2 Channel Dual Rec - Is it for me? Help!

[ttbaron]

My first Mesa was a 2004 3 channel dual rec. Did some recording with it sounded pretty good. I had to sell since I needed the $ and recently bought a Mark IV (s# IV5186). I recorded with the Mark and compared the two. The 3 channel had JJ ecc83's and Svetlana winged -C- 6L6's, the Mark iV has JJecc83's and JJ6L6's. Both times the work was done by a pro tech (not me just throwing in tubes).

I play progressive metal with very quick riffs, muting, etc.
All recording was at the same studio, same guitar, pedal, cab, mic and placement, same riffs.

I found the 3 channel to be nice and heavy, but a tad too buzzy and flubby in the low end. The best setting for me was ch 3 modern silicone bold. I used a Tonebone hot british in the front and a bbe maximizer in the loop which did tighten it up a lot. The loop let me crank the volume and that definitely helped.

With the Mark IV I found the rhythm 2 channel to be ok, a little weaker than the 3 channel dual though. The lead channel however was better for the heavy rhythm parts I was playing. Tighter lows, a lot more mids (even with the mid control on 1), but still not exactly what I am looking for.

I go back and forth with the recordings, sometimes I like the Dual, sometimes the Mark. Can someone shed some light on the 2 channel dr? Before I make a rash decision and trade or sell the Mark, does the 2 channel dual rec fall somewhere in between the Mark IV and the 3 channel dual rec? I've also read about the varying versions of the 2 channel so please let me know as much as possible.

 

[Elpelotero]

yes, the 2channel amp falls between the mark4 and the 3channel dual rec. I have all three of the amps you are listing, except i have a mark2c+ instead of a mark4 (virtually the same for the sake of comparison).

the 3 channel rec is exactly how you described: fizzy and flubby, and not to mention muddy.

my mark2c+ has a lot of smooth gain but is still very aggresive and tight. metallica and petrucci used mark2's and mark4's.

the 2channel amp is like a mark2c+, but with a boatload of more gain and bass, at least in my experiences so far. others may argue the mark2c+ has more gain, but i just played both amps today....

anyways, do not expect a 2ch recto to sound like a mark4!! it will sound like your 3ch amp, but with more clarity, no mud, no fizz, no flubbyness. it will pound hard in your chest. do not expect to use this amp for speed metal stuff, even though it does it a lot better than a 3ch amp.


As for versions:
--first 500 are the best due to difft. transformers and circuit boards. they also had serial loops. they went up to revision D.
--the next few years were equally great. they eventually settled on revision G.
--around 94 or 95?? they took out the serial loops and disconnected the power cable.
--they introduced 3channels around 2000.

moral of the story--go for as early a rectifier you can find!!

 

[Elpelotero]

does the above statement about "get the earlier DR's" apply to RK's as well?

are the brand new 2 ch DR's considered worse quality than the earlier ones? Must be cost-cutting strategy like Marshall...

no...for roadkings, you want to get the version2. it has better cleans and from what I understand a clearer modern channel with no fizz. it's like getting everything in one package!

I'm not sure I understand your second question though....


FYI--I played my 2ch recto today in Silicon diodes and bold on the Red channel. It was pretty tight. I would say it falls in the middle of the mark4 and 3channel rectos.

 

[jbird]

are the brand new 2 ch DR's considered worse quality than the earlier ones? Must be cost-cutting strategy like Marshall...

There are no "brand new" 2 ch DR's! And if you mean the newer 2 ch's, say from '95-'00, I don't think it would be a question of quality? I did'nt know Marshall was on a "cost cutting" strategy? How is this so?

 

[jbird]

Your statement now has validity! Thanks for that info!

 

[jbird]

A parallel, IMHO, would be Gibson. :x

 

[123thefirst]

A parallel, IMHO, would be Gibson. :x

How so? In 1998 I had the custom shop build an ES 5 Switchmaster for me and I can't say enough about how high the quality is on the instrument. Every aspect of the guitar is superb!

 

[Random Hero]

I had a 2004 3ch Dual, and traded it for a 1992 2ch blackface Dual. It sounded bigger, thicker, no buzz, tighter. Just plain better. Orange/Vintage can get p[pretty **** smooth too. Not quite Mark IV smooth, but **** smooth.

