JCM 800 vs. JCM 900

  • Thread starter Thread starter PsychoholicSlag
  • Start date Start date
PsychoholicSlag

PsychoholicSlag

New member
So I've decided on what I'm getting. An 81-84 JCM 800. :rock:


I'm bored, so I was wondering what are your thoughts between these two amps. I know people say the 900 sucks, but ZZ Top used them before and Slash's Jubilee heads have the same diode clipping as the 900's.

So can they really be that bad of an amp. :confused:



I know there where different models like the Dual Reverb, SLX, and the MKII. Anyone have any favorites.
 
Billy Gibbons used pretty much everything. Some guys here stick up for the 900, but every JCM900 that i played in person sucked pretty bad.
 
First let me say I am not too in the know when it comes to the 900 series amps. What I have heard though is that the 50 and 100 watt SL-X JCM 900 models are the best of the series. Much better than the other models within the series. Take that with a grain of salt though, because thats just from stuff I have heard.
 
PsychoholicSlag":3629jfm9 said:
So I've decided on what I'm getting. An 81-84 JCM 800. :rock:


I'm bored, so I was wondering what are your thoughts between these two amps. I know people say the 900 sucks, but ZZ Top used them before and Slash's Jubilee heads have the same diode clipping as the 900's.

So can they really be that bad of an amp. :confused:



I know there where different models like the Dual Reverb, SLX, and the MKII. Anyone have any favorites.
Click to expand...

id stick to your plan if i were u. my 82' JCM800 100w is a tone machine. last i recall playing a 900 , it didnt do anything for me.
 
I had an SL-X 50w with 6L6's and that one sounded pretty good. You did have to turn it up but it was real solid. Not only ZZ Top used those but also Weezer and Kiss.
 
I had a JCM 900/2100 (no reverb with el34's) that sounded great compared to my buddy's dual reverb 900 with 5881's


that was a long time ago and I really didn't consider myself a ToneKing back then :no: ;)
 
I gigged with a 4100 for about two years. I had a TS-9 and a Boss GE-7 out front, and could go anywhere from classic Marshall grind to Recto bottom end chunk. The 900 is voiced to sound good in the context of a band. It sits beautifully in the mix. My only real complaint with the amp, and the reason that I sold it was that I always wanted just a bit more gain. I only like to boost for solos for volume and a bit more grind. I'm not a fan of using a pedal all the time. So I moved on to something else. That being said, I could be happy with a 4100 or 4500 and a good Marshall cab. The 900 is one of the few Marshalls that doesn't sound better with more mids. I used to keep the bass cranked, treble on 4 and mids around 3. (I'm not a scoop the mids kinda guy either.) I still think that the clean on the 900 was better than that on the DSL. But that's just my opinion. I do love the SLX too. If I could get away with a single channel amp, it would be an SLX.
 
I had a 4100 for a short while - I found some mods that actaully made it sound pretty good. I also heard some great sounding 900's that have the 2 volumes (2100 and 2500), that being said, you're never gonna beat an 800 with a 900 - definitely get the 800. But if you see a 2100/2500 used and cheap, I'd go for it too! FWIW, I didn't dig the sl-x as much as the 2100/2500 either.
 
I always thought the JCM900s sound a bit more modern, say, a bit less warm than 800s but its a tonal choice rather than one is better than the other. I really like how 900s take pedals in the loop. They can do some goddamn mean sounding metal. I also think 900s are slightly less well built than 800s.
 
My 1981 2204 absolutely rocks, the best sounding Marshall I have ever owned, make sure you put el 34's in it,IMO
 
SgtThump":fk15x2m9 said:
dstroud":fk15x2m9 said:
I had a 4100 for a short while - I found some mods that actaully made it sound pretty good. I also heard some great sounding 900's that have the 2 volumes (2100 and 2500), that being said, you're never gonna beat an 800 with a 900 - definitely get the 800. But if you see a 2100/2500 used and cheap, I'd go for it too! FWIW, I didn't dig the sl-x as much as the 2100/2500 either.
Click to expand...

The SL-X's and HiGain Mark IIIs both had the model numbers 2100 and 2500. Why Marshall makes it so confusing is beyond me. Anyway, I owned both of those as well and I like the SL-X quite a bit more??? Sounded fuller to me?

And this really shouldn't matter, but the SL-X are apparently all tube, whereas the HiGain Mark III has diode clipping. But like I said, that alone shouldn't really matter in my opinion. Just stating it.
Click to expand...

Ha Ha, I didn't realize the sl-x's were 2100/2500 also, wierd! Didn't the SL-X have 4 pre's and the 2100/2500 use 3? anyway's I liked the way the one with 3 - it took my tubescreamer better than one with 4 - but they were very close for my application. The Marshall with 3 sounded a little more out front to me.
 
Funny this should come up today....I may be picking up an 82 2204 tomorrow :yes:
 
Nope....looking for a more Marshall flavor. Love the Herbert, but I guess deep down, I'm a Marshall guy. Robb's amp kinda drove that home for me :thumbsup:
 
So the thing now to do is decide on a 2x12 combo, or get a head and a 2x12 cab.
 
i had a 50watt mark III 900 i could make it sound good but it's gain did leave something to be desired for the heavier metal not bad but just not that kind of gain. i really did like it's sound for most everthing else though.

now the 800 i had only played for a half hour or so sounded great really easy to dial in. but this was't through my cab so that probably made a difference. but given the choice i would take the 800. though i would not be disappointed with the 900
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top