Main differences between Marshall 1959 and 2203

They are different flavors. I have currently a 1972 SuperLead 100, sold recently a 1979 JMP2203 and have still a modded 1980 JMP2204. They’re all great imo. I don’t find the sweet spot on either amp to be maxed liked that (gets too flubby & outta control imo), but when both are set very loud to their sweet spots, the 1959 (from the early ‘70’s at least to me) to me punches a lot harder, moves more air, way tighter, more articulate, more open, brighter, clearer, but the JMP2203 has more growl, a brash edge that I like and has more extended bass. When boosted, both are great, but the superlead is a lot more receptive to them and will be way more present over the 2203’s. I also had recently a 1967 50 watt tremolo. That one sounded warmer and just a little more tonally complex than my 1972 SuperLead, but nowhere near the punch, tightness or clarity of the 1972. It was a lot darker and softer sounding
 
The best 2203 you’ve ever heard still won’t approach the raw, open tone of the Superlead, volume wise the SL will also eclipse the 2203. Non master amps have more clarity and definition vs MV amps. The 2203 will be easier to manage and control. They really are very different in many ways. The 2203 will be easier to boost into saturation vs the SL which needs 2 pedals to get there; even double boosted my 1972 seems much cleaner than it is vs my boosted 2205.
If you’re a Marshall fan having one of each is justified based on the differences
 
No. A 1959 has an open low end thump and high end raspiness that a 2203 doesn’t have.
 
You can get the amps in the same ballpark for sure, but they'll always sound and feel a bit different. IMHO i prefer the 2203/2204 with the master somewhat low (around 2ish) while the 1959 needs to be at 8 or more.

The big difference to me was that the 1959 always seems a bit stiff and was harder to play. It sounds great, but the master volume amps are more compressed (sweeter, warmer) which I prefer. The 1959 is an untamed monster that you have to wrestle to do what you want.
 
Pretty much what everyone above me has already said has also been my experience.
 
Racerxrated said:
The best 2203 you’ve ever heard still won’t approach the raw, open tone of the Superlead, volume wise the SL will also eclipse the 2203. Non master amps have more clarity and definition vs MV amps. The 2203 will be easier to manage and control. They really are very different in many ways. The 2203 will be easier to boost into saturation vs the SL which needs 2 pedals to get there; even double boosted my 1972 seems much cleaner than it is vs my boosted 2205.
If you’re a Marshall fan having one of each is justified based on the differences
Click to expand...

The 1959's, especially the earlier ones, vary quite a lot in regards to how clean they are. (Add to that, 40-50 years of component drift and you get a lot of variation.) I'm not certain the 1959 is any louder than the 2203 cranked up. I don't recall that, both being stupid loud when cranked. (Judging them is probably impossible with the ear.....because stupid loud!) Yeah, the 2203 gets distortion easier and definitely boosts easier, and you can get that boost at more volume levels.

They're both definitely siblings and are in the same general realm, but at the same time, never quite identical. There was a reason to choose one over the other on the big stage for sound, but it's definitely subtle differences. Nobody is confusing it with a Mesa or Fender! (If not in that environment, the choice is mostly due to the volume situation, I'd say.)

Your 2205 has a fair amount more distortion than a 2203 already, so not certain how helpful that comparison is going to be.
 
rstites said:
The 1959's, especially the earlier ones, vary quite a lot in regards to how clean they are. (Add to that, 40-50 years of component drift and you get a lot of variation.) I'm not certain the 1959 is any louder than the 2203 cranked up. I don't recall that, both being stupid loud when cranked. (Judging them is probably impossible with the ear.....because stupid loud!) Yeah, the 2203 gets distortion easier and definitely boosts easier, and you can get that boost at more volume levels.

They're both definitely siblings and are in the same general realm, but at the same time, never quite identical. There was a reason to choose one over the other on the big stage for sound, but it's definitely subtle differences. Nobody is confusing it with a Mesa or Fender! (If not in that environment, the choice is mostly due to the volume situation, I'd say.)

Your 2205 has a fair amount more distortion than a 2203 already, so not certain how helpful that comparison is going to be.
Click to expand...
Mine is a 2203 probably from 1977, the model is written in the back plate. BTW is the one that appears in my avatar, the extra input jacks seen are ,actually, an fx loop made by my technician.
 
rstites said:
The 1959's, especially the earlier ones, vary quite a lot in regards to how clean they are. (Add to that, 40-50 years of component drift and you get a lot of variation.) I'm not certain the 1959 is any louder than the 2203 cranked up. I don't recall that, both being stupid loud when cranked. (Judging them is probably impossible with the ear.....because stupid loud!) Yeah, the 2203 gets distortion easier and definitely boosts easier, and you can get that boost at more volume levels.

They're both definitely siblings and are in the same general realm, but at the same time, never quite identical. There was a reason to choose one over the other on the big stage for sound, but it's definitely subtle differences. Nobody is confusing it with a Mesa or Fender! (If not in that environment, the choice is mostly due to the volume situation, I'd say.)

