NAD: Marshall JCM 800 2205

I know, I've been posting an obnoxious amount of these threads lately, but I keep coming up on some great deals that I can't pass up, so why not.

This amp was for sale over at the Mylespaul forum. I literally saw it a day after I bought the Voodoo Modded 2204, and the fact that it has the same visual treatment of course caught my eye immediately. The seller didn't seem to know much about it, but sent me some shots and it looked to be made in 89. No issues other than reverb not working, which doesn't bother me.

Opening it up, I immediately noticed it had 2 additional caps wired in with the original LCR cap, so someone added an extra filtering stage at some point. Bonus, I guess. There is also a spot next to C37 where someone had glued something to the board, and then removed it later. There is also an additional hole drilled in the front that has been plugged, so someone reversed whatever mod had be done at the time. I'm thinking that's a perfect spot for a depth pot.

I turned it on and plugged in and honestly, I'm very pleasantly surprised. This thing absolutely roars. You definitely have to dial it in differently than the 2204, as it doesn't have the same cut-your-head-off brightness that the 2204 has, but it can easily be dialed in that way. It has more than enough gain on tap for anything I play as well. Again, I'd like to tighten the bass on this one and make it punchier, pretty much my same complaint of every vintage Marshall I've ever had, but I think I'll actually do it this time.

Congrats!

I kind of amazes me how many of these old Marshall's were tinkered with. I guess back in the day, there weren't as many options, so folks were more willing to hack at what they had rather than sell for the latest greatest thing hitting the market.

I read over and over again how inconsistent old Marshalls are. I've had a bunch, and when put back to stock specs, all amps of the same model have the same sound, to me. But a lot of the ones I've had were tinkered with and that definitely made them sound different (often worse).

cardinal":1ykn1n11 said:

Congrats!

I kind of amazes me how many of these old Marshall's were tinkered with. I guess back in the day, there weren't as many options, so folks were more willing to hack at what they had rather than sell for the latest greatest thing hitting the market.

I read over and over again how inconsistent old Marshalls are. I've had a bunch, and when put back to stock specs, all amps of the same model have the same sound, to me. But a lot of the ones I've had were tinkered with and that definitely made them sound different (often worse).

Click to expand...

I don't think you're wrong at all here. My tech recently was given 3 JMP's for repair by the same owner, who didn't know much about them. All 3 had significant work done inside, and on all 3, the work was shoddy. He put them back to stock and said they roar now.

This is the 5th "Vintage" marshall I've owned now, and at least 3 have been modded in one form or another. I just bought new caps for this one, and we're going to recap it and add a resonance/depth pot, since there is already a hole in the chassis. Other than that, it will be stock.

Bad.Seed":227l3se5 said:

cardinal":227l3se5 said:

Congrats!

I kind of amazes me how many of these old Marshall's were tinkered with. I guess back in the day, there weren't as many options, so folks were more willing to hack at what they had rather than sell for the latest greatest thing hitting the market.

I read over and over again how inconsistent old Marshalls are. I've had a bunch, and when put back to stock specs, all amps of the same model have the same sound, to me. But a lot of the ones I've had were tinkered with and that definitely made them sound different (often worse).

Click to expand...

I don't think your wrong at all here. My tech recently was given 3 JMP's for repair by the same owner, who didn't know much about them. All 3 had significant work done inside, and on all 3, the work was shoddy. He put them back to stock and said they roar now.

This is the 5th "Vintage" marshall I've owned now, and at least 3 have been modded in one form or another. I just bought new caps for this one, and we're going to recap it and add a resonance/depth pot, since there is already a hole in the chassis. Other than that, it will be stock.

Click to expand...

The funniest amp I've had was a '73 Super Lead. The old Plexi's had a .68 uF cathode bypass cap at V2a. By '73, Marshall was leaving that part out (instead, they lowered the negative feedback to compensate). Some prior owner must have wanted that bypass cap, but they soldered in a 680 pF capacitor (that's a .00068 uF cap!). Kinda missed the mark there.

I also got an '89 2205 a few weeks ago and have been cleaning it up. I recapped and retubed it, will redo the white vinyl piping around the front cover and put it through its paces before deciding if I keep or flip it. I really don't find it all that brutally loud. I have been playing it with both volumes dimed and the gain just below noon. My tech said it's running just the way it should though.

The way to run these is with the gain and channel volume dimed, master to taste..although be careful because the taper on them is bad. Think of the gain/channel volume as gain 1/gain 2. They can be killer amps..the mids are a little different than a 2203/4 but still cuts like a knife.

You are braver than I am on buying old Marshalls I'm always suspicious at whats been done under the hood. I keep thinking I want to get one and send it to Gower to get modded with the Killer Kali mod but its kind of a shame if you have an unmodded Marshall to tamper with it.

I could be wrong but it may be easier to score these on the other side of the pond. I definitely know the reissues here are about double the price than in the UK.

Racerxrated":2aig4adg said:

The way to run these is with the gain and channel volume dimed, master to taste..although be careful because the taper on them is bad. Think of the gain/channel volume as gain 1/gain 2. They can be killer amps..the mids are a little different than a 2203/4 but still cuts like a knife.

Click to expand...

That's exactly how I have it set right now. Sounds great like this. I agree, mids are a little different, but not by a whole lot. Either would be killer in a band scenario.

ClintN667":25q256t4 said:

You are braver than I am on buying old Marshalls I'm always suspicious at whats been done under the hood. I keep thinking I want to get one and send it to Gower to get modded with the Killer Kali mod but its kind of a shame if you have an unmodded Marshall to tamper with it.

I could be wrong but it may be easier to score these on the other side of the pond. I definitely know the reissues here are about double the price than in the UK.

Click to expand...

The prices and perks have been right on these ones in order for me to feel comfortable taking a plunge. It seems the standard 2204 price in my area is around $1200-1300 in good condition, and $1000-1100 for the 2205. I paid well under bother in each situation.

I actually ordered a Jcm 800 1959 Super Lead a few days ago from Guitar Center for yet again, a crazy good price and was thinking of contacting Gower myself. Like you, I struggle with the thought of modding an unmolested Marshall, but a 100 watt super lead is pretty much unusable in today's climate, so why not.

Schenker yeeeeeeeeahhhhhhhhhhh

panhead":2sr001aq said:

Schenker yeeeeeeeeahhhhhhhhhhh

Click to expand...

John Norum too! Definitely not short on endorsements if you have those two monster players going with stock 2205's! I've wanted one for years but I figured my JCM800 2204 with a TS or other overdrive is really there anyway.

panhead":2ieituyb said:

Schenker yeeeeeeeeahhhhhhhhhhh

Click to expand...

And Mr Norum, Tom Morello....you just have to watch the year, as the 87-90 have no channel bleed and just plain sound better..I think I've had 5 from these yrs, and every one was a really good sounding Marshall. Some don't take boosts that well, but they have enough for 80s hard rock maybe metal.

It's funny, when I was younger, I definitely took everything people said on all the forums to heart. All JCM 900's sucked. The 2205 is totally inferior to the single channel 800's, the TSL was buzzy garbage compared to the DSL or most older Marshall, etc.

I've come to find that, I have had zero issues dialing each one of these amps in to sound excellent "to my ears" even the 4100 JCM 900 HGDR. It's funny to me the way people put some of these amps down, and I always looked at them as sub par amps, but in reality, they do a damn fine job at what they're built for if you can dial them in right.

I'm happy to have found this, because now I can buy people's old, used and forgotten "garbage" flagship Marshall amps at a fraction of the price they should be!

I don’t think the 2205/10s are second to the 2203/4, they’re just different amps and can sound equally fat/full as a single channel. I do feel that after the 800 series Marshall’s sounded thinner, not bad but definitely thinner than the 800s. Can you get a good tone out of later amps? Of course...but they fall short of the JCM 800 tone imo.

If you dont want to try Gower, I highly recommend Monomyth Amplification. He charges $425 for his mods. I've never tried a Gower modded Marshall but since getting this amp its killed my G.A.S. for shipping one to the U.K. for Dan to work on.

I want to actually get a clone from Nik and swap out the Iron for Classic tone and get it modded. Dan said he would work on a kit amp but it depends on who put it together.

I'm like you on the Marshall sound. That is what I gravitate towards. It took buying a Kemper to teach me that all the tones I love or Marshall type circuits.

Congrats!

I have an '89 2210 and love it.
I just had to recap it (just in case) and re tube it (the original owner had it in really bad shape... it was like adopting a mistreated puppy)
Later on I sent it to my tech to add a new FX loop with parallel/serial switch and a send/mix pot (I felt the stock loop was a bit noisy)

My only complain is that the channel switching can be a bit noisy (pop!) but I can live with that.

IME the channel bleeding is still there for the later models (at least on mine), but the best way to use the gain channel volume is all the way up, so at the end the bleeding is not audible at all.

Funny thing... when I bought it I was only looking for an old B Marshall cab, and I couldn't find one until I saw this guy selling his old full stack for cheap. I bought it planning to sell the slant cab and head later for an easy profit... wasn't that thrilled with the head until I played with the gain channel volume cranked. That was one of those eye-opening moments. After that, this one is not going anywhere.

Plug in a tight, aggressive sounding guitar in front: it will cut like a knife and roar with authority.

chaosmonger":3bwqw42e said:

Congrats!

I have an '89 2210 and love it.
I just had to recap it (just in case) and re tube it (the original owner had it in really bad shape... it was like adopting a mistreated puppy)
Later on I sent it to my tech to add a new FX loop with parallel/serial switch and a send/mix pot (I felt the stock loop was a bit noisy)

My only complain is that the channel switching can be a bit noisy (pop!) but I can live with that.

IME the channel bleeding is still there for the later models (at least on mine), but the best way to use the gain channel volume is all the way up, so at the end the bleeding is not audible at all.

Funny thing... when I bought it I was only looking for an old B Marshall cab, and I couldn't find one until I saw this guy selling his old full stack for cheap. I bought it planning to sell the slant cab and head later for an easy profit... wasn't that thrilled with the head until I played with the gain channel volume cranked. That was one of those eye-opening moments. After that, this one is not going
anywhere.

Plug in a tight, aggressive sounding guitar in front: it will cut like a knife and roar with authority.

Click to expand...

The way to check if you have the earlier vs later preamp is to pull the 2nd preamp tube, if the clean channel stops working then you have the later circuit. I did have an 87 that had channel bleed, but if you stay on the gain channel you don't notice it. The one fix that you can have a tech do is get a better taper on the master, as running it with the gain/channel volume maxed leaves you with little room from quiet to LOUD.

Racerxrated":3j2jappq said:

The way to check if you have the earlier vs later preamp is to pull the 2nd preamp tube, if the clean channel stops working then you have the later circuit. I did have an 87 that had channel bleed, but if you stay on the gain channel you don't notice it. The one fix that you can have a tech do is get a better taper on the master, as running it with the gain/channel volume maxed leaves you with little room from quiet to LOUD.

Click to expand...

Yeah this one still has the channel bleed, it threw me for a minute until I figured out what was going on. Lowering the clean volume and maxing the gain channel volume fixed that.

Thanks for the tip on the pre-amp tube, I'll have to check that later. The trannies have 10.89 printed on all the little Drake labels so I'm guessing it's later.

Do you still own this one?

New guy bumpin' old threads

You could just send him a PM