S
Shiny_Surface
Active member
Can't wait to hear it 
I was always a sucker for white tolex, bought one and then discovered how easy it is to scuff up just moving it back and forth to a friends for jamming or whatnot....
I was always a sucker for white tolex, bought one and then discovered how easy it is to scuff up just moving it back and forth to a friends for jamming or whatnot....
Bob Savage
Well-known member
That's an awesome tribute to Randy.
jonny toetags
New member
Jakem
Well-known member
MrDan666
Active member
Looks very interesting!
I wonder what modification the circuit has compared to a standard 1959 100watter...
I wonder what modification the circuit has compared to a standard 1959 100watter...
I
Iceman8.6
Member
I bet the price will be sky high. 
Coll amp though 
Coll amp though
Digital Jams
New member
MrDan666":f4236 said:
I am sure that gut shots will be posted and smart dudes like Olaf will find them quick enough.
I
Iceman8.6
Member
Speakers! Didn't Randy use Altec Lansing speakers??
O
Odin
Member
I wonder if it gets that awful thin fizzy tone from Blizzard Of Oz? 
Damn, Marshall will partner with the relatives of any dead guitar hero to make a buck these days, won't they. Instead of reissuing the plexi and JCM800 in a dozen different signature models they should try to make a new amp that sounds as good as the old amps. The JVM was a good move in that direction, but they cut corners and overpriced the thing.
Randy was one of the true greats but I didn't always love his tone. Cool looking amp regardless.
Damn, Marshall will partner with the relatives of any dead guitar hero to make a buck these days, won't they. Instead of reissuing the plexi and JCM800 in a dozen different signature models they should try to make a new amp that sounds as good as the old amps. The JVM was a good move in that direction, but they cut corners and overpriced the thing.
Randy was one of the true greats but I didn't always love his tone. Cool looking amp regardless.
Capulin Overdrive
New member
what about the ALTEC's?
Digital Jams
New member
Odin":58f15 said:
$1800 for a 4 channel amp is overpriced? Yes I know I am not including the new floundering dollar price but that is not Marshall's fault.
MrDan666
Active member
Digital Jams":699e2 said:
Yeah im sure! Id definitly be interested in seeing the gut shots.. I doubt its anything drasticly different to the stock circuit though!
ratter
New member
Also not a fan of Randy's tone, even though he is one of the reasons I picked up a guitar. I dig the look, though.
O
Odin
Member
Digital Jams":2aab8 said:
The number of amp channels is irrelevant to the price. If the amp sounds great on all 4 channels then it's very versatile. I've played plenty of 3 channel amps that are effecitvely 1 channel amps for me since only 1 of the channels sounded really good and the other 2 were pretty much useless to me.
I like the JVM clean and crunch channels, but the OD channels are lacking IMO. To me, the biggest feature of the JVM is the extreme flexibility in programming the footswitch for options. You can have a clean and a crunch and a clean boost and a crunch boost, which makes it a great 2 channel amp with solo boosts for both channels.
The JVM sounds good, but not great. The cheap board mounted pots and crammed interior are a recipe for problems down the road, and for $1800 I won't settle for that type of cheap workmanship. PCB's are fine, but pots should always be chassis mounted. Marshall is mass producing these amps on an assembly line that amortizes the cost and the JVM shouldn't cost much more than a TSL (which is also overpriced). For $1800 you can buy a boutique amp that's ridiculously over built using top quality components and sounds great.
blackba
Well-known member
That looks pretty cool, I just hope its not priced sky high like the hendrix model was.
As for the JVM, I wish it was a little more expensive, I would rather pay $100-200 more to have the amp's Pots improved, among other things...
As for the JVM, I wish it was a little more expensive, I would rather pay $100-200 more to have the amp's Pots improved, among other things...
Bob Savage
Well-known member
Odin":49d96 said:
So the number of channels is irrelevant but programming flexibility is a "big feature?" Did you not think that one through or am I missing your point?
Greazygeo
Well-known member
You dont see the aluminum dust caps in the pic?Capulin Overdrive":67067 said:
I think Randy's tone is great actually....especially Diary. I guess I'll have to see how much this will cost me.....
Capulin Overdrive
New member
good eyes George 
Altec is still dicking around with little speakers, wonder if they're on board for this or if they're gonna have some kind of clone?
Altec is still dicking around with little speakers, wonder if they're on board for this or if they're gonna have some kind of clone?
Chubtone
Well-known member
Odin":02fdc said:I wonder if it gets that awful thin fizzy tone from Blizzard Of Oz?
Yeah, it's so weird that Randy's tone was so thin and fizzy on that Blizzard of Ozz album. It's really in contrast to the absolutely huge sounding drums and massive sounding bass guitar on that album.
That ALBUM sounds very poorly produced 28 years later because, well, it WAS poorly produced. Ozzy had no budget whatsoever and could not even afford a producer, so they used the studio's in house ENGINEER as the producer. That was Max Norman and he was a total NOOB on that record. Listen to Rhoads live bootlegs from around that same time. FOR THE TIME, Randy's tone was freaking huge. I blame Randy's studio tone on the guy responsible for capturing Randy's tone and getting it to tape, Max Norman.
And before anyone brings up the Tribute album tone, listen to the original recording of the concert Tribute was taken from. Max Norman in an interview talked about how heavily they EQ'd Randy's live tone from the concert for Tribute to make it sound more like the albums. When I read that before Tribute was released I wanted to smack Max Norman silly
And let's try and get some perspective here. NO ONE at the time was saying Rhoads tone was thin and fizzy. Max Norman became one of the most sought after producers AFTER he recorded those two Ozzy albums. Loudness, George Lynch and everyone else wanted Max Norman to produce them. Why would all these guitar oriented bands want Norman if his claim to fame, which obviously was Ozzy and RHOADS, was a horrible guitar tone?
So yeah, 20-28 years after the fact, Randy's tone WAS kind of thin. I don't know why Randy didn't use a Dual Rectifier or a Diezel, or Engl or Bogner Uberschall......... oh wait, there was no such thing. There were Marshalls, or there were Marshalls. Anyone ever hear an old Super Lead with a ton of low end thump? Now of course Van Halen had a way better Super Lead tone two years before Randy did, but Van Halen had Warner Bros and Ted Templeman behind them. Ozzy had anyone with a pulse behind the console and was scraping for change under the couch cushions to pay for that first album.
Now that I think about it, how wimpy was J.S. Bach's tone when he used that harpsichord? Why didn't he play a Schecter Hellraiser 7-string tuned down to drop Q through a Krank Bachenstein?