Pros Of Two Heads
- Thread starter AliensExist4
- Start date
Help Support The Boogie Board:
clutch71
Well-known member
AliensExist4 said:
I'm not sure if your into Tool at all but Adam Jones used to run this set up. I'd have it if I hit the lotto!
I'm surprised no one said it and if they did...sorry....two heads are better than one!
Lot's of eye candy to look at...
http://forum.grailtone.com/viewtopic.php?t=10109
MesaENGR412
Well-known member
dude...that's what I want! Except with 4 mesa cabs. How does it sound? Good for Heavy Music? Is that a Dual or a Triple Recto?
I drew this the other day in class. I originally put the 5150 on top in the case, but today I drew the Stilleto on another page and just put it on this page using microsoft paint (hints why it's "floating," along with the guitars (My ESP/Edwards Explorer, an ESP KH2, and a Jackson KV2, may decide on a Dean Razorback V though, only bummer is no 24 frets ). The Rack has a Furman power conditioner, 2 Sure Wireless Systems, T.C. Electronics G-Force, and GFX Ground Control.
The Bottom head is my Black Face/Chrome Chassis Triple Recto and the pedal board has the GFX Ground control floor unit, My Dunlop 535Q Wah, a Digitech Whammy and an Ernie Ball Volume Pedal....and of course the set list taped to the floor below haha.
-AJH
I drew this the other day in class. I originally put the 5150 on top in the case, but today I drew the Stilleto on another page and just put it on this page using microsoft paint (hints why it's "floating," along with the guitars (My ESP/Edwards Explorer, an ESP KH2, and a Jackson KV2, may decide on a Dean Razorback V though, only bummer is no 24 frets ). The Rack has a Furman power conditioner, 2 Sure Wireless Systems, T.C. Electronics G-Force, and GFX Ground Control.
The Bottom head is my Black Face/Chrome Chassis Triple Recto and the pedal board has the GFX Ground control floor unit, My Dunlop 535Q Wah, a Digitech Whammy and an Ernie Ball Volume Pedal....and of course the set list taped to the floor below haha.
-AJH
phyrexia
Well-known member
songrider said:
:shock:
:twisted: Its a dual Rectifier.
The sounds are all Killer. everything from Skynyrd to Metallica lies withing those amps. I use a G-major in the loop of the Stiletto and a Yamaha FX500 (not good) in the Rectifier. Currently trying to decide what effects unit I want to replace the Yamaha unit.
No pedals in front at all. All natural Tube drive only.
I split the cabs all with Celestion 75's and Vintage 30's with homemade beam blockers on the 30's.
The sounds are all Killer. everything from Skynyrd to Metallica lies withing those amps. I use a G-major in the loop of the Stiletto and a Yamaha FX500 (not good) in the Rectifier. Currently trying to decide what effects unit I want to replace the Yamaha unit.
No pedals in front at all. All natural Tube drive only.
I split the cabs all with Celestion 75's and Vintage 30's with homemade beam blockers on the 30's.
AliensExist4
Well-known member
MesaENGR412: Sick drawing. I draw my set-up and fantasy set-ups all the time. haha.
- Anyone know if there is a good Marshall head out there to compliment my 2 ch. Trip. Rect.?
And is the Headtrip the one I should go with to make a dual head set-up work?
- Patrick
- Anyone know if there is a good Marshall head out there to compliment my 2 ch. Trip. Rect.?
And is the Headtrip the one I should go with to make a dual head set-up work?
- Patrick
AliensExist4 said:
How would you like to complement the 2ch TR with a Marshall? Classic singing leads? I would go with a Non-Master Volume model. If you are using your TR pretty loud a model 1959 would be nice. If you find the 100 watter not keeping up you could always try a Major. The only drawback is you really have to run these NMV amps up pretty loud to get the power tube distortion working for you. This is where Marshall's shine. You could try the model 1987 but you might not get loud enough if you are using a TR anywhere near saturating your power tubes. Again without a Master Volume these need to be cranked to give you what you want. There really is no replacement for what they offer though. The nice thing is that they made more of these than 2203's and 2204's so you can usually find them even in JCM800 cosmetics and don't have to dish out tons o' cash on a JMP version. Some of the older "plexi's" can be really expensive. I wouldn't worry too much about getting a real plexi. Metal faced PCB NMV amps still sounded great. PTP purists will try to convince you otherwise.
