Is having a JCM 800 100W and a JCM 2000 DSL 100W redundant?

[Fiesta Red]

I own a JCM 800 2203 and a Friedmen Plex 50. I have a line on a 100 W JCM 2000 DSL. Is there anything special about the DSL with having given I have these two other heads? I really only play blues, rock, about the heaviest I get is Metallica.

Thanks in advance.

 

[DanTravis62]

I love old JCM2000 DSLs but yeah between the plex and 2203 you already have those tones covered IMO

 

[RaceU4her]

for $600 or under i would give it a shot, it wouldnt be the craziest story ever if you ended up liking it the most.

 

[DanTravis62]

for $600 or under i would give it a shot, it wouldnt be the craziest story ever if you ended up liking it the most.

That's true it kind of depends on the price range - he 100% can get those same sorts of tones from the amps he's got, but the green channel of the DSL with a nice OD is really something special in the live band context

 

[WizardAmpIphoneClip]

The DSL will have the deep and tone shift buttons. A must for me over a normal Marshall tone stack. They may benefit you.

 

[BABMusic]

A DSL really sounds very different than either of those amps. Not redundant to me at all. The DSL will do a really convincing early (Kill 'em All or Lightning) Metallica tone.

 

[DanTravis62]

The DSL will have the deep and tone shift buttons. A must for me over a normal Marshall tone stack. They may benefit you.

Definitely really helpful to have these, but as @Fiesta Red said he doesn't play anything heavier than metallica, which makes me think those aren't gonna be as important to him

 

[angelspade]

Having owned all three: It's probably approaching sacrilege around here but I prefer the DSL over the JCM800...Favor the JVM over both.

 

[ChurchHill]

I'd say yes. I've got both a JCM2000 DSL100 and a JMP 2203. While similar, they don't sound the same. The 2203 is a classic sounding beast... it's that sound. The JCM2000 DSL still has the Marshall sound, but it's more modern, can get stupid amounts of gain. Very different amps. For instance, if I want a classic Marshall clean, the 2203 wins by a mile. If I want the hot-rodded Marshall peel your face off gain, the DSL takes it. For some things, I like it better than boosting the 2203; boosting is something that the DSL is not the best at nor really needs, IMO. They don't overlap that much. If you have the chance, grab it! If you don't like it, you can just move it on and recoup your money.

 

[Techdeth]

The DSL will have the deep and tone shift buttons. A must for me over a normal Marshall tone stack. They may benefit you.

Wow I agree lol

 

[shar-vell Dan]

Make sure your DSL is a 2005 or after lest you run into the dreaded "bias drift" conductive PCB.
The date on the amp is on the bar code on the back panel.

 

[skoora]

The DSL when you set the gain, high to max on the ultra channel can get almost a fuzz tone. If you dig Fu Manchu or stuff like that you might like it but personally I wouldn’t bother getting a DSL if I already had a 2203 and the Friedman. There’s a large EQ imbalance between the classic and ultra channels so if you expect it to be a channel switcher it will not be great. The Ultra channel is very lean compared to the Classic and trying to find a setting that gives the right low end can be difficult, as the deep button is a set value.The top end can be tricky as it’s a bright amp. Would not be a surpise that you have treble and mids below noon
The classic gain when set to crunch is kind of soft and won’t give you good “2203” tones without a boost that leans out the input a little.
The Plex and 2203 are both everything at noon sounds pretty damn good to start with, which I always prefer.