Coliseum...crazy but true. Everything in my jam room shakes when I can let it loose for a bit. It's a damn force of sonic nature. The clarity, punch, searing upper mids AND super tight low end just overshadows anything I've ever owned or even tried. The Wizard MC100 I had is very close in punch but the mids of the Wiz just weren't there like they are with the Marshall.
One thing about 2204s, If I were looking for one I'd patiently wait it out for an 82/83...they had PTs with 500+ volts and just bloom like no other when pushed....you'd think it was 100w when you turned it up...kinda like the VHT D60 at volume. Same bloom.
rstites
Well-known member
Way back, I played a pile of 2203's and 2204's. First off, even then, they all varied a bit and that'd be even more true after years of part drift. Setting that aside, the 2203 is stiffer, has a bit more bass, and just feels a bit more aggressive in general than the 2204. The difference isn't huge. You can do the same with either, but given the choice you might as well get the best for the job.
Why you probably see people talk so well of the 2204 is that it's a great sounding amplifier. I like the term "sweeter" to describe it, and I can completely see why someone would prefer those. There's nothing worse or weaker about the 2204 compared to the 2203. They're just different. Some people will prefer one to the other. The 2204 is really nice if you're getting mid-gain distortion for more straight-forward rock music, and just boosting for solos. I don't like it as well if I'm boosting for rhythm. I played and owned strictly 2203's for that reason.
There are a lot of technical reasons why all of this is true, but it really comes down to the power sections. They're filtered a bit different, but more importantly the rail voltages are different. This means that the preamp bias is different at each stage, which does change the tome of the preamp some too, so it's not just the power amp sound, but how the power section interacts with the loaded preamp section.
The 1987 vs. 1959 are similar, though I don't think the cleaner preamp sections of those amps reacts as strongly to the power section change.
Why you probably see people talk so well of the 2204 is that it's a great sounding amplifier. I like the term "sweeter" to describe it, and I can completely see why someone would prefer those. There's nothing worse or weaker about the 2204 compared to the 2203. They're just different. Some people will prefer one to the other. The 2204 is really nice if you're getting mid-gain distortion for more straight-forward rock music, and just boosting for solos. I don't like it as well if I'm boosting for rhythm. I played and owned strictly 2203's for that reason.
There are a lot of technical reasons why all of this is true, but it really comes down to the power sections. They're filtered a bit different, but more importantly the rail voltages are different. This means that the preamp bias is different at each stage, which does change the tome of the preamp some too, so it's not just the power amp sound, but how the power section interacts with the loaded preamp section.
The 1987 vs. 1959 are similar, though I don't think the cleaner preamp sections of those amps reacts as strongly to the power section change.
rstites
Well-known member
A lot of that is distortion too. As you layer more distortion on, you need more power to punch through the mix with everything else in it. A clean 20W amp might cut pretty well, where a 50W distorted amp will struggle. That's setting aside any other difference, which there will be many.
For example, you can easily shift dB by going to different speakers. Speakers vary quite a lot in efficiency.
mchn13
Well-known member
Jeebus! Im glad i never played in a band with some of you cats. Ive owned the 2204, and 2203 at the same time, and never got drowned out with the 2204, and had a drummer that could hit! Difference to me was that i could get to 4-5 on the master of the 2204, and got a little more squish out of it than i could with the 100 watter. I have a 4 hole nmv jcm 800 now, and wish i had kept the 2204. I guess it depends on how loud you need to be, and on the particular amp. marshalls can be a lot different from each other. I had a ‘76 jmp 50watt around the same time, and my 800 would drown it out.
glpg80
Well-known member
That’s the reason I built my 74 the way I did. It has an early 80s JCM800 board with Dagnall iron that has 460V on the plates at idle/loaded. She’s a beast.
