jcm 900/800

Generally, the decade of production is represented by the numbers following "JCM" (excepting reissues). JCM 800s thus are generally amps from the eighties, JCM 900s from the nineties, et cetera.

Also, each series seems to have a further development in gain staging (or at least more gain). I've heard as well that the newer amps are constructed using more "mass production"-esque techniques such as stamped PCB versus hand wiring. I don't know anything about when the trend got started or how far it's been taken. I'd venture to guess, though, that the early JCM 800s are re-hashed designs from the sixties and seventies, as they carry similar numbers (like the 1959 and 1987 amps), but are built with a little less handiwork, a few more stamped boards, and thus a little less structural (some might even say tonal) integrity; and it goes downhill from there.

So, in summary, the higher the number, the newer the amp and the more cost-effectively built the amp. I don't doubt, though, that even 2000s are pretty robust.

However, that's the very small tip of a massive iceberg. There is more useful information on Marshall's website and here, as well:

http://www.drtube.com/marshall.htm

Of course, much of this is speculation. If I'm wrong, someone please call me on it. I'd like to learn something, too.
 
TheRockDoc said:
800's suck more, 900's suck less :) :cool:
Click to expand...


In the words of the great Willy Wonka, "Stop that, reverse it". The 900 series used diode distortion, which generally is much suckier sounding than tube distortion. I like the single channel 800 series amps. Never did like the 900s.
 
rory said:
In the words of the great Willy Wonka, "Stop that, reverse it". The 900 series used diode distortion, which generally is much suckier sounding than tube distortion. I like the single channel 800 series amps. Never did like the 900s.
Click to expand...

I was just about to make the same comment.
Most people agree that the 800's are the far superior amp.
However I quite like the 900's and they were very popular for a while. I think they sound better than the 2000's easily and they have quite alot of gain.
The 900 was supposed to be an evolution to a higher gain head, but some people didn't like how they went about it. They are still tube heads, but the the afore mentioned diode clipping circuit is added in. Several of them also came equipped with 6L6 power tubes which departed somewhat from the classic Marshall sound. The early ones came with the EL34's and a non EL34 900 can be converted. The best sounding 900's I've heard (including mine) have been the EL34 amps.

The 800's are better amps, they have less gain, and are far more expensive. You can score a 900 alot cheaper because of the lower opinions most people have of them. I've seen several 900 heads for less than 500 bucks.
 
I've got a JCM900 dual reverb and I love it! The distortion does sound pretty transistor-y, but I don't use it anyway, I use a Marshall Drivemaster, which surprisingly sounds f*cking sweet, probably the nearerest to tube distortion that I've heard. Obv it doesn't beat an old stack turned up to 11 for sound quality, but it is damn good.
 
Rory said:
In the words of the great Willy Wonka, "Stop that, reverse it"]/QUOTE]
metalhead28 said:
I was just about to make the same comment.
Click to expand...

uhhh- yeah- that's what I meant.....

Thanks :)- and I will say you are correct- the 800's have less gain. I think we all seem to agree that there were a few reasons why Marshall's have been more sucky for quite a few years :)

personally, I was partial to Laney AOR's for years. That and a Charvel model 6 was my style. In the eras of hybrid rackmount ADA preamps, I liked the big balls sound of an A-Chord. I always felt like Marshall's were what I was "supposed" to play, but just about everything else sounded better unless it was at concert level.

Hopefully, that wasn't reversed :o
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top