Your 2205 has a fair amount more distortion than a 2203 already, so not certain how helpful that comparison is going to be.
Click to expand...
One example I can give is this...when I had a really good 1983 2203, complete with GE 6550s and new ARS caps, I'd play it loud and loved it. Then I played the 72. Compared to the 2203 the 72 seemed almost twice as loud....where it was almost painful to play it for too long, and I was off axis to the cabs. The 72 was much clearer sounding as well. The 2203 was maxed on the master where if I turned it up any more the tone got less defined. If I played the 72 first then the 2203, the 2203 sounded almost 'bad' in comparison...kinda flat almost.
That's when I decided to sell the 2203. As good as it was it just got destroyed by my 72 in every way possible.
 
Racerxrated said:
One example I can give is this...when I had a really good 1983 2203, complete with GE 6550s and new ARS caps, I'd play it loud and loved it. Then I played the 72. Compared to the 2203 the 72 seemed almost twice as loud....where it was almost painful to play it for too long, and I was off axis to the cabs. The 72 was much clearer sounding as well. The 2203 was maxed on the master where if I turned it up any more the tone got less defined. If I played the 72 first then the 2203, the 2203 sounded almost 'bad' in comparison...kinda flat almost.
That's when I decided to sell the 2203. As good as it was it just got destroyed by my 72 in every way possible.
Click to expand...
I would guess the plate voltage in the 2203 was much lower than the 72.
 
Greazygeo said:
I would guess the plate voltage in the 2203 was much lower than the 72.
Click to expand...
No, actually. The 82/83 2204s tend to have the higher voltage PTs vs other year JMP/JMP MV amps. Total voltage 509v in that particular 2203; pv at 445. My 72 by contrast was at 490 total, 430 pv. The PT was a later 70s Dagnall out of a Superlead. 4145B if I remember. I have since replaced it with a period correct T3556….most were T3562 but some were T3556. Now it measures at 545v; 490 pv.
So when I was comparing the two, my 72 was lower voltage vs the 2203. NMV amps tend to easily overpower MV amps all things being equal.
 
Racerxrated said:
One example I can give is this...when I had a really good 1983 2203, complete with GE 6550s and new ARS caps, I'd play it loud and loved it. Then I played the 72. Compared to the 2203 the 72 seemed almost twice as loud....where it was almost painful to play it for too long, and I was off axis to the cabs. The 72 was much clearer sounding as well. The 2203 was maxed on the master where if I turned it up any more the tone got less defined. If I played the 72 first then the 2203, the 2203 sounded almost 'bad' in comparison...kinda flat almost.
That's when I decided to sell the 2203. As good as it was it just got destroyed by my 72 in every way possible.
Click to expand...
Destroyed in every way possible for the tone YOU are going for. I have a feeling you're not a fan of high gain amplification or high gain tones in any way... cause if that is what you liked a 2203 with a boost does the job better IMO. Those amps from the early 70's cant really approach metal territory.
 
Racerxrated said:
No, actually. The 82/83 2204s tend to have the higher voltage PTs vs other year JMP/JMP MV amps. Total voltage 509v in that particular 2203; pv at 445. My 72 by contrast was at 490 total, 430 pv. The PT was a later 70s Dagnall out of a Superlead. 4145B if I remember. I have since replaced it with a period correct T3556….most were T3562 but some were T3556. Now it measures at 545v; 490 pv.
So when I was comparing the two, my 72 was lower voltage vs the 2203. NMV amps tend to easily overpower MV amps all things being equal.
Click to expand...
6550s pull down PT voltages quite a lot. My 74 is sitting at 440 currently with the stock dagnall PT. Too squishy for my tastes and not enough balls. Ordered a Mercury Magnetics 520V .5A rated beast of a PT to replace the stock dagnall and give the amp more headroom and balls.
 
anomaly said:
Destroyed in every way possible for the tone YOU are going for. I have a feeling you're not a fan of high gain amplification or high gain tones in any way... cause if that is what you liked a 2203 with a boost does the job better IMO. Those amps from the early 70's cant really approach metal territory.
Click to expand...
+1

A boosted 2203 is absolutely loud AF. A boosted healthy 2203 is even louder.
 
Racerxrated said:
No, actually. The 82/83 2204s tend to have the higher voltage PTs vs other year JMP/JMP MV amps. Total voltage 509v in that particular 2203; pv at 445. My 72 by contrast was at 490 total, 430 pv. The PT was a later 70s Dagnall out of a Superlead. 4145B if I remember. I have since replaced it with a period correct T3556….most were T3562 but some were T3556. Now it measures at 545v; 490 pv.
So when I was comparing the two, my 72 was lower voltage vs the 2203. NMV amps tend to easily overpower MV amps all things being equal.
Click to expand...
NMV (at least Marshalls) may cut better to a point. But the power sections still cave in the same generally. They hit harder, but the volume isn’t going to be much different.

First thing Imdid to my 69 plexi was put the 2203 preamp in it. Ran it that way for years. Then I decided to put it back to stock 1959. Once cranked up, the gain and volume was the same. I was surprised.
 
anomaly said:
Destroyed in every way possible for the tone YOU are going for. I have a feeling you're not a fan of high gain amplification or high gain tones in any way... cause if that is what you liked a 2203 with a boost does the job better IMO. Those amps from the early 70's cant really approach metal territory.
Click to expand...
Not that much gain difference between the two. My old stock Superleads do metal just fine. They don‘t particularly like the 7 string stuff all that much though.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top