High gain shootout Marshall JMP 2204 vs Friedman BE100DLX vs Fryette Pittbull CL

Boosted Marshall
Fryette
Friedman bringing up the rear in this video and not close IMO.

The boosted Marshall doesn't bother me as they are trying "approximate" the built in gain of the Fryette and Friedman. Modern amps that do not need boosting to achieve the same level of gain. Whether you use a boost with a modern high gain, isn't really the point here IMO. Besides, not boosting the Marshall and everyone would be whining that it wasn't fair.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Geo
jabps said:
Boosted Marshall
Fryette
Friedman bringing up the rear in this video and not close IMO.

The boosted Marshall doesn't bother me as they are trying "approximate" the built in gain of the Fryette and Friedman. Modern amps that do not need boosting to achieve the same level of gain. Whether you use a boost with a modern high gain, isn't really the point here IMO. Besides, not boosting the Marshall and everyone would be whining that it wasn't fair.
Click to expand...
It's not about the fact it's being boosted, clearly it needs some help to achieve comparable saturation. The issue is that the boost pedal is drastically EQing the signal
 
Nolly said:
It's not about the fact it's being boosted, clearly it needs some help to achieve comparable saturation. The issue is that the boost pedal is drastically EQing the signal
Click to expand...
I understand what you are saying but still, both the Friedman and Fryette have alot more tonal shaping control over the eq than the Marshall. Depth, Thump, Freq, Response etc... So again, the boost "for me" is just getting it comparable, I don't see it as drastically altering anything. But that's just me, no big deal. In reality they all sound good although the Friedman sounded somewhat muted to me "in this particular video". What I took from this is another example of a stock Marshall and a simple OD that can hang with pretty much anything. Which is funny because there's a whole cottage industry of amp makers that's based on getting that or a variant of that sound for years. And people "like me" who ditched or modified their 2203/2204's years ago chasing the dream, when it was more or less right there lol.
 
jabps said:
I understand what you are saying but still, both the Friedman and Fryette have alot more tonal shaping control over the eq than the Marshall. Depth, Thump, Freq, Response etc... So again, the boost "for me" is just getting it comparable, I don't see it as drastically altering anything. But that's just me, no big deal. In reality they all sound good although the Friedman sounded somewhat muted to me "in this particular video". What I took from this is another example of a stock Marshall and a simple OD that can hang with pretty much anything. Which is funny because there's a whole cottage industry of amp makers that's based on getting that or a variant of that sound for years. And people "like me" who ditched or modified their 2203/2204's years ago chasing the dream, when it was more or less right there lol.
Click to expand...
I really have 0 qualms with your preferences in this shootout, but I am compelled to point out that while the other amps have more tone shaping controls, none are before the preamp, they are all post distortion. The EQ filtering by the boost pedal is essentially trimming a large amount of low and high end from the pickups’ signal, which makes the response tighter and less twangy. If you’ve ever put an EQ pedal in an amp’s loop vs in front you’ll know what I mean
 
I like the friedman the most, it sounds the most fat. But they all sound boring to me, like all marshall style amps,. I've heard that tone a million times already.
 
After playing a bunch of different amps over the years. I'm convinced the simpler an amp's circuit is, the better. Usually the end result is clearer, more defined and feels more dynamic to play.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top