Marshall JCM 2000 thoughts?
- Thread starter cragginshred77
- Start date
The Roadshow
New member
Not as good as some modern amps at low volume. They need to be turned up a bit to sound less buzzy (master needs to be over 9:00 on Red). The taper is fast like a lot of amps of its day. 9:00 - 9:30 (2 - 2.5) gets pretty loud pretty fast, probably too much for most wives to tolerate if you’re playing at home. That’s where it starts sounding good though.
When jamming with a full band, I think I ran my master up around 10:30 or so (it’s been awhile).
JTyson
Well-known member
Ive got a beautiful Orange JCM2000 half stack, Marshall called it the "Orange Crunch" version. It was good for years, not fantastic but good, but the dreaded bias drift issue crept in and honestly, I think I'm just gonna send it to Henric soon and let him gut the thing, get rid of all the stock crap and turn it into a Frikking black stallion flying unicorn! 
I guess it would be an orange stallion....
That does not sound as good...
Wonder why??
Well.. OK
I guess it would be an orange stallion....
That does not sound as good...
Wonder why??
Well.. OK
Last edited:
hellzington
Well-known member
I was once like you: I thought maybe a modern Marshall was what a sound missing from my amp collection. Plus they're cheap and now they have a little cult following. So I bought a 2000's made in UK JCM 2000 DSL. Honestly, it was awful. I tried to like it for a few weeks but it just sounded bad in almost every context. It was bright, thin, and over-gained. Channel 1 had some usable sounds but I couldn't find anything on Channel 2 that sounded even passable. I rolled preamp tubes around (even using medium gain tubes) but nothing worked. All my modded Marshalls and Friedmans sounded much better. Maybe the modern Marshall sound isn't for me. 
Clearly, there are some people in this thread who feel they can get good tones out of them. As for me, I'd strongly advise you to save your time and money.
Clearly, there are some people in this thread who feel they can get good tones out of them. As for me, I'd strongly advise you to save your time and money.
The DSL's are hard to beat for the money.
stephen sawall
Well-known member
JMP smallbox is my preference when it comes to those types of sounds.
TheGreatGreen
Well-known member
I've heard the JCM 2000 DSL 100 called the last great classic Marshall by more than one person and I'd agree.
I have one and I think the Clean, Crunch, and Lead 1 modes are great. Put a boost in front of it and it's really great. I find Lead 2 to be a bit mushy but 3 out of 4 modes being great is fine with me.
I've also heard of some people modding them to add a pot to the Deep switch for a variable depth control, which seems great. I wonder if the same would be possible for the Tone Shift function. On its own the Tone Shift function cuts WAY too many mids but I bet if you could slowly dial in the mid cut you could get some cool stuff.
I have one and I think the Clean, Crunch, and Lead 1 modes are great. Put a boost in front of it and it's really great. I find Lead 2 to be a bit mushy but 3 out of 4 modes being great is fine with me.
I've also heard of some people modding them to add a pot to the Deep switch for a variable depth control, which seems great. I wonder if the same would be possible for the Tone Shift function. On its own the Tone Shift function cuts WAY too many mids but I bet if you could slowly dial in the mid cut you could get some cool stuff.
Rick Lee
Well-known member
I've had a bunch of them, still have a DSL50 with the OT and choke upgrade. It's so awesome and I have about $400 into it.
I had a JCM2000 DSL100 and a DSL100H, both with the OT and choke upgrades, A/B'ed them for a while and the DSL100H slayed it handily. I sold them both, but plan to get another DSL100H and do that upgrade again when I can find the right transformer.
I had a JCM2000 DSL100 and a DSL100H, both with the OT and choke upgrades, A/B'ed them for a while and the DSL100H slayed it handily. I sold them both, but plan to get another DSL100H and do that upgrade again when I can find the right transformer.
easstudios
Well-known member
Have recorded lots of JCM2000’s and owned my own JCM2000 DSL and still have a 100H.
The 100H gets a worse rep than it deserves, I prefer having the depth control to the switch on the older ones. JCM2000’s feel slightly less cheap and have a spring reverb tank. The HR does look even better and Thomann was selling them new for £400 last year which is just nuts.
Easily delivers what it promises, the main downsides are the green channel would be even better if it had a bit more gain, and the red channel would be better if it had less. I think the master volumes are quite important to get in the right spot for the best tones too, which can sometimes be a little loud/inconvenient. It’s not the kind of master that will sound the same at any volume.