If you can't afford the volume of a NMV then you can always step back to a Master Volume amp. The 2203 and the 2204 are both nice amps. These came in JMP cosmetics first then were changed into JCM800 trim. The only thing to concern yourself about here is that the 2203 went through some changes in the mid eighties that reduced the number of caps and had a lot of people unhappy with the tone changes. The mid eighties also brought the PCB mounted pots. Though it has been seen now that the PCB mounted pots wasn't that big of a deal, you still have to be more careful with them as opposed to the earlier models that had flying leads. If I am not mistaken this holds true to the rest of Marshall's line up at the time also as far as the PCB mounted pots go. Now the 2203 and 2204 were not the only Marshalls to have master volumes. Other master volume types were also issued. These would include the Jubilee's and the 2205 and 2210. Later, when the JCM900's were released it became prevalent to see master volume type amps. The mkIII's, the Dual Reverbs, and the SL-X's were all master volumes. Among the majority of Marshall owners, when the 900's ushered in a new age for Marshall things changed forever. The 900's brought more options and gain while maintaining a Marshall type crunch but somewhere lost the real tone that Marshall was known for. The 2000's were also primarily master volume amps. During the run of the 900's Marshall RI'd some 1959's, 1987's, 2203's and 2204's. Then again after releasing the 2000's they RI'd the 2203 and the NMV's. They have even RI'd the JTM45 and the little 18 watters.
Since Marshall needed something to compete with other companies and their more versatile multiple channel amps they have recently released 2 new amps. They released the JVM and the Vintage Modern to offer more options and channels than previously available on Marshall amps. Both amps maintain that Marshall crunch but head in new directions hoping to combine classic Marshall amps and modern amps. These new offerings were so radically different for Marshall that traditional Marshall owners could only give them lukewarm responses. Slowly these amps are gaining popularity as people learn to use them.
I hope this has helped. To recap, a NMV amp will give better tone however you might need a MV amp because of volume levels attained while getting that classic Marshall power tube saturation. I guess it really depends on your needs and what you are going to use it for. You really didn't say when you presented the question.
AliensExist4
Well-known member
Russ: Thanks for the detailed reply. You know your Marshalls. I'm trying to find a Marshall amp for another type of distortion mainly.
- Patrick
- Patrick
MesaENGR412
Well-known member
I saw a show where one guitarist used a Triple, and the other guitarist used a JCM 900 and TSL 100 2 head confige, and it sounded awesome. I think either one of those would compliment the Triple pretty well IMO.
-AJH
-AJH
MesaENGR412
Well-known member
AliensExist4 said:
Thanks bro, I appreciate it!! Now........to hopefully one day take a picture of that same setup!!! :twisted:
Rock on man
-AJH
AliensExist4
Well-known member
RussOr anyone that knows about Marshall's) I've been looking through the different JCM models. Do you think you could explain the differences between the JCM 900 2100. 2100 SLX, the 4100, and the 2500 Mark III Head? I'm looking for a good JCM model to compliment my 2 ch. Mesa Trip. Rect. I would mainly using the Marshall for another type of distortion. I play Hardcore rock so I need something pretty heavy sounding. Any ideas?
Or anyone that knows about Marshall's) I've been looking through the different JCM models. Do you think you could explain the differences between the JCM 900 2100. 2100 SLX, the 4100, and the 2500 Mark III Head? I'm looking for a good JCM model to compliment my 2 ch. Mesa Trip. Rect. I would mainly using the Marshall for another type of distortion. I play Hardcore rock so I need something pretty heavy sounding. Any ideas?AliensExist4
Well-known member
???
visualrocker69
Well-known member
JCM 800 seems to be the most famous model from the series...
AliensExist4
Well-known member
Which JCM 800 model would be good for a heavy distortion?
- Patrick
- Patrick
MesaENGR412
Well-known member
haha What about the Zakk Wylde one?
-AJH
-AJH
The 900's are basically the High Gain Dual Reverb heads 4500 and 4100 (these amps are what the 2205 and 2210 evolved into) and the 2500 and 2100 models (that are what the 2204 and 2203 evolved into). The SLX was a further revision of the latter. The Mk III designation followed suit because the 2203 and 2204 were Mk II amps.
The 900's had more gain on tap than the 800's. This often turned into fizziness in the wrong hands. Even in the right hands the fizziness is something you have to deal with. This is where most Marshall fans draw the dividing line between the amps.
Heaviness in a Marshall is all in what you are playing and how you are playing it. Sure you can get a great tone to start with but your attack will be what varies the heaviness. If you are looking for a deep voicing like a Rec then you should just get another Rec. Marshalls just aren't voiced deep like that. I would pick a JCM800 to match up to a Rec for contrast. Marshall's modern high gain kind of sucks because of the fizziness. I would consider a JCM800 as a vintage high gain and a more appropriate matching. The tone is better in an 800 than in a 900. As far as what 800 to use goes, it would depend upon what you are playing. The single channels are classic and very useful for a set tone. The split channels are slightly more gain and have the option to use reverb and a less distorted channel via footswitch. Obviously, the earlier 6 cap vertical input is the 2203 you want if you go 2203. You can even get a JMP version. The 2204 didn't receive any real changes even in the later horizontal inputs. Again you can get a JMP version too. The split channels were revised fixing channel bleed and not so good distortion of the earlier models. This happened around the year 1986.
I hope that helped. You would have to play the amps to really get a feel for them.
If it makes any difference, I sold my 2210 to get my 2 ch Dual. I still have my JMP. I don't expect the JMP to get real heavy but I know what to do and how to play if I need it to sound any heavier than it is. My rig before was the 2210 and the JMP. Obviously, the 2210 was covering the higher gain stuff. The 2 ch Dual handles those duties well enough that I don't miss the 2210 anymore. What the 2 ch Dual doesn't cover the Mark IV does and I still get my Marshall fix from the JMP.
BTW, a 2203ZW is just a 2203 RI with cosmetic changes.
The 900's had more gain on tap than the 800's. This often turned into fizziness in the wrong hands. Even in the right hands the fizziness is something you have to deal with. This is where most Marshall fans draw the dividing line between the amps.
Heaviness in a Marshall is all in what you are playing and how you are playing it. Sure you can get a great tone to start with but your attack will be what varies the heaviness. If you are looking for a deep voicing like a Rec then you should just get another Rec. Marshalls just aren't voiced deep like that. I would pick a JCM800 to match up to a Rec for contrast. Marshall's modern high gain kind of sucks because of the fizziness. I would consider a JCM800 as a vintage high gain and a more appropriate matching. The tone is better in an 800 than in a 900. As far as what 800 to use goes, it would depend upon what you are playing. The single channels are classic and very useful for a set tone. The split channels are slightly more gain and have the option to use reverb and a less distorted channel via footswitch. Obviously, the earlier 6 cap vertical input is the 2203 you want if you go 2203. You can even get a JMP version. The 2204 didn't receive any real changes even in the later horizontal inputs. Again you can get a JMP version too. The split channels were revised fixing channel bleed and not so good distortion of the earlier models. This happened around the year 1986.
I hope that helped. You would have to play the amps to really get a feel for them.
If it makes any difference, I sold my 2210 to get my 2 ch Dual. I still have my JMP. I don't expect the JMP to get real heavy but I know what to do and how to play if I need it to sound any heavier than it is. My rig before was the 2210 and the JMP. Obviously, the 2210 was covering the higher gain stuff. The 2 ch Dual handles those duties well enough that I don't miss the 2210 anymore. What the 2 ch Dual doesn't cover the Mark IV does and I still get my Marshall fix from the JMP.
BTW, a 2203ZW is just a 2203 RI with cosmetic changes.
AliensExist4
Well-known member
Russ: Thanks for the info. I basically want that Marshall distortion to go along with my Trip. Rect. distortion. Just another type of distortion for a different sound you know? I'm good with using my Trip. Rect. for my clean and main distortion I just want another different sounding distortion. I heard the 2100 is good for heavier stuff. Is this true? Is the official name for the 2100 "the JCM 900 MKIII ?
- Patrick
- Patrick
The mkIII amps are decent amps if you take it easy on the gain. Again 900's were often abused like the Dual Rec to create sounds that are relatively objectionable. Not too many real Marshall fans dug the fizz. Like many people here don't like the nu-metal sound. I would have to read the back of one to know for sure but that is what it is called as far as I can remember.
