Marshall DSL?

[Neptical]

Hey All,

I have me a few of the Mark IIIs but I'm looking to get a JCM 2000 DSL into my collection for a little bit more of a variety ( ok, the Mark III has most tones I'm looking for so I guess call me an amp ***** :lol: ). Anyways, do any of you folk here use a DSL at all? I'm looking for your opinions on this amp. I've heard many of these amps live and in the studio and they have a great sound. Any opinions would be welcomed. Thanks in advanced!

~Nep~

 

[c.t.d-nicke]

Hi Nep

My band mate had one and it sounded great unfortunately he decided to trade it in for the new engl fireball 100. That, in my ears, was not a good trade. But as long he is happy...

He boosted his with a boss ds-1.. and man what a thick, tight, middy sound. worked great with ripping metal. Paired up with my roadster in a splendid way!

According to the guy at the local guitar shop, the dsl2000-series is the last "real" marshalls that they ever will make (?).

nicke

 

[94Tremoverb]

According to some people the JMPs were the last 'real' Marshalls made. (ie before the introduction of channel switching, diode clipping etc.)
According to some people the Jubilees were the last 'real' Marshalls made. (ie before cheap mini-pots, solid state reverb and FX loop, loss of the choke in the power supply etc.)
According to some people the JCM900s were the last 'real' Marshalls made. (ie before PCB-mounted tube sockets, computer-style board connectors etc.)

And so it goes on...

Marshall has been adding features and cutting corners on build quality for a long time - the DSLs aren't the start or the end of this. They can sound good, but have some reliability problems - some of which are quite easy to fix, but some are just inherent to the amp. Even improved they will never be as well-made as a Mesa... but take that as you will, they aren't really terrible either and a lot of people don't have problems with them. They have at least improved them over time, so a newer model is likely to be more reliable than an early one - but as usual, some people swear the early ones sound better!

But for what it's worth, I've had to fix more DSLs and TSLs (which are identical apart from the preamp) than all the Mesa amps I've ever worked on put together - often for major issues such as blown transformers and badly arced PCBs. OK, Marshalls are more common than Mesas... but Peaveys are probably even more so, and they don't fail in the same numbers.

Just my opinion.

 

[Neptical]

Thanks for the replies so far fellas. Yeah, I know all about the reliability issues with some of the DSLs, but I also know folks who've had them years and have had no issues other then the tubes. I used one in the studio to record half an album with an **** it was punchy as hell...and that was dry with no effects. They do take effects pretty well, too. The JCM800 needs too much volume for my taste to really get it to crank, the JCM900 sounds a little on the thin side where as the JCM 2000 is pretty thick and full. Actually, I've heard some really nice sounding Marshall solid state amps as well. I like alot of different flavors in tones so I've always kept my ears and mind open for alternatives. Too much to choose from!

~Nep~

 

[sted]

DSL's are pretty good amps, theyre not as unreliable as people think but I think there are better Marshalls, if you're in the market for a combo the 85th anniversary model is basically a tweaked DSL with some decent speakers and sounds superb, for certain the JCM800 (2203) re-issue is the one I would go for without even thinking about it, after that the JVM 210 head and maybe the Vintage Modern. They also do the vintage handwired range if you're after that sort of thing but they are pricey,

 

[94Tremoverb]

It's not just that the DSL is somewhat more unreliable than comparable amps - but remember that if 10% fail, which would be 'very unreliable' by modern standards, that still means 90% don't cause trouble - it's the type of failures. I've repaired more DSLs and TSLs for *major* problems - blown transformers or badly burnt PCBs - than for minor ones. There are at least a couple of inherent design faults which make these things more likely:

1 - the output jacks are arranged so that there is a switch in the 16-ohm jack which disconnects the other two. This means that if you're running the amp at high power at 4 or 8 ohms and that switch makes even a momentary bad contact (which it is prone too, especially after a fair bit of use and if the cable may have been tugged occasionally), you're likely to blow the output transformer. Always run the amp at 16 ohms if you can, and if not, it would be better to bypass the switch contact inside - it's unnecessary anyway. (The switching panels on the standard 4x12"s are another cause of this issue BTW, it's not just the amp itself - it's best to remove the PCB and hardwire the cab for 16 ohms.)

2 - the tube PCB is prone to arcing around the screen resistors, because of an inherent design fault in the trace layout which brings the screen resistor support leg (at +470VDC) within a few thousandths of an inch of the filament trace (at effectively 0VDC). Exactly how close depends on the precise alignment of the resistor - sometimes it's so close it's amazing it doesn't produce a direct short from the start. Luckily this is very easy to fix if you catch it before it arcs - just bend the points of the resistor support up and away from the trace using fine-nose pliers. On later models this was partly cured by redesigning the PCB mask slightly, but not quite enough and they still missed one! This one is also the tube that has a suppression cap as a band-aid to stabilise it in the first place - this shouldn't be necessary at all, and it's only on one power tube... also an indication of a bad basic design. This cap sometimes fails too, despite its 1KV voltage rating, indicating spikes of more than double the plate voltage...

