Why do most newer Marshalls suck?

[bravedude2]

user error

 

[diagrammatiks]

There seems to be 4 camps of people:

1. Those who think all marshall's suck
2. Those who think the only good Marshall amps were made before around 1980
3. Those who think the only good Marshall amps were made before around 1990
4. Those who think all Marshalls both new and old have good things to offer

Marshall is production amp company, not a boutique builder (though they do have a few handwired amps). I think the reason alot of people don't like new Marshalls is that the cheap components they use today are just not as good as the cheap components they used in the past. Also, Marshall for the most part is trying to move forward, creating multichannel amps. If you are a fan of a single channel NMV amp, than a channel switching amp just won't do. My biggest complaint with some of the new Marshalls like the DSL and JVM is that they left out a choke. The Marshall Class5 sure looks like a cool little amp.

I see Fender as in the same boat as Marshall. They are both haunted by their past. If they try to move forward, they lose the old fans, who want a copy of a late 60's amp. If they just build reissues, people would say they are just resting on their laurels.

Look at the DSL, vintage modern, and JVM, they are frequently compared to a JCM800 or JMP. I think the comparison is unavoidable.

I agree with this. It's a bit like Gibson, they try and make innovative stuff but it all sucks, the die hard fans want re-issues of 50 year old guitars, the guys like us just buy them and chuck the pickups and stuff anyway. They live off their name and their legacy, not their product. I tell this to everyone who thinks about buying a Gibson and they reply with "But Gibson are the best guitar makers in the world" and I'll say "Well, i'm sure Suhr, Anderson, PRS, Caparison, ESP and the likes are worth considering, quite a few of them are cheaper as well"

So, Marshall users these days...

Slash - Mods them
Dave Mustaine - will endourse fucking anything.
Billie Joe Armstrong - mods them
The guy from Bowling For Soup - He's in fucking Bowling For Soup
Zakk Wylde - has shit tone IMO.

And yet Tawlks Gibson still keeps cranking guitars out...why? Because they freakin sell. Regardless of "who" buys them they still continue to sell. No different than Marshall.

And why shouldn't Gibson continue to live off they're "past" history...afterall they created it and there's still a massive demand for it.

Look, you and alot of people have got to get past the fact that just because something is popular or mass produced doesn't mean it sucks. I guess I've just been through that phase of my life were if it said Marshall or Gibson it automatically sucked. What you and some on here are saying is nothing new...me an my friends were saying this crap 10, 15 years ago. Guess what, we were wrong. The funny thing is I look back on all the money I've spent on crap...from Splawn to Boogie, from VHT to Soldano, from Deizel to Mojave, from ESP to Anderson and some of the products that have made me the happiest are supposedly mass produced shit...like my old 5150's, like my Les Pauls or my JVM.

Hey no doubt Gibson and Marshall make alot of crap...but they also make alot of good stuff as well.

I mean I agree but those products don't exist in a vacuum. Gibson and Marshall are now volume producers in a way that Anderson or Suhr aren't. Do they still put out good stuff? Heck ya. I love my R8. It's one of the best guitars I've ever played. Is a lp studio just as good because it says gibson on it as well? Not even close. Is the R8 better then some of the guitars I've seen from Anderson, Suhr, Collings etc? Maybe in some areas and not in others. But, I don't think you can disagree that for amazing product that Gibson or Marshall makes and sells they also make and sell 10000 units of crap.

Again, it's just a different corporate mentality. Lot's of people need to get paid at Gibson and Marshall. Could Gibson sell nothing but historic reissues in limited runs and still stay afloat as a much smaller company? Yes. Would the CEO still have a yacht? Nope.

 

[jabps]

There seems to be 4 camps of people:

1. Those who think all marshall's suck
2. Those who think the only good Marshall amps were made before around 1980
3. Those who think the only good Marshall amps were made before around 1990
4. Those who think all Marshalls both new and old have good things to offer

Marshall is production amp company, not a boutique builder (though they do have a few handwired amps). I think the reason alot of people don't like new Marshalls is that the cheap components they use today are just not as good as the cheap components they used in the past. Also, Marshall for the most part is trying to move forward, creating multichannel amps. If you are a fan of a single channel NMV amp, than a channel switching amp just won't do. My biggest complaint with some of the new Marshalls like the DSL and JVM is that they left out a choke. The Marshall Class5 sure looks like a cool little amp.

I see Fender as in the same boat as Marshall. They are both haunted by their past. If they try to move forward, they lose the old fans, who want a copy of a late 60's amp. If they just build reissues, people would say they are just resting on their laurels.