R
Racerxrated
Well-known member
I agree…my last band, our drummer is a metal guy at heart and POUNDED those skins like nobody’s business. But, I never was over shadowed by his playing when I had my 87 2205 or 82 2204….in fact I think 2-3 on the master easily was heard across the stage.
H
harddriver
Well-known member
I have never checked the plate voltage on an 82 or 83 JCM800 2204 but I do own a stock 1984 JCM800 2204 than runs 6550's that I have checked the plate voltage B+ and it is 450DCV at idle and I believe I had the variac to exactly 120ACV when I took the measurements and recorded all the voltages along the B+ rails mapping all of them so had a baseline for later. So all the voltages will be higher along the B+ rail including V1A, V1B, V2A almost 100 DCV higher plate voltages on the 1984 2204 versus my 1972 1987.
My 1979 stock 2203 running 6550's B+ plate voltage was 454DCV with the stock power transformer it could have been a Dagnall or Drake, I think the OPT was a Drake maybe. It was changed out when Scott Splawn rebuilt that amp but I know what the B+ because I did bias my amps back when it was stock.
My 1972 50 watt SLP 1987 with original stock transformers at 120ACV wall voltage is running 399/400DCV B+ plate voltage.
500+ B+ in any amp does not bode well for tube longevity these days with modern tubes especially EL34's. Modern 6500 and KT88's are a little more robust, it's amazing Wizard amps dont' eat JJEL34's more often especially with Friedman going all EH these days.
All my experience between 50 watt and 100 watt Marshall's is even at the same volumes the 100 watter will always punch harder along the entire frequency spectrum... it just does. It's all due to the increase in the transformer mass, more plate laminations and core windings equals more magnetic flux when the voltage signal is inducted to an audio signal... you just can't get away from the physics of it.
Last edited:
thegame
Well-known member
Ssshhh….don’t let TheToneDig hear you say that.
R
Racerxrated
Well-known member
I'm no tech, nor do I play one on TV, but when I check the PT voltage I'm checking (with no power tubes installed) pin 3 and chassis ground...I also have an 83 2205 and it is at 507v. I'm surprised at your 72, being that low? My 72 is right at 499v and it's a PT (Dagnall 4145, red stamp) from a 74 Superlead according to the previous owner. The stock PT would have been 520-550 from what I've read about. I haven't had any power tube failures as long as I'm using Winged C, Siemens or Mullard 34s. With 6L6s I've mostly used the Sovtek 5881s or Sylvania 6L6GCs. Only power tube issues were from JJs that came with the amps; I learned long ago to not trust what used amps ship with since I think guys pull their good pair/quad before shipping.
K
kurtsstuff2003
Well-known member
I've always preferred 50's..
RedPlated
Well-known member
Check it with the tubes in.
Those voltages are not typical, in my experience. I've had quite a few 50w and 100w Marshalls from the 70's and early 80's cross my path and I check them all. A lot of the 100's like the JMP and 800's are in the 440v range. Occasionally, you'll see 470v. I haven't come a cross a single Marshall yet that has 500 or more PV. Even my 69 Super lead is in the high 400's.
H
harddriver
Well-known member
As Redplated stated, you should really check your amp for it's B+ with all the tubes installed as their current draw will lower the DCV that you are referencing with the power tubes out.
All my voltages noted are with a full compliment of preamp and power tubes installed. If I pulled the tubes of course the DCV voltages would be higher probably in the range that you are referencing.
I
itsgoodnow
Well-known member
I’ve owned both. I enjoy both. I like the 2203 better. It seems to have more low end, a slight bit more clarity and headroom. Clearly very similar. I also think part of the reason the 2204 has more of a following as a modding platform is the availability. the 2203/JCM 800 that generally get the mods are pre 1985 and the 2204 was made longer than that without changes. I think you would be hard pressed to tell a significant difference as they are so damn similar obviously and some 2203/2204 sound better than others. Just generally I prefer the 2203 overall
panhead
Well-known member
High plate voltage and 6550`s a 50 watter will hang all day