
Digital Jams
New member
psychodave":8b587 said:That is not a SLP... Super Lead Plexi. It is a Super Lead, you Marshall noob![]()
Why yes I am a Marshall n00b

psychodave":8b587 said:That is not a SLP... Super Lead Plexi. It is a Super Lead, you Marshall noob![]()
A friend of mine has some of those speakers....they are weird sounding to say the leastCapulin Overdrive":3ca72 said: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?
Chubtone":ef3a7 said: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 tuned down to drop Q through a Krank Bachenstein?![]()
![]()
Odin":38a61 said:Digital Jams":38a61 said:Odin":38a61 said:I 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.
$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.
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.
Chubtone":a8547 said:Odin":a8547 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 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 tuned down to drop Q through a Krank Bachenstein?![]()
![]()
Greazygeo":5eb23 said:A friend of mine has some of those speakers....they are weird sounding to say the leastCapulin Overdrive":5eb23 said: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?![]()
messenger":ad072 said:Randys tone on After Hours was pretty good![]()
Chubtone":dbc85 said:Odin":dbc85 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?![]()
![]()
zuel69":1dee6 said:Chubtone":1dee6 said:Odin":1dee6 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?![]()
![]()
Great post Chubtone! Thanks for taking the time to write this...Randy bashing makes my jaw drop. The guy was amazing, tone was amazing, songwriting was brilliant.
Chubtone":2ec25 said:messenger":2ec25 said:Randys tone on After Hours was pretty good![]()
EXACTLY my point. Some little piss-ant TV studio in upstate New York was able to more accurately capture Randy's real tone than Max Norman was in a studio. Yet, internet guitar forums can't fall over themselves quickly enough to talk about how thin Rhoads tone was as you look back 25 years or so at it. I'm telling you guys, at the time no one was saying his tone was thin. Thin compared to what? Molly Hatchett, Scandal, Foreigner? Everyone was freaking over how much gain he had. He was really the first high gain guy that I was ever aware of.
zuel69":01598 said:Great post Chubtone! Thanks for taking the time to write this...Randy bashing makes my jaw drop. The guy was amazing, tone was amazing, songwriting was brilliant.
zuel69":720a0 said:Yea, he also called it the "chipboard" I think chip meant shit or something like that.
Chubtone":0115d said:zuel69":0115d said:Great post Chubtone! Thanks for taking the time to write this...Randy bashing makes my jaw drop. The guy was amazing, tone was amazing, songwriting was brilliant.
It just makes me mental. I KNOW these guys who bash Rhoads' tone are not guys who were serious guitarists in that era. Maybe right after that era, but they didn't experience it as it happened. They have no perspective on it. At the time there were guys who liked Rhoads tone better than Van Halen's. Lots of guys. Tons.
Chubtone":bdbc2 said:Chip meant french fry in England. Fish and CHIPS.
zuel69":51497 said:Chippan thats it! Ozzy had a pretty good sized gut back then, he probably likes Fish and Chips as well.