On top of that, the PCB is too low-quality and can sometimes arc through the thickness of it as well, where traces with very high voltage difference pass on opposite sides. Badly arced boards are expensive and difficult to repair - sometimes bordering on impossible without replacing the whole board. Most amps have a scale of failure modes where the least serious are the most common, and catastrophic damage like this is very rare.... these seem to be the other way round.

Sure, if you're one of the lucky ones you won't have any problems, but personally I wouldn't take the gamble. A few summers ago I was playing at a festival gig with supplied backline and 'my' amp was a DSL50. When I played it at the soundcheck I casually wondered if it would get through the afternoon... it didn't, it blew up in the set before mine. I had to use a solid state H&K instead (which ran perfectly well).

(Edited for typos and detail.)

 

[ricomock]

If you want a JCM2000'ish amp, your better off to buy old JCM800 2205/2210

 

[Neptical]

If you want a JCM2000'ish amp, your better off to buy old JCM800 2205/2210

Old JCM800 user here. It takes way too much volume to really get those power tubes to break up. The JCM2000 DSLs that I've recorded with didn't need that mass volume in order to sound good at lower volumes. ALL the DSLs I've played with didn't have any problems..and I've used them live many of times and in the studio. I was looking for an overall opinion on what you folks thought of this amp. I've also been looking into the Laney VH100R too as that amp really shines in versatility.

~Nep~

 

[ricomock]

If you want a JCM2000'ish amp, your better off to buy old JCM800 2205/2210

Old JCM800 user here. It takes way too much volume to really get those power tubes to break up. The JCM2000 DSLs that I've recorded with didn't need that mass volume in order to sound good at lower volumes. ALL the DSLs I've played with didn't have any problems..and I've used them live many of times and in the studio. I was looking for an overall opinion on what you folks thought of this amp. I've also been looking into the Laney VH100R too as that amp really shines in versatility.

~Nep~

That's why I recommended a 2205/2210, and not a 2203/2204.

I don't know if you've played with a 2205, but they're real different than a 2203. They have more pre-amp gain and IMO respond much better at lower volumes than a 2203



Having owned both and using them both as bed room amps, IMO a 2205 smokes a DSL50

 

[clutch71]

Used and abused a DSL 50 for 3 years now. I do feel that they require a couple of things...

1) a new OT. As 94tremoverb....suggested tech's have seen a lot of amps come in with blown OT's.

I'd be curious if he's ever seen a blown aftermarket OT. I feel the Dagnalls used during the range to be one of the cost cutting measure employed by Marshall. When I replaced mine, it literally felt like a blanket was taken off the amp. That was done 3 years ago and the only issues I've had are 1 blown mains fuse and 1 blown HT fuse. Most likely due to the power tubes being old and/or running the **** thing without a load because I had more heads than cabs at one time.

2) Tube selection is very important. Especially with this amp and here's my 2 cents...

One of the biggest complaint you'll hear about working DSL's is the fact that the 2 channels really don't match up well. The classic channel (clean or crunch) is voiced way bassier than the ultra channel (od1 or od2). SO weather you use it for clean/over drive tones or crunch/overdrive tones it sounds like two different amps.

I feel it is very important to stick with a slim bottle EL34 like a JJ or Winged C. I've used Ruby EL34 BSTR and Tung SOl EL-34B's which are near to 6L6 clones with increased bass and lowered mids. The latter two really choke out the sweet middy nature of this platform and exaggerates the differences in the two channels. By using a slimmer bottle the effect is diminished.

 

[94Tremoverb]

No, never seen one with a blown aftermarket transformer. But if anything the Drakes they used on the first ones were worse than the Dagnalls, although I think those amps did sound better.

If your amp has blown fuses for no apparent reason, be *sure* to check for the screen resistor arcing problem - it can do that. You really want to fix this before it causes a permanent carbonised patch in the board, which will make the repair really difficult... you have to cut out all the damage and jumper over it with wires, which is not really an ideal solution even then. The only other way is to replace the board.

For anyone familiar with high-voltage circuits the design flaw that causes this is really unbelievable - I can only assume that the board masks must have been designed for a different type of resistor (without the wide stand-off legs), and then that was changed resulting in the near-contact. So easy to fix if you catch it before any damage happens, too - just bend the points of the stand-offs up and away from the traces.

I agree about the channel tone balance being a problem too. Separate EQ would fix this, but to get that you have to have a TSL, which just doesn't sound as good...

 

[rabies]

I've had a TSL100, JCM900, JCM800 (2205/2204).

The Rivera S120 I bought for $800 used blows all of them out (8 - 120 watts). does all kinds of Marshall sounds with more features and higher quality and reliability. High-grade parts too, not the newer Marshall crap.

The TSL100 I used in a hard-rock bands at *extremely* loud volumes (8 out of 12 on masters with EMGs!) and no issues with that head except for footswitch.

The amp tech I took a JCM800 for repair said that the TSL100 a customer had there kept blowing OTs (he played in clean channel only at 12/12 volume).

So he said they're looking for a Mesa tranny "because Mesa's are pretty tough".

the dual monobloc EL34 is badass with the JMP-1 (think ministry!)

 

[fishyfishfish]

Mojave Scorpion.

 

[Thundersteel]

I've had my DSL50 for several years now, and I've never had a problem with it.

 

[FJA Mods]

There is nothing wrong with the DSL/TSL transformers. If the output transformer failed it was caused by something else. If someone has a DSL/TSL that has repeated failures it likely means the "tech" didn't fix what caused the first failure.
As 94 Tremoverb mentioned, the 16 ohm jack is usually the problem. That or someone running the wrong speaker load accounts for 99% of the failures.
Jerry

 

[rabies]

Are there any new production Marshalls that are "recommended" for tone and reliability (like the typical Mesa)? I'm looking for something similar to a Stiletto (e.g. two channel, independent EQ at bare minimum). The newer Marshalls I consider "sketchy" buys as in caveat emptor...

I remember I bought my TSL100 used for approx. $850 and that was very depreciated.

Seems like Riveras depreciate a lot as well. Severe depreciation typically indicates an inferior product (e.g. used American cars' value vs. used German cars' values).

 

[94Tremoverb]

There are no new Marshalls really comparable to Mesa for build quality. Only the vintage reissues are close, and they don't have switchable channels let alone separate EQ.

I don't know why Riveras depreciate a lot used - but it certainly doesn't have anything to do with build quality, they are in the same league as Mesa. It may be that they don't have as many big-name endorsers, or perhaps don't have quite such a distinctive sound, they seem to be more trying to do that Fender/Marshall thing. (Or Marshall/Mesa with some of the newer ones.)

Personally I would never buy an amp with 'Ninja Boost' written on the front either .


I would second what FJA said about the transformer failures on the new Marshalls, although even then I think they may still be a little more prone to blowing once they get stressed by one of the jack problems - Mesas seem to handle no-load abuse better. I also think those horrible PCB switching panels on the Marshall cabs are even more of a problem than the 16-ohm jack on the amp - the cabs have no less than 8 jack and switch contacts, which can fail and leave the whole thing open... especially if the jacks have got bent by the cable being tugged. I prefer to remove the whole PCB and rewire the cabinet with two standard paralleled jacks and soldered speaker connections.

 

[rabies]

There are no new Marshalls really comparable to Mesa for build quality. Only the vintage reissues are close, and they don't have switchable channels let alone separate EQ.

I don't know why Riveras depreciate a lot used - but it certainly doesn't have anything to do with build quality, they are in the same league as Mesa. It may be that they don't have as many big-name endorsers, or perhaps don't have quite such a distinctive sound, they seem to be more trying to do that Fender/Marshall thing. (Or Marshall/Mesa with some of the newer ones.)

Personally I would never buy an amp with 'Ninja Boost' written on the front either .


I would second what FJA said about the transformer failures on the new Marshalls, although even then I think they may still be a little more prone to blowing once they get stressed by one of the jack problems - Mesas seem to handle no-load abuse better. I also think those horrible PCB switching panels on the Marshall cabs are even more of a problem than the 16-ohm jack on the amp - the cabs have no less than 8 jack and switch contacts, which can fail and leave the whole thing open... especially if the jacks have got bent by the cable being tugged. I prefer to remove the whole PCB and rewire the cabinet with two standard paralleled jacks and soldered speaker connections.

are the new Laneys (VH100R? - the ones Opeth uses) as bad in terms of build quality and reliability as Marshalls?

 

[94Tremoverb]

Differently bad .

Like the Marshalls, you will no doubt get people who say they've used one for years and it never gave any trouble... which is true. A high percentage of them are fine, it's just that the fairly small percentage that fail is substantially higher than with something like a Mesa.

 

[Ultron]

are the new Laneys (VH100R? - the ones Opeth uses) as bad in terms of build quality and reliability as Marshalls?

I had one....wanted to love it, but ended up selling it. BTW, Opeth only uses the poweramp section of it....Akerfeldt runs a Boss MFX unit into the Laney....all gain/distortion comes from the Boss. the VH100r also uses a torroidal transformer, which is cheaper and more prone to issues (so I'm told). The lead channel sounds great, but it doesn't have the Marshall roar. BTW, I still own my DSL50....great amps.