 

[jbird]

A parallel, IMHO, would be Gibson. :x

How so?

QC?

 

[123thefirst]

A parallel, IMHO, would be Gibson. :x

How so?

QC?

Maybe, for a standard model coming off the production line. I really haven't heard from anyone else who's bought a new Gibson in recent years. I keep looking at the prices rise and think how nice it is to not feel the need to buy anything more...

 

[mesanomad100]

rabies may be able to shed some light here

you mentioned the speed riffing and all that,well after playing/owning(for a very short period,well borrowed)a MKIII,this does cope very,very well for all your speed metal and fast runs etc...I would say this is more the amp for you,some may disagree but after my experiance with it and putting it through its paces I would recommend this,they go pretty cheap on ebay as well,
Im more into jazz,prog.,fusion sorta stuff and it even done that as well,A really good Dream Theater sound as well,anything really


Euan

 

[Elpelotero]

A parallel, IMHO, would be Gibson. :x

How so? In 1998 I had the custom shop build an ES 5 Switchmaster for me and I can't say enough about how high the quality is on the instrument. Every aspect of the guitar is superb!

there's your answer

 

[Russ]

With regards to modern Marshalls, there isn't as much of the amp built in England anymore. Much of the assembly is done in China now. Sure some of the parts are made in England still but they are still taken to where it is cheaper to have their production. This is a sad thing to happen to what was once a great amplifier company. I understand that they are doing this to reduce costs and improve production numbers but they really haven't kept costs down by that much. They are still expensive compared to what they cost to build.

The far east also now is responsible for Celestion assembly as well. I am sure that you can pick through and find a nice set but for the most part the QA is nowhere near what it was before. There just isn't as much pride in craftsmanship. Think about it. If you were being given less than $1 for every speaker that you completed how many would you do? Ok, what if you were being paid hourly in a sweatshop? How high would your quality be? What if you were not a musician nor an Englishman? What if part of your country was occupied by the British resentfully until the last decade from the time of Imperialism? Think about it. Now apply that to the Marshall stuff too.

As far as Marshall cutting corners goes, PCB mounted devices began in the 80's with the change in the JCM800's. As was noted above, pots were initailly started to be put on the boards. This made maintenance suck and created some failures due to the fact that the PCB would get stressed at times. This was the beginning of something that should have been stopped dead in its tracks. Now they are mounting jacks to the boards... C'mon. That is so lame. SO maybe they produce a few more that way, maybe they sell a couple more too. This shouldn't be something that a world class professional guitar amp should have going on inside. A PCB is not that durable. It shouldn't be subjected to stresses of any kind except its own weight and maybe the weight of leads coming from it.

There are many that believe the PCB was the end of a legend in Marshall. I don't believe that the PCB destroyed Marshall. I believe it was lack of foresight, too much concern for production numbers and sales, and a reliance upon a name that was built in the 60's and early 70's. Sure the industry crammed Marshalls down our throats for decades. It is now happening with Mesa Rec's too. I believe that a company should evolve their designs to better their product but not sacrifice their reputation, their product, nor their loyal customers in the process. Marshall once dominated the then high gain amp market. Now they aren't so much the dominator but the ones having to defend their currently fading popularity status while trying to keep up with the Joneses and making so-so amplifiers. Funny how Fender reissued amps then Marshall did. Also funny is how Mesa took to seriously high gain and multiple channeled amps and Marshall also tried to follow suit. I am not saying that Mesa was the originator in the multiple channel amp but it just seems that Marshall is having to try to keep up with Mesa (Jones).

 

[siggy14]

Just remember, these are peoples opinions, and opinions are like a$$holes, everyone has one, some are just a little more full of **** then others.

With that being said, i have owned the real 2203's as well as I have a reissue sitting in my room right now. To compare them it is impossible, first the newer ones are more consistant, where the original 2203's were very inconsistant, and you can either get a great one, a ok one, or a crappy one.

However a output transformer upgrade will always make an amp sound better and the drakes are known to sound better, but remember tone is very subjective and each person like something different.

are the brand new 2 ch DR's considered worse quality than the earlier ones? Must be cost-cutting strategy like Marshall...

There are no "brand new" 2 ch DR's! And if you mean the newer 2 ch's, say from '95-'00, I don't think it would be a question of quality? I did'nt know Marshall was on a "cost cutting" strategy? How is this so?