If it’s sounding thin/harsh, it’s probably worth taking to a tech. Lots are biased unbelievably cold through fear of the dreaded bias drift. Have heard people say the updated boards even sound a bit better so it may be worth just totally replacing the pcb if you have one from the years that had issues.
The 100H gets a worse rep than it deserves, I prefer having the depth control to the switch on the older ones. JCM2000’s feel slightly less cheap and have a spring reverb tank. The HR does look even better and Thomann was selling them new for £400 last year which is just nuts.
Easily delivers what it promises, the main downsides are the green channel would be even better if it had a bit more gain, and the red channel would be better if it had less. I think the master volumes are quite important to get in the right spot for the best tones too, which can sometimes be a little loud/inconvenient. It’s not the kind of master that will sound the same at any volume.
If it’s sounding thin/harsh, it’s probably worth taking to a tech. Lots are biased unbelievably cold through fear of the dreaded bias drift. Have heard people say the updated boards even sound a bit better so it may be worth just totally replacing the pcb if you have one from the years that had issues.
stephen sawall
Well-known member
First time I played on a 1 and 5 watt amp I was kind of surprised how loud it was.
MetalThrasher
Well-known member
I have a TSL 122 combo. Haven't played it in a while but I like it. It took me a while to dial it in but once someone recommend putting a TS9 in front of the amp that made the rhythm channel come alive! You really have to get the volume close to 11 o'clock in order for it to shine though. Anything below 9 o'clock it lacks the character per say.
greatmutah
Member
DSLs are great. I had a 2000 for years and it was an awesome amp. I’d love to have one again. Cleans were awesome, boosted crunch was great and OD2 boosted was my jam. Secret to OD2 is to keep the gain below 3 and add a boost to tighten it up. In my case, my SD-1 was awesome with that mode.
glpg80
Well-known member
I’d rather just have a 5150II.
DSLs do a lot, but not one thing really well. It’s a good working man’s amplifier but nothing I’d rank next to a properly modded jcm800 or a metroplex. They have this unorganized sloppy character to them. Again they rank in the same realm as a 5150 and if I had to pick between the two, I’d rather just have a 5150.
DSLs do a lot, but not one thing really well. It’s a good working man’s amplifier but nothing I’d rank next to a properly modded jcm800 or a metroplex. They have this unorganized sloppy character to them. Again they rank in the same realm as a 5150 and if I had to pick between the two, I’d rather just have a 5150.
Bardagh
Well-known member
I don’t know, I had a DSL100H years ago and it was OK but I just found the “Ultra gain” channels to be overly gainy, hairy and mushy sounding. Ultra gain 2 is an absolute waste of circuitry.
The Clean/Crunch was good but the crunch didn’t go far enough to take the place of a good high gain channel. I felt like I would have liked it much better if the channels were clean, then crunch, then Gain and the gain channel actually picked up where the Crunch left off instead of 10 x gainier.
I hadn’t played a JCM 2000 in years and years so I couldn’t really judge how they stacked up against each other. Most people claim they sound “the same” but I recall the 2000’s as being brighter, maybe thinner and at least the Ultra gain 1 sounding less mushy.
The Clean/Crunch was good but the crunch didn’t go far enough to take the place of a good high gain channel. I felt like I would have liked it much better if the channels were clean, then crunch, then Gain and the gain channel actually picked up where the Crunch left off instead of 10 x gainier.
I hadn’t played a JCM 2000 in years and years so I couldn’t really judge how they stacked up against each other. Most people claim they sound “the same” but I recall the 2000’s as being brighter, maybe thinner and at least the Ultra gain 1 sounding less mushy.
turboblues
Active member
I reckon this is a thread about the DSL?
Because the TSL is also a JCM 2000...
Because the TSL is also a JCM 2000...
cragginshred77
Well-known member
Yeah I didn't really know the diff
easstudios
Well-known member
I actually think the points here sum up DSL’s well. On something like a Friedman, you have a more continuous range of gain. The DSL has quite a jump from green to red channel and the voicing changes a fair bit too.
Tbf, the green channel is quite comparable to a stock 2203 amount of gain - with a pedal you’re absolutely fine.
I think another thing with the DSL vs something like a Friedman, is that the master volume is a lot fussier. There is a sweet spot where it’s not too mushy or fizzy, but it’s a bit of a balancing act to get things in the right place. In the studio, it’s not an issue and I think it’s a big reason why DSL’s record so well. You just set it where it sounds and responds right and you’re good.
Live, you may be restricted because you either need to balance volumes between channels, or the sweet spot for your tone isn’t going to suit everything else going on.