Look at the DSL, vintage modern, and JVM, they are frequently compared to a JCM800 or JMP. I think the comparison is unavoidable.

I agree with this. It's a bit like Gibson, they try and make innovative stuff but it all sucks, the die hard fans want re-issues of 50 year old guitars, the guys like us just buy them and chuck the pickups and stuff anyway. They live off their name and their legacy, not their product. I tell this to everyone who thinks about buying a Gibson and they reply with "But Gibson are the best guitar makers in the world" and I'll say "Well, i'm sure Suhr, Anderson, PRS, Caparison, ESP and the likes are worth considering, quite a few of them are cheaper as well"

So, Marshall users these days...

Slash - Mods them
Dave Mustaine - will endourse fucking anything.
Billie Joe Armstrong - mods them
The guy from Bowling For Soup - He's in fucking Bowling For Soup
Zakk Wylde - has shit tone IMO.

And yet Tawlks Gibson still keeps cranking guitars out...why? Because they freakin sell. Regardless of "who" buys them they still continue to sell. No different than Marshall.

And why shouldn't Gibson continue to live off they're "past" history...afterall they created it and there's still a massive demand for it.

Look, you and alot of people have got to get past the fact that just because something is popular or mass produced doesn't mean it sucks. I guess I've just been through that phase of my life were if it said Marshall or Gibson it automatically sucked. What you and some on here are saying is nothing new...me an my friends were saying this crap 10, 15 years ago. Guess what, we were wrong. The funny thing is I look back on all the money I've spent on crap...from Splawn to Boogie, from VHT to Soldano, from Deizel to Mojave, from ESP to Anderson and some of the products that have made me the happiest are supposedly mass produced shit...like my old 5150's, like my Les Pauls or my JVM.

Hey no doubt Gibson and Marshall make alot of crap...but they also make alot of good stuff as well.

I mean I agree but those products don't exist in a vacuum. Gibson and Marshall are now volume producers in a way that Anderson or Suhr aren't. Do they still put out good stuff? Heck ya. I love my R8. It's one of the best guitars I've ever played. Is a lp studio just as good because it says gibson on it as well? Not even close. Is the R8 better then some of the guitars I've seen from Anderson, Suhr, Collings etc? Maybe in some areas and not in others. But, I don't think you can disagree that for amazing product that Gibson or Marshall makes and sells they also make and sell 10000 units of crap.

Again, it's just a different corporate mentality. Lot's of people need to get paid at Gibson and Marshall. Could Gibson sell nothing but historic reissues in limited runs and still stay afloat as a much smaller company? Yes. Would the CEO still have a yacht? Nope.

Oh I agree...you stated it very well. Look if Suhr or Anderson started mass producing they're stuff they'd fall into the same trap...to a small degree PRS already has. But I doubt Paul is worrying about. Yeah we're on the same page here. I just realize all that wasted time I spent on arguing how much Marshall and Gibson sucked and yet now, years later that's what i play. It's all good though...normally I would just skip right over a thread like this because it's still a waste to argue about it.

 

[Sick Michael]

I disagree, I dont think the new ones suck at all - and I own one of the older, single channel models.

I have heard a LOT of bands playing DSLs and on most occasions the sound fit in the mix really well. In the hands of a good player, the JCM2000s sound great, and the newer JVMs sound yet better to me.

But theres still room here to accept that the older Marshalls have more balls (which is generally indisputable), and the Cameron/Splawn kick all kinds of ass, and yes, I would choose one of these in a heartbeat.

Saying that all new Marshalls suck is a fairly crass and clumsy generalisation if you ask me - and Im in the Mesa Boogie camp.

 

[skoora]

I will say that today I got a much more enjoyable high gain sound out of a JVM210H than a Soldano SLO. The Soldano was nice but the low E just falls apart on those guys on the lead channel. Channel 2 on Orange, gain at about 2 or 3 and I had a pretty ripping drive going on. It was a little too easily made bright and sizzly but with some patience ultimately much more usable than the SLO. Did I enjoy it as much as a good 1959 or 2203? No, but I would use one live with no complaints. I actually wouldn't mind one of those used just for that one sound I got. Unfortunately you can't get a good classic rock tone worth shit out of it but this one high gain sound was pretty good. I was playing a Slash AFD LP through it and the high gain sound with the volume rolled off sounded better than any medium gain setting I dialed in on the amp.

 

[Subclavian]

True story. I saw a guy in his mid 20's plug straight into a 2203 reissue half stack with a Cort guitar with passive pickups. He played 3 riffs...Master of Puppets, Marilyn Manson "Beautiful People", and something I think was an attempt at a Children of Bodom song.

His exact quote..."Man, that amp fucking sucks." then after about 5 minutes of chit chat he made the killer quote "I'm real active on this website called Harmony Central...you need to check it out. I can't wait to post a review" as he was taking pictures with his cellphone.


sure, what I like in tone isn't gonna be what the next guy likes, but seriously?

 

[Shiny_Surface]

then after about 5 minutes of chit chat he made the killer quote "I'm real active on this website called Harmony Central...you need to check it out. I can't wait to post a review" as he was taking pictures with his cellphone.

omg

 

[moltenmetalburn]

His exact quote..."Man, that amp fucking sucks." then after about 5 minutes of chit chat he made the killer quote "I'm real active on this website called Harmony Central...you need to check it out. I can't wait to post a review" as he was taking pictures with his cellphone.

 

[petejt]

Regarding the HAZE 40, I believe it's the most misunderstood amp out there right now. I'm doing an official gear review on one including a head-to-head with the DSL401 at the moment (I'll post the link when it's completed). The Marshall HAZE 40 is intended to capture the 70's tone. More importantly, it is NOT a high-gain amp. It'll do crunch at best, and some of the best crunch is actually achieved by diming the Normal channel. Don't slam an amp for not being something it was never intended to be. You don't slam a JC-120 because you can't plug straight in and play Slayer. I think the thing that throws people about the HAZE 40 is the tube complement--just because it is a Marshall and has three ECC83's and two EL34's that doesn't make it a Plexi. The tone on the HAZE 40 is there--it's got good tone, but it's not a Metal amp. Also, inevitably, the digital FX section is going to color the tone as well. I'd expect to see some HAZE mods emerging over the next several months. If the HAZE 40 had gain on tap, it'd be close to the perfect little gigging combo. Good effects, but not over the top, plenty of tone, and plenty of gain. However, that would change the intent of the amp. If you want more gain out of a HAZE, throw a pedal in front (just like you do with every other amp that you feel needs it).

Especially most Marshall amps that were ever made. The majority of re-packaged modded Marshalls are simply just Marshall amps with more gain, to remove the need for external boosting.


Funnily enough, I just bought a stock Marshall JCM800 2204 from 1981, because I wanted LESS gain!

 

[Badronald]

Regarding the HAZE 40, I believe it's the most misunderstood amp out there right now. I'm doing an official gear review on one including a head-to-head with the DSL401 at the moment (I'll post the link when it's completed). The Marshall HAZE 40 is intended to capture the 70's tone. More importantly, it is NOT a high-gain amp. It'll do crunch at best, and some of the best crunch is actually achieved by diming the Normal channel. Don't slam an amp for not being something it was never intended to be. You don't slam a JC-120 because you can't plug straight in and play Slayer. I think the thing that throws people about the HAZE 40 is the tube complement--just because it is a Marshall and has three ECC83's and two EL34's that doesn't make it a Plexi. The tone on the HAZE 40 is there--it's got good tone, but it's not a Metal amp. Also, inevitably, the digital FX section is going to color the tone as well. I'd expect to see some HAZE mods emerging over the next several months. If the HAZE 40 had gain on tap, it'd be close to the perfect little gigging combo. Good effects, but not over the top, plenty of tone, and plenty of gain. However, that would change the intent of the amp. If you want more gain out of a HAZE, throw a pedal in front (just like you do with every other amp that you feel needs it).

Especially most Marshall amps that were ever made. The majority of re-packaged modded Marshalls are simply just Marshall amps with more gain, to remove the need for external boosting.


Funnily enough, I just bought a stock Marshall JCM800 2204 from 1981, because I wanted LESS gain!

The lower gain Marshalls have ALWAYS sounded better than the higher gain Marshalls.

 

[Hollywood]

Well here are a few things that strike me as positive about this whole, ' Do marshalls suck, new, old or otherwise. '
1st, It gives alot of guys a reason to buy stuff and enjoy it from the time we find it....AHHHH , the search , and the score all the way up to the fabricated stories and schemes on how to get it home into the house and past the wives, girlfriends, the devil, whatever.
2nd, It allowed alot of guys to seek out amp builders that are gainfully employed only because of all this on going dis-satisfaction with production amps. And not all or even half of those amp builders are worth doing business with, but more than several are. Great bunch of fellows before and after the amps are done.
3rd, The few amp builders that are worthy of our dollars and a whole slew of others along the way are a great asset to have with their friendships, shared knowledge, and common interests.
Take the guys posting on this very thread, we are probably all scattered across a braod region yet we come together to hash out ........You guessed it, ' Do marshalls suck, new, old or otherwise. '

 

[diagrammatiks]

I will say that today I got a much more enjoyable high gain sound out of a JVM210H than a Soldano SLO. The Soldano was nice but the low E just falls apart on those guys on the lead channel. Channel 2 on Orange, gain at about 2 or 3 and I had a pretty ripping drive going on. It was a little too easily made bright and sizzly but with some patience ultimately much more usable than the SLO. Did I enjoy it as much as a good 1959 or 2203? No, but I would use one live with no complaints. I actually wouldn't mind one of those used just for that one sound I got. Unfortunately you can't get a good classic rock tone worth shit out of it but this one high gain sound was pretty good. I was playing a Slash AFD LP through it and the high gain sound with the volume rolled off sounded better than any medium gain setting I dialed in on the amp.

fight me. right now.

j/k.

I just played a jvm at the shop the other day. I didn't get the exact model number...marshall does that german letter and number thing which is cool if you already know them but lols for everyone else. But it was the big head..100watt, 4 channels bunch of master volumes and knobs and stuff.
It didn't sound bad per se but I turned it to the high gain channel, turned the gain all the way up. turned the volume to half, maxed the mids and the presence, played for a bit thought is this it? and switched over to try some of the other channels. I wouldn't replace the slo with one. It rocks my ears because its loud...but it doesn't also kick you in the nuts like the slo does.

my favorite marshalls don't have master volumes.

 

[skoora]

I will say that today I got a much more enjoyable high gain sound out of a JVM210H than a Soldano SLO. The Soldano was nice but the low E just falls apart on those guys on the lead channel. Channel 2 on Orange, gain at about 2 or 3 and I had a pretty ripping drive going on. It was a little too easily made bright and sizzly but with some patience ultimately much more usable than the SLO. Did I enjoy it as much as a good 1959 or 2203? No, but I would use one live with no complaints. I actually wouldn't mind one of those used just for that one sound I got. Unfortunately you can't get a good classic rock tone worth shit out of it but this one high gain sound was pretty good. I was playing a Slash AFD LP through it and the high gain sound with the volume rolled off sounded better than any medium gain setting I dialed in on the amp.

fight me. right now.

j/k.

I just played a jvm at the shop the other day. I didn't get the exact model number...marshall does that german letter and number thing which is cool if you already know them but lols for everyone else. But it was the big head..100watt, 4 channels bunch of master volumes and knobs and stuff.
It didn't sound bad per se but I turned it to the high gain channel, turned the gain all the way up. turned the volume to half, maxed the mids and the presence, played for a bit thought is this it? and switched over to try some of the other channels. I wouldn't replace the slo with one. It rocks my ears because its loud...but it doesn't also kick you in the nuts like the slo does.

my favorite marshalls don't have master volumes.

Well I did say i was patient you can't dial in a jvm like regular 6 knob Marshall's. They have a stupid amount of gain.

 

[controlled_voltage]

bump
its 6 years later
whats the deal?

 

[slyym]

I'm having a blast with my JVM 205H! Got it for $500 too!

 

[messenger]

Necro bump of the day

 

[Kapo_Polenton]

Because Jim Marshall Daughter is running the company at this point and almost all of the engineers left a while back and created Blackstar. Add chinese production and cheap parts. At this point marshall is basically a different company.

That is a game changer.

So why does Blackstar suck then?

They sound fizzy and bloated most of the time.

Nothing wrong with bonestock reissue 800's. Just turn those things up and swap 2-3 parts and you are golden. SD-1 helps too if you want to play the thrash. Also nobody needed to tune down to Z on .13 gauge strings back in the 70's either. They knew that guitars were supposed to cut and that the bass and drums would fill in the low end. Those DSL2000's hang just fine. Jubilee Reissue was a smart business move. They haven't tanked yet.

 

[messenger]

It's funny how forum gurus think they suck yet pros still find them usuable.

 

[SpiderWars]

bump
its 6 years later
whats the deal?

IMO, this thread could've been started in the 70s and necrobumped every few years since...if there were interwebz back then that is. It's like the phrase; "The youth of today blah, blah, blah"...ancient Greeks said that.

 

[nigelpkay]

I believe the JVM was introduced back in around 2007. They are well due for a new flagship amp. I'd like to see a new JVM with noise gate, auto-bias, less compression (maybe adjustable negative feedback), and a built-in boost like the YJM had? I really liked the JVM overall, but the compression and noise on the gain channels was just too much.

Otherwise, I wouldn't look down on a cheaper Vietnam version of the JCM 800 reissue like they did with the DSL. It was really well done.