Dec 25, 2005 - "I own a 1981 JCM800 2203 and the 2203x reissue. While my 81' 2203, which is the first year the JCM800 series came out and sounds incredible, my 2203x has lacked in an area or two but is still a good amp. The 2203x does have the correct 6 blue caps which are the ARS brand and a good alternative to the original Dalys. (Marshall went from six to three caps in 85' and the tone suffered for it, they were cost cutting!) The Dagnall Transformers in the 2203x lack the serious bottom end that you get with the 81-84' 2203's which has the highly sought after Drake Transformers. I am replacing the Dagnalls with Heyboars (Power,Output and Choke) which will bring the bottom end back the way it should be. The tone in the 2203x reissue is actually pretty good and I was initially impressed with it which is why I bought the amp. The effects loop is another reason I bought the amp. It is quiet and runs flawlessly. Over all I would the 2203x is a good buy. Invest the xtra money in some transformers and youll have an amp reminiscent of the early 80s 2203 with the updated fx loop. I am keeping mine."

source: http://www.musiciansfriend.com/product/Marshall-JCM800-2203-Vintage-Series-100W-Tube-Head?sku=482713

Not sure how accurate all his statements are but I do know the TSL100 head I had, the footswitch plug in the back was mounted in a poor design directly onto the PCB board and was very sketchy in terms of damage/reliability.

I believe the vertical input models have been phased out as well:

1983 Marshall 4104 VERTICAL INPUT 2104:

"This is the VERTICAL INPUT model. There is a big difference in the build of the vertical input amps. The jack, pots etc. are mounted on the chassis and all connection are all on flying leads to the PCB"

source: http://miami.craigslist.org/msg/284228030.html

Following quote from Submitted 03/19/2005 at 07:03am by Anonymous:

"I agree that placing the footswitch jack on the circuit board was a really stupid move on Marshalls part. The footswitch gets so many connects and disconnects it is easy to see how the solder joints would crack or worse, the board traces could pull off. I am not personnally too worried because I can fix guitar amps. I suggest being very careful when connecting and dis-connecting the footswitch. I also suggest some sort of strain relief on the cable behind the amp to reduce tension on the jack."

source: http://reviews.harmony-central.com/reviews/Guitar+Amp/product/Marshall/JCM-2000+TSL+100/100/1

I'm sure there are better examples/sources out there. Russ can validate, he's the Marshall guru...[/url]

 

[Russ]

Just remember, these are peoples opinions, and opinions are like a$$holes, everyone has one, some are just a little more full of **** then others.

+1 Well put. Sounds like a voice of reason coming from many years of experience and application.

With that being said, i have owned the real 2203's as well as I have a reissue sitting in my room right now. To compare them it is impossible, first the newer ones are more consistant, where the original 2203's were very inconsistant, and you can either get a great one, a ok one, or a crappy one.

I checked out the reissues and though they sound alright nothing touches the real thing. Sure some of the old amps sounded better than others and some even sounded like they could use some help. Personally, I think all newer Marshalls sound like they could use some help. Yes, they are consistently mediocre now.

However a output transformer upgrade will always make an amp sound better and the drakes are known to sound better, but remember tone is very subjective and each person like something different.

Though Drakes sound good there are also others that sound good too... Dagnall, Heybooer, Mercury Magnetics to list a few. Tone is truly subjective. Like an opinion the taste for it belongs to the beholder.

What makes this board a great place is the positive nature of those posting. With enthusiasm to be here and willingness to not only share but learn as well most posters here improve the community as a whole. Let's all continue to make this place a great place to hangout, grow and learn so that it can remain as such and so that as others come to this board they will see what a great place it is and continue in suit thus further expanding the knowledge and contacts bases.

 

[jbird]

Back to the original question, if I may. I found myself growing away from my two channel dual rec, so it's gone! I wanted something in-between. I wanted more touch sensitivity. I grew away from the massive wall of gain/to pristine clean channel switching thing. I wanted a scream to clean with a roll-off of the guitar's volume. I lastly wanted something not intended for massive chording, maybe something also better at single noting. It did serve it's purpose, and hopefully I won't miss it too bad, but it's gone to a good home, so on I go! 8) :wink: