H
H Golf Sport
Member
What can you tell me about these 2210 marshalls?
Just curious don't know anything about them.
Just curious don't know anything about them.
marvcus
Well-known member
They are 2-channel, 100 watt JCM800s. My experience w/ 2205s (50 watters) has been that the gain channel is good and the clean channel is
unusable. Thin at low volumes but roars when it's pushed up. The ones in the later 80s are better/more gain than those in the earlier 80s.
unusable. Thin at low volumes but roars when it's pushed up. The ones in the later 80s are better/more gain than those in the earlier 80s.
MississippiMetal
New member
I absolutely love the 2205/2210 series of the JCM 800's. They respond great to lead playing due to the diode clipping and the compressor stage. A pre-cursor to the Jubilee, in fact. I have a 4211, which is the combo version of the 2210. They are fairly mod-friendly. I honestly have no problems with the clean channel, and i found it quite usable with the right settings. Since there is no mid control on that channel, it has a rather scooped tone, more than you would expect from a Marshall.
My only complaint is that some of them seem to have a very nasty upper midrange effect that makes pinch harmonics sound shrill and stiff. I've yet to figure out why, since some of them don't have this problem. It may just be down to the choice of tubes.
Next to the JCM 2000 DSL, these are the most commonly provided Marshall amp by backline companies.
My only complaint is that some of them seem to have a very nasty upper midrange effect that makes pinch harmonics sound shrill and stiff. I've yet to figure out why, since some of them don't have this problem. It may just be down to the choice of tubes.
Next to the JCM 2000 DSL, these are the most commonly provided Marshall amp by backline companies.
Michi
Active member
I used to have a 2210, 1985 I believe. Absolutely killer tone on the gain channel, and I did find a use for the clean channel as well (to be honest the stuff we do doesn't really have that much clean passages 
).
The only thing I didn't like and was the reason I needed to get rid of it was the master volume. No use for it at all, completely useless to me. I mean the MV on 1 I couldn't hear myself and after 1.15 it made no difference how it was, it was just too loud. It was really hard to tweak it so I just got rid of it.
I do miss the hotrodded tone and wish I could've found a solution for the MV problem though.
). The only thing I didn't like and was the reason I needed to get rid of it was the master volume. No use for it at all, completely useless to me. I mean the MV on 1 I couldn't hear myself and after 1.15 it made no difference how it was, it was just too loud. It was really hard to tweak it so I just got rid of it.
I do miss the hotrodded tone and wish I could've found a solution for the MV problem though.
PeteLaramee
Well-known member
I had a 1988 2210 which had more gain compared to the early ones. It was my main amp for about 15 years. The clean channel was extremely lame. I used a Rockman compressor with it (the one with the treble boost) which improved the clean sound by 200%.
One of the few amps I regret selling.
One of the few amps I regret selling.
Gainfreak
New member
outside of what others have said already, just a FYI.
the earlier models of the 2205/2210 had a design flaw and they flat out sucked. If you decdide to go with either model Makes sure they are from 85 and up. I prefer the 88's and up myself.
On another note though, In this day and age there are way better amps out there and I happen to love the 22XX series (I was one of the few who always said I dug them even back in teh day when everyone used to claim that they sucked lol)
Those amps sound killer loud but that's all you have. In other words the master on those amps have a hair trigger. When on 1 the amp will sound like an AM radio, move the master up a bit and it's like having the amp on 10. There is no difference in volume on those amps on 2 or on 10. The taper blows on them lol. Most clubs will tell you to turn down. There are other ways of running the amp so that you don't kill anyone but I find that when you run it that way you will need a boost pedal to compensate.
Either way, great amps but in this day and age, Id pass, but that's just me.
the earlier models of the 2205/2210 had a design flaw and they flat out sucked. If you decdide to go with either model Makes sure they are from 85 and up. I prefer the 88's and up myself.
On another note though, In this day and age there are way better amps out there and I happen to love the 22XX series (I was one of the few who always said I dug them even back in teh day when everyone used to claim that they sucked lol)
Those amps sound killer loud but that's all you have. In other words the master on those amps have a hair trigger. When on 1 the amp will sound like an AM radio, move the master up a bit and it's like having the amp on 10. There is no difference in volume on those amps on 2 or on 10. The taper blows on them lol. Most clubs will tell you to turn down. There are other ways of running the amp so that you don't kill anyone but I find that when you run it that way you will need a boost pedal to compensate.
Either way, great amps but in this day and age, Id pass, but that's just me.
Michi
Active member
Gainfreak":1grqu3dy said:
Aye, that is the problem, at least was with my 2210. The 'venues' (translates into corners in pizzerias and whatnot) we play usually will have to have a decent MV no matter what. I did try a few attenuators with mine, but wasn't really happy with the result, so I ended up selling it in favor of a JCM800 2203x
.
A
Anonymous
Guest
The earlier ones suffer from the channels bleeding into each other
mainly the dirt channel bleeding into the clean channel which renders it useless but neither is fully out of the signal path no matter what channel your in. Can't remember when they addressed that issue....1983-85 maybe? But the 2205 and 2210 series had the most gain (Distortion) of any marshall at the time and people are starting to "re-discover" them
mainly the dirt channel bleeding into the clean channel which renders it useless but neither is fully out of the signal path no matter what channel your in. Can't remember when they addressed that issue....1983-85 maybe? But the 2205 and 2210 series had the most gain (Distortion) of any marshall at the time and people are starting to "re-discover" them
S
Shiny_Surface
Active member
The 2210 has a great lead channel imo.
One trick I read for the clean channel is to disconnect it from the MV control so it's full blast and easier to balance volumes.
I noticed this as well.
One trick I read for the clean channel is to disconnect it from the MV control so it's full blast and easier to balance volumes.
kurtsstuff":2zj7hk53 said:
I noticed this as well.
MississippiMetal
New member
I never had a problem with the MV. Try NOT diming the lead channel volume 
MV becomes surprisingly manageable then.
MV becomes surprisingly manageable then.
H
H Golf Sport
Member
Thanks for the feedback.
blackba
Well-known member
kurtsstuff":i88icoe5 said:
So is there a fix for the channel bleed issue on the early ones?
I fixed up a '83 or '84 4210 and didn't notice the channel bleed issue, but I could have missed it. Other than the horrible stock G12M70 speaker, I thought the 4210 was pretty nice, the clean was decent, the gain channel was nice boosted by a Maxon OD-808. I still preferred my Silver jubilee 2553.
As for the Master volume on the 4210, I didn't find it that touchy...
MississippiMetal
New member
The reverb is improved by swapping out the drive and recovery 12ax7 for a 12AT7. It would probably benefit better from a high current solid-state drive arrangement, though. It would be easier to replace the existing tank with one that isn't so large, though.
Michi
Active member
MississippiMetal":1c6q9qme said:I never had a problem with the MV. Try NOT diming the lead channel volume
MV becomes surprisingly manageable then.
Hehe, that's exactly what was the problem with me, I needed to dime the lead channel volume to get the gain I wanted / needed. IMO that's where 'the sound' in that amp was
.
Gainfreak
New member
Michi":1pcdyyve said:MississippiMetal":1pcdyyve said:I never had a problem with the MV. Try NOT diming the lead channel volume
MV becomes surprisingly manageable then.
Hehe, that's exactly what was the problem with me, I needed to dime the lead channel volume to get the gain I wanted / needed. IMO that's where 'the sound' in that amp was
That's the way most guys ran these amps back in the day. I find that if I didn't dime the lead volume then I had to use a boost to get the level of gain that I like. Either way, it's doable.